Theresa May MP: The questions Harman still has to answer

This week must have felt like an eternity for the Prime Minister.  The David Abrahams story that broke last Sunday has got worse and worse for the Labour Party.  Gordon Brown will now be the second British prime minister, after Tony Blair, to be questioned by the police.  His general secretary had to resign.  His chief fundraiser is on the rack.  And several ministers are in a state of nervous exhaustion.

So let me deal today with my opposite number, Harriet Harman.

On Tuesday, I wrote to Harriet demanding that she make a statement in the House of Commons in order to answer a series of questions about the donation she received from Janet Kidd.  Unsurprisingly, the Leader of the House of Commons – who is responsible for deciding what business is taken in Parliament – chose not to take my offer up.  Moreover, she failed to reply to my letter.  And most importantly, she failed to answer virtually all of the questions.

Amongst the questions were:

Why did you accept a donation for your deputy leadership campaign on 4 July – almost two weeks after your campaign ended?

Given that you say that you received the donation after you stepped down from the Department of Constitutional Affairs, why did you declare it to the Permanent Secretary of the DCA?

Why did you make the declaration to the Permanent Secretary three months after your received the donation?

And we have not had satisfactory answers.  In fact, as the week has gone on, more and questions have been raised.  Harriet was implicated in the scandal in the Tuesday newspapers.  But her response was a limited press statement on Tuesday morning followed by a couple of evasive interviews on Tuesday evening.  But her statements only led to further questions.

Mr Abrahams has confirmed that you solicited the donation.  Did you approach Mr Abrahams or Ms Kidd?

Did Baroness Jay or anybody else warn you that Mr Abrahams was trying to make donations to the campaign teams or the Labour Party through conduit donors during the Deputy Leadership election campaign or since?

You apparently wrote to 1,000 people asking them to donate to your campaign.  When did you write to them?  Was it at the same time as you approached Janet Kidd/David Abrahams?

Then on Thursday, she was due to speak in the House of Commons twice. First, as Leader of the House, during our weekly Business Questions session.  And second, as Minister for Women, on improving the number of rape prosecutions.  She dropped out of the latter debate – a sure sign that this sleaze scandal is getting in the way of her ability to do her (several) jobs.  And during Business Questions, despite the screams and shouts from the Labour benches, and the interventions of the Speaker, Harriet failed to defend herself.  She trotted out her lines to take but couldn’t answer the outstanding questions.

Harriet might be completely innocent.  If that’s the case, she should come to the House of Commons, make a full statement, and take questions from MPs.  If she can answer these outstanding questions, then she can stay in her job.  But if she can’t, her position must be in grave doubt.  It’s up to her.

*****

Incidentally, when Harriet Harman was made Leader of the House, I and many colleagues protested that her position as Deputy Leader and Chairman of the Labour Party was incompatible with her duty to protect the rights of Parliament.  As Leader of the House of Commons, it’s her job not just to be the Government’s representative in Parliament, but Parliament’s representative in Cabinet.  Nonsense, Labour claimed: she wouldn’t put party interests before Parliament.  Well, what happened yesterday?  This week’s ‘topical debate’ – the subject of which is chosen by the Harriet Harman – was on ‘the future prospects for apprenticeships in England’.  I don’t know how many MPs asked her for a debate on apprenticeships, but I rather suspect it was fewer than those who wanted a debate on Northern Rock, the HMRC fiasco, and the David Abrahams dodgy donations.

Comments

[Letters From A Tory]

Some perfectably reasonable questions, regardless of which political party you support. Her political career is hanging by a thread.

[Richard]

"Some perfectably reasonable questions, regardless of which political party you support. Her political career is hanging by a thread."

Theresa May's career or Harriet Harman's?

[James Burdett]

"Theresa May's career or Harriet Harman's?"

Oh good grief!

[JR]

richard, what planet are you on?!

[Gurcharan Singh]

Other question she needs to answer is
What role (if any ) her husband, Jack Dromy, the treasurer of the Labour party played in her fund raising and was he part of her campaign team when funds for her Deputy Leadership campaign were being raised?
And the Labour Party need to answer what steps Robert Kennedy, Assistant General Secretary as the Head of the Compliance unit take to warn the party about Mr. Abrahams/ Ms. Kidd's donations?

[Bent Treasurer]

Are laundered donations subject to forfeiture as impermissible?

[activist]

Theresa you have been superb in keeping the pressure up. You demolished HH in the House (yes I was sad enough to see it on BBC Parliament). Don't let up.

I hope the party will ask questions about whether Mr. Abrahams himself is a front. If Cabinet ministers have been taking illegal foreign donations... it's no confidence time, isn't it?

[James Sproule]

Long ago the Labour party got it into their head that they were on some sort of a moral mission to save society which amongst other things meant that while mistakes might be made, they pale into insignificance against the broader moral purpose of their mission. Shame has no part of such a psyche, and therefore Theresa has a difficult task making Harman understand that her actions make her position untenable, and her continuance in her job brings the broader political class into disrepute.

Thankfully, what the above also allows, and at length, is the very great pleasure at seeing one of the most politically correct members of the cabinet being regularly and consummately skewered. Keep it up Theresa!

[Clean up our own act]

When you look at how many Tory donors have received Peerages and knighthoods, it is difficult to take Mrs May's sanctimonious preaching seriously. Irvine Laidlaw is a classic example.

[Tony Makara]

It comes to something when a British government is investigated by the police for money laundering. I used to think this sort of thing could only happen in the third world. It brings great shame on our country's reputation around the world. Harriet Harman should do the decent thing, apologise for shaming our country and then resign.

[Griswold]

It is perfectly obvious why Ms Harman or her team were prepared to accept the toxic Kidd referral from Leslie. Harman/Dromey are in debt, Harman's bad financial situation exacerbated by Dep Leadership contest dire. In the circumstances you take any money, ask no questions and breath a sigh of relief. Sadly for her, the short cut procedure has been derailed by a short circuit in the system. Harman is huffing and puffing not Ms May. Whether or not she stays in her position her life with Brown will be a misery. She won't rresign she needs the money.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Just a thought ---- It is interesting that whenever, or of course IF ever one has financial dealings nowadays, at some stage one has to sign a form to do with 'laundering money' - yes? If so, it is interesting that, as it appears!, some of our leaders have no such qualms (apparently!) involving 'laundering' money!

[David Belchamber]

Quite right, Patsy. I think it is £5,000 and over is it not?
It is very important for us not to go overboard on this and I hope that whoever is accounting for our funds is checking and checking again to see that we will not have embarrassing questions to answer.
Maybe any funds forfeited should go into a pool to help fund political parties (other than the offending one) before a general election. That would really make Incapability/Culpability Brown tear his hair out!