Annex JJ
Transcript of interview with Mr Geoffrey
Robinson MP and Mr Bernard O'Sullivan
held on 31 March 2001
(Corrected by Geoffrey Robinson and Elizabeth
Filkin)
MS FILKIN: Thank you very much indeed for coming
to see me this morning, Mr Robinson. I am very grateful to you
and your solicitor for the information you have already given
me.
Reflecting back on this lengthy trauma you have had
in relation to this issue, and in the light of the DTI inquiry
and the Tom Bower book, which you have presumably had a chance
to have a look at now, is there anything which you now know or
recall which would alter what you said to Standards and Privileges
Committee in 1998 about the alleged payment of £200,000 from
a Maxwell company to you? Let us leave aside, because I think
it is a red herring for my purposes, whether this is a payment
to you for services or a payment to you as chairman, but is there
anything else?
MR ROBINSON: No, nothing changed whatsoever.
MS FILKIN: In your letter to my predecessor of 18th
June 1998 you said "Mr Stoney has at my request and at considerable
personal inconvenience checked both the nominal ledger and the
cash books of the company for that year to make sure that no payments
were made." Did you at that time check the Pergamon cashbook?
MR ROBINSON: All I know is what I wrote in that letter.
That is what Michael told me, and I chose Michael because I did
not at the time know that he had been - whatever the word is -
disbarred. I did not know that. I probably would not ... I know
that Sir Gordon told me that did not sit very well with the Committee
at that time. He obviously knew I did not know. I had not been
interviewed by the Maxwell thing at all, as you know, the thing
that is just reported today, the big inquiry. So I only know what
he told me, and that is what he told me.
MS FILKIN: Fine. Do you know whether he checked the
computer records?
MR ROBINSON: I do not know. I think that is what
he told me he had done.
MS FILKIN: In your letter to Sir Gordon of 9th July
1998 you did offer to pay for scrutiny of the Pergamon accounts
and records, but because you wanted this matter clear, that even
if the Committee did not do that, you would consider doing that.
Did you have that done?
MR ROBINSON: No.
MS FILKIN: Can we get on to trying to get me clear
about the detail. Perhaps you would take me through in detail
about what you know about what happened to this Pergamon cheque
for £200,000.
MR ROBINSON: I wish I knew what happened to it; that
would solve the whole problem.
MS FILKIN: Yes. What bits of it do you know?
MR ROBINSON: We saw the invoice. This all came out
when Hugh Aldous started the DTI inquiry. Bernard, you will be
able to say better. After all, we recall that it was paid. Why
do you not say about the technical stuff; it is not my field.
MR O'SULLIVAN: We saw the invoice that was submitted.
MS FILKIN: Orchards' invoice?
MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes, the invoice to pay TransTec Technology.
MS FILKIN: There are two letters referred to in here,
from NatWest but not included in the file, which might assist,
one of the 31st March 1999 and the reply in a letter from a lady
from Robson Rhodes to you, her letter dated 27th July 1999.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Her letter?
MS FILKIN: ----- refers to a letter, and that letter
is not in here
MR O'SULLIVAN: ---- have lost and we will be sending
you another one.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
MS FILKIN: Thank you. The other one is the reply
from NatWest to you of 24th August. I know Birmingham. I am a
sort of Birmingham pseudo daughter, so I know where Colmore Row
is, but where is the Birmingham City office of NatWest?
MR ROBINSON: I have no idea.
MR O'SULLIVAN: I think they are one and the same
thing.
MS FILKIN: That is what I think, but you are confirming
that that is correct?
MR O'SULLIVAN: I think they are.
MS FILKIN: Right. Thank you very much. As far as
you know from your own situation, and indeed the companies that
you were involved in, which companies, and indeed yourself, had
accounts at that NatWest branch?
MR ROBINSON: You see, I was not deeply involved in
the finance function in those days. I do not know. I think at
the various stages we bought Sarclad. We bought Sarclad and transferred
part of it to Colmore Row, as I remember it, and we left part
of it up in Sheffield where they were doing the export credit
stuff, if you like, the arrangements for doing that. But we were
at Colmore Row, and Sarclad was the only other company we had.
MS FILKIN: Spell that name for me.
MR ROBINSON: S-a-r-c-l-a-d.
MS FILKIN: So in your personal accounts there were
three of those, is that right?
MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR ROBINSON: I will have to check it out.
MS FILKIN: That is what it looks like on here. Then
there was a Sarclad account, yes?
MR ROBINSON: And then there is TransTec itself.
MS FILKIN: Please would you let me know details of
all the accounts that were Mr Robinson's, or connected with Mr
Robinson in any way through any of the companies at that time.
MR ROBINSON: In 1990?
MS FILKIN: Up until the end of 1990.
MR ROBINSON: You remember about them being destroyed
up to the end of March 1991?
MS FILKIN: Oh yes, yes, but what I need are the details
of all the accounts. If I could have the account numbers of those
accounts as well. We can see from here that you pursued this line
of enquiry yourself with NatWest. I can see that from your letters
to Robson Rhodes that you obviously made enquiries to NatWest
for this, so presumably you have got those details in other correspondence
from NatWest which sets out the details so that I can see that.
MR O'SULLIVAN: I am sure this was to both people
at the same time, till August and -----
MS FILKIN: I am sure, but I have not got it, and
I do need accurate details of all the accounts connected in any
way with Mr Robinson in 1990 at the Colmore Row branch of NatWest.
If you would not mind giving me a bit of background about Roll
Centre.
MR ROBINSON: What would you like to know?
MS FILKIN: It was a freestanding company?
MR ROBINSON: Yes, I owned it.
MS FILKIN: You owned it.
MR ROBINSON: It was freestanding. We did not bring
it in the merger because it was not into profit yet, and there
were problems of valuation. We did it for two reasons: one, we
thought it would be a good financial investment I did it; and
secondly, it was a good showcase for our new product in America
which we were keen to get into, which was the EDT machine. I think
in the end it was brought into the group later, but at the time
it was not.
MS FILKIN: In 1990?
MR ROBINSON: Yes.
MS FILKIN: It was a freestanding company?
MR ROBINSON: Yes, freestanding, owned by me, and
left out for those reasons and invested in for those reasons -
different reasons.
MS FILKIN: TransTec had lent it some money, it seems,
at that period of time, is that correct?
MR ROBINSON: Can you remember that?
MR O'SULLIVAN: I think money was lent by TransTec.
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR ROBINSON: We had an extended line of credit.
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR ROBINSON: We supplied kit there.
MS FILKIN: It looks to me - and I am only piecing
this together -----
MR ROBINSON: Yes, sure.
MS FILKIN: ----- as if TransTec had made a loan to
Roll Centre - I do not know when - but it looks to me as if it
had a loan in 1990.
MR ROBINSON: That was the one, yes. I think that
is correct, yes.
MS FILKIN: The question to you that I need answered
is did Roll Centre repay part of that loan in December 1990?
MR ROBINSON: Can you answer that one, Bernard?
MR O'SULLIVAN: Erm ----- part of loan was credited
as repaid in December 1990.
MS FILKIN: ----- Yes, thank you. What it looks like
is that it repaid £200,000, in December 1990, and as far
as you are saying to me, it was Roll Centre that repaid. If, when
you begin that search, you decide it was not Roll Centre that
paid that £200,000 first loan, my question would be who did?
MR ROBINSON: Okay.
MS FILKIN: May I have a copy of the Coopers report,
the Long-Form report on TransTec, prior to the sale to Central
& Sherwood. Could I have that and any other records which
relate to that sale?
MR O'SULLIVAN: We may not have all of them but we
do have some.
MS FILKIN: Yes, whatever you have got.
MR ROBINSON: The main thing is they could not presumably
have looked at that, because they did not have the proper copy.
MS FILKIN: What, Coopers? Oh dear. Oh well, we all
know the problem, do we not? We all lose documents!
MR ROBINSON: There you are.
MS FILKIN: I try not to, but there we are, we all
do it, we all manage it sometimes. You refer in your file to a
set of documents which I have no idea whether they will turn out
to be useful to me, but just for the sake of completeness I had
better ask for them so that I can have a look at them; but they
are referred to in there, and so I had better. The extract from
TransTec's nominal ledger referred to in your letter of 23rd June
1990 presumably that is where I would find it referred to. And
there is a letter from Mr Robinson to TransTec of 11th February
1991 guaranteeing TransTec's loan to Roll Centre. So that it appears
that whatever got paid off in December 1990, and wherever, it
did not get paid off but Mr Robinson guaranteed it.
MR ROBINSON: That is right, and I am guaranteeing
that.
MS FILKIN: Later on in this process of selling TransTec,
you guarantee the outstanding loan to Roll Centre?
MR ROBINSON: I think it was really what you would
call the loan was extended credit really, was it not? I do not
know, I cannot remember.
MS FILKIN: No.
MR ROBINSON: I think it was only money outstanding
in relation to kit they had supplied.
MR O'SULLIVAN: To buy the machines.
MR ROBINSON: That is what I was querying before about
the loan. There was a balance.
MS FILKIN: Whatever it was, I can only see it on
the figures, I cannot see it ----- I do not know what it was,
because it does not say. There is also a schedule that I would
like, which is about the Roll Centre loan, which was provided
to Titmus Stainer & Webb. I get this off the fax from them
- it is in here - dated 3rd April 1991.
MR O'SULLIVAN: I am not sure that we have that.
MS FILKIN: Somebody provided it.
MR O'SULLIVAN: I must say, I could be wrong. I could
be wrong.
MS FILKIN: Yes. If you would let me have whatever
you have got. Somebody provided it, and presumably it must have
been a company of Mr Robinson's?
MR ROBINSON: ----- a company, Roger could provide
that, a few lists of outstanding kit, I should think.
MS FILKIN: Yes, but if you could get me whatever
you have got.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
MS FILKIN: And if you could ask Titmus Sainer &
Webb (now Dechert) if they have kept a copy of the thing.
MR ROBINSON: We have none.
MR O'SULLIVAN: We will have done all that.
MS FILKIN: That is all done?
MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes, we will have done all that. I
can give you what we have got, I am dredging from memory, but
-----
MS FILKIN: I see. So it is you. I did not realise
it was all separate. Let us drop that. The last thing that I found
on here - note 10.10 - is a letter from Ward & Rider dated
3rd April 1991. You refer to that in your letter of 19th November
1990. Did you ever receive a letter of 25th June 1999? It has
got one of the documents which are referred to in it but it has
not got documents 2, 3 and 4.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Right.
MS FILKIN: So the letter refers to this set of documents
but it only has 2, 3 and 4. That is interesting. I am grateful
for that and hopefully they will be able to do the same.
MR O'SULLIVAN: I think I will have to go and search
for those but I am sure I can ---- they will not be on the correspondence
file but I am sure I can find them somewhere else.
MS FILKIN: Okay. Thank you for the letters you gave
me about your meetings with Mr Aldous. Do you have a record of
those two meetings?
MR O'SULLIVAN: I am embarrassed now, it was Geoffrey
who ----
MS FILKIN: Ah! I see. I know you said you had not
got a record ---
MR O'SULLIVAN: No. If we had, I would have given
it to you. I do not think I did; I did not. It is not on the file.
MS FILKIN: Mr Aldous did not provide you with a note
afterwards?
MR ROBINSON: We saw nothing.
MS FILKIN: Okay. Thanks very much. Going back to
this elusive £200,000, I can see from what you have provided
previously to my predecessor and indeed you have said you provided
these services and you were pursuing this cash.
MR ROBINSON: TransTec was providing them.
MS FILKIN: Yes, and you were trying to get the money.
MR ROBINSON: Absolutely.
MS FILKIN: And you pursued that and you submitted
the invoice.
MR ROBINSON: Yes.
MS FILKIN: Presumably you assumed it was going to
be paid ---
MR ROBINSON: At the beginning we did, but as it went
on and on we grew more doubtful.
MS FILKIN: Why did you not chase up whether it had
been paid?
MR ROBINSON: Not until the very end. What happened
is that we produced the invoice, Kevin seemed to think he had
got his father's green light and the next thing I phoned him in
the evening, went home and did it from home and it came out as
Orchards - I do not know why. I am quite clear saying pay TransTec
- no problem about that.
MS FILKIN: Yes, yes.
MR ROBINSON: Then he went to see his father, but
in his own account, his father turned him down, he did not exactly
tell me that, and I at that point got quite worried because the
money was not coming forward. I had various notes - I am happy
for you to see my note book saying "One down, one to go"
really. He told me he had got it through his father, and I put
that down. The other one was some payment for three and a half
years' work at Central and Sheerwood for which I claimed nothing,
neither salary nor expenses. What I did then was put in for Central
and Sheerwood, I spoke to Robert Maxwell directly personally on
the phone - only about that, not mentioning the other management
contract payment.
MS FILKIN: That was the £150,000.
MR ROBINSON: £150,000. All letters were like
that. At that point - that was already December, so we were into
the New Year - the deal for the merger of the companies was pretty
much (I think I mentioned this in one of my letters to you) firm
by then, we could see it was coming. I think our reasoning would
have been, "Look, we are going to get the benefits of what
we have done in the merged company, Lock was coming in, we are
not going to get it, there's no point in pursuing it" and
we just left it from that point onwards.
MS FILKIN: When you say you were going to get the
benefits from that merger - could you explain?
MR ROBINSON: What we had done was spent a lot of
money. In two respects, money and my own time to some extent.
The big expenditure was on engineering services and sales services
to Lock and that improved the company enormously from when it
started back in April 1990 to when the merger took place in the
following year - almost a year exactly - May 1991. Since it was
coming across, there was no increase in the value of the company,
it was still only at asset value, and we thought at that price
it was a good buy because the work we had done in it had put a
lot of value in the company which would have been in excess of
net asset value. So I imagine we thought we were getting it at
a reasonable price (break in tape) once it became part of the
new group. Does that make sense? I am happy to re-explain it.
MS FILKIN: It makes sense up to a point. I can see
you decided you had in a sense cut your losses and were going
to get some benefit whatever.
MR ROBINSON: Yes, that is exactly it. It is a better
way of putting it. When I spoke to my managing director, Dr Ahmed,
you will notice I had forgotten about the management contract.
We did not get paid for it, that is one of the reasons you would
forget it, I suppose. When I was Paymaster I did not even think
of it, and then at the first meeting with Bernard I came to my
note book and came across it and then it all jogged my memory.
I phoned up my managing director, Dr Ahmed, who is ten years younger
than me, an excellent memory, Sami Ahmed, and he said, "What
management thing, we never had one?", and it did not come
back to him. Then he said, "Oh yes, I forget what it was,
we did all that engineering and didn't get paid" and that
was the way it was left. Sometimes you do not get paid and you
have to make it up in some other way.
MS FILKIN: Yes. But obviously what happened inside
Pergamon is that a cheque was paid.
MR ROBINSON: Yes, I would like to know where it was
paid.
MS FILKIN: So a cheque went somewhere.
MR ROBINSON: But if they were going to pay us - and
we could come to the heart of the matter really in the way you
would like to and say ---
MS FILKIN: Yes, I would.
MR ROBINSON: There's no way that cheque would be
paid in the normal fashion to TransTec and would have the sort
of documentation which accompanies a cheque. It was not an official
payment in another way. It was not an official payment to me,
because you would have had the same sort of arrangements which
you had very properly with the Pergamon payment to me for the
Central and Sheerwood work.
MS FILKIN: C&S, yes.
MR ROBINSON: So the only one thing anybody can think
about is that - and I know this from Bower - the date was wrong
in his account. You picked up on that, did you not?
MS FILKIN: Yes, yes.
MR ROBINSON: I went there and did a secret deal with
Bob and pocketed the cheque, paid it in secretly at --- what branch
is it of the NatWest? - paid it in. I have never been there in
my life, never in my life. It is just a farcical, ludicrous scenario,
but that is when I had to face and answer because that is the
only ----- well, there are two alternatives really: Bob paying
it to himself somewhere or to somebody else somewhere and me collecting
a cheque illicitly from Bob and paying it in.
MS FILKIN: Well somebody paid in a cheque.
MR ROBINSON: I didn't. I never received the cheque
and I did not do any of that. The answer - what I said to Hugh
Aldous - I had him in my flat for this purpose. I told him, "Look,
you must think this. Why would he do this?" He said, "He
owed you one." I said, "Okay, but why would he have
to pay it in that way? There was a legitimate invoice against
which he could have paid and everybody would have been very happy."
He said, "Then you would have paid less tax." I said,
"You don't know Mr Maxwell very well, he is not the sort
of chap who gives you a deal like that ---", not that I had
many dealings with him, but this is how one knows these things,
I had none with him in fact. He would want some quid pro quo.
He would want some reduction in the amount he was paying, if he
was going to do that, which he didn't. Why would he do it? There
is just no reason for doing it and then paying me £150,000
the next week officially and properly. In my mind none of it stacks
up. I did not have it. There could be another line of argument,
MS FILKIN, which says, "If it is paid into TransTec, there
is no problem, it is not declarable, your directorship, but it
was nothing to do with your directorship of TransTec, you have
no problem." That was suggested to me by my own lawyers,
all I have to say is, "It was paid to TransTec" and
that is the end of that, but I cannot say that because it was
not true. It was not paid to me either. You have four people who
knew about it, five including myself: Sami Ahmed, the managing
director of TransTec; Roger Davis, finance director, saying, "No
cheque from Maxwell came in"; then you have Kevin and Michael
Stoney both saying, "No, Geoffrey was not paid. No company
of his."
* * *
MS FILKIN: No, I understand.
MR ROBINSON: That is the heart of the matter. Did
I go and elicit this cheque and pay it in somewhere without Brenda
Price knowing? I don't even keep my own accounts. It is all down
there. I never see them. If you ask me where my accounts are held
now, I don't know. I do not have a cheque book, I don't do cheques,
that is done by Brenda. I trust her, that is the way I work. Without
her knowing, without Roger knowing, without Sami knowing, without
anybody knowing - it is a Lee Harvey Oswald theory, isn't it?
MS FILKIN: Yes! So where did the £200,000 which
did go into TransTec about that time come from?
MR ROBINSON: I cannot tell you that, I do not know.
MS FILKIN: So how can those other people say that
a cheque did not come from Maxwell when that they cannot say ----
MR ROBINSON: They wouldn't know. They say it did
not go through them, therefore I think they both in their minds
leave open the idea I separately went to Maxwell and did the deal.
They know, on the assumption they recollect - well, Roger would
know where the money ---- it is £200,000. Let's take them
one by one. Sami would know he had been paid for the management
contract, he would be delighted, we would be rejoicing in TransTec
if we had got this money, it is a small company, £200,000
is a lot of money. Roger would know because he would check where
the money had come from.
MS FILKIN: So he can tell us?
MR ROBINSON: Roger cannot remember where the money
came from and I do not know. I can only think of three sources
really ---
MS FILKIN: But how can they then say that it didn't
come from a Maxwell company?
MR ROBINSON: They are saying to the best of their
recollection it did not. I can tell you this, if that money had
come from Maxwell for the management contract, we would all have
known and all have celebrated.
MS FILKIN: I take that. I hear what you say, that
it did not come for those services.
MR ROBINSON: Or from Maxwell. They would all know.
It was a Pergamon cheque. When it comes in, you know presumably
where it has been paid in from.
MS FILKIN: I do not see how the two things can be
true. You can say, "I do not know where the cheque came from.
I cannot remember." But that does not allow you to say, "It
did not come from a Maxwell company." You cannot say the
two things.
MR ROBINSON: It could have been an inter-company
transfer, it does not have to be a cheque.
MS FILKIN: No, of course not.
MR ROBINSON: But Roger cannot remember where the
£200,000 came from. It is only in the nominal ledger, he
is quite clear the accounts for 200,000 new money coming in.
MS FILKIN: Absolutely.
MR ROBINSON: He is clear about that in his statement
to Hugh Aldous. I am not quite sure where the problem is. Let's
go through it again, very calmly if we could. If the money had
come from Maxwell, Pergamon or Maxwell, the same thing, we would
have known and would have remembered. What Roger cannot remember,
and I cannot remember, is where the £200,000 came from. We
are all quite clear, we have no recollection - and I know in my
case absolutely - I was not the transit conduit for that money.
Absolutely. Roger is very clear in his own mind nothing came from
Maxwell, as is Sami. It is a problem.
MS FILKIN: Well, what you have said to me - forgive
me ----
MR ROBINSON: No, no, no.
MS FILKIN: What you have said to me is, "There
is a little company which would have been delighted if it got
a £200,000 cheque because ...." ----
MR ROBINSON: From ----
MS FILKIN: Well, that it would have been delighted
if it got £200,000. That is a lot of money to this little
company.
MR ROBINSON: I did say it in the context of from
Maxwell in particular.
MS FILKIN: I understand that, but it seems to me
you have to assume it holds good, that £200,000 is a large
sum of money, it is a large sum of money for this company. We
are planning to search for a £200,000 sum of money, which
is a large sum of money in that context. Most people are saying,
"We are sure it did not come from Maxwell or a Maxwell company
but we cannot remember who it came from."
MR ROBINSON: Yes.
MS FILKIN: All I am saying is, I do not know how
you can say those two things in that situation. And I do not know
how you can say it if you think it is a large sum of money.
MR ROBINSON: We had bigger sums of money. Let's take
them one by one. We had bigger. We had a payment for £1,000,000,
our biggest order, and a cheque for a million or something like
that, but £200,000 was a lot of money and coming from Maxwell.
What they are saying is, they would have remembered it had it
come from Maxwell. There is something different about getting
a management fee from Maxwell from getting payment from a Korean
steel company for an EDT machine. We would remember that too,
they opened champagne in the bank, it would be that sort of occasion.
There was no such occasion for a Maxwell cheque but there were
--- the previous year my brother had put £200,000 in, Madame
Bourgeois had put in 100,000, I think, so money in that sense
was coming in and they would have been more normal. They would
have been things since I was funding the company they would have
expected and not taken to be out of the ordinary, whereas the
Maxwell thing would have been somewhat out of the ordinary and
therefore, I think, in their minds and to my mind certainly, recollectable.
You see, MS FILKIN, what I have to answer, and all I really have
to answer here in these circumstances - you can have your suspicions,
like anybody has ---
MS FILKIN: No, no, I do not have any suspicions!
MR ROBINSON: One has, of course you have ---
MS FILKIN: I am just told to get at the truth.
MR ROBINSON: --- and Hugh Aldous. But I do not think
it was anything to do with Roger or new money or anything like
that. The question I have to answer is a very simple one, did
I directly or indirectly receive that from Maxwell. That is the
only question I have to answer.
MS FILKIN: Absolutely.
MR ROBINSON: Until somebody - I would love to get
my hands on that cheque. You could do as much forensic work -
I do not mean you personally - you could spend a year on it, I
cannot tell you how many tens and tens and tens and tens of thousands
of pounds of Bernard's excellent time and all the rest of it I
spent. We tried everything. We needed the cash book of TransTec
or the cheque, and we could not find either and I bust a gut to
find both.
MS FILKIN: Could I then, just to try and satisfy
myself on this, and thank you for that explanation, that is helpful,
perhaps I could ask if I could then see the TransTec accounts
for the previous year, so I can get a picture of the quantum of
monies going into the company and out.
MR O'SULLIVAN: The long-form report will give you
that sort of information.
MS FILKIN: I am sure I am going to be asked it when
I get this before the Committee. Obviously that is what I am trying
to do, make sure ---
MR ROBINSON: When I looked at it, during that year,
there are various times when you started to doubt yourself ---
MS FILKIN: I am sure there was.
MR ROBINSON: "Did I have that money?" "Did
I have a brainstorm?" "Could this have happened?"
But when you have Sami saying, "No, we didn't have it, it
would have been a big thing for us to get a cheque out of Maxwell",
and then Roger, then Stoney and then Kevin - and Kevin's accounts
in my book have a ring of truth about them, I think - saying that
is what happened. There is a tempting scenario of saying, "Well,
they went into TransTec, there was a big fuss, I forgot about
it" or something like this ---
MS FILKIN: Of course!
MR ROBINSON: --- and my Downey story was still ---
MS FILKIN: Absolutely.
MR ROBINSON: I just cannot accept it.
MS FILKIN: No. That is fair enough.
MR ROBINSON: I really do not have to answer where
this new money came from in TransTec. I do not have to answer
that. I only have to answer that to utterly satisfy your mind,
but I cannot. The most important thing is that we cannot find
the cheque. If only we could do that, it would answer everybody's
questions.
MS FILKIN: Of course.
MR ROBINSON: Some of the cheques we found, you know.
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR O'SULLIVAN: We could only find irrelevant ones.
MS FILKIN: And the people inside the company who
were there day by day, the managing director and other people,
the finance person, they have tried to recall what that £200,000
was and where it came from. You have asked them that question,
presumably. I understand you have asked them the question and
they say, "No, we would have known if it came from Maxwell
....", so I understand you have asked that question. Have
they also been asked the direct question, "Can they recall
where that came from?"
MR ROBINSON: Bernard I am sure asked Roger Davis.
MS FILKIN: What did they say?
MR O'SULLIVAN: Initially Roger Davis thought it had
been an inter-company transfer (inaudible) cash register, I do
not think it was.
MR ROBINSON: Did we find the Sarclad cash book?
MR O'SULLIVAN: No.
MR ROBINSON: I really turned the place inside-out
to find the TransTec cash book. I spent ----
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR ROBINSON: --- and paid for Roger, two whole days.
MR O'SULLIVAN: We found the nominal ledger.
MS FILKIN: Yes. So you've at least got that.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Well, no, it was the piece of information
which you're enquiring about (break in tape) it was the piece
of information which we provided which we not only provided but
went and found and searched and spent a lot of time finding and
made available, which are not the actions of anyone who —
MS FILKIN: No, no. I fully understand what you are
trying to do, just like I am, is get to the end of this story
for your satisfaction and to deal with it.
MR ROBINSON: It is in the Mount of Olives. * * *
Somebody had that cheque somewhere but not me.
MS FILKIN: I am nearly through, you will be pleased
to hear.
MR ROBINSON: Really, if I gave the impression in
any way ---
MS FILKIN: No, you have been absolutely fine.
MR ROBINSON: I really do not in any way resent the
questions you are asking. You have to ask them. All I have to
do is tell you the truth.
MS FILKIN: Yes, of course. Absolutely. My last question
which I believe I know the answer to but I think it is proper
that I ask: were you aware of anybody else, for instance, Mr Robert
Maxwell or Mr Kevin Maxwell, or anybody else who was involved
in that proposed restructuring which was under consideration.
In relation to Hollis and TransTec do you know of anybody else
who might have put £200,000 into TransTec to write off some
of the Roll Centre loan and to thereby make the books of TransTec
look better?
MR ROBINSON: The £200,000 could have come from
a number of sources. It could have been my brother - he doesn't
recall it. It could have been Madame Bourgeois who helped me in
a number of respects. It could have been an inter-company transfer,
which initially was the most likely thing Roger would do. But
I do not know where that money came from and I do not know why
Roger made that entry which he did. Roger cannot recall that.
MS FILKIN: But I am right, am I - and this is all
supposition - that the fact that someone paid off part of that
loan or, as you said, that might have been a payment which was
outstanding ---
MR ROBINSON: Yes, that is the other.
MS FILKIN: Whatever. --- paid off some of it at that
point, would have enhanced what TransTec looked like for that
sale. That is right, is it not?
MR ROBINSON: Yes, but I mean, I think that is fair
comment and if it prevents a big problem of the so-called prospectus
----
MS FILKIN: Of course, that is not bias there!
MR ROBINSON: No!
MS FILKIN: I am sure ---
MR ROBINSON: * * * That could be dealt with in two
ways. The £200,000 could just be, I took out £200,000,
I took out a million in cash when we did the deal, I could have
taken out £800,000 or £1.2 million and paid it from
there when we knew it was coming. I didn't have to repay the money
unless the deal was done. There was not a problem in that sense
if the £200,000 had to be found. Let's take £1.2 million
out and then £6 million out, £6 million, something like
that. So if I had had £200,000, yes. In effect I would take
out a lump of 1.2 million cash, pay off the 200,000 with the 2
million I could have taken out in cash instead of just 1 million.
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR ROBINSON: There was not a problem. You know. Again,
why do all this?
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR O'SULLIVAN: You ought to read the long-form report
to put that into context.
MS FILKIN: Of course.
MR O'SULLIVAN: I am not sure if it is or is not a
fair comment actually?
MS FILKIN: It may not be.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Read the report and then you can get
a bit of ---
MS FILKIN: It was not meant to be a comment. It was
meant to be a question.
MR ROBINSON: It was not a problem, it could have
been paid out of the proceeds or a bridging loan, it is just something
I can do, a sale, or anything like that.
MS FILKIN: All you can is to do what you have done,
which is to give me the facts as far as you know them and to say
what you don't know. I cannot ask you to do more than that because
there is no more that anyone can do.
MR ROBINSON: No, except the two things which we have
--- I spent the whole year trekking about and looking for those
two documents ---
MS FILKIN: I am sure.
MR ROBINSON: --- and checking things. (break in tape)
MS FILKIN: The cash book?
MR ROBINSON: The cash book.
MR O'SULLIVAN: The cash book showed ---
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR ROBINSON: --- where it came from.
MS FILKIN: Yes.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Where and when.
MS FILKIN: Have you any ideas about who removed that
cash book?
MR ROBINSON: Well, no, I have not given ----
MS FILKIN: I am sure.
MR ROBINSON: I have honestly never looked at a cash
book, I was very lucky, I went in at a very high level in business.
I knew there was one, of course. No, I do not think it was ....
MR O'SULLIVAN: To give you a semi-answer: the company
moved more than three times.
MR ROBINSON: Three times.
MR O'SULLIVAN: And we eventually found the nominal
ledger (break in tape)
MS FILKIN: In that period of time.
MR O'SULLIVAN: Because it was ten years.
MR ROBINSON: Again it would not have been us. If
we were into that sort of business, we would have removed the
- what is it called?
MR O'SULLIVAN: The nominal ledger.
MR ROBINSON: --- the nominal ledger too.
MS FILKIN: No, no, I am not suggesting it was. It
was me trying to get a picture.
MR ROBINSON: Roger was very disappointed because
he thought he knew exactly where it was but it was not there.
Then he went back, I sent him back he took a second holiday to
find it.
MS FILKIN: I am most grateful to you. I am most grateful
to you for taking time this morning. If you could send me the
things we have mentioned today and I shall, as I have said, when
this is typed up, let you have a copy to correct before I make
use of it.
MR ROBINSON: Will you let me see what you intend
to say to the Committee?
MS FILKIN: I am not allowed to tell you what conclusions
I come to, but I will let you see all the rest of it.
MR ROBINSON: I think it is best if you send it straight
to Bernard.
MS FILKIN: Fine.
MR ROBINSON: Would that be all right?
MS FILKIN: Absolutely fine. As I say, at that point
you are welcome - I would be grateful - if you would suggest corrections.
If you want to say anything else about what slant I am putting
on it or what it looks like - I am saying (inaudible) any of that,
I hope you will not be but if you were - you are welcome to say
it in a letter which I will put to the Committee.
MR ROBINSON: You have always been very fair... (break
in tape) I do not know whether you have checked in the Bower book
yet but the fact is the story he gives there, of me secretly collecting
the cheque, was in fact the date of the payment - the official
payment, properly done, - of the Central and Sheerwood money.
He elicited the cheque but no one knows where it went, it did
not come to me, it was paid out I think some days before the Bower
date. That is how badly he researched the whole piece.
MS FILKIN: Thank you.
| 
