Downing Street Says » Donations

Asked if the link between donations, loans and peerages was sheer coincidence, the PMOS replied that there was a Party element to the question. What the PMOS could say, however, was that this Government had introduced more transparency into Party donations in general than any other. It established the Electoral Commission which was independent from Government and which published regular details about donations. It also established the independent Lords Appointments Commission to make recommendations and appointments to the Lords.

Therefore, it had done more than ever before, and in terms of moving forward, as the PMOS had said before, the Prime Minister believed that if things moved forward, it had to do so on the basis of a consensus amongst Parties as a whole. The Prime Minister’s approach therefore was "yes" to transparency, but people could not move unilaterally, but rather, there had to be consensus from other Parties.

Put that that suggested the Government was about to move further, the PMOS said no, what he was doing was indicating the basis on which the Prime Minister approached these issues, and the PMOS had indicated that in the past whenever people had asked him about this matter.

Asked about whether transparency had worked in the case of Chai Patel, the PMOS stressed that he did not want to comment on a particular case, as it was a Party matter, but he said that the criteria standards applied to all Parties, not just one. There was a difficulty here, which was that in general, if people got a situation where anyone who could donates to any political party knew that they were immediately going to be "done over" by the media, that did create a disincentive. Political parties did have to be funded in some way, so there was an issue here, but the rules were the same for everyone.

Asked if the whole process was now damaged, the PMOS said that there were issues around this which we were all aware of, and were a matter of continued debate. What, however, people had to be aware of was the full complexity of the issue, which was the reality. That reality was that the media spotlight did turn on anyone who was seen donating to a political party. Equally, in terms of proposals for state funding, for example, those could only forward on the basis on consensus. There was a genuine debate, and the Prime Minister accepted that, but we had to be aware of the full complexity of that debate.

Asked again if the process had been damaged, the PMOS replied that he could not comment without getting into party matters. What people should reflect was the steps that the Government had taken to introduce more transparency.

Asked if the Prime Minister supported those, including Jack Straw who had said that loans should be treated the same way as gifts, the PMOS said that again, any proposal like that needed to be the subject of an all-Party consensus because rules applied to all Parties. The Government believed that proposals should be the subject of an all-Party consensus, and therefore, if people put forward sensible proposals, they may be sensible, but equally, they needed to be subject to all-Party consensus.

Put that people won’t know what that consensus was if they were not told about it, the PMOS said he could not speak for the Labour Party. The Prime Minister’s view was that there should be discussions about such matters as consensus emerged.

Put that the public was entitled to know which Parties were in favour of things and which were against, the PMOS said that people should speak to the Labour Party.

Asked by the BBC to explain to the public further recent donations to the Labour Party by Mr. Patel, the PMOS said that as it was a Party matter, he could not comment but he understood that the Party had issued comments about the donation over the weekend.

Asked further about donations, the PMOS said that the issue over Mr. Patel was a Party matter and he could not talk about it.

Put that the Prime Minister had issued a list, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not issued a list.

Asked if the Prime Minister had considered blocking the list on vindication of the reforms, the PMOS said that in terms of the list, as he had said before, nothing had changed. There had not been a list published yet, therefore people should wait until a list was published.

Asked if there was any way of withdrawing lists once they had been submitted, the PMOS replied that he was not an expert on the Lords Appointments Commissions, and he would not give a running commentary on it.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, March 13, 2006

Donations

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries