Did the Electoral Commission give the Conservative Party a clean bill of health on the money it received from Ashcroft’s Bearwood Corporate Services?

I was shocked to learn that Conservative party staff had refused to co-operate with the Electoral Commission.

Here is my exchange yesterday in the Commons with Gary Streeter who represents the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.

"As I was saying, what does it say about today's Conservative party that officials and staff of the Conservative party refused to co-operate with the Electoral Commission during its investigation into Bearwood Corporate Services? That is all documented in the press releases and supporting reports from the Electoral Commission. Will Mr. Streeter advise me whether he thinks the powers of the Electoral Commission should be enhanced to compel the attendance of witnesses when matters concerning possible breaches of electoral law are being discussed?"

Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)

"Parliament has already acted on that, as I said in my answer. The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the House, will know that the Speaker's Committee does not go into individual cases, but if he would like to look at what the Electoral Commission's website says about the particular case he has raised, he will see that after a thorough investigation, the donations in question were deemed permissible. I am sure he will be good enough to welcome that."

I don’t accept the investigation was thorough. In part, that’s because the Electoral Commission (EC) didn’t have the powers it needed. Paragraph 1.3 of the case summary reads: “The limited powers available to the Commission meant we were only able to require the provision of documents from regulated entities and officers of regulated entities – in other words, from the Party and its officers – but not from reported donors or others. The Commission currently has no powers to require potential witnesses to attend for interview.”

Paragraph 1.4 states that Bearwood Corporate Services is not a regulated entity and it provided information on a voluntary basis… but “the Commission is not in a position to be certain that all potentially relevant information was provided, but is satisfied that sufficient information was received to reach a robust conclusion as to BCS’ permissibility”.

A permissible donor must be (1) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and (2) be incorporated within the UK or another member State which carries on business in the UK.

But what kind of business was it (BCS) carrying out?

The Commission says that throughout the period under consideration BCS conducted a management consultancy business? Where is the evidence other than a line in the abbreviated accounts?

The Commission tells us that up to July 2006 it also conducted a merger broking business. Where is the evidence?

From December 2007 it carried on business as a holding company. Again, where is the evidence?

It had cash reserves. But these came from off shore associates, not from trade.

Where was the business plan for BCS? Or the list of people with whom it had a business relationship?

I see from paragraph 1.6 that the Electoral Commission called on the services of forensic accountants. I should like to see their report.

In fact, the Electoral Commission’s news release and the case summary are the only items in the public domain. I am told there are Freedom of Information Act requests for access to the full report of the investigation.

You can read the case summary at

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/87219/Case-Summary---Bearwood-Corporate-Services.pdf