Red Box - Times Online's Westminster blog

Electoral Commission: beware

Members of the Electoral Commission would be wise to watch their backs. The unprecedented decision to refer Peter Hain to the police was made by the commissioners who met in Edinburgh on Wednesday. It was a brave thing to do and hopefully they should have been in little doubt that the move would be politically fatal for Hain. But yesterday the organisation seemed far-from-prepared for the inevitable: senior figures, we were told, were "in meetings" all day, usually a sign of internal chaos, while officials stuttered to explain what powers the commission actually has. They just kept pointing to page numbers in the the electoral legislation passed in 2000, insisting that it was "too sensitive" to add anything beyond the legalistic wording of the law.

It was probably dawning on them that by claiming its first scalp, the commission was once again stoking Labour enemies. And lo, a senior Labour source told this morning's Mirror: "It is unbelievable. There was no evidence of any serious wrongdoing. It was a late declaration of legal donations. It was a mistake, but an innocent mistake. The Electoral Commission just handed it over to the police without any thought of the consequences."

Whether the decision to refer Hain to the police was the right one will be decided in a magistrates' court, if it gets that far. The ex-Cabinet minister, who has twice been to court and won, strongly protests his innocence and will put up a considerable fight. If the Electoral Commission's actions result in a conviction, then it instantly become the hero of the democratic system. But if the Commission's decision turns out to be wrong...

Peter Hain: don't write him off yet...

This is not the first time Peter Hain has vowed to clear his name. Every other time he succeeded. Here is a potted guide to an extraordinary career:

** Born in Nairobi in 1950. His parents returned to South Africa when he was three months old and lived there until 1966, mostly in Pretoria. The house had black servants.

** His parents joined the anti-apartheid movement. He remembers being woken up at the age of ten at five in the morning by South African special branch going through his motor racing files searching for incriminating evidence. They were jailed for 9 days and the family fled to Britain in 1966 when he was 16.

** In 1967, Hain joined the Young Liberals, "The only way to join in Putney was to form a branch, because there wasn't one. Having formed it, I became chairman of it.” He then joined Labour in 1977. The switch has always meant he was distrusted by some in Labour

**  In 1972 his younger sister opened a parcel addressed to him from South Africa. It contained a box with wires attached. Police said later only a wiring maladjustment of a few thousandths of an inch in the firing mechanism had spared their lives.

** Twice he has ended up on trial at the Old Bailey: once, in 1972, on conspiracy charges, and the second four years later on equally dubious but serious bank robbery charges. He was allegedly framed by South African intelligence agents and there were rumours the robbers deliberately used a double. And twice he was found not guilty.

Why didn't Brown sack Hain two weeks ago

It didn't have to happen this way. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister he asked Sir Philip Mawer, then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to be his ministerial watchdog. Sir Philip's job was  to investigate any sleaze allegation as they surface and report to the Prime Minister, who would back or sack. Yet when questions over Peter Hain's failure to declare donations were first aired, Brown failed to refer the issue to him. Why? Could this become tricky for Brown?

Of course, a Cabinet Minister suddenly facing a police investigation and the possibility of a criminal conviction is unlikely to be a Cabinet minister for long, even if he denies the allegations. But what - actually - has changed in the last couple of hours? There are no new revelations. Did Gordon Brown not know the facts already? Why did he have to wait for one quango (the Electoral Commission) to send a report to a public body (the Met)? An intriguing News of the World article two weeks ago (no link... so reproduced below the fold) suggested Brown considered but then backed down from sacking Hain, with officials telling him to "consider his position" but Hain refusing to walk. Did Brown bottle it?

Update: David Cameron appears to be gunning for Brown on these lines... (see below the fold)

Ann Treneman's 45-second sketch

The Times sketchwriter Ann Treneman has done a 45-second mini-vidi-sketch on Prime Minister's Questions for Red Box. Due to a small technical glitch, she is not the right way up. A sort of sideways look at politics. This will be corrected before next week's PMQs. Probably.

"The Work of the Secretary of Work"

.

He was nicknamed a dead man walking by one Tory MP. But despite the bad headlines there wasn't the smell of death today that some might have expected around Peter Hain during Welsh Questions (big on legislative competence and frameworks and short on fun) and Prime Minister's Questions.

After Gordon's bungled attempt to show his support for Hain on News At Ten last night (it was all going swimmingly until he called his actions "an incompetence") he got it right today. Just one person used the 'i' word in the House and Brown stated unequivocally: "I have confidence in what he is doing".

The only wrinkle was that nobody wanted to be seen sitting next to him. Alan Johnson, the first non-Welsh Cabinet minister to arrive on the front bench, turned up at 11.52 but sat noticeably far away. So did Ruth Kelly at 11.54 and Alistair Darling. Gordon, at 11.58, was the first to show any love and sit next to Hain. But that's all he needs - for now.

"See you at Welsh Questions"

With Peter "incompetent" Hain fronting Welsh Questions in the Commons at 11.30am tomorrow, never before has the phrase been heard so often around Westminster.

Has one of Peter Hain's special advisers broken the rules?

Point 6 of the the Special Adviser code says: "Special advisers should not use official resources for party political activity ... They should avoid anything which might reasonably lead to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes." So should someone in Peter Hain's special adviser office have sent out this attack quote?

From: Special-Advisers DWP [mailto:Special-Advisers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 15 January 2008 10:21
To: MOS-PR DWP
Subject: RE: FOR IMMEDIATE USE: Tories aim to destroy final salary pension schemes
Importance: High

FOR IMMEDIATE USE
TORIES AIM TO DESTROY FINAL SALARY PENSION SCHEMES

Commenting on yesterday’s proposals by David Cameron to close public service final salary pension schemes – not just the scheme for MPs – Pensions Minister Mike O’Brien QC MP said:

“The Conservative Party plans to get rid of public sector

What did Gordon Brown really think about Peter Hain last week?

Wielding the mighty word "if", Gordon Brown has equivocated about Peter Hain's future in today's Sun: "Peter has done a great job and it would be a great loss if he had to leave Government ... The matter must rest with the authorities who will look at these matters." He says that Hain's continuing position in government is now an expectation rather than a certainty, even though the ultimate decision to sack him rests with the the Prime Minister who - one might think - should already be in possession of all the facts being examined by the Electoral Commission and Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Brown did not have to answer in this way: during the row over John Prescott's visit to a Colorado ranch, Tony Blair refused to hitch the fate of his deputy to an inquiry by the commissioner, with phrases like he "did not understand the fuss". Today's statement could arguably be at odds with Downing Street's "full confidence in Hain" message of last week.

Interestingly, it has echoes of what "political sources" were saying on the day this row surfaced last Tuesday in The Guardian.

Such is the scale of the under-reporting that some political sources believe Hain's political future rests on his being able to show that he is the innocent victim of chaos within his election organisation, and that there has been no deliberate attempt to conceal the sources of the donations.

Nothing like this was said by Downing Street last week perhaps because, as Greg Hurst points out: "There are only two sorts of confidence a premier has in his ministers: full or none." But is it what Gordon and friends thought all along?

PS The Times leading article has called today for Peter Hain to resign. "The departure of a Cabinet minister from office for his failure to treat the rules with the honour they deserve would send a strong if belated signal that they will not be treated with disregard in future."

Hain: the document and donors in full

Last night the office of Peter Hain released a document containing the details of the undeclared donations. Here is the document reproduced in full.

-------

For immediate use: Thursday, 10 January 2008

Peter Hain today met the Electoral Commission to record donations that were made to his Labour deputy leadership campaign, but that were not registered within the required timescale.

Peter Hain MP said:

“I today met the Electoral Commission and reported  £103,156.75 of donations to my deputy leadership campaign that were not registered within the required timescale.  I provided full details to them and was very satisfied with the meeting.

“All of the donations were from people

Hain donor asked to keep his name secret - report

Willie Nagel, a diamond dealer, is one of the 17 figures who both donated and lent money to Peter Hain. According to the Financial Times, the pair encountered each other when Hain was in the Foreign Office, when they worked together on developing a certificate system to stem the flow of conflict diamonds.

The FT has also been told that when Nagel was approached to donate to Hain's campaign, he wanted to keep his identity secret.

"Last year, Mr Nagel, who is 83, was approached by John Underwood, a former Labour communications director, to give money to Mr Hain’s campaign. Mr Nagel declined because he did not wish his name to be made public. Mr Underwood later asked Mr Nagel to donate to Progressive Policies Forum, a think-tank pursuing worthwhile policy causes. He gave £5,000 and made a three-month loan of £25,000. He was not told the money was going to Mr Hain."

Progressive Policies Forum, incidentally, was set up in December 2006, has no website and lists a solicitor as its only named director and last night nobody in Westminster seemed to have heard of it. Nagel is understood to have requested that Hain repay a £25,000 interest-free loan this weekend. Hain's bad week is not over yet.

Update This is a good summary of what happened next from the broganblog

5 reasons why Peter Hain's undeclared donations could cause long-term misery for Labour

When Peter Hain revealed five weeks ago that there were undeclared donations for his deputy leadership bid, above and beyond the £82,000 currently on the Electoral Commission register, his failures were eclipsed by the donation problems being experienced by both Labour HQ and Harriet Harman.

On November 30, in the midst of donorgate, Mr Hain revealed that he had failed to declare a £5,000 donation from Jon Mendelsohn, the party's chief fundraiser. On December 4, he blamed an "administrative error" for not declaring a £1,300 dinner paid for by Huw Roberts, a former aide to Ron Davies.

But look at the Electoral Commission register this morning and there is no record of either, despite promises of a "full personal audit" by Mr Hain more than a month ago. The commission has apparently given him until Monday to cough up.

New reports suggest, however, that there are big sums still to come for Mr Hain's campaign from both the GMB union and the City. The Guardian says that these are worth tens of thousands of pounds, bringing the total cost of his campaign to more than £100,000. This could significantly take the shine off the Government's new year relaunch announcements, for several reasons.

1. Political sources told The Guardian that the Work and Pensions Secretary's job is in the balance, and it is up to him to prove his innocence. The Prime Minister, it is suggested, was not informed of the discrepancies. Mr Brown will have to give an instant response to both of these at this morning's press conference.

2. The new revelations could delay the conclusion of Operation Minerva, the police investigation into political donations, which was initially examining David Abrahams' proxy donations to Labour. This may not even be likely: there is no evidence of deliberate intention to conceal and the issue may stay in the hands of the get-tough Electoral Commission, but if there were, this could not only rebound personally on Mr Hain but would anger Mr Brown and cause misery across the Labour Party, which wants the whole matter resolved quickly.

3. The extraordinary delay. The deadline in law to report donations was six months ago. The problem came to light in late November, yet a full list is still not ready. Mr Hain's team is not giving a reason for the delay.

4. What on earth did Peter Hain spend all this money on, and did it represent good value for money (particularly given that he came fifth)? Harriet Harman won after spending £47,000, whereas Mr Hain may have spent more than double that.

5. Steve Morgan, a lobbyist who headed Mr Hain's campaign, has a high profile now helping Hillary Clinton's campaign. Labour will not want to embarrass its transatlantic allies.