A tale of two parties
I don't always agree with the way BBC reporter MIchael Crick presents things, though I confess to having had an amusing chat with him at one of the stalls at Conservative Party conference this year about political memorablia, which he collects.
But I do think he made an excellent point on his blog recently about the Electoral Commission's treatment of two political parties which we will call Party A and Party B.
As "Case A", he described how, in 2005, Party A received donations amounting to £363,607 from a bookmaker, who we will call Mr AB. This individual runs a legitimate business and had for years been on the electoral register where he lives in Kent. But, due to an oversight, his name had not been included on the register for the year when he gave the money. In 2007, when the Electoral Commission tracked this down, a district judge ruled that Party A should pay £18,000 as a penalty for failing to check whether Mr AB's name was on the register. This was not good enough for the Commission, which appealed, demanding that all Mr AB's donations must be confiscated. When the Appeal Court last week supported the Commission, this left Party A with a combined bill for the return of the money plus legal costs amounting to £750,000 which it hasn't got, thus facing it with bankruptcy.
Mr Crick then presented "Case B", concerning a man who we shall call Mr MB, whose donation of £2.4 million was the largest ever enjoyed by the Party B. Mr MB made his gift through a highly dodgy company. In 2008, before being found guilty on £10 million fraud charges, he changed his name, grew a beard, he skipped bail and moved to Spain. The Electoral Commission, having investigated this murky story, found that the Party B had accepted the donation in "good faith" (even though it came from a company built on fraud), and seems unwilling to take further action.
The Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000, which the Electoral Commission was enforcing, was based on a report by the eminent lawyer Lord Neill of Bladen, whose concern, over donations, was that they should come from legitimate sources, not be anonymous, and should not be from people living abroad. In the cases of Messrs AB and MB, one was an honest Englishman, running a legitimate business whose only mistake was a minor error of paperwork; the other is a very shady character who, having been convicted for running a business built on fraud, now lives anonymously abroad.
On which party, asked Mr Crick, do we think the Electoral Commission came down like a ton of bricks?
Answer: they came down like a ton of bricks on party A over a minor error of paperwork concerning honestly obtained money and do not appear to have taken any effective action against party B over a donation which there is good reason to suspect was not honestly obtained.
Party A is the UK Independence Party:
Party B is the Liberal Democrats.
I believe that we need to apply higher standards in public life for all parties. But it does not seem in line with natural justice to have treated UKIP so severely while letting the Lib/Dems off so lightly.
But I do think he made an excellent point on his blog recently about the Electoral Commission's treatment of two political parties which we will call Party A and Party B.
As "Case A", he described how, in 2005, Party A received donations amounting to £363,607 from a bookmaker, who we will call Mr AB. This individual runs a legitimate business and had for years been on the electoral register where he lives in Kent. But, due to an oversight, his name had not been included on the register for the year when he gave the money. In 2007, when the Electoral Commission tracked this down, a district judge ruled that Party A should pay £18,000 as a penalty for failing to check whether Mr AB's name was on the register. This was not good enough for the Commission, which appealed, demanding that all Mr AB's donations must be confiscated. When the Appeal Court last week supported the Commission, this left Party A with a combined bill for the return of the money plus legal costs amounting to £750,000 which it hasn't got, thus facing it with bankruptcy.
Mr Crick then presented "Case B", concerning a man who we shall call Mr MB, whose donation of £2.4 million was the largest ever enjoyed by the Party B. Mr MB made his gift through a highly dodgy company. In 2008, before being found guilty on £10 million fraud charges, he changed his name, grew a beard, he skipped bail and moved to Spain. The Electoral Commission, having investigated this murky story, found that the Party B had accepted the donation in "good faith" (even though it came from a company built on fraud), and seems unwilling to take further action.
The Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000, which the Electoral Commission was enforcing, was based on a report by the eminent lawyer Lord Neill of Bladen, whose concern, over donations, was that they should come from legitimate sources, not be anonymous, and should not be from people living abroad. In the cases of Messrs AB and MB, one was an honest Englishman, running a legitimate business whose only mistake was a minor error of paperwork; the other is a very shady character who, having been convicted for running a business built on fraud, now lives anonymously abroad.
On which party, asked Mr Crick, do we think the Electoral Commission came down like a ton of bricks?
Answer: they came down like a ton of bricks on party A over a minor error of paperwork concerning honestly obtained money and do not appear to have taken any effective action against party B over a donation which there is good reason to suspect was not honestly obtained.
Party A is the UK Independence Party:
Party B is the Liberal Democrats.
I believe that we need to apply higher standards in public life for all parties. But it does not seem in line with natural justice to have treated UKIP so severely while letting the Lib/Dems off so lightly.
Comments
It is argued that there was no intent to breach or evade.
I suspect like tax law this is a strict liability offence. However, if the Liberal Democrats got away with it because the party received the donation in ‘good faith’, before the dodgy donor disappeared to Spain, I would be interested to know where the strict liability comes in. What was the technicality? The judgment against UKIP appears to be in the letter and not the spirit of the law, if the law was enacted to stop ‘dodgy overseas donations’. Possibly it was a matter of timing the Liberal Democrat donor went to Spain afterwards. The difference in treatment could purely be timing and sequences of factual events.
There appears to be another issue that UKIP failed to submit accounts for 2006. The Political Parties Referendum Act requires parties with gross income expenditure of £250,000 or less to submit an annual statement of accounts to the Electoral Commission by 31st March and those in excess of £250,000 by 7th July. UKIP apparently were given an extension of six months but they still failed to submit. Failure to submit accounts can result in a fine of up to £5,000. I believe the UKIP fine was £1,500, though this is only a fraction of the fine that included the ‘dodgy’ donation. The total fine amounts to some £363,697 and could bankrupt the party.
UKIP attribute the failure to file the accounts and Mr Bown not being on the electoral register as simply a ‘clerical error’. In this context the party argues that the fine is disproportionate.
In a strict liability offence amnesia would not be a defence. It is still a criminal act not submit accounts on time, under UK electoral law.
However it is interesting as Michael Crick has pointed out in his ‘Tale or Two Parties, that the law was not applied to the letter with the Liberals, nor I would add with the Labour Party that has conveniently forgotten the many thousands of pounds it has received from questionable sources. I suspect UKIP have fallen foul of the law, but the decision to apply laws and to whom it is applied, is often a political decision irrespective of the wording in the legislation.
Whilst I am not friend of UKIP, Michael Crick may well have a valid point. The law is a weapon that can be selectively used against inconvenient opponents. Though I suspect UKIP has little to defend it in law, I agree that in terms of natural justice they have undoubtedly been hard done by in comparison to others.
The administrative error was that Mr Bown, who had been on the electoral register, and was still entitled to be, had forgotten to re-register at the time the donation as made.
I don't think UKIP should have got away scot-free for failing to check that Mr Bown had registered, but a punishment sufficient to make them be more careful in future, such as the fine originally imposed by the court, seems more proportionate than one which leaves them facing bankruptcy.
Particularly in view of the leniency shown to other parties in the recent past, also including as you rightly point out, the Labour party.