House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

13. On 30 October 2003, when deciding that the chairmen of certain select committees should be paid, the House also approved the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.[5] In that report, the Committee stated that it saw no reason in principle why the decision to pay some chairmen should be accompanied by restrictions, over and above those which apply to all Members, on the outside interests they might hold. The Committee subsequently approved guidance for chairmen and members of select Committees on the declaration of interests and the principles to be observed by chairmen when considering accepting payment for activities outside the House arising primarily from their now publicly remunerated chairmanship.

14. No special rules therefore apply at present to select committee chairmen over and above those which apply to all Members in relation to permitted outside interests. I consider later in this report whether, in the light of this case, there is a need for any change in this respect.[6]

Mr Baldry's relevant interests

ANGEL GATE AVIATION LIMITED

15. Since 17 December 2003 Mr Baldry has registered a remunerated directorship as non-executive chairman of Angel Gate Aviation. On 6 January 2004, he registered a shareholding of more than 15% in the company. His latest Register entry describes the purpose of the company as being "investment in the aviation industry, particularly in France with the ownership of Air Horizons SAS and Euralair International SAS".

RED EAGLE RESOURCES PLC

16. Mr Baldry has since January 2003 included in category 1 of the Register of Members' Interests an entry relating to his directorship of Red Eagle. His current entry describes him as its non-executive chairman and the purpose of the company as "investing in agriculture and natural resources in Sierra Leone".

17. In the course of my inquiries, Mr Baldry said that although he had listed his directorship of Red Eagle in the category of the Register which applies to remunerated directorships, he had done so on a precautionary basis. He had never in fact received any remuneration from Red Eagle (whether as a director or a shareholder). The only money he had so far received from Red Eagle was in reimbursement of the cost of his air ticket to Freetown in November 2004. Any other costs have been met out of his own pocket.

18. Mr Baldry also made clear in the course of my inquiries (see paragraph 25 below) that, through holding one of the three founders' shares issued to the directors of the company, the only shares the company has issued, he owns one third of the issued shares in Red Eagle. However, this was not included in his Register entry until the most recent edition was published on 11 April 2005.[7] Mr Baldry says that this was due to an oversight when the company was set up. He and his partners who founded it expected further shareholders to come on board, which would have reduced the relative size of Mr Baldry's holding to below the Category 9(a) registration threshold of 15%, but in the event this has not happened.

MILESTONE TRADING LIMITED

19. Milestone Trading Limited is a UK registered company. According to the most recent Directors' report and financial statement lodged at Companies House, its principal activity since 1 August 2004 has been diamond mining: prior to that, it had been that of agents and general traders.[8] Mr Baldry has no registered interest in Milestone. He is not a director, and has never owned any shares in that company. He informed me that he has never received any money from the company nor has he visited Sierra Leone on their behalf. All trips made by him to Sierra Leone on private business were paid for by him or by Red Eagle.

20. As noted in paragraph 51, since 23 November 2004 Red Eagle has had a contract to participate with Milestone in suitable business opportunities in Sierra Leone. These include a medical diagnostic centre in Freetown; the possible privatisation of the national lottery in Sierra Leone; and a fisheries project. To date Red Eagle has received $37,500 (about £19,000) from Milestone in connection with work undertaken on its behalf (see paragraph 53).

21. Milestone has been considering flotation on the AIM exchange. Under one of the terms of their business participation agreement, Red Eagle would be entitled to obtain 3% of Milestone's shares in the event of flotation for no further consideration. At present it has no such shareholding and flotation has yet to take place. According to Dr Levy, one of its directors, the company is in the process of talking to a number of brokers about and making other preparations for its flotation.

"Until [these preparations are] completed it is difficult to know when we are going to be able to float but we are wanting to do so as soon as possible as we wish to raise venture capital to make further investment in Sierra Leone.".[9]

There has been no formal valuation of Milestone to date and any value attributed to Red Eagle's eventual shareholding in the company is therefore, Mr Baldry maintains, speculative. Mr Baldry has been approached to see whether he might become chairman of Milestone when the company is floated:

"... and if and when a time were to come when I became a director of Milestone, that clearly would be a matter that I would enter into the Register of Members' Interests at the appropriate time. At present I have no interests in Milestone and therefore nothing to register.".[10]

My inquiries

22. Mr Baldry has had extensive links with Sierra Leone over a number of years. These include not only his business interests in the country (primarily through Red Eagle) but also relationships, which he considers to be ones of personal friendship, with both its President and Vice-President.

23. On the same day that I saw Mr Foulkes's initial letter of complaint about Mr Baldry, I received a letter from Mr Baldry referring to the Sunday Times article of 27 March and to Mr Foulkes's expected complaint. Mr Baldry expressed concern about the timing of the article in the Sunday Times in relation to the then imminent General Election. He asked me to begin my investigation of the complaint as soon as possible and to expedite that investigation. Mr Baldry added that he was anxious to cooperate with me fully and immediately and to give a complete account of all his actions. In reply I said that whilst I would do my best to bring matters to a just and speedy resolution, it would not be possible for me to resolve the complaint once the House had been prorogued prior to the election.

24. I wrote to Mr Baldry on 4 April seeking his response to Mr Foulkes's initial complaint. A copy of my letter is at WE 8. Mr Baldry replied on 5 April, noting that there was the possibility of a further complaint by Mr Foulkes following the Sunday Times article of 3 April and saying that he intended to reply once it was clear whether a further letter of complaint would be forthcoming.

25. I received a second letter dated 5 April from Mr Baldry. This one picked up a reference in my letter of 4 April to the fact that, although Mr Baldry had registered his non-executive chairmanship of Red Eagle, he had not registered his one third shareholding in the company. It continued:

"As I shall explain in detail in relation to the overall matters, when Red Eagle Resources plc was first established it was envisaged that it would involve a number of people and a number of shareholders, and I certainly never anticipated my shareholding to be in excess of 15%. What actually happened was that 3 founders shares were issued for the three directors, and there was never a formal allocation of shares. At the time the company was registered, and it again will become clear in due course, Red Eagle was exploring business opportunities and there was no value in the shares, and I think a combination of both those facts caused me to overlook as a "belt and braces", as I could quite easily have done, registering a shareholding in the company. It certainly was not deliberate and was entirely an oversight. I recognise that by definition if there are three directors and three founder shares, I am deemed to own a third of the company and it is therefore in excess of 15% and should be registered and I would be grateful if that could be done.".

A copy of this letter is at WE 9.

26. On 6 April I replied that I would take this explanation into consideration alongside Mr Baldry's response to all the other aspects of the complaint. Meanwhile, if he so wished, I would ask the Registrar to include a reference to Mr Baldry's shareholding in the final edition of the Register of Members' Interests relating to the 2001-2005 Parliament.[11]

27. On 7 April I sent Mr Baldry a copy of Mr Foulkes's second letter, relating to Mr Baldry's correspondence with the Vice President of Sierra Leone, and invited Mr Baldry's observations. Mr Baldry came to see me and the Registrar of Members' Interests on the afternoon of 7 April, bringing with him a folder containing his comments on the issues raised in the two Sunday Times articles and copies of the correspondence at the heart of the complaint. An agreed note of my meeting with Mr Baldry is at WE 10.

28. Parliament was dissolved on 11 April. I wrote on that same day to Mr Foulkes seeking assurances that there was no other material relating to Mr Baldry which he wished me to consider and that he had informed Mr Baldry direct of the complaint he had made against him. I added that, consequent on the Dissolution, I would not be able to resolve his complaint until after the State Opening of the new Parliament. I similarly informed Mr Baldry.

29. In the paragraphs which follow, I summarise the explanation given me by Mr Baldry of his actions in relation to:

a) His correspondence with the Vice President of Sierra Leone;

b) His correspondence with the Secretary of State for International Development.

I take them in that order because the correspondence with the Vice President pre-dated that with the Secretary of State and came out of Mr Baldry's initial contacts with Milestone. I go on to identify the other relevant evidence I have obtained from inquiries I have made of Dr Nissim Levy (a director of Milestone), the Sunday Times, the Anti Corruption Commissioner in Sierra Leone and the Serjeant at Arms.

MR BALDRY'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OF SIERRA LEONE

30. Mr Baldry's explanation of his actions in relation to this correspondence is given in the note at WE 11. At WE 12-14 are the texts of the key letters supplied by Mr Baldry in support of his explanation (though not of their enclosures):

a) Mr Baldry's letter of 29 September 2004 to HE President Kabbah of Sierra Leone (WE 12);

b) The Vice President's reply of 30 September (WE 13); and

c) Mr Baldry's letter to the Vice President of 4 October (WE 14). This is the letter which was the focus of the Sunday Times article of 3 April 2005.

For completeness I have added at WE 15 the text of the Vice President's reply of 11 October 2004.

31. Mr Baldry says this correspondence was stimulated by events following a telephone call he received from a friend, Mr Stuart Polak, the director of the Conservative Friends of Israel, during the week of 20 September 2004. Mr Polak told him that he had business associates in London who appeared to have been the victims of a serious miscarriage of justice in Sierra Leone, which had put in jeopardy a substantial UK investment in the country. Mr Baldry agreed to meet Mr Polak and the businessmen concerned, and did so on 27 September. At the meeting Mr Polak introduced him to Dr Nissim Levy, a director of Milestone, and Mr Moshe Levy. This was Mr Baldry's first encounter with them and with Milestone.

32. Milestone, he was told, had invested heavily in a diamond recovery scheme in the Nimikoro region of Sierra Leone. However they had run into a serious problem in that:

a) Mr Moshe Levy had been arrested while in the country helping to set up the Milestone operation and deported from Sierra Leone, apparently purely on the basis of a case of mistaken identity;

b) The principal of a sub-contracting company, Gemfarm (which is in fact a subsidiary of Milestone), Mr Gershon Ben-Tovim had been refused entry clearance to Sierra Leone. Without his help, the operation in Nimikoro was stalled;

c) As a result of (a), the Milestone subsidiary Nimikoro Mining Company Ltd ('Nimikoro') had been refused a mining licence.

Dr Levy and Mr Moshe Levy, supported by Mr Polak, asked for Mr Baldry's help to overcome the difficulties they had encountered.

33. Mr Baldry says that he was convinced by the explanation he was given and shared the concerns put to him, for a number of reasons:

a) Mr Moshe Levy appeared to have suffered a serious miscarriage of justice;

b) Milestone's experience might discourage other companies from investing in Sierra Leone and he had been working with others to try to encourage such investment;

c) He was about to meet the chairman of the Privatisation Commission in Sierra Leone to discuss proposals for Angel Gate Aviation to enter into a contractual relationship with the Government of Sierra Leone, in connection with the privatisation of the country's national airline. If it were true that the Government of Sierra Leone had behaved capriciously in relation to Milestone, might they not do so also in relation to Angel Gate Aviation?

34. Mr Baldry therefore wrote to President Kabbah on House of Commons notepaper on 29 September 2004 (letter at WE 12). He began by referring to his imminent meeting with the Chairman of the Privatisation Commission and the negotiations between Angel Gate Aviation and the Government of Sierra Leone, before moving on to express his concern about what he had heard in relation to Milestone and the possible impact of this on the willingness of other UK companies to invest in Sierra Leone. He set out his understanding of the bona fides of Dr Levy and Mr Moshe Levy and urged that, given that the deportation of Mr Moshe Levy had been the result of a case of mistaken identity, a mining lease be issued to Nimikoro in the very near future. Finally he hinted at the possible adverse impact on the willingness of Angel Gate Aviation to invest if it emerged that Milestone had been treated capriciously.

35. In President Kabbah's absence abroad, the Vice President of Sierra Leone replied on 30 September, having been personally instructed to do so by the President (WE 13). The Vice President referred to the importance of proper regulation of the diamond trade in Sierra Leone. Against the background of his Government's concern to ensure such regulation, information available to his Government had led to its action against Mr Moshe Levy. The President had asked, however, for Mr Baldry's own views and appraisal of the matter so that he could have them in mind when reaching a final decision.

36. Having received the Vice-President's letter, Mr Baldry had a meeting with Dr Levy and Mr Moshe Levy, in the course of which a brief telephone call was made to Mr Gershon Ben-Tovim in South Africa. Mr Baldry then replied to the Vice President saying that he had looked into the concerns he had raised; that he was certain Mr Moshe Levy was a man of good character who had been the victim of a case of mistaken identity; and that Mr Ben-Tovim was equally a person of good character. He recommended that visas be issued to both men, subject to such further checks and consultations as the Government of Sierra Leone considered necessary, and that a mining licence and lease be issued to enable Nimikoro to begin work.

37. In the penultimate three paragraphs of his letter, Mr Baldry returned to the airline project which Angel Gate Aviation was negotiating and reported positively on his recent meeting with the Chairman of the Privatisation Commission. Mr Baldry also referred briefly to a fisheries project and other projects in which he was involved through Red Eagle, in connection with which he planned to visit Freetown later in the year.

38. Mr Baldry says of his part in this correspondence that:

a) He was throughout seeking to help a major UK investor in Sierra Leone whose project had run into difficulty;

b) He was also anxious to help Sierra Leone by removing impediments to investment, and therefore to job and wealth creation;

c) At the time of the correspondence there was no suggestion that he might later be invited to become chairman of Milestone;

d) He wrote on House of Commons notepaper because the main purpose of his letters was to raise an objective concern about a UK company in difficulty (Milestone), not to promote the interests of Angel Gate Aviation;

e) Both the President and Vice President were already aware of the negotiations between Angel Gate Aviation and the Privatisation Commission, and of his planned meeting with the Chairman of the Commission.[12] It was therefore natural that he should mention the meeting when writing to them and they were unlikely to be influenced by the fact that he had written on House of Commons notepaper. Had he been writing to anyone else, he would have mentioned Angel Gate Aviation in a separate letter (see note of meeting on 7 April (WE 10)).

39. HE the Vice President replied to Mr Baldry's letter of 4 October on 11 October. In his reply he said that, following careful consideration of the letter as well as reports from the police and the Anti-Corruption Commission, HE the President had decided that Mr Moshe Levy be allowed to return to Sierra Leone, that a licence be issued to Nimikoro Mining Company and that the decision not to allow Mr Ben Tovim to enter Sierra Leone stand pending further investigations by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

40. Mr Baldry's observations on Mr Foulkes's complaint in relation to this letter are at WE 16. The text of the original letter and subsequent correspondence is at WE 3-5. Mr Baldry does not believe he has acted improperly in relation to the correspondence.

41. Mr Baldry says that his letter to the Secretary of State followed a visit he made to Freetown from 3-6 January 2005 on behalf of Red Eagle. The visit was paid for by Red Eagle and was primarily intended to take forward the fisheries project mentioned earlier. During the visit, Mr Baldry met Mr Daniel Chen, who had overall responsibility for Milestone's operations in Sierra Leone. In conversation, Mr Baldry asked Mr Chen about the Nimikoro operation's compliance with the Kimberley process, an international system for regulating the diamond industry intended to deter illicit trade in diamonds, in the mistaken belief that it was for the exporter (rather than the exporting country) to show compliance.[13] As a result of the conversation, he returned to London concerned to ensure that, as a company apparently new to the industry, Milestone was fully meeting its obligations.

42. It was against this background that he wrote to the Secretary of State. He was not trying to achieve a written 'seal of approval' for Milestone's operations and therefore some commercial benefit for the company, rather he was making a straightforward request that DFID officials in Freetown meet up with Milestone's representatives in the country to check that Milestone's procedures were in accord with the Department's expectations and their Kimberley obligations.[14] In making the approach he had in mind not only the risk to Milestone's reputation if they were not complying, but also the wider risk to British business and future British investment in Sierra Leone. His motivation was the overall public interest rather than the commercial benefit of the company. The fact that DFID officials have subsequently visited Milestone's operations in another part of Sierra Leone indicates that he was writing about something in the mainstream of DFID's activities.

43. Mr Baldry acknowledges that he was under a responsibility to be open with the Secretary of State about his having a clear commercial link with Milestone. In opening his letter to the Secretary of State, he referred to the approach he had received to become chairman of Milestone and the fact that the company intended in the near future "to go to the AIM exchange here in London". He did not refer to his interest in Milestone through its development agreement with Red Eagle (see paragraph 51 below). This was because he:

"wasn't seeking to write a company report and in all honesty I thought I had discharged my responsibility for making the Secretary of State aware of my commercial interest.".

44. Mr Baldry says that he wrote to the Secretary of State on House of Commons notepaper because he saw himself as writing primarily in the public rather than any commercial interest. His fundamental purpose:

"was to seek to ensure that DFID were confident that a new and substantial UK investor in Sierra Leone was following proper procedures.".

It would, he maintained, have been inappropriate for him to have written on either Milestone or Red Eagle notepaper and while he could have written from his residential address, he would have had to make clear his identity to the Department and the text of his letter would have been no different. Given his motivation in writing, it was not inappropriate, he argues, for him to use House of Commons notepaper.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RED EAGLE RESOURCES PLC AND MILESTONE TRADING LIMITED

45. In subsequent correspondence with Mr Baldry and Dr Levy I have explored the development and nature of the relationship between Red Eagle and Milestone, in order to establish how it might have impacted on the correspondence between Mr Baldry and the Vice President and Mr Baldry and the Secretary of State. It is not necessary for me to go into the detail of the material Mr Baldry and Dr Levy have shared with me about this but the key points to emerge are as follows.

(A) MILESTONE'S INITIAL APPROACH TO MR BALDRY

46. In a letter of 27 April in response to one I sent him on 21 April (see WE 17 and 18), Dr Levy says that when Milestone initially ran into difficulties in Sierra Leone he approached a friend who put him in touch with Mr Stuart Polak. Mr Polak arranged a meeting with Mr Baldry. This confirms the account Mr Baldry gives of the approach he received from Mr Polak. Mr Polak too has confirmed this account. Dr Levy says that at that point he knew Mr Baldry to be an MP but not much more about him. In a statement forwarded to me by Mr Baldry, Mr Polak has said that at the meeting he arranged between Mr Baldry and Dr Levy and Mr Moshe Levy;

"It was clear ... that they did not know Tony Baldry, or of his involvement with Sierra Leone.".

47. Both this and what Dr Levy says on this point in his letter to me of 27 April conflict with the impression Dr Levy appears to have given to Sunday Times journalists in an interview on 25 March, in which he is said to have indicated that Mr Baldry had been recommended to him by the Sierra Leonean Ministers of Agriculture and Mines, as well as by other senior Sierra Leonean figures:

"We came across many times this Tony Baldry as a good friend of [the President] whom he knew from older days in the chambers, he knew the President and Vice-President and is very well respected. It was very natural for us to contact him and ask for his services. We wanted him to do some politics, PR, like that.".

I have put this apparent discrepancy to Dr Levy, who confirms that it was through Mr Polak that he was introduced to Mr Baldry. He had heard about him earlier in a general way and after meeting Mr Baldry some of these earlier mentions of him fell into place. But he cannot now recall precisely when and where he heard these favourable references to Mr Baldry. And it was Mr Polak who effected their introduction.

48. Whatever the precise circumstances in which Milestone first came to hear of Mr Baldry's extensive interest and contacts in Sierra Leone, both Mr Baldry and Dr Levy are adamant that at the time of Mr Baldry's correspondence with the Vice President in late September/early October 2004, there was no commercial relationship or understanding between Milestone and Red Eagle. Dr Levy says:

"During the correspondence with the President ... Tony Baldry didn't have any actual or prospective financial interest in Milestone. None was mentioned. None was asked for and none was offered.".

49. Mr Baldry insists that his initial involvement with Milestone was "as a UK Member of Parliament seeking to help a UK company clearly in difficulties ...". Nothing was said at that meeting, or subsequently, which gave him the impression that Milestone wanted him for his contacts, "to do some politics, PR [things] like that". If anything of this nature had been said, he would not have undertaken it. He was simply trying to help resolve a problem, as he had tried to help many others who had come to him with development-related issues in the last Parliament. Mr Polak says of Mr Baldry's approach to the meeting:

"As I would have expected from an MP, the meeting was akin to a 'constituency surgery meeting', ie a problem was brought to his attention that no-one had been able to solve, which he as an MP was willing to attempt to resolve, because he could see the difficulties that this UK company was facing."

"Throughout the meeting, and in subsequent discussions I had with Tony Baldry, he acted as one would expect an MP dealing with a constituency case.".[15]

(B) THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RED EAGLE RESOURCES AND MILESTONE

50. Within some two months of Mr Baldry's initial involvement, a formal joint participation agreement had been concluded between Red Eagle and Milestone. According to Mr Baldry, this did not arise out of the assistance he had initially given Milestone (letter of 26 April, WE 20 in reply to mine of 21 April, WE 19). Rather it became clear to both Mr Baldry and his colleagues in Red Eagle and to Dr Levy and his partners in Milestone that the commercial interests of the two companies could be advanced if they worked together in relation to a number of business opportunities in Sierra Leone. Red Eagle had for some time been seeking to develop a fisheries project in Sierra Leone and was also aware of other opportunities in which it knew Milestone was interested, including the possible privatisation of the state lottery and the development of a diagnostic centre in Freetown. Milestone had expressed interest in investing in such projects. Mr Baldry paid a visit to Sierra Leone on behalf of Red Eagle during the November Parliamentary recess, a visit that coincided with one by Dr Levy and Mr Moshe Levy. Mr Baldry had received repeated requests from the Sierra Leonean High Commissioner in London and from HE the Vice President to see whether he could find someone to help establish the proposed diagnostic centre. Milestone said that they were willing to investigate the project. He therefore took advantage of his visit to introduce the Milestone personnel to the President and to the Head of the Privatisation Commission.

51. Following this visit, Mr Baldry signed on 23 November on behalf of Red Eagle a joint participation agreement with Milestone. The agreement (a copy of which I have seen) on the one hand gives Milestone exclusive rights to participate in projects generated by Red Eagle and to join with Red Eagle in mutually exploiting other opportunities in Sierra Leone, and on the other gives Red Eagle similar rights in relation to any initiative in Sierra Leone by Milestone.

52. The joint participation agreement also provides that, in addition to such fees as may be mutually agreed, if Milestone undertakes a public flotation Red Eagle will receive a 3% shareholding in the company. It appears that the proposition originally under consideration was that Red Eagle would receive 3% of Milestone's turnover but this was altered to a 3% shareholding when the company began to consider its flotation on the AIM. In his interview with Sunday Times journalists on 25 March, Dr Levy is reported to have indicated that Milestone's planning assumption was that the company might be valued on flotation at £50 million, which would mean that Red Eagle's shareholding would be worth £1.5 million. This figure was subsequently published in the Sunday Times article of 27 March. Mr Baldry points out that such an estimate can only have been speculative, as no formal valuation of Milestone's assets has yet been undertaken. Dr Levy comments of the estimated sum:

"That is a hope, not a firm figure.".

53. The article of 27 March also referred to a payment of $75,000 made by Milestone to Red Eagle. According to both Mr Baldry and Dr Levy the payment was not made in recognition of Mr Baldry's help in overcoming the difficulties encountered by Milestone in Sierra Leone but in furtherance of the joint participation agreement and in recognition of the work Red Eagle had by then done to assist Milestone in developing new opportunities in Sierra Leone. As to the sum involved, it appears not to have been $75,000 but $37,500 (about £19,000), an invoice for which Red Eagle sent Milestone on 15 December 2004.[16] The invoice states:

"Sierra Leone: To our Professional Charges in acting on your behalf in this matter.".

The invoice was paid on 18 January 2005. Mr Baldry has explained this payment in the following terms:

"This invoice and payment were largely Red Eagle seeking and Milestone demonstrating good faith. By then Red Eagle had introduced Milestone to a number of business opportunities ..." (statement of 26 April).[17]

54. Mr Baldry and Dr Levy have confirmed that, at the time of my inquiries of them, no other payment had been made by Milestone to Red Eagle. Neither Mr Baldry's visit to Sierra Leone in November 2004 nor the further visit he made to Freetown in January 2005 were funded by Milestone. In his note of 7 April commenting on his letter to the Secretary of State, Mr Baldry says;

"I have never received any money from Milestone Trading ...".

Clearly Red Eagle, of which Mr Baldry is a director and shareholder, has received money from Milestone but my understanding from Mr Baldry is that this has gone to help meet the costs of running the company. He himself has never received either a dividend or any director's fees from Red Eagle.

(D) MR BALDRY'S PROSPECTIVE INTEREST IN MILESTONE

55. Dr Levy says that the suggestion that Mr Baldry might serve as chairman of Milestone following its flotation first arose around the turn of the year:

"I am not sure when I first talked with Tony Baldry about the possibility of his becoming Chairman of Milestone if it were to float: it was either just before or just after Christmas break. We thought then and still think that he would make an excellent chairman of a public company.".

As yet, however, Mr Baldry "has no direct involvement whatsoever in Milestone". Mr Baldry's recollection is that the matter of the chairmanship;

"was first mooted ... shortly before Christmas 2004, when as I understand it, Milestone had decided that they wanted to raise venture capital from a broader base and had thus decided to go to the Stock Exchange.".

(E) THE IMPETUS BEHIND MR BALDRY'S LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

56. One other significant point to emerge from Dr Levy's letter of 27 April is that Milestone maintains that it did not ask Mr Baldry to write to the Secretary of State as he did on 14 January 2005. According to Dr Levy:

"We never asked him to write such a letter. Indeed, I don't think he even mentioned to me that he had written such a letter but I can understand his being concerned that we were doing the right things in Sierra Leone and DFID officials have been to visit our operations and as far as we understand, they are satisfied with that we are doing. We have never looked for any endorsement from DFID nor would we have expected one.".[18]

(F) ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY AGAINST MILESTONE

57. Allegations of impropriety by Milestone in the conduct of its mining operations in Sierra Leone have been made to the Sunday Times. These, I am informed, are strenuously denied by Milestone. There is no evidence that Mr Baldry was aware of them before they were put to him recently by the Sunday Times and they do not form part of this inquiry.

MR BALDRY'S USE OF HOUSE STATIONERY

58. In view of his responsibility for administering the House's rules on the use of its stationery, I sought the Serjeant at Arm's views on the fact that both Mr Baldry's correspondence with the Vice President and that with the Secretary of State were conducted using House stationery, after sharing with the Serjeant Mr Baldry's explanation of his actions. The Serjeant commented:

"I am of the view that it was inappropriate for Mr Baldry to use such writing paper.".

59. With respect to the correspondence with the Vice President, the Serjeant says:

"I am ... of the view that this correspondence should not have been carried out on Commons notepaper. He [Mr Baldry] did have some business interests with certain companies operating in the region and since he claimed that he knew both the President and the Vice President of Sierra Leone I can see no justifiable reason for his using House of Commons notepaper were it not for the fact that by so using such paper he might influence others in the country. Whatever his reason, I still believe that he broke the current rules of the House and the guidance on the use of stationery given by the Administration Committee.".

60. At paragraph 3 above I have already referred to the criticism of Mr Baldry in respect of this correspondence which the Sunday Times reported to have been made by the Anti-Corruption Commissioner in Sierra Leone, Mr Val Collier. Mr Collier repeated this criticism to me in a telephone conversation on 7 June. In Mr Collier's view, Mr Baldry's approach to the Sierra Leonean Government on behalf of Milestone amounted to an attempt to peddle influence and was not a good example to set, to a developing country in particular.

61. Regarding Mr Baldry's correspondence with the Secretary of State, the Serjeant comments that this also broke the relevant rules about the use of stationery because Mr Baldry was "seeking DFID checks for business reasons". More generally he remarks:

"I find his defence less than persuasive. There appears to have been a business imperative behind everything he did, and therefore in my view he should have carried out this correspondence on his own paper. That he did not, and carried out his correspondence of a business and commercial nature, breaks the current rules of the House and the guidance on them given by the Administration Committee.".

62. I have already set out Mr Baldry's account of his motivation and actions in undertaking both these sets of correspondence in paragraphs 38 and 42-44 above. In response to the Serjeant at Arms' observations, Mr Baldry has commented:

"So far as the letter to the Vice President was concerned, I was not trying to influence anyone, I was simply seeking to set out the facts as I understood them, although I fully appreciate that a 'stream of consciousness' ramble about an airline project, even if the Vice President was well aware of the background and context of those comments, laid me open to criticism."

"As to my letter to Hilary Benn, I can only observe that this letter must have been very poorly written by me if objective and dispassionate readers conclude that I was 'seeking DFID checks for business reasons'. As I have explained, that was not my purpose: I simply wanted to ensure that a new and substantial UK investor in Sierra Leone, in a sensitive commodity, was complying with the rules, and that DFID was aware of this company's existence and operations ... I am disappointed, having read those explanations, that the Serjeant at Arms concludes that there was a 'business imperative' in everything that I did. That was most certainly not the case, nor my intention.".

63. Mr Baldry concludes (letter of 13 June 2005, WE 21);

"However, I fully accept that the perception of an MP's conduct is important and if I have managed to give the Serjeant at Arms that perception from these letters, then I fully understand and accept why the Serjeant at Arms has come to the conclusion that I have broken the current rules of the House and the guidance on the use of stationery given by the Administration Committee. I fully accept his adjudication and I apologise unreservedly.".

Findings of fact

64. Mr Baldry is the non-executive chairman and, through his foundation share, a one third shareholder in a firm—Red Eagle—with business interests in Sierra Leone. He says that he has not yet received either director's fees or a dividend from the company. Mr Baldry has registered his non-executive chairmanship but, until April 2005, had not registered his shareholding in the company. Mr Baldry explains the failure to register his shareholding as an unintended oversight. Mr Baldry is also chairman of and a shareholder in Angel Gate Aviation, both of which interests are registered.

65. During the week of 20 September 2004, Mr Baldry was alerted by a friend, Mr Stuart Polak, to difficulties Milestone had encountered in relation to its mining operations in the Nimikoro area of Sierra Leone. Following a meeting at which Mr Polak introduced him to Dr Nissim Levy, a director of Milestone and Mr Moshe Levy, Mr Baldry intervened with the President and Vice President of Sierra Leone on the company's behalf. Following this intervention, the company's immediate difficulties were overcome.

66. At the time of this intervention, Mr Baldry had no financial relationship, directly or indirectly, with Milestone. On 23 November 2004, however, Mr Baldry signed on behalf of Red Eagle a joint participation agreement with Milestone, in which the two companies effectively pledged to work together in promoting their business interests in Sierra Leone. Following the signing of the agreement, Red Eagle submitted to Milestone on 15 December an invoice for $37,500 in payment of "professional charges in acting on your behalf in this matter" (ie Sierra Leone). There is no evidence that prior to the events covered by that part of the complaint relating to Mr Baldry's letter of 14 January 2005 to the Secretary of State, Mr Baldry and Red Eagle had received any other financial recognition from Milestone. Nor is there any evidence that, to date, Mr Baldry has personally received any financial reward from Milestone.

67. When Mr Baldry approached the Secretary of State, he also had two potential prospective interests in Milestone. Under the terms of the joint participation agreement Red Eagle stood to obtain a 3% shareholding in Milestone if and when Milestone successfully floated on the AIM exchange. Dr Levy had expressed the hope that this shareholding might be worth £1.5 million, though there had been no formal valuation of Milestone. Around Christmas 2004, Dr Levy had also suggested to Mr Baldry that he might become chairman of Milestone if it floated. Mr Baldry revealed this potential interest when writing to the Secretary of State. He did not, however, mention either his by then existing interest through the joint participation agreement between Red Eagle and Milestone, or the potential benefit that could accrue to Red Eagle by virtue of the shareholding it was entitled to take, in the event of a successful flotation by Milestone.

68. Both Mr Baldry's earlier correspondence with the President and Vice President of Sierra Leone and his later correspondence with the Secretary of State were conducted on House of Commons notepaper. Both sets of correspondence concerned the affairs of Milestone, although whereas the former had been stimulated by Dr Levy, the latter appears not to have been. The letter to the Vice President of 4 October 2004 also referred to discussions Mr Baldry had had with the Sierra Leonean Privatisation Commissioner about matters involving the business interests of Angel Gate Aviation and Red Eagle. (His earlier letter of 29 September 2004 to the President had referred only to his discussions with the Commissioner about Angel Gate Aviation.)

69. Mr Baldry maintains that his approaches on behalf of Milestone to both the Vice President and the Secretary of State were a proper expression of his duties as a Member of Parliament, not least in relation to the support of British industry and in assisting the economic development of a country still recovering from recent civil strife. Noting the criticism by the Serjeant at Arms of his use of House of Commons stationery in this connection, he has however apologised unreservedly for this aspect of his conduct.

Conclusions

INTRODUCTION

70. In my letter of 4 April to Mr Baldry (WE 8) I described the issues raised by Mr Foulkes's complaint as falling into the following areas:

a) Had Mr Baldry properly registered the relevant interests (registration issues)?

b) Did Mr Baldry properly and fully declare his relevant interests when writing to the Secretary of State (declaration issues)?

c) Did the terms of Mr Baldry's approach to the Secretary of State breach the ban on lobbying for reward or consideration (the advocacy rule)?

d) Was it appropriate for Mr Baldry to use House of Commons headed paper to write to the Secretary of State (use of Commons stationery)?

71. In the light of the evidence I have already summarised, I set out below the considerations I believe relevant to assessing the answer to each of these questions. I go on to consider, as requested by Mr Foulkes, whether the experience of this case suggests that the present rules relating to the interests of the chairmen of select committees are in any way deficient.

(A) REGISTRATION ISSUES

72. Analysis of the registration aspects of the case is relatively straightforward. Mr Baldry has properly registered:

· His non-executive chairmanship of Angel Gate Aviation Limited.

· His registrable shareholding in Angel Gate Aviation Limited.

73. He has also registered his non-executive chairmanship of Red Eagle Resources plc. Although Mr Baldry says that he has not yet received any remuneration in this capacity, his air travel costs have been met by the company in respect of one visit he made on its behalf to Sierra Leone and he is wise to have registered this directorship also.

74. Until prompted by my letter of 4 April (see paragraphs 18 and 25 above), Mr Baldry had failed to register his one third shareholding in Red Eagle. Mr Baldry says that this was due to an oversight. The shareholding was included in the edition of the Register of Members' Interests published on 11 April 2005.

75. Mr Baldry was not obliged to register the visits he made to Sierra Leone in November 2004 and January 2005 on behalf of Red Eagle as the visits did not primarily relate to or arise out of his membership of the House. These visits were made in consequence of his business interests, mainly in respect of Red Eagle. In the first instance, his flight costs only were met by Red Eagle: in the second, Mr Baldry met all his own costs.

76. Nor did Mr Baldry have any registrable interest in Milestone, as to date he has never been either a director or shareholder and his visits to Sierra Leone were not funded by them. I consider below the separate question whether and to what extent Mr Baldry had a declarable interest in the company.

77. I therefore conclude that Mr Baldry has properly registered his relevant interests, with the exception (until he wrote to me on 5 April 2005) of his shareholding in Red Eagle. In respect of his failure to register his shareholding in Red Eagle Resources plc until April of this year, Mr Baldry was in breach of the Code.

(B) DECLARATION ISSUES

78. I turn now to the question of whether Mr Baldry properly declared his interests when corresponding with both the President and the Vice President of Sierra Leone, and with the Secretary of State. As noted earlier (paragraph 8), the obligation to declare an interest is broader in scope than that relating to registration, in that as well as current interests, it also embraces both relevant past and future interests.

(i) Correspondence with the President and Vice President

79. The rules of the House requiring Members to be candid about their relevant interests when dealing with Ministers and civil servants do not in terms apply to similar dealings with overseas governments. However, the 1975 report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration), which is quoted in paragraph 68 of the Guide to the Rules, said that the obligation to declare pecuniary interest "becomes of paramount importance when a foreign government is involved either directly or indirectly".[19]

80. Had Mr Baldry's correspondence with the President and Vice President of Sierra Leone about Milestone been conducted after Mr Baldry had signed the joint participation agreement between Red Eagle and Milestone on 23 November then, in my view, it would have been appropriate for him to have made clear his financial interest. However on the basis of the evidence I have described, at the time of this correspondence in October 2004, Mr Baldry had no actual or potential interest, and therefore no declarable interest, in Milestone.

81. From the evidence available, it appears that at the time of the correspondence the President and Vice President were already well aware of Mr Baldry's financial interests in Angel Gate Aviation and Red Eagle. Mr Baldry had previously corresponded with the Vice President on behalf of Angel Gate Aviation, and both the President and Vice President were aware of his ongoing discussions with the Privatisation Commissioner.

82. I therefore conclude that Mr Baldry did not breach the rules of the House in respect of the declaration of interests when he corresponded with the President and Vice President on behalf of Milestone in October 2004.

(ii) Correspondence with the Secretary of State

83. By the time Mr Baldry wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development on 14 January 2005, however, the position had changed in a number of important respects. Red Eagle had by then entered into its partnership agreement with Milestone, and had received a payment from that company for leading it to a number of commercial opportunities in Sierra Leone. There had also been discussions between Milestone and Mr Baldry about the possibility of him becoming its chairman, as and when it went public.

84. In his letter to the Secretary of State, Mr Baldry referred to his potential role as chairman and to the fact that Milestone was contemplating flotation on the AIM, as well as outlining a number of his more personal links with Sierra Leone and its leaders. However, he did not reveal his existing interest, or the full extent of his potential future interest, arising from the agreement between Red Eagle and Milestone.

85. Whilst the agreement between Red Eagle and Milestone did not fall into any of the categories of interests which Mr Baldry was required to register, it was in my view clearly a declarable one in the context of his correspondence with the Secretary of State, in that it was an interest which "might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question". Through the terms of the agreement, Mr Baldry also had a potential interest in the shareholding, which could be of substantial value, that Red Eagle stood to gain from a successful flotation by Milestone.

86. Mr Baldry argues that in referring to his potential role as chairman of Milestone and to Milestone's prospective flotation he had done enough to alert the Secretary of State to the fact that he had a personal interest in Milestone's commercial success. I accept Mr Baldry's argument that the Secretary of State would have been aware that he had a potential financial interest in the company which was the prime subject of the letter. Indeed, that he recognised the existence of such an interest is evident from the first line of Mr Benn's reply of 14 February (WE 4). However the Secretary of State would not have been aware of the full scope of Mr Baldry's interest, as no mention had been made of Mr Baldry's existing financial interest, through Red Eagle, nor would he have known of the further potential interest, through Red Eagle's entitlement to take a stake in Milestone as and when it floated.

87. The provisions of the Code of Conduct to which I have referred in paragraph 6 above, as amplified by the rules on declaring interests which I have outlined in paragraphs 8-9, make clear that frankness and candour in respect of financial interests are essential when a Member is dealing with Ministers and officials. On the evidence to hand, I do not believe that Mr Baldry set out to deceive the Secretary of State about the fact that he had a financial interest in Milestone: if this had been his objective, he would not have mentioned his prospective chairmanship of the company or the company's planned flotation. I also very much doubt that the Secretary of State's reply would have been materially different had Mr Baldry declared the full extent of his financial interest in Milestone. However, the fact remains that his disclosure was less complete than it should have been in that he failed to disclose both his existing financial interest and the full potential extent of his prospective financial interest in Milestone.

88. I therefore conclude that Mr Baldry did not fully comply with the House's requirements in respect of the declaration of interests when he wrote to the Secretary of State.

89. I have set out the terms of this rule in paragraph 10 of this report. In brief it means that a Member may not, in proceedings in the House or when approaching Ministers or officials, advocate a course of action which would exclusively benefit a body or individual from which the Member has received, is receiving or expects to receive a pecuniary benefit. The question arises whether in writing to the Secretary of State on 14 January 2005 in the terms in which he did, Mr Baldry breached that rule. A similar question does not arise in relation to Mr Baldry's correspondence with the President and Vice President because, as I have already made clear, at the time of that correspondence, Mr Baldry had not received, nor was he expecting to receive, a financial benefit from Milestone.[20]

90. In his letter of 14 January Mr Baldry asked the Secretary of State:

"... whether it would be possible for DFID officials in Freetown to meet up with the Milestone team 'in country' to ensure that so far as the retrieval and recording of diamonds, their export and sale by Milestone—indeed everything relating to them—is fully 100% in accord with the requirement of the Kimberley Process and whatever 'best practice' DFID would hope that mining companies in Sierra Leone would pursue.".

91. Mr Baldry says that in making this request, he was not, as the Sunday Times has alleged, seeking some DFID best practice 'seal of approval' for Milestone's mining operations in Sierra Leone. Rather he was genuinely concerned that Milestone's operations should be compliant, and was concerned to protect not only the reputation of Milestone but also that of British business. His motivation, he maintains, in making his request was the public interest rather than the particular interest of Milestone:

"... the fundamental purpose of my writing was to seek to ensure that DFID were confident that a new and substantial UK investor in Sierra Leone was following proper procedures.".

92. I note Dr Levy's statement that he did not prompt Mr Baldry's approach to the Secretary of State. I also note Mr Baldry's statements that the concerns which underpinned his approach to the Secretary of State were based on a misapprehension as to where responsibility lay for demonstrating compliance with the Kimberley Process, and that his motivation in writing was that he was genuinely concerned to ensure that Milestone was doing the proper thing rather than that he was seeking to obtain some exclusive DFID seal of approval for the company.[21] In support of this, he pointed out that his action might have been to the detriment of Milestone had it been found by DFID not to be in compliance.

93. Whatever the motives lying behind an approach to a Minister, two practical tests need to be applied to decide whether it falls foul of the advocacy rule:

a) Does the approach seek to confer benefit exclusively upon a body or individual outside Parliament? and

b) Does the Member have a past or present pecuniary benefit, or expectations of a future pecuniary benefit from that body or individual?

94. I now apply each of these tests to Mr Baldry's letter to the Secretary of State. Taking the second first, his letter clearly disclosed expectations of future pecuniary benefits from Milestone's anticipated flotation. Furthermore, my inquiries have also demonstrated an existing indirect pecuniary benefit through Red Eagle's commercial relationship with Milestone. So the answer to the second question in this case is clearly 'yes'.

95. Turning now to the first question, two points need to be considered. The first is whether the action Mr Baldry was seeking would be expected to be to the benefit of Milestone. The second is whether it would be to its exclusive benefit. As I point out above, Mr Baldry argues that his action would not necessarily be to Milestone's benefit, as DFID might have found its operations not to have been in compliance. While I accept that the company might have faced additional short-term costs in remedying deficiencies if found not to be compliant, I have no doubt that its longer term commercial interests lie in ensuring that its operations are compliant with the Kimberley Process. So whatever the outcome, an audit of its operations by DFID would undoubtedly have been of benefit to the company, both in terms of its day-to-day business and in the context of its prospective flotation.

96. But would the benefit accruing from a favourable response by the Secretary of State to the letter have accrued exclusively to Milestone? Mr Baldry maintains that, in making the approach, he had in mind both the risk to Milestone's reputation if it was not complying, and also the possible wider risk of such a failure to British business and future British investment in Sierra Leone. These, he argues, are matters of wider public interest.

97. This argument raises the question of how the word 'exclusively' is intended to be interpreted in the context of the advocacy rule. Mr Baldry argues in effect that it should be interpreted in terms of an assessment of the distribution of the overall benefit. I accept that there may well be wider public interest benefits from Milestone being given a clean bill of health by DFID, but take the view that this is not the basis on which the test of exclusiveness is intended to be applied.

98. In my view, the question of exclusiveness or otherwise needs to be looked at in terms of the scope of the intended immediate beneficiaries of the approach rather than the distribution of the overall benefit. To take a specific example, a Member might write to a Minister to seek Government financial assistance for a specific company in which he or she had a personal financial interest. There would undoubtedly be benefit to the company from the request being granted, but arguably also wider benefits to the workforce and the economy generally. However, to interpret such an approach as falling outside the scope of the advocacy rule on the grounds that the benefit of the financial assistance sought would extend beyond the direct benefit to the company itself would, in my view, render the rule entirely ineffective. I do not believe that either the Committee on Standards in Public Life or the House intended it to be applied in this way.[22] I am fortified in this belief by the terms of the guidance on the application of the advocacy rule already approved by the House.[23]

99. Turning now specifically to the terms of Mr Baldry's letter to the Secretary of State, (WE 3), it is clear that he was in terms advocating a course of action exclusively in relation to Milestone. It is also clear from the Secretary of State's reply (WE 4) that, in stating that DFID could not endorse an individual company's activities, he also interpreted the approach as relating exclusively to Milestone.

100. I conclude that Mr Baldry's letter constituted the advocacy of a course of action which would exclusively benefit a company from which he had indirectly received and had further expectations of receiving a pecuniary benefit. In writing to the Secretary of State in the terms in which he did, Mr Baldry therefore breached the House's advocacy rule.

(D) USE OF HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY

101. I have already outlined in paragraphs 58-61 above the Serjeant at Arms's view on Mr Baldry's use of House of Commons stationery to conduct his correspondence with the President and Vice President and with the Secretary of State. I have referred (at paragraphs 3 and 60) to the criticism of the former correspondence made by the Anti-Corruption Commissioner in Sierra Leone. I have also set out Mr Baldry's explanation of his actions in paragraphs 38, 42-44 and 62-63.

102. The rules about the use of House stationery approved by Mr Speaker on the advice of the Administration Committee provide that this stationery should not be used for "communications of a business or commercial nature". I take this to mean that House stationery cannot be used for the primary purpose of corresponding about or with a view to furthering the interests of a business. It would, however, be a proper use of House stationery for a Member to write, for example, to a Minister about the concerns and interests of a business, provided that in writing the Member can reasonably be considered to be fulfilling a representative function; the benefit to the business is incidental to the discharge of this function; and the advocacy rule does not apply.

103. The main subject of Mr Baldry's correspondence with the President and Vice President of Sierra Leone was Milestone Trading Limited, with which at that time Mr Baldry did not have a business association. Mr Baldry argues that his intervention on behalf of Milestone was motivated solely by considerations of the public interest. He was not Dr Levy's own Member of Parliament but he was in a position to help, wider issues appeared to him to be at stake and so he thought it appropriate to intervene.

104. Mr Baldry's intervention was not, however, entirely selfless. He was at the time engaged in negotiations with the Sierra Leonean authorities relating to the interests of Angel Gate Aviation, of which he was a director and shareholder, and on his own admission was concerned about the possible consequences for Angel Gate Aviation and other British companies if it emerged that the Sierra Leone Government had acted capriciously towards Milestone. Moreover in the final paragraphs of his letter of 4 October, Mr Baldry moved on from the affairs of Milestone to report on the state of his negotiations with the Privatisation Commissioner on behalf of Angel Gate Aviation and to mention other projects (such as the fisheries project) in which he was interested through Red Eagle. He had already mentioned Angel Gate Aviation in his letter of 29 September to the President.

105. Mr Baldry says that he was not lobbying the Sierra Leonean authorities in mentioning his discussions with the Privatisation Commissioner but simply updating them on the progress of a project in which they were already well aware of his interest. Moreover, as he is well known to the President and Vice President of Sierra Leone "... whether my concerns are expressed on House of Commons notepaper or any other notepaper, would make no difference to how they are received". However, there is also the question of the effect that his use of House of Commons notepaper might have had on others, as the Anti-Corruption Commissioner in Sierra Leone noted . Perceptions in this area are important (a point Mr Baldry himself acknowledges in his letter to me of 13 June—WE 21) and the fact is that Mr Baldry used House of Commons notepaper in this instance when corresponding about, among other things, the interests of companies (Angel Gate Aviation and Red Eagle) in which he had a personal financial stake.

106. As regards Mr Baldry's later intervention with the Secretary of State on behalf of Milestone, by then he had a clear financial interest in that company's future. Mr Baldry again argues that his intervention was motivated by the public interest in ensuring that Milestone's operations in Sierra Leone were in accordance with international best practice.

"I wrote on House of Commons notepaper because the fundamental purpose of my writing was to seek to ensure that DFID were confident that a new and substantial UK investor in Sierra Leone was following proper procedures.".

107. It would not have been appropriate, in his view, for him to write on Red Eagle's stationery and if he had written on his private notepaper he would have had to make his identity known to the Secretary of State and his officials. Given his reasons for writing, it was not inappropriate for him to use House of Commons stationery.

108. In my judgement the likelihood is that Mr Baldry's motives in writing to the Secretary of State were in reality a mix of public and private concerns. As an objective fact, his correspondence with the Secretary of State concerned the commercial interests of a company in which he had, through Red Eagle, both current and prospective personal interests. It would have avoided any danger of the perception arising that he was using his public role to advance a private interest if he had used either Red Eagle stationery (by then the two companies were business partners) or his private notepaper. This would have demonstrated that Mr Baldry had clearly separated his private from his public role.

109. I accept that Mr Baldry may well have had considerations of the public interest in mind when initiating the correspondence with both the President of Sierra Leone and the Secretary of State. However, at the heart of both approaches lay pressure for action which would be to the sole commercial benefit of a private business interest, Milestone. Moreover, in both cases the correspondence covered matters in which Mr Baldry himself had a clear private business interest. In my view, this went beyond fulfilling a representative function. There were other, in my view equally effective, ways in which Mr Baldry could have conveyed his concerns about those matters in which private interests were involved without using House stationery for the purpose.

110. On the basis of this analysis of the evidence before me, I therefore respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by the Serjeant at Arms that Mr Baldry's use of House stationery in these two instances breached the relevant rules of the House. I note that in his letter of 13 June Mr Baldry has indicated that he accepts the Serjeant's adjudication on this point and has apologized unreservedly for this aspect of his conduct.