House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report

APPENDIX 57

Letter from Sir Michael Grylls MP to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Thank you for your letter of 3 March enclosing the details of the accusations from "The Guardian". I think that most of the assertions and opinions they have raised have been explained by me as sincerely and factually as I can and I hope that I shall be judged fairly on the work I have done with the UTC, IGA and Harrods over the years by you and the people I have endeavoured to help, and that my interpretation of the facts will be believed.

Naturally, I take these very damaging allegations very seriously indeed, and it may be that you will wish to see me again in the light of this latest onslaught from The Guardian.

I note in the last sentence of the first page, The Guardian alleges that a payment was made to me, significantly, the day after IGA signed up with Mr Fayed. It is true that I would have received a payment from IGA around the 1 November, but that payment would have related to my invoice No. 265 which was sent out to IGA on 1 October 1985, a full month before IGA signed up with Mr Fayed. The invoice was for supplementary work on the UTC. (See copy of my VAT book for three months beginning 1 October 1985, Annex A.) It seems to me that The Guardian have seized on the fact and distorted it to meet their allegation.

1. I hope I have explained in my various letters and in my oral evidence the basis of my relationship with Ian Greer over very many years. I was working closely and very hard with IGA over a long period of time on the Unitary Tax Campaign. Whether I registered IGA or Unitary Tax in the List of Members' Interests, MPs from both sides of the House of Commons and members of the public knew from the record that we were working together. If they were in any doubt and they asked, I told them.

(a) I never exploited my position as Chairman of the Backbench Industry Committee - All the people who approached me (with the exceptions of those which were set-ups) came to me because of my association with IGA, through the Unitary Tax, or were friends or acquaintances already - not because I was Chairman of the Committee. For example, I knew Lord King since 1980, well before I because Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee.

On the whole, the numerous people who came to see me over the years came because their companies needed some sort of Consultancy help, not to ask me, personally, to lobby for them as a member of the Trade and Industry Committee or otherwise. In all the time I have been in Parliament, I have never been paid by IGA, or any of their clients, to lobby Ministers. Nor have I ever been part of any discussions between IGA and the referrals.

(b) I categorically deny that I ever lobbied Ministers without them knowing about my association with IGA if it were relevant. I was never paid to lobby Ministers on behalf of IGA, except on the subject of UTC (see Annex B).

3. See Select Committee on Members' Interests Third Report 25 July 1990 (starts at page iii) (Annex C). As I have disclosed to you already, I wrote one letter in 1988 on the subject of Lonhro and the purchase of "Today" newspaper and I did nothing for Mr Fayed in 1989 so this allegation is incorrect.

4. This was in no way a deliberate intention - I have already explained the background, and immediately wrote to you to correct the detailed content as soon as I was aware of the inaccuracy. See my letter of 2 October 1996, and Select Committee on Members' Interests Third Report. I would draw your attention to the fact that when this letter was written advising you of my error, I had no idea The Guardian were going to make their subsequent allegations. Unfortunately, there is nothing now that I can do in 1997 to turn the clock back to the 1980s as far as my "entries" are concerned.

I can only confirm that I accept absolutely the judgment passed on me by the Select Committee on Members' Interests after the 1990 Enquiry, upon which I acted. My evidence and entries are now amended, and I deeply regret, and sincerely apologise, that it should have been necessary to do this.

5. Already explained in my oral evidence of 24 February. Since Rank Xerox allegedly told me they had a public affairs adviser and the issue on which they wanted help was more a matter for the European Parliament. There seemed little else for me to do. This may well have been another set-up to trick me.

6. Not true - I met Lord King in 1980 when he was in charge of the National Enterprise Board, five years before he signed IGA on for BA.

In 1985, Lord King mentioned to me that he was looking to change BA's PR Consultants and asked my opinion on IGA - I told him. When I introduced him to IGA, at his request, I did not expect a commission from IGA. I would have introduced him regardless of whether or not IGA chose to pay me a commission. I believed IGA had a good reputation and a fine team. I know that Lord King was well pleased with the work they did on BA's behalf at a difficult time and he said so.

7. The written question on 24 July 1987 was on British Caledonian. (Annex D).

I made a brief intervention, not a prepared speech, on the airline merger on 16 July 1987 (Annex E). There was no reason why I should not have asked a BA related question since it was two years after I received the BA referral payment from IGA. I was receiving nothing from BA and therefore I had nothing to declare in the Register.

With regard to the allegation about a question on 15 July 1988, again The Guardian have got their facts wrong. As you will see, from the enclosed print out, it was on the 14 July 1988 (Annex F), and it was in regard to the Rover Group and British Aerospace and nothing whatsoever to do with BA.

I did declare the inaugural BA flight to Rio de Janeiro and back, (see extract from register attached (Annex G). The Guardian are wrong.

8. I cannot remember this correspondence at all, and my secretary tells me we no longer have it on file as it is so long ago. However, she does seem to vaguely recollect that a Mr Jillings had been in correspondence with me. In view of this, I have little option but to comment that I stand by what I said to him in my letter which was quoted in "Sleaze", but would add that an explanation about my acquaintance with Mr Fayed does not appear necessarily relevant to the answer I gave him since I was receiving no money either from Mr Fayed or from IGA on behalf of Mr Fayed.

9. I did not undertake any Parliamentary activity on behalf of Whitbread.

10. I did not lobby in Parliament on behalf of Honour Hong Kong.

11. I did not lobby in Parliament on behalf of Biro Bic.

12. I did not know at the time that the information that Ian Greer gave to the Select Committee in 1988-90 was incorrect. As soon as I knew this, I wrote to you on 2 October 1996, to put the record straight. It was not for me to give my own opinion of Ian Greer's interpretation to the question he was asked. If the Committee had asked me the same question, I think I would have qualified our working relationship.

13. Explained in my letter of 6 February 1997.

14. Explained in my letter of 6 February 1997 (pages 1, 2 and 3).

15. Explained in my letter of 6 February 1997 (page 4).

With regard to the second part of page 4, 5 and 6 of The Guardian's allegations, these appear to be mostly repetitive of the points made in the earlier part of their letter.

It is difficult for me to make a balanced comment on the Cook Programme "set-up". They admit they lied to me on the telephone as to who they were. The questions were loaded and it may well have been that this action communicated to my sub-conscious that they were phoney and their story a fraud, so that was why I was not particularly sympathetic to their cause in my brief telephone conversation with them and why our dialogue was not prolonged.

I fail to understand the relevance of the pages of calculations of my different declared Interests and the different Directorships, all of which have been fully declared according to the Rules and of which I am sure you are well aware.

In the fourth paragraph of page 5, it is perhaps worth pointing out that they say "we have done no extensive research on possible linked Parliamentary activity". It is interesting that they seem to have researched everything else and then claim they have not researched the most important point and that is whether I did anything in Parliament for the Companies I introduced. With the exception of the points I have made above with regard to BA, I undertook no Parliamentary activity on behalf of the other mentioned Companies. It might have been rather more frank of The Guardian to accept that I undertook no Parliamentary activity for the Companies mentioned.

It appears to me that the general insinuation behind The Guardian allegations is that, for some reason or other, I was attempting to conceal my relationship with Ian Greer. First, that is absolutely untrue as I hope you will have accepted from my written and oral evidence. I confirm again it was very well known in the House that I was working closely on the UTC issue. At that time, it was fully accepted that there was nothing wrong with Members of Parliament being connected with Public Affairs Companies, for example, Westminster Communications, had Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs Ann Taylor, Mr Menzies Campbell and Sir Keith Speed on the Board. I know other colleagues who were either Consultants or Directors of Public Affairs Companies. At that time, IGA was the most successful and Ian Greer, personally, was a friend of many Members of the Government. I cannot see any reason for me to conceal any association with such a Company enjoying such a high reputation. Indeed I was proud of the work we were doing for such an important issue as the Unitary Tax Campaign.

Obviously The Guardian are entitled to their opinions and interpretation of the facts. I hope my colleagues and constituents will remember me kindly for my work in Parliament over 27 years. During this period I have endeavoured to serve those who have asked me for help in what seemed to be the most appropriate way at the time for their benefit - and I think that they would all confirm this.

6 March 1997

ANNEX A

October 1985


£			£

258	Biwater	958.33	125.00
259	Sterling Winthrop	958.33	125.00
260	Grindlay's	958.33	125.00
261	Harlingspear	690.00	90.00
262	Association of Authorised Accountants	622.70	81.24
263	Vosper	503.13	65.63
264	Culdo International	1,150.00	150.00
265	Ian Greer and (Unitary Tax Campaign)	7,834.38	1,021.88

		13,675.20	1,783.75

November 1985


£			£

266	Digital	1,078.13	140.63
267	Biwater	958.33	125.00
268	Sterling Winthrop	958.33	125.00
269	Grindlay's	958.33	125.00
270	Harlingspear	690.00	90.00
271	Association of Authorised Accountants	622.70	81.24
272	Vosper	503.13	65.63

		5,768.95	671.26

December 1985


£			£

273	Biwater	958.33	125.00
274	Sterling Winthrop	958.33	125.00
275	Grindlay's	958.33	125.00
276	Association of Authorised Accountants	622.70	81.24
277	Vosper	503.13	65.63
278	Unitary Tax Campaign	4,600.00	600.00
279	Harlingspear	690.00	90.00

	9,290.82		1,211.87
	Total Output		3,666.88
	Net VAT Payable		3,639.51

ANNEX B

Fax to Sir Michael Grylls from Mr Adam Raphael of the Economist

I attach the proposed correction as promised. I have yet to clear it with the Editor but provided it is acceptable to you, I will recommend to him it goes in next week's edition.

Adam Raphael

End of October 1996

Correction

The Economist reported on 12 October that some members of the Conservative backbench Trade and Industry Committee had failed to declare payments they had received from Ian Greer, a parliamentary lobbyist. We have been asked to point out that Sir Michael Grylls, chairman of the committee, did properly declare his association with Mr Greer and subsequently in 1989 made a fuller declaration of his interest. The Committee on Members' Interests, which inquired into his conduct, concluded that he had not infringed the rules but found that his entries were "insufficiently detailed."

ANNEX C

THIRD REPORT

The Select Committee on Members' Interests has agreed to the following Report: 1. This Report relates to the complaint made by Mr Dale Campbell-Savours, Member for Workington, against Mr Michael Grylls, Member for Surrey, North-West. The complaint and Mr Grylls' replies are appended to this Report. The subject of the complaint is three introductory payments made to Mr Grylls by Mr Ian Greer, who is a parliamentary and public affairs consultant.[40]

2. Essentially Mr Campbell-Savours' complaint is that it is nowhere apparent in the entries contained in successive annual Registers of Members' Interests that Mr Grylls received three payments for introducing business clients to Mr Greer. Mr Grylls' reply is that in his opinion his interests were registered in a form which complied with the rules.[41] In respect of payments made on 1 November 1985 and 14 May 1986 he thought that by adding the words "(Ian Greer Associates)" to his entry he had met the requirement of the Register to show that there was a financial connection between himself and Mr Greer's company. Mr Grylls also points out that there is no specific provision for single payments in the rules, so it is not clear in what manner they should be registered. Mr Grylls conceded that the introductory payments were unconnected with the Unitary Tax Campaign.

3. The purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is:

The various categories of interest which Members should register are supplementary to this basic rule. As the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) of 1974-75 explained it: "the definitions should be seen as broad guidelines within which Members should proceed with good sense and responsibility." However this is by no means the manner in which all Members approach registration. Although Members should register any interests which might be thought to affect their conduct and actions as a Member of Parliament the tendency is to treat the nine specific categories for registration as a check-list rather then look at the scope of the Register as a whole. Given this approach it may not be readily apparent from the description of each category contained in the introduction to the Annual Register that commission payments of a minor or casual kind should be registered or where they should be registered. In our view there is no doubt that they should be registered, but Members' inquiries on this point caused the Registrar to refer to single payments in his annual letter to Members in December 1989.

4. We would concede, too, Mr Grylls' argument that since the primary responsibility rests on the individual Member to interpret the rules in his or her own case, different Members may well, in good faith, interpret them somewhat differently.[43]

5. No evidence has been presented that Mr Grylls has taken any parliamentary action himself in connection with the three introductions to Mr Greer. Mr Grylls' account is that "On three occasions, friends of mine who were Chairmen of Companies, approached me for help as they said they needed advice. Because I knew how effective Ian Greer Associates (IGA) were with the Unitary Tax Campaign (UTC), I suggested Mr Greer might be able to help them. In each instance, they decided to retain the services of IGA and I was subsequently offered and accepted a "one-off" payment for these introductions by Mr Greer. At no time did I have any responsibility whatsoever for these people or their companies or to IGA either as an individual or as a Member of Parliament". Mr Grylls has not contested the view that an entry of some kind should have been made in the Register.

6. We noted too that in March 1986 Mr Grylls altered the entry in the Register from "Adviser to the Unitary Tax Campaign (I Greer Associates)" to "Adviser to the Unitary Tax Campaign and Ian Greer Associates". At the time when Mr Grylls received an introductory payment in May 1986, his entry therefore fully covered that payment. However, in December 1986, prior to the annual printing of the Register, he changed his entry in the Register back to its original form.

7. We do not consider that there has been any clear infringement of the rules. In these circumstances we could not recommend to the House that it should take any action.

8. However, we find Mr Grylls' registration is insufficiently detailed. In respect of the first two payments his entries in the published Registers would appear to connect the introductory payments to the Unitary Tax Campaign with which they were not associated except in the most tenuous manner. The Register is devalued if the entries within it are incomplete or if they mislead. We have much less criticism of the 1989 entry which shows a clear connection between Mr Grylls and Ian Greer Associates. However, in all three cases it would have been better if Mr Grylls had entered: "Single payment for the introduction of a client to Ian Greer Associates" or words to that effect. Like any other single payment or gift this entry would then appear in the Register for one year (so that it appeared in one published edition) and would then be removed.

9. Your Committee are undertaking a review of the Register in response to the second Resolution of the House of 7 March relating to Members' Interests. One of our main considerations will be whether we should define the requirements of the Register more closely so that Members' interpretations of the rules will be more consistent, and their entries more readily comprehensible.

40 Evidence given to the Committee by Mr Greer in relation to the introductory fees he had paid to Members has been published as HC (1989-90) 389-i. Back

41 Both Mr Grylls' entries in the relevant Registers for those years, and references to entries in the unpublished Registers are appended. Back

42 Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) HC 102 (1974-75), paras. 11 to 13. Back

43 HC (1989-90) 135, para. 7. Back