“The first meaning: In return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, the claimant corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers. The second meaning: The claimant made the offer, even though he knew that the money offered for secret meetings was to come, in breach of the ban under UK electoral law, from Middle Eastern investors in a Liechtenstein fund; and The third meaning: further, in order to circumvent and thereby evade the law, the claimant was happy that the foreign donors should use deceptive devices, such as creating an artificial UK company to donate the money or using UK employees as conduits, so that the true source of the donation would be concealed.”
“(1) A person commits an offence if he— (a) knowingly enters into, or (b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of, any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.”
“(2) For the purposes of this Part the following are permissible donors— (a) an individual registered in an electoral register; (b) a company— (i) registered under theCompanies Act 2006 , and (ii) incorporated within the United Kingdom or another member State, which carries on business in the United Kingdom;” which carries on business in the United Kingdom;”
“(1) A donation received by a registered party must not be accepted by the party if— (a) the person by whom the donation would be made is not, at the time of its receipt by the party, a permissible donor; or (b) the party is (whether because the donation is given anonymously or by reason of any deception or concealment or otherwise) unable to ascertain the identity of that person.”
“S.3 Without doubt the parties’ belief that elections can only be won by the expenditure (mainly on advertising) of vast sums of money has given rise to something of an arms race. This in turn has put enormous pressure on party fundraisers to devise innovative ways of attracting donations. The result has been the well-publicised, very large donations to both the main political parties and also the development of strategies – such as the fundraising dinner attended by senior party figures – which together give credibility to accusations that money buys access to politicians. S.4 It is a small step from the thought that money buys access (encouraged by some party fundraisers) to the widespread public perception that money can buy influence. This accusation is denied by politicians on all sides in respect of their own parties … While we have no evidence that such influence has been bought, we believe that the widespread assumption among the public that it can be bought is extremely damaging. This is of particular concern because… we believe that political parties are of fundamental importance to the democratic process.”
“YES if you are interested in politics and would like to get closer to the heart of the Party. YES if you believe in core Conservative principles and want to help us win elections and put Britain back on track. YES if you would like to attend some of our question and answer sessions, political discussions and social events with MPs and senior Conservative politicians. YES if you want to give as a business or individually. YES if you are interested in meeting other like minded supporters to discuss the Conservative values which underpin our approach. YES if you can donate£2000 or more to help fund important campaign initiatives and an overall majority at the next election.”
“MEET the key party figures and supporters QUESTION the Party on how we intend to clean up Labour’s mess CHALLENGE us with your ideas WITNESS in depth debate ENJOY all the Party’s politics PARTICIPATE in Party campaigns For more information on any of our donor clubs please call [and a telephone number is given].”
“Team 2000: the principle group of donors who support and market the Party’s policies in government, by hearing them first hand from the Leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinners and discussion groups… annual membership£2000 City and Entrepreneurs Forum: business professionals, city executives and entrepreneurs who are keen to help the Party to get Britain back on track and open for business. Discussions with leading industrialists, parliamentarians and prominent city figures are held in London’s West End and the City … annual membership£2000 The Property Forum: for key players within the property industry to meet senior members of Parliament over breakfast, discuss current topics and learn about related issues… annual membership£2,500 The Front Bench Club: for those with a deep interest in politics and current affairs who want to make a serious contribution to our Party. Members have the opportunity to meet and debate with MPs at a series of political lunches and receptions held throughout the year. Members will also be invited to all Team 2000 club events and other social events … annual membership£5000 The Renaissance Forum: for our closest supporters to enjoy dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from the world of business and politics. Members are invited to all Team 2000 events … annual membership£15,000 The Treasurer’s Group: the Treasurer’s Group is aimed at substantial financial supporters with a keen interest in politics. Members are invited to join senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches… annual membership£25,000 The Leader’s Group: the Leader’s Group is the premier supporter group of the Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches. Annual membership£50,000 ”
“Now we all know that [MPs’] expenses has dominated politics for the last year. But if anyone thinks that cleaning up politics means dealing with this alone and then forgetting about it, they are wrong. Because there is another big issue that we can no longer ignore. It is the next big scandal waiting to happen. It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying – and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out. Now, I want to be clear: it’s not just big business that gets involved in lobbying. Charities and other organisations, including trade unions, do it too. What’s more, when it's open and transparent, when people know who is meeting who, for what reason and with what outcome, lobbying is perfectly reasonable. It’s important that businesses, charities and other organisations feel they can make sure their voice is heard. And indeed, lobbying often makes for better, more workable, legislation. But I believe that it is increasingly clear that lobbying in this country is getting out of control. Today it is a£2 billion industry that has a huge presence in Parliament. The Hansard Society has estimated that some MPs are approached over one hundred times a week by lobbyists. Much of the time this happens covertly. We don’t know who is meeting whom. We don’t know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don’t know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence. This isn’t a minor issue with minor consequences. Commercial interests - not to mention government contracts - worth hundreds of billions of pounds are potentially at stake. I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. We can’t go on like this. I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence. Politics should belong to people, not big business or big unions, and we need to sort this out. So if we win the election, we will take a lead on this issue by making sure that ex-ministers are not allowed to use their contacts and knowledge - gained while being paid by the public to serve the public - for their own private gain.”
“Contrary to the impression given by some sections of the media, in my experience there is no question of individuals either influencing policy or gaining an unfair advantage by virtue of their financial contributions to the Party. On the contrary, I have found donors to be motivated by a genuine desire to support the Conservative party and help it to win elections. They listen carefully to the arguments put forward by Conservative politicians, read the manifestos and other policy documents and then decide whether or not to support the Party. However, we recognise that public perception is important, which is why we believe there is a case for a comprehensive cap on donations that applies equally to individuals, companies and trade unions….”
“1.2 Political parties are essential to democracy in the United Kingdom. They provide the policy platforms and political leaders between which voters choose at local and national elections. They develop the policies which make up those platforms and build support for them by communicating with the electorate. They generate debate which enables citizens to influence policy …. 1.3 There is much public cynicism about political parties. But their role in shaping and debating policy affects the social and economic circumstances in which we all live. 1.4 It follows that the existence of vigorous, sustainably funded parties is a matter of public interest. In short, political parties provide a public good. 1.15 Scepticism about the motivations of donors is not necessarily a problem if the public believe the parties are not being influenced by their donations. But our survey suggests the opposite…. 1.18 It is not easy to assess whether this public suspicion is justified. 1.19 On the one hand: • Significant donors do have preferential access to political decision-makers. All three main parties run leader’s clubs of one form or another that explicitly provide access as an incentive to donors. • Significant donors have on occasion been appointed to the House of Lords…. • The way influence is exerted does not have to be very direct… 1.20 On the other hand: • None of our witnesses gave us concrete evidence of a connection between donations and influence or position. • Access does not automatically bring direct influence on particular decisions – though it may have more subtle effects. … • Public suspicion about party funding might partly reflect the way some donations are reported in the media. It might also be caused by unwarranted scepticism among people without party allegiance that strong supporters of political parties might wish to donate for that reason alone… 1.25 In sum, the present arrangements for funding political parties are seriously problematic because: • They lack integrity, in that if not corrupt they are plainly corruptible. • They rely on a degree of dependency on a small number of individuals or organisations, which is fundamentally unhealthy. • They leave something to be desired in terms of fairness, in that they give parties with more wealthy supporters an advantage over those with fewer. • They attract such a significant degree of public suspicion that a failure to respond is unlikely to be acceptable to the electorate, whose lack of trust on this issue is corrosive to the political system as a whole.”
“The Conservatives were mired in a ‘cash for access’ row in August last year, three months after coming to power after it emerged that David Cameron was raising money for his party by offering to attend dinners with businessmen who donate£50,000 a year. Despite the controversy, that The Leader’s Group is still offering its members the chance to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post – PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches … The Conservatives last night denied that members of the Property Forum had a hand in shaping government policy. A spokesman said “The Conservative Property Forum is a discussion forum for people with an interest in property. It in no way influences policy. Any relevant donations made by members of this forum are publicly declared to the Electoral Commission just like all other relevant donations”
“From now on the Conservative Party will publish details every quarter of any meals attended by any major donors whether they take place at Downing Street, Chequers or any official residence.”
“…The questions for the Commission in this case were, ultimately, as follows: had the newspaper demonstrated that it had sufficient prima facie grounds for investigation before its reporters were asked to go undercover, such that would justify the recording of numerous MPs at their surgeries without their knowledge; and was such an investigation (using hidden listening devices) justified in the public interest? There was a fine balance to be struck here. The Commission accepted from the outset that there was a broad public interest in the area the newspaper had chosen to investigate: the unity of a Coalition government… However, it felt that, nonetheless, the newspaper had reached the wrong decision in deciding to pursue subterfuge on this occasion for the following reasons. First, the evidence on which the newspaper was acting (such as the Commission could see) was of a general nature. The newspaper did not appear to have any specific information (the significance of which could be established in advance) that the ministers in question had expressed private views at odds with Coalition policy. Rather, it was responding to broad assertions of party-wide disquiet, which perhaps could have been reported on an unattributed basis…. The Commission considered that there was an important dislocation here between the prima facie evidence and the method used to test it…. Certainly, the level of subterfuge was - contrary to the newspaper's assertion - high. The Commission wished to make it clear that recording individuals using clandestine listening devices without their knowledge was particularly serious and intrusive, requiring a strong public interest defence…. On this occasion, the Commission was not convinced that the public interest was such as to justify proportionately this level of subterfuge…. The Commission did feel that the newspaper had uncovered material in the public interest regarding the remarks made by Vince Cable about the News Corporation bid for BSkyB, which had led to him being divested of his role in that decision. However, there had been no suggestion that the intention of the newspaper had been to explore how he had been handling the bid (it made clear in its coverage that Mr Cable had spoken "despite not being asked about the issue"), and the newspaper itself had chosen not to make it a focus of its first day's coverage. The test for the Commission was whether there were grounds in the first place to justify the subterfuge: the Cable disclosures about Sky were not relevant to that.”
“Dear Sofia, Following our phone conversation I would like to confirm the meeting between Hayley Harris and John Brewster with Peter. I will also attend the meeting. Hayley and John run a fund and are wanting to donate to the Party for the first time. They are keen to get a better idea of what donating involves especially in regards to the business groups that they could join. My understanding is that they would want to make a substantial donation spread across the year…”
“It is a small step from the thought that money buys access (encouraged by some party fundraisers) to the widespread public perception that money can buy influence. This accusation is denied by politicians on all sides in respect of their own parties”
“Members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches”
“It’s important that businesses, charities and other organisations feel they can make sure their voice is heard. And indeed, lobbying often makes for better, more workable, legislation.”
“In the First Article the explanation for the apparent discrepancy is at para 20 "Cruddas initially gave them the party line that it was not possible to buy access to the prime minister, but then went on to suggest the opposite". In the Second Article at para 52 the same contrast is made: "Asked whether a donation would buy the right to influence government policy, Cruddas again began cautiously but went on to assure the reporters that the prime minister 'does tap into us on a regular basis'".”
“What I am suggesting to you is that you were a big wheel in a rotten system”
“I am not here to defend political donating”, Mr Rampton replied “I am afraid, in a way you are”
“Do you understand the case against you, not that it [the donation system] is illegal, but that it is morally unacceptable?”
“At the heart of the defence is what Mr Cruddas said at the Meeting”
“The witnesses’ own views as to how the words spoken at the Meeting should be interpreted is irrelevant”
“when you give to the Conservative Party it doesn’t buy you access to anybody” and when he went on to describe the dinners with Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, he was not “contradicting himself”, as the Articles alleged (eg First Article para [20], Second Article para [49]). He was explaining what he meant. If he were understood to be contradicting himself, it would be the statement that a donation does not buy access that would contradict “the party line”, and it is the statements that donors dined privately with Mr Cameron and others that would be consistent with “the party line”
“He said the reporters could join the leader’s group for£50,000 , but that would not get them into the “premier league” of donors with special access.”
“[9] Donors who want to be "taken seriously" are told they should give£250,000 to join the "premier league", and then "things will open up for you". Cruddas warned that nothing could be gained by "scratching around" giving£10,000 a time. [10] The “premier league” can lobby the prime minister directly on business issues and their views are “fed in” to the Downing Street policy machine.”
“[30] You do really pick up a lot of information... You are not seeing the prime minister, you’re seeing David Cameron. But, within that room, everything’s confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question you want.”
“[4] They had come to the co-treasurer with a shopping list. In exchange for a large donation they wanted "face time" with David Cameron and his top team, insider intelligence and the opportunity to influence policy for their business. [37] There was insider information up for grabs as well. "You do really pick up a lot of information ... You're not seeing the prime minister, you're seeing David Cameron ... But within that room everything's confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question that you want," Cruddas said.”
“[1] A CO-TREASURER of the Conservative party was forced to resign early today after being filmed selling secret meetings with the prime minister in return for donations of£250,000 a year and boasting: "It will be awesome for your business."”
“And it’s good for business?”
“… Unfortunately donating to a party is not the most effective way to get your voice heard… […] … if you’re unhappy about something you can, we can, we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the Policy Committee at Number 10. We feed all feedback into the Policy Committee… […] But just because you donate money it doesn’t give you a voice at the top table to change policy, that doesn’t happen.”
“Good news. Seems a donation is imminent. I would imagine two donations of£50k to the Leaders’ Group. I know that they are having a meeting tomorrow morning to work out what other donations they want to make for the rest of the year but I believe it will be close to£250k in total. I think another meeting with you would be helpful in the next couple of weeks. When would be best for you?”
“Good news all round by the sounds of it. Let me know when you want to meet up… Make sure you liaise with me on this, I do not want them to be swallowed up by the party machinery as they will need managing through the process and I want to make sure that their expectations are properly managed. I will see to this personally. Let me know once you hear something Yippppeeeee you are a star. If this comes off I will make sure you get invited to some nice things”
“I did not believe that Mr Cruddas had done something illegal by discussing the possible ways of donating with us because he had left the final advice to come from the party’s compliance team, he had stressed the need for our donation to be compliant and it was, after all, a hypothetical newspaper operation in which no donation would ever be made to test out whether the Conservative Party would accept overseas cash. But I wanted to better understand the option Mr Cruddas suggested that a donation could be made by a UK subsidiary of a foreign company, as my understanding at the time was that it was not permitted [he accepted later in the statement that on 23 March he knew that understanding was erroneous]. I wanted to know whether the Electoral Commission would confirm my view that Mr Cruddas should not even have contemplated taking our donation”
“Are you saying, yes or no, that Mr Cruddas demonstrated on 15 March a willingness to commit an offence under s.61?”
“I’ve just explained, I don’t want to answer that question yes or no”
“Given that electoral law is designed to prevent foreign money entering the British political system at all, I was surprised that he did not rule this out altogether as the Treasurer of the governing party …”
“[Mr Cruddas] explored ways by which the party could accept the donation from a foreign fund which, although not illegal, undermined the spirit of the electoral laws…”
“I think that is accurate, yes. He didn’t say anything”
“obviously if you two were to make a donation of 50 grand to – for the Leader’s Group it would not be beyond the realm…”
“7(2) That the Claimant, when faced with the prospect of donations being made to the Conservative Party from an overseas fund (which he knew was not itself eligible to make donations under the relevant law), was prepared to contemplatecountenanced ways in which donations from that source could be made to the Party, namely; (a) Through using a legal loophole that would permit a UK company, carrying on business within the jurisdiction, to make donations from such a source, that is he countenanced a course of conduct that was contrary to the spirit of the law and discreditable; andor (b) By having individuals on the UK electoral register make donations in their own name, that is he countenanced an offence unders61(1) of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 ; even though the use of either route would result in the concealment of the true source of the donation, contrary to the spirit of the law which was intended to ensure that the source of any donation over£7,500 would be made public.”
“3. The Amendment Application is granted to the extent that (1) the wording of the re-amendment for which the Court of Appeal gave permission in para 6 of their Order of21 June 2013 shall be the wording of the said draft provided by the Defendants on 26 June; and (2) the terms on which such re-amendment is granted are as follows: a. It is without prejudice to the Claimant’s contention that the re-Amendments to the Particulars of Justification do not justify any of the meanings set out in Paragraph 3(1) to (3) of the Order of5 June 2013 [that is a reference to the first second and third meanings, and to the order which I had made] as varied and affirmed by the order of Court of Appeal ; b. Para 7(2) of the Re-Amended Defence is to be interpreted in accordance with para 16 of the Defendants’ Skeleton Argument dated 26 June and the first sentence of para 15 of the Claimant’s Skeleton Argument of his Skeleton Argument of 25 June; [which had made clear that the word “countenanced” connoted a summary form of the second and third meanings]…”
"The essentials of this tort are that the defendant has [1] published about the plaintiff [2] words which are false, [3] that they were published maliciously, and [4] that special damage has followed as the direct and natural result of their publication. As to special damage, the effect ofSection 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 is that it is sufficient if the words published in writing are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. Malice will be inferred if it be proved that the words were calculated to produce damage and that the defendant knew when he published the words that they were false or that they were reckless as to whether they were false or not."
“(1) In an action for … malicious falsehood, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage— (a) if the words upon which the action is founded are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff and are published in writing or other permanent form; or (b) if the said words are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff in respect of any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication.”
“24. … Their Lordships consider it would be to introduce unnecessary and undesirable legalism and rigidity if this objective standard, of responsible journalism, had to be applied in all cases exclusively by reference to the “single meaning” of the words. Rather, a journalist should not be penalised for making a wrong decision on a question of meaning on which different people might reasonably take different views. Their Lordships note that in the present case the selfsame question has resulted in a division of view between members of the Court of Appeal. If the words are ambiguous to such an extent that they may readily convey a different meaning to an ordinary reasonable reader, a court may properly take this other meaning into account when considering whether Reynolds privilege is available as a defence. In doing so the court will attribute to this feature of the case whatever weight it considers appropriate in all the circumstances. 25. This should not be pressed too far. Where questions of defamation may arise ambiguity is best avoided as much as possible. It should not be a screen behind which a journalist is “willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike”
“An undercover operation is the only way to gain hard evidence that Miss Southern is willing to set up meetings with the PM directly in exchange payment, and to establish whether it is in fact possible for such a meeting to be successfully arranged for a fee.”
“If people are wanting to get a handshake with the Prime Minister the best way to do it is to buy a table at the Conservative Black and White party or the Conservative Summer Party”
“In terms of face time that is obviously more difficult. It’s not impossible, but it is more difficult. The Prime Minister is obviously a very busy man. He’s not going to meet with everyone. […] But there are certain ways of meeting him. It’s not completely off the radar […] for example as leader of the party… I mean all firms have done this, when Labour was in power […] which is why a lot of firms give huge donations to each political party, so they are then able to interact with the political party, which I actually think is quite a good thing, because ultimately policies don’t just, you know, chip up out of the civil servants, they come from manifestos that are written at the heart of each political party, and kind of the more you engage the political party from the beginning of the electoral cycle, the more influence you can have on policy. So at the moment there’s something called the Conservative Policy Forum, where they take submissions from across the board […] But obviously there are other things that political parties do, so if you donate money to a political party you will be invited to various events. […] then it goes up incrementally until you get to the Leader’s Club, which I think is£25,000 , and that is obviously more high level dinners to which you be more inclined to meet with members of the cabinet, especially the PM.”
“If you donate£100,000 and you’re expecting a reward in return then that’s when things go wrong, but if you donate expecting nothing in return… you’re not expecting… I mean that’s where the Labour Party went wrong. They said if you donate£150k you’ll get an MBE, if you donate half a million you will get a peerage… What I’ll do is I’ll put together what I would call kind of political engagement with the people I think you could, the types of events I think you could go to where people are, ‘cause I don’t think I’d ever want to quote a meeting with the Prime Minister for x amount. I mean I can’t promise that!”
“Ms BLAKE: So presumably […] if we were gonna make a donation, is it worth talking to the treasurer of the party and saying ‘how much do you need? What can we do for you? And essentially what can we get? What you do for us? Is that the kind of conversation we could have? Ms SOUTHERN: The current treasurer is Peter Cruddas, who is a great guy […] I’m sure I could arrange to meet him, I know Peter from the No campaign, he’s a very good guy but they employ a department of people who deal with different levels of donations. So for example if someone is gonna donate 10 grand they speak to one person, if they are gonna donate 50 grand it’s a different person.”
“political engagement with senior Conservative figures; a broader introduction into the political landscape and influence makers throughout the government in addition to detailed political analysis and insight of ongoing regulation and legislation in the UK”
“…. I thought it would be good for an opening meeting to take place […] and then for a more kind of informal chat to take place over coffee er with either one of the senior people within the um department or indeed with um Peter Cruddas who I mentioned is the co-treasurer of the Conservative Party and then we can see what options we want to go ahead with. Ms BLAKE: Okay well I think yeah I think we mentioned before that a meeting with er, Peter Cruddas would be pretty interesting I think or as you say someone senior but obviously going to the top is always nice isn’t it?”
“She has suggested that we ‘have a cup of tea’ with Peter Cruddas, the party’s deputy treasurer, to discuss ‘getting as much bang for your buck as possible’ in return for making a political donation…”
“I mean the truth is that what you’ve discovered isn’t a secret is it?” and Mr Calvert replied “No it isn’t”
“Public suspicion about party funding might partly reflect the way some donations are reported in the media.”
“I actually don’t personally agree with that judgment by the PCC”
“Yesterday I said that what the former Treasurer of The Conservative Party, Peter Cruddas, said was completely unacceptable and wrong. I want to make clear that no money was accepted from the exchange he had and of course he has now resigned from his post. We have a robust and sensible system for raising money in the Conservative Party, all donations to the party centrally above£7,500 are declared to the electoral Commission and must comply with electoral law. No donation is accepted before going through very thorough compliance procedures. But as I said yesterday, in light of these events I have ordered a full party inquiry. This will be led by the Conservative peer Lord Gold – a distinguished lawyer and a former senior partner at Herbert Smith – but let me deal with some of the specific points. There has been much speculation about dinners in my flat in number 10 Downing Street. The position is this, in the two years I have been Prime Minister there have been three occasions on which significant donors have come to a dinner at my flat. In addition there was a further post-election dinner which included donors in Downing Street itself shortly after the General Election. We will be publishing full details of all these today. None of these dinners were fundraising dinners, and none of these dinners were paid for by the taxpayer. I’ve known most of those attending for many years. Let me add that Peter Cruddas has never recommended anyone to come to dinner in my flat, nor has he been to dinner there himself. I already publish details of my external meetings as Prime Minister – the first Prime Minister ever to do so – and I also publish all meetings I have with media editors and proprietors. From now on the Conservative Party will publish details every quarter of any meals attended by any major donors whether they take place at Downing Street, Chequers or any official residence. The conservative Party is funded by private citizens. I inherited a party that was tens of millions of pounds in debt and dependent on a tiny number of big donors. Since I’ve been leader we’ve significantly broadened the Conservative Party’s funding base to many more significant donors. One way we do this is through the Leader’s Group, where donors pay£50,000 a year and there are regular dinners attended by myself or other senior ministers. This fact is already known and transparent and any donations are declared to the electoral commission. However from now on, the Conservative Party will in addition publish a register of those donors who actually attend these fundraising dinners. On policy, let me make clear, no one in the number 10 policy unit has met anyone at Peter Cruddas’ request. Peter Cruddas spoke about passing requests to a policy committee at number 10 Downing Street – there is no such committee. However, to avoid any perception of undue influence from now on we’ll put in place new procedures in which if any ministerial contact with a party donor prompts a request for policy advice the minister will refer this to his or her private office, who can then seek guidance from the permanent secretary. Clearly there is still an urgent need for party funding reform in this country. I’ve consistently argued this over the last six years. No party is immune from these problems, and indeed the leader of the Labour Party has himself encountered some controversy in recent days. That is why the Government has invited Labour to restart cross-party talks on reforming the current rules, but today I make this offer once again to the Labour Party. ”
“The idea that policy is for sale is grotesque. I think that David Cameron is going to have to, if not today, then in the next few days publish the list of policies that have been sent from these dinners…”
“It is illegal to solicit donations through overseas companies and illegal to disguise those donations, yet there are allegations that this was exactly what Mr Cruddas was suggesting…”
“Anybody in politics who doubts the seriousness of the party funding scandal should look at our YouGov poll today. Carried out in the wake of last Sunday’s Insight exposé of Peter Cruddas, the Tory party co-treasurer, it shows voters believe corruption in British politics is rife.”
“It will be awesome for your business.” [2] Peter Cruddas, the multimillionaire Tory fundraiser, offered a lobbyist and her two overseas clients direct access to David Cameron if they joined a “premier league” of donors who give six-figure sums. [3] The offer was made even though he knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under election law. [4] Options discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits for the donation. [5] Cruddas resigned within hours of this newspaper publishing details of its investigation. [6] The overseas clients he met were, in fact, undercover reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business. [7] During a three-month investigation they had hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised them that making a “huge donation” was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. [8] Her connections led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron in exchange for cash. He revealed: [9] ■ Donors who want to be “taken seriously” are told they should give£250,000 to join the “premier league”, and then “things will open up for you”
“If we do become premier league, what would we get in addition?” [25] Cruddas: “... The first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [26] He added later: “In fact, some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in No 10 Downing Street, in the prime minister’s private apartment, with Samantha.”
“Spot on ... You could ask him about that. That would be a very good thing.” [27] Cruddas, who has given£1.2m to the party, said he had used his access to Cameron to object to the Tobin tax on financial transactions: “He said don’t even worry about it...” [28] Cruddas said that big donors could not determine policy, but he would make sure that their suggestions were fed into the No 10 policy unit. “If you are unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee,” he said. [29] The meetings were also good for intelligence. “It’s key bits of information that you can use ... Frequently I say, well, I was with the prime minister last week and he told me this. [30] “You do really pick up a lot of information... You are not seeing the prime minister, you’re seeing David Cameron. But, within that room, everything’s confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question you want.” [31] The reporters could also impress clients with their top contacts. “It’ll be awesome for your business. You’ll be ... well pleased. Because your guests will get photographed with David Cameron,” he said. [32] Business clients could also meet the chancellor. “If you ring me up ... and [say] I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens, okay?” [33] There was still one problem, however. The proposed donation was being paid from a Liechtenstein fund and belonged ultimately to Middle Eastern investors. It was a foreign donation. Cruddas was happy for the reporters to find a way around this and said he’d arrange a meeting with the party’s “compliance people” to check that it was legitimate. One option was to create a UK company to donate the money. [34] He said: “Set up a company, employ some people to work here.” [35] Later, though, the reporters’ lobbyist spoke to party officials and returned. As the reporters, posing as executives, were British, the money could be channelled through them. [36] “[The company] would have to donate through an individual (perhaps a director of the company) who is registered on the UK electoral roll,”
“[The party] don’t pry as to where the money comes from, at all.” [37] Cruddas and Southern declined to comment. [38] A Conservative party spokesman said none of the donations was ever formally considered and that donations had to comply with electoral law, which was strictly enforced by the party’s compliance department. “Donations to the Conservative party do not buy party or government policy,” he added. “We will urgently investigate any evidence to the contrary.” [The First Article included a large picture of the Claimant with the caption:] “Peter Cruddas, main picture, and, inset, with the prime minister, said: ‘You will get to meet George Osborne, you will get to meet David Cameron’” [Inset with the picture on the front page was a large quotation:] “200 GRAND IS PREMIER LEAGUE... IT’LL BE AWESOME FOR YOUR BUSINESS”
“It will be awesome for your business.” [2] Peter Cruddas, the multimillionaire Tory fundraiser, offered a lobbyist and her two overseas clients direct access to David Cameron if they joined a “premier league” of donors who give six-figure sums. [3] The offer was made even though he knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under election law. [4] Options discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits for the donation. [5] Cruddas resigned within hours of this newspaper publishing details of its investigation. [6] The overseas clients he met were, in fact, undercover reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business. [7] During a three-month investigation they had hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised them that making a “huge donation” was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. [8] Her connections led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron in exchange for cash. He revealed: [9] ■ Donors who want to be “taken seriously” are told they should give£250,000 to join the “premier league”, and then “things will open up for you”
“If we do become premier league, what would we get in addition?” [25] Cruddas: “... The first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [26] He added later: “In fact, some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in No 10 Downing Street, in the prime minister’s private apartment, with Samantha.”
“Spot on ... You could ask him about that. That would be a very good thing.” [28] Cruddas said that big donors could not determine policy, but he would make sure that their suggestions were fed into the No 10 policy unit. “If you are unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee,” he said. [29] The meetings were also good for intelligence. “It’s key bits of information that you can use ... Frequently I say, well, I was with the prime minister last week and he told me this. [30] “You do really pick up a lot of information... You are not seeing the prime minister, you’re seeing David Cameron. But, within that room, everything’s confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question you want.” [31] The reporters could also impress clients with their top contacts. “It’ll be awesome for your business. You’ll be ... well pleased. Because your guests will get photographed with David Cameron,” he said. [32] Business clients could also meet the chancellor. “If you ring me up ... and [say] I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens, okay?” [33] There was still one problem, however. The proposed donation was being paid from a Liechtenstein fund and belonged ultimately to Middle Eastern investors. It was a foreign donation. Cruddas was happy for the reporters to find a way around this and said he’d arrange a meeting with the party’s “compliance people” to check that it was legitimate. One option was to create a UK company to donate the money. [34] He said: “Set up a company, employ some people to work here.” [35] Later, though, the reporters’ lobbyist spoke to party officials and returned. As the reporters, posing as executives, were British, the money could be channelled through them. [36] “[The company] would have to donate through an individual (perhaps a director of the company) who is registered on the UK electoral roll,”
“[The party] don’t pry as to where the money comes from, at all.” [37] Cruddas and Southern declined to comment. [38] A Conservative party spokesman said none of the donations was ever formally considered and that donations had to comply with electoral law, which was strictly enforced by the party’s compliance department. “Donations to the Conservative party do not buy party or government policy,” he added. “We will urgently investigate any evidence to the contrary.” [The First Article included a large picture of the Claimant with the caption:] “Peter Cruddas, main picture, and, inset, with the prime minister, said: ‘You will get to meet George Osborne, you will get to meet David Cameron’” [Inset with the picture on the front page was a large quotation:] “200 GRAND IS PREMIER LEAGUE... IT’LL BE AWESOME FOR YOUR BUSINESS”
“When we talk about your donations, the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [11] Asked what they needed to give, Cruddas said: “Minimum 100 grand a year.”
“Hundred grand is not premier league. It’s not bad. It’s probably bottom of the premier league. Two hundred grand, 250 is premier league.” [12] He explained: “Things will open up for you but ... it’s no good scratching around and, ‘here’s 10 grand now and then we’ll send you five grand’. Minimum 100 grand ... But the nearer you can get to 200. ” [13] The two financiers were in fact undercover reporters who were secretly filming Cruddas as he laid bare the extraordinary extent to which the Conservative party is willing to work hand-in-glove with lobbyists to sell access to the prime minister and his cabinet. [14] Whereas the last Labour government was accused of taking cash for peerages, the Tories are making£5m a year by taking cash for Cameron. [15] The revelations are particularly damaging in the light of comments made by Cameron himself, just months before he was elected in 2010, in which he warned that “secret corporate lobbying” was the “next big scandal waiting to happen” in British politics. [16] “It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. We must be the party that sorts all this out,” he said The issue of party funding came to the fore last November when the committee on standards in public life warned that big donors were being given “preferential access to political decision makers” and recommended that donations should be capped at£10,000 . Their report has so far been ignored. [17] Giving evidence before the committee, Andrew Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, insisted: “There is no question of individuals either influencing policy or gaining an unfair advantage by virtue of their financial contributions to the party.” [18] However, Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the committee, said on Friday that this newspaper’s investigation was further evidence that there was a “significant risk of both influence and access being granted in return for donations”. [19] The undercover investigation began after a tip-off from a lobbyist that a former Cameron aide was selling introductions to her old boss. [20] Mark Adams, a former private secretary to John Major and Tony Blair, had met Sarah Southern, the former aide, at the Tory party conference. He said she had boasted that she had just made a “tidy sum” out of introducing a client to Cameron. Her brazen sales pitch included handing out a business card with a photograph of herself with Cameron. [21] Two undercover reporters posing as overseas financiers met Southern in a hotel overlooking Lake Zurich. They explained that their clients intended to buy distressed government assets, such as Royal Mail, and wanted to make some political connections. [22] Southern, who had set herself up as a “political consultant” after seven years at the Tory party, told them she was uniquely well placed to arrange introductions to Cameron. [23] “I spent more time in the first third of [2010] with DC than I did with anybody else in my life,” she said. “I am friends with all the people who are now his closest advisers. I’m friends with the people who are chiefs of staff to members of the cabinet. I’m also friends with a number of people in the cabinet,” she added. [24] Such was Cameron’s confidence in Southern that he entrusted his pregnant wife to her care on the 2010 election day. They had spent the day shopping, Southern boasted over dinner. She had introduced a client from an American firm to the prime minister at the party conference. The businessman was “especially delighted” because Cameron had “got the message that we wanted him to get”, she said. [25] For a fee of£15,000 a month, Southern promised to introduce the undercover reporters to top politicians, including the prime minister, and gather intelligence on policy. No fee was paid by The Sunday Times. [26] In the following weeks she invited her new clients to exclusive donor lunches and dinners with eight ministers including Theresa May, the home secretary, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, and Michael Gove, the education secretary. She also said she had reserved a£10,000 table at the Conservative Black and White Ball in February and promised Cameron would be brought over to meet them. The reporters were unable to attend because of security protocols. [27] However, the best way to gain access and influence, she advised, was to make a “huge donation”
“There’s a lot you can do from your clients’ point of view.” [45] He later promised: “If I know what your expectations are, I can manage those. And I’ll make sure, if you ring me up [or] Sarah rings me up one day and says I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens ... not officially, but I’ll make sure it happens.” [46] His willingness to put the cabinet up for sale was not for nothing. He said he was building a war chest to defend the proposed changes to constituency boundaries, which he said could gift the party an extra 50 seats. [47] The reporters were then invited to sponsor the Conservatives’ summer party for about£150,000 . In return they could fill three tables with their clients and sit next to the prime minister. [48] Last week Southern said she was negotiating the sponsorship deal with the party. She reported back that in exchange for the cash the reporters could host private drinks beforehand with their clients, Cameron and 20 members of the cabinet. [49] Cruddas had started the meeting with the reporters on a cautious note, insisting there was “no cash for access”, but he repeatedly contradicted himself by explaining exactly how much access they could get in return for their cash. [50] “Because we depend on donors so much, we have to be very careful what we say. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I promise you ... You cannot buy access to the prime minister, full stop,” he said. [51] He went on: “If you donate, you will be invited to events where the prime minister is there. And frequently, if you get into the right club and I can advise you, you could well be at a private house having a private dinner with the chancellor, William Hague, David Cameron, Michael Gove, all the top ministers, the chairman of the party, where around that table there will be very distinguished business people.” [52] Asked whether a donation would buy the right to influence government policy, Cruddas again began cautiously but went on to assure the reporters that the prime minister “does tap into us on a regular basis”. [53] “If you’re ... unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee. But just because you donate money doesn’t give you a voice at the top table to change policy. That doesn’t happen,” he said. [54] Cruddas said the party was having to fend off anger among donors about its proposals to legalise gay marriage and disclosed that one donor had written a paper on the subject for the No 10 policy unit. [55] “We’ve fed that back into the party and there are some brilliant points in it and his voice has been heard. But it’s been heard by a committee that will analyse his points against other points, but at least it’s getting in there,” he said. [56] Giving an example of the kind of “key bits of information” they could pick up in discussions with politicians, he said he had been told that a tax cut which was good news for high earners was due to be announced in the budget the following week. [57] The following day it emerged that Osborne was planning to scrap the 50p top rate of tax. [58] Cruddas, who said he was dashing off that evening to have drinks at St James’s Palace with Prince Charles, even offered to make sure the fake financiers and their clients were invited to events at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle if they made a donation. [59] Only one problem remained. The money on the table came from a foreign wealth fund, which is not eligible to make political donations under UK law. But Cruddas and Southern were prepared to discuss a range of ways that the money could be brought onshore (see below). [60] After the meeting Southern sent the reporters an encrypted document advising them how to make their donation. In a section titled “Worst case scenario”, she warned that journalists were especially interested in those who had “donated huge amounts of money”. [61] She cautioned: “It should be considered that wider media interest into lobbying and what cash changes hands is the next ‘MPs’ expenses’.”
“When we talk about your donations, the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [11] Asked what they needed to give, Cruddas said: “Minimum 100 grand a year.”
“Hundred grand is not premier league. It’s not bad. It’s probably bottom of the premier league. Two hundred grand, 250 is premier league.” [12] He explained: “Things will open up for you but ... it’s no good scratching around and, ‘here’s 10 grand now and then we’ll send you five grand’. Minimum 100 grand ... But the nearer you can get to 200. ” [13] The two financiers were in fact undercover reporters who were secretly filming Cruddas as he laid bare the extraordinary extent to which the Conservative party is willing to work hand-in-glove with lobbyists to sell access to the prime minister and his cabinet. [14] Whereas the last Labour government was accused of taking cash for peerages, the Tories are making£5m a year by taking cash for Cameron. [15] The revelations are particularly damaging in the light of comments made by Cameron himself, just months before he was elected in 2010, in which he warned that “secret corporate lobbying” was the “next big scandal waiting to happen” in British politics. [16] “It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. We must be the party that sorts all this out,” he said The issue of party funding came to the fore last November when the committee on standards in public life warned that big donors were being given “preferential access to political decision makers” and recommended that donations should be capped at£10,000 . Their report has so far been ignored. [17] Giving evidence before the committee, Andrew Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, insisted: “There is no question of individuals either influencing policy or gaining an unfair advantage by virtue of their financial contributions to the party.” [18] However, Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the committee, said on Friday that this newspaper’s investigation was further evidence that there was a “significant risk of both influence and access being granted in return for donations”. [19] The undercover investigation began after a tip-off from a lobbyist that a former Cameron aide was selling introductions to her old boss. [20] Mark Adams, a former private secretary to John Major and Tony Blair, had met Sarah Southern, the former aide, at the Tory party conference. He said she had boasted that she had just made a “tidy sum” out of introducing a client to Cameron. Her brazen sales pitch included handing out a business card with a photograph of herself with Cameron. [21] Two undercover reporters posing as overseas financiers met Southern in a hotel overlooking Lake Zurich. They explained that their clients intended to buy distressed government assets, such as Royal Mail, and wanted to make some political connections. [22] Southern, who had set herself up as a “political consultant” after seven years at the Tory party, told them she was uniquely well placed to arrange introductions to Cameron. [23] “I spent more time in the first third of [2010] with DC than I did with anybody else in my life,” she said. “I am friends with all the people who are now his closest advisers. I’m friends with the people who are chiefs of staff to members of the cabinet. I’m also friends with a number of people in the cabinet,” she added. [24] Such was Cameron’s confidence in Southern that he entrusted his pregnant wife to her care on the 2010 election day. They had spent the day shopping, Southern boasted over dinner. She had introduced a client from an American firm to the prime minister at the party conference. The businessman was “especially delighted” because Cameron had “got the message that we wanted him to get”, she said. [25] For a fee of£15,000 a month, Southern promised to introduce the undercover reporters to top politicians, including the prime minister, and gather intelligence on policy. No fee was paid by The Sunday Times. [26] In the following weeks she invited her new clients to exclusive donor lunches and dinners with eight ministers including Theresa May, the home secretary, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, and Michael Gove, the education secretary. She also said she had reserved a£10,000 table at the Conservative Black and White Ball in February and promised Cameron would be brought over to meet them. The reporters were unable to attend because of security protocols. [27] However, the best way to gain access and influence, she advised, was to make a “huge donation”
“There’s a lot you can do from your clients’ point of view.” [45] He later promised: “If I know what your expectations are, I can manage those. And I’ll make sure, if you ring me up [or] Sarah rings me up one day and says I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens ... not officially, but I’ll make sure it happens.” [46] His willingness to put the cabinet up for sale was not for nothing. He said he was building a war chest to defend the proposed changes to constituency boundaries, which he said could gift the party an extra 50 seats. [47] The reporters were then invited to sponsor the Conservatives’ summer party for about£150,000 . In return they could fill three tables with their clients and sit next to the prime minister. [48] Last week Southern said she was negotiating the sponsorship deal with the party. She reported back that in exchange for the cash the reporters could host private drinks beforehand with their clients, Cameron and 20 members of the cabinet. [49] Cruddas had started the meeting with the reporters on a cautious note, insisting there was “no cash for access”, but he repeatedly contradicted himself by explaining exactly how much access they could get in return for their cash. [50] “Because we depend on donors so much, we have to be very careful what we say. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I promise you ... You cannot buy access to the prime minister, full stop,” he said. [51] He went on: “If you donate, you will be invited to events where the prime minister is there. And frequently, if you get into the right club and I can advise you, you could well be at a private house having a private dinner with the chancellor, William Hague, David Cameron, Michael Gove, all the top ministers, the chairman of the party, where around that table there will be very distinguished business people.” [52] Asked whether a donation would buy the right to influence government policy, Cruddas again began cautiously but went on to assure the reporters that the prime minister “does tap into us on a regular basis”. [53] “If you’re ... unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee. But just because you donate money doesn’t give you a voice at the top table to change policy. That doesn’t happen,” he said. [54] Cruddas said the party was having to fend off anger among donors about its proposals to legalise gay marriage and disclosed that one donor had written a paper on the subject for the No 10 policy unit. [55] “We’ve fed that back into the party and there are some brilliant points in it and his voice has been heard. But it’s been heard by a committee that will analyse his points against other points, but at least it’s getting in there,” he said. [56] Giving an example of the kind of “key bits of information” they could pick up in discussions with politicians, he said he had been told that a tax cut which was good news for high earners was due to be announced in the budget the following week. [57] The following day it emerged that Osborne was planning to scrap the 50p top rate of tax. [58] Cruddas, who said he was dashing off that evening to have drinks at St James’s Palace with Prince Charles, even offered to make sure the fake financiers and their clients were invited to events at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle if they made a donation. [59] Only one problem remained. The money on the table came from a foreign wealth fund, which is not eligible to make political donations under UK law. But Cruddas and Southern were prepared to discuss a range of ways that the money could be brought onshore (see below). [60] After the meeting Southern sent the reporters an encrypted document advising them how to make their donation. In a section titled “Worst case scenario”, she warned that journalists were especially interested in those who had “donated huge amounts of money”. [61] She cautioned: “It should be considered that wider media interest into lobbying and what cash changes hands is the next ‘MPs’ expenses’.”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Let me give you my card. Anyway thanks for coming in, so you are in the City? Ms BLAKE: Oh, great, nice to see you. Mr CRUDDAS: Local, or? Ms BLAKE: No, we’re not. Mr CALVERT: No, we’re not at all we’re in Liechtenstein. Mr CRUDDAS: Oh really ? so… ”
“Mr CALVERT: Well, let’s just explain where we’re coming from then… […] we’re a private wealth management company… […] We run two funds and what, one that invests in equities, the other was, after the financial crisis was, invests in, um, infrastructure projects and distressed assets and… Mr CRUDDAS: And who owns the company? Mr CALVERT: It’s partly owned, well mostly owned by, er a chap called, who is our chairman, a chap called, Mr Edwards, who erm is, I mean he’s, he’s got a long history of in finance, over the years and has created the company back”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Is he Swiss or British? Mr CALVERT: No, no. Ms BLAKE: He’s British as well. Yup. [which is clear from the audio recording] Ms SOUTHERN: So it’s basically a British firm that operates within … Mr CALVERT: From … yeah. Ms BLAKE: It’s British owned, yeah [those words are clear as well] Mr CRUDDAS: [inaudibly] For tax, I guess. For tax. Ms BLAKE: Well yeah, exactly. Mr CALVERT: Well, we are … I don’t know what Sarah’s told you but we do like to operate under the radar erm and … Mr CRUDDAS: She said you’ve got deep pockets. [Ms Southern had not in fact said that to Mr Cruddas: they had not spoken at all] (Laughter) Mr CALVERT: Well, our clients certainly have…. Mr CRUDDAS: yeah Mr CALVERT: And our clients, we’ve got some high net worth clients, and they like to keep their affairs private, so… Mr CRUDDAS: Absolutely Mr CALVERT: So, and we’d like to talk frankly here but obviously we’d like it to be confidential. Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah. Of course. Of course. Mr CALVERT: [speaking clearly] Because, especially, we’re at the moment we’re just, we’re pursuing this UK investment strategy, which is a brand new strategy to us. And, erm this strategy is, er, is basically looking at opportunities to invest in Government assets. Erm, and our problem at the moment is that, erm, we’ve been out of the UK for ten years, we’ve been in mainland Europe for ten years and we just don’t have any connections, erm and that’s how it’s… Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah”
“Mr CALVERT: Well that’s quite handy. Ms BLAKE: Ok Mr CRUDDAS: Well you know what would be the type of question you would want to ask him for example? Ms BLAKE: Well, we’re, for example we’re interested in, at the moment our investment strategy in the UK is in its very early stages and we’re just sort of kicking around ideas but one thing is that we might say we want, we wanted to take an interest in an asset like the Royal Mail, we’d, we’d like to ask him ‘How do you feel[?]….’”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Spot on spot on. [Those are the words that I could not hear at all, but Mr Cruddas can be seen on Ms Blake’s camera making a gesture with his hands] Mr CALVERT: What the strategy would be… Mr CRUDDAS: You could ask him about that … […] You could ask him about that, that would be a very good thing […] In fact the Royal Mail […] the UK [sic] could potentially be a very good thing for the British Government… […] I heard at one of these dinners I mean I, if I was you I would ask him a question about their pension fund. […] And I will support you if you come on board, you’ll have contact with me and I can help you and I can try and attend some of the dinners, because I get to see and hear a lot of things. I mean part of your contact is also using me… […] because I get to go to more dinners… […] You know you might go to two or three dinners a year, I might go to ten… Ms BLAKE: Brilliant. Mr CRUDDAS: And I get to hear. But for example, the Royal Mail has a pension fund… […] which is a big issue. And that’s stopping the company being privatised because the debt in the pension fund. […] However, the government will have to take on the pension fund, […] It’s obligated, but actually it’s not a bad thing, I tell you why… […] because within the pension fund there’s say 20 billion pounds…”
“Mr CRUDDAS: And that’s why I said to you that there’s no cash for access, there’s no cash for honours the Party is really clean … […] And as donors and Treasurers, well as Treasurer and a board member my job primarily is to protect David Cameron. […] He’s our leader, he’s doing a fantastic job, we’re all behind him. If we bring on one bad donor it affects all of us […] And we are over cautious we actually turn down money as well. […] But we can’t afford to turn down too much money. The first thing is you have to be compliant. […] So you have to be compliant either as a British tax payer on the electoral roll … […] or you have to be on the electoral roll in Britain… […] or you have to have a UK company that is a bona fide, bona fide UK company operating here, it’s not a shell, you know, so if you’re setting up here [that is a reference to what the international financiers said that they were doing], you’re employing people here, you can have a UK registered company… […] then that company can make the donations, that’s the first thing. The second thing is that you could um our top table event, our top table is the Leader’s Group and its£50,000 per person … […] and what happens is, this is the big one where you will get invited and I’ll give you this to take away with you … Mr CALVERT: Great. Mr CRUDDAS: (gesturing at the brochure) There’s lower ones and there’s top ones … so£50,000 per person … […] you pay and you -, that’s when you get invited, and there are no freebies, there’s no potential donors, you get invited and you’ll get invited to meet -, a dinner with George Osborne, William Hague and David Cameron […] and possibly Michael well and Michael Gove. I’ve been to dinner with all of these people … […] and there are various events throughout the year. I would thoroughly recommend coming to the Party Conference … […] which you would pay for in addition, and attending some Prime Ministerial events. I mean for example…”
“Mr CRUDDAS: … last year I hosted a drinks party whereby, you know, the Prime Minister comes and George Osborne comes, and you would be invited to that type of event. […] If you wanted to bring some clients along you could bring them along, maybe you’d have to buy the tickets, whatever, but there’s a lot you can do […] from your clients’ point of view. So for example if you wanted one or two of your clients to come along you can’t pay 50,000 and […] bring ten different people along… […] it’s really 50,000 per person… […] but you could, you could nominate some people to attend the event, and we need to get into the detail of that. So for example if you had an important client coming, say you had two Leader Groups […] so you could nominate one, you could attend or you could attend… […] and then um and then you could come along with one of your clients um, you know, could be, you know, um to come along. If that client -, but when, you know, there’s a lot of options open. Mr CALVERT: I mean I’m sure they’d … Ms BLAKE: They’d love that. Mr CALVERT: They’d love that. Ms BLAKE: Yeah. Be fabulous. Mr CRUDDAS: But there are lots, for example, I mean there’s other events as well that could be really interesting for you… we had what we call Heritage House event at Downton Abbey, you know a big British … Ms BLAKE: Oh fabulous. Mr CRUDDAS: It’s Highclere Castle […] and last year we had an event at Downton Abbey or Highclere, and the Chancellor was there […] and you bought a ticket or you bought a table, but you have to be compliant…. I guess if your compliant, your’re company is compliant you could buy the table in the name of your company that’s a British company then invite your guests along”
“Mr CRUDDAS: So there’s the Party Conference, we have a business day at the Party Conference where the Chancellor has a lunch, you can bring clients to that, there’s a dinner and last year’s dinner was fantastic. Liam Fox spoke um and the chairman was hosting it, you know, there’s lots of things for you to engage in […] What you need to do is put your foot through - into the door […] Now you could um so you have to think about what you want to achieve out of this. … […] You clearly want to mingle with the right people [that is a reference back to Ms Blake’s having said that they would like to be moving in the kinds of circles where you know what’s going on] […] that’s okay, we can arrange that. You don’t need to join one of these clubs to do that, we can flog you tables at various events and I’ll guide you on that. … […] And I’ll say to you ‘Look, this is a good one. Can’t tell you who it is it’s top top secret… […] but this is one that if you want to be with the Chancellor, get a table”, and what you would do is probably get a premium table and I’ll make sure you get in a good location… […] and possibly try and get the Chancellor on your table, you know… Mr CALVERT: That’d be great. Mr CRUDDAS: You could sponsor an event […] You could sponsor, for example, and there is an opportunity, I think we’ve got a sponsor lined up, if you’re quick I could find out, but you sponsor the summer, the Summer Party [This is one of the references to a possible imminent date for a donation, but Mr Calvert does not respond clearly one way or the other on the imminence of the donation, he says] Mr CALVERT: Oh right. Mr CRUDDAS: You get the Prime Minister on your table and you can invite your guests on the table. Mr CALVERT: Ah that’d be …. Ms BLAKE: That would be fabulous Mr CALVERT: What sort of … Mr CRUDDAS: You get like ten ten guests Mr CALVERT: What sort of sum? Mr CRUDDAS: Last year I sponsored it for 150 grand… […] But you get you get a programme you get your name in it and you get I think three tables… […] The people you invite you have to, they have to be vetted. […] You can’t have some Saudi arms dealer on the Prime Minister’s table (laughter) because they’ll be photographed and everything, so everybody you nominate, if you give us the names we’ll check them out for compliance… […] and if they’re a bit dodgy you know then… Ms BLAKE: We don’t deal with dodgy people (laughter) Mr CRUDDAS: I’m not saying that your clients are dodgy… Mr CALVERT: No no I know and exactly Ms BLAKE: Of course no. Mr CRUDDAS: I’m saying to you, that you know if they’re involved, I mean they might’ve been involved in supplying …. Mr CALVERT: Something political or something like that Mr CRUDDAS: … arms to Syria or something you know? Ms SOUTHERN: With the sponsorship though, um it doesn’t have to be a named sponsorship, so they could sponsor it but actually their logos don’t have to appear on it though Mr CRUDDAS: do you not, do you not want your logo to be on it? Ms SOUTHERN: Our aim is to remain quite under the radar. Mr CALVERT: No we don’t really. Ms BLAKE: We do like to stay under the radar if possible, yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: Okay then, sponsorship is not good for you then”
“Mr CRUDDAS: … the thing about this industry is, it’s like, it’s like the Party, you know you’ve got, you, you just can’t have a conveyor belt of donors coming in and writing a cheque out, ‘Next please next please’… […] you know because people give for, to politics primarily ‘cause they’re passionate… […] and they want they want their voice heard, […] … Unfortunately donating to a party is not the most effective way to get your voice heard… […] … if you’re unhappy about something you can, we can, we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the Policy Committee at Number 10. We feed all feedback into the Policy Committee… […] But just because you donate money it doesn’t give you a voice at the top table to change policy, that doesn’t happen. And primarily Mr CALVERT: But at least it gets into the Policy Committee at Number 10. Mr CRUDDAS: Oh it goes yeah, yeah, yeah… […] I mean, any, like at the moment you’ve got gay marriage and there’s lots of donors unhappy about that. […] and we’re having to fend that off because what the party are saying is that ‘We can’t discriminate against gay people… [Mr Cruddas then gives another example of feedback namely, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on wearing a cross in a public place, and, returning to the feedback he says on page 34 of the transcript] Mr CRUDDAS: But it’s been heard by a committee that will analyse his points against other points, but at least it’s getting in there… it’s getting in there Ms BLAKE: Absolutely, well we obviously don’t expect to be able to write the government’s policy for them it’s just, it’s just being able to have a say. Mr CRUDDAS: Well that might cost you a few quid if you want to (laughter)… no sorry no we don’t do that, yeah but the Party is incredibly clean, incredibly clean… […] and it’s really been you know, it gets frustrating at times…”
“Mr CRUDDAS: … Look, you’re on the right track, so honestly um, you know, if you really, if you join the Leader’s Group as one person, and that has to be a named person, then you’ll get invited to two, three or four events a year… […] in a private house I’ve got one coming up in two weeks time […] … with David Cameron … […] I think its on the 29th, but you would get, if you put£50,000 , one person, you’d have to nominate, we’d have to clear them, they’d get invited to that. […] … in addition throughout the year, once you’ve, once you’ve done that throughout the year you will get invited to lots of other events, […] … and I could help you with the conference, Sarah knows all what to do really,… […] I mean you’ve got the right person, you,you can always call me as well Sarah… but […] you’ll get invited to other events like Downton Abbey, in November there’s a Downton Abbey event, we’ve also […] got another one coming up, we had Woburn last year it was fantastic. You come to this big stately home, Friday night I’m up at, er, Wynyard Hall, Sir John Hall’s place… […] in Newcastle a big stately home … [Mr Cruddas then made a joke about himself and his brother] but Woburn was fantastic ‘cause you came in, Cameron’s there, Samantha’s there, you get to meet Samantha as well. Ms BLAKE: Ah the lovely Samantha. Mr CRUDDAS: She looked fabulous I thought in Washington… […] and then we got, we got funnelled through, we had our photograph taken as a couple with the Prime Minister, you pay, I don’t know, five grand a ticket, … […] you get your photograph taken with the Prime Minister at Woburn, there’s a little crested thing at the bottom of it, looks fantastic, […]… with Samantha and David Cameron. We then get funnelled through into the Canaletto room […] where there were about 15, 20 Canalettos in Woburn […] And then we went through to the dining room and we had dinner and I was on the top table with David Cameron. Ms SOUTHERN: how many people attend that kind of event, Peter? Mr CRUDDAS: Less than a hundred. That was quite a big one, Heritage House, Downton… Highclere Castle… I think was about 60, 70 people… Ms SOUTHERN: So its quite a good number in terms of, you know, the PM being able to you know work the room and actually speak with people Mr CRUDDAS: You will at the at the Heritage House event providing your guests are compliant, now… […] they don’t need to be British voters on the electoral roll, they can be overseas nationals but they can’t be selling arms to, I’ll give you an example… [and he did].”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Last, the last big event was the Black and White Party, if you had a table there, George Osborne’s there Boris is there, Boris comes to a lot of these events.. […] you will definitely be rubbing shoulders with the right people… […] So my advice is that, take up all the offers throughout the year, conference, business day, you can bring people […] you pay for the tickets separately”
“…If you want to be under the radar then, um, the donor list is public knowledge… its public knowledge… […] seven and a half thousand gets you under the radar but if you’re going to come to these events then you’re going to spend more than seven and a half thousand […] Um anything above 100 to 200 grand, what you could do is make a commitment over three years. I had lunch with someone a couple of weeks ago in Sydney actually and he said, ‘I’m going to give you this this year, this next year, and then at the election I’m going to give you this. Ms BLAKE: Right […] Ms SOUTHERN: which is I think what we’ve discussed, the incremental giving. Mr CALVERT: Discussed yeah”
“Ms BLAKE: ‘cause, yeah, as you said, when we told you what, what the pot is, essentially what we’ve got on the table and we can, - Mr CRUDDAS: Well obviously you’ve got to, you’ve got to develop an office here and stuff like that but I, I would say to you commit something over three years, […] …get something in the pot and get to some of these events… […] and if you like them, and if it works for you, then you can you can follow up the following years. Ms BLAKE: Okay Mr CRUDDAS: ’Cause you’re not held to the commitment but we do expect it if you give the commitment”
“Ms BLAKE: And what do you think I mean if, say, we were to make a commitment now or in a couple of weeks time to donate, over, say two years, what do you think if we really want to get ourselves noticed and get, get ourselves invited to the very top level so that we would be taken seriously when we meet Mr Cameron at Downton Abbey for example what do you think is a suitable amount for us to give to - Mr CRUDDAS: minimum of hundred grand a year, minimum. […] Ms BLAKE: Hundred grand a year. What do you think, I mean, what’s a kind of, what would you say was a suitable amount if a hundred grand is a minimum? Mr CRUDDAS: Hundred grand probably isn’t really enough if you really want to be taken seriously. You’ve got to be compliant. Ms BLAKE: course. Mr CALVERT: Yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: You’ve got to um I mean, I could, I would, I’m just trying to think. See, I’m, I was the biggest donor last year, individual donor… […] and I gave 600 grand but actually you don’t need to give that much… […] I’m the Treasurer […] … and they expect me to write big cheques… […] and, you know, I wanted to balance the books a bit last year. Honestly, a hundred grand is nice but it’s not premier league. Ms BLAKE: So what’s premier league? What do we need to do? Mr CRUDDAS: We do get some big donors […] we’ve had some guy give us five million. Mr CALVERT: God… […] what in one? Mr CRUDDAS: … he’s he pledged five, he gave four, and he gave it over three years”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah. People tend to up um during the election year, election year 2015, actually, my advice to you is people tend to say, ‘Right well I’ll give this now and then in the election year –‘, this guy has offered£1 million at the election year. But you know what? We get a lot of money in the election year you kind of do get noticed but you’ll get outbid in the election year… […] So the impact is probably now we’re mid term and it’s harder to get money now mid term, so from an impact point of view I think you need to come above the radar now and not necessarily pledge a big pledge for the election year… […] And a hundred grand is not premier league it’s not bad it’s probably bottom of the premier league. 200 grand 250 is premier league […] but anything between a hundred and two fifty, and what I would suggest, is that, what do you feel comfortable with? Because you need to leave, to leave something back for the party conference so Mr CALVERT: Yeah Ms BLAKE: Of course and things like that Mr CALVERT: Well we have that within our budget um, Ms BLAKE: Yeah”
“Mr CRUDDAS:… and I’ll steer you through those events because I’ll work with you and Sarah […] you tell me what you want to achieve […] and I’ll tell you the best way to do it […] Or you could give a hundred grand now say, ‘I’m gonna give…’ and I want two, I want two, Leader’s Groups […]. Ms BLAKE: Yeah that would be good to have two places. Mr CRUDDAS: Two places, but you have to nominate somebody […] so maybe it could be your boss […] and he’ll get invited. We may allow, we may have to be a little bit flexible, we may allow someone to step in if he can’t make it […] You won’t get invited every month, there’ll be two or three events. And in fact we’ve got, it’s top, top secret, we’ve got an event coming up whereby the people that have been in the Leader’s Group for five years, there’s a private dinner, um I know where it is, the Prime Minister’s there, all the top people are there to thank them for 5 years of support… because they’ve given 50 grand a year for the last 5 years… and in fact some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in number 10 Downing Street in the Prime Minister’s private apartment… with Samantha there were eight people there four couples and the Prime Minister. They had a private dinner there. Ms BLAKE: Wow Mr CRUDDAS: But they have been loyal supporters over a period of time. Ms SOUTHERN: But that’s like a thank you isn’t it for their continued support[?] Mr CRUDDAS: I have to say and Sarah I’m sure will bear me up […] the party really has tried to take care of its donors you know, in a nice way […] … you know, if you’re supportive we will we won’t desert you, if you stop giving we won’t stop inviting you, […] donors go up and down, sometimes people get donor fatigue, they’ve done enough, they need a little bit of a break, but we don’t cut you off. The only thing we will do is not invite you to a Leader’s Group, the 50 grand membership thing, if you don’t pay, because it’s not fair on other people”
“Mr CALVERT: … one of the things we were wondering is whether we ought to get to know the Liberal Democrats as well and whether we ought to make a donation to them. Or do you think, I mean – do you think that’s worthwhile? I mean, as they’re your Coalition partners. Mr CRUDDAS: Um Ms SOUTHERN: I would be inclined to say at the minute, you know, let’s focus on where we know we can definitely get wins Mr CALVERT: Yeah Mr CRUDDAS: The Lib Dems, Nick Clegg’s not going to do anything for you, because he’s not in power, I mean he’s in power but Cameron’s the main man. I mean we’re biased conservatives. Mr CALVERT: Of course. Mr CRUDDAS: But I think you also have to be a little bit careful. You need to nail your colours to the mast and say, ‘We’re gonna back the Conservatives’. Mr CALVERT: Because it wouldn’t look good if we did both … Mr CRUDDAS: It probably wouldn’t.”
“Mr CRUDDAS: We need an outright victory, yeah. But if you just gave to all political parties then, from the Conservative point of view we could not allow you into these exclusive events. Ms BLAKE: Okay. Mr CALVERT: Right, okay. Mr CRUDDAS: Because, you know you would just be treated as a general donor. Ms BLAKE: Mmm. Mr CALVERT: Part of our – it was just an idea, it was just a, yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: It was a good - that’s why you’re here to ask these questions. But from the Party’s point of view, we just could not, we would just look at you, oh they just donate like […] to all three parties. They’re very nice, thank you very much, we’ll see you at the conference. But you’re not going to get in front of people that actually are not like you giving to all three political parties, they’re giving to the Conservative […] Party, and they’re passionate. They wanna support the Party. ….”
“Ms SOUTHERN: Is there anything else you guys want to ask us? Mr CALVERT: Well the other thing we haven’t quite worked out is that, I mean obviously our company is based in Liechtenstein er… what, I mean we are UK citizens but I’m not sure that erm… Ms BLAKE: How does it work, because obviously I don’t think you can accept donations from a foreign company is that correct? Mr CRUDDAS: No no. Yeah. Ms BLAKE: So how would you normally do it? Mr CRUDDAS: You have to have a UK company. The company that’s making the donation has to be a bona fide UK company. So you can’t set up a shell company, put some cash into it and say er ‘Right, here’s a political donation’. Mr CALVERT: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: It has to have people working for it, you have to have infrastructure, it has to be a bona fide UK company. Mr CALVERT: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: … paying UK employees. Ms BLAKE: Okay. Is there a number of employees you have to -? Mr CRUDDAS: I don’t think so, no. Ms BLAKE: So if we had say Sarah operating out of a UK office? [Ms Southern and at least one other person laughed at this suggestion] Mr CALVERT: Sarah? [speaking at the same time] Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah, Sarah would er, yeah you know Ms BLAKE: So we could set up a company, employ Sarah through that company. Mr CRUDDAS: What you couldn’t do is give Sarah the money to donate. Mr CALVERT: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: … you can’t do third party payments. So you would set up, erm are you -, do you work for the company now or are you - ? Ms BLAKE: Freelance at the moment. Ms SOUTHERN: No I’m a consultant. Mr CRUDDAS: Consultant. Ms BLAKE: But we could presumably, I mean if you’d be happy, to come to some kind of arrangement could we, where -? Ms SOUTHERN: I think we need to kind of work this through. Mr CALVERT: Work out... Ms BLAKE: yeah Ms SOUTHERN: My other thought was, I mean is David erm -? Mr CALVERT: He is but he doesn’t want, he doesn’t want his name to be going onto the … Ms SOUTHERN: I think this is something that we need to -, because we’ve gone through the … all the legal side of it […] erm and obviously we’re aware that it is a little bit of a flag, but I think there is a way that we can work this through. I don’t … Ms BLAKE: Okay. Ms SOUTHERN: I mean obviously it is a slight hurdle”
“Ms BLAKE: Is there a way? I mean could we give the money? Mr CRUDDAS: What, as individuals?”
“Ms BLAKE: As ind… It would, the thing is obviously it’s not sitting in our current accounts so it would be coming from a fund. Mr CRUDDAS: But you’re on the electoral roll here? Ms BLAKE: Yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: Okay, then yes the answer is yes. Erm but we would let, you know, probably what I would do is take you to HQ and you could talk to the compliance people there. Mr CALVERT: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: That way – or Sarah will take you there. I’ll facilitate a meeting. Ms BLAKE: Mm-hmm. Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah you probably co – as individuals yes …”
“Mr CRUDDAS: … but then if people are funnelling money through you then that, that could be an issue. Ms SOUTHERN: There was a situation about three years ago where a labour donor called David Abrahams who was from Durham gave his secretary, who would have probably been on, you know, 20 grand a year he gave her quarter of a million, but not like bang on the dot of a quarter of a million, it was a weird number, through her account and then that exact amount was donated from her to the Labour Party. Mr CALVERT: Oh right. Ms SOUTHERN: It was obvious that she did not have the means. Mr CALVERT: Mmm. Ms SOUTHERN: … in which to make that kind of donation on the salary that she’s had. Mr CALVERT: Hm-Mmm. Ms SOUTHERN: … now I think obviously if you two were to make a donation of 50 grand to – for the Leader’s Group it would not be beyond the realm… Ms BLAKE: No. Ms SOUTHERN: … you know, with the industry and, you know. Mr CALVERT: Right yeah. Ms SOUTHERN: … the … the money that you have behind you. So I think there is, there is that, but obviously if we are wanting to make bigger donations, like for example sponsoring, bigger events, then I think we need to just work that through. But I’ll speak with Mike Chattey, arrange a meeting at HQ with the compliance people. Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah speak to Mike yeah. Mr CALVERT: But the two options would be that either we gave a smaller amount or we’d have to set up a company in the UK. Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah, but it has to operate, the company. Mr CALVERT: Oh it has to operate? Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah, it has to operate. Mr CALVERT: So it has to have – provide, file accounts -. Mr CRUDDAS: Anyone can set up a UK company. Yeah. It has to file accounts and erm – Yeah, I mean we had a company yesterday where they… they’re very good, I mean they’ve taken two Leader’s Groups … but they had to get a letter from their finance director to say, because they hadn’t filed their first accounts, Mr CALVERT: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: … that they are a bona fide company and this guy is employed by them. Mr CALVERT: Mm-hmmm. Ms BLAKE: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: And that was fine, you know. But we can’t sail close to the wind because anything bad, it’s just not worth the issues. Mr CALVERT: no. Ms BLAKE: sure. Mr CRUDDAS: So you just have to work out how… Mr CALVERT: A way of doing it. It may well be that we set up a company here. Ms BLAKE: Yeah. Mr CALVERT: I mean as we are, we’ve got… Ms BLAKE: Lots of options. Mr CALVERT: It makes sense yeah? Mr CRUDDAS: Set up a company, employ some people er to work here. They could be events people, they could be people that are making sure that your company is represented properly. Ms BLAKE: Mmm. Mr CALVERT: Mmm yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: Anything like that you know. Ms SOUTHERN: Yeah, I think we need to take a little bit more … we need a little bit more advice on this and then I think… Mr CRUDDAS: Sarah has got all the contacts she’s got better contacts than me. Ms BLAKE: Great. Ms SOUTHERN: … we need to have quite a good discussion on it. Ms BLAKE: I’m sure there is … I think there is lots of ways we can deal with it. Mr CALVERT: Ways around it. Mmm, yeah. Ms SOUTHERN: Absolutely. Mr CRUDDAS: Mmm yeah, I’m sure. [I note this answer because Mr Calvert attached particular significance to it] But look, I think it would be exciting if you come on board. Ms BLAKE: Yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: I think you’ll find it exciting.”
“Mr CRUDDAS: But look I think it would be exciting if you come on board. […] I find it exciting. […] I love it. I mean people have said to me you know, “Congratulations being the Treasurer” and I said “No, first of all the word is commiserations, it costs me a lot of money”
“Ms SOUTHERN: Well if everyone’s kind of said everything they - Mr CALVERT: Is there anything else we wanted to -? Mr CRUDDAS: Well you have to decide what you want to do. Mr CALVERT: We want to go away and decide what level we want, he made it quite clear as to what - [I do not understand, what he was starting to say with the words ‘ but he made it quite clear as to what’] Mr CRUDDAS: Look, I - and also I think, you know, because of Sarah, I’ll steer you okay? Mr CALVERT: Yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: I won’t steer you to make, to get money out of you, I’ll, you know, if I know what your expectations are I can manage those. Mr CALVERT: Right. Mr CRUDDAS: And I’ll make sure, if you, if you - ring me up, or Sarah rings me up one day and said ‘I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event’, you know, ‘I really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him’. Mr CALVERT: Yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: I’ll make sure that happens. Mr CALVERT: Brilliant. Mr CRUDDAS: Okay? I’ll make sure it happens, not officially, but I’ll make sure it happens, because I can’t say to George Osborne before the event, ‘George there’s a really good guy, he’s blah blah blah, you’ve got to meet him got to meet’, no it doesn’t work like that. But on the night - Ms SOUTHERN: The magic happens [there was laughter which I take to be from Mr Calvert and Ms Blake] Mr CRUDDAS: I’ll grab him [Mr Cruddas made a gesture as if he was grabbing Mr Osborne’s collar] and I’ll kick him over there and say ‘Oh this is Fred I told you about’, ‘Oh Fred, how are you going? how’s your wife?’ and you know we’ll play the game. Mr CALVERT: They’d really appreciate that. Ms BLAKE: They’d love that yeah it would really help us [Mr Cruddas goes on to describe an example of an instance when something like that happened]”
“Mr CALVERT: That’s one of the great benefits of course, you go, you go to the top people rather than have to deal with their officials in between all the time. Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah. The thing is the balance. I don’t want to abuse it. I don’t have a cup of tea with David Cameron and discuss Libya with him. But I have a cup of tea with him now and again, that’s fine you know I don’t expect to be called in every week…[…]… Mr CRUDDAS: So when I’m at these events I’m not looking, I’m not standing in line waiting to shake his hand, I say, ‘Come on come here’, you know, get them there get in front of the Prime Minister, shake hands and stuff like that. So I like doing that sort of stuff because they may not see the Prime Minister for a year [referring to donors] […]. Ms SOUTHERN: But for some people it’s a once in a lifetime thing…[…] Mr CRUDDAS:… but you’ll all get a chance to meet him. Mr CALVERT: yeah that would be great Mr CRUDDAS: I’ll take care of you with Sarah. I won’t promise you everything, but I’ll try and do my best for you to facilitate, you know -, if you’ve got someone who’s got a big government contract coming up and they wanna talk to the Prime Minister about the contract terms that ain’t gonna happen Mr CALVERT: Mmm. Mr CRUDDAS: … but if they wanna ask general questions and then they can ask specific questions about the Post Office and stuff like that […] he’ll come back to you, you know, […] you can ask him, you can ask him difficult questions. Ms SOUTHERN: He likes a difficult questions. Mr CRUDDAS: He likes it, yeah. Mr CALVERT: It would be ,,, very good to have that sort of, yeah. And I suppose presumably you can also give him the benefit of your business advice can’t you? Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah, and he’s surrounded by good business people. Mr CALVERT: Yeah yeah. Mr CRUDDAS: … and he does tap into us on a regular basis. Er and he will, you know. Like I saw him at Woburn and I said to him, someone said to me ‘Oh he’s off to Germany tomorrow to see Merkel’ by the way, I go to Chequers, the weekend house not all donors get invited to that, it depends. And erm he likes to keep that private. But I knew he was seeing Merkel the next day. So when I’m having my photograph done [this makes it clear that Mr Cruddas is referring to the charity event in the marquee at Chequers which he had sponsored] I said ‘Prime Minister,’ I said ‘For God’s sake, don’t let them bring in the Tobin, I know you’re seeing Merkel tomorrow, please we don’t want the Tobin tax’, where they tax financial transactions. He said, ‘Don’t even worry about it. Don’t even think about it, it ain’t gonna happen…not on my watch.’ ‘Thank you Prime Minister’ [Mr Cruddas made sounds and gestured as if he was kissing someone on both cheeks] ‘Hello Sam, how are you’? [Everyone laughed] Get your photograph done and bonk, off we go. Ms BLAKE: Brilliant. Mr CRUDDAS: Sam she’s lovely, she’s lovely… [and the conversation went on about other people] ”
“Ms SOUTHERN: I’ll arrange a meeting for them to meet with Mike Chattey and we can go through the compliance issues […] and then we can come up with a plan of the best way we can Ms BLAKE: Fantastic Mr CALVERT: I’m sure we can find a way round it.”
“Ms SOUTHERN: Once we’ve met with Mike and worked out the exact way we’re going to structure it, I’ll give you a call Peter and we’ll arrange another meeting. Mr CRUDDAS: Yeah yeah Ms BLAKE: Oh fantastic.”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Well Sarah wouldn’t have had you in here if you weren’t serious […] you know she wouldn’t waste my time if she knew that … you know she, she wants you in at the right level. You’ve done well to get Sarah because she is very well connected, seriously, I’m not just boosting her, […] but, I mean on No to AV she’s a tough cookie at times. (Laughter) We had a few run ins. I wasn’t sure if we were still friends […]”
“Mr CRUDDAS: Well you know, you have to know a little bit about what’s going on because you know people ask you, donors ask you, and you have to, you have, but also you pick up so much when you go to some of these events you will hear stuff that, I mean I heard something about the budget yesterday but I can’t, I won’t say. Ms BLAKE: Oh you can’t tell us? Mr CRUDDAS: I won’t even tell the wife you know. Ms BLAKE: What a tease.”
“1) In return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, Mr Cruddas corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers. “Corruptly” here means “inappropriate, unacceptable and wrong and gave rise to an impression of impropriety”. 2) Mr Cruddas made the offer, even though he knew that the money offered for secret meetings was to come, in breach of the ban under UK electoral law, from Middle Eastern investors in a Liechtenstein fund; and 3) Further, in order to circumvent and thereby evade the law, Mr Cruddas was happy that the foreign donors should use deceptive devices, such as creating an artificial UK company to donate the money or using UK employees as conduits, so that the true source of the donation would be concealed.”
“6. The Defendants have permission, (if so advised) to amend paragraph 7(2) of the Amended Defence and the particulars thereunder to justify the allegation that the Claimant had countenanced an offence under thePolitical Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 , the wording of such amendment (which is to be submitted forthwith) and the terms on which such amendment is to be granted to be determined by the trial judge.”