Electoral watchdog: Take Labour to court over honours

It is truly bizarre that the man who took Britain to war without a UN resolution should be brought to his knees by a little known law that forbids the selling of honours. The investigation into whether Blair took Cash for Honours may have started using the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, but if the news carried by today's Independent newspaper is correct, then the Labour Party will soon find itself in court for breaches of electoral law discovered during the investigation into the Cash for Honours scandal.

Police investigating the cash-for-honours affair are to be advised to take Labour to court for breaches of electoral law, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

The official elections watchdog, which is advising Scotland Yard investigators, is preparing to say that Labour has "a case to answer" and should face charges.

The case against Labour under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) is now being prepared by the police. They are also gathering evidence for possible conspiracy charges.

The Electoral Commission, which is to give its opinion on the PPERA as the official regulator, is understood to believe that Labour should be tried because it is unclear that loans it accepted from millionaire backers were made on normal commercial terms.

Sources have told the IoS that the Electoral Commission believes that the question is whether Labour failed to disclose the "benefit" of loans which were not made on fully commercial terms. "It is not clear that they were commercial. This is something that needs to be tested in court," one source said.

Were this to transpire, it would be a devastating blow for Blair and almost certainly force him to testify. As a Cabinet Minister is quoted as saying:

"If Tony Blair is in the witness box it will be a disaster. Someone will call him as a witness if this goes to trial."

Crossing his fingers, he added: "It would be disastrous. Hopefully it won't happen. Inshallah!"

This prosecution would be separate from any charges that may be brought under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, although the fact that the Labour Party sought to hide donations is said to be strengthening the possibility of prosecution under that act.

In many ways it would be more embarrassing to Blair were he to be called as a witness rather than as a defendant, as a defendant has the right to silence.

"It could be extremely embarrassing, and Blair would not have the same kind of protection he would have as a defendant if he is called to give evidence as a witness," said one QC. "In many ways it would be worse."

All of this is increasing calls for Blair to step down before the local elections in May.

There was open talk in the tea rooms of forcing the Prime Minister to resign early as a damage-limitation exercise. "We are leaking support to the Conservatives," said one former cabinet minister. "How can we fight the May elections with Blair in office and all these cash-for-honours headlines dogging us?"

Indeed, Blair is now refusing to answer any questions on the subject at all.

During Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Mr Blair's communications chief David Hill chewed his nails as his boss was asked by Tory MP Bill Wiggin: "Will he confirm that if a close aide is charged he will leave office?" Labour MPs sitting behind the Prime Minister stared nervously at their shoes as Mr Blair snapped back: "I have absolutely nothing to say about that inquiry at all."

It is frankly astonishing that the man who took Britain into an illegal war and survived, may now be brought to his knees by a series of loans that he kept quiet from his own party. But all indications are that the enquiry that the Blair team once dismissed as opportunism is now becoming serious enough to knock him from his perch.

The Daily Telegraph are reporting that police now want a warrant to search Number Ten Downing Street on the grounds that the government are being "unhelpful", a charge which Downing Street denies.

Before Christmas a committee of MPs investigating any link between peerages and party funding was told by the police that there were "gaps" in the evidence and that they may have to resort to "formal means" to gather crucial material. Officers suspect that computer files of correspondence already voluntarily handed over to the police may be incomplete.

A source close to the investigation said: "The formal means the committee was told about is search warrants. They will do it if they have to."

Magistrates have the power to issue a warrant authorising the police to search premises for evidence of a serious, arrestable offence. They are supposed to issue them only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the police cannot obtain access to the evidence without a warrant.

The source stressed that the police would only resort to the courts if they encounter any resistance to their requests for more internal documents and emails relating to the disputed honours list at the heart of the inquiry.

Downing Street was yesterday dismissive of talk of warrants. "We are already co-operating fully with the police investigation," said a spokesman. Pressed on whether they had withheld any information, the spokesman said: "While we are not going to get into a running commentary on this, we are co-operating fully."

Warrants to search Number Ten and a Prime Minister in the dock is not how the Blair era was supposed to end, but it is beginning to look like a distinct possibility.

Personally, I'd prefer to see him in the Hague.

Click title for full article.

tag: Blair, Cash for Honours