Currying favour with Lord Levy

At the time, 11 July 2006, "A Labour Party spokesman said: "These matters are subject to an ongoing police investigation and therefore we have nothing to say". We now know that the police investigation has concluded and, therefore, there is no valid reason for remaining silent on these matters.

In 2005 the Labour Party needed funds to fight a general election. Sir Gulam Noon offered to donate between £50,000-£75,000 to the Labour Party. Lord Levy, the Labour Party's chief fundraiser, told Sir Gulam Noon that he was looking for £1M and in return he would be given a peerage. Sir Gulam thought that this was too steep considering that he had already donated £220,000 to the Labour Party. They negotiated and settled for a donation of £250,000. There was offer and acceptance, a contract was entered into, albeit an illegal one under the 1925 Act.

Lord Levy reported to Tony Blair that he had secured the £250,000 donation, and Tony Blair told Ruth Turner to inform Sir Gulam Noon that Tony Blair was nominating him for a peerage and to send him the relevant forms. With the forms was a letter stating that a loan was not reportable under the 2000 Act. The paper trail could not be more explicit for obvious reasons as it would highlight underhandedness. However, neither Sir Gulam Noon nor his accountant realised its hidden significance. Firstly, because he was originally making a donation, and secondly, because both Sir Gulam Noon and his accountant were following this advice on the forms: "The commission will wish to be aware of any donations - both in money or in kind - to political parties that were declarable to the Electoral Commission under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000... the Commission will also want to be informed of any personal financial relationship between you and a senior member of a political party". (Source: Guidance from the House of Lords Appointments Commission for those nominated for life peerages). The accountant declared the donations on the relevant forms and they were sent back to 10 Downing Street.

At Number Ten there was consternation, the idea was to hide the political funding and the subtle, implied approach had failed, so Lord Levy phoned Sir Gulam Noon and expressly informed him that if he wanted his peerage he would need to amend the forms to read that he had not made any donation, on the basis that if it was a loan then it would not need to be disclosed and it would not look like he was selling a peerage and Sir Gulam was not buying his way into the House of Lords. What Lord Levy did was advocate that Sir Gulam Noon break the law like he was doing himself. He advised that he get the forms back from a civil servant at Number Ten, which he was able to do and resubmitted them without disclosing the donations. However, the civil servant had photocopied the originals. The Lords Appointments Commission discovered the attempt at deception, and Number Ten was asked to withdraw the nomination.

According to a statement Lord Levy made to the police, when asked who had suggested that the donation become a loan instead he said the idea was Sir Gulam Noon's. However, this contrasted with the statement given by Ruth Turner who said that it came from Lord Levy. The police informed Lord Levy of the gist of what Ruth Turner had said in her statement, and Lord Levy stuck to his version but then tried to apply pressure upon Ruth Turner to pervert the course of justice and change her statement to favour Lord Levy's version of events.

Given that Sir Gulam Noon was prepared to disclose the donations, and that he would not necessarily have been barred by the Lords Appointment Commission had he disclosed them, given a reasonable time lapse between donations and the nomination, and that they would have liked to have heard about them, why did Lord Levy seek secrecy? If there was nothing to hide, why try to hide it? Now that the police investigation is over, when can we expect an explanation from the Labour Party?