Dugher writes to Cameron seeking “immediate clarity” on donations

March 25, 2012 12:22 pm

After today’s big splash in the Sunday Times (and the subsequent resignation of Tory Co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas), Michael Dugher MP has written to the Prime Minister asking “immediate clarity” on a number of issues related to donations. The letter can be read below.

—————-

Dear Prime Minister,

I write to you following reports in the Sunday Times today of rich individuals being offered access to, and influence upon, the heart of your Government in return for sizeable cash donations.

Suggestions that in return for large donations individuals can be granted direct access to you and the opportunity to influence policy via submissions to your Number 10 Policy Unit are incredibly serious.

When ordinary doctors and nurses have had their views so completely ignored on the issue of the disastrous NHS reorganisation, it will be all the more frustrating to hear that someone who could afford a quarter of a million pounds seems able to ensure their voice is listened too.

This is not about Peter Cruddas or any individual. It is about the way your Government is conducted.

In Opposition you said that “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. I agree. It is vital that we now have full transparency in this matter. Therefore I would ask you for immediate clarity on the following issues:

· Which donors to the Conservative Party have visited No10 Downing Street, Chequers or Dorneywood since May 2010?

· Which donors to the Conservative Party have made submissions to the Number 10 Policy Unit, both orally and written, when were these made, and on what topics?

· In particular, in light of this week’s Budget, will you provide details of all donors who have made representations, both written and orally, on changes to the 50p tax rate?

· In the light of these allegations can you explain why – as reported in the Independent newspaper on 22 October 2011 – you personally intervened in the Sir Christopher Kelly’s investigation into party funding to request that the Committee on Standards in Public Life revise draft proposals to introduce a cap on large donations – a proposal which if implemented would have prevented such allegations of large cash donations for access ever arising?

On 8 February 2010, you said that lobbying was “the next big scandal waiting to happen. It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.” For all those words action by your Government to address this is long overdue.

Today you said that you would ensure there was “a proper party inquiry” into these matters. However, given the seriousness of the allegations about how Government is conducted, it is not appropriate for the Conservative Party to investigate itself. We need a full, independent inquiry. Therefore I ask that you now request the Independent Adviser on Standards in Public Life to launch an inquiry into this matter, to answer these and any other related questions he sees fit.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Dugher MP

  • William

    This seems to me to be the minimal demand we should make. Don’t we also need to know the dates of  the hitherto secret Premiership dinners and who was at them? This should then lead us to the policy requests and implementations.

  • TomFairfax

    I’ve just made a quick check of the contents of the Bribery Act 2010. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

    Obviously a legal bod would be needed for at least one professional opinion, but it seems to me that soliciting for or accepting bribes are both crimes.

    Some clarification is needed on defining the difference between a business/organisation/individual being asked for a large ‘donation’ to be paid directly, or to intermediaries, being a crime according to this legislation, and somehow not being a crime if the recipient is a British politician or political party.

    The Bribery Act 2010 is quite clear in that it supercedes previous legislation.

    Given HMRC today apparently can’t define what bread is, this looks a bit tricky to swat away quickly.

    • Jimmy S

       I’m surprised no-one has mentioned this.  My initial reaction to this was that this is first and foremost a police matter.

Latest

  • News Labour set up rapid rebuttal unit for election campaign

    Labour set up rapid rebuttal unit for election campaign

    Labour plan to step up their media monitoring process in the run up to the 2015 general election, according to The Independent. A team will be in charge of rebutting negative media to avoid a re-run of the 1992 election, where an onslaught of attacks from the press played their part in a unexpected Conservative victory. Michael Dugher, the MP in charge of Labour’s communications, is this week in the US discussing strategy with new appointment David Axelrod and other political […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Englishness is something we should champion, not fear

    Englishness is something we should champion, not fear

    Happy St. George’s Day! You might ask, what does that even mean? – if I said that to you. And my response to that would be: “exactly.” But you know what? I’m proud to be English. Yes, I said it. I like living in England (well, London). I like our sense of humour, many of our institutions, the constant march of secularism, atheism and tolerance (occasional hiccups aside), the over-the-top drinking culture, and our utter mediocrity at most sports. Its […]

    Read more →
  • Featured UKIP, England and St George

    UKIP, England and St George

    Labour tends to view UKIP like Nelson viewed the signal at the Battle of Copenhagen. He held the telescope to his blind eye and said, ‘I really do not see the signal’.  Our image of  UKIP is a protest vehicle for disaffected, older, right wing Tories in the South. But UKIP represents more significant trends than this caricature suggests. UKIP is a symptom of the deep social and economic changes that have taken place over the last thirty years. Its […]

    Read more →
  • Comment England has a radical tradition Labour can embrace

    England has a radical tradition Labour can embrace

    St George’s Day seldom goes by without some features editor asking me to compile a list of things that define Englishness. It’s a pointless task. Top of my list of would be a love of Marmite, yet such a choice would immediately rule out half the population of England. The simple truth is that nations cannot be defined by character alone. It’s those things that we possess that other nations do not that truly define us: our society, our geography, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Is Labour ready to appeal unashamedly to England?

    Is Labour ready to appeal unashamedly to England?

    Is Labour ready to appeal unashamedly to England? Whilst many party members feel (as I do) more British than English, that actually makes it more important to answer the question. Because whilst the Labour Party has in the past decade been more than comfortable in speaking directly to Scotland (something which is obviously in focus at the moment) and Wales (somewhere that is obviously under fire from the Tories at the moment), the same can’t be said about England. Sure, we’ve […]

    Read more →