IN BRITAIN, the Prime Minister is not above the law, particularly in awarding honours. The law of the sale of honours is largely contained in two statutes, the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925 and the broader Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889.

The 1925 Act concentrates on corrupt procurement. “Any person who accepts or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or another the grant of a dignity or title of honour is guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable on conviction to imprisonment for two years or a fine of £500 or both.” The 1925 Act was a response to the scandal of the Lloyd George peerages and the activities of his agent Maundy Gregory.

The 1889 Act covers both the corrupt procurement and award of honours. “Every person who corruptly solicits any gift, loan, fee, reward or advantage . . . and every person who shall with the like object corruptly give, promise, or offer any gift, loan, fee, reward or advantage to any person . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.” The Act states that “advantage” “includes any office or dignity”. It is illegal either to offer money in return for an honour or to offer an honour in return for money. The penalty under the 1889 Act is also imprisonment for two years, or a fine of £500. In addition anyone convicted under the 1889 Act is “liable to be adjudged incapable or holding any public office for seven years”. On a second conviction, this disbarment is “forever”. Both of these Acts are still in force.

Widespread allegations have been made that the Prime Minister has been selling peerages; in particular, four wealthy businessmen gave the Labour Party loans totalling £4.75 million. They were subsequently nominated for awards. All four have been blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

These nominations are suspicious: the question is whether the nominations and the loans were linked; would one have happened without the other? Every effort was made to conceal these transactions. The money was paid in the form of non-reportable loans to the Labour Party, not as reportable gifts. Senior Labour figures were not told about the loans, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the treasurer of the party. An even more scandalous allegation is that in one case an assurance that the candidate for an honour had no financial connection with the party was sent to the commission. This was not true.

It was signed by the party chairman, who was gravely ill in hospital; he had not been told that the assurance might be misleading. The combination of concealment and apparent deceit cries out for inquiry.

The other main parties also raise large funds, sometimes by similar methods. They may not be too keen to inquire into Labour practice in case accusations rebound on them. Is this a police matter? Unfortunately, Sir Ian Blair has the public reputation of being “Tony Blair’s copper”. Nevertheless, there are allegations of crime to be investigated, and, if necessary, to be prosecuted. Perhaps the previous Commissioner, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, would command sufficient public confidence for so delicate an investigation.

No one wants to send the Prime Minister to jail. Nevertheless, the practice he seems to have followed is quite unacceptable. After all, the House of Lords is one of the two houses of the legislature, and sometimes a very powerful one. It is outrageous that anyone should have been able to buy a seat in the legislature, if that was indeed the case. Incidentally, the 1925 Act provides that “on a conviction being recorded the honour is forfeited”.

The latest public opinion polls suggest that a 3-1 majority of the public do in fact believe that the Prime Minister has sold peerages. The public suspicion of sleaze is very damaging to the Labour Party; it may force a change of leader.

In May the local elections are expected to be disastrous for Labour. If they are, Tony Blair’s position will be weakened still further. If Mr Blair does not go now, as he should, July should be the latest month. Gordon Brown is the obvious successor.

Mr Brown would then have to decide whether to establish his own mandate by holding an early election. There would be a strong case for him to do so. Like all parties that have been in office for a long time, Labour’s underlying support is falling; even at the past election their vote fell by 1.2 million. By 2010, the last year for the next general election, they are likely to have become even more unpopular. The last year in which Labour could win an overall majority could well be 2006.

At present, Labour has a majority of 64, which means it holds 32 more seats than the other parties combined. On the present timetable about half that majority will be removed by redistribution of the constituencies. That, however, will probably not take place until January 1, 2007. Any election held in 2006 would be fought on the existing boundaries.

If Mr Blair does resign by July the brave course for Mr Brown would be to go to the country in late September or October. Winston Churchill retired on April 5, 1955; his successor, Anthony Eden, held his election on May 27, only eight weeks later. Eden substantially increased the Conservative majority. But, of course, he might have lost and been no more than an eight-week Prime Minister.

If Mr Blair goes, Mr Brown would be more or less guaranteed the residue of this Parliament, up to four years. But that could be a period of continuous decline for Labour, like the Tory decline after 1992. Mr Brown’s best chance of winning a general election for himself would be to go early, hoping to benefit from a honeymoon period, perhaps hoping to catch the Tories unprepared. Of course, all three parties would be short of money to finance a 2006 election campaign.

JOIN THE DEBATE
Send your e-mails from here

Times Recommends

• 'Tis the season for all things garish
• Don’t let auld acquaintance be forgot
• Gove’s guide to a simply glorious Christmas