Analysis: Five questions Cameron must answer about cash-for-access
The cash-for-access row threatens to turn into a full-blown scandal. Here are the five key questions which need answering.
By Dr Matthew Ashton
The aftermath of the Peter Cruddas scandal has resulted in the promise of a Conservative party investigation. However Ed Miliband and the Labour party have called for the remit of the inquiry to be widened. Certainly the affair had raised a number of issues and certain questions that need to be examined. Here are the five main questions that should be asked:
1) What briefing did Peter Cruddas get before he took on the role of Conservative party Treasurer? What paperwork did he receive about the remit of the job, if any, and if he didn't receive any, why not?
This is a crucial point. For a job as important as raising money for a major political party the person doing it has to have a perfect understanding of the legal framework governing it. The fact that Cruddas was so willing to engage in 'bluster' that gave the impression access and influence was for sale suggests three options. Either he wasn't fully briefed on the rules of his job, the briefing was inadequate in terms of making clear to him what was or wasn't allowed, or he decided to ignore that briefing. Also was the briefing given to him informally or was there clear formal paperwork explaining the rights and obligations of the role?
2) How many potential donors did he meet before his comments came to light and who were they? What did he same to them? Did he make similar comments about promising access to the prime minister and the No 10 policy unit?
If Cruddas was willing to say things like this to people he didn't properly know, what did he say to other potential donors that he'd met? Unless this was his very first meeting, might he have made contact with other donors in the last few months? Who were they and what exactly did he say to them? Did any of them subsequently give money to the Conservative party and if so how much?
3) In the last two years how many donors who gave over £100,000 subsequently had dinner with Cameron or one-on-one meetings?
This question lies at the heart of the problem. Both major parties have been reasonably open in the past about the fact that if you give a certain amount of money you can get a greater level of access to the leadership. Of the big donors who took advantage of this opportunity, how much time did they spend with the prime minister or Ed Miliband.
4) If they did, where did these meetings take place and were they official meetings or private affairs?
This makes a big difference. If they were official meetings clear records of what was discussed would or should have been kept. If they were private affairs what was discussed? Did the issue of government policy come up and in what areas? Were suggestions made by donors at private meetings later taken on board by government?
5) Is it time to now look again at the findings of the Kelly Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Last November they argued that there was a real problem with big money in politics and suggested a range of measures to potentially deal with it. These included the state funding of political parties, caps on donations and greater transparency. These clearly need to be looked at again in the light of this scandal.
Dr Matthew Ashton is a politics lecturer at Nottingham Trent University. Visit his blog.
