Attachment 2
INACCURACIES IN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMITTEE
A principal point raised in the Committee's
proceedings of 9 January was the danger of basing policy and action
on unsubstantiated allegations made against companies, particularly
in view of the increasing proliferation of media speculation on
such issues and its rapid propagation through the medium of the
world wide web.
In this context, we agreed that it would be
appropriate to offer the Committee some observations in respect
of written evidence submitted to the Committee by other parties
which makes direct reference to Balfour Beatty. Amongst the inaccuracies
in respect of Balfour Beatty are:
1. Neither Balfour Beatty nor its previous
owner, BICC plc, has ever had "close links to the Conservative
Party" nor has it been a Conservative Party donor within
current corporate memory.
2. Balfour Beatty plc is not the subject
of any charges in the Lesotho courts. A joint venture, led by
French contractors, is the subject of charges, all of which are
being vigorously defended through the legal representatives of
the consortium leaders.
3. Material appearing in The Observer
newspaper in respect of statements allegedly made to their
reporter in respect of the Pergau Dam, submitted as evidence,
are demonstrably false. In a letter written to Balfour Beatty
in respect of the article, The Observer's quoted source
told us: "I was unequivocal in making clear that I had not
attributed this incident to Balfour Beatty or its Chairman. Nor
did I link Balfour Beatty with the comments made by the then Trade
Minister, Richard Needham."
4. Balfour Beatty has never, at any time,
been the subject of allegations or investigations in respect of
corruption in Singapore, let alone suffered a ban. We are, as
we have been for many years, currently active on project work
in Singapore.
24 January 2001
|
