Assessing Cameron's Sharia speech

Mr Cameron said expanding Sharia could create 'legal apartheid'

So why now? It has been a few weeks since the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks on Sharia horrified many members of the public and parts of the press.

And very quickly, the three main parties lined up to object too. Their assessments of remarks by Rowan Williams ranged from "unhelpful", to being likely to lead to "social chaos".

But interestingly, the Conservatives' views were represented then not by the leader of the party, but by Baroness Warsi, their shadow communities minister.

Perhaps the party felt it was easier, less inflammatory for the female Muslim peer to get involved.

'Dangerous and illiberal'

Or maybe Team Cameron wanted to wait and see how the story shook down before he weighed in, or perhaps there was just a diary clash that prevented him talking about it.

But on Tuesday David Cameron made his foray in to the debate, quite deliberately and determinedly.

And his comments were trenchant too. Saying the archbishop's ideas could create "legal apartheid", and that they were "dangerous and illiberal".

It was a wide-ranging speech clearly designed in particular to put Mr Cameron's views about Sharia law on the record and to shove the debate back into the public's conscious.

Yet so far there doesn't seem to be much appetite to do so in Westminster. The other two main parties have stayed silent on the matter today.

Blogger silence

Perhaps because their view of Dr Williams's remarks is not that different to Mr Cameron's. Much of his speech in fact, which discussed the need to strengthen British identity, sounded enormously similar to some of Gordon Brown's previous statements.

And unusually, the Conservative bloggers have not bitten at this story so far. It is rare for them not to dissect a major speech from the party's leader, but this time perhaps they feel it has all been said.

Dr Williams found himself at the centre of a huge row

Even though Lambeth Palace is just across the river, Mr Cameron's message does not seem to have crossed the Thames yet.

The archbishop's team has not commented on the Conservative leader's stance. They may well choose not to, loathe to reignite the row.

So why the silence, given the deafening responses to every twist and turn of the Sharia law debate a couple of weeks ago?

Well it is perhaps an example of the reality that much of the time for something to be news it has to be new.

Mr Cameron's remarks, while strong, echo, rather than contradict comments made by other politicians, and extensively covered just a couple of weeks ago.

And while the Conservatives say they will soon outline policies to improve relations between different communities, there were no clues of any new firm plans today which might have sparked a debate.

So for now, the political row over Sharia law stays muted. But given the sensitivities that surround it, there is no guarantee it will not flare up again.

Lib Dem ordered out of EU debate

Lib Dem frontbencher Edward Davey has been ordered out of the Commons, after angry protests to the deputy speaker.

Edward Davey claimed he was being "gagged"

Mr Davey was annoyed at the decision not to allow MPs to debate and vote on a Lib Dem call for a referendum to be held on the UK's membership of the EU.

Deputy Speaker Sir Michael Lord acted after Mr Davey defied warnings. Fellow Lib Dems then walked out in support.

The Lib Dems support the EU treaty and UK membership of the EU. They oppose a referendum on the treaty itself.

The protest came as MPs began the latest day of debate on the Lisbon Treaty - something the Conservatives, some Labour and some Lib Dem MPs have said should be subject to a referendum.

Points of order

The Lib Dem leadership, who say they would not vote for such a referendum, say the whole issue of Britain's membership of the European Union should be subject of a referendum instead.

They had put down an amendment to the EU treaty debate to that effect.

But when deputy speaker Michael Lord told MPs that Speaker Michael Martin had ruled the amendment would not be debated - Lib Dem MPs raised a series of points of order in protest.

Mr Davey, the party's foreign affairs spokesman, complained he was being "gagged" and added: "We need to know when we will debate this issue. It's a debate the British people want."

Referring to the ruling he said: "It is an outrage to this House." But Sir Michael told him: "The outrage to the house is in danger of being the honourable member's attitude to the chair."

Speaker pressure

When he refused to sit down to allow the debate to start, Sir Michael lost his patience and ordered him out.

The Kingston and Surbiton MP will no longer be able to take part in any of the remaining proceedings or votes on Tuesday.

Sir Michael also warned other Lib Dem MPs raising points of order - including leader Nick Clegg and president Simon Hughes - that they should respect the decisions of the occupier of the Speaker's chair.


Deputy speaker Sir Michael Lord warned Mr Davey several times.

The challenge to the Speaker's decision comes at a time when Speaker Michael Martin has found his position under pressure.

At the last general election in 2005 all three main parties promised a referendum on the planned European Constitution.

The government argues that the new EU treaty is significantly different from the constitution - which was rejected by French and Dutch voters - and does not require a referendum.

Conservative MP John Redwood told MPs it was a "discourtesy" that the Lib Dems walked out when important issues were up for debate "after synthetic anger about their broken promises".

And Neil O'Brien, director of the I Want a Referendum campaign - which is pushing for a referendum on the treaty, said: "The Liberal Democrats are spitting mad because they have been rumbled."

"They wanted to camouflage the fact that they have chickened out of a referendum on the constitutional treaty by calling for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

"But now it has become apparent that this "in or out" referendum is not even going to be discussed."

Speaker Cornered

No one can push Michael Martin, so he should jump .

The Speaker of the House of Commons has manoeuvred himself into an untenable position. He stands accused - not directly, but effectively - of misleading the public about taxi bills incurred by his wife and charged to the taxpayer; of using Air Miles acquired on official business to buy air tickets for his family; and of claiming expenses to help to cover the cost of a home in Glasgow on which he does not have a mortgage. At the same time it has fallen to the Speaker to order a review of alleged abuses of Westminster's complex and ill-defined expenses system by his fellow MPs. His approach has been widely and rightly criticised as lacking both urgency and independence. In these circumstances it is not just difficult to see how Michael Martin can honourably retain his post. It is impossible.

Last month revelations about the employment of family members at public expense by the Conservative MP Derek Conway threw into stark relief a hitherto inconclusive debate about MPs' earnings, allowances and expenses. Until then, two factors had deprived the debate of clarity or progress. First was the not unreasonable argument that MPs are underpaid relative to other professionals working long hours in stressful occupations in one of the world's most expensive cities. Generous allowances for travel and maintaining constituency as well as London homes were viewed not just as necessary for backbenchers to fulfil public roles but also as de facto top-ups on their £61,000 basic salary. Secondly, MPs had little interest in reforming a system with so much flexibility and so little oversight.

The Conway affair should have jolted the House of Commons out of such complacency.

As it happens, the Standards and Privileges Committee has moved fast under Sir George Young to review MPs' expenses. But Mr Martin's preference was for it to move more slowly, and it was he who ensured that MPs would be policing themselves rather than submitting to outside scrutiny. Until the weekend it was possible to rationalise the Speaker's response in terms of his style. But Mike Granatt, his former spokesman, has now resigned in what appears to be genuine anger at having been misled by the Speaker's staff.

Mr Granatt had told The Times that the Speaker's wife's £4,280 taxi bill was all for official trips in official company. According to Mr Granatt, that company turns out to have been her cleaner, who is also a close friend, and the trips were largely personal. The Speaker is so far the subject of allegations only, but he is already guilty of giving the impression that his approach to reforming MPs' expenses has been guided as much by his own interests as by those of taxpayers.

It is entirely appropriate for Parliament to consider raising backbenchers' basic pay. As we have argued before, this would reduce their dependence on less than transparent expense claims, and ease the financial disincentive that dissuades too many high-flyers in other professions from entering public life. But Mr Martin is no backbencher. He earns £137,000 a year and lives in grace-and-favour splendour in the Palace of Westminster. Nor is his role merely that of exasperated referee in Commons debates. As chairman of the House of Commons Commission he is responsible for the honest management of British parliamentary democracy, whose reputation is battered enough without a tarnished Speaker. There is no formal mechanism for MPs to remove him, and he has said he will not yield to pressure. It is time for him to change his mind.

Members not honourable enough

It can't be that the only people immune from watchful regulation are those who represent us.

I used to like visiting the Palace of Westminster. It brought back fond memories of British Constitution O level. I liked the sense of national centrality, complacent history, clubbable purpose. I liked the civility of officials and the way the police on the door - like those who guard Buckingham Palace - somehow exude a faint holiday air. I even quite liked the dreadful cod-medieval hatchments and the outbreaks of rod-banging and cries of I-spy-strangers.

Not any more. There is a sense that gilded panelling is camouflage for grubbiness. Parliament hangs on to words about itself - Honourable and learned... honourable and gallant - like a comedy trollop wailing “I'm a good girl, I am”. Most importantly of all, there is an insulting dislocation between the self-regulated “honour” of MPs and the mistrust they load on the rest of us.

Listening to John Spellar's defence of Speaker Martin was a queasy business. All he could do - as chair of the committee on expenses - was to trumpet that there is nothing to worry about, MPs work hard, there is “not one shred of evidence” that anybody claims on a non-existent mortgage or sucks up allowances for money they haven't spent. He added that those who worried about the Speaker's wife's taxi bill are “snobs”, while getting pretty snobby himself about journalists.

Certainly the Conway affair was recognised and - up to a point - punished (no fraud charges yet, I note). But it shone a dreary light on to the routine licence permitted to MPs. And given the increasing institutional suspiciousness the rest of us suffer, it demonstrated that the last people in the country to be trusted by MPs are MPs themselves.

If your child, nephew, friend or sister-in-law wants work experience (even unpaid) at the BBC these days, for instance, there is no way an insider can fix it. It is, rightly, centralised in the name of fairness and diversity. Private recruiters are hedged in by anti-discrimination laws. Yet MPs and ministers, their honourable white noses in the air, may on a whim employ not only a spouse but children, lovers, friends and in-laws. There is a reasonable case for the spouse if constituencies are distant; for the rest there is no excuse. These are public jobs on public money, privileges carrying marketable CV cachet. Derek Conway's problem was that his son wasn't doing much; but even if he was, it would stink.

Sir Christopher Kelly has expressed a need to look again at the family rule, and there seems to be a move towards tighter oversight of expenses. Good. Next we need action on former ministers who cash in with private sector sinecures. Gordon Brown, in opposition, spoke scornfully of the Tories' “revolving door from Cabinet to boardroom”. But 28 Labour ministers have passed through it, grinning. Patricia Hewitt is tied up with private medical outfits; David Blunkett is adviser to an ID card bidder. As for Tony Yo-Blair making a US fortune after the misery that his transatlantic sycophancy wrought on British troops and tranquillity, words fail me.

Those who represent us should live on the same planet and not squeal at reform. For everything has changed, and they did it. Consider: there was a time when professionals in Britain enjoyed a high degree of collegiate self-regulation and trust. The assumption was that doctors, teachers, military and police knew their jobs. Today they are subject to targets, league tables and mistrustful demands for statistics. The past was not perfect, but a sledgehammer of regulation has been set on a nut.

Everywhere a culture of mandatory paperwork and back-covering wastes time and erodes goodwill. A lovely example from the NHS: chap with serious but intermittent condition goes to see eminent consultant; symptoms have abated so consultant says: “OK, come straight to me next time it happens and I can do tests.” NHS clipboard-woman says: “Are you signing this patient off or making a future appointment?” “Neither,” says the doctor patiently. “I need to see him when the condition is active.” Row ensues between clipboard woman and doctor, she being unable to grasp the organic, unpredictable nature of medicine and wanting only to tick a box.

Everyone, especially in public service, has similar examples of suspicious, mechanistic monitoring; nursery teachers must list each “skill” their charges acquire and you can't take children on a nature walk without filing a “risk assessment”. And note that if you are genuinely “honourable” and give your time free as a museum trustee or parish councillor, you must fill in intrusive forms about your connections and finances on the assumption that given a chance everyone's on the fiddle. And just you try claiming home-as-office expenses anywhere like those Michael Martin rakes in: the Revenue will be down your throat.

Meanwhile MPs - reasonably paid and holding gilded pension rights - rack up dubious expenses and employ their families on public money. It has the same effect as when John Prescott went unpunished after a squalid affair with a subordinate, on office premises. In the real world, it could have been “gross misconduct” and the sack. Yet he was part of a government whose laws have made the workplace ever primmer: good people lose jobs or have their businesses crippled on mere assertion that they glanced at a leg or used an inappropriate word.

It cannot be that the only people immune from watchful regulation are those who decree it. From lechery to nepotism, from creative expenses to the use of public prestige to rake in directorships, you can't abolish trust in other professionals and still expect it yourself. Honour isn't working.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin speeds up review into MPs' expenses?

Michael Martin says his review into Commons expenses will be complete by July

The embattled Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, bowed to widespread criticism today and promised that a review into MPs' expenses would be completed before this summer's parliamentary recess.

In what it labelled a "special report", the Members Estimate Committee also announced that the £250 limit for MPs submitting expenses claims without a receipt is to be cut from the start of the new financial year, even before the review is finished. Mr Martin ordered the review last month after the disclosure that the Tory MP Derek Conway used a Commons staff allowance to pay his son £12,000 a year plus large bonuses for "all but invisible" research while he was a full-time university student. Dozens of other MPs also employ family members at the taxpayers' expense.

But the committee had not been expected to complete its review until the autumn, prompting the accusation that the Speaker was trying to bury the issue. The fact that Mr Martin chairs the committee alongside major party grandees such as Harriet Harman and Theresa May also failed to impress Commons modernisers.

Meanwhile, Mr Martin has himself come under pressure over his own travel expenses and those of his wife, Mary Martin, an issue which prompted his spokesman's resignation at the weekend. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has been asked to investigate whether more than £4,000 spent on taxis for Mrs Martin’s shopping trips amounted to an inappropriate use of public money

In defiant remarks in the Commons yesterday, Mr Martin made clear that he would not be forced out of his office by hostile media coverage, pointedly reminding MPs that they alone had the power to force him out.

But today's statement by the Members Estimate Committee signalled an abrupt change of tack.

The committee said that it had decided to reduce the £250 expenses threshold as a "first step" towards the reform of parliamentary expenses. The new limit has yet to be agreed but it is expected that there will be a significant cut.

It added: “We will complete a report in time for debate in the House in July. All decisions will be made by the House itself."

The committee said that its first priority was to consider “radical options” for restructuring the system of pay and allowances. “We are conscious of the need to establish a structure which will endure and will rebuild confidence,” it said.

The committee will then go on to consider how to put in place a “robust and transparent process” for claiming and auditing allowances. It has instructed the Commons Department of Resources to draw up a series of options for change in consultation by the Whitehall spending watchdog, the National Audit Office.

The committee said that it would be drawing on the practices from other organisations in the UK and from other parliaments elsewhere, while seeking briefings from the NAO, HM Revenue and Customs, the Audit Commission and private accountancy firms.

“These will help identify a new system which is workable, in line with practice elsewhere and able to command public respect,” the report said.

Philip Webster, Political Editor of The Times, said that Mr Martin had clearly been stung by the criticism over the weekend.

He said: "One of the big problems has been that the House felt his own inquiry, which was due to report in the autumn, was looking very laggardly. It sounded like he was trying to kick it into the long grass.

"This is an attempt to say, 'We are going to be a serious committee. Don't think we're going to hush it all up.' It's very much driven by the Speaker and the criticisms of him."

Webster said that if Mr Martin can complete the review by July then that would also allow him to resign with his dignity intact when Parliament resumes: "He doesn't want to go when people are calling for his head; nor do MPs want him to. If he went in the autumn, the House could be given the chance to elect a new Speaker before the next election."

EUROPEAN COURTS THREATEN TRADE UNION RIGHTS

Richard Arthur of RMT solicitors Thompsons outlines why two recent European Court of Justice judgments threaten trade union rights across the European Union
Members of the court in discussion behind a dossier regardind the hearing on the "Laval" case atthe Court of Justice in Luxembourg, ine court ruled, in a landmark case, on December 18, 2007 thai an employers' so-called 'freedom of establishment' overrode any trade union rights.

The future freedom of trade unions to organise industrial action has been thrown into jeopardy by two recent decision of the European Court of Justice ("ECJ"). The ECJ has been prepared to balance the freedom to organise industrial action against employers' EU law business rights.

The result is a green light for courts to scrutinise the reasons for industrial action and the proportionality of the form of industrial action to the issues in dispute.

VIKING

In the Viking case, the International Transport Workers' Federation and the Finnish Seaman's union called for industrial action following Viking's decision to "re-flag" its ship to operate under a "flag of convenience" in Estonia or Norway.

The "re-flagging" would have enabled Viking to avoid collective agreements with Finnish trade unions and to cut jobs and terms and conditions. Viking argued that its right to freedom of establishment under EU law was infringed by the industrial action.

The ECJ did say that the right to take collective industrial action is "fundamental" and of "overriding public importance".

But it then went on to say that industrial action represented a restriction on the right of freedom of establishment of an employer in another member state. A trade union would have to be able to justify that restriction by showing that the industrial action pursued a legitimate aim and was justified by overriding reasons of public interest.

The aim of protecting jobs and terms and conditions may be legitimate when those jobs and terms and conditions are "under threat", as judged by the court. The industrial action must also be "suitable" for achieving the objective, having regard, for example, to other means of achieving that objective at the union's disposal.

LAVAL

In the Laval case, Swedish construction unions organised industrial action where a Latvian company posted Latvian construction workers to build a school in Sweden, but refused to sign up to collective agreement on pay, holiday and other terms and insurance arrangements applicable in the industry in Sweden.

Have supposedly recognised the "fundamental" right of a union to take industrial, the ECJ found that the industrial action represented a restriction on the employer's freedom of provision of services in another state.

Again, that restriction on the employer's freedom had to be justified as acceptable by the union showing that it pursued a legitimate aim and was justified for overriding reasons of public interest.

MINIMUM STANDARDS

But, going further than the Viking judgment, the ECJ found the industrial action to be unjustifiable, largely because the demands made by the union exceeded the level of minimum protection guaranteed by the Posted Workers Directive.

Both cases have an international dimension which may not be of immediate and direct relevance to industrial action in the UK.

The EC law rights relied upon by the two employers may not be in scope in the industrial disputes in the UK.

But the ECJ's declared recognition of the right to take industrial action as "fundamental" is misleading.

In my view, the judgments are absurd. It is ludicrous to subvert the so-called "fundamental" right to strike to the employer's business interests.

By giving more or less equal status to the right to take industrial action and employers' EU law business interests, the ECJ is encouraging scrutiny of the reasons for industrial action, and the form which it takes.

The ECJ is apparently prepared to impose its own judgment as to whether the reasons for industrial action, and its form, are justified. This is, in fact, an even more restrictive approach to industrial action than the current UK law.

In the UK currently, the union simply has to show that the reason for the industrial action is a trade dispute, which may be over relatively wide-ranging subjects such as terms and conditions of employment, redundancies and machinery for negotiation and consultation. Provided that the definition of a trade dispute is satisfied, there is no opportunity for the employer, under UK law, to question the scale and form of industrial action subsequently called.

I am not at all confident that we can find refuge in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights signed in Lisbon in December, even ignoring any special arrangements applicable to the UK.

The right to take industrial action set out in Article 28 is significantly diluted by the subsequent explanation in Declaration 12 that the limitations to be imposed on industrial action can be decided by member states.

My concern is that anti-trade union legislators will seize upon the Viking and Laval judgments and introduce yet more restrictions on the right to take industrial action onto the UK statute books, in line with the ECJ judgments, but diametrically opposed to the UK's international obligations under ILO Conventions.

We must all do all that we can to prevent these further restrictions being imported into the UK, as well as opposing the straitjacket which trade unions already find themselves in when they attempt to organise industrial action.

UNDERSTANDING PROMOTION, TRANSFER, REDUNDANCY AND RESETTLEMENT (PTR&R) ARRANGEMENTS

Mick Cash explains PTR&R arrangements and why they are so important for every worker today and should be protected

In 1948 the Labour government nationalised the railways merging the four regional private companies and created British Rail. This was the single biggest change to the industry since 1921 when the 121 private companies operating the railways were merged into four regional private companies, Great Western, Southern, London North Western, and London North Eastern.

As a result of the creation of one employer the unions and management sought to harmonise all the different arrangements, terms and conditions covering all the former private companies. One bargaining arrangement was created which eventually was updated in 1956 to become the Machinery of Negotiation.

This lasted until 1992 when in preparation for privatisation British Rail replaced it with the 1992 procedures. PTR & R Work started on a single Promotion, Transfer, Redundancy and Resettlement, arrangements known as the PTR & R.

After four years of hard bargaining in 1952 talks on a new PTR & R arrangement covering all grades were completed. This agreement has been regularly updated and is still in force for many rail workers today. Ever since privatisation employers have tried to attack this agreement because of its costs and the rights it gives to rail workers.

The PTR & R is a collective agreement covering all workers which protects an individual worker when he or she is promoted, reorganised or made redundant. That individual has the right to be treated fairly, given an equal opportunity and has a choice based on the individuals rights not on a manager’s whim.

So called modern agreements like the Network Rail’s people process gives the management a greater power in deciding what happens to an individual. The PTR&R gives the individual a greater say in what happens to them. Modern management arrangements as well giving the employer more say also happen to be cheaper.

EXPERIENCE

In addition to ensuring fairness, opportunity and choice the creators of the PTR & R, both management and unions, sought to reward experience and loyalty. This was achieved by making length of service in the form of seniority important factors.

Today the PTR & R is under attack again, the real reason is it costs too much and gives individuals to many rights, which employers hate. By using the cover of the recent age discrimination legislation employers are seeking to throw out the existing arrangements and put less favourable arrangements in place.

This agreement has stood the test of time and has protected many rail workers of all ages since 1952. That in itself justifies our forefather’s faith in principles such as seniority.

The agreement is 55 years old, but age should not matter. What should matter are the principles, aims and objectives contained in the PTR & R. RMT is all in favour of updating the arrangements, as we have done in the past.

The union has no hidden agenda and believes that experience and loyalty should still be rewarded. We only wish the same could be said of the employers.

Sleaze watchdog launches probe into Osborne's £500,000 of secret donations

Parliament's sleaze watchdog has launched an inquiry into complaints made against shadow chancellor George Osborne.

Standards Commissioner John Lyon's investigation was triggered by a complaint from Labour MPs John Mann and Kevan Jones over some £500,000 in donations received by Mr Osborne.

It emerged at the weekend that the money - which was paid through the Conservative Party - had been declared to the Electoral Commission, the official elections watchdog.

However it was not included in Mr Osborne's personal entry in the Register of Members' Interests, even though some of the donors had specified that the money should go towards the cost of running his office.

In a statement, Mr Lyon said: "The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has received a formal complaint alleging a failure by Mr George Osborne MP to record financial donations to his office in the Register of Members' Interests.

"The Commissioner is making inquiries in respect of this complaint in accordance with the published procedures.

"He will not be making any further statement on this complaint or give reports on the progress of his inquiries. He will report as necessary on this matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges."



Mr Osborne said today that he had taken advice from the House of Commons authorities, but the rules were unclear.

"We always sought to be open and transparent. We went ourselves to the House of Commons authorities before this was in headlines, before anyone asked any questions about it," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"The advice that we got, as we understood it, is that we didn't have to declare donations to the central party, the Conservative Party, which are used to employ Conservative Party staff on Conservative Party contracts.

"Of course money going directly to someone's office should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

"These donations - the question was should they be declared twice if they are donations to the central party?"

"I think the House of Commons authorities, who themselves accept that the advice is unclear in this area, should now go away and look at this and make the rules clear."

The disclosure was an embarrassment for the Conservatives at a time when they were attacking Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain over his failure to declare £103,000 in donations to his Labour deputy leadership campaign either to the Electoral Commission or in the Register of Members' Interests.

The Tories, however, argued that the details of their donations had always been publicly available.

It has emerged that an undisclosed number of Mr Osborne's frontbench colleagues have also failed to record the sources of funding for their own shadow ministerial offices.



This week, the Tories reacted furiously to what they said was a Labour smear designed to draw attention away from the row engulfing Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain.

Meanwhile, Labour has launched a concerted effort to make the most of the uncertainty, by marshalling MPs and ministers to attack the Shadow Chancellor.

Mr Osborne said emails released by the Tories showed the party had complied with advice from the Commons authorities on to whom donations should be declared.

The money in question, from some of the country's wealthiest individuals, was received by Conservative campaign headquarters and duly registered with the Electoral Commission.

Party donors are allowed to ask for all or part of their contributions to be used to support the costs of the Shadow Cabinet.

The Tories said Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin asked the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for advice on how these donations should be recorded.

He met Registrar Alda Barry in the wake of the Labour donors scandal to clarify what should be declared to the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner.

The Tories claim that Miss Barry has since admitted she could have been wrong in the advice she gave to Mr McLoughlin.

The £487,000 received by Mr Osborne's office included £100,000 from carpet king Lord Harris of Peckham.

Serena Rothschild, from the banking family, asked for her entire £190,000 donation to the party to be passed on to Mr Osborne.

Labour MP Kevan Jones said: "This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of the Tory Party, who lecture others on probity and donations yet have myriad scams disguising the true funders of their party."