Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges
from Mr Bernard O'Sullivan, Dechert, Solicitors
I represent Mr Geoffrey Robinson MP and he has asked
me to write to you in respect of an enquiry currently being conducted
by Mrs Elizabeth Filkin, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
On 19 March 2001 David Heathcoat-Amory MP made a
complaint to Mrs Filkin about Mr Robinson. Mrs Filkin began to
investigate this complaint shortly thereafter. The complaint is
similar in substance as that dealt with by the Committee on Standards
and Privileges in 1998 and that dealt with during the course of
1999 by Hugh Aldous, an independent inspector appointed by the
Department of Trade and Industry under Section 447 of the Companies
The substance of the complaint is whether Mr Robinson
has received a £200,000 payment in 1990/1991 for his work
as chairman of Hollis Industries plc. If Mr Robinson did receive
that payment then it would have been a registrable payment under
the Parliamentary Rules in force at that time.
In 1998 the Parliamentary Committee on Standards
and Privileges ruled that on the basis of the evidence they have
seen that Mr Robinson had not received this payment. The DTI investigation
conducted by Mr Hugh Aldous was concluded in December 1999. In
that month it was announced that no further action would be taken
against Mr Robinson.
The DTI investigation was a prolonged affair. Much
work was done by Mr Aldous and also by those advising Mr Robinson
to establish what had gone on in 1990. The net result of this
work, is that despite the best efforts of Mr Robinson in particular
and also Mr Aldous the two documents which would establish the
true position were not found, and presumed destroyed or lost because
of the passage of time. The prolonged nature of the investigation
caused Mr Robinson to carefully consider his position and, at
the end of this process, his position remained the same: that
he had never received this money.
When Mrs Filkin began her investigation Mr Robinson
was hopeful that it would be completed as soon as possible. To
this end Mr Robinson has co-operated very fully with Mrs Filkin
and she expressly acknowledges this. There is no question here,
unlike perhaps some other cases, of a Member being obstructive.
At 5.45pm on Tuesday 24 April 2001 Mrs Filkin's draft
memorandum was made available. The draft memorandum runs to 62
pages and 148 paragraphs. It is supported by several hundred pages
of annexes. Some of these annexes Mr Robinson has seen before
(indeed he voluntarily provided them to Mrs Filkin). However,
there are long detailed notes and transcripts of interviews between
Mrs Filkin and witnesses and exchanges of correspondence between
Mrs Filkin and witnesses which Mr Robinson has never seen before.
Mrs Filkin, in our view, has made a number of factual
errors in her draft memorandum and, as a consequence, has reached
an erroneous conclusion that Mr Robinson received this money.
As a consequence of this Mrs Filkin makes the most serious and
grave accusation against Mr Robinson. What Mrs Filkin is saying
in effect is that Mr Robinson is a liar, he has evaded tax, he
has deliberately misled Parliament and he has deliberately misled
his closest and trusted colleagues. Mr Robinson vehemently disputes
this. It is based on a number of incorrect factual understandings
and inferences drawn from incomplete evidenceincomplete
despite the strongest efforts of Mr Robinson to find all of the
Despite the grave nature of these allegations, because
of the present timetable of the Committee, Mrs Filkin has felt
able to give Mr Robinson only one day in which to respond. It
is simply not possible to do so in the time frame. Nor is it fair
or proper to leave so little time.
I enclose copies of a letter I have written to Mrs
Filkin and of her response to me
and Mr Robinson's letter to Mrs Filkin. Mrs Filkin has said that
she is required by the Committee of Standards and Privileges to
complete her memorandum and send it to them by the end of Thursday
26 April. Mr Robinson was simply not in a position to respond
to Mrs Filkin in the one day she has allowed.
Mr Robinson cannot let Mrs Filkin's draft memorandum
stay on the record. He must prepare a complete and thorough analysis
of it to rebut it and to show Mrs Filkin that she has reached
erroneous conclusions. I believe Mr Robinson will be able to do
this. He requires time to do so. I have asked for a little over
two weeks in which to do it. In my experience in handling regulatory
enquiries from a wide number of bodies, such a period of time
would be the absolute minimum allowed to a person to deal with
something with such grave consequences as are present here.
As Mr Robinson says in his letter to Mrs Filkin of
yesterday, she puts Mr Robinson's personal integrity and future
at stake in what she writes.
I very much regret having to write this letter to
you, but I do believe that the proposed timeframe allowed, bearing
in mind the circumstances and the gravity of the allegations,
is wholly unrealistic and unfair. Mrs Filkin has herself been
working under intense time pressure. It is our belief that this
has caused her to make the errors she has made in her draft memorandum.
To proceed on the timeframe suggested, even if it were possible,
would only compound the damage. Mr Robinson has a right to respond
fully and properly to the draft memorandum and to have a fair
hearing and a fair opportunity to deal with these grave allegations.
In normal circumstances I have no doubt that Mrs Filkin would
allow Mr Robinson the minimal time that he has requested. The
reason why Mrs Filkin has not done so is because of the anticipated
imminent general election. It must be right, I would respectfully
suggest, that Mr Robinson's position should not be irreparably
damaged by this consideration.
In the circumstances, therefore, I wonder if you
would be good enough to consult with your colleagues on the Committee,
who by now will have seen the scale and complexity of the draft
memorandum and accompanying annexes, and allow Mr Robinson until
11 May to prepare his reply.
27 April 2001
114 See Appendix
1, Annexes 1 and 2. Back