WENDY Alexander was last night defiantly clinging on to her position as Scottish Labour Party leader after she was referred to the procurator-fiscal for not declaring donations.
Her troubles deepened after standards commissioner Dr Jim Dyer referred her to the fiscal for failing to register ten donations to her leadership campaign – worth more than £520 each – on the members' register of interests. Ms Alexander insisted she would not step down or follow the example of former work and pensions secretary Peter Hain, who left the UK Cabinet after being referred to the police for failing to declare £103,000 of donations.
If the fiscal pursues the case and she is found guilty, she may have to pay a fine of up to £5,000 and her career as an MSP – not just party leader – would be in tatters.
Ms Alexander said that she had received erroneous advice from Scottish Parliament standards committee clerks on 8 November, informing her that she did not have to declare the donations as gifts.
But a former Scottish Parliament standards committee chairman, Lib Dem MSP Mike Rumbles, suggested she might have already been in the wrong.
He said yesterday that Ms Alexander asked for advice from the clerks about the donations, received between August and September last year, after the 30-day period in which she should have declared them. Mr Rumbles added that if there was a "scintilla of doubt" then Ms Alexander should have declared the donations at the time.
The latest chapter in Ms Alexander's woes started on Friday when she "voluntarily" registered ten donations worth more than £520 on the members' register of interests at Holyrood.
This followed a ruling by Dr Dyer saying that she should have declared the leadership donations as personal gifts and that the advice she had received previously was probably incorrect. Dr Dyer had no choice but to refer her to the procurator-fiscal under the law.
The figure of £520 is important because MSPs must declare gifts worth 10 per cent of their salary or more.
The gifts declared included £999 each from GMB Scotland and Edinburgh entrepreneur Michael D Rutterford.
Ms Alexander also received £995 each from former Scottish Environmental Protection Agency deputy head Nicholas Kuenssberg; former Labour MP John Lyons; Phoenix Car Company; Strathvale Holdings Limited; former solicitor-general Neil Davidson; and City Refrigeration Holdings Ltd.
Another £990 donation came from businessman David J Pitt Watson, and £950 from developer Paul Green, which has since been returned.
Ms Alexander has so far refused to declare the donations under £520, although she received more than 20 financial gifts totalling £17,000.
Her problems began with the donation from Mr Green when it emerged in November that the Jersey-based developer was not on the UK electoral roll. The donation was raised by Ms Alexander's ally, Glasgow Cathcart MSP Charlie Gordon, who has since stepped down as party transport spokesman after it emerged he also received an illegal donation from Mr Green.
There has been speculation that Ms Alexander received donations for less than £1,000 so she and her team could avoid declaring them. Electoral Commission rules say donations of £1,000 or more must be declared through the commission.
The Electoral Commission has been investigating the donation affair since November, but has so far failed to make a ruling, although there is speculation that it may issue a report on Wednesday.
Ms Alexander said yesterday that she was frustrated with the time taken by the Electoral Commission. She said: "Everybody is as frustrated as I am by the length of time that it's taking the commission to come to a conclusion, but they need to be allowed to get on with their job."
She added she was unaware on Friday that she had been referred to the procurator-fiscal, but she described the whole issue as a "distraction" and wanted the procurator-fiscal to rule whether leadership donations should be declared, because they had not been revealed in previous leadership races.
"I certainly think it's a distraction, but the important thing is I'm getting on with my job," she said. "I am confident I will be cleared of any intentional wrongdoing. The issue is whether contributions to leadership election campaigns are gifts and that is a point on which the procurator-fiscal will, in due course, have to decide. In every other leadership election campaign, they've not been construed as gifts."
Ms Alexander also again insisted she had only followed advice from parliamentary clerks and, as such, should not have to resign.
"I think it's wholly inappropriate that if you follow the advice of the parliamentary authorities, that should be used as a reason to call for your resignation," she said. "I just want to get on with my job and tackling the issues that are important to the people of Scotland."
Ms Alexander's opponents in the SNP have continued to pile on the pressure. Nationalist finance secretary John Swinney claimed that the decision by the standards commissioner to refer her to the procurator-fiscal meant the Electoral Commission should follow suit.
He said: "Quite clearly, Wendy Alexander is in a very, very weak position as a result of the battering that she has been taking on this particular question for many weeks. If the parliamentary standards commissioner has felt it necessary to report Wendy Alexander to the procurator-fiscal, then the Electoral Commission has absolutely no alternative."
Fellow SNP MSP Roseanna Cunningham added: "Her position as Labour leader in Scotland looks like it is nearing the end-game. Peter Hain's resignation clearly increased the pressure on Wendy Alexander, and this referral to the procurator-fiscal leaves her in an extremely weak position. Saying that she must stay on for the good of the Labour Party is either bluster or arrogance. Perhaps Labour in Scotland genuinely do consider themselves to be above the law."
Ms Alexander's brother, Douglas, the Westminster secretary of state for international development, yesterday leapt to her defence. He said: "She has done exactly what was asked of her. As soon as the ruling was changed, she disclosed the donors and reported them to the Parliament."
He added: "Of course these are difficult headlines that none of us would wish to see, but that is why we have got to allow the Electoral Commission to get on with its job and, in the meantime, Wendy is getting on with hers."
A spokeswoman for the Crown Office confirmed a report was received on Friday by the area procurator-fiscal for Lothian and Borders and that this was being considered.
Possible successor is reported over failure to list gift ANDY Kerr, the man tipped as Wendy Alexander's most likely successor as Scottish Labour leader, yesterday remained defiant after being reported to the procurator-fiscal for not declaring a gift.
The MSP for East Kilbride was referred to authorities by Dr Jim Dyer, the Scottish Parliament's Standards Commissioner, for failing to declare a gift of more than £1,000 from fast-food giant McDonald's.
Mr Kerr accepted hospitality worth £570 and tickets valued at £450 for the FA Community Shield, the traditional opening match for the English football season, over the weekend of 3-4 August last year.
However, he registered the gift four days after the 3 September deadline.
Dr Dyer has now referred Mr Kerr to the procurator- fiscal.
Ken McIntosh, a former Labour colleague of Mr Kerr, had to resign after failing to declare a trip to the Community Shield.
However, in a statement, Mr Kerr, Labour's public services spokesman, insisted all he was guilty of was an administrative error and he had never tried to hide the gift.
He said: "There was no attempt to disguise my attendance, I had attended previously, it was reported in the media and the event is attended by MSPs from my party and others.
"All of that being said, it would be clear to anyone that given the public knowledge of my attendance that this simply boils down to an error on my part, which I regret."
Reports last week said Mr Kerr was preparing a leadership campaign in case Ms Alexander had to step down.
Mr Kerr denied making any such plans.
SCOTSMAN COMMENT: Investigation's punitive tack is out of proportion