Peter's Friends
So now the Electoral Commission know and so do we.
Peter Hain failed to register £103,156.75 in donations to his deputy leadership campaign. Who was it who whispered in my ear that the undeclared proceedings of the dinner in the Park House in Cardiff was just the tip of the iceberg? How right you were.
And it doesn't come in dribs and drabs either. We're talking sums of £2,000, £5,000 and £10,000 from wealthy friends and supportive businessmen. There's Mike Cuddy, joint managing director of the Ospreys; Patrick Head, co-founder of the Williams Formula 1 team; Bill Bottriell, an IT recruitement millionaire.
It's late and I thought I was seeing stars for a moment but actually, five donations are marked with an asterisk. Why? Because those donations were made "on behalf of the named individuals by a think tank, Progressive Policies Forum. The monies had been previously donated to PPF. When unpaid bills came to light PPF was approached and with the permission of the individual donors concerned the monies were donated to Hain4Labour to meet these debts".
Have you ever heard of PPF? No, neither have I. Who are they? What have they been 'thinking' about? What have they published? Nothing I can find. When were they set up? It looks like December 2006, which is some weeks after Peter Hain launched his deputy leadership campaign.
Who donated via PPF? There's Willie Nagel, an international diamond broker; Isaac Kaye, and one name you will surely recognise: Steve Morgan ... you know, the Steve Morgan who was "brought in to sort out the mess" - his own view admittedly.
Who is the contact at PPF? The statement says its John Underwood. Ah yes, another name that rings a bell. Could that be the same John Underwood who was the treasurer of Peter Hain's campaign?
Meanwhile Mr Hain has admitted to that he solicited most of the undeclared donations himself but just didn't think to check that they were registered. He's sorry. Very, very sorry and belives it is "his duty to carry on in government".
I'm Betsan Powys, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on .
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Peter Hain should of been sacked when the first news of his donations became public.
I think that most polticians,from local councils upwards do things that are not acceptable.Some of them are just born liars though i am not saying that about Hain.
However on this occassion i think he has lied.But that is besides the point.He and only he is responsible for whatever happens in his office and for the people he has asked to work for him. If he has picked the wrong people to work for him then his judgement is wrong.
He should go.
I think the current criticism of Peter Hain is most unfounded,arising as it does from a very busy period when, in addtion to his many political office(s), he was working on the definitive cure for cancer, brokering peace in the Middle East, and solving the world energy crisis with tidal wave experiments on Roath Park lake. With no thanks from the ducks who were VERY obviously "Nationalist Mallards".
In seventy years of active political life in Cymru I have never met a more self-effacing man than Peter. Ever. He is as orange as the day is long.
PS : I have never met Don Toughig...is he someone special? He's on the radio a lot lately.
What's happend to the Welsh-language blog,Betsan ? . Mr Hain lives in interesting times, but I'd like to know where Vaughan has gone .
Vaughan hasn't gone very far Huw and will be back blogging (and checking how often I've blogged) from next week.
Is Peter Hain as Welsh Secretary Symptomatic of Devolution with the Consequences?
Irrespective of whether or not Peter Hain stays in his post we should all be grateful for a system of regulation within Westminster that is seen to be working. However, it does raise issues about the disregard for the rules displayed by many things Welsh for which there are no remedies, just concealment within the constitutional black hole that Neil Kinnock warned of and for those with any sort of complaint a nightmare come true.
Take Welsh Prisons and Universities for example; much was made about offending inmates at Prescoed Open Prison by the Welsh Assembly Government to the Home Office despite not having any jurisdiction nor do they provide funding.
On the other hand they fund Universities but also pass legislation ensuring the tax payer has no right of complaint regarding how the money is spent or that officers help themselves to public money for legal services to defend their own wrongdoing. They also have a student’s complaints scheme that allows students to complain about the Federal University of Wales, the problem is that the University has no complaints procedures; moreover, they are refusing to implement any despite the Queen as Visitor writing to the First Minister on the issue. The Welsh Assembly Government claims it has no jurisdiction to intervene nor do so called regulators HEFCW and the QAA who also prevent any complaint from the public. It appears the Welsh Assembly Government only exceeds the boundaries of jurisdiction when it is to their political advantage to do so.
There seems to be a seven centuries old part of Welsh culture that says making any sort of complaint is a waste of time, it will not do any good, and nobody listens or does anything about it. Worse still you may get yourself or others into trouble for doing so. The reason for this mind set is because it’s basically true and far from tackling the issue the Welsh Assembly Government has concealed it rather than be seen as ineffective.
Evidence that this is an accepted part of Welsh society is the conduct of the Archbishop of Wales who is also Pro Chancellor of the University of Wales and has publicly and openly involving himself in a political pressure group known as Tomorrow’s Wales. However, this is not politics with a small ‘p’ speaking out as he is entitled to do on political issues, but politics with a capital ‘P’ as he is involved in a political pressure group that submits written evidence to Commons Committees in an attempt to change the way we are governed. The fact that such activity is not a charitable purpose and is a serious breach of the Charity Act 1993 like everything else seems to be ignored.
With regard to the way in which Wales is governed there is nothing unusual about Peter Hain’s failure to comply with the rules, what is different is that he is accountable and as such he has stuck his hand up. Moreover, MP’s have a right of complaint to a watchdog who can address and investigate the issues involved instead of dismissing it all as being such wild allegations or because they do not have jurisdiction.
There is however some light at the end of the tunnel as many of the above concerns relate to institutions that are Exempt Charities. The introduction of the Charities Act 2006 passed by Westminster and due for implementation in late 2008 will mean that they are now going to be regulated with the regulator having the power to take away their charitable status. The consequences of this will make Peter Hain’s situation look extremely small by comparison, and if he goes then a large number of people look set to go with him.