Tory Central Office has not confirmed it followed all election rules with Northampton South Conservative donations

Conservative Party Central Office has failed to respond to calls to confirm it questioned donors to Northampton South's General Election fund over the source of the donations.

Monday, 25th April 2016, 6:29 am
Updated Monday, 25th April 2016, 8:14 am
Libray picture

The Chronicle & Echo put the question to Conservative Party headquarters on Monday following the story by the BBC’s central investigations team into allegations concerning the payment of £30,000 into the election fund for Northampton South. The election was won by David Mackintosh MP.

Last week, the Northampton South Conservative Association (NSCA) confirmed the allegation that money had been paid to two individuals and a company by 1st Land, the firm behind the failed revamp of Sixfields Stadium. The two individuals and company had made three doantions of £10,000.

Both NCSA and Mr Mackintosh have strenuously denied any knowledge of the alleged link between 1st Land and the donors and said the payments were approved by central office.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

The ​Electoral Commission​ guidance to political parties says if a party accepts any donation of more than £500, it “must immediately make sure” it knows who the donor is and that the donation “is from a permissible source”.

It continues: “If you are given a donation on behalf of someone else, the person giving you the donation (the agent) must tell you that the donation is on behalf of someone else; and the actual donor’s details.”

It adds: “If you think that someone might be acting as an agent, you must find out the facts so that you can make the right checks.”

Conservative Central Office has failed to respond to the Chron on four separate occasions over five days, despite repeated assurances they were looking into it.

Central Office has not responded to questions from the Chron over the allegations made in the BBC story, whether the donations met rules for General Elections and whether the donors were questioned as to whether they were acting as agents.