Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Sir John Butterfill, Rt hon Stephen Byers, Rt hon
Patricia Hewitt, Rt hon Geoff Hoon, Rt hon Richard Caborn and
Rt hon Adam Ingram
Introduction
1. This memorandum reports on my inquiries into allegations
made in March 2010 against six people who were then Members of
Parliament in connection with meetings they had held with an undercover
reporter who claimed to represent a United States communications
company. The Members concerned were Sir John Butterfill, then
the Member for Bournemouth West, who referred himself to me, and
five others in respect of whom I received complaints: Rt Hon Stephen
Byers, then the Member for North Tyneside, Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt,
then the Member for Leicester West, Rt Hon Geoff Hoon, then the
Member for Ashfield, Rt Hon Richard Caborn, then the Member for
Sheffield Central and Rt Hon Adam Ingram, then the Member for
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. None of these Members
contested the May 2010 General Election, so none of them is a
Member of the current House.
Background
2. On 21 March 2010, the Sunday Times carried
an article alleging that a joint investigation for that paper
and Channel 4's Dispatches programme had secretly interviewed
nine members of Parliament who were leaving the House at the General
Election. The article said that they were told that a US communications
company, Anderson Perry Associates, was forming an advisory board
and was interested in whether they wished to sit on it.[1]
In fact, the company did not exist, and the representative who
conducted the interviews was an undercover reporter working for
the Sunday Times and Dispatches.[2]
The article featured comments by Mr Byers and Ms Hewitt, in particular,
as to how they could use their experience of government to help
the company's clients to lobby Ministers and officials, and according
to the article both had expressed a willingness to work for the
company. The article also said that Mr Hoon had indicated an interest
in doing likewise, alleging that he said he wanted to translate
his knowledge and contacts into cash.
3. The article alleged
that Mr Byers had during the meeting said, "I'm a bit
like a sort of cab for hire". The article said that Mr
Byers had claimed that he had saved hundreds of millions of pounds
for National Express through his contacts with Lord Adonis, the
Transport Minister, and had delayed and amended food labelling
proposals for Tesco after telephoning Lord Mandelson, then the
Business Secretary. The article said that Mr Byers appeared keen
to work for the fictitious company and was quick to flag up "his
impeccable political connections". He was alleged to
have told the reporter, "I still get a lot of confidential
information because I'm still linked in to No 10".
4. Mr Byers was said in
the article to have described himself as the "architect"
of the Enterprise Act who could therefore offer help to any clients
"operating a restrictive practice" or "price-fixing".
He was quoted as saying, "That's an animal I created,
for better or worse ... but you also know ways around it...
well actually...there's an ace you can play here."
5. The article alleged
that the next day Mr Byers sent the undercover reporter an e-mail
effectively claiming that he had lied throughout the meeting.
It quoted Mr Byers as saying in that e-mail, "In reality
I have not been engaged in lobbying Ministers here in the UK.
My statements yesterday would have given the opposite impression
and I would like to take this opportunity to withdraw them."
6. Ms Hewitt was said in the article to charge £3,000
a day for a range of advice and services that included helping
to influence legislation. She was alleged to have acknowledged
that she could help the fictitious company's clients to influence
legislation. "If you've got a client who needs a particular
regulation removed, then we can often package that up [for
a Minister]", she was quoted in the article as saying.
The article also said that Ms Hewitt had listed five ways that
a company could contact a Minister, namely by funding think tanks
and seminars, hospitality, sponsoring events in party conferences,
contacting special advisers and finding a connection with the
Minister's constituency. Ms Hewitt was alleged to have spoken
at length of her involvement with Partnerships in Care (PiC),
a private mental health service provider owned by the private
equity company Cinven. She was said in the article to have claimed
that it was through her efforts that PiC was able to give evidence
to Lord Bradley's study about providing care outside prison for
criminals with mental health problems.
7. The article alleged that during the meeting Ms
Hewitt also claimed she had "spoken to Ministers and civil
servants" about changing a carbon reduction regulation
that helped her client Cinven and other private equity companies.
8. The next day, 22 March, I received an e-mail from
Mr Byers.[3] He asked me,
in the light of media comments following his interview, to investigate
his actions to confirm that he had "at all times complied
with all the relevant provisions covering Members of Parliament."
I replied the same day.[4]
I said that, under the rules agreed by the House for complaints,
I was expected to consult the Committee on Standards and Privileges
when a Member had asked me to investigate an allegation against
him when they are not the subject of a specific complaint. I pointed
out that the rules stated that the Committee would expect to authorise
such an inquiry only in exceptional circumstances, and invited
Mr Byers to let me know later that day why in his view the circumstances
justified an inquiry. I also said that I would consider any complaints
I received against him in respect of this matter. Later that day,
Mr Byers e-mailed me again.[5]
He said that he had asked for an inquiry "because media
reports have questioned whether I have complied with the rules
of the House. I know that I have always complied but now need
this to be independently confirmed ... Given the level of media
interest and the serious allegations made against me, I believe
that these are exceptional circumstances that merit an inquiry."
9. I also received an e-mail from Ms Hewitt on 22
March.[6] She said that,
in the course of her discussion with the undercover journalist,
she had referred to work she had done for two other companies,
in both cases following approval by the Advisory Committee on
Business Appointments. Both appointments had been declared in
the Register (of Members' Financial Interests). Ms Hewitt said
that, in this work she had "always been mindful of the
provisions of the Code of Conduct for Membersfor instance,
by making clear my association with the firm in any conversation
I have had with officials." She continued, "Nonetheless,
the Sunday Times story carried the implication that I (and
others) acted improperly and similar allegations have been made
by others. I therefore want to refer myself to you and hope that
the Committee will agree to allow you to investigate the matter."
I replied to Ms Hewitt the same day, pointing out, as I had
to Mr Byers, that the Committee would expect to authorise such
an inquiry only in exceptional circumstances, and saying that
I would also consider any complaints I received against her in
respect of this matter.[7]
10. On the same day, 22
March, Ms Justine Greening, the Member for Putney, wrote to me
to make formal complaints against Mr Byers, Mr Hoon and Ms Hewitt.[8]
She said that the Sunday Times had reported that they had
each been offering their parliamentary expertise to external commercial
interests in exchange for financial rewards. In particular, Ms
Greening said that Mr Byers had "described himself as
a 'sort of cab for hire' for commercial enterprises, and
claims to have influenced policy on behalf of several major firms,
including National Express and Tesco". She said that
Mr Hoon had "offered to allow companies to influence government
policy by making use of his knowledge and position for 'something
that frankly makes money'". She said that Ms Hewitt
had "claimed that she had been appointed to a government
advisory group on behalf of a client in which she had a financial
interest." Ms Greening believed that there were "strong
grounds" to state that Mr Byers, Mr Hoon and Ms Hewitt
had compromised their public duties as members of the House and
breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. I decided
to accept Ms Greening's complaint. I wrote to Mr Byers and Ms
Hewitt on 23 March to inform them that I did not therefore need
to conduct my inquiry on the basis of the self-referrals they
had sent me.[9]
11. On the evening of 22 March, the Channel 4 Dispatches
programme was broadcast. It included interviews with Mr Byers,
Ms Hewitt and Mr Hoon, and also with other Members drawn from
both Houses of Parliament.
12. One of those other
Members, Sir John Butterfill, sent me an e-mail that same evening,
22 March.[10] Sir John
said that he wished to clear his name completely, and that he
was referring himself to me so that I might consider whether he
had breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.
13. Following receipt of Sir John's e-mail I submitted
the matter to the 23 March meeting of the Committee on Standards
and Privileges, which authorised me to undertake the inquiry.
I considered that the allegations against Sir John were potentially
serious and reflected on the reputation of the House. I wrote
to Sir John on 23 March, and informed him that having consulted
the Committee I had decided, exceptionally, to accept the self-referral
he had made.[11]
14. On 28 March, Mr Greg
Hands, the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, wrote to me to make
formal complaints against Rt Hon Richard Caborn and Rt Hon Adam
Ingram.[12] He asked
me to investigate allegations that had appeared that day in the
Sunday Times[13]
that both Members had been offering their parliamentary expertise
to external commercial interests in exchange for financial rewards.
In particular, Mr Hands alleged that Mr Ingram had "admitted
that he had used his contacts and experience to help a construction
company he worked for carry out a defence project in Libya"
and, when asked about whether he could use his experience to develop
relationships with Ministers and civil servants, Mr Ingram had
allegedly said that he would "do that". Mr Hands
alleged that Mr Caborn had said that he had "previously
used his contacts and access to his clients' advantage".
15. The Sunday Times
article of 28 March on which Mr Hands based his complaint against
Mr Caborn and Mr Ingram said that its interviews with them were
part of the same joint undercover investigation by the paper and
Channel 4's Dispatches programme as had involved the Members
already mentioned. The article alleged that Mr Caborn was interested
in working for the company but would wait until after the
Election before deciding whether to do so. It said that Mr Caborn
had expressed hopes of receiving a peerage, which he considered
would improve his access to people, reportedly commenting, "All
this is all about contacts, it really is. It's not so much always
about influencing, it's about getting information, and that's
absolutely key because if you can get information that is very
powerful." Mr Caborn had said that his fee would be similar
to that for his other work at £2,500 a day, plus expenses,
and that if he took the job he would be willing to build relations
with Ministers whom he knew. The article alleged that Mr
Ingram had offered to develop a network of former Ministers who
could be useful for contacts in different Departments. It claimed
that Mr Ingram had appeared keen for work, commenting, "I've
got a breadth of experience, I think I've good knowledge, I've
run big departments ... and I may be of use to you."
The article said that Mr Ingram had made it clear that he would
not lobby until after the Election, and would be happy to approach
both Ministers and civil servants. He said his fee would be in
a range up to £1,500 a day, plus VAT.
The Allegations
16. In essence, the allegations against the Members
were that each of them had engaged in lobbying activities in a
way which was contrary to the rules of the House; that their conduct
during an interview with a person who subsequently revealed herself
as a journalist had been contrary to the rules; that that conduct
was not such as to maintain or strengthen the public's trust in
the integrity of Parliament, and that it had brought the House
of Commons into disrepute.
Relevant Rules of the House
17. Paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct for Members
of Parliament describes the purpose of the Code as follows:
"The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to assist
Members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their
constituents and the public at large by:
a) Providing guidance on the standards of conduct
expected of Members in discharging their parliamentary and public
duties, and in so doing
b) Providing the openness and accountability necessary
to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members perform
those duties."
18. Paragraph 2 of the Code describes the scope of
the Code as follows:
"The Code applies to Members in all aspects
of their public life. It does not seek to regulate what Members
do in their purely private and personal lives."
19. Paragraph 9 of the Code of Conduct for Members
of Parliament relates to the resolution of conflicts between the
public interest and Members' personal interests, and provides
as follows:
"Members shall base their conduct on a consideration
of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest
and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two,
at once, and in favour of the public interest."
20. Paragraph 10 of the Code provides that "No
Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House".
21. Paragraph 11 of the Code provides as follows:
"The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence
his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation
or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to,
any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be
submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary
to the law of Parliament."
22. Paragraph 12 of the Code relates to activities
with or on behalf of organisations with which Members have financial
relationships. It provides:
"In any activities with, or on behalf of, an
organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship,
including activities which may not be a matter of public record
such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always
bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members
and officials."
23. Paragraph 13 of the Code relates to Members'
use of information received in confidence in the course of their
parliamentary duties. It provides:
"Members must bear in mind that information
which they receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary
duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and
that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial
gain."
24. Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct relates to
Members' use of House facilities. It provides:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
25. Paragraph 15 of the Code relates to the impact
of Members' conduct on public trust and confidence in Parliament
as an institution. It provides:
"Members shall at all times conduct themselves
in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's
trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never
undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or
its Members generally, into disrepute."
26. In relation to the registration and declaration
of interests by Members, paragraph 16 of the Code provides as
follows:
"Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements
of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the
Register of Members' Interests and shall always draw attention
to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its
Committees, or in any communications with Ministers, Government
Departments or Executive Agencies."
27. Registrable interests are defined in the Guide
to the Rules in terms of Categories, and for the purpose of this
inquiry, Category 2 is of particular relevance. It is defined
as follows:
"Remunerated employment, office, profession,
etc: Employment, office, trade, profession or vocation (apart
from membership of the House or ministerial office) which is remunerated
or in which the Member has any financial interest. Membership
of Lloyd's should be registered under this Category."
28. The rules in relation to Category 2 which appear
to be relevant to this inquiry are those set out in the Guide
for 2005.[14] Paragraph
19 of that Guide stated:
"All employment outside the House and any sources
of remuneration which do not fall clearly within any other Category
should be registered here if the value of the remuneration exceeds
1 per cent of the current parliamentary salary. When registering
employment, Members should not simply state the employer company
and the nature of its business, but should also indicate the nature
of the post which they hold in the company or the services for
which the company remunerates them. Members who have paid posts
as consultants or advisers should indicate the nature of the consultancy,
for example 'management consultant', 'legal adviser',
'parliamentary and public affairs consultant'."
29. The Guide also set out, in paragraph 49 to 54
of that edition, the requirements where a Member has an agreement
for the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member
of Parliament. It included above paragraph 49 the following, which
is part of a Resolution of the House of 6 November 1995, amended
on 14 May 2002:
"Any Member proposing to enter into an agreement
which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a
Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if
it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995
relating to Conduct of Members; and a full copy of any such agreement
including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £5,000,
£5,001-£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000,
shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members'
Interests and made available for inspection and reproduction by
the public."
30. Section 2 of the Guide dealt with the declaration
of interests by Members. The 2005 Guide refers to a Resolution
of the House on 22 May 1974. This provided as follows:
"In any debate or proceeding of the House or
its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member
may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the
Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit
of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have
had, may have or may be expecting to have."
31. Paragraph 55 of that Guide provided that:
"...The term 'servants of the Crown'
should be interpreted as applying to the staff of executive agencies
as well as to all staff employed in government departments."
32. The rule relating to the declaration of interests
is broader in scope than the rule relating to registration. Paragraph
56 provided as follows:
"... As well as current interests, Members are
required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant
interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only
interests held in the recent past, i.e. those contained in the
current printed edition of the Register,[15]
need normally be considered for declaration. Expected future interests,
on the other hand, may be more significant. Where, for example,
a Member is debating legislation or making representations to
a Minister on a matter from which he has a reasonable expectation
of personal financial advantage, candour is essential. In deciding
when a possible future benefit is sufficiently tangible to necessitate
declaration, the key word in the rule which the Member must bear
in mind is 'expecting'. Where a Member's plans or degree
of involvement in a project have passed beyond vague hopes and
aspirations and reached the stage where there is a reasonable
expectation that a financial benefit will accrue, then a declaration
explaining the situation should be made."[16]
33. Paragraph 57 provided as follows:
"It is the responsibility of the Member, having
regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a pecuniary
interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding,
meeting or other activity to require a declaration. The basic
test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is
for registration of an interest; namely, that a pecuniary interest
should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others
to influence the speech, representation or communication in question.
A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference
to the nature of the Member's interest."
34. The rules of the House in relation to lobbying
for reward or consideration are set out in Section 3 of the Guide.
By a Resolution of the House of 15 July 1947, amended on 6 November
1995 and on 14 May 2002,[17]
the House prohibited paid advocacy. Paragraph 72 of the 2005 Guide
provided as follows:
"It is wholly incompatible with the rule that
any Member should take payment for speaking in the House. Nor
may a Member, for payment, vote, ask a Parliamentary Question,
table a Motion, introduce a Bill or table or move an Amendment
to a Motion or Bill or urge colleagues or Ministers to do so."
35. Paragraph 73 continued:
"The Resolution does not prevent a Member from
holding a remunerated outside interest as a director, consultant,
or adviser, or in any other capacity, whether or not such interests
are related to membership of the House. Nor does it prevent a
Member from being sponsored by a trade union or any other organisation,
or holding any other registrable interest, or from receiving hospitality
in the course of his or her parliamentary duties whether in the
United Kingdom or abroad."
36. Paragraph 76 (1) of the 2005 Guide provided:
"When a Member is taking part in any parliamentary
proceeding or making any approach to a Minister or servant of
the Crown, advocacy is prohibited which seeks to confer benefit
exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament, from
which the Member has received, is receiving, or expects to receive
a pecuniary benefit, or upon any registrable client of such a
body (or individual). Otherwise a Member may speak freely on matters
which relate to the affairs and interests of a body (or individual)
from which he or she receives a pecuniary benefit, provided the
benefit is properly registered and declared."
This rule was introduced in 2002 following a recommendation
by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who expressed concern
that the rules "should not unnecessarily inhibit the ability
of MPs to become well informed and to use their expertise and
experience effectively."[18]
37. The rules on the use of the refreshment facilities
of the House are relevant to two of my inquiries. Page 44 of the
May 2008 edition of the Members' Handbook contained the following:
"Members of Parliament may entertain guests
in most Refreshment Department venues, with the exception of the
Members' Dining Room, Members' Tea Room and Members' Smoking Room."
38. Page 5 of the May 2010 edition of the Members'
Handbook contains the following:
"The House provides various facilities and services
to Members, the cost of which is either met in full or subsidised
by public funds. These include, for example:
- Accommodation, including offices and meeting
rooms
- Research support
- ICT equipment and services
- Catering facilities
- Stationery.
These facilities and services are provided in order
to assist Members in their parliamentary work. They should be
used appropriately, in such a way as to ensure that the reputation
of the House is not put at risk. They should not be used for party
political campaigning or private business activity."
39. Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3 of the House's terms and
conditions for banqueting include the following requirements:
"4.1. The Sponsor is directly and personally
responsible for the declaration of any relevant registered interest
relating to their sponsorship of a function.
4.2. The Sponsor must complete the relevant section
of the Private Dining Confirmation Form to indicate whether or
not there is a relevant registered interest.
4.3. In the event that there is any relevant interest,
invitations must clearly state 'relevant interest declared'."
40. Paragraph 1 of the Guidelines on the acceptance
of appointments or employment outside Government by former Ministers
of the Crown, produced by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments,
provides as follows:
"It is in the public interest that former Ministers
with experience in government should be able to move into business
or into other areas of public life. It is equally important that
when a former Minister takes up a particular appointment there
should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety. Arrangements
have been made therefore to enable former Ministers to seek advice
from the independent and impartial Advisory Committee on Business
Appointments."
My Inquiries
GENERAL ISSUES
41. After
the transmission of the Dispatches programme on 22 March,
I decided that it would be helpful to my inquiry also to have
access to any unbroadcast material. Accordingly, on 23 March I
contacted the company that had produced the programme and asked
them to provide me with any unused interview material from the
interviews which their reporter had conducted with Sir John, Mr
Byers, Ms Hewitt and Mr Hoon.[19]
I also asked for copies of any follow-up correspondence with
each Member. On 31 March, I wrote again to the company to ask
for similar material in respect of Mr Caborn and Mr Ingram.[20]
42. The production company
provided me on 27 May with transcripts of the Members' preliminary
telephone conversations with the undercover reporter, who had
introduced herself as Claire Webster, and of the meetings
themselves. The transcripts, originally prepared by professional
transcribers, were certified by a solicitor as accurate, with
certain caveats. The signed statement from the solicitors said
that the solicitor had listened to the original covert recording
once only and had then corrected the transcript to the best of
their ability, given its quality. The solicitor had indicated
where a word or words were inaudible and inserted a question mark
where they were uncertain about a word or words. There was an
additional caveat in relation to the transcript of Mr Caborn's
meeting, which I refer to below.[21]
SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL: MY INQUIRIES
43. In my letter to Sir John Butterfill of 23 March,[22]
I told Sir John that, having consulted the Committee on Standards
and Privileges, I had decided exceptionally to accept the request
he had made to me in his e-mail of 22 March[23]
to inquire into allegations made against him arising from the
article in the Sunday Times of 21 March[24]
and Channel 4's Dispatches programme of 22 March. I asked
Sir John to give me a full account of the circumstances in which
he had come to be interviewed by someone who turned out to be
a journalist.
44. I also asked Sir John to confirm whether, as
reported, he had said that:
- he would be happy to make introductions
to Ministers on behalf of fee-paying clients and, if true, whether
he had made such introductions at any time in the past;
- in the past he had done quite a lot of consultancy
work for people who wanted to get involved in the public sector
and, if true, what that work had been, when he had undertaken
it, and whether he had registered his consultancy work in the
Register of Members' Financial Interests;
- people had in the past come to him for advice
on, for example, procurement issues and, if true, when that had
happened, what advice he had given, what payment, if any, he had
received from these people for this or other services and whether
he had registered his services in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests and made appropriate declarations;
- Members of the House of Lords were very much
involved in "procurement or in telecommunications or whatever
it is you are looking at" and, if true, what Sir John
had intended to imply by that statement in terms of his own employment
by the client if he were to become a Member of the House of Lords;
- he could organise a meeting with a Minister in
their office or on a visit and, if true, when he had done so for
a client who had paid him for his services and whether that service
had been registered in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
and appropriate declarations made;
- it would be "easy enough" to
arrange a meeting with Conservative Ministers if there were to
be a Conservative government and if there was something genuine
to interest themand "that depends on how I present
things" and if true, what he had intended to convey to
the interviewer in respect of the paid employment which he was
discussing;
- being in the House of Lords "gives me
another string to my bow as far as you are concerned"
and, if true, what he had meant to imply by saying that;
- the going rate for the work he had believed he
was discussing was £30,000 to £35,000 a year.
45. I also asked Sir John to confirm whether he had
at any time been paid £30,000 to £35,000 a year for
consultancy or other services and, if so, by whom and whether
he had registered these payments; what subsequent communications
he or his legal advisers had had with the reporters; whether,
if any of the allegations were true, he had considered he had
an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration, or both,
in respect of any financial interest he had in these alleged activities;
and if any of what Sir John had said was untrue, why he had spoken
as he had done. Finally, I told Sir John that I was writing to
the Channel 4 programme makers to invite them to let me have any
unbroadcast parts of his interview.
46. Sir John replied on
the following day, 24 March.[25]
He said that he had been interviewed by the journalist following
a telephone approach to his PA. This indicated that a company
known as Anderson Perry, which claimed to be a major consultancy
organisation in the US and which was seeking to expand its operations
in the UK and Europe, was looking to form an advisory board with
authoritative figures from the political, regulatory and diplomatic
arenas. It was also apparently looking for consultants having
intimate and expert knowledge of government affairs to be employed
on a retainer basis. Sir John enclosed a copy of the e-mail that
had been sent to him by the undercover reporter on 16 February[26],
together with his reply of 17 February confirming his interview
appointment on 24 February.[27]
He said that he had also responded by telephone, during the course
of which he had indicated that he might be interested in an appointment
to their European advisory board but that he was not particularly
interested in working in the field of government affairs on a
retainer basis. He continued that they had discussed his business
background and he had pointed out that he had in the past been
active in Europe and a director of companies in France and Denmark,
and that he spoke French, Danish and Spanish.
47. Sir John confirmed
that the summary in my letter of the televised discussions was
accurate, but commented that "the interview was
heavily edited to exclude matters which would put these discussions
in a different light." Sir John then set out a number
of points that he said had been omitted. The first was the early
discussion in the interview about his previous business career
and the skills that he could bring to any directorship. The
second was that, when he had been asked whether he would be prepared
to organise any entertaining of Ministers or civil servants, Sir
John said he had answered, "no, that would be improper
and a breach of the rules". The third was, at the end
of the interview, when Sir John said that he had indicated that
he was unsure whether he would be willing to undertake work for
Anderson Perry. He told me that he had said that "before
making a decision, I would need to have a great deal more information
about them, who their directors and shareholders were and whether
they were of the highest integrity and standing. I indicated that
this due diligence process might take some time, particularly
since I had been previously approached by American interests and
following investigations found out that they were not people I
wished to be involved with."
48. Sir John confirmed that he had said that once
he was no longer a Member of Parliament, he would be free to make
introductions to Ministers on behalf of clients. He added that
he had never in the past made such introductions. Sir John said
that the work he had done in the past was entirely unremunerated
and related to representations made to him by constituency companies,
many of whom were involved in Government in diverse ways, notably
in the fields of insurance, financial services and manufacturing.
He said that for example, Cobham (formerly Flight Refuelling)
who employed a very large number of his constituents , had sought
his support and that of other neighbouring MPs. He said that he
had never received payment or any other form of remuneration and
therefore that registration in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests was not appropriate.
49. Sir John said that
his comment regarding the House of Lords "was a rather
stupid one since I completely overlooked the fact that,
if I were to become a Member of the House of Lords, I would be
governed by similar rules to those which apply in the House
of Commons." He confirmed that he had said he could probably
organise meetings with Ministers on a paid basis in the future
when he was no longer a Member, but commented that he had never
done so in the past. Sir John also confirmed that he had said
that it would be easy enough to arrange a meeting with Ministers
if there were a Conservative Government and if there was something
genuine to interest them. He commented, "By this I implied
that the matter would be something which the Minister might find
helpful and possibly create a situation where valuable business
could accrue to UK Plc." He added that the phrase "that
depends on how I present things" "was intended
to imply that I would be competent in any initial representation
that I made." He also said that the phrase "gives
me another string to my bow so far as I am concerned"
had been "intended to imply that potential clients would
be likely to look favourably on having a Member of the House of
Lords on the advisory board."
50. Sir John also confirmed
that he had said that the going rate for the work they were discussing
as a director of an advisory board was in the region of £30-35,000
a year, and that he had never at any time been paid £30-35,000
a year for consultancies or other services. He said that he had
in the past acted as an adviser to trade associations, which he
listed.[28] Sir John
commented, "Each of these was remunerated and duly registered
in the Register of Members' Interests. At no time did I specifically
lobby for these Associations but was scrupulous to ensure that,
if any specific matters arose which were relevant to these bodies,
then I would declare it. I did not engage in advocacy for them."
He added that none of his other business appointments were in
any way related to membership of the House of Commons.
51. Sir John said that he had not had any contacts
with the reporters since the Dispatches programme was broadcast.
52. Sir John said that he did not have to consider
whether he had an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration
relating to his contacts with Anderson Perry, given that he had
definitely not decided to take up an appointment with Anderson
Perry nor had they made any offer. He added, "I
had considerable reservations about them."
53. In conclusion, Sir
John commented, "None of what I said was untrue but perhaps
foolish and slightly exaggerated in parts."
54. I replied to Sir John on 25 March.[29]
I asked him if he could confirm that the consultancy work he had
done in the past had been related only to companies based in his
constituency, and if he had any further examples in addition to
Cobham. I also asked if he could clarify his reference to the
companies being involved in government in diverse ways. I also
said that I thought that the broadcast quotation about being in
the House of Lords was "gives me another string to my
bow so far as you are concerned", was not quite the same
as the version Sir John had in his letter,[30]
and invited Sir John to let me know if he thought I had misheard.
Finally, I asked Sir John for details of any contacts he had had
with the reporters or programme makers since the interview on
24 February, with copies of any correspondence.
55. Sir John replied on 6 April.[31]
He said that his past unpaid work was related only to companies
based in his constituency or employing large numbers of his constituents,
such as Liverpool Victoria, Portman Building Society, Lloyds TSB,
Abbey Life etc. He said that all of these would contact him from
time to time on a wide variety of issues to raise with the Government,
such as taxation, regulatory matters etc. He said that he was
not entirely sure of the precise wording of the quotation about
being in the House of Lords, but it "was intended to convey
that I would be more valuable to them by virtue of being seen
to be rather more prestigious in dealings with their clients."
Finally, Sir John said that he had not had any contact with the
reporters or programme makers since the interview, other than
by sending the programme makers, in response to a letter from
them, a short e-mail in which he set out a statement he wished
to be included in the programme. Sir John's statement read: "I
have never knowingly breached the Code of Conduct for Members
of Parliament, nor would I seek to do so. I have never carried
out consultancy work for people seeking Government contracts."
Sir John said he also spoke on the telephone to the Sunday
Times reporter before the article was published in that newspaper.
56. I did not continue
my inquiries during the Dissolution of the House. Once the new
Parliament had assembled on 18 May, I resumed my inquiry. On 27
May I received from legal representatives of the TV production
company the certified transcripts of Sir John's conversations
with the undercover reporter. I wrote to Sir John on 2 June, attaching
a copy of the transcripts.[32]
I said that the transcript of his phone conversation with the
reporter did not appear to cover some of the points which he had
made in his letter to me of 24 Marchin particular, the
claim that he was not particularly interested in the field of
Government affairs on a retainer basis, and the discussion about
his business background. I asked Sir John whether there had been
a different conversation when he had raised these points or whether
his recall had been mistaken. I noted that the transcript recorded
him as saying, "I've done in the past quite a lot of consultancy
for people who wanted to get involved with the public sector
It's now quite difficult for a serving MP to do that, but once
you're retired you can do as much of it as you like
So
people have come to me for advice on procurement issues, for example."
57. I told Sir John that I would like to be able
to reconcile that statement with what he had told me in respect
of this issue in his letter of 24 March[33]
and reiterated in his letter of 6 April.[34]
Given that all his consultancy work had been unpaid and on behalf
of companies in his constituency, I said that I was having difficulty
in understanding his reference to it now being difficult for a
serving MP to undertake consultancy, since consultancy in support
of their constituents might be thought to be a reasonable activity
for a Member to undertake.
58. I noted also that in his meeting with the undercover
reporter Sir John had made reference to his work in support of
members of the pension fund of the former engineering and construction
services company Kvaerner. Sir John had said, "
I have to say I blackmailed him [the new owner of Kvaerner].
I said that unless you put a decent amount of money into the British
pension fund, he might find it difficult to get public sector
work, either here, or in the rest of the EU. And he put twenty
five million in."[35]
I asked Sir John whether this was an accurate statement of
what had in fact happened and whether he thought it had been acceptable
for him to "blackmail" the new owner as described.
I also asked him how he would have been able to influence public
sector work as he had suggested.
59. I noted further that in the transcript Sir John
had said that "all my private Members' Bills are pro
bono".[36]
I asked Sir John whether he accepted that the implication of this
statement would appear to be that there were some private Members'
Bills that were not pro bono, and would be the subject
of payment to a Member. I asked Sir John whether it was reasonable
to draw such a conclusion and, if so, to make such an allegation.
60. I further noted that Sir John had said in the
transcript that he would be prepared to undertake informal consultancy
work while still a sitting MP.[37]
I asked him what he had thought he was agreeing to, and whether
he had assumed he would be paid for that work. Sir John had said
in the meeting with the undercover reporter that he had received
a number of approaches, including from a major trade association,
for work after he left Parliament.[38]
I asked him whether he had at present secured any remunerated
employment and, if so, what it was.
61. I finally noted that Sir John had referred to
his chairmanship of Gold Mining,[39]
and I asked him whether this was a reference to his Register entry
as a Director and shareholder of Gold Island Limited, and whether
it was currently unremunerated.
62. Sir John wrote to
me on 22 June, confirming that the transcript was largely an accurate
version of the discussions he had had with the undercover reporter.[40]
Sir John said that there were, however, two matters which puzzled
him. First, he had a clear recollection that at some point in
the discussions, he had made it clear that he was more interested
in joining an advisory board than engaging in parliamentary lobbying.
To a degree, he said that this was reinforced by the length of
information provided by him relating primarily to his business
experience rather than his parliamentary career. "You
will have noted for example, that when I was pressed on my experience
at the Department of Transport, I pointed out that this was all
a long time ago."
63. Sir John said that he was also puzzled that his
recollection of the conversations was that when the reporter had
asked him about the possibility of entertaining Ministers and/or
civil servants, he had responded by saying that this would be
improper and contrary to the parliamentary rules. He said, "This
does not appear in the transcript, but I did make it clear ...
that Ministers and civil servants did not like being wined and
dined etc."[41]
Sir John also told me that, at the time of the meeting with the
reporter, he had been suffering from the after-effects of an illness
which had affected him at the end of January. Among other effects,
Sir John said that he had been left with a degree of loss of memory.
64. On the difficulty
of a sitting MP providing consultancy for people who wanted to
get involved with the public sector[42]
Sir John said that under the Rules this could occur where
a Member had a financial interest in a company in his or her constituency,
employing perhaps large numbers of his constituents. "In
such a case, it seems to me that the Member could argue in favour
of the company, provided that the interest had been disclosed
in the Register of Members' Interests, and again disclosed verbally
during a debate."
65. Sir John said that
in relation to Kvaerner, he might have used "somewhat
colourful language." Sir John said that he had had no
personal contact with the businessman concerned but that, together
with other Members of Parliament who had constituents in the Kvaerner
Group, he had advised a group of pensioners and employees on how
they might best "shame the businessman into providing
proper protection to his UK employees." The Members
had advised them to suggest that a failure to protect members
of his pension fund would be likely to lead to protests against
Kvaerner, were they to seek to obtain contracts from public authorities
both in the UK and the EU. This strategy was extremely successful
and he was proud of his role in it.
66. So far as private Members' Bills were concerned,
Sir John said that he did not accept that the implication of his
statement implied that some private Members' Bills were not pro
bono and he did not accept that it would be reasonable to
draw such a conclusion. On the issue of informal consultancy Sir
John said that he had made it clear that he did not think this
was likely to occur but that he would have to be careful if he
did accept some form of engagement before the Election and that
he would have to ensure that no improper conflict of interest
occurred. He said he had gone on to say that in view of the imminence
of a General Election, he doubted that there would be any likelihood
that Ministers would be interested in talking to anyone at the
time.
67. Sir John said that while it was correct that
he had said that he had had a number of approaches for work after
he left Parliament, he had not secured any such remunerated employment
and had not heard further from the trade association he had mentioned.[43]
He said that his Chairmanship of the Gold Mining Company was indeed
a reference to his register entry as a Director and shareholder
of Gold Island Ltd, and that it was still currently unremunerated.
68. I wrote to Sir John on 25 June.[44]
I said I hoped that I was right in assuming that he accepted that
he had not in fact said that he was more interested in the advisory
board than in parliamentary lobbying, and that he did not say
that entertaining Ministers and civil servants would be improper.
I said that it appeared from the transcripts that he had expected
that he would be asked to make introductions to contacts, and
that that might suggest that he had been prepared to be involved
in that form of parliamentary lobbying once he had left Parliament.
69. I also drew Sir John's attention to his statement
in his letter of 24 March,[45]
where he said that he had indicated at the end of the interview
that he had been unsure whether he would be willing to work for
the interviewer's company and would need a great deal more information
about them. I said that I did not think that there was such a
statement from him at the end of the interview transcript, although
he was recorded as saying, "It's quite interesting actually
I think this looks like fun. You know, it looks like something
that I could get involved with. I recently also had an approach
from a major trade association in the UK, that said would I become
a consultant to them?
Well I think we could probably manage
the two, because I don't think they'd necessarily conflict, in
fact they might actually work quite well with each other, but
that remains to be seen
Well I'll wait to hear from you."[46]
I asked Sir John whether he accepted that his recollection
on this point was not borne out by the transcript.
70. On difficulties of consultancy work for a serving
MP, I said that I had noted the point he had made. Given that
the prohibition in the Rules of the House was directed against
advocacy as opposed to consultancy, I asked Sir John to explain
why he considered that sitting MPs would now find it quite difficult
to engage in consultancy. I told Sir John that I was asking him
this because I might need to consider whether he was exaggerating
the difficulties of current MPs engaging in consultancy in order
to strengthen the case for employing a former Member in this role.
71. In relation to Sir John's evidence about Kvaerner,
I asked him whether he considered that, as well as using somewhat
colourful language, he had exaggerated his role in this matter,
since his statement had appeared to imply that he had taken direct
action with the individual himself.
72. I said that I recognised that he did not accept
that his reference to all his private Members' Bills being pro
bono implied that there were some Members who did not act
on this basis. But I said that it would be helpful to know his
reasons why he did not think this conclusion should be drawn from
his statement.
73. I told Sir John that I had noted his response
on the offer of informal consultancy work before the election.
I asked him whether he accepted that he did indeed agree to consider
such work and that he would have expected to have received a fee
for it.
74. Sir John wrote to me on 15 July.[47]
He said that he remained puzzled why there appeared to be a number
of discrepancies between his recollection of discussions and the
transcript. Nevertheless he said that he saw no reason to make
a major issue of the matter, since the overall conclusion which
could be drawn from the transcripts was that he would be interested
in both membership of an advisory board and involvement in making
introductions to both Ministers and business contacts once he
had left Parliament.
75. On the question of
entertaining Ministers and civil servants, Sir John said that
although the transcript did not contain the word improper, it
did record his giving considerable detail on the way that such
introductions should be made and suggesting that it would not
be helpful to engage in wining and dining. He said that this discussion
was concluded and reinforced by the discussion which ran, "JB
Yes, they're very, very cautious about meeting anybody outside
their offices" "CW Oh, right. So it's very hard to get
them out for lunch?" "JB, So you don't take them out
to lunch" "CW No exactly, you might alarm them"
"JB Yes. That would be the wrong thing to do and actually,
even with Ministers because we're so much scrutinised now ..."[48]
76. Sir John said that
he had stated very clearly in the transcript that he would be
unsure whether he would be willing to undertake work for the interviewer's
company or their clients, although the transcript did not include
the phrase "seeking due diligence" despite his
own recollection that he did use such a phrase. He told me that,
more importantly, he had given the undercover reporter an example
of a previous similar approach which he had ultimately declined
because he had not been satisfied with the information provided
to him.[49] Sir John
noted that this issue was referred to later in the discussion
with the undercover reporter, where she had stated that someone
from America would be coming to England with a view to Sir John
meeting "one of the American guys and one of the clients".
He said that the transcript then showed him as saying, "that
will actually be essential and if in the meantime you can give
me some more information about the company and the individuals
..."[50]
77. Sir John also told
me that "It is a fact that sitting MPs now find it difficult
to engage in consultancy. This is because a large proportion of
members of the public and the press now take a view that it is
improper for MPs to have any outside interest. It had never occurred
to me that my comments on this matter could be interpreted as
exaggerating the difficulties of current MPs in order to strengthen
the case for employing a former Member in this role. I would take
great exception to this interpretation on my comments."
78. Sir John told me that,
in relation to Kvaerner, he might, in fact, have underplayed his
role in the matter. He said that he had been approached by a Kvaerner
Pension Fund (KPF) pensioner, who had been one of his constituents,
and was heading up an action group because of what KPF had been
proposing as far as British KPF pensioners were concerned. Sir
John said that "Together, we devised a strategy to embarrass
KPF by proceeding with a parliamentary lobby group, given the
very large number of Members of Parliament who had significant
numbers of constituents who were KPF pensioners." He
attached a list of the relevant MPs (60 in all) "which
you will see included large numbers of Ministers, including Tony
Blair and Gordon Brown!"[51]
Sir John told me that, through the KPF pensioner, he had made
it clear that he would seek the support of these MPs in order
to persuade Kvaerner that it would not be in their best interests
to alienate such a powerful group of politicians. He said
that this action had led the Chairman of the Trustee Board (appointed
by the Norwegian board), together with other representatives of
Kvaerner, to ask for a meeting with him in his office. He attached
the minutes of that meeting, which took place on 10 March 2006.[52]
These said that the parties at the meeting "recognised
that negotiations between the Trustees and the Principal Employer
are at a delicate stage ... In view of the delicate nature of
the above negotiations, it was recommended that all parties should
make every effort to reduce external political pressures on the
negotiators ... Sir John Butterfill expressed his appreciation
to [names of Trustees] for their frank explanation of the
KPF situation. He understood the Trustees' need, and supported
their request, for a reduction in political activity at this sensitive
time." Sir John said that as a result of this he had
been requested to "hold fire" whilst additional
funding and an improved investment strategy might be arranged,
and that following this intervention a satisfactory solution was
agreed.
79. Sir John said that his statement that all his
private Members' Bills had been pro bono[53]
had been made simply to head off any accusations that he might
have been trying to make personal gain from such a Bill. He said
that he had, therefore, been defending himself rather than seeking
to impugn the actions of other parliamentary colleagues. He told
me that he took great exception to that suggestion.
80. Sir John said that he had neither agreed nor
disagreed to carry out informal paid consultancy work before the
Election, or indeed after it. He had regarded the interview as
a preliminary discussion for both parties and had made it clear
that he would need a great deal more information about the company
and its clients before he could give any commitment of any sort.
81. I replied to Sir John on 20 July.[54]
I said I had noted that he had agreed that he had offered to make
introductions to Ministers and business contacts once he had left
Parliament. I said that I assumed that he agreed that this constituted
"lobbying", and asked him to let me know if this
was not so.
82. I noted that there was no reference in the minutes
of the meeting with Kvaerner Trustees on 10 March 2006[55]
to Sir John's advice to the pension fund members set out in his
letter to me of 22 June,[56]
that they should suggest that, if they were not protected, there
would be likely to be protests against Kvaerner were they to seek
to obtain contracts from public authorities both in the UK and
the EU. I asked Sir John whether he had given that advice before
the meeting in March, and whether that advice had been followed
before that meeting, where he had supported the Trustees' request
for a reduction in political activity in view of the delicate
nature of the negotiations. I also asked Sir John to confirm the
accuracy of his statement to the undercover reporter that Kvaerner
had subsequently paid £25 million into the pension fund.
83. I said that I had
noted that Sir John believed that he had neither agreed nor disagreed
to provide informal consultancy before the Election. I said that
I would need in due course to weigh this alongside what he was
recorded to have said in the transcript where he appeared to say
that he would be available for informal consultancy work subject
to looking at each one to see if there was any conflict;
and to his suggestion that if the undercover reporter let him
know what they were: "I can tell you whether we can do
anything in March, but they're becoming, even now, they're becoming
more and more
Obsessed with winning the election and the
campaign and that's what they're all focused on."[57]
84. Sir John replied to me in a letter which I received
on 2 August.[58] In response
to my suggestion that he had agreed to undertake lobbying once
he had left Parliament, Sir John said that he regarded introductions
as "part of what might be undertaken as lobbying, but
full blown lobbying includes much more, including extensive advocacy
and promotion of the client, which would be beyond what I would
either wish or be able to offer."
85. Sir John said that
the action which had precipitated the meeting with the Chairman
of the Kvaerner Pension Fund Trustees on 10th March 2006 was his
suggestion to the KPF pensioner, who had been one of his constituents,
and other constituents, that they should make it clear to the
new Chairman of Trustees that failure by the company to meet its
legal obligations to the pension scheme would result in a vigorous
political campaign in the House of Commons. He said that
this had resulted in the Trustees seeking the meeting with him
and a request by the company to "hold off political activity"
whilst negotiations took place. Sir John confirmed that "considerably
more than £25 million" had now been paid into the
fund.
86. Sir John said that, in making his remarks about
informal consultancy before the Election,[59]
he had been "trying to explain to the interviewer that
there was no point in thinking about setting up a consultancy
before the Election."
FINDINGS OF FACT
87. In February 2010 Sir John's office received an
approach from the undercover reporter claiming to represent Anderson
Perry. During an initial telephone conversation, Sir John and
the undercover reporter agreed to meet.
88. At the start of the meeting with the reporter
on 24 February 2010, Sir John referred to his CV. He described
"the first lot of the companies where I, I've actually
been a Director and a shareholder," before listing a
number of other companies with which he had been involved before
he became a Member, as well as some in which he had an interest
during his time as a Member.[60]
Sir John summarises this by saying that the early discussion during
the meeting centred upon his previous business career and the
skills that he could bring to any directorship. Sir John has made
entries in the Register of Members' Financial Interests for remunerated
employment as a Partner of Butterfill Associates and in working
as a consultant to a firm of chartered surveyors, which he registered
as "non-parliamentary" work.
89. When the undercover reporter said in the meeting
that it might be "quite nice for you to meet one of the
American guys [from Anderson Perry] and one of the clients"
Sir John replied, "That will actually be essential and
if in the meantime you can give me some more information about
the company and the individuals, you know, the Board. Because
there's not, unusually there's not, there's nothing on Google
about ... About who your directors are"[61]
90. Sir John says that he is puzzled as to why there
appear to be a number of discrepancies between his own recollection
of discussions and the detail of the certified transcript. For
example he says he has a clear recollection that at some point
in his discussions with the undercover reporter, he made it clear
to her that he was more interested in joining an Advisory Board
than engaging in parliamentary lobbying, though this does not
appear in the transcript. He accepts that at the time of the meeting
he was suffering from the after effects of an illness which left
him with a degree of loss of memory.
Issues subject to inquiry
i. Introductions to Ministers
91. Sir
John told the undercover reporter "I could organise a
Minister, a meeting with a Minister in his office, or possibly
if the Minister were really interested in getting more briefing,
they might come to you." [62]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct: Openness and frankness
92. Sir John accepted that the implication of his
statement was that he could probably organise meetings with Ministers
on a paid basis in the future when he was no longer a Member,
but says that he had never done so in the past.
93. Sir John said that he regarded such introductions
as part of what might be undertaken as lobbying, but that full
blown lobbying included much more, including extensive advocacy
and promotion of the client, which would be beyond what he would
either wish or be able to offer.
ii. Advice on Government contracts
Sir John told the undercover reporter, "I've
done, in the past quite a lot of consultancy for people who wanted
to get involved with the public sector. ... So people have come
to me for advice on procurement issues, for example."[63]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
94. Sir John says that the consultancy work of this
sort that he did in the past was entirely unremunerated, and related
to representations made to him by constituency companies, many
of whom were involved in Government in diverse ways,
notably in the fields of insurance, financial services and manufacturing.
He says that he has never received payment or any other form
of remuneration for this work and therefore registration in the
Register of Members' Financial Interests was not required. The
consultancy work he registered in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests was non-parliamentary.
iii. Possible membership of the House
of Lords
95. Sir John told the undercover reporter: "it
is quite likely that I will go to the Lords... And it also gives
me another string to my bow, as far as you're concerned."
He said that a Member of the House of Lords "might
be somebody who'd been very much involved on procurement or on
communications, or whatever it is that you're looking at."[64]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
96. Sir John says that he intended to imply that
potential clients would be likely to look favourably on having
a member of the House of Lords on the advisory board. He says
that his comment regarding the House of Lords was a rather "stupid"
one since he completely overlooked the fact that, if he were
to become a member of the House of Lords, he would be governed
by similar rules to those which apply in the House of Commons.
iv. Meetings with a future Conservative
government
97. The undercover reporter asked Sir John, "it
would be easy enough to arrange a meeting for us, or our clients
with them [Ministers in a future Conservative government]?"[65]
Sir John replied, "Yeah ... Provided there's something
genuine that is likely to interest them and that depends on how
I present things."[66]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct Disrepute
98. Sir John says that by this he implied that the
matter would be something which the Minister might find helpful
and possibly create a situation where valuable business could
accrue to UK plc. He says that the phrase "that depends
on how I present things" was intended to imply that he
would be competent in any initial representation that he made.
v. Serving MPs acting as consultants
99. Asked by the undercover reporter what was involved
in the kind of consultancy work that he did, Sir John said: "it's
now quite difficult for a serving MP to do that, but once you're
retired, you can do as much of it as you like."[67]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
100. Sir John says that it is a fact that sitting
MPs now find it difficult to engage in consultancy. He believes
that this is because a large proportion of members of the public
and the press now take a view that it is improper for MPs to have
any outside interest. He says that it had never occurred to him
that his comments on this matter could be interpreted as exaggerating
the difficulties of current MPs in order to strengthen the case
for employing him as a former member in this role, and that he
would take great exception to that interpretation of his comments.
vi. Kvaerner Pension Fund
101. Sir John told the undercover reporter that
Kvaerner "got taken over, together with the British
subsidiaries, by a Norwegian ... And I have to say I blackmailed
him. I said that unless you put a decent amount of money into
the British pension fund, he might find it difficult to get public
sector work, either here, or in the rest of the EU."[68]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute
102. Sir John says he may have used somewhat colourful
language. He had no personal contact with the businessman concerned
but he did advise a group of his pensioners and employees together
with other Members of Parliament who had constituents in the Kvaerner
Group, on how they might best shame the businessman into providing
proper protection to his UK employees. They advised the pensioners
and employees to suggest that a failure to protect members of
the pension fund would be likely to lead to protests against Kvaerner,
were they to seek to obtain contracts from public authorities
both in the UK and the EU. Sir John says that this strategy was
extremely successful and he is proud of his role in it.
vii. Private Members' Bills
103. Having described
some of the things he had done, Sir John told the undercover reporter,
"A lot of this I've done on a pro bono basis. And
for example, all my private Members' Bills are pro bono,
the last one, the Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies
(Transfers) Act has actually saved the bacon of the mutual sector."[69]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute
104. Sir John says that he does not accept that his
statement implied that some private Members' bills were not pro
bono and he does not accept that it would be reasonable to
draw such a conclusion. He says that his statement that all his
private Members' bills had been pro bono was made simply
to head off any accusations that he may have been trying to make
personal gain from such a Bill. He was, therefore, defending himself
rather than seeking to impugn the actions of other parliamentary
colleagues and he takes great exception to this suggestion.
viii. Entertaining Ministers and civil
servants
105. In answer to a comment from the undercover reporter
that she "would imagine our clients would be quite impressed
to be able to meet a Minister or even to have a lunch or to go
in for a meeting within the department",[70]
Sir John said, "Yes, I could normally arrange for your
clients to meet Ministers. And civil servants are quite difficult
about that, they don't like being taken out to lunch and wined
and dined, because they'll be accused of being partial perhaps."
[71]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Registration and Declaration
106. Sir John says he is puzzled that his recollection
of this conversation was that when the reporter asked him about
the possibility of entertaining Ministers and or civil servants,
he had responded by saying that this would be improper and contrary
to the Parliamentary Rules. He notes that this does not appear
in the transcript. The transcript records that he said that civil
servants did not like being wined and dined. He says that while
he told the undercover reporter that once he was no longer an
MP, he would be free to make introductions to Ministers on behalf
of clients, he had never in the past made such introductions.
ix. Informal consultancy while still
a Member
107. The undercover reporter asked Sir John, "in
terms of how quickly you'd be able to get involved, you mentioned
after the election, I didn't know whether you'd be available for
any kind of more informal consultancy work before then?"[72]
He replied, "Yes, so long as it doesn't, I'd have to look
at each one to see if there was any conflict."[73]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
108. Sir John says that he believes his statement
made it clear that he did not think this was likely to occur,
but that he would have to be careful if he did accept some form
of engagement before the Election and that he would have to ensure
that no improper conflict of interest occurred. He believes that
he "neither agreed nor disagreed" to carry out
informal paid consultancy work before the Election, or indeed
after it.
x. Being paid £30,000-£35,000
a year for advisory board/consultancy work
109. The undercover reporter
asked Sir John what his "daily rate" might be
for sitting on a board or for consultancy work.[74]
He replied that for "sitting on a board, the going rate
now is thirty, thirty five, something like that."[75]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
110. Sir John accepts that he said that the going
rate for the work he was discussing with the undercover reporter
as a director of an advisory board was in the region of £30-35,000
a year. He says that he has never at any time been paid £30-35,000
a year for consultancies or other services.
RT HON STEPHEN BYERS: MY INQUIRIES
111. I wrote to Mr Byers on 23 March.[76]
I told him that, as I had decided to accept Ms Greening's complaint,[77]
I did not need to conduct my inquiry on the basis of the self-referral
he had sent me on 22 March.[78]
I asked Mr Byers to give me a full account of the circumstances
in which he had come to be interviewed by someone who turned out
to be a journalist. I also asked Mr Byers to confirm a number
of particular statements that he had been reported as having made
during that interview, and whether each such statement was true.
The statements concerned were that he:
- had continued to receive confidential
information through his links with Number 10;
- had done work for National Express and for Rio
Tinto. I asked him, if true, what that work was, why he had undertaken
it, and why, as reported, he had received no financial or other
benefit from this work;
- had advised that elections are a "great
time" if there is an issue where "your clients
want to get a regulation changed or some law amended"
to get in to see the civil servants. I asked him, if true, whether
he had made such attempts for clients at any time, what the circumstances
were and whether he had declared his interest;
- knew ways around the Enterprise Act for clients
"operating a restrictive practice" or "price
fixing";
- had discussed with the Secretary of State for
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (or someone
else reporting to him) changes in food labelling regulations;
- had discussed a similar matter with Lord Mandelson;
- had held these discussions following a discussion
with a senior representative of Tesco. I asked him, if he had
held such discussions with Tesco, whether they or someone else
had paid him for the services he had agreed to provide;
- had in or about June 2009 discussed with the
Secretary of State for Transport (or someone else reporting to
him) the National Express rail franchises;
- had held these discussions following a discussion
with a senior representative of National Express. I asked him,
if he did have such discussions with National Express, whether
they or someone else had paid him for the services he had agreed
to provide;
- had said, "I'm a bit like a sort of cab
for hire, I suppose, at the moment." I asked him why
he had said that;
- had told the interviewer that he charged £3,000
to £5,000 a day, or sometimes more, for his services. I also
asked Mr Byers to confirm whether he had at any time been paid
£3,000 to £5,000 a day for consultancy or other services,
and if so, by whom and whether he had registered these payments.
112. I also asked Mr Byers what subsequent communications
he or his legal advisers had had with the reporters; whether,
if any of the allegations were true, Mr Byers considered that
he had an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration,
or both, in respect of any financial interest he had had in these
alleged activities; and why if any of what he had said had been
untrue, he had spoken as he had done. Finally, I told Mr Byers
that I was inviting the Channel 4 programme makers to let me have
any unbroadcast parts of his interview.
113. The General Election was called soon after the
despatch of this letter, and I did not continue with my inquiry
during the Dissolution of the House. Once the new Parliament had
assembled on 18 May, I resumed my inquiry. On 27 May I received
the certified transcripts of Mr Byers's conversations with the
undercover reporter. I wrote to Mr Byers on 2 June, attaching
a copy of the transcripts.[79]
I noted from the transcript his references to a number of his
clients at the time and to offers he had received for when he
left Parliament. I asked Mr Byers for a full list of all the work
he had undertaken in his last two years as a Member of Parliament,
both remunerated and unremunerated, including his executive positions,
and for clarification on which of these he had registered in the
Register of Members' Financial Interests.
114. I noted that, according to the transcript, Mr
Byers said, when asked about contacting civil servants, that he
would ring them up and say, "I want to bring someone in
to have a chat about this policy area
I do it now as an
MP."[80] I asked
him to confirm that:
- when he was an MP, he had asked
for meetings with civil servants;
- as he had apparently implied, he had done so
on behalf of a client; and
- if so, whether he had declared his interest to
the civil servants at the time.
115. I also asked for information about further work
which, according to the transcript, Mr Byers had apparently undertaken
for external clients. I also noted that he had said, "I
chair this water services company. Every five years the regulator
Ofwat comes up with a five-year investment programme
So
once again, I approached
Hilary Benn who was dealing with
it as the Minister... he said, 'Well the best way is to talk
to the regulator', which I did, and then talk to the relevant
civil servants, which I did, and we just got an announcement just
before Christmas, which actually is pretty good in terms of levels
of investment
it certainly benefited my guys because they've
got a high level of investment over the next year, over the next
five years."[81]
I asked Mr Byers:
- whether he had indeed approached
the then Secretary of State and subsequently his officials and
Ofwat;
- when this had occurred;
- whether it had occurred as he had described it;
and
- whether at each point he had declared his interests
as chair of ACWA Services Limited.
116. According to the transcript Mr Byers had said
to the undercover reporter, "the important thing for your
clients to be able to say, and for us to be able ... to identify
on their behalf, is, if there's
a business commercial opportunity
for them, but there is
some regulation which is standing
in the way, or some other restriction
And we then say,
'right, okay, we can be the facilitators, we can say right
this is how that can be done.'"[82]
I asked Mr Byers whether he had performed this service for his
clients, how he had undertaken it, and whether, in any contacts
he had had with Ministers or officials or others, he had declared
his interest.
117. I noted also Mr Byers'
description of his role in mediating in a dispute which BP had
had with contractors about alleged cost overruns on a pipeline
going to Turkey. He was recorded as saying: "...I just
sat down for three days with them, and worked out, you know, I
had one lot in one room and one lot in the other, and you just
negotiate between the two, and say well actually I think, you
know, you could, for $380 million, you could solve this. And they
then said fine."[83]
118. I asked Mr Byers whether:
- he had acted in the way described;
- he had been paid for his services and, if not,
why not;
- if he had been paid, he had considered registering
that payment in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
119. I said that according to the transcript Mr Byers
had said that his scale of payments varied but it was "usually
between three and five thousand a day." [84]
I asked Mr Byers what particular work he had been referring
to there, and whether it would be reasonable to assume that the
reference applied to the examples of the work he had undertaken
as described earlier in the interview.
120. I referred Mr Byers to a passage in the transcript
concerning the allegation that he received confidential information
from Number 10. He had said that there was someone whom he knew
very well in Mr Cameron's office who would go with him to Number
10, and, "probably over a couple of drinks, we'd
say
rather more than we should say."[85]
I asked Mr Byers whether:
- it was the case that he did
know someone close to Mr Cameron;
- he had had the discussions with him which he
had described;
- if so, the discussions were on behalf of any
of his clients and,
- if so, he had declared his interest during these
discussions.
121. I noted that in the transcript Mr Byers said,
in the context of the coming General Election and the imminent
production of the party manifestos, "We go through the
manifesto, we say right if it's a water company, we say there's
a real problem here
we should go and talk to a civil servant
about how they're going to recommend that is done.
you'll
either get it delayed
basically you want to convince the
civil servant that it 's totally impractical, you know, high risk."[86]
I asked him whether:
- this was an accurate statement
of the work he had done on behalf of a water company in respect
of any party's manifesto in any previous General Election;
- he had in fact done this in the recent General
Election and;
- if he had done so, he had arranged a meeting
with civil servants and in that case he had declared his interest.
122. Finally, according to the transcript Mr Byers
had suggested to the undercover reporter that when the alleged
employer came over from the United States, "We can meet
over in Westminster, you can come along as well, we can have a
drink in one of the nice places there."[87]
I asked Mr Byers whether it had been his intention to use
House facilities to discuss his future employment.
123. Mr Byers replied by e-mail on 29 June.[88]
To this he attached a paper[89]
containing his response to my letters of 23 March[90]
and 2 June.[91]
124. In the paper Mr Byers said that in early February
2010 he had received "an unsolicited approach from a woman
calling herself Claire Webster. She said she was from a public
affairs company called Anderson Perry and that she had been given
the task of establishing a London office for the company. She
asked whether I would be interested in discussing a role with
Anderson Perry as a member of a soon to be established advisory
board and/or as a consultant to their clients." Mr Byers
told me that he and Claire Webster had agreed to meet on 23 February.
He said that this had been very much a preliminary meeting.
125. Mr Byers said that he had understood that the
meeting was to be private, and that it was to be a confidential
discussion about Anderson Perry's objectives in setting up a London
office and his own plans for employment after he had stood
down from Parliament at the forthcoming General Election. During
his meeting with the undercover reporter, Mr Byers told me, he
had "totally exaggerated" his experience in lobbying
on behalf of commercial interests. "I must accept that
my overstatements were made in order to impress a possible prospective
future employer." The meeting had been held in the afternoon
of 23 February. Mr Byers said that that same evening he had reflected
on the statements he had made. He had realised that some of them
could not be allowed to stand and that he would need to take immediate
steps to clarify the situation and withdraw some of his comments.
He had done this in e-mails sent the following morning (24 February)[92]
and on 25 February.[93]
After giving the whole matter further consideration he had withdrawn
his name from consideration in an e-mail sent to the undercover
reporter on 11 March.[94]
126. Mr Byers told me that his e-mail of 24 February
had been aimed at setting the record straight about his actual
level of experience in relation to the lobbying of Ministers in
the UK and withdrawing those statements he had made during the
meeting which were wrong. He had also made clear that he had completely
over-stated the part he had played in securing changes to the
way in which Government dealt with issues. He had sent his second
e-mail on 25 February in order to further clarify his comments.
Mr Byers said that he had made it clear in this e-mail that he
had not spoken to Lord Adonis, Rt Hon Hilary Benn or Lord Mandelson
about the matters he had mentioned during his meeting with Claire
Webster, and that he did not have any experience of lobbying UK
Government Ministers on behalf of commercial interests.
127. Mr Byers said that
he had known that he should not have made the comments and so
he took immediate steps to withdraw them and set the record straight.[95]
Mr Byers said that he had continued to give consideration
as to whether he really wanted to be engaged by Anderson Perry,
and he had then concluded that he did not. He e-mailed Claire
Webster on 11 March withdrawing his name from consideration.
128. Mr Byers said that
he hoped that his account had answered many of the questions I
had raised in my letters of 23 March and 2 June. He also said
that he was "not in receipt of confidential information
from Number 10; I did not know someone in Mr Cameron's office
'very well'; I did not use House facilities to discuss
my future employment prospects and all of the work I did in addition
to being a Member of Parliament was registered in the Register
of Members' Financial Interests. Like most Members I would give
advice to friends, voluntary groups and charities when asked,
for which nothing is received and no obligations entered into."
129. Mr Byers said that the dispute in Turkey had
concerned the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline for which Consolidated
Contractors International had been the major contractor. His role
with them had been registered. He had always made a full declaration
of his outside interests in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests.
130. In conclusion, Mr
Byers said that he recognised that while he had taken immediate
steps to withdraw and clarify the comments he had made during
the meeting on 23 February this was not an excuse for making the
comments in the first place. "I could try and put together
all sorts of reasons as to how I come to make the statements I
did but I have to accept that I simply should not have spoken
in such terms. I therefore want to take this opportunity to offer
my sincere and unreserved apologies to the House. I was wrong
to have made the statements I did and am sorry for having done
so."
131. Mr Byers sent me copies of his emails to the
undercover reporter of 24 and 25 February and 11 March, and of
her reply of 24 February.[96]
In the first e-mail, sent the day after his meeting with her,
Mr Byers said that he had been reflecting on their discussion.
He said, "... I'm afraid I completely over-stated the
part I have played in trying to secure changes to the way in which
government deals with issues. In reality I have not been engaged
in lobbying Ministers here in the UK. My statements yesterday
would have given the opposite impression and I would like to take
this opportunity to withdraw them." He continued that
given his lack of experience he might not be the appropriate person
to carry out the work she was thinking of. The reporter replied
later that day, saying that she was going to speak to the Board
in the US over the next week or two about a shortlist. She said
she would contact Mr Byers again.
132. Mr Byers e-mailed again on 25 February, saying:
"I don't have any experience of lobbying UK
Government Ministers on behalf of commercial interests. In the
context of our discussion on Tuesday this means that I have not
spoken to Andrew Adonis, Hilary Benn or Peter Mandelson about
the matters I mentioned. I'm sorry that I indicated otherwise
but on reflection wanted you to be aware of my lack of experience
in this area before you speak to your board in the US about a
shortlist. I hope this makes my position clear. If you have any
questions don't hesitate to get in touch. In fact I shall now
be in Westminster for the next weeks so we could easily meet up
again. Just let me know."
133. In his e-mail of 11 March Mr Byers said that
he had given a good deal of thought to the role Anderson Perry
wanted their advisory board members to play. He said that he had
no experience in this kind of work. "To be totally open
with you this is an aspect of public affairs work that I don't
feel comfortable about and is not something I would wish to be
part of." He asked her to withdraw his name from consideration
as an Advisory Board member and he apologised for wasting her
time.
134. I wrote to Mr Byers on 1 July. [97]
I noted his statement that he had "totally exaggerated"
his experience of lobbying on behalf of commercial interests and
the points he had made in his e-mails to the interviewer of 24
February,[98] 25 February[99]
and 11 March.[100]
I asked him to provide me with specific responses to each of the
questions I had set out in my letters to him of 23 March[101]
and 2 June,[102] and
I asked him the following further questions:
1) In relation to the dispute in Turkey (mentioned
in my letter of 2 June[103])
I asked him whether he had mediated in the dispute, as suggested
in the transcript, and, if so, whether he had been paid a separate
fee for that work.
2) In relation to the use of House facilities
(mentioned in my letter of 2 June[104]),
I said that his statement to the interviewer appeared to suggest
that he had intended to use House facilities for the purpose of
meeting the fictitious American employers (although, of course,
it had never happened).[105]
I asked Mr Byers whether he agreed that that was the clear impression
he had given by his statement and whether he considered that such
a meeting would have been an acceptable use of House facilities.
3) I asked Mr Byers whether, at the time he had
sent any of his e-mails to Claire Webster , he had had any inkling
or suspicion that either she or the company she had said she represented
were not what they claimed to be.
135. Mr
Byers replied to me on 13 July,[106]
attaching a supplementary response to my questions.[107]
He said that in responding to my outstanding questions he did
not seek to excuse himself for making the comments in the first
place. He continued, "I accept that I should not have
spoken in the terms I did and offer my sincere and unreserved
apologies to the House for having done so."
136. Mr Byers told me that he had not done work for
National Express[108]
or Rio Tinto,[109]
and that he had not sought to gain access to civil servants on
behalf of clients. Mr Byers said that he was unaware of ways around
the Enterprise Act. In reply to my question about discussions
with a senior representative of Tesco before raising the issue
of food labelling regulations with DEFRA or Lord Mandelson, he
said that no such discussions had taken place. He also said that
he had had no discussions with a senior representative of National
Express in advance of discussions with the Department for Transport
in respect of the National Express rail franchises.
137. Mr Byers said that the full transcript of his
meeting with the undercover reporter made clear that in that meeting
he had been discussing the situation he would be in once he had
left Parliament. He said that he had mentioned the three positions
that he had hoped to keep, and that he recognised that the phrase,
"I'm a bit like a sort of cab for hire, I suppose, at
the moment", was one that he should not have used. He
continued, "In a clumsy way I was trying to indicate that
on leaving the House I would not be seeking a single, full time
job but would be looking for a number of different employment
opportunities."
138. On the question of fees Mr Byers said that £3,000
to £5,000 a day, or sometimes more, was the level of fee
he had charged when making speeches to commercial organisations.
These had always been declared. Mr Byers said that for consultancy
and advisory services he had charged a lower fee, and these had
always been declared.[110]
He had never entered into an agreement with any outside body that
had involved him in the provision of services in his capacity
as a Member of Parliament.
139. Mr Byers said that his communications with the
reporters after the interview comprised the e-mails he had sent
to the undercover reporter on 24 and 25 February and on 11 March.[111]
He had also had a brief telephone conversation with the reporter
on 24 February to alert her to the e-mail he had sent her clarifying
the remarks he had made during their meeting the day before. He
said that the allegations made were untrue and that he had always
made a full disclosure of any "declarable" interests
and made the appropriate entry in the Register.
140. In response to the
questions in my letter of 2 June, Mr Byers said that he had understood
that the meeting was to be private to enable a confidential discussion
to take place about Anderson Perry's ambitions and his own plans
for employment after he had stood down from Parliament. He said,
"Looking back it is clear that I was telling the undercover
reporter what I thought she wanted to hear. I accept that I did
so in order to impress a possible prospective future employer."
141. Mr Byers said that in addition to those interests
which he had declared in the Register, he had held various unpaid
positions.[112] He
said that none of these had constituted a declarable interest.
142. Mr Byers said that he had not asked for meetings
with civil servants on behalf of a client. He said that no approach
had been made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, his officials or to Ofwat in relation to the
Ofwat investment programme. Mr Byers said that he had not performed
a service as a "facilitator" for clients in respect
of regulations which had stood in the way of their business opportunities.
143. In relation to his scale of fees, Mr Byers said
that he had seen the meeting with the person who turned out to
be an undercover reporter "as the beginning of a negotiation
to establish a fee ... it is higher than the fee I was charging
in respect of those interests I have registered." He
said that he had no other interests that needed to be registered.
144. Mr Byers told me that he had not, as he had
told the undercover reporter, gone through any General Election
manifesto to identify what might be a "real problem"
for a water company and talked to a civil servant about getting
a measure delayed because it was "totally impractical",
or "high risk".
145. In response to my
letter of 1 July,[113]
Mr Byers told me that Consolidated Contractors International had
been the main contractor for the construction of the pipeline
in Turkey and that BP had been the lead client. He said that there
had been a commercial dispute between the two and he had assisted
the Consolidated Contractors team in the negotiations to achieve
a settlement. This was part of his declared work for Consolidated
Contractors International and he was not paid a separate fee.
Mr Byers agreed that he had given the impression to the undercover
reporter that he would use House facilities for the purpose of
meeting the fictitious American employers. He said that he had
been unaware of any rule relating to the type of guest that a
Member could invite to the House.
146. Mr Byers said in
relation to the meeting with the undercover reporter that he had
"thought long and hard about whether I had any inkling
or suspicion that things were not as they were claimed to be."
He said that four months after the meeting it was difficult to
say with certainty. "All I can say is that I didn't know
at the time I sent my three e-mails that Anderson Perry was a
fictitious company and that I had been deceived. My reason for
sending the e-mails was because I knew that I couldn't allow my
comments of 23 February to stand and that I had to take immediate
steps to withdraw and clarify them."
147. Having considered this additional evidence I
wrote to Mr Byers on 14 July.[114]
I said that I noted from Lord Adonis's statement in the House
of Lords of 22 March[115]
that Lord Adonis had had a brief conversation with Mr Byers in
June 2009 about the East Coast main line and the situation then
facing National Express. (Lord Adonis had said in his statement
that there was no truth in the suggestion that Mr Byers had come
to any agreement with him on any matter relating to National Express
or that National Express was allowed to avoid any of its rail
contract obligations.) I asked Mr Byers to confirm that he had
had such a conversation in June 2009 and to let me know why he
had done so, and whether and in what terms he had raised with
Lord Adonis the difficulties then facing National Express. I said
that it would appear on the face of it that Mr Byers might have
been lobbying the Minister on behalf of National Express and if
so, I would need to know why he had done so.
148. Mr Byers replied
to me in an e-mail on 20 July.[116]
He confirmed that that he had had a brief conversation with Lord
Adonis in June 2009 in the terms stated in Lord Adonis' statement
in the House of Lords of 22 March 2010.[117]
Mr Byers said that he had raised the future of the East Coast
main line franchise in his role as a Member of Parliament representing
the concerns and interests of his constituents.
149. Mr Byers said that
the East Coast main line ran through his former constituency of
North Tyneside. A number of his former constituents had been employed
by National Express in the operation of the franchise and many
former constituents used the service as passengers. He said that
in June 2009 there had been a good deal of speculation and uncertainty
about the future of the franchise. Constituents had been worried
about job security and terms and conditions of employment. Mr
Byers told me that members of the travelling public had wanted
assurances about reliability and punctuality. "My sole
reason for meeting the Secretary of State in June of last year
was to raise these concerns on behalf of my constituents. I was
not putting forward a case on behalf of National Express."
150. I replied to Mr Byers on 20 July.[118]
I said that in view of what he had said, I was likely to need
to come to a view on his statement that he had been speaking on
behalf of his constituents and not of National Express. I asked
Mr Byers what points he had made to Lord Adonis, approximately
how many constituents had raised this with him and in what fora,
and whether he could confirm that he had had no discussions or
contacts with any representatives of National Express either before
or after his meeting with Lord Adonis.
151. In the light of the information he had supplied
about his discussion with Lord Adonis, I also asked Mr Byers to
let me know whether he had had any discussions or contact at all
on water matters with the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP when he was Secretary
of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; or with his
officials or with Ofwat; or with Lord Mandelson on food labelling
regulations when he was Secretary of State for Business. I also
asked him to confirm that he had had no discussions at any time
with Tesco representatives on food labelling regulations. I said
that I needed to be clear whether, as with Lord Adonis, he had
had some discussions with each of the people or bodies indentified,
albeit not in the terms he had described in his interview with
the undercover reporter.
152. Mr Byers responded to me by e-mail on 12 August.[119]
He said that most of the conversation in his meeting with Lord
Adonis in the House of Commons in June 2009 was about "the
general political scene", and that he had also
used the opportunity of the meeting to have a brief conversation
with Lord Adonis about the East Coast franchise and the concerns
of his constituents. They had discussed in general terms the rail
franchising system and the difficulties it caused. Mr Byers said,
"I remember expressing the view that, in a situation like
this, uncertainty was not good and that he [Lord Adonis]
should try and reach a decision on the East Coast franchise as
soon as possible." Lord Adonis had replied that, as
he had no intention of entering into a renegotiation of the franchise,
he should be in a position to decide sooner rather than later.
Mr Byers said that, in fact, Lord Adonis had made his decision
a few weeks later, on 1 July 2009.
153. Mr Byers said that during May and June 2009,
it had been widely known that National Express were in discussions
with the Department of Transport about the East Coast franchise.
It had first raised been raised with him through political channels
in his constituency as the railway trade unions were calling for
the franchise to be re-nationalised. He said that the future of
the franchise had also been raised during his constituency advice
surgeries, by at least one employee of National Express concerned
about job security, and by another constituent worried about possible
disruption to the service if the franchise changed hands again,
GNER having originally held the franchise until they pulled out
and it was taken over by National Express.
154. Mr Byers said that
in late May or early June 2009 he had met with Mr Richard Bowker,
who at the time was Chief Executive of National Express. He told
me that he had first met Mr Bowker in 2001 when he had appointed
him to head the Strategic Rail Authority and since then they had
remained in contact. "Our conversation was wide-ranging.
We did, in the course of it, discuss the problems he was having
with the East Coast franchise but at no stage did he ask me to
intervene on behalf of National Express with Lord Adonis. In fact,
about a month after our meeting he resigned as Chief Executive
of National Express."
155. Mr Byers said that
although he did not know the exact date, during this period he
had been one of a number of Members with constituencies on the
route of the East Coast railway line who had been spoken to by
National Express about the discussions they were having with the
Department of Transport about the franchise. He said that "This
simply took the form of a briefing for information purposes. At
no time did I speak to Lord Adonis on behalf of National Express."
156. He confirmed that he had had no discussions
or contact at all on water matters with Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP,
then Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
or with his officials or with Ofwat. He also confirmed that he
had had no discussions or contact at all with Lord Mandelson or
Tesco representatives concerning food labelling regulations.
157. I wrote to Mr Byers on 12 August.[120]
I said that it would appear that he had been briefed by a National
Express representative sometime in the spring of 2009 and then
had a meeting with the then Chief Executive shortly before he
met Lord Adonis. I told Mr Byers that it might seem, therefore,
that he had been the subject of some lobbying activity by National
Express. I added that it might be reasonable to infer that the
information they had given him was relevant, at least, to, and
might have helped to inform, his conversation with Lord Adonis,
along with the points which had been made to him by two of his
constituents and the railway trade unions. I noted, however, that
National Express were quoted in the Sunday Times article
of 21 March[121] as
saying that they had not paid him and that Mr Byers had told me
in his 12 July response[122]
that he had not done work for that company.
158. I asked Mr Byers
for his comments on this interpretation of the evidence which
he had given me, for his confirmation that he had received no
payments from National Express, and for a little more information
to clarify the position. I asked Mr Byers who from National Express
had given him his briefing, whether it had been one to one or
as part of a group, and whether National Express had made clear
what outcome they had been seeking from the Government. I also
asked Mr Byers whether the National Express representative had
made any suggestion that he might assist them by making appropriate
representations to the Government. I asked Mr Byers whether the
Chief Executive had asked for a meeting with him, and whether
he had made clear what outcome he had been seeking from the Government.
Finally, I asked Mr Byers to confirm whether, after the initial
conversation he had described to me, he had had any further contacts
with Lord Adonis or his civil servants about National Express
or the East Coast franchise.
159. Mr Byers wrote to me on 31 August.[123]
He said that, although he had no record of the exact date of the
briefing he received from National Express, he was "confident"
that it took place after his meeting with Lord Adonis.
Mr Byers confirmed that he had received no payments from
National Express.
160. Mr Byers said that the National Express briefing
had been over the telephone. He did not remember who had made
the call. "I understand from a statement made by National
Express in response to the Sunday Times/Dispatches
programme that I was one of a number of Members spoken to at this
time because the East Coast line runs through our constituencies.
I do not recall any specific desired outcomes being made clear.
It was more of an update on their discussions with the Department
of Transport." Mr Byers said that there had been "no
suggestion" that he might assist National Express by
making representations to the Government. He said his meeting
with the Chief Executive had been "an informal affair"
and he did not remember who had asked for it. The East Coast franchise
had formed a small part of a far more wide-ranging conversation.
The Chief Executive had mentioned no specific outcome that he
was seeking"that simply wasn't in keeping with
the nature and tone of our meeting."
161. Mr Byers confirmed what Lord Adonis had said,
in his statement to the House of Lords on 22 March,[124]
that they had had a brief conversation in June 2009. He confirmed
that he had had no further contact with Lord Adonis or his civil
servants about National Express or the East Coast franchise.
162. I wrote to Mr Byers on 1 September.[125]
I noted that the sequence of his discussion with the representatives
of National Express as set out in his e-mail of 31 August[126]
was the opposite of what he had told the interviewer.[127]
I asked Mr Byers whether his informal discussion with the Chief
Executive of National Express took place before or after his meeting
with Lord Adonis. I noted that he had told me in his e-mail of
12 August[128] that
this discussion had taken place in late May or early June, which
suggested that it had been held shortly before he had seen Lord
Adonis.
163. Mr Byers responded to me by e-mail on 5 September.[129]
He said that "For the sake of accuracy and hopefully not
being too pedantic, I don't think it's correct to describe a telephone
briefing from one person as 'a discussion with the representatives
of National Express'". Mr Byers said that I was right to
point out that what actually took place was not reflected in the
transcript of his interview with the undercover reporter. He
re-iterated what he had said in his e-mails to the reporter and
from his legal representatives' letter to the production company,[130]
that in the meeting with the undercover reporter he had "totally
exaggerated" his experience in lobbying on behalf of
commercial interests. His comments had been made at what he had
been told was a private and confidential discussion about his
employment plans when he had ceased to be a Member. Mr Byers accepted
that his overstatements, which he had taken immediate steps to
clarify and withdraw, were made "in order to impress a
possible prospective future employer." Mr Byers said
that although he could not be precise about the date, he believed
that his meeting with the Chief Executive had taken place before
his discussion with Lord Adonis.
164. I wrote to Mr Byers on 6 September.[131]
I said I noted what he had said about the telephone briefing,
although I noted also that the Sunday Times article of
21 March[132] had reported
that National Express had said that they had had "discussions"
with a number of MPs whose constituencies lay along the East Coast
main line. I recalled that Mr Byers had told me in his e-mail
of 12 August[133] that
he had raised with Lord Adonis the concerns of his constituents.
I asked Mr Byers whether these concerns had coincided with what
he had understood to be the concerns of the Chief Executive of
National Express on this matter. I also asked him whether he had
mentioned to Lord Adonis that, as well as his constituents' interests,
the Chief Executive of National Express had raised the matter
with him. I asked whether I would be right in assuming that he
had anyway been aware of and taken account of the Chief Executive's
views when he had had his meeting with Lord Adonis.
165. I told Mr Byers that I had taken from his evidence
that the "source close to Richard Bowker" quoted
in the Sunday Times on 21 March[134]
had been wrong in all respects to suggest among other things that
National Express had had a commercial relationship with Mr Byers
(and so, by implication, had either paid or promised him payment)
and that he had been acting on their behalf. I asked him to let
me know if I was mistaken on that point.
166. I wrote again to Mr Byers on 7 September, enclosing
copies of my correspondence with the Director of Catering and
Retail Services.[135]
I had sought her advice on 14 July about the rules in relation
to the type of guest who could be invited to use House facilities.[136]
I said in that letter that the undercover reporter had told Mr
Byers that if someone representing the fictitious potential employers
was coming over from America in the next couple of weeks, it would
be good for Mr Byers to meet them, and that Mr Byers had responded,
"We can meet over in Westminster, you can come along as
well, we can have a drink in one of the nice places there... The
Americans love it, by the way"[137]
While no such meeting had taken place, since the company had
been fictitious, I asked the Director whether it was within the
rules for a Member to invite a prospective employer to a drink
in a House of Commons bar in order to discuss their personal employment
prospects.
167. The Director of Catering
and Retail Services replied to me on 27 August. She said that,
with the exception of the banqueting regulations, there were no
specific regulations relating to the use of catering facilities
in the House of Commons.[138]
She told me, however, that the general principles and codes of
conduct communicated to Members through various documents and
channels applied equally to their conduct in using the refreshment
facilities "as they do to the use of other House facilities."
168. I wrote to the Director of Catering and Retail
Services on 1 September.[139]
I said that I had noted the principles set out in the 2010 Members'
Handbook, which made clear that the services and facilities of
the House are provided "in order to assist Members in
their parliamentary work" and that they "should
not be used for party political campaigning or private business
activity."[140]
I asked the Director to confirm that these principles applied
in the last Parliament and that they were the ones that she had
had in mind.
169. The Director wrote
to me on 6 September.[141]
She said that she was aware from conversations with my predecessors
that guidance was given to Members setting out the general principles
and codes of conduct that they should adhere to in conducting
their parliamentary duties, and, specifically, in making use of
parliamentary facilities. The Director said that the extract I
had quoted from the 2010 Members' Handbook was indeed the sort
of guidance she had had in mind, but that she was unable to confirm
if this wording was unchanged from previous versions or, indeed,
whether or how any other guidance might have been given to Members.
170. I sought Mr Byers' comments on the Department's
advice, including whether he considered that his suggestion that
he would meet the fictitious American company representatives
in Westminster for a drink "in one of the nice places
there" suggested that he had been offering to use House
facilities for private business purposes, namely to discuss his
possible employment once he had left the House.[142]
171. Mr Byers sent me
an e-mail on 16 September[143]
responding to my letter to him of 6 September[144]
about the East Coast rail franchise and my letter to him of 7
September[145] about
the evidence from the Director of Catering and Retail Services.
Mr Byers said that the views expressed by the Chief Executive
of National Express on the East Coast franchise had not been the
same as the concerns of his constituents. He said that he thought
it unlikely that he would have mentioned to Lord Adonis that he
had met the Chief Executive "but given the time lag I
cannot be absolutely certain. While I was obviously aware of the
Chief Executive's views this does not mean that I reflected them
in my comments to Lord Adonis." He re-iterated that in
his brief conversation with Lord Adonis about the franchise "I
raised the concerns of my constituentsand nobody else".
In relation to the quote in the Sunday Times from an unidentified
source, he said that it was wrong in all respects.
172. Turning to the use
of the House's catering facilities, Mr Byers noted that the 2010
Members' Handbook was issued in May 2010. The Members' Handbook
that applied at the time of the conduct which was the subject
of the complaint had been the one published in May 2008. He said,
"I have gone through it and cannot find guidance of the
kind you refer to which is contained in the 2010 version. The
only reference relevant to the complaint would appear to be at
page 48 which states, 'Members may entertain guests'.[146]
There does not appear to be any guidance about the type of
guest that might be entertained."
173. I wrote to Mr Byers on the same day, 16 September.[147]
I said I had noted his response to my letter of 7 September about
the use of refreshment facilities, and that he considered that
there was no restriction at the time of his meeting with the undercover
reporter in using catering facilities for business purposes. I
said that I did, however, need to consider whether the more specific
provision in the 2010 Handbook was likely to have articulated
a more longstanding expectation. I told Mr Byers that it could
be argued that that expectation was based on the understanding,
as reflected in respect of expenses in successive Green Books,
that parliamentary facilities should be used only for the purpose
of a Member carrying out their parliamentary duties.
174. I said that I had taken no view on this matter
myself. But I asked Mr Byers whether he considered that the arrangement
he had suggested during the course of the interview with the undercover
reporter was consistent with a principle that parliamentary facilities
should be used only in support of a Member's parliamentary duties,
and that meeting fictitious American company representatives
in Westminster for a drink was an offer to use House facilities
for purposes other than parliamentary business, namely to discuss
his possible employment once he had left the House.
175. Mr Byers responded
by e-mail on 20 September.[148]
He said that he recognised that if the view was taken that at
the time of the complaint the only guests who could be entertained
by a Member were those relevant to a Member's parliamentary duties,
then his invitation had gone beyond this. He re-iterated that
the Members' Handbook in force at the time of his invitation made
no reference to any restriction on the type of guest that could
be entertained, although the most recent version of the Handbook
published in May 2010 did introduce restrictions. He noted that
I had raised the provisions contained in the Green Book, and said
that he was unaware that the principles which applied to the claiming
of parliamentary expenses would also apply to the type of guest
that a Member could invite to the House.
176. After I had reviewed
the evidence which he had provided, I wrote to Mr Byers on 29
September to raise an additional point.[149]
I asked Mr Byers whether he had at any time had a meeting with
the then Secretary of State for the Department of Food and Rural
Affairs (Rt Hon Hilary Benn) in respect of food labelling regulations.
I noted that he had told me in his letter of 13 July[150]
that he had had no discussions with senior representatives at
Tesco before raising the issue of food labelling regulations with
DEFRA or Lord Mandelson. I said that in his e-mail of 12 August[151]
in response to the specific questions I had asked him in my letter
of 20 July,[152] he
had confirmed that he had had no discussions or contact at all
with Lord Mandelson or Tesco representatives concerning food labelling
regulations. I had not specifically asked him, however, about
any contacts he had had with the Secretary of State. I asked him
therefore to confirm that he had had no contact with the then
Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs in relation to any aspect of food labelling.
177. Mr Byers e-mailed
me on 7 October.[153]
He confirmed that at no time did he have a meeting with the then
Secretary of State for the Department of Food and Rural Affairs
(Rt Hon Hilary Benn) in respect of food labelling regulations.
FINDINGS OF FACT
178. In early February 2010 Mr Byers received an
approach from the undercover reporter, who said she was from Anderson
Perry.
179. During an initial telephone conversation, Mr
Byers and the undercover reporter agreed to meet.
180. Mr Byers and the undercover reporter met on
23 February 2010. Mr Byers' evidence is that this was very much
a preliminary meeting. He says that nothing was agreed and no
commitments were made either by himself or the undercover reporter.
Mr Byers says he understood that the meeting was to be private,
and that it was to be a confidential discussion about Anderson
Perry's objectives in setting up a London office and his own plans
for employment after he stood down from Parliament at the forthcoming
General Election.
181. Shortly after this meeting he sent a series
of e-mails to the undercover reporter. Two, dated 24 and 25 February
2010, withdrew some of the comments he had made. And in an e-mail
of 11 March he withdrew his name for consideration as an Advisory
Board Member. The e-mails are referred to more fully in section
xiii below.
Issues subject to inquiry
i. Confidential information
182. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, "at
the moment I get, I still get a lot of confidential information,
because I'm still linked into Number 10 and so on."[154]
Mr Byers told the undercover reporter that he knew very well someone
in the office of Rt Hon David Cameron and that "probably
over a couple of drinks, we'd
say
rather more than
we should say."[155]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 13 of the
Code of Conduct: Confidential information for financial gain.
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
183. Mr Byers says that he was not in receipt of
confidential information from Number 10. He says that he did not
know someone in Mr Cameron's office very well.
ii. Accessing civil servants
184. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, "there's
a very good opportunity ...when the election is called...The civil
servants then spend that month working through all the sort of
policy options. And it's a great time, and if there's an issue
where your clients actually want to, to get the, a regulation
changed, or some law amended... because there's no Ministers around
..."[156]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code
of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
185. Mr Byers says he has not sought to gain access
to civil servants on behalf of clients.
iii. Securing removal of a regulation
186. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, "...
the important thing for your clients to be able to say, and for
us to be ...able to identify on their behalf, is, if there's a...,
if there's a business commercial opportunity for them, but there
is a sort of, some regulation which is standing in the way, or
some other restriction, ...then we have to work out the solution
... And we then say right okay, we can be the facilitators..."[157]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the
Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct:
Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and
Declaration
187. Mr Byers says that he has not performed such
a service for clients.
iv. Ways around the Enterprise Act
188. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter,
"when I was at Trade and Industry, I was the sort of architect
of the Enterprise Act ... if the Office of Fair Trading say
you're operating a restrictive practice, or if you're price fixing,
or whatever ... But you also know ways round it. Well actually
... there's an ace you can play here."[158]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
189. Mr Byers says he is unaware of ways around the
Enterprise Act.
v. Food labelling regulations
190. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, "there
was an issue about labelling food in supermarkets ... it was a
massively bureaucratic labelling exercise, so there's a woman
called Lucy Neville-Rolfe ... I know Lucy really well.
She rang me to basically, (...INAUDIBLE...) you've got to get
it stopped." [159]
191. Mr Byers also told the undercover reporter,
in discussing the food labelling regulations, "but
the trump card when that happens is you talk to the business department,
so you ring Peter Mandelson up and say, 'Peter, did you know
that Hilary Benn's about to do?' He said 'What?' ...
And so then so Peter got it, he got it delayed, and then got it
amended."[160]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Registration and Declaration
192. Mr Byers says he had no discussions or contact
at all with Tesco representatives about food labelling regulations.
He says that at no time did he have a meeting with the then Secretary
of State for the Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Rt Hon
Hilary Benn) in respect of food labelling regulations. Mr Byers
says he had no discussions or contact at all with Lord Mandelson
concerning food labelling regulations.
vi. National Express
193. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, "I
do a bit of work for National Express."[161]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct; Disrepute.
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
194. Mr Byers says that he has not done work for
National Express.
195. Mr Byers told the
undercover reporter: "So they [National Express]
approached meJune of last year? And said, we've got
a huge problem, we want to get out of the east coast mainline,
but not pay a huge penalty and we want to keep in the other two
franchises as long we can."[162]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy.
196. Mr Byers initially told me no discussions had
taken place with senior representatives of National Express. Subsequently
he said that in late May or early June 2009 he met with Mr Richard
Bowker who at the time was Chief Executive of National Express.
Mr Byers' evidence is that he has known Mr Bowker since 2001 when
Mr Byers appointed him to head the Strategic Rail Authority, and
they had remained in contact since. Mr Byers says that the meeting
was informal and that the discussion ranged widely: the East Coast
rail franchise formed only a small part of the discussion. The
meeting with Mr Bowker was shortly before Mr Byers met Lord Adonis
in June 2009. Mr Byers says that, in the course of a wide-ranging
conversation with Lord Adonis discussing the general political
scene, they discussed briefly the problems with the East Coast
franchise and the concerns of his constituents, which Mr Byers
says were the sole reason for the meeting with Lord Adonis. Mr
Byers says that Mr Bowker had not at any stage asked him to intervene
with the Minister on behalf of National Express and he did not
do so. Mr Byers says that he was also one of a number of Members
with constituencies on the route of the East Coast railway line
who received a telephone briefing from National Express about
the discussions they were having with the Department of Transport
about the franchise. He says that this simply took the form of
a briefing for information purposes. He believes that the phone
call happened after his meeting with Lord Adonis.
197. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, "So
between you and I, I then spoke to Andrew Adonis, the Transport
Secretary, and said, 'Andrew look, [National Express have]
got a huge problem. Is there a way out of this?' And then we,
we sort of worked together ... you know you have to keep this
very confidential yourself...He said, 'We shouldn't be involved
in the detailed negotiation between his civil servants and National
Express but we can give them a broad steer. So I will talk to
you about where I want to go and you then Steve will talk to me
about where National Express is prepared to go.'"
198. Mr Byers then said
to the reporter, "So we basically got to a situation where
we agreed with Andrew he would, he would publicly be very critical
of National Express and talk about, 'I'm going to strip you
of the franchise', and be very gung ho and we said we will
live with that and we won't challenge you in the court, provided
you then let us out by December, by the end of the year and we
can keep the other two franchises for a little longer. So,
and that's what we managed to do ...."[163]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
10 of the Code of Conduct; Paid advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Registration and Declaration
199. Mr Byers says that he did not have this discussion
as told to the reporter. In June 2009 he had raised in discussion
with Lord Adonis the future of the East Coast main line franchise
with Lord Adonis in his role as a Member of Parliament trying
his best to represent the concerns and interests of his then constituents.
He says he was not putting forward a case on behalf of National
Express.
200. On 22 March 2010, Lord Adonis told the House
of Lords that he had a brief conversation with Mr Byers in June
2009 about the East Coast main line and the situation then facing
National Express. He said that there was no truth in the suggestion
that Mr Byers came to any arrangement with him about any matter
relating to National Express, or that National Express was allowed
to avoid any of its rail contract obligations.
vii. Rio Tinto
201. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter: "I
do a bit of work for Rio Tinto, but that's been in Kazakhstan
... For example with Rio Tinto, um, one of the things I was doing
with them ... I know someone who's very close to the crown prince
in the UAE, and he, we were talking to him about whether they
would use one of the, one of the, the big Abu Dhabi funds to invest
in the Rio Tinto project."[164]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
202. Mr Byers says he has not done work for Rio Tinto.
viii. Ofwat
203. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter: "I
chair this water services company. Every five years the regulator
Ofwat comes up with a five-year investment programme
So...
I approached
Hilary Benn, who was dealing with it as the
Minister. He said, 'Well the best way is to talk to the regulator',
which I did, and then talk to the relevant civil servants,
which I did, and we just got an announcement just before Christmas,
which actually is pretty good in terms of levels of investment
It certainly benefited my guys because they got a high-level
investment over the next, over the five years."[165]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Registration and Declaration
204. Mr Byers has told me that he had no discussions
or contact at all on water matters with Hilary Benn, or with his
officials or with Ofwat. He has said that he made no approaches
to any of those mentioned.
ix. Mediating in a dispute
205. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter: "I
do quite a lot of sort of almost, mediation to resolve disputes
between companies and so on ... there's a big pipeline going
from Azerbaijan to Turkey, and BP had a dispute with the contractors
... in the end I just sat down for three days with them ..."[166]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
206. Mr Byers says that the dispute in Turkey concerned
a pipeline for which Consolidated Contractors International (CCI)
was the major contractor, and BP were the lead client. He says
that he assisted the Consolidated Contractors team in the negotiations
to achieve a settlement; this was part of his declared work for
CCI and he was not paid a separate fee. Mr Byers registered his
role with CCI in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
x. Influencing manifesto implementation
207. Mr Byers told the
undercover reporter that "We go through the manifesto,
we say, 'right if it's a water company, we say there is a
real problem here
we should go and talk to a civil servant
about how they are going to recommend that is done.'
You'll
either get it delayed
basically you want to convince a
civil servant that it is totally impractical, you know, high risk."
[167]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
208. Mr Byers says that this is not an accurate statement
in respect of any General Election.
xi. Use of House facilities
209. Mr Byers suggested
to the undercover reporter, in the context of the alleged employers
coming over from the United States, that "We can meet
over in Westminster, you can come along as well, we can have a
drink in one of the nice places there ... the Americans love it
by the way."[168]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
14 of the Code of Conduct; page 44 of the May 2008
edition of the Members' Handbook; general principles relating
to the use of House facilities.
210. The Director of Catering
and Retail Services says that there are no specific regulations
relating to the use of catering facilities in the House of Commons.
However, the general principles and codes of conduct communicated
to Members through various documents and channels apply equally
to their conduct in using the refreshment facilities as they do
to the use of other House facilities. The 2010 Members' Handbook
for the current Parliament contains a rule saying that House facilities
should not be used for "private business activity".
The 2008 Members' Handbook, which applied at the time of Mr
Byers' conversation, says that Members "may entertain
guests" in most Refreshment Department venues.
211. Mr Byers accepts that he gave the impression
that he would use the House for private business discussion, but
was unaware of any rule relating to the type of guest that a Member
can invite to the House.
xii. Cab for Hire
212. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, after
some discussion about possible work for Anderson Perry: "But
no I'd be very interested, I mean I, I'd be, because it's not
something I sort of, I, I get sort of, I'm a bit like a sort of
cab for hire I suppose at the moment ..."[169]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
213. Mr Byers says that he was discussing the situation
he would be in once he had left Parliament. Mr Byers says that
the phrase, "I'm a bit like a sort of cab for hire",
is one that he should not have used. He says that in a clumsy
way he was trying to indicate that on leaving the House he would
not be seeking a single, full time job but would be looking for
a number of different employment opportunities, to add to the
three positions he already held.
xiii. Exaggerated or untrue statements
214. After the meeting
with the undercover reporter, Mr Byers sent a series of e-mails
to her in which he made a number of statements about what he had
told her. On 24 February, the day after the meeting, he told her:
"I'm afraid I completely over-stated the part I have played
in trying to secure changes to the way in which government deals
with issues. In reality I have not been engaged in lobbying Ministers
here in the UK. My statements yesterday would have given the opposite
impression and I would like to take this opportunity to withdraw
them. Given my lack of experience in this area it may well be
the case that I'm not the appropriate person to carry out the
work you are thinking of."
215. On 25 February Mr Byers told the reporter: "I
have not spoken to Andrew Adonis, Hilary Benn or Peter Mandelson
about the matters I mentioned."
216. On 11 March Mr Byers
told the reporter: "To be totally open with you this is
an aspect of public affairs work that I don't feel comfortable
about and is not something I would wish to be part of. I would
therefore be grateful if you could withdraw my name from consideration
as an Advisory Board member ..."
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute
217. Mr Byers accepts that he totally exaggerated
his experience in lobbying on behalf of commercial interests.
His comments were made at what he had been told was a private
and confidential discussion about his employment plans when he
ceased to be a Member. He accepts that his overstatementswhich
he took immediate steps to clarify and withdrawwere made
in order to impress a prospective future employer. Mr Byers has
offered his sincere and unreserved apologies to the House. He
says he was wrong to have made the statements and is sorry for
having done so.
xiv. Telling the undercover reporter that
he charged £3,000 to £5,000 a day, or sometimes more,
for his services
218. Mr Byers told the undercover reporter, who asked
about his fees: "at the moment my sort of scale is between,
it varies, but it's, it's usually between three and five thousand
a day, that's the sort of wage ... I mean sometimes I can charge
more, but that's, I mean, I was just, you know, that's the rate,
that's the range".[170]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
219. Mr Byers says that £3,000 to £5,000
a day, or sometimes more, was the level of fee he charged when
making speeches to commercial organisations. These were always
declared in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Mr Byers
says that for consultancy and advisory services he charged a lower
fee, which was also always declared in the Register. Mr Byers
says that he saw the meeting with the undercover reporter as the
beginning of a negotiation to establish a fee for work to be carried
out when he was no longer a Member.
RT HON PATRICIA HEWITT: MY INQUIRIES
220. I wrote to Ms Hewitt on 23 March.[171]
I said that since I had decided to accept Ms Greening's complaint,
I did not need to conduct my inquiry on the basis of the self-referral
she had sent me with her e-mail of 22 March.[172]
I asked Ms Hewitt to give me a full account of the circumstances
in which she had come to be interviewed by someone who turned
out to be a journalist. I also asked Ms Hewitt to confirm whether,
as reported:
- she had put Partnerships in
Care (PiC) in touch with those working on Lord Bradley's inquiry,
to enable PiC to give evidence to that inquiry and for Lord Bradley
to visit one of PiC's establishments. I asked her, if that was
true, how it had come about and how she had achieved it and why
it had been necessary;
- she had persuaded the Chairman of the Health
and Criminal Justice National Advocacy Group to invite PiC to
join the Advocacy Group. I asked her, if that was true, how she
had achieved this;
- PiC was her client. I asked her, if so, what
remuneration she had received from PiC or indirectly from Cinven,[173]
and for what services;
- she had responded "Exactly"
to the interviewer's statement that she had got PiC "into
the system
with a view to getting further contracts, presumably,
and being able to expand their work";[174]
and that
- she had spoken to both officials and Ministers
about changing a carbon reduction regulation
"in fact a way as to help Cinven..." That change
helped Cinven and other private equity companies.[175]
I asked her, if that was true, how she had achieved this.
221. I also asked Ms Hewitt to confirm whether she
had at any time been paid £3,000 a day for consultancy or
other services, and if so, by whom and whether she had registered
these payments; what subsequent communications she or her legal
advisers had had with the reporters; whether, if any of the allegations
were true, she considered she had an obligation to make a Register
entry or declaration, or both, in respect of any financial interest
she had in these alleged activities; and why, if any of what she
had said was untrue, she had spoken as she had done. Finally,
I told Ms Hewitt that I was inviting the Channel 4 programme makers
to let me have any unbroadcast parts of her interview.
222. Ms Hewitt e-mailed me on 7 April suggesting
that it would be more convenient if she answered my questions
of 23 March along with queries that might arise from the unbroadcast
material when it arrived, and I agreed to her request.[176]
223. I did not continue with my inquiry during the
Dissolution of the House. After the new Parliament had assembled
on 18 May, I resumed my inquiry. On 27 May I received the certified
transcripts of Ms Hewitt's conversations with the undercover reporter.
I wrote to Ms Hewitt on 2 June, attaching the transcripts.[177]
I asked her to confirm her remunerated directorships and other
employment at the time of the interview, and that each had been
registered in the Register of Members' Financial Interests in
accordance with the rules.
224. I noted that according to the transcript Ms
Hewitt had described how she had been able to introduce PiC to
NHS managers and senior Department of Health officials. I asked
Ms Hewitt to confirm this and let me know whether on each occasion
she had declared to these officials her work with Cinven and the
relationship between PiC and Cinven.
225. I referred Ms Hewitt to the transcript of her
description of her conversations with officials and Ministers
about the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) regulations and her
statement that she had kept talking to officials because of the
regulations' effect on private equity firms.[178]
I asked her whether she had declared her interest as a senior
adviser to Cinven on each occasion when she had conducted these
meetings.
226. I noted that, during the conversation with Claire
Webster, Ms Hewitt had said, "So if you've got a client
who needs a particular regulation removed, then we can often package
that up in a way that will give the Minister a win, and with a
new Government, committed to less regulation, that's an attractive
argument to make."[179]
I asked Ms Hewitt whether, as implied, she had undertaken such
actions when she was a Member of Parliament, whether she had done
so in support of any of the companies which remunerated her, and,
if so, whether she had declared her interest to the Minister or
officials whom she had contacted.
227. I said that Ms Hewitt had stated, in relation
to civil servants, that she made a point of being in touch and,
that "you need just to have a sort of eye to propriety
and all of that
But I mean I have regular lunches and coffees
and you know we're all mates really."[180]
I asked Ms Hewitt whether she had indeed had such contacts
with civil servants, if so, whether they had covered matters of
interest to her clients; and, if so, whether she had declared
her interest during those occasions.
228. I also noted that she had described actions
which she implied she had taken to change a directive or legislation,
and asked Ms Hewitt to confirm that she did take such action when
she was a Member of Parliament. I also asked whether, as implied,
she had done so on behalf of a client, and, if so, whether she
had declared her interest.
229. Finally, I asked Ms Hewitt to confirm the date
of the interview.
230. Ms Hewitt responded to my letters of 23 March[181]
and 2 June[182] on
27 June. [183] She
told me that she would like to emphasise firstly that, as was
apparent from the transcript, the context of her meeting with
Claire Webster was her availability and interest in taking on
work after she had ceased to be a Member of Parliament. Her intention
to stand down from Parliament had already been announced in June
2009. Secondly, as was also apparent from the transcript, she
strongly endorsed the statement in the relevant guidelines that
"it is in the public interest that former Ministers with
experience in government should be able to move into business
or into other areas of public life ... provided there is no cause
for any suspicion of impropriety."[184]
231. I noted from the transcript of the initial telephone
conversation[185] that
the reporter said that she was looking to produce a board to help
Anderson Perry break into the UK market and to "kind of
advise us and our companies" on strategy. She wanted
to know whether it was the kind of thing Ms Hewitt might be interested
in getting involved in. Ms Hewitt replied "Well in principle
yes" and explained that she already did some advisory
work for the Barclays Capital Asian Pacific Advisory Board, for
Cinven and Alliance Boots, as well as being a senior non-executive
director for BT. The reporter explained that Anderson Perry undertook
bespoke consultancy in the defence, construction, transport and
health sectors; and that they already had clients in the US and
the Middle East. Ms Hewitt then accepted the reporter's invitation
to "drop in" at their office in St James's
for a cup of coffee, to "have a chat about it and to see
if this is the kind of thing you might be interested in doing."She
asked for background information to be sent to her private e-mail
address in the meantime.
232. Ms Hewitt said that
she believed the transcript of this telephone conversation spoke
for itself. She added that over the last year, and particularly
since she had announced she was standing down from Parliament,
she had received a number of approaches from businesses, consultancies
and recruitment firms about possible advisory or non-executive
positions. So there had been nothing unusual about the Anderson
Perry approach. She believed that there would be no harm in having
a preliminary meeting, and decided that she would only carry out
the usual due diligence on the company and its clients if anything
came of the initial conversation. She was therefore only prepared
for an informal chat when she met Claire Webster.
233. Ms Hewitt described
her arrival at Anderson Perry's offices for the meeting on 9 March.
She said of the arrangements: "None of this was out of
the ordinary and I had no reason to suspect either that she was
a journalist or that there were hidden cameras in the room."
234. Ms Hewitt responded
to my questions, in my letter of 23 March,[186]
about what she was reported to have said during the meeting. First
she responded to my query about her reported statement that it
was "very do-able" to put business clients in
touch with a Minister but "you have to be ...quite careful
about ...how you do it".[187]
She said that it was "highly desirable" that
a Minister should have a dialogue or contact with businesses in
the sector for which they had responsibility, and "in
an appropriate case I would not hesitate to do my best to initiate
a dialogue between a Minister and such a business. In any case
where I was being paid as an adviser, however, I would always
declare my interest to the Minister (or official) at the start
of the conversation." By stating that a client should
be "quite careful about how you do it" she had
been referring to possible problems such as not acting improperly
or putting the Minister in an embarrassing position (for
example by trying to interfere in a procurement or planning process).
Ms Hewitt said she was also referring to not going about it in
the wrong way (e.g. by improperly getting an appointment at the
Minister's constituency surgery) and not simply relying on writing
to the Department (since the Minister might never see the letter).
She also said that she was referring to "not asking an
MP to do anything that would breach the Code of Conduct (e.g.
an MP asking the Minister for something that would benefit only
one companyand wasn't therefore for the public good)".
235. Ms Hewitt said that she had always been very
conscious of the need to be careful herself if she were approaching
a Minister on an issue where she had a financial interest, in
particular by declaring her interest immediately and ensuring
that she was not seeking to benefit only one organisation.
236. Ms Hewitt then responded to my question about
her reported suggestion that she had suggested five ways for her
client to meet a Minister and also my question as to whether she
had advised any outside body or private company to lobby in any
of these ways.[188]
She said that if a company or voluntary organisation had a matter
of legitimate concern that it wished to bring to the attention
of a Minister, then the five suggestions she had made in the meeting
were all normal and proper ways that any competent public affairs
executive would use to approach a Minister. As a constituency
MP, she had sometimes advised voluntary organisations and businesses
in Leicester on how to make their views known, but she was never
paid by such an organisation for that advice.
237. In response to my question about her suggestion
that she had put PiC in touch with those working on Lord Bradley's
inquiry, to enable PiC to give evidence to that inquiry and for
Lord Bradley to visit one of PiC's establishments, Ms Hewitt said
that she had taken the view that it was unfortunate that the Bradley
Inquiry appeared to be talking more to the public than the private
sector, and particularly so since PiC had in fact submitted its
own evidence to the Inquiry, quite independent of any input on
her part. Ms Hewitt said that she had at least one conversation
with Lord Bradley regarding his Inquiry into the treatment of
prisoners with mental health problems. She did not remember when
that was, but it was before he drew up his report. "When
I spoke to Lord Bradley I made it absolutely clear that I worked
as an adviser to Cinven, the owners of PiC, and that PiC was an
excellent provider of specialist mental health services, funded
by the NHS. I declared my interest partly bearing in mind paragraphs
12[189] and
16[190] of the
Code of Conduct for MPs, but also because I would never have a
conversation under false pretences." In fact, she said,
Lord Bradley had been neither a Minister nor a servant of the
Crown when he undertook his Inquiry, but that did not affect her
attitude towards the conversation.
238. Ms Hewitt said that
she recalled that she had explained to Lord Bradley why she felt
that the independent sector could make a valuable contribution
to his Inquiry and "I suggested that he should meet or
visit PiC so that he could see their work for himself."
She said she remembered also telling him that PiC had submitted
evidence to his Inquiry, but that she had not been sure whether
he (Lord Bradley) had personally seen it. Ms Hewitt said she did
not remember whether or not Lord Bradley did in fact visit PiC"when
I said 'I think' to 'Ms Webster', that reflected
my lack of clear recollection on this point." Ms Hewitt
said that the views she had expressed to Lord Bradley, although
they had only been expressed after she had made clear to him that
she was employed by Cinven, "were views that I firmly
believe to be in the public interest. The Government has for many
years pursued a policy of encouraging diverse providers to offer
NHS services. As Health Secretary, I strongly believed that NHS
patients and commissioners should be able to get the best services,
whether from the public, private or not-for-profit sectors, and
I remain of that view today. But I also knew that parts of the
NHS did not support that policy, with the result that there is
not always a 'level playing field' for independent sector
providers."
239. In response to my question whether she had persuaded
the Chairman of the Health and Criminal Justice National Advocacy
Group to invite PiC to join the Advocacy Group, Ms Hewitt said
that she had not claimed to Ms Webster to have persuaded the Chairman
of the Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board to invite PiC
to join the Advocacy Group. Ms Hewitt noted that there were in
fact two separate bodies; PiC was a member of the National Advocacy
Group. She quoted the transcript as stating that she was able
to persuade the chairman of that taskforce that there would be
a private sector, independent sector representative on that taskforce
and because Partnerships in Care had been the most active it was
their person who was then put on the taskforce.[191]
240. Ms Hewitt said that
she had indeed raised the issue of the independent sector's involvement
in mental health provision with the Department of Health. She
attached with her letter to me the official Departmental note
of the meeting held on 21 May 2009.[192]
The note said that PiC "feel that there is a lot of capacity
within the independent sector that is currently under-utilised
as Commissioners are not involving the independent sector in this
building capacity. They claim that MH Trusts and FTs are building
their own rather than putting out to tender so that the independent
sector can get involved." The note also said that "PiC
are mainly involved in medium secure mental health provision.
Patricia Hewitt explained that she is a paid adviser to Cinven
(parent company of PiC)". Ms Hewitt told me that from
this it could be seen that she made her financial interest in
Cinven, the owners of PiC, absolutely clear and that "the
issues raised were ones of general concern and of public interest."
Ms Hewitt said that an internal Departmental investigation,
carried out immediately after the "Dispatches"
programme and revealed in response to a Freedom of Information
request, confirmed that all relevant officials were fully aware
of her role as paid consultant to PiC and that no breach of the
Ministerial Code or any other impropriety had taken place.[193]
241. On my question whether PiC was her client, and,
if so, what remuneration she had received from PiC or indirectly
from Cinven, and for what services, Ms Hewitt said that, as published
in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, she had been
appointed a senior adviser to Cinven, which owned PiC, from 1
January 2008 at an annual fee of £60,000, with an expectation
of around 18 days' work. The appointment had been renewed from
1 January 2009 at the same fee, with an expectation of around
16 days' work. After July 2009, in accordance with the new rules
on registration, she had declared each of the quarterly payments
she had received from Cinven£15,000 plus VAT for approximately
30 hours' work over three months.
242. Ms Hewitt said that,
towards the end of 2009, she had agreed with PiC that less time
would be needed in the New Year, with her fee correspondingly
reduced. Her final entry in the Register, published on 12 April
2010, included the payment of £6,250 plus VAT for approximately
15 hours' work between January and March 2010.
243. Ms Hewitt said that she had advised Cinven on
policy-related issues, particularly in relation to healthcare
and the proposed European regulation of private equity. "Without
wishing to labour the point, in my view advising a reputable business
as to how present its case effectively cannot conceivably be regarded
as a breach of the Code of Conduct." In this context,
Ms Hewitt said that the discussions relating to Cinven and PiC
to which she had referred did not in any way constitute paid advocacy
as prohibited by the Code of Conduct and the Resolution of the
House as modified in 2002. She noted that the Guide to the Rules,
quoting from the Guidelines from the Committee on Standards and
Privileges, said that "advocacy is prohibited which
seeks to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual)
outside Parliament, from which the Member has received, is receiving,
or expects to receive a financial benefit".[194]
Ms Hewitt said that she had never sought to "confer
benefit exclusively upon a body" from which she had received
a financial benefit. She said that she had declared her financial
interests both publicly in the Register and privately in every
relevant conversation with a Minister, a departmental official
or others.
244. Ms Hewitt also replied
to my observation that she had responded "Exactly"
to the interviewer's statement that she had got PiC "into
the system ... with a view to getting further contracts, presumably,
and being able to expand their work".[195]
Ms Hewitt said that she had simply been agreeing with "the
obvious proposition" that if the independent sector was
to be included in NHS tenders, then PiC, like other private organisations,
would seek to tender for "further contracts",
which would of course be entirely a matter for the NHS commissioning
authorities. Ms Hewitt told me that she had not lobbied, nor would
she lobby, on behalf of PiC to obtain such a contract; nor indeed
have Cinven or PiC ever suggested that she should. She said that
her concern, as the transcript made clear, was simply to secure
a level playing field for public, private and not-for-profit sector
providers, in line with government policy and her own beliefs.
245. On the question of whether she had spoken to
both officials and Ministers about changing a carbon reduction
regulation that helped Cinven and other private equity companies,
Ms Hewitt said that, from discussions with Cinven, it had been
apparent that the proposed carbon reduction regulations would
impact in a discriminatory manner on companies owned by a private
equity fund. In the interview with Ms Webster Ms Hewitt said that
she had referred to this as "a wrinkle" and she
had explained why it had appeared to be irrational and counter-productive.[196]
Ms Hewitt said that she had talked to the relevant Minister, Ms
Joan Ruddock MP, about this issue. Ms Hewitt said that she had
begun the conversation by explaining her employment with Cinven,
a private equity firm, and she had stressed that this was a point
of general concern, not specific to one company. This conversation
had been, she recalled, followed up by a brief exchange of e-mails.
246. In response to my question whether she had at
any time been paid £3,000 a day for consultancy or other
services and if so, by whom, and whether she had registered these
payments, Ms Hewitt noted that from July 2009 MPs had been required
to register each external payment, with details of the organisation
making the payment, services provided and hours worked. She said
that the payments that she had received and hours worked were
therefore already a matter of public record and recorded on the
Register of Members' Financial Interests. As was apparent from
the transcript, the figure of about £3000 per day, which
was in respect of her services to Cinven, had been arrived at
on the basis of dividing the total annual fee of £60,000
by 18.
247. Ms Hewitt also attached copies of some communications
which she or her legal advisers had had with the programme's producers
subsequent to the interviews but before the programme was broadcast.
These made similar points to the ones she was made to me.[197]
248. Ms Hewitt also answered
my question whether, if any of the allegations were true, she
had considered that she had an obligation to make a Register entry
or declaration, or both, in respect of any financial interest
that she had in these alleged activities. "I can confirm
that I made a full disclosure of the details of my involvement
in all the companies concerned, including details of each external
payment since July 2009, in the Register of Members' [Financial]
Interests."
249. Ms Hewitt said that,
whilst this had been an informal meeting, she believed that everything
she had said to Ms Webster had given a fair representation of
work she had done.
250. Ms Hewitt also gave her responses to the questions
in my letter of 2 June.[198]
In answer to my question about remunerated directorships and employment
at the time of the interview, and whether they had been registered
in accordance with the rules, she stated that all four of her
appointmentsnamely, non-executive director, BT Group plc;
senior adviser, Cinven; special consultant, Alliance Boots; and
member, Barclays Asia Pacific Advisory Committeewere properly
registered in accordance with the rules. Ms Hewitt said that in
respect of the first three she had been required to seek, and
had duly obtained, the approval of the independent Advisory Committee
on Business Appointments.
251. As to whether the
relationship between Cinven and PiC, and her work involving both,
had been declared to NHS managers and Department of Health officials
on each occasion, she referred me to the official Departmental
minute of the meeting held on 21 May 2009.[199]
She said that it would be seen from this minute that she had made
her financial interest in Cinven, the owners of PiC, "absolutely
clear" and that the issues raised had been ones "of
general concern and of public interest". She referred
to the internal Departmental investigation, carried out in response
to a Freedom of Information request, which had subsequently confirmed
that all relevant officials "were fully aware of [Ms
Hewitt's] role as paid consultant to Partnerships in Care"
and that "no breach of the Ministerial Code or any
other impropriety had taken place". [200]
252. Ms Hewitt said that she had declared her interest
as senior adviser to Cinven at the beginning of her conversation
with a Minister (Ms Joan Ruddock MP) about the effect of CRC regulations
on private equity firms.
253. In response to my
question whether she had helped to get a regulation removed on
behalf of a company, and whether on such occasion or occasions
she had declared her interest to the Minister or officials concerned,[201]
Ms Hewitt said that, the transcript made clear that she did not
say that she had helped to remove regulations on behalf of a company.
In fact, Ms Hewitt said, Ms Webster had asked "if the
Conservatives win the next election, how much will that affect
the kind of advice you would be able to give the board?"
Ms Hewitt said that her answer had simply dealt with that
possible future situation. She was not describing any action she
had taken previously.[202]
254. On the question whether it was true that she
had regular lunches and coffees with civil servants, Ms Hewitt
said that, about once a month, she would have lunch or coffee
with such civil servants. On any such occasion, if the discussion
touched on matters affecting her clients, Ms Hewitt said that
she always drew attention to her interest.
255. Ms Hewitt also responded to my question as to
whether she had ever taken action on behalf of a client with a
view to changing a directive or legislation whilst a Member of
Parliament, and if so, whether she had declared an interest.[203]
She said that she was not describing any action that she had taken
as a Member of Parliament. "Instead, I was indicating
the most effective way in which a case could be presented with
a view to changing a proposed directive or regulation. I did so
specifically in response to the question raised by 'Ms Webster'
about how best to change or influence various pieces of legislation
that could arise 'sometime in the future' and that might
have 'a massive impact on our client'." Both the question
and her answer related to what might happen after she had ceased
to be a Member of Parliament. Ms Hewitt also confirmed
that the interview with Claire Webster had taken place on 9 March
2009.
256. In conclusion, Ms
Hewitt said that she believed that she had carefully followed
the Parliamentary and Ministerial Codes and guidelines, including
by declaring her private interests both in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests and in every relevant conversation. "I
have only taken on such appointments for companies with which
I am happy to be associated and that would not compromise the
time needed to fulfil my Parliamentary and constituency duties.
My private appointments have been approved, where appropriate,
by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments."
257. The letter of 24 May 2010 from the Department
of Health to a Freedom of Information applicant,[204]
a copy of which was attached to Ms Hewitt's letter of 27 June
2010,[205] described
an internal investigation which had been undertaken within the
Department of Health relating to Ms Hewitt's interaction with
the Department on behalf of PiC. The letter said that this investigation
had been instigated by the Permanent Secretary at the Department
of Health as head of Department, and conducted by staff in his
office. This had included conversations with Ministerial offices
and a search of correspondence relating to Ms Hewitt and PiC.
This had occurred on 22 March 2010. As part of these investigations,
the letter said that policy colleagues in the Department of Health
had also been contacted, and that this was also detailed in the
documents.[206]
258. Also attached was a timeline of PiC's involvement
in the review and the Advocacy Group, which detailed correspondence
with the CBI about the best method of addressing the private provider
perspective.[207] This
showed that the CBI contacted Lord Bradley in February 2008 regarding
involvement in the review, and that the CBI had been told on his
behalf that, having been approached by several companies that
provided services in this area, he would prefer not to meet each
individually. The timeline noted that in May 2008 the CBI
stated that they would canvas interest in CBI members and that
in June 2008 the CBI confirmed that they would attend a meeting
in the Department of Health along with PiC on 2 July 2008.
259. The Department's letter said that from this
it had been established that the then Minister for Care Services,
Mr Phil Hope MP, had held one meeting with Patricia Hewitt and
PiC on 21 May 2009 to discuss high secure services and wider mental
health issues.[208]
The letter said that this meeting had been recorded on the register
of meetings with external parties and published in the usual way.
Policy officials and the Minister for Care Services had been
fully aware of Patricia Hewitt's role as a paid consultant to
PiC both before and during the meeting.
260. The letter said that
both the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health and officials
from the Cabinet Office had been satisfied that there had been
no improper influence on Government policy and decisions. It said
that their conclusion had been that no breach of the Ministerial
Code, or any other impropriety, had taken place. PiC had raised
the prospect of independent sector representation with respect
to the National Advisory Group being set up on the implementation
of the Lord Bradley review. This was after the Written Ministerial
Statement of 30 April 2009 by Rt Hon David Hanson MP, then the
Minister of State for Justice, which had invited comment from
all parties, and had been the only invitation made. The letter
said that this had been an open invitation for expressions of
interest in membership of the Advisory Group. The Department of
Health's letter of 24 May explained that, to be as inclusive as
possible, all applications for membership of the group, including
the application from PiC, were accepted. It concluded, "In
no sense, therefore, could Patricia Hewitt's involvement be said
to have influenced the membership of the National Advisory Group."
261. I wrote to Ms Hewitt on 1 July, seeking her
help on some matters which arose from her response of 27 June.[209]
I said that I had noted her response to what she had said about
the five ways to meet a Minister. I noted that sometimes she had
advised businesses and other organisations in her constituency
on how to make their views known, but had not been paid for this.
I said that I was not sure, however, whether the implication was
that she had not given advice to any of the companies or organisations
which had employed her about meeting a Minister in any of these
ways. I said that this had been the question I had asked in my
letter of 23 March and it would be most helpful if she could either
confirm that she had not done this or, if she had, what advice
she had given to which of the companies employing her and whether,
in any case where it was necessary, she had declared her interest
to the relevant Minister or officials.
262. I said I noted from the Department's timeline
released under the FOI[210]
that there was no reference to her conversation or meeting with
Lord Bradley, but that there was a reference to the CBI confirming
that they and PiC would meet Lord Bradley, which they had done
on 2 July 2008. I asked Ms Hewitt whether she had had any contacts
with the CBI on these matters either before or after this meeting
in relation to the Bradley review and, if so, what they had been.
263. I told Ms Hewitt that I noted that she had told
the undercover reporter: "So I was able to get them, basically,
in front of Bradley".[211]
I asked Ms Hewitt whether that was an accurate representation
of the outcome of her work in relation to the Bradley review in
as much as it affected PiC.
264. In relation to the Health and Criminal Justice
National Advisory Group, I noted that Ms Hewitt considered that
she had not persuaded the Chairman to invite PiC to join the group,
on the basis (as I understood it) that she had persuaded him that
there could be an independent representative on that group and
PiC had been chosen because they were the most active in the field.
I said that it would appear from the evidence Ms Hewitt had given,
however, that she had met the then Minister, Mr Phil Hope MP on
21 May 2009 with senior PiC representatives and DOH officials,
but as far as I could see, she did not meet the Chairman of the
group. I asked Ms Hewitt whether or not she had met or spoken
to the Chairman as her letter implied. I also asked Ms Hewitt
for a copy, if one was available, of any paper she had submitted
to the Minister to follow up the 21 May meeting. [212]
265. I noted that the timeline also included with
Ms Hewitt's evidence suggested that the Chief Executive of PiC
had written to nominate himself to the Group and that this had
subsequently been accepted by the Department.[213]
I asked Ms Hewitt whether she had been aware of PiC's letters
of May 2009 and 15 July 2009 in which PiC nominated itself for
the "NAG" (what I presumed was a reference to
the National Advisory Group) and whether she had advised PiC to
write as they did.
266. Also in relation to PiC's relationship to the
Advisory Group, I noted that Ms Hewitt had said to the undercover
reporter that: "It's now kind of over to them because,
even though I will keep a watching brief them for as long as is
needed, but basically I've kind of got them into the system, where
they can build the relationships, they can make the arguments."[214]
I asked Ms Hewitt whether that was an accurate summary of the
assistance she had given to PiCthat basically she had got
them into the system.
267. On carbon reduction regulation, I asked Ms Hewitt
whether she still had copies of the e-mails, to which she had
referred, following up her meeting with Ms Ruddock. I also asked
Ms Hewitt if she could let me know which other private health
providers were owned by private equity funds.
268. I noted that Ms Hewitt had told the undercover
reporter that she had spoken both to officials and Ministers about
the carbon reduction regulations, and that she had identified
a meeting with a Minister. I said that I saw from Ms Hewitt's
letter of 27 June[215]
that she had not spoken to officials. I asked her therefore to
confirm that in this respect the statement that she gave the undercover
reporter was inaccurate.
269. I noted that Ms Hewitt had had lunch or coffee
with civil servants about once a month and that she had always
drawn attention to her interests if discussions touched on matters
affecting her clients. I asked Ms Hewitt, from her recollection,
how often the conversation had touched on such matters and what
they had been. I also asked her to identify the civil servants
with whom she had had coffee or lunch and where the discussions
of interest affecting her clients had taken place.
270. I wrote to Lord Bradley on 1 July, noting that
Ms Hewitt had told the undercover reporter that she had been
"able to get them [Partnerships in Care], basically,
in front of Bradley".[216]
I summarised the evidence I had received from Ms Hewitt
about her contacts with Lord Bradley before he had drawn up his
report, and asked Lord Bradley if he could confirm or otherwise
modify Ms Hewitt's evidence to me in relation to this matter.
I also asked Lord Bradley to let me know the date of Ms Hewitt's
meeting or meetings with him, and whether he had in fact visited
PiC or one of its services, or had had a meeting with PiC and
if so, the dates.
271. I also asked Lord Bradley to confirm the sequence
set out in the timeline produced by the Department of Health,[217]
and whether Ms Hewitt's meeting with him had had any influence
on his meeting with the CBI and PiC on 2 July 2008, and, if so,
whether to the best of his knowledge it had been facilitated by
Ms Hewitt.
272. Lord Bradley wrote
to me on 28 July.[218]
He told me that he had had one telephone conversation with Ms
Hewitt about his review, on 20 May 2008, and that she had informed
him that she was an adviser to PiC. He said that it had "certainly
not" been the case that this telephone conversation had
enabled PiC to have particular access to his independent review.
Lord Bradley said that, following the announcement of his review
on 4 December 2007 there had been a general call for evidence
from all interested parties including the private sector. He said
that a written submission had been received from PiC on 20 March
2008. His review team had also contacted the CBI on 2 May 2008
about "the best method of addressing the private providers'
perspective and managing the many requests to meet the private
sector." As a result, the CBI had nominated PiC to represent
the private sector and he had met both organisations together
on 2 July 2008. "The telephone call with Patricia Hewitt
therefore had absolutely no influence on this process."
273. Lord Bradley said
that he had been invited by the organisation to visit a PiC facility
and contact had been made by his review team to explore possible
dates, but it had not been possible to arrange such a visit before
he completed his report. Lord Bradley told me: "I did
not arrange a meeting with Patricia Hewitt, with or without, Partnerships
in Care to discuss my review ... I can categorically state that
Patricia Hewitt had absolutely no influence on the findings in
my report or its recommendations."
274. I wrote to Lord Bradley on 2 August, putting
to him two points on which I sought some further help.[219]
I asked him whether he could recall what Ms Hewitt had said to
him in their telephone conversation of 20 May 2008. In particular,
I asked him either to confirm or modify Ms Hewitt's recollection
of that conversation, as set out in my letter to him of 1 July.[220]
I also noted that he had referred to the written submission to
his inquiry from PiC of 20 March 2008, and asked Lord Bradley
whether he recalled whether he had seen this submission himself
before Ms Hewitt had telephoned him. I asked him whether, following
the conversation, he had asked to see that submission or, if not,
what arrangements had been made for the Chairman to be informed
of written submissions received by the inquiry.
275. Lord Bradley wrote
to me on 23 August. He said that his memory of the short telephone
conversation on 20 May 2008, which had been pre-booked through
his review team, was that Ms Hewitt had explained to him her view
of the importance of the independent sector to his review and
that they should be included in his review process. He had confirmed
that the independent sector would be included, and that besides
any submissions made by individual organisations, contact had
been made by his review team with the CBI to determine future
contact with his review. Lord Bradley told me that there had been
no further discussion with Ms Hewitt after this telephone call
before the publication of his report in April 2009. He told me
that all written submissions had first been processed by his review
team and then he had read all of them. Lord Bradley did not recall
whether he had read the PiC submission before the telephone call
with Ms Hewitt but he did not discuss their submission with her
during the telephone conversation.
276. Meanwhile, Ms Hewitt
had written to me on 15 July.[221]
She commented on my statement in my letter of 1 July[222]
where I referred to "the interview which [she] gave
an undercover reporter..." Ms Hewitt told me that she
had not in fact "given an interview". She said
that the transcript of the telephone conversation between the
undercover reporter and herself on 25 February[223]
recorded that after explaining why the reporter had contacted
her and "responding to some expression of interest on
my part", the reporter had said: " I was wondering
if you might want to pop to our office ... in St. James's. I
don't know if you might have time to drop in there for a cup of
coffee and perhaps have a chat about it and see if this is the
kind of thing you might be interested in doing?"[224]
Ms Hewitt said that the ensuing meeting on 9 March was "precisely
that: an informal chat on the lines envisaged in that telephone
conversation. You will readily appreciate that I am concerned
that the context in which the meeting took place should not be
misunderstood."
277. In answer to my question
whether she had advised any of the companies or organisations
employing her how to secure a meeting with a Minister in any of
the ways which I described, Ms Hewitt said, "I have not
in fact given advice along the lines described to any of the companies
or organisations employing me. I am sorry if my reply to your
previous question on the point did not make this clear."
278. Ms Hewitt said that
she had had no contact whatsoever with the CBI either before or
after her meeting with Lord Bradley in connection with his review.
As to whether the words "So I was able to get them, basically,
in front of Bradley" accurately represented what she
had accomplished as far as PiC was concerned in relation to Lord
Bradley's review, Ms Hewitt said that the words accurately summarised
the position: "namely, I had drawn Lord Bradley's attention
to PiC's existence and its role, and to the fact that it had submitted
evidence to his committee; and I had suggested to him that it
would be worth his while to pay a visit to one of its establishments."
279. Ms Hewitt then responded
to my question whether she had met or spoken to the Chairman of
the Health and Criminal Justice National Advisory Group, and whether
she had submitted a paper to the Minister following the meeting
on 21 May 2009. On the first point she noted that the Chairman
of the National Health and Criminal Justice Programme Board was
the Director-General for Social Care in the Department of Health.
Although the Director-General had not been present at the meeting
with Mr Phil Hope MP, the Minister for Social Care, on 21 May
2009, one of his officials was and the Director-General had received
a copy of the minutes. "I did happen to meet [the
Director-General] informally in June or July 2009 ... The first
time I was aware of his appointment as Chairman was when he told
me about it in the course of this purely informal discussion;
I recall him saying that he was chairing the 'taskforce'
that was following up Lord Bradley's recommendations. I reminded
him of my interest in Cinven, the owners of Partnership in Caresomething
of which he was already awareand repeated my view that
I hoped the independent sector would be included in this work."
280. Ms Hewitt said that there had in fact been two
separate bodiesthe Programme Board (chaired by the Director-General)
and the National Advisory Group, sometimes referred to as the
National Advocacy Group. She said that in her discussion with
the undercover reporter, she had simply had in mind "a
taskforce". Ms Hewitt said that she had had no contact
with the Chairman of the National Advocacy Group on this matter.
Ms Hewitt said that the minutes of the Department of Health meeting
on this issue on 21 May 2009 referred to a "note"
of the points she had raised. She had not submitted a note
or paper following the meeting.
281. Ms Hewitt referred me again to the internal
Departmental investigation carried out immediately after the Dispatches
programme that confirmed that all relevant officials "were
fully aware of [my] role as paid consultant to Partnerships
in Care" and that "no breach of the Ministerial
Code or any other impropriety had taken place."[225]
Every organisation that had nominated itself for the National
Advisory Group, including PiC, had been appointed; Ms Hewitt said
that she had neither sought nor obtained any "exclusive
benefit" for PiC.
282. Ms Hewitt responded to my questions as to whether
she had been aware of PiC's letters of May 2009 and 15 July 2009
in which PiC nominated itself for membership of the National Advocacy
Group, and whether those letters had been written on her advice.
She said that the letters had not been written on her advice,
and "I cannot recall whether I actually saw either of
them at the relevant time." Ms Hewitt said that at the
meeting with the Minister, and in her conversation with the Director-General,
she had been making the case for the inclusion of the independent
sector, and not specifically PiC.
283. Ms Hewitt said that all she had in mind when
she said, "...basically I've kind of got them [PiC]
into the system..." was that PiC was now on the Department
of Health's radar screen in relation to mental health provision.
284. Ms Hewitt said that
she had not retained copies of e-mails exchanged between herself
and Ms Ruddock on the issue of private equity funds and the carbon
reduction regulations. Her recollection was that at the end of
their brief conversation Ms. Ruddock had asked her to e-mail her
summarising the issue, so that she could check the precise position.
She said that Ms Ruddock had then e-mailed her explaining the
change that had been made to the regulations and offering to put
her in touch with relevant official(s). Ms Hewitt said that she
thought she had e-mailed Ms Ruddock back, thanking her and saying
that "I would like to talk to the official(s) concerned.
There was no further response from her."
285. In response to my question whether she was aware
of other private health providers owned by private equity funds,
Ms Hewitt said that although there were many privately-owned health
providers, she did not know which were specifically owned by private
equity funds. "The point I was impressing on the Minister
was one of general application to private equity-owned
companies in all sectors and had not been raised with the private
health sector in mind. There was no reason for me to mention Partnerships
in Care, or the health sector, in relation to the carbon reduction
regulations and I did not in fact do so."
286. Ms Hewitt said that in fact she had spoken only
to the Minister about the carbon reduction regulations, but had
planned to speak to officials as well. The way she had put it
in her conversation with the undercover reporter had simply been
a mistake.
287. In answer to my question about the frequency
with which her informal conversations with civil servants over
lunch or coffee touched on matters affecting her clients, Ms
Hewitt quoted the response to the Freedom of Information request
about her meetings at the Department of Health.[226]
This had said that "policy officials ... were fully aware
of [her] position as a paid consultant to Partnerships
in Care". In fact she had been a paid adviser to Cinven,
owners of PiC. She said that she could only recall one informal
conversation with an official that had related to her financial
interests and that had been her discussion with the Director-General.[227]
Otherwise, these discussions had covered topics of mutual personal
interest and were essentially social in nature.
288. In summary, Ms Hewitt said, "I wish
to stress that I registered my financial interests publicly in
the Register of Members' Interests; I drew attention to those
interests in every relevant conversation with Ministers and civil
servants as well as in my conversation with Lord Bradley; and
I neither sought nor obtained any exclusive benefit for Partnerships
in Care or any other organisation in which I had a financial interest.
The Register speaks for itself; the documentary evidence provided
by the Department for Health confirms the latter two points."
289. I wrote to Ms Ruddock
on 15 July, describing the evidence I had received from Ms Hewitt
about their meeting and asking her to comment.[228]
290. Ms Ruddock wrote
to me on 26 July.[229]
She said that her recollection was that Ms Hewitt had spoken to
her briefly in the lobby of the House one evening and had told
her that she advised a private equity company and that there were
issues with the carbon reduction regulations. Ms Ruddock told
me she recalled telling Ms Hewitt that she was familiar with the
issues because they had received representations from private
equity firms. Ms Ruddock said that Ms Hewitt had not specified
any particular company and that she (Ms Ruddock) had not told
her anything that was not available to anyone enquiring on that
point. Ms Ruddock said she had later e-mailed Ms Hewitt from her
PDAhaving checked with officials that the information she
had given was correct. Ms Ruddock said that her e-mailto
her recollectionsimply said the information was correct
and officials would be happy to talk to her/the company if she
wished. Ms Hewitt had e-mailed her thanks and had said that she
would contact officials. She had not asked anything further. Ms
Ruddock said to me that as she was no longer the minister she
did not have access to the PDA or departmental e-mail records
and she could not recall dates. "However I can confirm
that at no time was Partnerships in Care mentioned to me."
291. I wrote to Ms Ruddock on 28 July.[230]
I said I hoped I was right in taking from her letter that she
could confirm Ms Hewitt's recollection of their exchanges. I also
asked Ms Ruddock to respond to two points which I had asked her
about in my letter of 15 July[231]and
which she had not covered. They were: the date of the conversation
she had had with Ms Hewitt; and whether she had been aware from
what Ms Hewitt had told her that a change in the regulations would
benefit some of the companies which Cinven, the private equity
company, owned. I noted that Ms Hewitt had told her that she had
advised a private equity company, but I asked her whether she
had taken from that that some of the companies which Cinven owned
would benefit from a change in the regulations.
292. In an e-mail to me on 28 July, Ms Ruddock said
that she did not recall when her conversation with Ms Hewitt had
taken place and it would be necessary to find out if her former
Department could trace the e-mail from her use of the departmental
PDA. She did confirm Ms Hewitt's account of the conversation.
Ms Hewitt's enquiry "was not significant in my mind as
it related to a provision that was in the public domain and being
consulted upon. I was familiar with the issue because of companies
affected were regularly talking to civil servants." Ms
Ruddock described as "speculative" my question
whether some of the companies which Cinven owned would benefit
from a change in the regulations. She told me that the official
consultation had provided the basis for her to make decisions,
and that she did not recall mention of any specific company names.
293. I wrote to Ms Ruddock on 28 July.[232]
I noted that she could not give me any further help on either
of my two questions.
294. Meanwhile, I had written to Ms Hewitt on 20
July.[233] I noted
that she had said that her meeting with the undercover reporter
on 9 March had been "an informal chat". I said
that in the telephone conversation of 25 February,[234]
the reporter had said that she had been looking "to produce
a board for the UK company that can kind of advise us and our
companies" and asked whether it was "the
kind of thing you might be interested in getting involved in."
I noted that Ms Hewitt had said in principle yes. I said that
the reporter had subsequently invited Ms Hewitt to have "a
chat about it and to see if this is the kind of thing you might
be interested in doing", and she had agreed to that meeting.
I also said that at the meeting Ms Hewitt had set out the relevant
parts of her CV, answered the reporter's questions, noted that
she was interested in taking on another major board position and
discussed her day rate.[235]
The reporter had concluded that she would be drawing up a short
list and speaking to the States and then would let Ms Hewitt know
how they were going to progress the matter when someone was coming
over whom they would then like her to meet. I said that it would
appear on the face of it therefore that Ms Hewitt had been aware
that the company were looking to employ board members when she
had gone to the meeting and that the contribution she would make
to the board, her experience and her fees had all been discussed
in a series of questions and answers. I said that this might seem
to go beyond an informal chat. Since she had raised the point,
I also asked Ms Hewitt whether the meeting with the undercover
reporter had followed the lines she had expected and, if not,
why she had made no reference to this during the discussion.
295. I noted that Ms Hewitt
had not given any of the companies who had employed her advice
along the lines she had described about how to meet a Minister.
I asked her, therefore, why she had set out these ways to meet
a Minister in the way that she had done, on what experience her
advice had been based, how she had expected her advice to be implemented
and whether she had considered pointing out that she had not advised
any of her current companies to adopt any of these strategies.
296. On 29 July, I wrote again to Ms Hewitt, this
time to show her copies of my correspondence with Ms Joan Ruddock
MP.[236] I noted that
Ms Ruddock confirmed Ms Hewitt's account of their conversation.
I also noted that I had sought Ms Ruddock's help on when their
conversation had taken place and that she had no recollection
of the timing. I asked Ms Hewitt to let me know or give me an
estimate of the month and year when she recalled this conversation
taking place.
297. Ms Hewitt e-mailed
me on her response to my questions on 23 August.[237]
She confirmed her view that her meeting with the undercover reporter
had indeed been "an informal chat". She said
that Ms Webster had made it clear, both in the initial telephone
call and in their discussion, that she had been having exploratory
discussions with a number of people before reporting back to her
employer. Ms Hewitt said that she had indeed provided information
about herself, "as we all do during informal conversations".
Ms Hewitt also confirmed that the meeting had followed the lines
she had expected. "A formal interview could only have
taken place once I knew the name and nature of the company planning
to employ meinformation that 'Ms Webster' was not
in a position to give me. As a result, I did not come away from
my meeting with her feeling much clearer about whether this would
turn into a serious proposition which I could then consider."
298. Ms Hewitt said she
was concerned about my reference to "the interview"
with "an undercover reporter" with what she
said was its suggestion that this was akin to a TV interview.
She said, "I am sure you will understand that I am concerned
that the context in which the meeting took place should not be
misunderstood."
299. Ms Hewitt reiterated
her view that the meeting was an informal discussion. She said
that Ms Webster had asked whether it was possible for companies
to meet Ministers. "Off the top of my head and given my
years of experience, I gave examples of the ways in which organisations
can legitimately meet Ministers. Nothing more or less." She
said that five suggestions she had made were all "normal
and proper ways that any competent public affairs executive would
use to approach a Minister." Ms Webster had not asked
Ms Hewitt whether she had advised any of the companies she had
worked for along those lines and "there was no reason
for me to explain that I had not in fact done so, since we were
talking about a hypothetical situation that might affect one of
her employer's clients in future."
300. Ms Hewitt said that she did not remember the
exact date of her conversation with Ms Ruddock on carbon reduction
regulations, but it had been either late 2009 or early 2010. She
noted that Ms Ruddock had confirmed her recollection of the conversationincluding
the fact that she had declared her interestand said that
she had nothing further to add to what Ms Ruddock had told me.
301. I wrote to Ms Hewitt on 1 September.[238]
I made it clear that I had not suggested that she had given the
equivalent of a television interview. I told her that I had used
the word "interview" because I had been suggesting
that it was a job interview, albeit at its preliminary stages.
I said that while I noted that she had been unclear about whether
it would turn into a serious proposition and that she did not
know the name and nature of the company planning to employ her,
the proposition as set out in the transcript had been that the
position was to produce a board for the UK company of Anderson
Perry to advise that company and their clients. I noted also that
the undercover reporter had said that she would be drawing up
a shortlist and that she would then let Ms Hewitt know how she
was going to progress the matter, when someone from the States
was coming over whom she could meet. I said that that might suggest
that this was a preliminary meeting or discussion among a number
of possible candidates about a job with the named company and
its unnamed clients.
302. I noted that Lord Bradley confirmed that, in
his telephone conversation with Ms Hewitt, she had informed him
that she was an adviser to PiC, but that his evidence did not
appear to concur with what Ms Hewitt had told the undercover reporter
and confirmed in her letter to me of 15 July, that it was Ms Hewitt's
intervention that put PiC "in front of Bradley".
Lord Bradley stated that he had been invited to visit PiC by PiC
itself; that he had asked the CBI to nominate a representative
from the private sector; and that the review team's process meant
that he read all written submissions. I noted that Lord Bradley
had stated that Ms Hewitt's telephone call had "absolutely
no influence" on the process for nominating a private
sector provider to his review.
303. I told Ms Hewitt that in the light of Lord Bradley's
evidence, it would be helpful to know whether she accepted that
the statements she had made to the undercover reporter about the
effect of her work in putting PiC "in front of Bradley"
had been mistaken, or exaggerated, and whether she had been aware,
at the time she had made the statement or subsequently, that this
had been, according to Lord Bradley's evidence, an inaccurate
statement of the effect of her telephone conversation with him.
304. Ms Hewitt replied
to me on 13 September.[239]
She reiterated that she did not in fact regard the meeting with
Ms Webster as a kind of preliminary "job interview"
but rather as an exploratory discussion or informal chat. In response
to my specific question in regard to her dealings with Lord Bradley,
she told me, "I can categorically state that there was
no conscious attempt on my part to exaggerate the influence I
may have had." In the context of an informal discussion,
she said she was simply trying to give Ms Webster a fair
representation of work she had done. "My recollection
of my telephone conversation with Lord Bradley is that he was
not sure whether he had in fact seen PiC's evidence before we
spoke; I also mentioned the possibility of a visit to him. I did
not know about Lord Bradley's interaction with the CBI, as described
in his letter to you of 28 July ... until you sent me a copy of
that letter. I did not ask to meet Lord Bradley myself nor did
I ever suggest to 'Ms Webster' or anyone else that I had
influenced Lord Bradley's findings or recommendations"
305. Ms Hewitt said that of course it was hardly
surprising that after an interval of two years, recollections
would differ somewhat on a single telephone call. But she noted
that in relation to the Code of Conduct, Lord Bradley had confirmed
both that she declared her interest in PiC and that she neither
sought nor obtained any "exclusive benefit" for
PiC . She said that both points had also been confirmed by the
Department of Health.
FINDINGS OF FACT
306. Ms
Hewitt was approached by the undercover reporter claiming to represent
Anderson Perry in February 2010. During an initial telephone conversation
Ms Hewitt and the reporter agreed to meet.
307. Ms Hewitt met the undercover reporter on 9 March
2010. She says that the context of her meeting with Ms Webster
was her availability and interest in taking on work after she
had ceased to be a Member of Parliament. Her intention to stand
down from Parliament had already been announced in June 2009.
Ms Hewitt says that she judged that there would be no harm in
having a preliminary meeting, and decided that she would only
carry out the usual due diligence on the company and its clients
if anything came of the initial conversation. Ms Hewitt says
that she was therefore only prepared for an informal chat when
she met Ms Webster.
Issues subject to inquiry
i. Five ways to meet a Minister
308. Ms Hewitt told the undercover reporter that
it was "very do-able" to put your business clients
in touch with a Minister, but "you have to be
quite
careful about
how you do it".[240]
She described a number of ways to do so, namely:
hospitality
supporting think tanks and seminars.
sponsorship of events at a party conference.
contacts with special advisers.
the "constituency route"
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code
of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
309. Ms Hewitt says that her five suggestions are
all normal and proper ways that any competent public affairs executive
would use to approach a Minister with the issue. Ms Hewitt says
that as a constituency MP, she sometimes advised voluntary organisations
and businesses in Leicester on how to make their views known,
but that she was never paid by such an organisation for that advice.
She says that she had never given such advice to any company or
organisation which had retained her.
310. Ms Hewitt says that she was always very conscious
of the need to be careful herself if she was approaching a Minister
on an issue where she had a financial interest, in particular
by declaring her interest immediately and ensuring that she was
not seeking to benefit only one organisation.
ii. Removing a regulation
311. When Ms Webster asked
"if the Conservatives win the next election, how much
will that affect the kind of advice you would be able to give
the board?"[241]
Ms Hewitt responded "if you've got a client who needs
a particular regulation removed, then we can often package that
up in a way that will give the Minister a win, and with a new
Government, committed to less regulation, that's an attractive
argument to make." [242]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code
of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
312. Ms Hewitt says that she did not say that she
had helped to remove regulations on behalf of a company. She says
her answer simply dealt with a possible future situation following
a Conservative victory at the next election: she was not describing
any action she had taken previously.
iii. Changes to directives or legislation
313. The undercover reporter
asked, in respect of legislation that would have a massive impact
on a client, sometime in the future, how easy it would be to talk
to people "to try to either change it or influence in
some way".[243]Ms
Hewitt is quoted as replying, "Well, at one level ...
it's easy to do but you have to put a lot of effort into it."[244]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
314. Ms Hewitt says that she was not describing any
action that she had taken as a Member of Parliament. Both the
question and her answer related to what might happen after she
had ceased to be a Member of Parliament.
iv. Contacts with civil servants
315. Ms Hewitt said, in
response to the undercover reporter's question whether it was
easy to get meetings with civil servants and speak to them on
behalf of a client, that she made a point of "being
in touch" and, that "you need just to have a
sort of eye to propriety and all of that
But I mean I have
regular lunches and coffees and you know we're all mates really."[245]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
316. Ms Hewitt says that
about once a month, she would have lunch or coffee with such civil
servants. She only once discussed a matter in which he had a registered
interest (Cinven and PiC) and she declared that interest. She
put her case on behalf of the whole sector and not exclusively
for her client.
PiC and the Bradley Report
v. Putting PiC "in
front of" the Bradley inquiry
317. Ms Hewitt told the undercover reporter that
she put PiC "in front of" those working on the
Bradley inquiry into mental health in prisons, enabling PiC to
give evidence to that inquiry and encouraging Lord Bradley to
visit one of PiC's establishments.[246]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid
advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
318. Ms Hewitt says that she had a telephone conversation
with Lord Bradley regarding his Inquiry into the treatment of
prisoners with mental health problems, before he drew up his report.
The telephone conversation took place on 20 May 2008. Ms Hewitt
says that when she spoke to Lord Bradley she made it absolutely
clear that she worked as an adviser to Cinven, the owners of PiC,
and that PiC was an excellent provider of specialist mental health
services, funded by the NHS. She says that she explained to Lord
Bradley why she felt that the independent sector could make a
valuable contribution to his Inquiry and suggested that he should
meet or visit PiC so that he could see their work for himself.
319. Lord Bradley confirms that, when she spoke to
him, Ms Hewitt stated that she was an adviser to PiC. Lord Bradley
also says that he can categorically state that Ms Hewitt had "absolutely
no influence" on the findings in his report or its recommendations.
vi. Getting PiC "into
the system"
320. Ms Hewitt responded,
"Exactly",[247]
to the undercover reporter's statement that she had got PiC "into
the system
with a view to getting further contracts, presumably,
and being able to expand their work."[248]
Ms Hewitt also said, "It's now kind of over to them because,
even though I will keep a watching brief them for as long as is
needed, but basically I've kind of got them into the system, where
they can build the relationships, they can make the arguments."
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
321. Ms Hewitt says that she was simply agreeing
with the obvious proposition that if the independent sector was
to be included in NHS tenders, then PiC, like other private organisations,
would seek to tender for "further contracts".[249]
She says that she has not lobbied, nor would she lobby, on behalf
of PiC to obtain such a contract; nor have Cinven or PiC ever
suggested that she should. Ms Hewitt says that her concern was
simply to secure a level playing field for public, private and
not-for-profit sector providers, in line with government policy
and her own beliefs. She says that all she had in mind was that
PiC was now on the Department of Health's radar screen in relation
to mental health provision.
322. An internal investigation held by the Department
of Health in March 2010 concluded that all relevant officials
were fully aware of Ms Hewitt's role as paid consultant to Partnerships
in Care and that no breach of the Ministerial Code or any other
impropriety had taken place.
vii. Enabling PiC to join an Advisory Group
323. Ms Hewitt told the
undercover reporter that she had been able to "persuade
the chairman of [a group involved with implementing Lord Bradley's
report on health and criminal justice] that there would be
a private sector, independent sector, representative on the taskforce
and because Partnerships in Care had been most active, it was
their person who was put on the task force."[250]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid
advocacy.
324. Ms Hewitt says that she did not claim to Ms
Webster to have persuaded the Chairman of the Health and Criminal
Justice Programme Board to invite PiC to join the separate National
Advisory Group which had been established as part of the Department's
follow-up to the Bradley report. Ms Hewitt believes that she made
her financial interest in Cinven, the owners of PiC, absolutely
clear in the discussion she had with the Chairman of the Programme
Board and that the issues raised were ones of general concern
and of public interest. Ms Hewitt says that she was not aware
that PiC nominated itself for membership of the Group in May and
July 2009, and that those letters were not written on her advice.
325. The Departmental internal investigation concluded
that Ms Hewitt's involvement could in no sense be said to have
influenced the membership of the National Advisory Group.
viii. Carbon reduction
326. Ms Hewitt told the
undercover reporter, in relation to the carbon reduction regulation
that would have the effect of disadvantaging private equity firms,
that "unfortunately, private equity people have come
to this rather late in the day, so they've only quite recently
even started talking to me about it ... we've achieved one thing,
which is to say, if there's a larger company within a private
equity portfolio that if it were freestanding would be registered
anyway, that's fine, they can register in their own right ...
"[251]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid
advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
327. Ms Hewitt says that from discussions with Cinven
it was apparent that the proposed carbon reduction regulations
would impact in a discriminatory manner on companies owned by
a private equity fund. She says that she talked to the relevant
Minister (Joan Ruddock MP) about this issue, explaining her employment
with Cinven, and stressed that this was a point of general concern,
not specific to one company. Neither she nor Ms Ruddock can recall
the date of this conversation.
328. The evidence of Mrs Joan Ruddock MP, then the
relevant Minister, is that Ms Hewitt spoke to her briefly about
the CRC issue, informing her that she advised a private equity
company, without mentioning PiC or any other specific company.
xv. Receiving £3,000 a day in payments
from clients
329. Ms Hewitt told the undercover reporter that
she was paid by Cinven £60,000 for 18 days a year, "in
day rate terms it was a bit over three thousand."
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
330. Ms Hewitt says that the payments
that she received and hours worked are already a matter of public
record and recorded on the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
The figure of about £3000 per day in respect of her services
to Cinven was arrived at on the basis of dividing her total annual
fee of £60,000 by 18.
RT HON GEOFF HOON: MY INQUIRIES
331. I wrote to Mr Hoon on 23 March.[252]
I asked him to give me a full account of the circumstances in
which he had come to be interviewed by someone who turned out
to be a journalist. I also asked Mr Hoon to confirm that during
the interview he had said that :
- he was looking forward to translating
his knowledge and contacts around the international scene into
something that "bluntly, makes money"; [253]
and if that was true, the nature of the knowledge and contacts
Mr Hoon had in mind;
- he had been offered a chairmanship of a foreign
defence firm for "an embarrassing amount of money";[254]
and if true, whether he had consulted the Advisory Committee on
Business Appointments (ACOBA) about this appointment;
- he was quite happy to give strategic advice
and "in the right circumstances" he did not mind
leading a delegation in to see a Minister;[255]
and if true, the circumstances he had in mind;
- if a former Minister asked to see the defence
Minister he did not think there would be any difficulty;[256]
and if true, what benefit Mr Hoon believed he would confer
on those using his services;
- Mr Hoon continued to see people in the Ministry
of Defence and that they briefed him on the defence review;[257]
and if that was true, whether he accepted that he had linked
this statement to his agreeing with the interviewer that he could
give a steer on defence policy which would help clients with what
they were bidding for,[258]
and whether he had declared his financial interests to the Ministry
of Defence;
- he had had a meeting with a private equity fund
in the USA and agreed to give them "a fairly accurate
account of what's going on" in terms of the [NATO] defence
policy which he was developing, and that he had subsequently referred
to talking to these firms about buying market share in Europe.[259]
I asked him, if that was true, what these funds had paid or proposed
to pay for this service; and whether Mr Hoon had registered any
payments in the Register of Members' Financial Interests;
- his rate for consultancy or similar services
was £3,000 a day;[260]
and if true, whether he had provided any such remunerated services
for that or any other rate and, if so, whether he had registered
the payments in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
332. I also asked Mr Hoon to confirm what subsequent
communications he or his legal advisers had had with the reporters;
whether, if any of the allegations were true, he considered he
had an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration, or
both; and if any of what Mr Hoon had said had been untrue, why
he had spoken as he had done. Finally, I told Mr Hoon that I was
writing to the Channel 4 programme makers to invite them to let
me have any unbroadcast parts of his interview.
333. Mr Hoon replied on 30 March.[261]
He said that he had been approached, initially through his parliamentary
office, by an undercover reporter, supposedly on behalf of a US
communications company named Anderson Perry Associates, which
the reporter had said had recently set up a UK office and had
clients looking to expand their operations in the UK and Europe.
He enclosed a copy of her e-mail, in which she had invited him
to visit their offices for what she described as "an informal
chat".[262]
Mr Hoon said that the e-mail provided a link to a high quality
website which he had examined; and that the telephone for both
their office in the United States and an address in London was
professionally answered. "After speaking to Claire Webster
an appointment was made for me to have what Vera Productions and
Channel 4 later described as 'a preliminary meeting where
nothing was agreed or committed to' on 3rd March 2010".
334. Mr Hoon said that he had decided some time before
these events that he would be leaving the House of Commons before
the next election, and had announced this on 10 February 2010.
335. Mr Hoon said that
his lawyers had produced a transcript of the Channel 4 programme
as it applied to him, and that he had seen copies of material
that appeared in the Sunday Times on 20 March. Mr Hoon
said, "Despite a series of requests neither Channel 4
nor the Sunday Times were willing to provide a full account
of the allegations they were proposing to make. I have not seen
a full transcript of my interview."
336. Mr Hoon said that
in his lawyer's response he had sought to put the nature of the
interview with the undercover reporter into context. He said that
he had made clear that nothing he said referred to his current
position as a Member of Parliament. He had assumed that in his
own time it would be permissible to participate in a general and
private conversation about possible opportunities arising after
the Dissolution of the House. He acknowledged that there was
"an element of exaggeration and immodesty" in his
remarks as he sought to achieve a favourable outcome.
337. Mr Hoon said that
when he had referred to using his knowledge and contacts around
the international scene, he was referring to the fact that over
the past 25 years he had developed a good understanding of how
international organisations operate. "I was a Member of
the European Parliament for 10 years. I have held Ministerial
positions in Defence and the Foreign Office. I have in the last
six months been engaged in voluntary unpaid work on behalf of
the NATO Secretary-General." Mr Hoon went on to say that
he had been led to believe that such experience might be of use
in the commercial world and that, like many people who had left
public life, he might secure a position providing strategic advice
through the kind of advisory board that was being described. He
had specifically referred to his ambition to give strategic advice.
Mr Hoon added that he did not have any specific contacts in mind
because "individuals move from one job to another fairly
quickly and what is useful is to have an overall understanding
of how international organisations work".
338. Mr Hoon said that the "embarrassing
amount of money" he had said he had been offered was
a figure suggested by a head hunter as being the likely amount
on offer from an overseas company. He said that although the head
hunter had led him to believe that this offer was to be made shortly
it had not so far materialised. In those circumstances he had
not yet contacted ACOBA. He would expect to do so only if he had
a firm offer of an appointment or employment from the company
itself. Mr Hoon said that he had spoken to ACOBA and the person
concerned had confirmed that this was the correct approach.
339. Mr Hoon said that since his understanding of
what was being discussed was a position on an advisory board and
since he had no ambition to be involved in lobbying, he had made
clear that he did not want to be "some sort of lobbyist".
He continued, "I know however from my own experience
of Ministerial life that there could be times when a director
or a chairman of a company would meet a Minister. I indicated
that 'in the right circumstances' I would be willing to
help to arrange that, although I added , 'but that's not what
I want to spend my life doing', indicating that I thought this
would be exceptional."
340. Mr Hoon regretted that his suggestion that a
former Minister might ask to see the Defence Minister "was
no more than my showing off and trying to impress". He
continued, "It is likely that as a former Secretary of
Defence I could get to meet with whoever happened to be in the
position at the time but I would have to put forward a reason
and I do not believe that could be based on any kind of representation
of a third partyunless that was in itself for legitimate
reasons unconnected with my former position. My comment would
not therefore confer any benefit on anyone considering employing
me."
341. Mr Hoon said that the reference to giving a
private equity fund a "fairly accurate account"
[263]of the direction
of defence policy was in relation to the voluntary unpaid work
that he was doing on behalf of NATO to advise the Secretary General
about the new strategic concept. He had been nominated to serve
in an independent capacity and the only briefings he had had were
in relation to the British Government's views on this. Mr Hoon
added that this was a public process, based around a series of
seminars in different NATO member states, which would conclude
with the publication in early May of a document that would be
available to everyone. He continued, "I was simply trying
to demonstrate that I retained a continuing interest in and knowledge
of defence policy. I was not in any way seeking to trade on knowledge
or information that was obtained confidentially." Mr
Hoon said that, as a result, he could "give a steer on
defence policy" but only as a result of his own personal
knowledge, experience and reading.
342. Mr Hoon said that he did not have any financial
interests that would need to be declared to anyone at the Ministry
of Defence. As an MP he would have to declare any outside financial
interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, and
he had none.
343. Mr Hoon said that
the meeting with a private equity firm had been in the United
Kingdom with a UK based fund and had taken place on the morning
of the interview. He had been referring to the relationship between
overall NATO policy and the national defence policy of member
states. Mr Hoon commented, "I do have my own thoughts
and ideas about what this might mean for companies involved in
defence which is why I indicated that I might be going back after
standing down as an MP to talk about it. I have not received any
payment for offering to do this nor have I discussed any particular
amount of money for doing so in the future."
344. Mr Hoon said that the only work that he had
been offered was for one day, some weeks after the Dissolution
of the House. He enclosed copies of the correspondence that he
and his legal advisers had had with Vera Productions, Channel
4 and the Sunday Times.[264]
He said that, for the reasons he had set out, he did not believe
that he had any obligation to make a Register entry or declaration
or both in respect of these alleged activities because no financial
or other interests arose.
345. Mr Hoon concluded by saying that he had been
deceived about the nature of his likely involvement with the fictitious
company. He had been advised that he should be thinking about
joining advisory or other company boards once he stepped down
as a Member of Parliament. This is what he thought he was being
approached about. "The initial questioning was however
designed to elicit my interest in lobbying. When I made clear
that I was not interested in work as a lobbyist I assumed that
I was being asked about work on behalf of the proposed advisory
board. I was however still being asked, probably scripted, questions
designed to elicit my willingness to engage in what could with
appropriate editing and commentary subsequently be described by
Channel 4 and the Sunday Times as lobbying."
346. I replied to Mr Hoon on 31 March.[265]
I asked him if he could confirm the date of his interview with
the reporter. I also noted that he had said in his letter that
the private equity firm he said he had met was a UK-based fund,
but in his interview he had said that he was "
talking
to American private equity firms
" I asked
Mr Hoon if these talks were different to those he had had with
the UK private equity fund on the day of the interview and, if
so, if he had spoken to them in the same way as to the UK fund
and offered them a briefing on the relationship between overall
NATO policy and the national defence policy of member states;
and whether it was made clear that he would be charging for those
briefings.
347. Mr Hoon replied on
6 April.[266] He said
that he was confident that the secretly recorded meeting took
place on 3 March 2010. He said that Vera Productions suggested
that it was 23 February in their letter to him of 15 March 2010[267]
and he appeared to have adopted that date in his reply to them.
Mr Hoon confirmed that he had had "meetings with two
'American private equity firms' in London and a second
meeting with one of them in Washington". He commented,
"To the extent that it is relevant both maintain separate
European operations. I do not recall offering either of them a
briefing but we would have discussed defence policy in general
terms. There was no discussion about fees in the course of these
meetings."
348. I did not continue my inquiries during the Dissolution
of the House. On the assembly of the new Parliament on 18 May,
I resumed my inquiry. On 27 May I received the certified transcripts
of Mr Hoon's conversations with the undercover reporter. I wrote
to Mr Hoon on 2 June, attaching the transcripts.[268]
I noted that in the transcript he was quoted as saying said that
he might well go and talk to some people in a private equity company
about Europe including "defence policy more generally
which is what I have been doing across the road
I might
well go and spend a day with them and they might pay me a fee
"[269]
I asked Mr Hoon whether it would be reasonable to conclude
from this that, when he was a Member of Parliament, he had received
a fee for briefing a private equity company on the work he was
then doing on defence policy, namely (as I understood it) the
NATO review. If so, I asked Mr Hoon what had been the nature of
that briefing, and whether the fee had been at a level which required
him to register it in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
349. I noted that in the transcript Mr Hoon had referred
to various possible job opportunities. I asked him whether any
of these had materialised while he had been a Member of Parliament,
whether any had since materialised, and if so, whether any had
required him to draw on his Ministerial experience, particularly
in defence. I also noted that in the transcript he had said, in
relation to work with NATO, that, "in a sense I'm devising,
I'm developing this policy so they [the private equity fund]
will get a fairly accurate account of what is going on."[270]
I said that I was having some difficulty in reconciling that with
the point in his letter to me of 30 March when he had said that
the advice to the Secretary General about the new strategic concept
was a public process, based around a series of seminars in different
NATO member states.[271]
I asked Mr Hoon whether he had been in any sense exaggerating
his role in explaining it to the reporter.
350. I said that in the transcript Mr Hoon was quoted
as saying that he had been seeing officials in the MOD since "they're
both advising me as to what the Government position is but also
working separately on the
Defence Review."[272]
I recalled that I had asked him about his contacts with people
in the MOD in my letter to him of 23 March,[273]
and that in his response of 30 March,[274]
he had said that "The only information I have about the
Defence Review is from publicly available sources such as the
recent Green Paper." I asked Mr Hoon whether he had in
fact had any discussions with MOD officials, either about the
NATO work, the Defence Review or any other matter. I asked him,
if so, whether he thought it necessary to declare his interest,
in particular in his proposed work for the private equity fund.
351. I also noted that Mr Hoon had said, apparently
referring to a document in his coat pocket, "
this
is hot from the press, I've just got this from Washington. But
it's the kind of thing that, I think if you had one or more defence
clients who really wanted to kind of understand where things are
going, then I'd be very happy to come and present that."[275]
I asked him to describe the nature of the document to which he
had referred, who had produced it and whether it had been provided
to him in confidence.
352. I then said that in his interview on the BBC
Radio Four "Today" programme on 26 March, Mr
Hoon had said, "I certainly got it wrong
I should
not have said some of the things I did say
I was guilty
of showing off
I was trying to impress and demonstrate
my knowledge and experience and background ..." [276]
I asked Mr Hoon why he believed he had got it wrong and, in particular,
the points which he should not have said, and why.
353. Mr Hoon replied to
me in a letter which I received on 8 June.[277]
He said that he had made clear in his previous letter to me[278]
that his conversation with the undercover reporter dealt only
with his plans for when he had left Parliament. Mr Hoon said that
the full transcript bore this out. He said he referred to "the
beginning of May for the start of my new life" and "even
after a determined effort by the undercover reporter to ask me
about my earlier availability", he had said that he could
do April "because I think parliament will be dissolved
at the beginning of April".
354. Mr Hoon said that "... I gave no briefings
to a private equity company whilst an MP and I have given none
since. I have received no fees from any private equity company
as an MP or since. No question of registration therefore arises
..." He told me that in case there was any confusion
about the reference to a briefing "across the road",
this had been a lunch organised by the Latvian Ambassador for
other Ambassadors from Scandinavia and the Baltic States at the
Travellers' Club on Pall Mall at which he (Mr Hoon) had discussed
the work of the NATO Group of Experts of which he was then a member.
Mr Hoon told me that no fee for this had been asked for or offered,
nor would he have expected in such circumstances to receive one.
355. Mr Hoon said that he had, by the date of the
meeting with the undercover reporter, indicated to his constituents
his intention of standing down at the General Election. "I
received no job offers whilst still a Member of Parliament and
I have received none to date." Mr Hoon said that it was
of course possible that he could be offered a position in the
future that could draw on his Ministerial experience in defence,
although he noted that he had left the Ministry of Defence in
May 2005. Mr Hoon said he would expect to comply fully with the
rules relating to Ministerial appointments.
356. Mr Hoon said that the description of the work
of the NATO Group of Experts that he had given in his previous
letter was accurate. This had been a public process based around
a series of seminars and a public consultation exercise, and the
conclusions had recently been published. He said his reference
in the transcript to "devising" and "developing"
this policy was a reference to his then role as a member of the
Group expecting to play a part in the final drafting of the Group's
report. Mr Hoon said that in fact he had stood down from the Group
before the final report was completed. The report of the Group
of Experts was designed to inform the NATO Secretary General's
drafting of a new Strategic Concept, a process that would take
many more months to complete. Hence the reference in what he was
saying to providing "a fairly accurate account of what
is going on". Mr Hoon said that given that the Group's
conclusions had always been intended for publication he had been
doing "no more than indicating my ability to provide informed
comment on material that was, and was going to be, publicly available."
357. He said that he had
received several briefings from a mixed group of Ministry of Defence
and Foreign Office officials regarding what the British Government
wanted to see in the report of the Group of Experts. He said he
had been appointed to the Group in an independent capacity but
"I was obviously interested in the views of the British
Government. I received briefings from officials from other governments
as well. All of those briefings were concerned only with the work
of the NATO Group of Experts."
358. Mr Hoon said that
he did not understand my reference to any declaration of interest
in relation to the private equity fund. He had done no work of
that kind and did not believe that any question of declaration
arose. Mr Hoon said that the document in his coat pocket which
he had told the reporter "we are working on now"[279]
was the near final version of an academic paper that he had helped
to write with academics from the Washington National Defense University
about NATO defence capabilities. He said that it had been written
for publication and provided a web address for it. The paper was
to be the basis for that section of the Experts report dealing
with NATO capabilities, again showing the public nature of the
process. "Given that I had helped to write the paper it
was obviously not supplied in confidence."
359. On the issue of his
comments in the Today programme interview on 26 March,
Mr Hoon said that the reference to getting it wrong was his failure
to detect that "I was being set up by media organisations
prepared to go to considerable lengths to entrap me and others
into making private comments that could then be presented publicly
to our detriment. "
360. Mr Hoon said that
he accepted that he had made a number of comments in the course
of the secretly recorded interview, during what he had assumed
to be a private conversation, that "appear crass and embarrassing
when published." He said that unfortunately that would
probably be true of many private conversations if they were published
in the same way. He had not been suggesting in the "Today"
interview that he believed that he had broken any relevant rules.
The reason for making such comments had been as set out in the
Today interview, that he was "trying to impress".
361. I wrote to Mr Hoon on 29 June.[280]
I noted that he had asked me why I had referred, in my letter
of 2 June,[281] to
the possibility of his declaring his interest, in particular in
his proposed work for the private equity fund, in any discussions
he had with MoD officials. I told Mr Hoon that I had asked this
because the declaration rules extended beyond a requirement to
declare matters registered in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests. I drew his attention to Paragraph 73 of the 2009 Edition
of the Guide to the Rules.[282]
362. I said that the question I was asking Mr Hoon
was whether his possible work for private equity firmsor
indeed his chairmanship of a defence companyamounted to
relevant interests which he was expecting to have at the time
when he had had his discussions with MoD and other officials.
I asked him to confirm whether, when he had had these briefings,
he had had a reasonable expectation of a future financial benefit
on account of his understanding of the Government and NATO's defence
policy. I said that if he considered that he did not have such
an expectation, it would be helpful if he could explain the purpose
of these contacts with private equity firms or the FTSE 100 company.[283]
363. On 2 July Mr Hoon wrote to me, saying that it
appeared from my most recent letter[284]
that he had not properly explained the nature of the meetings
that I was examining.[285]
He said that the meetings with the private equity firm had
been arranged by a recruitment advisor and were necessarily introductory
in nature. Mr Hoon said that he had not met any of the people
before, and they had not previously met him. He said there had
been no follow up from these introductory meetings to date and
at this stage he did not expect there to be any. Mr Hoon said
that "the words of Paragraph 73 of the Guide to the Rules,
which you quote in your letter, properly capture what took place,
in that I had a vague hope or aspiration that such a meeting might
lead in the future to some sort of employment but it was well
short of anything that could be described as a reasonable expectation
of a financial benefit." The language that he had used
was "clearly aspirational" and had not led to
anything specific.
364. Mr Hoon said that
he was also concerned that he had failed to explain properly to
me the nature of his meetings with MOD and FCO officials. He said
that he recognised that normally when an MP goes to a government
department for a briefing he or she derives some benefit from
the information received, that could in relevant circumstances
require the MP to make an appropriate declaration, particularly
where in terms of Paragraph 73 "a Member is...making representations
to a Minister". He said that it was important to note
however that in the course of these meetings he had not been making
representations either to Ministers or to officials. These meetings
with officials had not been arranged for his benefit, nor even
at his request. They had been arranged for the benefit of the
British Government. Mr Hoon said he had been asked as a member
of the NATO Group of Experts, by those same officials, if he would
be willing to attend two or three meetings to listen to their
views as to what the draft strategic concept should contain as
the process evolved. Mr Hoon said that this had been an opportunity
for the officials to set out what the British Government would
like to see emerge from the process of discussion and consultation;
they had been making representations to him. He had had similar
meetings with representatives of other NATO governments. "I
cannot imagine circumstances in which I would reveal the content
of those meetings to otherseven to other members of the
Group of Experts. The officials obviously wished to influence
my thinking. I was not in any way trying to influence theirs;
hence my previous puzzlement about declarations of interest."
365. Mr Hoon said that
he hoped that this made unnecessary my question about whether
he had a reasonable expectation of a future financial benefit
on account of his understanding of the Government and NATO's defence
policy. He said that that the officials had not been explaining
either the Government's or NATO's defence policy to him. They
had been setting out what they wanted to see from a process in
which he had played a part. "I cannot think of anything
that I learned from officials during those meetings that had any
kind of commercial or financial value."
366. In any event, Mr Hoon said, at the time he had
had no sufficiently tangible future financial benefit within the
terms of Paragraph 73 to require any declaration.[286]
No specific offers had been made to him at the time; only very
general questions of financial benefit had been discussed referring
to what other people earned in comparable positions. He had been
aware of prospects, as he had said in the transcript. He said
he had indicated to the undercover reporter that "the
most likely thing is some sort of Chairmanship...that would be
probably 3 or 4 days a month".[287]The
vagueness of his explanation showed that nothing had at that stage
been decided or any offer made. He had gone on to say "...it's
not quite a done deal but it's pretty close". [288]
Mr Hoon said that that had proved to be "over-optimistic"
on his part as no such offer had to date materialised, "although
for the sake of completeness I am still in contact with the company
in question." He said that exactly the same could be
said about his reference to a FTSE 100 company; he had at the
time of the interview hoped to go on the board but given that
the company in question was subject at the time to a takeover,
as he had made clear to the undercover reporter, he knew that
this was no more than an aspiration and might not in any event
be possible. Mr Hoon said that the takeover had been successful
and this company would in due course no longer exist and neither
would its board. He said that he had had no contact whatsoever
with the new company.
367. I wrote to Mr Hoon on 6 July.[289]
I said that I recognised that the meetings with MOD and FCO officials
had been to enable them to brief him on their views on what should
be contained in the draft strategic concept which the NATO Group
of Experts, of which he was a member, had been preparing. I said
that while I recognised the distinction he was makingthat
they had been seeking to influence him, not the other way roundthere
nevertheless remained a question which I might need to address
as to whether he should have let them know that he had (in terms
of paragraph 73 of the Guide to the Rules) a reasonable expectation
of personal financial advantage deriving directly or indirectly
from his work on the NATO Group of Experts and, indeed, from his
knowledge of what the British Government wanted to see in terms
of a draft strategic concept for NATO. I said that I took it from
his response that, even if there were such an obligation, it had
fallen because, at that stage, he did not believe that he had
a reasonable expectation of personal financial advantage, because
his possible job offers had not reached a sufficiently advanced
stage to justify such an expectation. I asked him to confirm or
modify my understanding of his evidence on this point.
368. I said that the second issue, therefore, was
whether in his interview with the undercover reporter he had given
the interviewer an unreasonable impression that he had expected
to be employed by particular companies in a way which would have
allowed him to make use of the information available to him, either
as a member of the NATO Experts Group or arising from his discussions
with Government officials. I said I would need to resolve whether
it was within the Code of Conduct for him to offer to brief the
clients of the fake company on the relationship between NATO and
national defence policy, given his statement that he was devising
and developing "this policy", by which he had
told me he had meant the report of the NATO Group of Experts,
and his statement that he knew "some people on the team
in the MoD who are working on this, because they brief me about
it."[290]
I noted that this statement had followed the interviewer's question
about whether Mr Hoon could give a steer on where defence policy
was going. It had also followed Mr Hoon's subsequent statement
that the people he was seeing had been advising him about the
Government position (in the context of his NATO work), but that
they had also been working separately on the Defence Review.
369. I told Mr Hoon that I would need to come to
a view on whether it was likely that he had been receiving any
briefing on the Defence Review; and, if not, whether he had given
the impression to the interviewer that his contacts with these
officials on NATO had given him some insight into the Defence
Review which he could share with their clients and, if so, whether
that had been a misleading or exaggerated impression.
370. In respect of Mr Hoon's future job offers, I
noted that in the transcript he had referred to a possible job
with a US investment bank, where he had said that: "They
want to kind of build a business around me, they want to expand
into Europe."[291]
I said that I assumed that nothing had in fact come of this
offer, but I asked Mr Hoon whether it had been an exaggeration
to suggest that the investment bank was planning to build its
European business around him, in the terms in which he had subsequently
explained that he would be acting as a figurehead chairman.
371. Mr Hoon wrote to me on 9 July, saying that he
was grateful for my recognition that the meetings with MOD and
FCO officials had been "at their behest" and
that they had been seeking to influence his views.[292]
He said that he still had some difficulty as a result in understanding
how any question of declaration within Paragraph 73 of the Guide
to the Rules could arise.[293]
He said that unless he had misunderstood the requirement of the
paragraph, and the rules on which it was based, there was an assumption
that the Member was doing something to trigger the obligation
to disclose; "debating legislation or making representations
to a Minister".[294]
He said he had been listening to the views of officials as they
sought to explain the British Government's views.
372. Mr Hoon said that there was "one very
pedantic point which arises from this for which I apologise but
it is worth making." He said that he had not been appointed
to the Group of Experts as a Member of Parliament. "I
was in fact the only member of the group to hold elected office;
all of the others were appointed officials or Ministers. I did
not attend the meetings with MOD and FCO officials as a Member
of Parliament therefore. I voluntarily gave up a great deal of
my free time to do this work."
373. He said that he had made clear in his letter
of 2 July[295] that
anything said by officials regarding the British Government's
position had been strictly confidential. Mr Hoon said that it
was also difficult to see how the views of the British Government
about a draft document that was likely subsequently to be amended
by the NATO Secretary-General and Member States and then might
or might not be put into practice could have any financial value.
374. Mr Hoon confirmed
that, at the time and since, he had "no reasonable expectation
of financial advantage arising out of these meetings." That
remained the position to date. He said he did not anticipate
that that would change. He also noted that I had referred in my
letter of 6 July[296]
to "possible job offers". He said that, as he
had made clear in his last letter to me, there had been no specific
job offers, certainly none that could be described as "tangible"
or creating "a reasonable expectation that a financial
benefit will accrue".
375. Mr Hoon said that
the full transcript showed that he was interested in providing
"strategic advice", "the sort of practical understanding
of how Government here and probably how Government in Brussels
works", "the advisory part". He said that
it was also clear from the interview that he had only been referring
to the time when he had stood down from the House of Commons and
was no longer a Member of Parliament. He said that he was "having
some difficulty in understanding why the second sentence in Article
Two of the Code of Conduct does not apply since I only referred
to a time when I would be a private citizen."[297]
376. Mr Hoon said that
the transcript made clear that in his meeting with the undercover
reporter he had been referring to being able to brief a client
on strategic issues. He quoted from the transcript, noting that
he had said that a private equity fund had asked him to talk to
them: "About the relationship, if you like between NATO
at the higher level and National Defence Policy, which is the
strategic defence review, one down, and how it actually all fits
together."[298]
He said that he would be able to give such a briefing "because
of my general knowledge and understanding of defence policy accumulated
over many years of working in the area. At no stage was I given
any specific briefing about progress in the Defence Review."
377. Mr Hoon said he recognised that the quotation
I had set out from the transcript seemed to contradict this. He
said that he had been asked by the undercover reporter whether
"after the election" he could give "a
steer" about where "defence policy is going".[299]
He had said that he could, "in my own mind referring to
the general understanding of defence policy that I had developed
over the years." He had gone on to say that "I
know some people on the team in the MOD who are working on this,
because they brief me about. Because I mean I'm, I'm doing this
NATO work as, as Geoff Hoon, not as a representative of the Government,
but obviously the Government are quite interested in, in what
I'm doing".[300]
He noted that I had quoted from "the material originally
supplied by Channel 4 which includes the word 'it' at the
end of the first sentence."[301]
He said that the word did not appear in the transcript that
had been supplied by the Solicitor. He said he was unfortunately
currently unable to gain access to the actual recording to establish
which was the correct version.
378. Mr Hoon asked me
"to accept that at no stage have I ever been briefed by
officials from the MOD about the Defence Review. If necessary
I am sure that they could verify this as a fact." He
said that it could not be a matter of opinion or view. Whether
or not he had used the word "it", the context
showed that he was referring to the "NATO work".
He said that he went on to state during the meeting with the
undercover reporter "So I do see them. So, so some of
the people I ... see are doing both, they're both advising me
as to what the Government position is but also working separately
on the ... defence review."[302]
He had gone on to say to the undercover reporter that in respect
of her bogus clients "if you want to give them practical
advice, I think the best you could say at the moment is what I've
just said to you, one, look at the Green Paper....",[303]
which was of course a publicly available document.
379. As to the prospect
of work with a US Investment bank, Mr Hoon said nothing had come
of this. The Bank had discussed with him the idea of working with
a banking expert to develop their European business. "I
would have been a figurehead in the sense that I would have been
the Chairman and would have led the business. There was no suggestion
that I would have been doing any more or any less than the Chairman
of any other company ... Once again this would only have been
once I stopped being a Member of Parliament."
380. I wrote to Mr Hoon on 13 July.[304]
I noted that he had made a number of points relating to the interpretation
of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules and said that
these give rise to some further considerations. In particular,
I said it could be taken from his letter that he was arguing that
the Code of Conduct did not apply to him at the time of his interview,
either because he had been discussing only matters which related
to his activities once he was no longer a Member of Parliament,
or (in relation to his work on the NATO experts group) because
the work was purely personal and had nothing to do with his being
a Member of Parliament. I told Mr Hoon that, to make the latter
argument, he would need to address the first sentence of paragraph
2 of the Code, which stated: "The Code applies to Members
in all aspects of their public life."
381. I said that I understood that Mr Hoon was also
arguing that he had been under no obligation to declare an interest
(even if he had had one) because he had neither been debating
legislation, nor making representations to a Minister (as referred
to in paragraph 73 of the Guide to the Rules).[305]
I noted the sentence which he had quoted started with the words:
"where, for example," which might suggest this
was not meant to be a comprehensive description of the obligation
on declaration set out in the Guide to the Rules.[306]
On the face of it, therefore, I told Mr Hoon that it would be
necessary for him to argue that the briefing meetings he had had
with MOD and FCO officials were not "communications"
within the terms of the resolution of the House of May 1974.[307]
382. I said that I might, therefore, need to address
both of these issues of interpretation in the conclusions on this
inquiry. I also said that there was an additional point about
interpretation which he had raised, namely the omission of the
word "it" in the certified transcript, that word
having been included in the transcript of the Channel 4 Dispatches
programme which had been produced by his lawyers and which he
had enclosed with his letter to me of 30 March.[308]
As a general rule, I said that the evidence should be based on
the certified transcript. But I said I would be content to add
the word "it" if he would like me to do so. I
asked him to let me know if he considered the omission of the
word material.[309]
383. I said that I would take account of his responses
and of his earlier points in coming to a view, among other matters,
on whether he gave the interviewer an unreasonable or misleading
impression that, in order to provide briefings to private companies,
he was prepared to draw on information available to him from his
work with NATO and his briefings from the MOD and FCO officials.
I said that in relation to the possible job with a US investment
bank, in the light of what he had said, I would need to come to
a view on whether his statement that the bank wanted "to
build a business around me" was an exaggeration.
384. Mr Hoon replied to
me on 16 July.[310]
He told me that he accepted that as a Member of Parliament he
was subject to the Code of Conduct and that as far as his public
life was concerned until the Dissolution of Parliament he was
bound by its terms in relation to his parliamentary and public
duties. Mr Hoon said that it was a matter for me and the Committee
"to decide whether in what was a secretly recorded private
conversation about my future plans for life after Parliament the
Code of Conduct should apply." He said that "Even
Members of Parliament are entitled to a private life as paragraph
2 of the Code makes clear. A private discussion about future employment
plans after the dissolution of Parliament would appear to me to
fall within the scope of private rather than public life."
385. Mr Hoon said the
same issue arose in relation to the meetings with civil servants.
They had been purely private meetings. "I was not attending
as a Member of Parliament. I had been invited by the civil servants
in a voluntary capacity to help them."
386. Mr Hoon said that
there were very similar issues in respect of the declaration of
interests. He accepted that it was perfectly possible to interpret
the 1974 resolution to mean that any conversation which a Member
had with a civil servant might give rise to the need to make a
declaration. Mr Hoon said that he had been arguing, consistently
with what he had set out above, that the Code should apply to
those areas where a Member was acting as a Member and that "since
I had not been appointed to the NATO Group of Experts as a Member
of Parliament and was not attending meetings with civil servants
as a Member, it is straining the application of the Code to include
meetings or activities that go beyond the scope of what could
reasonably be described as the parliamentary and public duties
of a Member of Parliament."
387. He said that in relation
to the meetings with civil servants he had previously made clear
that these meetings had been an opportunity for the British Government
to influence his thinking. He had not been trying to influence
theirs. Mr Hoon said that as a result paragraph 74 of the Guide
did not apply.[311]
He said that he had not been making any representations that "might
reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representations
or communication in question".
388. Mr Hoon said that
he was content to rely on the certified transcript. The inclusion
of the word "it" would significantly alter the
meaning of what he had said in a way that could not be justified
by the facts. He had not been briefed by civil servants about
the Defence Review. As to the question of drawing on information
available from his work with NATO, Mr Hoon reiterated that this
was a public process and he had not been privy to any information
that would not have been available to any reasonably well informed
student of defence policy. "At no stage did I suggest
that I was willing to draw on briefings from MOD and FCO officials."
389. Mr Hoon said it had
been clear from the context of his remarks about work with a US
investment bank that he had been talking about a possibility that
was at the time still some way off. "It has not to date
materialised."
390. I replied to Mr Hoon on 20 July.[312]
I told him that, in the light of his argument about the scope
of the Code, I would need to come to a view on the application
of paragraph two of the Code[313]
to his discussion when I came to resolve this complaint. I said
I would also consider whether I needed to come to a view on his
arguments about the application of the declaration provisions
to his meetings with FCO and MOD officials.
391. I told Mr Hoon that I had noted what he had
said about the inclusion of the word "it" in
the certified transcript.[314]
In view of the importance he attached to the words used I said
I had listened again to the programme as broadcast. I said that
it was clear that the word used was not "it",
which he had stated was wrong. The sound track appeared clearly
to record Mr Hoon saying: "I know some people on the team
in the MOD who are working on this, because they brief me about
this." I said it would appear, therefore, that Mr Hoon
did suggest that officials had briefed him about "this"
and, in the context of the question he was discussing, "this"
would appear to have been a suggestion that the officials were
briefing him about the defence review. I said that I took it from
his evidence to me that there was no truth in this suggestion.
392. I told Mr Hoon that my inquiries of him about
what he had said in the transcript in respect of his discussions
with some US investment bankers was to find out whether what he
had said about their wish to "kind of build a business
around me" was an exaggeration; in other words, to find
out whether it went beyond the facts of the matter and, if so,
how far it went beyond those facts. I said that I had not used
his phrase "showing off" because, of course,
that term gave no indication whether the boast was based on reality
or not. I told Mr Hoon that I would need to come to a conclusion
about whether what he had told the undercover reporter at the
meeting was wide of the reality, and, if so, whether it had brought
Parliament into disrepute, taking account of the Nolan principles.
393. Mr Hoon replied to
me on 23 July.[315]
He said that he had given further thought to the question of the
application of the Code of Conduct to the meetings he had had
with civil servants from the FCO and the MOD. "It seems
to me that there is a fairness issue. It would be extremely unfair
if I was to be criticised for undertaking meetings at the request
of civil servants for the benefit of the British Government whilst
engaged in a voluntary capacity in work that I was undertaking
in my own time."
394. Mr Hoon said that
he had read and re-read in particular the relevant passage of
the transcript marked 00.23.36.[316]
He said that he would not of course in any way challenge my conclusions
about what he had seemed to say. He said that he hoped that I
would accept that even if he had said "this",
taken as a whole "this passage is far from clear. I do
not accept that it could be interpreted as suggesting that a second
'this' refers to briefing on the Defence Review because
as I have made clear before no such briefing ever took place."
395. Mr Hoon said that in his experience of reading
transcripts, few people spoke in perfectly formed sentences and
he was clearly no exception. "I know in my own mind that
I was talking about the work that I was doing for NATO and the
briefing relevant to that." He said that trying his best
to make sense of what he had said, he would suggest that the first
part of the sentence; "some people on the team in the
MOD who are working on this" referred back to the previous
exchange about where "defence policy is going".
The second part, even accepting that it included the word "this"
was part of an explanation of the way in which he was being briefed
by some of the same people working on the Defence Review but actually
on the NATO work. Mr Hoon said he had made this clear in the next
passage. He said he was not in any way suggesting that they were
briefing him on the Defence Review.
396. Mr Hoon set out the nature of the discussions
he had had with a US investment bank. He had been introduced to
them by a firm of "head hunters". They had said
that they were interested in employing him but before they could
do so they wanted to recruit a senior and experienced figure to
work with him. Mr Hoon said that the expression "build
a business around me" was therefore an exaggeration.
As far as he was aware, that person had never been recruited and
he had heard nothing from the company since the conversation set
out in the transcript. He said that he did not believe that such
"preliminary conversations" fell within the Nolan
principles. The discussions had been tentative, at an early stage
and had not reached any particular conclusion. "We had
no discussions about terms and conditions or remuneration or indeed
what precisely my work would involve." He said that,
in any event, had these conversations led to an offer, it would
only have been after he had left Parliament.
397. I wrote to Mr Hoon on 27 July, saying that I
hoped I was right in having taken from his evidence that the FCO
and MOD officials had briefed him face to face and they had not
also briefed others at the same time.[317]
398. Having reviewed all the evidence relating to
this inquiry, I wrote again to Mr Hoon on 29 September, telling
him that there were two points which I needed to clarify with
him.[318] In his letter
to me of 30 March,[319]
he had told me that a meeting with a private equity firm had been
with a UK based fund and had taken place on the morning of the
interview. In his letter of 6 April,[320]
he had apparently clarified the status of the private equity firm
by noting that he had meetings with two American private equity
firms in London, and that both maintained separate European operations.
He had told me that he did not recall offering either of them
a briefing, but he would have discussed defence policy in general
terms. In his letter of 8 June,[321]
he had said that he gave no briefings to a private equity firm
while he had been an MP or since. I noted that he had said that
the reference to his briefing "across the road"
on the day of his meeting with the undercover reporter was a reference
to a lunch organised by the Latvian ambassador for other ambassadors.
399. I said I was having difficulty in reconciling
these statements with each other and with what he had said to
the undercover reporter recorded in the transcript. He had said
there that "I saw someone in the city this morning
it
was a private equity company, they're floating off a business
but they're not going to do so for 18 months
in the meantime
I might well go and talk to some of their people about Europe,
about some of the regulator issues, some of the legal issues that
I'm familiar with, as well as a defence policy more generally
... which is what I have just been doing across the road..."[322]
I asked Mr Hoon whether his evidence was that he did indeed have
meetings with American private equity firms, but they were a UK
fund because they had separate European operations; and that while
he had had meetings with these firms which referred to his Defence
experience, one of which took place in the morning of the meeting
with the undercover reporter, he did not give them defence briefings
similar to the defence briefings which he had given on the same
day at the lunch with diplomatic guests of the Latvian Ambassador.
400. I also said I did not think I had received an
answer to the question I had put to him in my letter of 23 March[323]
when I wrote that it would be helpful if he could confirm that
he had said his rate for consultancy or similar services was £3,000
a day, and, if true, whether he had provided any such remunerated
services to date for that or any other rate, and, if so, whether
he had registered the payments in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests.
401. Mr Hoon wrote to me on 30 September.[324]
He said that at 10am on the day of the meeting with the undercover
reporter, 3 March, he had had a meeting with a UK private equity
fund. This had been an introductory meeting arranged by a head
hunter. It was not a briefing, although there had been some discussion
about whether he would go back after the election to talk to them
(the private equity fund) in general terms about the issues set
out in the transcript, including Europe and defence policy. Mr
Hoon said that in any event this further meeting did not take
place. He said that the reference to two American private equity
firms in London involved two quite separate meetings on other
dates. Mr Hoon said that they had been in the nature of introductory
meetings; they had not been briefings, and nothing had resulted
from either meeting, before or after the election.
402. Mr Hoon said that
at 1pm on that day he had attended a lunch at the Travellers'
Club on Pall Mall "across the road" from St James
Square, where "the entrapment [meeting with the undercover
reporter] later took place." This had been a lunch
organised by the Latvian Ambassador for Baltic and Scandinavian
Ambassadors so that he could brief them on the work of the Group
of Experts. "Such briefings were regarded as an important
part of the role." Mr Hoon said that at 3pm the meeting
with the undercover reporter had taken place in St James's Square,
a short walk from Pall Mall. He said that he had made clear previously
that he had always made all necessary entries in the Register
of Members' Financial Interests. "I was asked about a
daily rate by the undercover journalist. It is obvious from my
reply that I did not have a clear answer to the question, not
least because up until that date I had not done any consultancy
or similar work, 'Erm, I, I mean I've been offered three thousand
pounds for a day's work, erm and in, I mean I, that's about right.'[325]
Ironically, given the circumstances, that referred to an offer
made to me by Channel Four to do a television programme after
the election. I did not provide any such remunerated services,
at that or at any other rate, before the General Election."
403. Mr Hoon wrote to me on 6 November commenting
on the draft factual sections of this memorandum.[326]
The points he wished to emphasise were that:
- there was no evidence that
he was referring in his discussion with the undercover reporter
to employment opportunities whilst he was still a Member of Parliament.
He considered that the transcript showed clearly that he was referring
to a time, at the very earliest, after the Dissolution of Parliament
or still later;
- before becoming a Member, Mr Hoon has lived and
worked in the United States and on the Continent, and as a barrister
he had had previous experience in European law;
- Mr Hoon had taught European law at university
in the United Kingdom and in the United States.
FINDINGS OF FACT
404. In February 2010 Mr Hoon's office received an
approach from the undercover reporter, claiming to represent Anderson
Perry. During an initial telephone conversation, Mr Hoon and the
undercover reporter agreed to meet.
405. Mr Hoon met the undercover reporter on 3 March
2010. Mr Hoon says that he had assumed that in his own time it
would be permissible to participate in a general and private conversation
about possible employment opportunities arising after the Dissolution
of Parliament. He acknowledges that in the course of the interview
there was an element of exaggeration and immodesty in his remarks
as he sought to achieve a favourable outcome.
406. Mr Hoon believes that the Code of Conduct should
not be applied to many of the statements and actions which are
the subject of this inquiry.[327]
He argues that he was discussing the possibility of work after
he had left the House, so that discussion was not subject to the
Code. He argues that the discussion was about his private employment
and so was a purely private matter not subject to the Code. And
he argues that in his meetings with MOD and FCO officials he was
not acting as a Member of Parliament but in a purely voluntary
and personal capacity, and was therefore not subject to the Code.
407. Mr Hoon has argued that in each of the issues
which have been the subject of this inquiry and which I identify
in the following sections, it is clear from the transcript that
he was referring to a period when he would no longer be a Member
of Parliament, either after Dissolution or to an even later time.
Issues subject to inquiry
i. Use of knowledge and contacts
408. Mr Hoon told the undercover reporter "indeed
one of the challenges, I think which I'm really looking forward
to is sort of translating my knowledge and contacts about the
sort of international scene into something that, bluntly, makes
money."[328]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
409. Mr Hoon says that when he referred to using
his knowledge and contacts around the international scene he was
referring to the fact that over the past 25 years he has developed
a good understanding of how international organisations operate,
including from time spent before he became a Member working in
the United States and on the continent, and as a barrister with
expertise in European law. He says he has been led to believe
that such experience might be of use in the commercial world.
He accepts that some of his statements were embarrassing, but
it was meant to be a private conversation.
ii. Offering to chair a company
410. Mr Hoon told the undercover reporter: "I'm
in negotiation with quite a big company at the moment, and basically
they're going to pay me I think ... a salary over the year of
3 or 4 days a month ... Of an amount like I find frankly embarrassing,
but I'm not going to say that."[329]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
411. Mr Hoon says that the "embarrassing"
amount of money referred to a figure suggested to him by a
head hunter as being the likely amount on offer from an overseas
company. Although the head hunter led Mr Hoon to believe that
this offer was to be made shortly, it had not materialised when
Mr Hoon wrote to me on 30 March. Mr Hoon says that in those circumstances
he had not yet contacted ACOBA, since no firm offer of appointment
or employment had been made. He says he would expect to do so
only if he had a firm offer of an appointment or employment from
the company itself.
iii. Leading a delegation to a Minister
412. Mr Hoon said that "I am quite happy
to give strategic advice
and in the right circumstances,
I don't mind leading a delegation in to seeing this Minister".[330]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid
advocacy. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and
Declaration.
413. Mr Hoon says that there could be times when
a director or a chairman of a company would meet a Minister. He
indicated to the reporter that "in the right circumstances"
he would be willing to help to arrange that, and he argues
that this statement referred only to work he might undertake when
he was no longer a Member of Parliament. But he made clear that
he did not want to be "some sort of a lobbyist".
iv. Access to Defence Ministers
414. Mr Hoon told the undercover reporter that "if
a former Minister asks to see the defence Minister
I don't
think there would be any difficulty". [331]
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
415. Mr Hoon says that he regrets that this was no
more than him showing off and trying to impress. He says it was
likely that as a former Secretary of State for Defence he could
get to meet with whoever happened to be in the position at the
time. But he would have to put forward a reason, and he does not
believe that could be based on any kind of representation of a
third party, unless that was in itself for legitimate reasons
unconnected with his former position.
v. Strategic Defence and Security Review
416. Having suggested
that one of her clients had raised the MOD's Defence Review[332]
and after a wider discussion, the undercover reporter asked Mr
Hoon how easy it would be, after the election, "to kind
of get a steer ... on where ... defence policy is going? Because
what's, what clients always seem to want is a kind of heads up."
He answered, "Yeah, yeah." The reporter then
referred to "What they should be bidding for"
and Mr Hoon said, "... it will take some time, but ...
I know some people on the team in the MOD who are working on this,
because they brief me about this." He continued, "So
... some of the people I see are doing both, they're both advising
me as to what the Government position is but also working separately
on the ... defence review." [333]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct: Confidential
information for financial gain. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct:
Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and
Declaration.
417. Mr Hoon says that he understood the interviewer's
question about giving a steer on "where ... defence policy
is going" to relate to the voluntary unpaid work that
he was doing on behalf of NATO.[334]
Mr Hoon says that the only information he had about the Defence
Review was from publicly available sources such as the recent
Green Paper, which he suggested the clients should read, although
it would not give them many clues. Mr Hoon also states that he
was at no stage given any specific briefing by MOD officials or
others about progress on the Defence Review. He denies that his
statements were intended to give the impression that he was offering
to give a steer on the defence review based on his contacts with
MOD officials working on that review as well as on the NATO defence
strategy.
418. Mr Hoon says that he did not have any financial
interests to declare to anyone at the MOD because he was not,
in terms of Paragraph 73 of the Guide to the Rules (2009 Edition)
"making representations to a Minister". His meetings
at the MOD were an opportunity for the officials to make
representations to him: the meetings were at their request and
for their benefit. Mr Hoon also says that he was not appointed
to the Group of Experts as a Member of Parliament. Mr Hoon says
that in any event at the time he had no sufficiently tangible
future financial benefit within the terms of Paragraph 73 to require
any declaration.
vi. NATO defence policy
419. Mr Hoon told the
undercover reporter: "I went to see a private equity fund
this morning ... one of the things that they do want me to do
is come back and maybe talk, in strategic terms ... About the
relationship ... between NATO at the higher level and National
Defence Policy, which is the strategic defence review, one down,
and how it actually all fits together. So I would be quite happy
to do that for your clients ... and I can actually talk about
it from, I mean in a sense I'm devising, I'm developing this policy,
so they will get a fairly accurate account of what's going on."[335]
420. Mr Hoon told the
reporter that he had seen someone in the City that morning:
"... it was a private equity company, they're floating off
a business ... I might well go and talk to some of their people
about Europe, about some of the regulator issues, some of the
legal issues that I'm familiar with, as well as defence policy
more generally which is what I've just been doing across the road..."[336]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct: Confidential
information for financial gain Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct:
Disrepute.
421. Mr Hoon says that the meeting with a private
equity firm was in the United Kingdom and was with a UK based
fund and had taken place the morning of his meeting with the undercover
reporter. He says he had not received any payment for attending
the meeting nor had he discussed any particular amount of money
for meeting them in the future. In his introductory meetings arranged
by a headhunter with other private equity firms, which had taken
place at other times, Mr Hoon says he was not in any way seeking
to trade on knowledge or information that was obtained confidentially.
Mr Hoon has noted that he was a qualified barrister and taught
European law at universities in the United Kingdom and the United
States before entering Parliament. Mr Hoon says that when he mentioned
a meeting "across the road" he was referring
to a lunch organised by the Latvian Ambassador at which he discussed
the work of the NATO Group of Experts of which he was then a member.
No fee for this was asked for or offered.
vii. Private Equity Briefing
422. Mr Hoon told the
undercover reporter, in relation to a private equity firm, that
"I might well go and talk to some of their people about
Europe, about some of the regulator issues, some of the legal
issues that I'm familiar with, as well as a defence policy more
generally ... So you know I might well go and spend a day with
them and they'll pay me a fee ..."[337]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
423. Mr Hoon describes
the language that he used here as clearly aspirational and he
says that his introductory meetings with private equity firms
have not led to anything specific.
viii. Defence policy document
424. Mr Hoon, referring to a document in his coat
pocket, said to the undercover reporter: "
this
is hot from the press, I've just got this from Washington. But
it's the kind of thing that I think if you had one or more defence
clients who really wanted to kind of understand where things are
going, then I'd be very happy to come and present that."
[338] Earlier in the
meeting Mr Hoon had told the reporter: "I carry around
with me a paper that we are working on now, and indeed I've just
written a paper for the National Defense University of Washington,
on how we see the development of [NATO] capabilities."[339]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct: Confidential
information for financial gain. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct:
Disrepute.
425. Mr Hoon says that the document referred to was
the near final version of an academic paper that he helped to
write with academics from the Washington National Defense University
about NATO defence capabilities. He says that it was written for
publication and has now been published online. He says that this
academic paper was to be the basis for that section of the Experts'
report dealing with NATO capabilities, again showing the public
nature of the process. Mr Hoon says that given that he had helped
to write the paper it was obviously not supplied in confidence.
ix. Bank business
426. Mr Hoon told the
undercover reporter of a possible job with a US investment bank,
of which he said: "They want to kind of build a business
around me, they want to expand into Europe."[340]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
427. Mr Hoon says that
the bank had said that they were interested in employing him but
before they could do so they wanted to recruit a senior and experienced
figure to work with him. Mr Hoon said that the expression "build
a business around me" was therefore an exaggeration.
He says that nothing had come of this idea.
x. Daily rate for consultancy and other
services £3,000 a day
428. Mr Hoon said to the reporter, in answer to a
question about his "daily rate": " I
mean I've been offered three thousand pounds for a day's work
... and ... that's about right".
Relevant rule of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration
and Declaration.
429. Mr Hoon says that this was a reference to an
offer he received from a television company of work after the
election.[341]
RT HON RICHARD CABORN: MY INQUIRIES
430. Following receipt of Mr Hands' complaint,[342]
I wrote to Mr Caborn on 31 March.[343]
I asked Mr Caborn to give me a full account of the circumstances
in which he had come to be interviewed by someone who turned out
to be a journalist. I also asked Mr Caborn to confirm whether,
as reported, he had said that:
- "There's a number of
ways in which you can influence or at least access Ministers,
whether it's a sector or an individual company, or what. And also
on policy as well";[344]
and if true, whether that should be interpreted as an offer
to influence or access Ministers once he had left the House. I
asked whether Mr Caborn had at any time influenced or accessed
Ministers on behalf of a sector or an individual company and,
if so, what the circumstances had been, and whether he had declared
his interest;
- he might be elevated to the House of Lords and,
if so, he would be able to help the fictitious company with "access
to people ... getting information".[345]
I asked whether, if true, this implied that he was offering to
the company as a Member of the Lords access to his contacts and
information;
- one of his clients, the Fitness Industry Association
(FIA), had "direct access" to health Ministers;[346]
and if true, he had arranged that access and, if so, what the
circumstances had been and whether Mr Caborn had declared his
interest in so doing;
- in respect of another of his clients, AMEC, "I
connect them in. If they want a reception in the House of Commons
and if they want ... to get advice from government, then I get
advice from government and I introduce them to people".[347]
I asked, if that was true, what receptions and meetings
Mr Caborn had set up for AMEC including any on the parliamentary
estate and whether on each occasion he had identified his interest;
- that he would be willing to help build relations
with civil servants after he had stood down and that it would
not be a problem to set up meetings with civil servants.[348]
I asked, if that was true, the basis on which Mr Caborn had made
these offers and whether he had at any time set up meetings with
civil servants on behalf of a client, and if so, what the circumstances
had been, and whether he had declared his interest;
- that he charged £2,500 a day for his services.
I asked Mr Caborn to confirm whether he had at any time been paid
£2,500 a day for consultancy or other services and, if so,
by whom and whether he had registered these payments.
431. I also asked what subsequent communications
Mr Caborn or his legal advisers had had with the reporters; whether,
if any of the allegations were true, Mr Caborn considered he had
an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration, or both,
and what action he had taken accordingly; and if any of what Mr
Caborn had said had been untrue, why he had spoken as he had done.
Finally, I told Mr Caborn that I was inviting the Channel 4 programme
makers to let me have his full interview.
432. Mr Caborn replied
on 19 April.[349] He
began by saying that in his 31 years in elected public office,
he had never taken any remuneration above that which was paid
for by the office he held. He continued, "It was only
when I announced my retirement from public office that I was approached
by a number of organisations enquiring what I would be doing when
I left the House of Commons." Mr Caborn said that he
had accepted a number of positions both paid and unpaid, in preparation
for his life outside Parliament. He said, "at no
time did I engage in any lobbying activity on behalf of any organisation
registered in my Declaration of Members' Interests."[350]
He also said, "For the record, all my activities that
should be cleared by the House authorities, have been cleared
and are fully recorded in the Members' Declaration of Interest".
Mr Caborn said that all the positions not so recorded, including
others referred to in the Sunday Times interview, were
voluntary positions he had accepted once he had announced his
retirement from Parliament.[351]
433. Mr Caborn said that
in his 27 years service to the House and Government he had worked
to develop a greater understanding between industry and government.
He said that this was a point he had made to the House on 29 March[352]
and in his submission to the Public Administration Committee on
8 May 2008.[353] Mr
Caborn commented, "On re-reading my evidence, my answer
to Question 585[354]
is particularly accurate with regards to the entrapment that the
Sunday Times tried to lure me into." His reason
for serving as a Trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust
(IPT) for 14 years had been to promote a greater understanding
and awareness of the activities of Parliament and industry. Mr
Caborn also said that, in the role of Trustee of the IPT, he had
given numerous talks to industry on the role of Parliament, its
back benchers and its committee structure, and on how Government
works with his experience of over 10 years as a Government Minister.
He commented that this was "Information I naively thought
the Sunday Times journalist was interested in, but went
on to totally distort what I had said".
434. Mr Caborn said that, following a number of calls
to his office requesting a meeting with a representative from
an American company, Anderson Perry, his secretary, having consulted
him, had organised this. Mr Caborn said that the person arranging
the meeting insisted on having it outside the House of Commons.
He commented, "I only became aware of this on the morning
of the interview. Whilst no alarm bells rang, I did find it unusual
as I normally have all the meetings in the House of Commons."
Mr Caborn said he still stood by his statement to the House
on 29 March that what had appeared in the Sunday Times
was "a fabrication of the information gained in the entrapment
with the sole intention to deliberately mislead."[355]
He continued, "I want to make it perfectly clear that
from the very start of the entrapment interview I told the reporter
that I was not making any decisions about my activities until
after the General Election when I would have left the House of
Commons." Mr Caborn commented, "The Sunday
Times made very serious allegations, which were not followed
up in the published story, of contract fixing, and influencing
legislation of which they said that they had evidence from the
interview, which I emphatically denied."
435. Mr Caborn said, in response to my question about
subsequent communications with the reporters, that his lawyers
had requested the information gathered from his interview, either
in tape or transcript form, on two occasions without success.
Mr Caborn said that he did not believe that any of the allegations
in the Sunday Times were true.
436. I did not continue my inquiries during the Dissolution
of the House. On the assembly of the new Parliament on 18 May,
I resumed my inquiry. I wrote on the same day to Mr Caborn, asking
him to help me further on the matters covered in his letter of
19 April, and in particular on the questions I had asked in my
letter of 31 March.[356]
437. I asked Mr Caborn what the undercover reporter
had originally told him (or his office) about the purpose of the
interview and why he had accepted her invitation. I asked him
to confirm the date of his interview. I also asked Mr Caborn what
paid positions or employment he had accepted while still a Member
of Parliament, with dates of acceptance and the dates when he
had made any necessary registration in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests. I noted that Mr Caborn had given me a general
answer to my questions, but that he had not addressed any of the
specific questions which I had asked him about the interview.
I asked him to provide me with specific answers to each of the
points I had raised. I said that, if he preferred, it would be
open to him to defer answering these questions until I had resolved
the matter of my request for the full transcript.
438. I also asked Mr Caborn for a specific answer
to my question as to whether he had at any time been paid £2,500
a day for consultancy or other services. I said that Mr Caborn's
reference to all his activities having been recorded in the Register
of Members' Financial Interests did not specifically answer that
question. I noted that Mr Caborn had referred to the speech he
had made in the House of Commons on 29 March 2010, and I said
I would include the relevant sections of the Official Report
in the written evidence.[357]
I asked him, if he wished me to take account of any information
in relation to his evidence to the Public Administration Committee,[358]
to send me a copy of the relevant sections so that I could include
them in the written evidence.
439. Mr Caborn wrote to me on 21 May. [359]
He asked me whether my request for his full interview included
both the audio and film recording which had been referred to in
the Sunday Times article, and he asked me to confirm that
he would have access to this information.
440. Mr Caborn told me
that he had understood that the meeting with Ms Claire Webster
was on behalf of an American company, Anderson Perry, who
were looking to locate and invest in the UK. He said that his
secretary had "googled" the company and provided
him with background briefing for the meeting, which had been held
on 10 March 2010. He said that he believed the date to be accurate
but "we have no means of checking back". He said
that his only paid position had been after he had announced his
intention in 2007 not to stand at the next General Election. He
had accepted two positions which had been cleared by the office
of ACOBA[360] and were
recorded in his acceptance letter to them dated 29 February 2008,[361]
and a letter of 6 March 2008 to the Registrar of Members' Financial
Interests.[362] He
said that he preferred to defer providing any detailed answers
until he received the tapes and film of the interview.
441. Mr Caborn told me
that his notional daily rates were £2,500 per day for AMEC
and £1,000 per day for the FIA. He said, "I
say 'notional' as a significant amount of time is required
in preparing for meetings, reading background papers and preparing
reports". This had all been "built into the daily
rate." He estimated that this was between two to three
days per fee paid day, and said that this was covered in the declaration
in the Registers of Members' Financial Interests.
442. I wrote to Mr Caborn on 24 May.[363]
In response to his letter of 21 May, I said that I would show
him anything I received from the production company in response
to my request for material of the full interview. I told Mr Caborn
that I remained unclear what the reporter had told him or his
office about what they had wanted to discuss with him. I said
that unless he provided me with further information, I would assume
that he had agreed to the meeting solely on the information that
there was an American company looking to locate and invest in
the UK. I said that I would assume that there had been no suggestion
at that stage that he would have any role in its activities.
443. I asked Mr Caborn to identify specifically the
paid positions he had accepted, the dates when he had accepted
them and when he had registered them, as I had requested in my
earlier letter.[364]
I asked Mr Caborn to let me have copies of the letters to which
he referred, including his exchange of correspondence with ACOBA,
so that I could enter them into the evidence.
444. I also asked Mr Caborn to identify the parts
of his evidence session with the Public Administration Committee
which he wished me to consider. Without that, I said that I would
need to come to my own view on whether the whole of his responses
in that session, or any other part of those responses, were relevant
to this inquiry.
445. On 27 May I received the certified transcripts
of Mr Caborn's conversations with the undercover reporter. The
transcript of Mr Caborn's meeting with the reporter had a paragraph
in block capitals in the note provided by the solicitor stating:
"NB The sound quality of this recording was
particularly poor with quite a lot of background noise (as the
venue is a hotel café) and so the accuracy of this transcript
is necessarily limited."
This paragraph was not included in the notes covering
the transcripts of other Members' meetings.
446. I wrote to Mr Caborn on 2 June, attaching the
transcripts of Mr Caborn's conversations.[365]
I asked him to help me with some further points. I said first
that Mr Caborn had referred in his initial telephone conversation
with Ms Webster, and at various points in his interview,
to his role as a non-executive director of Nuclear Management
Partners.[366] I asked
him to confirm that appointment and to let me know whether he
had considered registering it in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests. I also said that he had referred in a number of places
to his proposals for restructuring health and wellness services
in Sheffield, and to links with his friend who was Chair of the
Health Authority.[367]
I asked him to let me know whether he had linked this work to
his work as consultant to the Fitness Industry Association, and
whether the members of that Association had been likely to benefit
from those proposals. I also asked him to tell me whether, in
his contacts with Ministers and officials on the proposals, he
had made it clear that he was a paid consultant to FIA.
447. I drew Mr Caborn's attention to his references,
in various places in the transcript, to the work he had done with
AMEC and in setting up a consortium to bid for, and win, a major
contract.[368] I asked
him to tell me the dates when he had undertaken that work and
whether it had involved representations to Ministers or officials,
and if so, whether he had declared his interest. I referred Mr
Caborn to his comments about the regeneration of the company when
he said, "I revamped the whole structure."[369]
I asked him to confirm that this was an accurate statement
of the work he had undertaken for AMEC, and also to tell me how
this major task had been structured. I asked Mr Caborn whether
he was given assistance in the task, and how he had managed to
achieve it given his parliamentary duties.
448. I noted that in response to the question about
the kind of further expertise he would have been able to bring
if he were to be elevated to the House of Lords, Mr Caborn had
responded, "Well, access, access to people. You're in
the environment, you're moving around, you're doing it all the
time. That would give you a much wider view
that would
be a base
you're there all the time
Got access all
the time. Access to Ministers, you've got access to all the information
that's going around."[370]
I asked Mr Caborn whether it was reasonable to interpret those
statements as suggesting that as a Member of the House of Lords
he could secure access to Ministers for the company which was
retaining him on its advisory board.
449. I noted that, on getting a Minister to go out
for dinner, he had said, "I did it with AMEC, Samir Brikho,
their MD
he said to me: 'Why don't we bring academia,
producers
[the] Secretary of State for Energy and the one
for schools' and so I set all that up
I'd do it at Westminster
cos it's easier for them."[371]
I asked Mr Caborn whether he had set up for AMEC a dinner or dinners
in the Palace of Westminster, and if so, what had been the arrangements,
and whether he had declared a financial interest in booking the
facilities and sending out the invitations. I said to Mr Caborn
that he had implied that he had arranged a meeting with the Prime
Minister and the Energy Minister for the Managing Director of
AMEC. I asked him to confirm this and, if so, the arrangements
which he had made, including whether he had declared his interest
to the relevant Departments in setting up that meeting. Finally,
I asked Mr Caborn to confirm the date of the interview with the
undercover reporter.
450. Mr Caborn responded
to me on 8 June.[372]
He said that he did appreciate my efforts in obtaining the "rough
transcript", but asked whether it would be possible to
secure the tapes and the film referred to in the Sunday Times
article. He said he was informed that "rough transcripts
... do not always give the true picture. I believe that this is
the case in this instance and that for the sake of accuracy of
the full interview access to the tape and film would be helpful."
451. Turning to my questions in my letter of 24 May,[373]
Mr Caborn said that the issue of what the reporter had said about
what they wanted to discuss with him had now been cleared up with
the transcript of the telephone call to his office where "I
made it very clear I would not take on any further commitments
until after the General Election and then that would be conditional
on what my circumstances were at that time." [374]
Mr Caborn said that I had therefore been right to conclude
in my 24 May letter that that there was no suggestion at that
stage that he would have any role in its activities.
452. Mr Caborn attached the information I had requested
in my letter of 24 May[375]
in respect of the posts he had held. This included the clearance
letters from ACOBA,[376]
his letter of 29 February 2008[377]
informing ACOBA that it was his intention to accept the appointments[378]
and a copy of his letter of 6 March 2008 to the Registrar of Members'
Financial Interests.[379]
Mr Caborn said that he had taken up the position of a non-executive
Director of NMP in September 2008 and he had written to the Registrar
to amend his entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
He attached a letter to the Registrar of 9 October 2008.[380]
453. In answer to my request
in my letter of 24 May[381]
for him to identify the parts of his evidence session with the
Public Administration Select Committee on 8 May 2008 which he
wished me to consider, Mr Caborn had identified three areas: former
Ministers taking up outside appointments, covered in Questions
542-543 and 544; how the business appointment system could be
improved, Questions 548 and 585; and the difference between lobbying
and consultants and the interaction of business and industry with
Parliament and Government, Questions 554, 555, 560 and 562.[382]
He said that this gave his position on these issues which he
believed were consistent "with the way I conducted the
Sunday Times entrapment interview and are consistent with
the Rules of House."
454. Mr Caborn also provided
answers to the questions in my letter of 2 June.[383]
On his role as non-executive director of Nuclear Management Partners
(NMP), he said that this was covered in the documentation he had
already submitted. On the proposals for restructuring of the health
and welfare services in Sheffield, Mr Caborn said that no meetings
or contacts had been made with Ministers or officials. The idea
had been discussed with Mr David Stone, Chairman of the Sheffield
Heath Authority,[384]
at his request, a couple of weeks before the Sunday Times
"entrapment". "I raised the issues with
FIA at one of our regular meetings as I had with other organisations
who might be interested in the proposed project. This was an idea
very much in its infancy, but if in the future it was necessary
to make a declaration with my association with the FIA, I would
do so."
455. In answer to my question
about his work with AMEC, Mr Caborn said that from October 2007
to July 2008 he had advised AMEC and the other two partners in
the consortium on "trade union relations/socio economics
and local government issues surrounding the bid and AMEC on other
issues." He added that on no occasion had he spoken to
or consulted with Ministers or government officials, or any of
the directors or staff of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (the
body awarding the contract), on this issue.
456. On the regeneration
of AMEC, Mr Caborn said that he had been asked by the Board
of NMP to look at the delivery of socio economic policies.
"I reviewed the existing proposals and with other interested
partners at Sellafield and the wider community of West Cumbria
proposed a new structure which after discussions with all the
parties was accepted and is now operational in West Cumbria."
The work had been carried out on behalf of the Board
of the NMP and not just AMEC; it had been undertaken by staff
of the NMP and consultants under his direction. As to how he had
been able to do this work, given his parliamentary duties, Mr
Caborn said that, as he had just stepped down from being a Government
Minister, this released time which he used to take a number of
appointments both paid and unpaid. He said that his involvement
with the nuclear industry was of great importance and benefit
to his constituency, Sheffield Central, and that this was borne
out in letters he had submitted to me from the past Master Cutler
and the Director of Forgemasters.[385]
457. Mr Caborn also noted that at the dinner of 23
June 2008 to which he had referred during his interview,[386]
both the Managing Director of Forgemasters and the Vice Chancellor
of Sheffield University had been present and the issue of advanced
manufacturing and forging capacity had been discussed. He said
that in 2010, announcements were made on major investments by
the Government and Rolls Royce into the University-led Nuclear
Advanced Manufacturing Park in Sheffield. This was followed by
a Government announcement on a major investment into "what
possibly could be the world's largest forging press" at
Forgemasters in Sheffield. He said that his involvement at a number
of levels in the nuclear/manufacturing sector had had a beneficial
effect for his constituency and Sheffield.
458. As to the kind of further expertise he would
have been able to bring if he were to be elevated to the House
of Lords Mr Caborn said it would be wrong to interpret his statements
"as suggesting that as a Member of the House of Lords
you could secure access to Ministers for the company who retained
you on an advisory board." He said that he had neither
been offered nor accepted any position on an advisory board. "If
I had I would work as I have always done within the rules laid
down by the House." He had also made it clear from the
outset that if he was in the House of Lords he would spend time
on public policy areas of green energy/manufacturing and sport
and physical activity and the wellbeing agenda. Mr Caborn said
that this was borne out on a number of references in the transcript.
459. Mr Caborn said that the dinner of 23 June 2008
had not been set up for AMEC: "it was set up to facilitate
a discussion with academia, industry and government Ministers
on how they could work together to maximise the UK's advantage
on the building of the new nuclear power stations. AMEC were one
of the five industrialists present. AMEC paid for the dinner and
I declared on the booking form of the House of Commons, my financial
interest with AMEC, and all attending were told that AMEC had
paid for the dinner. "
460. Mr Caborn confirmed his statement as recorded
in the transcript about access to the Prime Minister by the Managing
Director of AMEC, Samir Brikho. [387]
He said that he was making the point that Chairmen of major companies
get access "as of right" to both the Prime Minister
and other Ministers. He said that he had never arranged one to
one meetings for Samir Brikho or any other industrialists with
the Prime Minister or any other Ministers.
461. I wrote to Mr Caborn on 9 June.[388]
I noted that he had asked if I could secure for him the tapes
and the film referred to in the Sunday Times article. I
said that the production company had provided a certified transcript
of both his telephone conversation on 16 February 2010 and of
his meeting with Claire Webster. I also noted that at the
start of the transcript, following the preparation of a rough
transcript from the production company, a solicitor had listened
to the audio recordings, corrected the transcript and certified
that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, the
transcript was accurate. As the statement had made clear, there
had been parts where a word or words had been inadudible, and
these parts had been identified.
462. I told Mr Caborn that I considered that the
production company had satisfactorily met my request. They had
provided evidence in a way which was appropriate for my inquiry.
I said that it was, of course, open to him to identify any part
of the transcript which he believed to have been inaccurately
transcribed. But given that I had received a certified transcript,
which I had shared fully with him, I did not believe it was necessary
for me to have the original audio or video in order to be able
fairly to conduct this inquiry.
463. I said that although some of Mr Caborn's responses
touched on the same issues, he had not yet responded to the specific
questions which I had put to him in my letter to him of 31 March.[389]
I had referred to these again in my letter to him of 18 May.[390]
I asked Mr Caborn, therefore, if he could let me have a response
to these points, taking account as necessary of the transcript
of his interview.
464. Mr Caborn responded
to me on 16 June.[391]
He said that he had concerns that major parts of the transcript
were missing, and he pointed out that the transcript time sequence
went from 00.55.51 to 00.54.26 on the next page. He said that
while the transcript had recorded his comments at 01.34.33 as
"INAUDIBLE", he had said at the beginning of
that paragraph that he was speaking as the former Minister of
Trade and Industry, which he said "totally changed
the meaning of the paragraph."[392]
465. Mr Caborn said that
at 01.40.12 in the transcript, following the undercover reporter's
comment, "I'm sure we can work something out ...",
the transcript rendered his reply as "Alright INAUDIBLE".
Mr Caborn said that he had said, "Alright would you please
put it down in writing so that I can consider any proposition
after the Election." Mr Caborn said that "Again
this puts the script into a totally different context".
466. On his statements about the number of ways to
influence or at least access Ministers, Mr Caborn said that, in
respect of his time as a Minister, he endorsed the FIA's statement
to the Sunday Times that they had gained access
to all types of people, including Ministers, as an organisation.
During his time as a Minister, Mr Caborn said that he had met
many organisations, including the FIA. He said that the second
part of this section of the transcript, if the inaudible sentences
had been transcribed, would have been a reference to the workings
of the Select Committees and how they influenced both Ministers
and policy. Mr Caborn said that his statement was an explanation
of how the system worked, not an offer to influence or access
Ministers either before or when he had left the House, and that
he had never accessed Ministers or influenced Ministers through
lobbying.
467. As to whether he was offering access to Ministers
if he became a Member of the House of Lords, Mr Caborn said that
he had answered this question in his letter to me of 8 June.[393]
Mr Caborn also said that he had never arranged access to Health
Ministers or any other Ministers for the FIA. In response to my
question about his statement "I connect them in",
Mr Caborn referred me to the relevant parts of the transcript,
where he had said, "Oh, AMEC... (...INAUDIBLE...) when
I go down to South Africa, I know the Minister of Energy there
people there, I fix their people together and we met the Minister
of Energy out there cause they've got one nuclear power station.
(...INAUDIBLE...) And so I connect them in, if they want a reception
in the House of Commons and if they want erm to get advice from
Government then I get advice from Government and I introduce them
to people."[394]
He said that he had been referring to the South African Government
and the South African Minister for Energy. This was part of the
inaudible part of the transcript.
468. Mr Caborn said that
he had always declared receptions and meetings with AMEC and other
organisations within the rules laid down by the House Authorities.
As to his statement that he would be willing to help build relations
with civil servants after he had stood down and that it would
not be a problem to set up meetings with civil servants, Mr Caborn
said that he was speaking about the time when he was a Minister.
He said, "The transcript is very confusing and it moves
from 55.55.51 to 54.26 of which there is no continuity in the
transcript. But ... I have not set up any meetings with civil
servants on behalf of any clients."
469. Mr Caborn said that the allegations made by
the Sunday Times were untrue and unfounded, as he had told
the House on the 29 March;[395]
and that the allegations of lobbying by Mr Greg Hands MP in his
letter to me were also untrue.[396]
He said that he had made entries in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests, and that he had sent me all the evidence
relating to this in previous correspondence. He said that all
his statements as set out in the transcript supplied were true
and if a full transcript were provided, this would show the correct
context in which they were made.
470. I wrote to Mr Caborn
on 23 June, seeking more factual information about the receptions,
dinners and meetings he had arranged on behalf of AMEC and the
FIA when he had been paid by them.[397]
In particular I noted that he had said in his letter of 16 June[398]
that "regarding receptions and meetings with AMEC and
other organisations, I have always declared them within the rules
laid down by the House." I said I had noted from the
parliamentary website that Mr Caborn had sponsored receptions
or dinners on the parliamentary estate for the FIA on 5 July 2007
and 3 December 2008, and for AMEC on 23 June 2008 and 11 May 2009.
I attached the relevant extract from the published list of events
and functions bookings.[399]
I asked him to tell me the form in which he had declared his interest
in these events and in any others which he had sponsored on behalf
of any organisation which had provided him with remuneration,
noting that declaration was a separate requirement from registration.
I also asked, in respect of these events, whether he had, or could
ask the funding organisation to produce, copies of the invitations.
I noted that Members were required to identify their interest
on the invitation and I said that I needed to check on this.
471. Mr Caborn replied to me on 1 July.[400]
He told me that he had not arranged any meetings or receptions
for AMEC and the FIA whilst he was being paid by them. He had
arranged dinners paid for by both the organisations. The reception
on 5 July 2007 for the FIA, listed in the enclosure to my letter
of 23 June,[401] had
taken place before he had become a consultant for the FIA. He
told me that he had registered his interest in the FIA in February
2008 after it had been cleared by the office of the Advisory Committee
on Business Appointments.
472. Mr Caborn said that the AMEC dinner at the House
of Commons on 23 June 2008 had been his initiative "designed
to bring industry, academia and Government together to discuss
the New Build Programme for Nuclear Power Stations." He
said he had asked AMEC to sponsor that dinner; his office had
arranged the guest list with the universities and industry and
had sent out the invitations. Mr Caborn said that his interest
in AMEC had been registered in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests and he had declared his interest in AMEC in the booking
form of the Banqueting Department of the House. He told me that
he had thanked the eleven people who had attended the dinner in
his winding up remarks and AMEC had been thanked for hosting the
dinner.
473. Mr Caborn said that
the invitations to the dinner for the FIA on 3 December 2008 had
been sent out by the FIA and had named him as the sponsor for
the event. He said that his interest in the FIA had been recorded
in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Mr Caborn attached
a copy of an invitation sent by another Member to an FIA event
which was similar in type to the one used for the event.[402]
He said that he had checked the banqueting form in the House of
Commons and noted that the form did not record his financial interest.
He said that his office might have thought that the FIA sending
out the invitation covered this: "Clearly this was an
oversight on my part and if it is a mistake, I take full responsibility."
474. Mr Caborn said that guests at the AMEC dinner
of 11 May 2009 had been invited by him from among those who had
attended the AMEC Terrace Reception. His interest in AMEC had
been declared in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
and he made a declaration on the booking form. He said that the
eleven people who had attended the dinner had been mentioned in
his winding up remarks and thanked for attending, as were AMEC
for sponsoring the evening.
475. I wrote to Mr Caborn
on 6 July.[403] In
relation to the FIA reception of 5 July 2007, I noted that he
had not registered his position as a consultant to the FIA until
February 2008. I asked him whether, at the time of the reception
in July 2007, he had had a reasonable expectation that he would
be appointed a consultant and, therefore, that a financial benefit
would accrue to him from the FIA. I referred him to paragraph
73 of the Guide to the Rules.[404]
476. In respect of the FIA dinner on 3 December 2008
I said that I had noted that, for the reasons he had given me,
he had not declared his interest on the booking form. I said that
I noted, too, that the FIA invitation, which I understood followed
the format of the invitation he had sent me from another Member,
did not identify the Member as a paid consultant to the association.
I said that I would need in due course to check this with the
House authorities.
477. I also raised with Mr Caborn questions concerning
the AMEC dinners of 23 June 2008 and 11 May 2009. I said that
I noted that he had declared his interest on the booking form
for both occasions, and that he had thanked AMEC for hosting the
event. I asked Mr Caborn to confirm that, to the best of his knowledge,
there had been no reference to his paid consultancy for AMEC on
any invitation which had been sent out for either event. I also
asked him to confirm that he did not refer to his paid consultancy
in his winding-up remarks at either event.
478. I said that I noted that the guests invited
for dinner for 11 May 2009 had attended an AMEC Terrace reception.
I told Mr Caborn that I had not identified this from the published
list of events and function bookings made by him and noted that
he had told me in his letter of 1 July[405]
that he had arranged no such reception for AMEC when he was being
paid by them. I asked Mr Caborn whether he had in fact sponsored
and booked this reception and, if so, the date of the event, whether
he had declared his interest on the booking form, and whether
his interest had been noted on the invitation. I also asked Mr
Caborn to confirm that he had arranged no receptions, meetings
or dinners with or for any other body or organisation which had
also provided him with remuneration.
479. Mr Caborn replied on 9 July.[406]
He said that before he had resigned as a Minister on 27 June 2007,
and between 27 June and 5 July 2007, he had had no discussions
with any person or organisation, including the FIA, about any
paid position.
480. Mr Caborn said that
he had nothing further to add to the information he had given
me before in respect of the FIA dinner of 3 December 2008, except
to reiterate that he had registered his financial interests with
the FIA and that he had clearly stated on the booking form that
the event had been for the FIA. He told me that he had sent out
invitations with his name as the sponsor and that his mistake
on the booking form was an oversight. He said, "in no
way was I trying to deceive."
481. Mr Caborn told me,
in respect of the AMEC dinner on 23 June 2008, that his registration
of his financial interest, declaration on the House of Commons
Booking Form and the thanks he had given to AMEC for sponsoring
the dinner were "sufficient to comply with the House Rules."
No formal invitations had been sent out. He had not referred to
his paid consultancy once, as "I believed I had complied
with both the spirit and intention of the House Rules."
482. Mr Caborn said that I was correct in believing
he had not arranged the 11 May 2009 reception for AMEC. He told
me that he understood that this had been arranged by another MP.
Mr Caborn said that he had taken the opportunity to invite to
the dinner a number of guests who had attended the reception.
No formal invitations had been sent out for the dinner and some
of the guests had been invited on the night.
483. Mr Caborn confirmed that he had not arranged
meetings, receptions or dinners for any other bodies or organisations,
as there had been no other bodies that had remunerated him. He
said that he had arranged many other functions for charitable
and sporting bodies for which he had received no payment.
484. On 14 July I wrote to the Director of Catering
and Retail Services at the House.[407]
I asked her to let me have a copy of the booking form for the
dinner for the FIA sponsored by Mr Caborn on 3 December 2008.
I asked the Director to confirm whether Mr Caborn had been in
breach of the rules in not identifying on that form that he had
been paid by the FIA. I also asked her whether in her opinion
the House of Commons Banqueting Terms and Conditions had required
Mr Caborn to identify his financial interests on the invitation,
or whether the format he had used was acceptable within the rules.
485. I noted that Mr Caborn had also sponsored dinners
on 23 June 2008 and 11 May 2009 for the construction company AMEC,
for whom he was a paid consultant. I asked the Director for copies
of the booking forms for the two AMEC dinners and sought her advice
on whether the identification of AMEC as the sponsor in Mr Caborn's
speech at each event had been sufficient to meet his obligations
in identifying his financial interests under the banqueting rules
of the House, or whether Mr Caborn should have drawn to attendees'
attention his financial interest in AMEC.
486. The Director of Catering and Retail Services
wrote to me on 27 August.[408]
She attached a copy of the Private Dining Confirmation forms for
the FIA dinner on 3 December 2008.[409]
The Director noted that the Department had received two booking
forms, each of which was only partially completed. One form had
been completed and returned directly to the House's Banqueting
Office by FIA as organiser of the event, clearly naming the event
as "Fitness Industry Association Vanguard Dinner"
and advising contact and billing details. The Director said
that, on that form, the Sponsor's section was marked "already
completed" and "N/A", and although the
questions for the sponsor had been answered, this had been crossed
out prior to FIA forwarding the form to the Banqueting Office.
She said that the second form left blank the section headed "Organiser
to Complete", so made no reference to the name of the
event, and the Sponsor's section clearly stated "no"
in response to the question "do you have a declarable
interest relating to your sponsorship of this function?"
The Director said that this form was signed by Mr Caborn.
487. The Director noted
the requirements in respect of declaration of Members' interests
which were among the terms and conditions of booking for the House
banqueting service.[410]
The Director continued that if Mr Caborn was paid by the
FIA, she would have expected him to respond "Yes"
to the relevant question on the booking form. She also said that
the Private Dining Confirmation Form specifically stated that,
if applicable, "Relevant registered interest declared"
must be stated on the invitation to the event. This was also
clearly stated in the banqueting terms and conditions.[411]
She told me, "In my opinion, it is not adequate to merely
display the organiser's logo on the invitation, as this in itself
gives no indication of whether or not the sponsoring MP has any
declarable interest in the event."
488. The Director also
attached copies of the Private Dining Confirmation Forms for the
two dinners hosted by Mr Caborn on 23 June 2008 and 11 May 2009
for AMEC.[412] She
noted that both forms were signed and dated by Mr Caborn, who
had clearly confirmed that he did have a declarable interest relating
to his sponsorship of the function. The Director said that the
Note to Sponsors printed on the booking form instructing that
"Relevant registered interest declared" must
be stated on the invitation to the event had, thus, been applicable
in both instances. If no formal invitations had been issued for
these events, that did not remove the responsibility of Mr Caborn,
as sponsor, to overtly and specifically declare to attendees that
he had a relevant interest relating to his sponsorship of the
dinner.
489. I replied to the
Director on 2 September.[413]
I noted from the confirmation forms for the FIA dinner on 3 December
2008 Mr Caborn had signed but not dated the form he submitted
and there was no signature or date on the one from the FIA, although
there was a fax line which suggested that it was sent on 31 December
2006. I asked the Director whether the Department had any record
of when these forms were received by it.
490. The Director of Catering and Retail Services
wrote to me on 6 September, confirming that her Department had
recorded receipt of the signed event confirmation form in respect
of the Fitness Industry Association dinner from Mr Caborn on 23
October 2008 and the completed form for the same dinner from the
Fitness Industry Association on or around 4 November 2008.[414]
Thus both forms had been received prior to the event. She said
that the fax date of 31 December 2006 printed on the form sent
by the FIA could not be correct, as the Department did not accept
bookings for events more than 18 months in advance.
491. On 7 September I wrote to Mr Caborn.[415]
I said that I had now heard back from the Department. I asked
him, since I understood from his evidence that no written invitations
had been sent out for either of the AMEC dinners, to address the
implication of the Department's advice, which was that he should
have made a specific reference to his registrable interest in
the speeches which he gave at both events.
492. Mr Caborn wrote to me on 10 September.[416]
He said that he had little to add in respect of the AMEC dinners
to the comments he made in the letter of 1 July.[417]
No invitations had been sent out, and the dinners for AMEC referred
to were small. He said that he had thanked AMEC for sponsoring
the dinners; most if not all attendees knew of his consultancy
with AMEC but he could not recall specifically spelling that out
at either of the two dinners.
493. On the FIA Dinner
on 3 December 2008, he noted the information sent from the Facilities
Department. He said that "Unlike the AMEC dinners, where
both the single booking forms were sent through my office in the
House of Commons, for some reason the FIA Dinner had two booking
forms, one sent by my office and the other by the FIA. Why that
was, I do not know, but may go some way in explaining why my office
thought all the relevant information had been sent by the FIA
to the banqueting department clearly that did not give the correct
information to the banqueting office and for which I take full
responsibility."
494. Mr Caborn said that
on the question of notifying those present at the FIA dinner of
his consultancy with them, "I thought that my registration
in the Members' Register of Interest, my name on the invitation,
my thanks to the FIA for sponsoring the dinner in my closing speech,
covered the House rules. Clearly now that it is brought to my
attention, I should have made specific reference to it, to have
totally complied with the rules."
495. I wrote to Mr Caborn on 13 September.[418]
I asked him whether his office sent out invitations to the AMEC
dinner held on 23 June 2008. I noted that in his letter of 1 July,[419]
he said that he thought at that stage that his office had sent
the invitations for that dinner. But I said that Mr Caborn had
told me in his letter of 10 September,[420]
as he had also said in his letter of 9 July,[421]
that no invitations had been sent out since they were small dinners.
496. Mr Caborn wrote to me on 15 September.[422]
He said that no formal invitations were sent out for the dinner
on 23 June 2008 sponsored by AMEC. "My office sent out
letters to some of the invitees and that is the reference in the
1 July letter. The letter was as much to inform those invitees
of the reason for the dinner ie in discussions about nuclear new
build, as the arrangements for the dinner. Some invites were sent
out by the Sheffield University Vice Chancellor who selected the
University invitees. Industry representatives at the dinner were
similarly invited, some by my office, some by other invitees."
497. I wrote to Mr Caborn on 16 September.[423]
I said I had noted that letters of invitation for the AMEC dinner
on 23 June 2008 had been sent out to some of those he had invited
(presumably orally) and some invitations were sent out by the
Vice Chancellor of Sheffield University. I asked Mr Caborn to
confirm that none of the letters or Sheffield University invitations
declared his registered interest.
498. Mr Caborn wrote to me on 20 September.[424]
Mr Caborn said that he initiated and organized the dinner for
industrialists, academics and Ministers which was sponsored by
AMEC at his request. He confirmed that I was correct to assume
that these invitations did not declare his registered interest.
FINDINGS OF FACT
499. In February 2010 Mr Caborn's office received
an approach from the undercover reporter claiming to represent
Anderson Perry. During an initial telephone conversation, Mr Caborn
and the undercover reporter agreed to a meeting, which took place
on 10 March 2010.
500. Mr Caborn has expressed serious concerns about
the method used to produce the interview and about the extent
of what he believes to be missing and inaudible sections of the
transcript. Mr Caborn has pointed out that the transcript nevertheless
shows that he made it clear throughout his discussion with the
undercover reporter that he was not making any decisions about
his activities until after the General Election, when he would
have left the House of Commons. He explained to the undercover
reporter that he was uncertain about his activities, since he
did not know if he would be elevated to the House of Lords in
the Dissolution honours.
501. Mr Caborn has drawn attention to the statement
he made in the House on 29 March 2010[425]
and the evidence he gave to the Public Administration Select Committee
on 8 May 2008.[426]
In his evidence to that Select Committee, he explained why he
thought it desirable for Members to have outside employment in
order to help bring industry and Parliament together. He told
the House on 29 March 2010 that, in his 27 years in Parliament,
including the 14 years he spent as a Trustee of the Industry and
Parliament Trust, he had worked to bring together universities,
Government and industry in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
Issues subject to inquiry
i. Accessing Ministers
502. Mr
Caborn told the undercover reporter: "There's a number
of ways in which you can ... influence or at least access Ministers,
whether it's a sector or an individual company, or what. And also
on policy as well."[427]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid
advocacy.
Mr Caborn says that his comments represented an explanation
of how the system works, not an offer to influence or access Ministers
on behalf of clients either before or after he left the House.
He says that he never accessed Ministers or influenced Ministers
through lobbying.
ii. House of Lords
503. Mr Caborn told the
undercover reporter: "there's a possibility I will be
in the House of Lords..." Asked by the reporter what
kind of further expertise he would bring if he were to be in
the Lords, Mr Caborn said, "Access to Ministers, you've
got access to all the information that's going around ..."[428]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
504. Mr Caborn says that if he were to be elevated
to the House of Lords he would work as he always had done within
the Rules laid down by the House.
iii. Fitness Industry Association: Ministerial
Access
505. Mr Caborn told the
undercover reporter in respect of one of his clients, the Fitness
Industry Association (FIA): "like the FIA, I mean we get
direct access to Ministers, particularly Health Ministers. I was
a Minister when I was working with them, I was Minister of Sport
and I worked with the FIA to try to encourage them to get on board
much more".[429]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration
and Declaration
506. Mr Caborn says that he has never arranged any
access for Health Ministers or any other Ministers for the FIA.
Mr Caborn says that when he was a Minister he met many organisations,
including the FIA.
iv. AMEC
Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter, in respect
of one of his clients, AMEC, that "when I go down to South
Africa, I know the Minister of Energy there people there, I fix
their people together and we met the Minister of Energy out there
cause they've got one nuclear power station. (...INAUDIBLE...)
And so I connect them in, if they want a reception in the House
of Commons and if they want erm to get advice from Government
then I get advice from Government and I introduce them to people."
[430]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the
Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct:
Disrepute.
507. Mr Caborn says that he was referring to the
South African Government and the South African Minister for Energy.
He says that the statement was true about South Africa, and a
meeting with the South African Energy Minister. AMEC access to
the House of Commons is referred to below.
v. Relationships with civil servants
508. Mr Caborn told the
undercover reporter, in answer to her question whether it would
be a problem to set up meetings with civil servants: "Oh
no. I mean I set loads of meetings up when I was Minister".[431]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
509. Mr Caborn says that he was speaking about the
time he was a Minister. He says that he has not set up any meetings
with civil servants on behalf of any clients.
vi. Health and wellness services: Sheffield
510. Mr Caborn told me in evidence that he had a
meeting with the Chairman of the Sheffield Health Authority about
proposals for restructuring health and wellness services in Sheffield.[432]
He told the undercover reporter: "You are looking at a
fairly big scheme changing. You're looking at very, very much
in its infancy. The Chairman of the Health Authority, who is a
friend of mine who I have known for many years ... So what we
are looking at is zoning the whole of Sheffield ... to look at
whether we can actually move the whole cultural agenda to prevention
rather than cure ... I have been advising the FIA ... They're
looking to use their assets more effectively, because they are
the peer groups of a new organisation."
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Registration and Declaration.
511. Mr Caborn says that no meetings or contacts
on this issue were arranged with Ministers or officials. The idea
had been discussed with the Chairman of the Sheffield Heath Authority
at his request a couple of weeks before the meeting with the undercover
reporter. Mr Caborn says that he raised the issues with FIA at
one of their regular meetings as he had with other organisations
who might be interested in the proposed project. He says that
this was an idea very much in its infancy, but that if in the
future it was necessary to make a declaration regarding his association
with the FIA, he would do so.
vii. AMEC contract
512. Mr Caborn referred
in the meeting with the undercover reporter to the work he did
with AMEC in setting up a consortium to bid for, and win, a major
contract to clean up and to look at all reprocessing of the fuel
at Sellafield. He said: "AMEC said to me, when I had finished
he came to me and he said would I advise them what to do, with
a consortium, so I said fine, yeah I advised them ... we won it,
we won the contract." [433]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid
advocacy. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and
Declaration.
513. Mr Caborn says that from October 2007 to July
2008 he advised AMEC and the other two partners in a consortium
bidding for a contract to be awarded by the Nuclear Decommissioning
Agency. He gave advice on trade union relations/socio economic
and local government issues surrounding the bid. He also advised
AMEC on other issues. On no occasion did he speak to or consult
with Ministers or government officials on this issue and neither
did he contact any of the Directors or staff of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Agency.
viii. AMEC structural revamp
514. Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter in respect
of his work for AMEC: "I set up the whole regeneration
of the company, because they had a commitment to socioeconomic
development and I did not like the structure so I revamped the
whole structure..."[434]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
515. Mr Caborn says that his statement to the undercover
reporter was accurate but the work was carried out on behalf of
the Board of NMP and not just AMEC. Mr Caborn says that he was
asked by the Board of Nuclear Management Partners to look at the
delivery of the socio economic policies associated with the company.
He says that the task was undertaken by staff of the NMP and consultants
under his direction. He also says that his involvement with the
nuclear industry, especially manufacturing, was of great importance
and benefit to his constituency of Sheffield Central.
ix. Fitness Industry Association reception
in the House on 5 July 2007
516. Mr Caborn booked a reception in the House on
behalf of the Fitness Industry Association (FIA). The event was
funded by the FIA. Mr Caborn did not declare an interest in the
FIA on the booking form.
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Use of Facilities and Registration and Declaration. Terms and
conditions of the House banqueting service.
517. Mr Caborn says that the 5 July reception took
place before he became a consultant for the FIA. He was a Minister
until the end of June 2007 and he had no expectation of being
appointed by the FIA. He first registered his interest in the
FIA in the Register of Members' Financial Interests in February
2008 after his consultancy had been cleared by the office of the
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
x. AMEC dinner in the House on 23 June
2008
518. Mr Caborn told the
undercover reporter in answer to a question about how easy it
was to get a Minister to go out for dinner, "I did it
with AMEC, Samir Brikho, their MD
he said to me: 'Why
don't we bring academia, producers
the Secretary of State
for Energy and the one for schools'
and so I set all
that up
I'd do it at Westminster because it's easier for
them."[435]
519. Mr Caborn's evidence
is that AMEC funded this dinner. Mr Caborn declared his interest
in AMEC on the booking form. No formal invitations were sent out,
although some letters were sent out to invitees to inform them
of the reasons for the dinner; these did not declare Mr Caborn's
paid consultancy with AMEC. Mr Caborn thanked AMEC for sponsoring
the dinner in his winding up remarks, but made no reference to
his paid consultancy for them.
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Use of Facilities and Registration and Declaration. Terms and
conditions of the House banqueting service.
520. Mr Caborn says he initiated the dinner of 23
June 2008 to facilitate a discussion with academia, industry and
Government Ministers on how they could work together to maximise
the UK's advantage on the building of the new nuclear power stations.
He says that AMEC were one of the five industrialists present.[436]
521. The Director of Catering and Retail Services
says that if no formal invitations were issued for this event,
this did not remove the responsibility of Mr Caborn, as Sponsor,
overtly and specifically to declare to attendees that he had a
relevant interest relating to his sponsorship of the dinner.
xi. FIA dinner in the House on 3 December
2008
522. Mr Caborn booked a dinner in the House on 3
December 2008 on behalf of and funded by the FIA. The booking
form did not record Mr Caborn's financial interest as a paid consultant
to the FIA. The FIA sent out the invitations for the dinner, and
these did not record Mr Caborn's paid consultancy. Mr Caborn did
not tell guests at the dinner that he was a paid consultant with
the FIA, although he thanked the FIA for sponsoring the event.
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraphs 14 and 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Use of Facilities and Registration and Declaration. Terms and
conditions of the House banqueting service.
523. Mr Caborn said that the mistake on the booking
form was an oversight. He was not trying to deceive. For reasons
which are not now clear, one booking form was sent to the Refreshment
Department by the FIA. Mr Caborn considers that that might explain
why his office thought all the relevant information had been sent
by the FIA to the banqueting department. Mr Caborn says that his
office may have thought that the FIA sending out the invitation
satisfied the requirement to declare his financial interest.
Mr Caborn accepts that this was clearly an oversight on his part
and if there was a mistake, he takes full responsibility.
524. Mr Caborn says that he thought that his registration
in the Members' Register of Interests, his name on the invitation,
and the thanks he gave in his closing speech to the FIA for sponsoring
the dinner, satisfied the House rules. Now that the omission has
been brought to his attention, he considers that he should have
made specific reference to the sponsorship, to have complied totally
with the rules.
xii. AMEC dinner in the House on 11 May
2009
525. Mr Caborn booked a further dinner in the House
on behalf of AMEC; this dinner took place on 11 May 2009. He declared
his interest on the booking form for this dinner. There was no
formal invitation for this dinner. Mr Caborn thanked AMEC for
sponsoring the dinner in his winding up remarks, but made no reference
to his paid consultancy for them.
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraphs
14 and 16 of the Code of Conduct: Use of Facilities and Registration
and Declaration. Terms and conditions of the House banqueting
service.
526. Mr Caborn says that guests at the dinner were
invited by him from those who had attended an AMEC Terrace Reception
on the same day. He says that he thanked AMEC for sponsoring the
dinner, which was small, and that most of those attending knew
of his consultancy for AMEC but he cannot recall specifically
spelling that out.
527. The Director of Catering and Retail Services
says that if no formal invitations were issued for this event,
this does not remove the responsibility of Mr Caborn, as Sponsor,
to declare to attendees that he had a relevant interest relating
to his sponsorship of the dinner.
xiii. AMEC meeting with Prime Ministers
Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter, "If
Samir Brikho wants to see the Prime Minister, Samir Brikho sees
the Prime Minister."[437]
In answer to the question from the reporter "And do you
help him arrange that or does he do that?" Mr Caborn
answered: "Yes I do it ..."[438]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the
Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct:
Registration and Declaration.
528. Mr Caborn says that he was making the point
that chairmen of major companies get access as of right to both
the PM and Ministers. He says he never arranged one to one meetings
for Samir Brikho or any other industrialists with the Prime Minister
or any other Ministers.
xiv. Payments
Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter that his current
clients "pay me two and a half thousand pounds a day."[439]
Relevant rule of the House: Paragraph
16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration
529. Mr Caborn says that the notional daily rate
for his work with AMEC was £2,500 per day and £1,000
per day for the FIA. He says that he uses the word "notional"
as a significant amount of time is required in preparing for
meetings, reading background papers and preparing Reportsthis
was all built into the daily rate. Mr Caborn estimates that these
days amounted to between two to three days per fee paid day. He
says that all this was fully covered in his entry in the Registers
of Members' Financial Interests.
RT HON ADAM INGRAM: MY INQUIRIES
530. I wrote to Mr Ingram, who was also the subject
of Mr Hands' complaint,[440]
on 31 March.[441] I
asked Mr Ingram to give me a full account of the circumstances
in which he had come to be interviewed by someone who turned out
to be a journalist. I also asked Mr Ingram to confirm a number
of particular statements he had been reported as having made during
that interview, and whether each such statement had been true.
The statements concerned were:
- that Mr Ingram had said, "There's
going to be a lot of ex-Ministers
and they then become
a point of contact in the political network. 'Who do you know
in that Department? Who can you suggest to talk to?' And that
becomes a point of contact. So all of that can be established"[442]
and, if true, what he had meant in apparently suggesting a
network of former Ministers who could be used to arrange contacts;
- that Mr Ingram had said that "It's worth
it, sometimes cultivating a Minister
but decision-makers
really
are the civil service structure, because they do
all the definition of how you're going to deliver on a particular
project. They draw up invitations to tender, they then make all
the recommendations which may not cross the Minister's desk";[443]
- that he had said that he had good contacts with
civil servants from his time as a Minister[444]
and, if true, what Mr Ingram had had in mind in making this statement;
if he had ever had contacts with civil servants on behalf of a
client; and if so, what the circumstances had been and whether
he had declared his interest;
- that Mr Ingram was helping to put together a
consortium to bid for work that the Ministry of Defence outsources
to private companies[445]
and, if true, whether he had been paid for these services and
whether they had involved him in contacts with Ministers or civil
servants and, if so, what the circumstances had been and whether
Mr Ingram had declared an interest;
- that Mr Ingram had been involved in two British
firms which were helping to create a defence academy in Libya[446]
and, if true, what the circumstances had been, whether he had
been paid or expected to be paid for these services, and whether
they had involved him in meetings with Ministers or civil servants
on behalf of the clients and, if so, what the circumstances had
been and whether Mr Ingram had declared his interest;
- whether Mr Ingram had arranged for another firm
to supply the Libyan academy's teachers[447]
and, if so, what the circumstances had been, whether he had been
paid for these services, whether they had involved meetings with
Ministers and civil servants on behalf of his client and, if so,
whether Mr Ingram had declared an interest; and
- that Mr Ingram had said that he was paid £1,500
a day for his consultancy work[448]
and, if so, what payments Mr Ingram had received from his clients
at this level and whether he had registered all of those payments.
531. I also asked Mr Ingram to confirm what subsequent
communications he or his legal advisers had had with the reporters;
whether, if any of the allegations were true, Mr Ingram considered
he had an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration,
or both, in respect of any financial interest he had in these
alleged activities and what action he had taken accordingly; and
if any of what Mr Ingram had said had been untrue, why he had
spoken as he had done. Finally, I told Mr Ingram that I was inviting
the Channel 4 programme makers to let me have his full interview.
532. I did not continue my inquiries during the Dissolution
of the House. On the assembly of the new Parliament on 18 May,
I resumed my inquiry. On 27 May I received the certified transcripts
of Mr Ingram's conversations with the undercover reporter. I wrote
to Mr Ingram on 2 June, attaching the transcripts.[449]
533. I asked Mr Ingram to provide me with a list
of the companies which he had worked for in 2009-10, and for confirmation
that these had been fully registered in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests. I noted that in the transcript Mr Ingram
referred to his work for EDS. He said that "my arrangement
with them is that I would only do work on an MP and then it would
probably come to the end of the arrangement."[450]
I noted that he had suggested that he was meeting the "new
people" shortly to talk through whether they wanted him
to continue. I asked Mr Ingram why he had expected to stop this
work once he was no longer a Member of Parliament, and whether
that was an appointment linked to his membership of the House.
If so, I asked him to confirm that he had taken the appropriate
steps in registering that in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests.
534. I noted that during the meeting with the undercover
reporter he had discussed the identification of former civil servants
who, I assumed, might join the proposed advisory board.[451]
I asked Mr Ingram to explain how, as a Member of Parliament, he
had maintained his relationships with civil servants, and whether
he had done so in order to recommend them for future employment
opportunities once they had left the civil service. I also noted
that in the transcript he was recorded as confirming that he would
work with the company to help them develop relationships with
Ministers and civil servants.[452]
I asked Mr Ingram what he had in mind in making that undertaking.
535. I said that the transcript recorded Mr Ingram's
comment that he would be talking to a Conservative colleague whom
he believed was likely to become the Defence Minister in a future
Conservative administration.[453]
I asked whether the implication of that was that he would use
that contact to the benefit of a company which might employ him
on its advisory board. Finally, I asked Mr Ingram to confirm the
date of his interview with the undercover reporter.
536. Mr Ingram wrote to
me on 28 June.[454]
He noted that in his letter to me of 28 March Mr Hands[455]
had quoted Mr Ingram as admitting to using his contacts and experience
to help a construction company he worked for carry out a defence
project in Libya. Mr Ingram also noted Mr Hands' allegation that,
when asked if he could use his experience to develop relationships
with ministers and civil servants, Mr Ingram had said, "I'd
do that".
537. Responding, Mr Ingram
said that it was "clearly stated" in the Guidelines
of Business Appointments System for Former Ministers, under Annex
A, that: "It is in the public interest that former Ministers
with experience in Government should be able to move into business...."
Mr Ingram maintained that all of his actions and activities, since
leaving Ministerial office in 2007, were wholly consistent with
that guidance. "Furthermore, I have fully complied with
the requirement to seek advice and to properly register my business
interests with the appropriate House authorities, at all times."
538. Mr Ingram said that
it had been made clear to the undercover reporter that "I
did not believe it appropriate to carry out lobbying activities
while I remained a Member of Parliament nor have I ever done so
since leaving Ministerial office in 2007. The Sunday Times
article accepted this in their report."
539. Mr Ingram said that in the run-up to the interview,
a Freedom of Information (FOI) request had been submitted to the
Ministry of Defence in relation to the companies with which he
had a registered relationship. He attached a copy of the FOI request
and the MOD's response.[456]
540. Mr Ingram said that
the record was clear on this point, and that he did not lobby
on behalf of any companies he was considering working with after
he had left Parliament. He said that he did not accept
that his conduct during the interview was contrary to the rules.
Mr Ingram said that if the public had been made aware by the
Sunday Times that it was perfectly acceptable, indeed in
the public interest, for former Ministers to move into business
that might have helped their readership better understand the
nature of his engagement in seeking employment after he had left
Parliament. "In working within the spirit and meaning
of that guideline, I do not accept that I brought the House of
Commons 'into disrepute'."
541. He said that Mr Hands
claimed that he (Mr Ingram) had "admitted" to
using his "contacts and experience" to help a
construction company he worked for "carry out a defence
project in Libya". Mr Ingram responded: "Libya
is a country of strategic and economic importance to the UK."
Mr Ingram said that he was "at a loss to understand
what he [Mr Hands] is insinuating. It is in the UK's national
interest to engage with Libya. My work for these companies, which
are part of a consortium bringing valuable business to the UK,
was fully and properly registered. The efforts of these companies
were fully supported by the UK Embassy in Libya. The transcript
shows that I did not 'admit' to what Mr Hands alleges."
542. Mr Ingram said that he had no points of contact
in Libya gained through his time as a Minister or as a Member
of Parliament. He had never visited the country nor met with any
representatives of the country during his time as a Minister or
as a Member of Parliament. He said the point he had been making
was that people in the companies with which he was associated
had good points of contact in Libya.
543. Mr Ingram said that
Mr Hands had quoted a statement "I allegedly made to the
undercover reporter, viz. 'I'd do that' in relation to
using my 'experience to develop relationships with Ministers
and civil servants'." Mr Ingram said, "I did not
make that statement, as the transcript shows".[457]
544. In answer to my letter of 31 March[458]
Mr Ingram said that his researcher in his office had been contacted
by Claire Webster, the undercover reporter, purporting
to be acting on behalf of a company which wanted to discuss with
him the prospect of his taking on a paid role as a member of an
Advisory Board which was being set up. Mr Ingram said that he
did not initially return the call. A further call had been made
to his researcher and the information had been passed to him and
he had done a preliminary check on the internet and with Companies
House on the company's name"Anderson Perry".
Mr Ingram said that "On the face of it, the company appeared
to be a bona fide organisation." Arrangements had been
made for the meeting.
545. Mr Ingram confirmed that, to the best of his
recollection, he had made the statement that "There's
going to be a lot of ex-Ministers
and they then become
a point of contact in the political network .... So all
of that can be established." Mr Ingram said that given
the fact that under the guidelines of the Appointments System
for Former Ministers it was in the public interest that "former
Ministers with experience in Government should be able to move
into business...", it would not be unusual for former
Ministerial colleagues to maintain points of contact if they had
mutual interests to pursue. He said that this statement had been
made in the context of his being asked possibly to give advice
"outside of my knowledge base." He said he did
not think there was "anything remiss in contacting former
Ministerial colleagues for advice on personalities and structures
within a particular Department." He said that he did
not accept that he was in any way suggesting that a formal network
be set up to be used "to arrange contacts".
546. Mr Ingram said that, in using the words "It's
worthwhile sometimes cultivating a Minister
but decision-makers
really
are the civil service structure, because they do
all the definition of how you're going to deliver on a particular
project. They draw up invitation to tender, they then make all
the recommendations which Ministers may accept/go across a Minister's
desk",[459]
he had been expressing a statement of fact that it was the civil
service structure which brought together particular procurement
decisions. He said that it was "therefore desirable for
companies to make themselves known to civil servants and to Ministers.
This is normal practice and one adopted by companies involved
in a procurement process. Many of those who do this on behalf
of companies may indeed be former civil servants or Ministers."
Mr Ingram said that he did not have contact with civil servants
on behalf of clients and did not lobby on their behalf. If he
had done so he would have declared an interest as appropriate.
547. Mr Ingram said that he had not claimed that
he was helping to put together a consortium to bid for work which
the MOD outsourced to private companies.[460]
The transcript merely confirmed his knowledge of what was being
put together, "not that I was at that stage actively part
of it or instrumental in it." He had been contacted
by a business acquaintance outlining what he was putting together
and enquiring as to whether he would be interested in becoming
involved after he had left Parliament. Mr Ingram said the he had
done no work for the project and "I have no knowledge
of its maturity." He had received no payment
and had had no contact with Ministers or civil servants about
the project. It was a short discussion about a possible future
appointment after he had left Parliament.
548. Mr Ingram said that he had two registered interests
with companies which had been successful, as part of a wider UK
consortium, in winning a contract for the design and planning
phase of an Engineering/Defence Academy for the Libyan Government.
He had provided advice on the range of activities undertaken in
the UK in this area. The payments he had received were properly
registered. "I was never involved in meetings with Ministers
or civil servants on behalf of the clients. If I had been, these
would have been registered, as appropriate." Mr Ingram
said that the "Academy" had not been built and
it therefore had not been populated by the students or instructors/teachers.
"There is a future prospect that another company with
which I am involved and in which my interest has been registered,
is likely to have an interest in obtaining contracts in this area."
He said that he had never been involved in meetings with Ministers
or civil servants on behalf of his clients in this regard.
549. He said that he had
registered all companies with which he had been involved. All
potential earnings had also been properly registered as required.
"I maintain that I have, at all times, properly registered
all companies with which I have a financial interest. I have not
undertaken any other registrable work, paid or unpaid, outside
of those companies listed in my Register of Interests."
550. Mr Ingram said that he had said nothing untrue
in the meeting with the undercover reporter.
551. Mr Ingram provided me with a list of the companies
he had worked for in 2009-10.[461]
They had all been fully registered in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests. He said that he wished to make it clear that
he had been working with EDS as a consultant, not in his capacity
as a Member of Parliament. He said he had agreed with the company
that the best mutual date to review his ongoing contract was when
he was standing down as a Member of Parliament. It had been a
natural review date because he was looking at his retirement options
in terms of the amount of time he would be in London. EDS had
been acquired by Hewlett Packard during this time. He had continued
to provide consultancy advice to EDS. New senior executives had
been appointed with whom he met almost immediately prior to the
Dissolution of Parliament. Mr Ingram said that he continued to
be available to give advice to the company when requested to do
so.
552. Mr Ingram said that after he had stood down
as a Minister in June 2007, he had been asked by the Prime Minister
to lead a study into "Defence's Contribution to Counter-Terrorism
and Resilience." This had been in an unpaid capacity.
During that time, he had had extensive contact with civil servants
across Whitehall. He had presented his Report to the Prime Minister
in the autumn of 2008. From October 2009, he had undertaken an
Audit of his Report which, again, had brought him into contact
with civil servants, and had reported to the Prime Minister in
March 2010. Mr Ingram said that he had also undertaken a range
of unpaid activities at the request of the Royal United Services
Institute (RUSI), the Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS)
and the Defence Academy at Shrivenham. He said that civil servants
would have been involved in those events. In addition, he had
spoken to PhD students at Kings College, London, on his role and
time as a Defence Minister. "I have not maintained any
other relationships, formal or informal, with senior civil servants,
and certainly not in order to recommend them for future employment
opportunities once they had left the Civil Service." Mr
Ingram said he had provided references, on a limited number of
occasions, at the request of individuals who were seeking employment
after leaving Government service.
553. Mr Ingram said that
the interview with the undercover reporter had been set up to
discuss his possible engagement as a member of an advisory board.
Despite having no experience of doing what he was being asked
to do on a paid basis, he said he could envisage seeking to speak
to ministers or civil servants or to participate in meetings about
a client's interests. "My failure to elaborate further,
as the transcript bears out, was probably because I was considering
the practicalities of such an approach. I do not accept the emphasis
put on it by the undercover journalist or by Greg Hands, and,
in any event, it would have been undertaken after I left Parliament.
The words I used 'I could work at that'[462]have
a very different meaning to the fabricated quote by the undercover
journalist'I'd do that'. The subsequent exchange
with the undercover journalist involved my making non-committal
responses to her leading suggestions."
554. Mr Ingram said that
the discussion about contacts with the likely Defence Minister
in a Conservative government was about providing advice, on request,
on his experience as a Defence Minister. "I would have
been prepared to do so because I care about good governance and
about the Ministry of Defence. I was not suggesting that such
a contact would be used in the way phrased in your question."
Mr Ingram said that the individual concerned had not in the
event been appointed as a Coalition Government Minister.
555. Mr Ingram said that he could not confirm the
exact date of the interview.
556. In conclusion, Mr Ingram reiterated the points
he had made earlier that "I have complied with the rules
and regulations laid down by the House authorities, in relation
to my business appointments. I always erred on the side of caution
in all of my dealings. The evidence of the FOI request[463]
clearly shows that I did not breach the rules and regulations
relating to lobbying. I participated in the interview on the basis
that I was being considered as a member of an advisory board although
clearly there was an underlying agenda of entrapment. I do not
believe I offered to do anything as a Member of Parliament which
would have required me to register an interest. There was no formal
follow-up to the initial interview and no formal offer made of
employment in any capacity relating to my time as a Member of
Parliament. As a consequence, I believe that the complaint made
by Greg Hands is unfounded and should be dismissed."
557. Mr Ingram attached
to his letter the Ministry of Defence's response of 26 February
2010 to a Freedom of Information request which had sought "details
of meetings, communications and contracts" between Mr
Ingram and the following companies, during various periods from
2001 onwards:
a) Signpoint Secure Ltd
b) International School for Security and Explosives
Education (ISSEE)
c) Argus Scotland Ltd
d) Argus Libya UK LLP
e) Electronic Data Systems (EDS)
f) Ingram Advisory Ltd [464]
558. The response said that records relating to meetings
and correspondence had only been held from 2004 onwards. It said
that between 1 January 2004 and 29 June 2007 there had been no
meetings or correspondence between Adam Ingram MP or his office
and the companies referred to.
559. The response also
said that there had been no communications or meetings between
Adam Ingram MP and Departmental Ministers since 29 June 2007 regarding
any of these companies. It continued that "Any communications
between the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and those companies not
involving Ministers could only be identified at disproportionate
cost."
560. The Ministry's response
also said that since 29 June 2007 one MOD contract had been placed
with ISSEE and that the value of the contract had been less than
£10,000. The response said that the Ministry was withholding
further details of the contract under s.43 of the FOI Act (Commercial
interests); as this was a qualified exemption it was required
to carry out a public interest test.
561. I wrote to Mr Ingram on 1 July.[465]
I asked him what advice he had sought from whom about his business
interests, and whether that advice related to the nature of his
outside employment when he had been a Member of Parliament. In
relation to the alleged network of former Ministers, I asked Mr
Ingram whether he had used his contacts with Ministers, former
Ministers or civil servants in order to advise any of his clients
about structures and people in a government department. I noted
that he said that he did not accept that he had in any way suggested
that a formal network be set up. I told Mr Ingram, in the light
of that, that I was having some difficulty in interpreting the
point he had made in the transcript, when he said, "some
are going to lose their seats and they're become a point of contact
in the political network
so all of that
can be
established
it can take a bit of time to build those blocks
"[466]
I asked Mr Ingram why it should not be inferred from this that
he had been suggesting a network of contacts of former MPs (and
in particular ex-Ministers) which he would build over time.
562. I noted that Mr Ingram said that he "did
not have contact with civil servants on behalf of clients".
I noted also that the FOI request to the Ministry of Defence about
Mr Ingram did not identify any contact he had had with Ministers.
I recalled that my original question was about contacts with Ministers
as well as civil servants, and I said I would be grateful if he
could let me know whether he had had any contact with Ministers
from 2007 on behalf of any of his clients or on matters which
might be of assistance to those clients.
563. I said that Mr Ingram had stated that the payments
he had received from the company in a contract for the engineering/defence
academy for the Libyan Government were properly registered, and
asked him to confirm that this statement related to Argus Libya
UK, which appeared in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
Similarly, I asked him to identify the Register entry in respect
of his interest in the company providing instructors/teachers
for the Libyan engineering/defence academy.
564. I noted that Mr Ingram said that he had worked
with EDS as a consultant and not in his capacity as an MP. I told
Mr Ingram that I had consulted the Registrar of Members' Financial
Interests about this and that she had told me that he had registered
a salary band and deposited an agreement for the provision of
services for EDS. I attached a copy of the relevant Register entry
and agreement, and noted that these fulfilled the requirements
of the rules for those undertaking work in the capacity of an
MP.[467] I asked Mr
Ingram to explain how he reconciled this with his statement that
he had not been working in his capacity as an MP, and asked him
to give me a little more detail about the work he had carried
out for EDS. I noted that the agreement he had deposited contained
only the information required by the rules of the House, and asked
him whether he also had a contract with EDS, and if so whether
I could see it. I also asked Mr Ingram whether he was currently
paid a retainer by EDS so that they could draw on his services,
and whether he continued to have a contract with them.
565. I referred Mr Ingram to his statement that he
had not maintained any other relationships, formal or informal,
with senior civil servants, and certainly not in order to recommend
them for future employment. I asked him to help me in reconciling
that statement with his statement in the meeting with the undercover
reporter, where he said, during a discussion on civil servants
who might be approached for the fictional advisory board: "I
think I know all of them and
some of them are very good
strategic planners, good thinkers, and well-trained in command
and control
and just think logically." And: "There's
a lot [of] duffers in there but I've got some there [MOD]
in mind".[468]
I asked Mr Ingram whether that did not suggest that he had offered
to identify possible members for the advisory board from recently
retired civil servants whom he had known in a Government department,
which I took to be the Ministry of Defence.
566. I asked Mr Ingram whether it would be reasonable
for me to draw from his letter of 28 June that, now that he had
left Parliament, he would be ready to use the contacts he had
built up as a Member of Parliament and former Minister to contact
and maintain relations with current Ministers and civil servants
on behalf of his clients.
567. I noted, in relation to Mr Ingram's answers
to my questions about contacts with the likely Conservative Defence
Minister, that he had said that he was "not suggesting
that such a contact would be used in the way phrased in your question".
I explained that my original question had been whether he had
been offering to the company as a contact the Member who might
become a Conservative Defence Minister (but in the event had not).
I said that I had some difficulty in otherwise interpreting what
he had said in the meeting with the undercover reporter. I said
that the question had been whether a Conservative Government would
affect Mr Ingram or the things he could deliver. I noted that
in his answer, he referred to the person whom he had thought then
was likely to become a Defence Minister who, once he became a
Minister, wanted to come and talk to him because "I'll
give him good advice".[469]
I noted that he had said then that he tended to talk to people
and that he talked to "Tory Opposition Members".[470]
He had concluded this section by saying, "So I don't know
if that's of interest to you."[471]
I asked Mr Ingram whether it would not be a reasonable inference
from those exchanges that he had thought that his contacts with
Conservative Members, in particular the individual he had identified,
might be of interest to Anderson Perry, and that that interest
would stem from the contact he might create between that company
and the putative Conservative Defence Minister.
568. Finally, I noted that Mr Ingram did not have
the exact date of the interview. I asked him whether he had been
able to check his diary for earlier this year and, if so, whether
an entry had been made in his diary for this interview, and, if
not, why no entry had been made for this appointment.
569. Mr Ingram wrote to me on 7 July.[472]
He told me that he had sought advice from the appropriate House
authorities about the procedures and rules applicable to obtaining
clearance to take up outside employment and the way in which those
interests should be registered. He said that he had not used any
contacts with Ministers, former Ministers or civil servants to
advise his clients about structures and people in a Government
Department. He had used his own knowledge in this regard to provide
such advice.
570. Mr Ingram noted that
in my original question to him in my letter of 31 March,[473]
I had asked him to explain his comments about the possible establishment
of a network of former Ministers who could be used to "arrange
contacts". He had explained that he could see nothing
wrong in contacting former colleagues to obtain advice on personalities
and structures within a particular Department. That would take
place only after he had left Parliament, and would not contradict
advice in the Appointments System for former Ministers which stated
that former Ministers with experience in Government should be
able to move into business. Mr Ingram said: "Political
and business networking is perfectly legitimate and a common feature
of business interface with Government."
571. Mr Ingram said that the response to the Freedom
of Information (F0I) request from the Ministry of Defence made
it clear that there had been "no communications or meetings
between Adam Ingram MP and Departmental Ministers since 29 June
2007 regarding any of those companies".[474]
He confirmed that Argus Libya UK had been the company involved
in a contract for the engineering/defence academy for the Libyan
Government from whom he had received and properly registered payments.
He reiterated his former response that the Libyan academy had
not been built and that therefore there was no company with which
he was currently involved which was "providing instructors/teachers"
to the academy. He had explained that the academy was a future
business prospect. The company to which he had referred was the
International School for Security and Explosives Education (ISSEE).
572. Mr Ingram said that I had asked him how he could
reconcile his entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
in relation to EDS with his statement that he was not providing
services to the company in my capacity as a Member of Parliament.
He told me that in his response of 28 June, he had advised me
that "I always erred on the side of caution in all my
outside employment dealings." He said his understanding
of the rules was that service in the capacity of a Member of Parliament
was usually taken to mean advice on any parliamentary matter or
services connected with any parliamentary proceedings or otherwise
related to the House. Mr Ingram said "I did not provide
such services to EDS although the registered entry would have
allowed me to do so." He attached a copy of his contract
with EDS, pointing out that the contract was between EDS and "Adam
Ingram, Director, Adam Ingram Advisory Ltd".[475]
573. In response to my request for more detail about
the work he had carried out for EDS, Mr Ingram said that initially
he had been engaged in familiarising himself with the company's
structures and key project managers. He told me that he had provided
them with analysis on the structure of Government and the role
of Ministers; the interface between Ministers and senior civil
servants and his assessment of developments in Government thinking
based on his political analysis. In the main, those meetings had
been "of a strategic nature." He had not been
paid a retainer by EDS during that time, nor did he receive such
payment now. Mr Ingram said that the contract had not been formally
terminated and he believed that he would continue to be bound
by it if asked to provide future services to the company.
574. Mr Ingram told me
that his comments on civil servants who could be suitable for
future employment should be taken in conjunction with the comments
he had made in response to the undercover reporter's request for
suggested names of former civil servants. He had stated then that
he could not provide such names "off the top of my head".
He said he believed "this clearly indicates that I
did not maintain a checklist of individuals whom I would be prepared
to recommend for future employment."
575. Mr Ingram said he
had said before that he could envisage seeking to speak to Ministers
or civil servants about a client's interest. "That remains
my position which I believe to be wholly consistent with the view
of the House authorities that it is in the public interest for
former Ministers to move into business. I have not maintained
such a contact list and instead would use publicly-available information
if I was trying to establish contact for a particular purpose."
576. Mr Ingram said that
the interview with the undercover reporter took place in the context
of his suitability to become a member of an advisory board of
a company. "It is hardly surprising that I tried to show
my breadth of experience, the respect in which I was held across
the political spectrum and the willingness of others to trust
my objective advice and judgement." He said that his
use of the phrase "So I don't know if that's of interest
to you",[476]
fell within the category of setting out his "wider
attributes" and in the context of his wish to see "good
governance irrespective of which party is in office."
577. Mr Ingram said that the reason he could not
give me the exact date of the interview was simply because he
had not kept the diary details. The arrangements for the interview
had been made with him and not through his constituency office.
From memory, Mr Ingram said that it had been held on either 9
or 10 March.
578. I wrote to Mr Ingram on 15 July, asking him
to clear up a number of points.[477]
I said that I had noted that he had consulted "the appropriate
House authorities" about rules for clearance and registration.
I asked him to identify the officials he had consulted and when,
so that I could consider approaching them.
579. I told Mr Ingram that I noted that he had used
his own knowledge to advise his clients about structures and people
in government Departments. I asked him whether I would be right
in assuming that that knowledge had drawn on his experience as
a Minister and his continuing contacts as an MP with Ministers
and civil servants. If that was not so, I asked Mr Ingram to let
me know on what his knowledge was based and how it had been kept
up to date.
580. I said to Mr Ingram that I assumed from his
response that he did intend to use his network of contacts which
he had built up as a Member and Minister to assist his current
and any future clients now that he had left Parliament. I noted,
however, that he did not have a specific (and, I assumed, separate)
list of such contacts and that he did not intend to imply in the
discussion with the undercover reporter that he would be setting
up a formal network to arrange contacts. I said that I had not
myself formed a view on the propriety of his contacting former
colleagues to get advice for his clients on personalities and
structures in Departments, and noted that he saw nothing wrong
in this. At this stage I was simply asking him to confirm my understanding
of his intentions.
581. I asked Mr Ingram whether he had specifically
taken advice from the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests
about his Register entry in relation to EDS, and, in particular,
his decision to register his salary band and the agreement for
services. I said I was now consulting the Registrar about this.
I told Mr Ingram I had noted the terms of his contract, including
that he was paid a daily rate of £1,500 and that the contract
included the provision about advocacy which he had submitted to
the Registrar.
582. I noted that "in the main"
the meetings Mr Ingram had had with EDS were of a "strategic
nature". I asked Mr Ingram whether the advice he had
provided for EDS had been exclusively oral advice at meetings,
or whether he had prepared papers for them. I asked him to whom
his advice was given, and whether he had provided more specific
and less strategic advice at any time. If so, I asked him what
it covered.
583. I told Mr Ingram that I had noted that he had
not maintained a "checklist" of people to recommend
for appointments to boards. I said that the question I had asked
in my letter of 1 July was whether he had been offering to identify
possible members for the advisory board from recently retired
civil servants whom he knew in a Government Department, which
I had taken to be the Ministry of Defence. I had noted that he
had not given names at the meeting with the undercover reporter.
I said that he had appeared to suggest that he had names in mind.
In any event, I asked him to confirm that he had indeed been offering
to identify such people. I said that I should make clear that
at this stage I was not suggesting that there had been an impropriety
in his doing so. That would be a matter for me to consider once
my inquiries were concluded.
584. I noted that Mr Ingram could envisage speaking
to Ministers or civil servants about a client's interest and that
he would use publicly available information, as he did not have
a "contact list". I said I was finding this argument
a little difficult to follow. It would be unusual for someone
in public life not to keep the names and numbers of their contacts
in an address book or its electronic equivalent. I asked Mr Ingram
whether he was suggesting that he did not keep details of such
contacts, and that, even if he had kept such a contact list, he
would not consult it if he wished to contact a Government Minister
or a senior civil servant. Again, I said that I was not suggesting
at this stage any impropriety in such actions. That would be a
matter for me to consider once my inquiries were completed.
585. I said I noted Mr Ingram's point about setting
out his wider attributes and the references to good governance
which he had made at this point in the interview. But I said that
in that part of the interview which was specifically about whether
a Conservative Government would change his role on the advisory
board, it appeared that Mr Ingram was making clear that he had
had good contacts with Conservative Members, including the particular
Member whom he thought at that stage might become a Defence Minister,
and that, in the interests of good governance, he expected to
give advice to that Minister. As a result, I said that it might
seem that he had suggested that he would be able to bring to the
advisory board his contacts with Conservatives, on the assumption
that there would be a Conservative Government. Again, I said I
was not suggesting at that stage any impropriety, which I would
need to consider at the conclusion of my inquiries. I simply wanted
to be clear on the implications of what he had been saying in
the discussion. If I was wrong to draw these inferences from what
he appeared to have been saying, I asked him to let me know, and
why.
586. Mr Ingram wrote to me on 27 August.[478]
He said that prior to taking up a role with the companies concerned,
he had sought clearance from the Office of the Advisory Committee
on Business Appointments. He had received clearance from Lord
Mayhew, the Committee Chairman, in a letter dated 14 January 2008,
advising him that "it would be proper" for him
to take appointments with three companies about which he had enquired,
namely, Signpoint Secure Ltd, Argus Scotland Ltd and Argus Libya
UK Ltd. He had received a further letter from the Committee,
dated 27 March 2008, signed by the Secretary to the Committee
that they could "see no reason" why he should
not take up appointments with EDS Inc. and the International School
for Security and Explosives Education (ISSEE). Following receipt
of those letters and after consultation with the Registrar for
Members Interests about the most appropriate listing for those
appointments, he had duly registered his interests and notified
the Secretary to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
that he had taken up the appointments.
587. On the question whether he had drawn upon his
experience as a Minister in providing advice to the companies
with which he had been involved, Mr Ingram confirmed that he
did so, and said he believed that to be consistent with the guidelines
for former Ministers.
588. As to whether he had used his continuing contacts
as a Member of Parliament with Ministers and civil servants in
the interests of those companies, Mr Ingram told me that he believed
it had been established that he had not lobbied on behalf of those
companies despite having clearance from the Advisory Committee
on Business Appointments to do so, if he had so wished, any time
after one year of leaving office.
589. In response to my question how he had kept his
"knowledge" up to date, Mr Ingram noted that,
"with the exception of my appointment with EDS, I had
taken on the role of director with the other companies. That required
a range of skills and attributes not necessarily connected to
my previous role as a Minister."
590. Mr Ingram said that
he could "envisage" using contacts made during
his time as a Minister. "Many companies engage former
Ministers and civil servants for that very purpose. The capacity
to ask people for advice is not unique to me and is recognised
as part of the guidelines for former Ministers that it is in the
public interest for them to move into business."
591. Mr Ingram said that
he had taken advice from the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests
about his Register entry in relation to EDS. All advice given
to EDS had been oral; he had not made any written submissions
to them. The advice had been given to a range of account executives
and their senior staff. He had had regular meetings with the senior
personnel responsible for the company's public affairs. "The
only non-strategic advice I would have given would have been about
the role and responsibilities of a Member of Parliament, stressing
the importance of keeping good relations between company representatives
and local Members of Parliament in the areas where the company
had a presence."
592. In answer to my question
whether he would be prepared to suggest names of civil servants
for possible employment, Mr Ingram said that "I was not
offering myself as a head-hunter, for payment or otherwise. I
would be prepared, however, to offer my best advice on the qualities
of people I knew in Government. " Mr Ingram reiterated
that he did not have a "contact list", in either
address book or electronic form, of Ministers or civil servants.
He said that he had made no offer to bring to the bogus advisory
board his contacts with Conservatives on the assumption that there
would be a change of Government. What he had said in response
to the direct question posed to him by the bogus company representative
was that "I had credibility as a Defence Minister which
I believed could transcend a change of Government. I believe that
my credibility and knowledge was recognised across the political
spectrum, based on my service as a Defence Minister for over six
years. There can be no question that this would allow me to talk
to Members of Parliament of parties other than my own, in Government
or not, from a position of strength, an attribute which would
have been available to the bogus advisory board."
593. I wrote to Mr Ingram on 2 September.[479]
I noted that he had addressed the question in my letter to him
of 15 July about the basis for the knowledge he had used to advise
his clients on the structures and people in government departments.
I had not been suggesting that he had lobbied such people, but
was simply seeking to clarify whether he had used his continuing
contacts with Ministers and with civil servants to advise his
clients about structures and people in government departments.
I said I was assuming that he had done so. If he had rejected
that assumption, then I was asking how he managed to keep up to
date the advice he had given to his clients about structures and
people in government departments. I said I had not been asking
how he had kept up to date his knowledge on wider issues. I asked
Mr Ingram, therefore, to confirm whether he had used his continuing
contacts with Ministers and civil servants to keep up to date
the advice he gave his clients about structures and people in
government departments. I told him that this would be consistent
with the more general account he had given that he would envisage
using contacts made during his time as a Minister. Again, I said
I would need to come to my own view on what he had said about
this, and I said that he should not draw from this that I was
suggesting there was any impropriety in the way he advised his
clients on these matters.
594. I told Mr Ingram that I had noted that he did
not have a "contact list" of Ministers or civil
servants, either in address book or electronic form. But what
I had been asking was whether he had kept the details of Ministers
and civil servants in some form, either in hard copy or electronically,
and whether he would refer to it if he had wished to identify
or contact such people. I said I was not sure whether he wished
me to take from his reply that he did not have any names, addresses,
or contact numbers of Ministers, former Ministers or civil servants
in any list of personal contacts kept by him and, if he wished
to contact such people, relied only on public records.
595. Meanwhile, I had written to the Registrar of
Members' Financial Interests on 15 July.[480]
I summarised the relevant evidence given me by Mr Ingram. In the
light of this, I asked the Registrar whether Mr Ingram had at
any time consulted her about his registration entries for his
remunerated employment and, if so, when and what those discussions
had been about. I also asked, in respect of Mr Ingram's employment
with EDS, the Registrar's view, in light of the information provided
to me by Mr Ingram, as to whether he had been required within
the provisions of the Guide to the Rules to register his payment
band and lodge with her his agreement for services.
596. I wrote again to
the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests on 2 September,
telling her that I had now heard back from Mr Ingram with further
information about his contacts with her.[481]
I asked the Registrar if she could take this into account in preparing
her response to my letter of 15 July.
597. The Registrar wrote to me on 9 September.[482]
She first addressed the issue of whether at any time Mr Ingram
had consulted her about his registration entries for his remunerated
employment and if so when and what those discussions were about.
She said she had gone back in Mr Ingram's file to the point at
which he had ceased to be a Minister in July 2007. She attached
relevant correspondence.[483]
598. The Registrar said that on 12 July 2007 she
had written to Mr Ingram noting that he no longer held ministerial
office, saying that it might be that he was now thinking of taking
up outside employment, pointing out that the rules might have
changed since he was last in a position to do this and offering
advice should he require it. She had indicated that general guidance
was available in the Code of Conduct and in the procedural and
advice notes. On 10 March 2008 Mr Ingram had sent the Registrar's
office a copy of an agreement with a company called SignPoint
and asking for the employment to be registered. The file contained
a draft e-mail from the Executive Officer in her office, including
a draft entry.[484]
599. Mr Ingram had written
again on 27 June 2008 with copies of agreements with Argus Libya
and Argus Scotland, asking for them to be registered. The Registrar
said that Mr Ingram must have telephoned the Executive Assistant
on 9 July,[485] as
her draft e-mail suggested she had e-mailed back "Further
to our conversation earlier I attach below your revised entry
for the Register. I would be grateful if you could also let me
know what the business of the two companies is; I am afraid I
forgot to ask you that when we spoke".
600. The Registrar said
that Mr Ingram must have telephoned again,[486]
as there was a draft e-mail in the file from the Executive Assistant
dated 22 July and saying, "Thank you for your call letting
me know the description of the two companies. I attach below a
revised entry for the next updated internet version of the Register".
601. The first mention of EDS occurred on 21 August
2008 when Mr Ingram had written enclosing an agreement with the
company and asked for it to be registered. The Registrar said
that this time Mr Ingram had told her office what the company
did. Mr Ingram having supplied an agreement with a salary band,
the Registrar's office assumed that Mr Ingram had been providing
services in the capacity of an MP, since it was only when this
was the case that a band and agreement were required. They inserted
that salary band in the Register entries.
602. The Registrar said
that a draft e-mail to Mr Ingram from the Executive Assistant
in her office, dated 2 September 2008, read, "Thank you
for your call. I attach your entry for the next updated edition
of the Register, which will be produced later this week".[487]
Mr Ingram's secretary replied the same day saying, "Thank
you [name]. The entry is OK".[488]
603. The Registrar said
that the file did not suggest discussions of any length between
her office and Mr Ingram. She said that had there been any such
lengthy discussions, the Executive Assistant or she would have
recorded them, either in a file note or in an e-mail response
to Mr Ingram. "It appears that on each occasion including
the one relating to EDS we simply complied with his request to
make an entry: we did not give him any substantive advice and
none was requested."
604. The Registrar then gave her view, in the light
of the information provided by Mr Ingram, as to whether he had
been required, within the provisions of the rules, to register
a salary band and lodge an agreement for the provision of services.
605. The Registrar said
that "the rules of the House require that Members undertaking
to provide services in the capacity of a Member of Parliament
shall obtain a written agreement to that effect, including a standard
clause stating that the Member will not be asked to engage in
advocacy, and deposit it with the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Standards, and register their payment by £5,000 bands. By
giving a salary band and providing an agreement, Mr Ingram was
informing the reader that he was providing services in the capacity
of a Member of Parliament." The Registrar noted that
Mr Ingram said that he had not provided services in the capacity
of a Member of Parliament but that his Register entry would have
allowed him to do so. He had also said that the entry had stated
that EDS had expected him to provide advisory services and certain
other work as directed by the contract with the company; in fact
it was the agreement not the Register entry which referred to
project work. The Registrar also noted that Mr Ingram had said
that his understanding of the rules was that "services
in the capacity of a Member of Parliament is usually taken to
be advice on any parliamentary matter or services connected with
any parliamentary proceeding or otherwise related to the House".
These words were a quotation from the 2009 edition of the Guide
to the Rules.
606. The Registrar said that the Guide to the
Rules in force at the time Mr Ingram took up the appointment
had made no attempt to define or describe "services in
the capacity of an MP", though the foreword to the Register
of 2005 made illustrative reference to "making representations
to a government department, providing advice on parliamentary
or public affairs or sponsoring functions in a parliamentary building".
She said that had Mr Ingram consulted her in 2008 she would
have given him the then-current advice; this had been codified
in the 2009 edition of the rules from which Mr Ingram quoted,
which had then been in preparation.
607. The Registrar said
that neither the agreement deposited by Mr Ingram nor the longer
contract with which he had supplied me and which I had sent her
gave sufficient detail of the actual work Mr Ingram was carrying
out for EDS for her to be able to say that he had indeed been
providing services in the capacity of an MP. She noted that
in my first letter to her, however,[489]
I had told her that Mr Ingram had said to me that "he
provided them with an analysis of the structure of government
and the role of Ministers; the interface between Ministers and
senior civil servants and [his] assessment of developments
in Government thinking based on his political analysis".
In my second letter I had told her that Mr Ingram had written
to me that "the only non-strategic advice I would have
given would have been about the role and responsibilities of a
Member of Parliament, stressing the importance of keeping good
relations between company representatives and local Members Parliament
in the areas where the company had a presence". The Registrar
said that these two statements, and particularly the second, led
her to the conclusion that it had indeed been right that Mr Ingram
should have given a salary band and have provided an agreement
"because he was providing what I would regard as services
in the capacity of a Member of Parliament."
608. The Registrar made two further observations.
She noted that Mr Ingram said that he wished to make it clear
that he worked for EDS as a consultant and not as an MP. "I
should say that the two are not mutually exclusive and the form
of his Register entry gave the opposite impression." Secondly,
she noted that there was no relationship between the Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments and the work of the Registrar's
office, though the Registrar said that she would always ask an
ex-Minister registering an appointment if s/he had checked with
that Committee.
609. I wrote to Mr Ingram
on 9 September, saying that I had now heard back from the Registrar
and attaching relevant correspondence.[490]
I said I would welcome any comments he may wish to make on the
Registrar's advice. I said that I might need to note that he had
registered that he was providing services in the capacity of a
Member of Parliament in the context of what he had told the interviewer
including: "I have been doing advisory work, done a lot
initially, not so much recently, with the EDS, which is now part
of HP, and actually just talking to them about, really just about
Government relations and what to look for in Government
There's
a kind of standard way in which Governments tend to operate
my
arrangement with them is that I would only do work on an MP and
then
it would probably come to the end of the arrangement..."[491]
610. Mr Ingram wrote to
me on 14 September[492]
in response to my letter to him of 2 September.[493]
To my question whether he had used continuing contacts with Ministers
and with civil servants to advise clients about structures and
people in government departments, he responded, "Throughout
our correspondence, you have consistently referred to 'clients'.
With the exception of EDS and Argus Libya(UK) LLP, I have no other
'clients' ... I did not maintain a continuing contact with
Ministers and with civil servants in order to advise 'clients'.
The point I was making in ... my letter of 27 August[494]
was that I could envisage making contact with people I knew in
government after I left Parliament ... I responded in the future
tense since that was the context in which you had sought my response
in your letter of 15 July. I have made no such contact since leaving
Parliament."
611. On the question whether
he had kept the details of Ministers and civil servants in some
form, either hard copy or electronically, and whether he would
refer to it if he wished to identify or contact such people, he
said that he had advised me in earlier correspondence that he
did not have a comprehensive list of Ministers, past or present,
or civil servants. "I have a small circle of friends,
built-up over my twenty-three years in Parliament and in government.
I maintain contact details of those friends whom I occasionally
meet socially. I do not view them as contacts in the context of
your enquiry."
612. In a further letter
to me of the same day, 14 September, Mr Ingram responded to my
letter and enclosures of 9 September about the Registrar's advice.[495]
He said he did not have details of when he had contacted the Registrar's
office or any notes relating to the advice he had received. "My
recollection is that I sought general advice on what was required
in the registration of outside financial interests ... The first
company I registered was Signpoint Secure Ltd which provided the
framework for subsequent entries. When it came to registering
subsequent interests, I recollect telephone discussions about
the categorisation of the registered interest. I believe that
applied to the action I took on the registration of EDS."
613. He said I would note that he provided an agreement
for services and a salary band for each of the registered interests.
He said that he had noted the comments of the Registrar and "respected"
her version of events.
614. With regard to the consultancy services he had
provided to EDS, "I maintain that I did not provide advice
as a Member of Parliament, either in terms of the pre- or post-2009
guidance as set out in the Registrar's letter to you of 9 September."
He said that he appreciated that both I and the Registrar
took a different view, "although, as I understand it,
you accept that I had properly complied with the relevant registration
requirements to allow me to give advice in my capacity as a Member
of Parliament."
615. He said that he was
clear in his own mind that the understanding he had with EDS was
that "I would provide services to them while a Member
of Parliament and not as a Member of Parliament ... the natural
review of my continuing relationship with the company was at the
point of my standing down as a Member of Parliament. The relationship
has also changed in part because of the new company structure
and new senior executives at EDS."
616. I wrote to Mr Ingram on 20 September.[496]
In respect of his response to my letter of 2 September,[497]
I said that I was not intending for him to answer whether he had
maintained his contacts in order to advise his clientsin
other words those whose employment by him he had registeredbut
whether he used those continuing contacts (among other things)
to keep up to date the advice he gave to those who employed him.
I said that in his letter, he had told me that he had made no
such contact since leaving Parliament, but he had made no comment
on the position while he was still a Member. I said that unless
he wished to clarify the situation, I would simply record that
he had not given me an answer about whether, while he was a Member
of Parliament, he drew on his continuing contacts with Ministers,
former Ministers and civil servants when he gave advice to those
who employed him during that time. I said I would then come to
my own conclusions on that matter.
617. Similarly, I said I would note that, in the
context of my inquiry, he maintained contact details only of those
whom he regarded as his friends, built up over 23 years in Parliament
and in government. I said that he had not told me if any of those
were Ministers, former Ministers or civil servants and that he
had also not told me whether he would use that list if he wished
to contact any of them on behalf of those who employed him now
that he had left Parliament. I said that again, subject to any
points of clarification he wished to make, I would need to come
to my own conclusions on this.
618. In respect of the registration question, I said
that I should make clear that I had sent him the advice of the
Registrar. I said I had not yet come to my own conclusion on this
and would not wish to do so until I had given him an opportunity
to comment on the Registrar's advice. I said I saw from his comment
that he respected her version of events about the advice he had
sought from her office. I said I assumed that the use of the word
"respect" means that he fell short of accepting
fully that version.
619. I noted that despite registering his work for
EDS as if he were providing services in his capacity as a Member
of Parliament, he did not accept that he was in fact doing soarguing
that he was providing services while a Member but not as a Member.
I said I would of course note the distinction he had drawn and
would need to come to my own conclusions on that.
620. Mr Ingram wrote to
me on 28 September.[498]
He said, "I can confirm that I did not draw upon any contacts
I may have had with Ministers, former Ministers or civil servants
to give advice to those who employed me while I was a Member of
Parliament."
621. He said he believed
it was implicit in his response set out in his letter of 14 September
that amongst his "circle of friends" would have
been Ministers, former Ministers and civil servants. "I
further stated that I did not view them as 'contacts' in
the context of your inquiry. You now ask whether I would use that
list to contact them on behalf of those who now employ me. I have
not done so and I cannot envisage any circumstances in which I
would."
622. Finally, in respect of the registration question,
he said that he was satisfied that he had received sufficient
information from the Registrar's office to assist him in properly
registering his various interests in terms of the rules and regulations
applicable at that time.
FINDINGS OF FACT
623. In
February 2010 Mr Ingram's office received an approach from the
undercover reporter, claiming to represent Anderson Perry. During
an initial telephone conversation, Mr Ingram and the undercover
reporter agreed to meet.
624. Mr Ingram met the undercover reporter on 9 or
10 March 2010. His view is that he participated in the meeting
on the basis that he was being considered as a member of an advisory
board although he says that there was an underlying agenda of
entrapment. He does not believe he offered to do anything as
a Member of Parliament which would have required him to register
an interest. Mr Ingram says that there was no formal follow-up
to the initial interview and no formal offer made of employment
in any capacity relating to his time as a Member of Parliament.
Issues subject to inquiry
i. Network of former Ministers
625. Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter: "There's
going to be a lot of ex-Ministers
and they're become a
point [of] contact in the political network ...
So all of that can be established." [499]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
626. Mr Ingram says that, given the fact that under
the ACOBA guidelines for former ministers it is in the public
interest that "former Ministers with experience in Government
should be able to move into business...", it would not
be unusual for former Ministerial colleagues to maintain points
of contact. That would have taken place only after he had left
Parliament. He does not think there is anything remiss in contacting
former Ministerial colleagues for advice on personalities and
structures within a particular Department, and he does not accept
that he was in any way suggesting that a formal network be set
up to be used "to arrange contacts".[500]
627. Mr Ingram says that he has not maintained a
contact list of Ministers and civil servants and instead would
use publicly-available information if he was trying to establish
contact for a particular purpose. He says he has some Ministerial
and civil service contacts among his personal friends, but he
would not envisage contacting them for anyone employing him.
ii. Contacting civil servants
628. Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter that
"It's worth it, sometimes cultivating a Minister
but decision-makers really
are the civil service structure,
because they do all the definition of how you're going to deliver
on a particular project."[501]
Asked by the reporter whether he had good contacts with them from
when he was a Minister, Mr Ingram replied, "Oh yeah".
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
10 of the Code of Conduct: Paid advocacy. Paragraph 16 of the
Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
629. Mr Ingram says that it is a statement of fact
that it is the civil service structure which brings together particular
procurement decisions. It is therefore desirable for companies
to make themselves known to civil servants and to Ministers. This
is normal practice and one adopted by companies involved in a
procurement process. Many of those who do this on behalf of companies
may indeed be former civil servants or Ministers. He says he
did not have contact with civil servants on behalf of clients
and did not lobby on their behalf, and that if he had done so
he would have declared an interest as appropriate.
iii. Consortium to bid for MOD work
630. Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter: "there
are two other companies that have come to me ... one's in the
energy sector ... the other, the other one is ... A lot of
departments in defence, one of them will have to be going to outsource
... and the main consortium is now just being put together."[502]
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute. Paragraph 16 of the Code
of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
631. Mr Ingram says that did not claim that he was
helping to put together a consortium to bid for work which the
MOD outsources to private companies. He says that the transcript
merely confirms his knowledge of what was being put together,
not that he was at that stage actively part of it or instrumental
in it. He had been contacted by a business acquaintance outlining
what he was putting together and enquiring as to whether Mr Ingram
would be interested in becoming involved after he had left Parliament.
He says he has done no work for this project. Mr Ingram says
he has received no payment and has had no contact with Ministers
or civil servants about the project; it was a short discussion
about a possible future appointment after he had left Parliament.
iv. Defence academy in Libya
632. Mr Ingram told the
undercover reporter of employment including a company
which had an interest in Libya, saying, "Gaddafi
wanted a defence academy built and people I'm with have got very
good points of contact in the Libyan regime ..."[503]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration and Declaration.
633. Mr Ingram says he had two registered interests
with companies which had been successful, as part of a wider UK
consortium, in winning a contract for the design and planning
phase of an Engineering/Defence Academy for the Libyan Government.
He says he provided advice on the range of activities undertaken
in the UK in this area and the payments he received were properly
registered. Mr Ingram says that he was never involved in meetings
with Ministers or civil servants on behalf of the clients, and
that if he had been, these would have been registered, as appropriate.
He says he never visited the country nor met with any representatives
of the country during his time as a Minister or as a Member of
Parliament. Mr Ingram says that the point he was making in the
meeting with the undercover reporter was that people in the companies
with which he was associated had good points of contact in Libya.
v. Teachers for the Libyan defence academy
634. Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter that
"once the defence academy is built, they did, have been
able to get the defence academy here to become engaged with that,
so we would populate it with our teaching".[504]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration
and Declaration.
635. Mr Ingram says the Academy has not been built
and it therefore has not been populated by the students or instructors/teachers.
There was a future prospect that a company with which he was involved
and in which his interest has been registered (ISSEE), is likely
to have an interest in obtaining contracts in this area.
vi. EDS
636. Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter, about
his work with EDS: "my arrangement with them is that I
would only do work on an MP and then it would probably come to
the end of the arrangement."[505]
He suggested that he was meeting the "new people"
at EDS shortly to talk through whether they wanted him to
continue.
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration
and Declaration.
637. Mr Ingram says that was working with EDS as
a consultant, not in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. He
says that he had agreed with the company that the best mutual
date to review his on-going contract was when he was standing
down as a Member of Parliament. He says that he continues to be
available to give advice to the company when requested to do so.
This involved him providing them with an analysis of the structure
of government and the role of Ministers; the interface between
Ministers and senior civil servants and his assessment of developments
in Government thinking based on his political analysis. He also
advised EDS on the role and responsibilities of a Member of Parliament,
stressing the importance of keeping good relations between company
representatives and local Members Parliament in the areas where
the company had a presence. He does not accept that he was required
to lodge an agreement for services, since he did not consider
he was providing such services in his capacity as a Member of
Parliament. He had registered the agreement because, in registration
as with other House rules, he had always erred on the side of
caution.
638. The Registrar of Members' Financial Interests
says that Mr Ingram registered with the House a salary band and
deposited an agreement for the provision of services for EDS.
She notes that these actions fulfill the requirements of the rules
for those undertaking work in the capacity of an MP. She concludes
that it was indeed right that Mr Ingram should give a salary band
and provide an agreement because he was providing what she would
regard as services in the capacity of a Member of Parliament.
vii. Identifying former civil servants
639. Mr Ingram
discussed with the undercover reporter the possibility of identifying
former civil servants who might be able to serve on boards of
companies. He said, "some of them are very good strategic
planners, good thinkers, and well trained in command and control,
ah, and just think logically...."[506]
Mr Ingram continued, "there's a lot [of] duffers
in there but I've got some there [the MOD] in mind..."
Relevant rules of the House: Paragraph
15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
640. Mr Ingram says that
he has had a number of contacts with civil servants since he left
office as a Minister, but that he certainly did not do so in order
to recommend them for future employment opportunities once they
had left the civil service. Mr Ingram says that he did not maintain
a checklist of individuals whom he would be prepared to recommend
for future employment. He said he was not offering himself as
a head-hunter, for payment or otherwise, although he would be
prepared to offer his best advice on the qualities of people he
knew in Government.
viii. Relationships with Ministers and
civil servants
641. In answer to a question
from the undercover reporter, "so you would be able to
help us develop our relationship with the ministers and civil
servants?", Mr Ingram said, "I could work at
that. [507]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
642. Mr Ingram says that despite having no experience
of doing what he was being asked to do on a paid basis, he could
envisage seeking to speak to ministers or civil servants or to
participate in meetings about a client's interests. He says his
failure to elaborate further was probably because he was considering
the practicalities of such an approach. In any event, it would
have been undertaken after he had left Parliament.
ix. Contact with a possible Conservative
Defence Minister
643. The undercover reporter
asked Mr Ingram whether the advent of a Conservative administration
would change his role on the advisory board at all, or affect
him or the things he could deliver. He replied: "there's
one person who's likely to become the defence Minister in the
Tory administration, says once you (?) become Minister wants to
come and talk to me because I'll give him good advice."
644. Mr Ingram said: "I want to see the department
well run, I don't care who's running it... good governance...
So I don't know if that's of interest to you." [508]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct: Disrepute.
645. Mr Ingram says that the discussion on this point
was about providing advice, on request, on his experience as a
Defence Minister. Mr Ingram says that in using the words "I
don't know if that's of interest to you?" he was not
suggesting that such a contact would be used to the benefit of
a company which might employ him on its advisory board. He was
seeking to show that he had credibility as a Defence Minister
which he believed could transcend a change of Government. He
believes that this was an attribute which would have been available
to the advisory board.
x. Payments of £1,500-£2,000
a day for consultancy work
646. Mr Ingram responded to the undercover reporter's
question about his "day rate": "one of
my directorships, it's a thousand pounds for a meeting, and another
it's fifteen hundred pounds a day, and you know that's what consultancy
(...INAUDIBLE...) charge ... I have two/three (?) companies associated
with Libya, and they're each two thousand pounds."[509]
Relevant rules of the House:
Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct: Registration
and Declaration.
647. Mr Ingram says he registered all companies with
which he had been involved. All potential earnings were also properly
registered as required. The figure of £1,500 a day is contained
in Mr Ingram's contact with EDS.
Findings of Fact: General
648. All of the former Members who are the subject
of these complaints were approached in February 2010 by an undercover
reporter who claimed to represent Anderson Perry, described as
"a United States communications company" which
had recently set up an office in the UK. Anderson Perry was a
fictitious company. Each of the former Members agreed to a meeting
with the undercover reporter following the approach. The undercover
reporter told all of the former Members that Anderson Perry was
planning to set up an advisory board and she asked them whether
they would be interested in joining the board. The reporter also
asked all of the former Members whether they would be interested
in working as consultants for companies retaining Anderson Perry.
Conclusions
649. The question I am to resolve is whether any
of the former Members subject to this inquiry was in breach of
the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and its associated
rules, either because of the nature of the statements they made
to the undercover reporter when they were Members of Parliament,
or because of actions taken when Members of Parliament to which
some of those statements appeared to refer. While none is any
longer a Member, for the purposes of these conclusions, I shall
refer to them as Members since that is what they were at the time.
Application of the rules of the House
650. Each of the Members believed that they were
attending a meeting with a prospective employer who was looking
to employ them after they had left the House of Commons at the
end of the last Parliament. They did not suspect that the person
they were meeting was an undercover reporter, apparently with
a brief to identify the lobbying activities of senior Members
of Parliament. They did not know that their initial telephone
conversation and the meeting itself would be secretly recorded.
They did not know that some of their statements would be published.
651. The tone and manner of some of what these Members
said are on occasions, to quote one Member, "embarrassing".
But as another Member has pointed out, this was not intended to
be a broadcast interview. It was thought by each of the Members
to be a preliminary conversation where they discussed the nature
of the jobs being offered and were given the opportunity to set
out their stalls. The manner of their speaking needs to be understood
in that context. And while what some said appears nevertheless
misjudged and sometimes ill-advised, it does not follow that Members
were necessarily in breach of the rules of the House on that account.
652. I have, therefore, considered each of the statements
I have examined against the specific rules of the House to identify
whether any of these statements or any of the actions reported
constituted a breach of one of those specific rules. I have identified
for each Member the principal statements which appeared to suggest
the potential for a breach of the rules. But to keep the inquiry
manageable and proportionate, I have not pursued every statement
made by the Member in the course of their conversations with the
undercover reporter. Nor, for the same reason, have I always sought
corroboration of the Member's explanation of their statements,
in particular where that explanation appeared to be clear and
unambiguous.
653. The principal paragraphs of the Code of Conduct
and associated rules which I believe relevant to this inquiry
are as follows:
i. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct
and part 1 of the Guide to the Rules. This relates to
the registration of Members' financial interests. If one of the
Members identified in the statements they made to the undercover
reporter that they were working for a business or organisation,
and I subsequently established that they were paid for that work
but had not registered their employment in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests, then that Member would be in breach of the
rules of the House.
ii. Paragraph 12 and 16 of the Code of
Conduct and part 2 of the Guide to the Rules. This
relates to the declaration of Members' interests. If one of the
Members identified in their statements to the undercover reporter
any transactions or communications with other Members, or with
Ministers or servants of the Crown, which was relevant to a financial
interest which they had or were expecting to have, and I found
that they had indeed had such a transaction or communication and
that they had a relevant financial interest which they had not
declared to the Member, Minister or official, then that Member
would be in breach of the rules of the House.
iii. Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct
and part 3 of the Guide to the Rules. This relates to
the prohibition on paid advocacy. If one of the Members identified
in their statements to the undercover reporter any actions which
amounted to paid advocacy because it sought to confer benefits
exclusively on a particular individual or body in which they had
a financial interest, and I found that such paid advocacy had
taken place, then the Member would be in breach of the rules of
the House. The Member would not be in breach if that Member's
advocacy was not in support of a remunerated interest (they had
not been paid) or was intended to support a sector or interest
which would benefit others as well as the individual or organisation
in which they had a financial interest. In the latter case, such
support would not be a breach of the rules of the House as long
as the relevant financial interest was both registered if necessary
in the Register of Members' Financial Interests and declared at
the time.
iv. Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct.
This relates to the Member's use of confidential information.
If one of the Members identified in their statements to the undercover
reporter that they had received information in confidence in the
course of their parliamentary duties and that they had passed
it to others for financial gain, then, if they had indeed done
so, the Member would be in breach of the rules of the House.
v. Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct
and any relevant rules of the House. This relates to the
Members' use of House of Commons facilities. If one of the Members
identified in their statements to the undercover reporter any
use of House facilities, which was contrary to the rules on their
use, then that Member would be in breach of the rules of the House.
So, in respect of one Member (Mr Caborn), if that Member had used
House banqueting facilities, on behalf of or with the support
of an organisation or individual who was employing that Member
for payment, and I found that the Member had not made the declaration
of their financial interest required by the rules, then the Member
would be in breach of the rules of the House. I shall consider
in respect of another Member (Mr Byers) whether his offer to use
House refreshment facilities to meet the fictitious American employers
was a breach of paragraph 14 of the Code because the Member offered
the use of House facilities for a non-parliamentary purpose.
vi. Paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct.
This relates to the requirement that Members should conduct themselves
in a manner which will tend to maintain or strengthen the public's
trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament, and never
to undertake actions which would bring the House of Commons, or
its Members generally, into disrepute. Successive Parliamentary
Commissioners have interpreted this provision in a way which distinguishes
between a Member undertaking actions which may bring him or her
into disrepute, and bringing the House and its Members generally
into disrepute. I have therefore considered whether any of the
statements made by any of the Members to the undercover reporter,
whether true or untrue, constituted an action which brought the
House, or its Members generally, into disrepute.
General considerations
654. I have examined statements made by each of the
Members which I have identified, against the rules relevant to
those statements. Each Member spoke differently. I have considered
each Member's conduct separately and on its own merits, against
the relevant rules. I have come to an overall conclusion on each
of their cases, taking account of the overall interview as well
as the individual issues identified.
655. There are, however, some points of general application
raised during the course of my inquiry to which I now turn. I
will in my concluding section make some general observations on
some wider lessons which might be drawn from this inquiry. My
observations of general application to each of the cases I have
considered are:
i. I have considered only the conduct of the
former Members who were the subject of the complaints which I
accepted (or in Sir John Butterfill's case, his self-referral).
I have not considered the conduct of the reporter, the production
company, the broadcaster or the press. If there are any questions
as to the conduct of any of those individuals or bodies, that
is a matter for others. I am satisfied, however, that each of
the Members had the opportunity to take part in the conversation
and respond to the reporter's questions as they saw fit. On occasions,
the reporter might be thought to have asked leading questions,
and, where relevant, I have taken account of that in coming to
my conclusions. Otherwise, the words they spoke and the responses
they gave were their own. I am satisfied that it is reasonable
for each Member to be judged against the rules of the House on
the basis of what they said.
ii. I am grateful to the production company for
having provided me with transcripts of the initial telephone conversations
and of the meetings with the undercover reporter, certified by
a solicitor. Of course, the recording was made surreptitiously
and it appears that some of what was said was inaudible. Other
words were indistinct. I accept that, as specifically identified
in the solicitor's certificate, the recording of Mr Caborn's meeting
was particularly poor: its accuracy is therefore limited. I have
also identified one point in the transcript for Mr Hoon's meeting
where a word clearly audible on the broadcast interview was transcribed
as another word.[510]
Each Member had the opportunity to challenge the transcript. Where
the words were inaudible, or the sense less than clear, where
there were gaps in the transcript or changes in the recorded timings,
I have taken that into account in coming to my conclusions. Otherwise,
I am satisfied that the transcript provides a sufficient basis
for asking Members to explain and if necessary interpret what
they were recorded as having said.
iii. Each of these meeting was clearly held
on a false premise. There was no American company. There were
no clients of that company. There were no directors. There was
to be no advisory board. There was no opening for consultants.
There was no British person setting up a branch of the company
in Europe. The meetings were conducted by an undercover journalist.
They were surreptitiously recorded. The Members were duped. In
hindsight, the flaws in the cover story given by the undercover
reporter are no doubt more transparent than they clearly were
to these Members at the time. I have not inquired into the mechanics
of the subterfuge, or whether the Members should have spotted
it. I have formed my conclusions on the basis of what the Members
thought they were discussing: namely the possibility of joining
the European advisory board of an American communications company
and also the separate possibility of acting as a consultant to
the clients of that company. I have judged the impact of the statements
which each of the Members made against what they believed to be
the case, not against what was in fact the casethat they
were giving to an undercover reporter an interview which might
subsequently be broadcast and published in the press.
iv. I have taken each meeting, therefore, at
its face value. I consider that it was clearly a preliminary discussion
between the person answerable to the American parent company for
drawing up a shortlist of candidates who might be considered by
that company for appointment to the European advisory board, and
the Member who wanted to find out more about the jobs on offer.
I do not accept that the meeting was a confidential discussion
only between the interviewer and the Member (as suggested by Mr
Byers in his interview[511]).
Each Member knew that they were discussing the possibility of
employment after they had left the House. They should have expected
that what they said would be relayed back to the fictitious employers.
In many cases the undercover reporter made that clear during the
meeting. Nor was it, in my judgement, just an informal chat (as
suggested to me by Ms Hewitt). It was not, of course, a fully
structured job interview, but it was clearly a discussion with
a purpose. And the purpose, to which each Member responded in
their own way, was to discover whether the Member wished to be
considered for one or both of the jobs on offer and to give the
Member the opportunity to demonstrate their suitability (or otherwise)
for appointment. None of the Members turned down the job opportunity
during the course of the meeting (although Mr Byers did so later).
Each Member accepted that they would be considered for shortlisting
and for moving on to the next stage of the appointments process.
This is a process which I believe is followed for many appointments.
No Member had any reason or justification for thinking that what
they said to the person they were meeting would go no further.
They must have knownor should have knownthat what
they said was going to go back to the American employers. But
they had no reason to know that what they said would be published.
v. One Member (Mr Hoon) suggested that the Code
of Conduct and its associated rules could not apply to this meeting,
since he was discussing the prospect of employment when he was
no longer a Member of the House. I accept only one aspect of this
argument. I accept Mr Hoon's argument that the Code cannot apply
to actions which the Member may have suggested they would carry
out once they were no longer a Member of Parliament. But where
the Member referred to activities undertaken when he or she was
a Member of Parliament, then clearly, in my judgement, the Code
must apply to those activities. And I consider that it must also
apply to each Member's conduct during the interview. If the Member
were to have conducted him or herself during the interview in
a way which was contrary to the Code of Conduct and its associated
rulesfor example, by making statements which had the effect
of bringing the House of Commons or its Members generally into
disreputethen I consider that the Member must be held subject
to the Code and its rules.
vi. One Member (Mr Hoon) suggested that the Code
of Conduct could not apply, since he was discussing a personal
appointment which formed no part of his parliamentary duties.
I accept that the job was not linked to any Member's parliamentary
duties. In that sense, they were not acting for their constituents,
nor were they holding the Government to account, nor were they
undertaking any of the other recognised duties of a Member of
Parliament. They were acting for themselves. But the Code goes
wider than just providing guidance on the conduct of a Member's
parliamentary duties. It provides guidance "on the standards
of conduct expected of Members in discharging their parliamentary
and public duties"[512]:
the Code covers public as well as parliamentary duties. The scope
of the Code is set out as applying to Members "in all
aspects of their public life." It adds that it does not
seek to regulate "what Members do in their purely private
and personal lives."[513]
I consider that the discussion about a possible appointment to
the advisory board of a company is an aspect of the public life
of those who were, at the time of the discussions, Members of
Parliament. It would strain the definition beyond any reasonable
interpretation to suggest that interview was part of a Member's
"purely private and personal life". It was not.
It is, after all, the basis on which the Advisory Committee on
Business Appointments operates: they consider public appointments
and, had any Member been subject to ACOBA at the time, they would
have needed to clear this appointment with that Committee. Appointments
to the board of commercial companies are, therefore, in my judgement,
parts of a person's public life. The meeting was about their public
life, both in respect of their past experience and their future
aspirations. I conclude, therefore, that because the Member was
self-evidently a Member of Parliament when they had this discussion,
and the discussion was relevant to their public life, they were
subject to the Code of Conduct and its associated rules in what
they said. I understand the distinction which Mr Hoon sought to
make to the interviewer between "Hoon work" and
his work as a Member of Parliament. But in my judgement the Code
applies to all aspects of a Member's public life, not just the
conduct of their parliamentary duties. I conclude that Mr Hoon,
and the other Members, were therefore subject to the Code of Conduct
for Members of Parliament when he and the other Members met the
undercover reporter.
656. I turn now to my conclusions on the statements
made by each of the former Members during their meetings with
the undercover reporter. I have considered each Member's meeting
separately. I have come to a judgement on whether the statements
identified during the course of my inquiry, and summarised in
the factual sections of this report, and taking account of the
full transcript of each meeting, constituted a breach of the Code
of Conduct for Members of Parliament and its associated rules.
Sir John Butterfill
i. Introductions to Ministers.
Sir John offered to
make introductions to Ministers for the supposed clients of the
company.
657. I accept Sir John's
evidence that he did not make such arrangements when he was a
Member of Parliament. It is open to a former Member to make such
arrangements on behalf of a paying client. I conclude that Sir
John was not in breach of the rules in what he said.
ii. Advice on Government contracts.
Sir John told the undercover reporter
that he had in the past acted as a consultant giving advice on
Government contracts.
658. I accept Sir John's
evidence that this work was unremunerated. The rules do not prevent
a Member of Parliament from giving advice on such matters, as
long as any remunerated work is registered in the Register of
Members' Financial Interests. My conclusion is that Sir John was
not in breach of the rules of the House in what he said.
iii. Possible Membership of the House of Lords.
Sir John noted that if he were to go to
the House of Lords it would give him "another string to
my bow as far as you are concerned." And he noted that
a member of the House of Lords might be involved in matters of
interest to Anderson Perry.
659. Sir John was clearly
unwise to raise his possible elevation to the House of Lords with
a prospective employer. The implication of his statement that
he could use that position to help Anderson Perry's interests
was even more unwise. It reflected poorly on him. But I do not
consider that, taken overall, the imprudence and unacceptability
of his statement reached the level at which it could be held that
he had brought the House of Commons and its Members generally
into disrepute. My conclusion, therefore, is that this statement
did not breach the rules of the House.
iv. Meetings with a future Conservative Government.
Sir John told the undercover reporter that it would be easy enough
to arrange a meeting for their clients with Ministers in a future
Conservative Government "provided there's something genuine
that is likely to interest them and that depends on how I present
things."
660. This reference was clearly to actions which
Sir John suggested he could take in future, if there were to be
a Conservative Government in the new Parliament. By then, he would
no longer be a Member of Parliament. I conclude that his statement,
which I believe was couched in terms which reinforced the case
for his employment by Anderson Perry, was not in itself a breach
of the rules of the House.
v. Serving MPs acting as consultants.
Sir John said that it was "now
quite difficult for a serving MP" to act as a consultant,
but once retired, they could do as much of it as they liked.
661. I accept Sir John's
evidence that he believed it was harder for a serving MP to act
as a consultant because of the public reaction. I conclude that
there was no breach of the rules in what he said.
vi. Kvaerner Pension Fund. Sir
John described how he had "blackmailed" the Kvaerner
group to make payments he considered justified to the Kvaerner
Pension Fund.
662. I accept Sir John's
judgement that the use of the word "blackmailed"
was colourful language. I accept, too, Sir John's evidence of
the leading role he played. That role was, in my judgement, an
entirely appropriate action for a Member of Parliament, in particular
given that he, like many other Members, had constituents affected
by this issue. I conclude, therefore, that he did not breach the
rules of the House in the statements he made.
vii. Private Members' Bills.
Sir John said that "all my private Members' Bills are
pro bono".
663. I accept Sir John's
evidence that he did not intend to imply by his statement that
other Members' Bills were not pro bono, although, taken
out of the overall context of the meeting, it was, in my view,
a phrase which could have carried that implication. But, in the
context of the interview, I conclude that the statement did not
have the effect of bringing the House and its Members generally
into disrepute. In my judgement, therefore, the statement did
not breach the rules of the House.
viii. Entertaining Ministers and civil servants.
Sir John confirmed that he could arrange
for clients to meet Ministers, although civil servants were quite
difficult, since they did not like being taken out to lunch.
664. I accept Sir John's evidence that as a Member
of Parliament he had not arranged meetings for paying clients.
I believe that the context of the discussion at that stage was
about what Sir John could do for the company, which, in the context,
would have been after he had left the House. It is open to any
former Member of Parliament to seek to arrange meetings with Ministers
or civil servants. I conclude, therefore, that Sir John was not
in breach of the rules of the House in the statements he made.
ix. Informal consultancy while still a Member.
Sir John said that he would be available
for an informal consultancy before the Election, although he would
need to look at each one to ensure that there was no conflict
of interest.
665. While I accept Sir John's evidence that he neither
agreed nor disagreed to this proposition, I think it is clear
from the context that he agreed to consider such an informal consultancy.
But he gave no undertakings, and, as he has pointed out, the idea
was unlikely to be practical given the imminence of the General
Election. In my judgement, Sir John was not in breach of the rules
of the House in agreeing to consider this possibility.
x. Paid-for board/consultancy work. Sir
John told the undercover reporter that he thought that the going
rate for sitting on a board might be something like £30,000
or £35,000.
666. I accept Sir John's evidence that he was responding
to a question about what the going rate was, and that he has never
been paid this rate for consultancies or other services. I accept,
therefore, that there was no failure by him in the registration
of his interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
I conclude, therefore, that Sir John was not in breach of the
rules of the House in respect of the registration of Members'
interests in making this statement.
Overall conclusion: Sir John Butterfill
667. Overall, therefore, I do not consider that any
of the statements made by Sir John Butterfill during the course
of his meeting with the undercover reporter, or any of the actions
he took as a Member referred to in his statements, were in breach
of the rules of the House. I do not, therefore, uphold the allegations
against him.
Rt Hon Stephen Byers
i. Confidential information.
Mr Byers said that he got a lot of confidential information because
he was linked into Number 10 and knew very well someone in the
office of Rt Hon David Cameron MP.
668. I accept Mr Byers' statement to me that he was
not in receipt of confidential information from Number 10 and
that he did not know very well someone in Mr Cameron's office.
His statements to the undercover reporter were therefore false.
I consider at the end of this section whether making those statements
was in breach of the rules of the House.
ii. Accessing civil servants. Mr
Byers suggested that a General Election period was a good time
to meet civil servants about the need to get any regulation changed
or law amended.
669. I accept Mr Byers'
statement that he had not sought to gain access to civil servants
on behalf of clients in this way. It would not, in my judgement,
be in breach of the rules of the House for a Member of Parliament
to give such advice to a client. I conclude, therefore, that Mr
Byers was not in breach of the rules of the House in making this
statement.
iii. Securing removal of a regulation. Mr
Byers suggested that he could facilitate paying clients in removing
a regulation or other restriction standing in the way of a business
commercial opportunity.
670. I accept Mr Byers' statement that he had not
performed such a service for clients. It would not be a breach
of the rules of the House for a Member of Parliament to give advice
to a commercial company about how best to lobby to remove a regulation.
It would be a breach if the facilitation involved the Member personally
in paid advocacy to bring an exclusive benefit to a client. I
conclude, therefore, that Mr Byers was not in breach of the rules
of the House in making this statement.
iv. Ways around the Enterprise Act.
Mr Byers implied that, as the architect
of the Enterprise Act, he knew ways around it if the Office of
Fair Trading suggested a company was operating a restrictive practice
or price fixing.
671. I accept Mr Byers' statement that he is not
in fact aware of ways around the Enterprise Act. I will consider
at the end of this section whether making this false statement
was in breach of the rules of the House.
v. Food labelling regulations.
Mr Byers referred to discussions with a senior representative
of Tesco who wanted a proposed food labelling regulation stopped,
and a subsequent discussion with Lord Mandelson to get him to
take the matter up with Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, the then Secretary
of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and get the
regulation amended.
672. I accept Mr Byers' statements that he had no
discussion or contact with Tesco representatives about food labelling
regulations, nor with Lord Mandelson, nor with Rt Hon Hilary Benn
MP. I will consider at the end of this section whether Mr Byers
was in breach of the rules of the House in making these false
statements.
vi. National Express.
Mr Byers said that he worked for National Express. They had approached
him in June 2009. He had had a meeting with Lord Adonis, the then
Transport Secretary, to choreograph the Secretary of State's decision
about the East Coast rail franchise and to avoid National Express
paying a penalty.
673. I accept Mr Byers' statement that he was not
paid by National Express. I accept, therefore, that there was
nothing for him to register in the Register of Members Financial
Interests. It is a matter of record, however, that Mr Byers did
have a meeting with Lord Adonis in June 2009. And I have found
that Mr Byers had had a prior meeting with the then Chief Executive
of National Express and that a separate telephone briefing from
a representative of National Express took place, probably after
Mr Byers' meeting with Lord Adonis. I accept that Mr Byers had
a constituency interest, though I believe that he must also have
been aware of the National Express concerns in at least very general
terms when he met Lord Adonis, on account of his earlier discussion
with the Chief Executive of National Express. But I accept the
clear statement made by Lord Adonis in the House of Lords on 22
March 2010 that his meeting with Mr Byers did not follow the lines
as described by Mr Byers to the undercover reporter. I accept,
too, Mr Byers' confirmation of Lord Adonis's statement. I will
consider at the end of this section whether the false statements
made by Mr Byers to the undercover reporter were in breach of
the rules of the House.
vii. Rio Tinto.
Mr Byers stated that he worked for Rio
Tinto in Kazakhstan.
674. I accept Mr Byers' statement that he had not
worked for Rio Tinto. I accept, therefore, that there was nothing
for him to register in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
I will consider at the end of this section whether the false statement
he made was a breach of the rules of the House.
viii. Ofwat.
Mr Byers suggested that, having spoken
to Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, he had talked to Ofwat and relevant
civil servants to influence Ofwat's five year investment programme
to the benefit of his clients.
675. I accept Mr Byers' statement that he had no
discussions or contact at all on water matters with Rt Hon Hilary
Benn MP, or with his officials, or with Ofwat. I accept his statement
that he made no approach to any of those concerned. I will consider
at the end of this section whether this false statement constituted
a breach of the rules of the House.
ix. Mediating in a dispute.
Mr Byers described mediating
in a dispute on an oil pipeline between BP and contractors.
676. I accept Mr Byers' evidence that he assisted
the contractor concerned (Consolidated Contractors International)
in negotiating a settlement on this matter. I accept, too, that
he was not paid an additional fee for this work above payments
which he included in the Register of Members' Financial Interests
for his employment by Consolidated Contractors International.
I conclude that Mr Byers was not in breach of the rules of the
House in making this statement.
x. Influencing manifesto implementation. Mr
Byers said he would go through a manifesto with a water company,
identifying any problems, and "we" would go to
talk to a civil servant to convince them of the difficulties with
the proposal.
677. This statement needs to be considered against
the fact that Mr Byers was paid as the non-executive Chairman
of a water treatment companyan interest which he registered
in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I accept Mr Byers'
statement that what he said was not accurate in respect of any
General Election. The implication of his statement, had it been
true, could have amounted to paid advocacy exclusively on behalf
of the water treatment company which he chaired. If so, that would
have been a breach of the rules of the House. Had the interest
benefited other water companies, then it could have been within
the rules as long as Mr Byers had declared his financial interest
to the civil servant. I will consider at the end of this section
whether the false statement Mr Byers made was itself a breach
of the rules.
xi. Use of House facilities.
Mr Byers offered to meet the American
employers in a bar in the Palace of Westminster.
678. I accept Mr Byers' statement that he was not
aware that entertaining people in a House of Commons bar for private
business purposes was a breach of the rules of the House. The
May 2010 Handbook for Members makes it clear that House refreshment
facilities should not be used for "private business activity".
But that related to the current Parliament. The previous edition
of the Handbook simply said that Members might bring guests to
the facilities. I consider, however, that it is a longstanding
expectation that Members should use House facilities only in the
course of their parliamentary business. But in my judgement, this
needs to be operated with a sense of proportion. It may be a kind
gesture to invite friends or family to a House of Commons bar
or restaurant. It may also be most convenient for a Member to
make use of parliamentary facilities in meeting others not strictly
for the purpose of parliamentary business. This is because it
keeps the Member near at hand so that they can continue to conduct
parliamentary business if necessary. But the use of House facilities
simply as a way of boosting a Member's employment prospects would,
in my judgement, be a misuse of those facilities. I think that
it is clear that Mr Byers's suggestion was indeed intended to
boost his employment prospects (he said, "the Americans
love it by the way"). Had Mr Byers used House facilities
for this purpose, I consider that that would have been a breach
of the rules of the House, although, given the uncertainty in
the rules before May 2010, I would not consider it a serious breach.
But his offer was never taken up. I conclude, therefore, that
it would be unfair to conclude in all the circumstances that Mr
Byers was in breach of the rules of the House for having made
this suggestion.
xii. Cab for hire. Mr
Byers told the undercover reporter that he was like "a
sort of cab for hire I suppose at the moment."
679. I agree with Mr Byers that he should not have
used this phrase. I accept his explanation that "in a
clumsy way" he was referring to his wish to have a number
of different jobs once he had left the House, to add to the three
he already had. While this statement was clearly ill-judged, I
do not consider that he was offering himself to work for anyone
prepared to pay for him while still a Member of Parliament. I
consider that it was a reference to how he would approach future
job opportunities once he had left the House. I conclude, therefore,
that his statement was not in breach of the rules of the House.
xiii. Exaggerated or untrue statements.
I have identified in
the previous paragraphs those statements which were made by Mr
Byers to the undercover reporter and which, on the basis of Mr
Byers' own evidence, I have accepted to be untrue. I had no reason
to doubt that Mr Byers was accurate in his evidence to me. The
question I need to resolve is whether these untruths were such
that they brought the House of Commons and its Members generally
into disrepute and failed to meet the guiding Nolan principle
of honesty.
680. I consider that some of the statements which
Mr Byers made did breach paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct by
bringing the House of Commons and its Members generally into disrepute.
The statements which I consider breached this rule were his statement
about knowing ways around the Enterprise Act; his statements about
amending food labelling regulations on behalf of Tesco; his statements
about his discussions with Lord Adonis and others on behalf of
National Express; his statements about influencing Ofwat's investment
programme; and, to a lesser extent, his statement that he worked
for Rio Tinto and that he contacted civil servants to argue against
the impact of manifesto commitments on water companies. His statements
about his links with Number 10 are not in my judgement sufficiently
developed to reach the paragraph 15 threshold.
681. Mr Byers had no inkling that the person he was
speaking to was an undercover reporter. He believed that he was
talking to somebody who would be reporting her conversation with
him to her American employers with a view to employing him. It
was reasonable for that person to expect that a Member of Parliament
would speak the truth. The experiences he recounted, which I have
identified above, could only suggest to that interviewerand
to her American employersthat this was the way that Members
of the United Kingdom Parliament normally behaved or were allowed
to behave. The actions which Mr Byers said he had taken were both
unethical and, in some cases, possible examples of paid advocacy
on behalf of a particular client. They also reflected badlyand
unfairlyon the other politicians he identified and on the
companies he referred to. The impression given to the interviewer
by Mr Byers of his conduct in these cases was such, in my judgement,
as to bring the House of Commons and its Members generally into
disrepute.
682. In responding to this inquiry, it is to Mr Byers'
credit that he has offered his sincere and unreserved apologies
to the House for making the statements which he did. It is also
in my view some mitigation that Mr Byers recognised within 24
hours of his meeting with the undercover reporter that he could
not let his statements stand. But it took three e-mails, and some
weeks, before Mr Byers recognised the proper response to such
conduct was to withdraw his name from the list. This was not about
him overstating the part he had played in trying to secure changes
in the way Government deals with issues (as covered in his initial
e-mail of 24 February). The retraction in his first e-mail that
he had not been engaged in lobbying Ministers in the UK, and in
his second naming the three Ministers he said he had not in fact
spoken to, was not in my judgement a wholly clear or comprehensive
retraction of the false statements he had made. Had Anderson Perry
been who he thought they were, they would have continued to have
had, at best, a confused picture not just of Mr Byers' conduct,
but of the way in which Members of Parliament were able, in Mr
Byers' words, "to secure changes in the way in which Government
deals with issues." Mr Byers' untrue statements about
his actions as a Member of Parliament were, in my view, a particularly
serious breach of the Code of Conduct because they reflected on
Members of Parliament generally and cast aspersions on the behaviour
of Government Ministers and commercial companies.
xiv. Charges for his services.
Mr Byers told the undercover reporter,
who asked about his fees, that the scale was usually between £3,000
to £5,000 a day, although sometimes he could charge more.
683. I accept Mr Byers's statement that the sum of
£3,000 to £5,000 a day was the level of fee he had charged
in making speeches to commercial organisations; and that he had
charged a lower fee for consultancy and advisory services. I accept,
too, his statement that his fees had been properly registered
in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I conclude, therefore,
that Mr Byers was not in breach of the rules of the House in respect
of the registration of Members' interests in making this statement.
Overall conclusion: Rt Hon Stephen Byers
684. My overall conclusion, therefore, is that Mr
Byers was in breach of the rules of the House in making false
statements during the course of his meeting with the undercover
reporter in relation to how he managed to change Government policies
for the benefit of paying clients, because these statements at
the time brought the House of Commons and its Members generally
into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct.
This was a particularly serious breach of the rules. His subsequent
retractions went some, but not the full, way to undoing the damage
he had caused to the reputation of Parliament. To this extent,
therefore, I uphold the complaint against him.
Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt
i. Five ways to meet a Minister. Ms
Hewitt told the undercover reporter that people had to be "quite
careful" about putting business clients in touch with
a Minister, but then listed five ways in which it could be done.
685. I accept Ms Hewitt's statement that she had
never used any of these methods on behalf of a paying client,
although she may have been subject to some of them as a Minister.
Her statements gave unintentional publicity to lobbying techniques
which I accept she believed were used to connect business clients
with Ministers. None are of themselves contrary to the rules of
the House on lobbying. A Member of Parliament can give such advice
to a paying client. If a Member of Parliament were to be engaged
in any of these activities, they would need to declare their interest
to the Minister and any civil servants. They would need to be
careful not to engage in paid advocacy. But Ms Hewitt did not
imply otherwiserather the reverse. I conclude, therefore,
that Ms Hewitt was not in breach of the rules of the House in
this statement. I shall draw some wider lessons from her statements
at the end of these conclusions.
ii. Removing a regulation. In
response to a question about the Conservatives winning the then
forthcoming General Election, Ms Hewitt explained that "we
can often" package a client's wish to remove a particular
regulation which was attractive to the new Government.
686. I accept Ms Hewitt's evidence that she was referring
to action which could be taken with a new Conservative Government
in the new Parliament. By then she would no longer have been a
Member of Parliament. There is no reason to believe that she acted
in this way when she was a Member of Parliament. No question of
registration, declaration or adherence to the lobbying and advocacy
rules therefore arises. I conclude that Ms Hewitt was not in breach
of the rules of the House in making this statement.
iii. Changes to directives or legislation.
In talking of future legislation,
Ms Hewitt told the undercover reporter that it was "easy"
to try to change or influence legislation"but
you have to put a lot of effort into it".
687. I accept Ms Hewitt's statement that this was
a discussion about future actions and, as such, she would no longer
be a Member of Parliament and would not therefore be subject to
its rules. I conclude, therefore, that Ms Hewitt was not in breach
of the rules of the House in making this statement.
iv. Contacts with civil servants.
In answer to a question about whether it was easy to have meetings
with civil servants to speak on behalf a client, Ms Hewitt said
that she had regular lunches and coffees with civil servants and
"we're all mates really".
688. I accept Ms Hewitt's statement that, while she
had regular informal lunches or coffee with some civil servants
about once a month, she only raised a matter in which she had
a registered interest on one occasion, and she declared that interest
and put her case on behalf of the whole sector and not exclusively
for her client. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that
Ms Hewitt implied to the reporter that she had regularly raised
matters relating exclusively to her paying clients when she was
a Member of Parliament. But it seems to me reasonable to conclude
that in making this statement she was suggesting that she had
the contacts base which she could draw on for the benefit of her
new client once she was no longer a Member of Parliament. I conclude,
however, that Ms Hewitt was not in breach of the rules of the
House in making this statement.
v. to vii. PiC and the Bradley report.
Ms Hewitt suggested (v) that she had been instrumental in putting
Partnerships in Care, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinven to whom
she acted as a paid consultant, in front of the Bradley inquiry
into mental health in prisons; (vi) that she had got PiC into
the mental health system, by implication so that they could bid
for contracts; and (vii) that she had secured their involvement
in the Department's advisory group on the Bradley report.
689. Having taken account of the evidence I have
received from Lord Bradley, and the evidence Ms Hewitt provided
from the Department of Health, I consider that Ms Hewitt exaggerated
her influence in engaging Partnerships in Care and the private
health sector in the work of Lord Bradley's inquiry and its follow
up. But she had no reason to know that she was so exaggerating
her involvement at the time when she spoke to the undercover reporter.
And the evidence is that, when speaking to Lord Bradley, the senior
Departmental official responsible for the programme board, and
at a Ministerial meeting, she properly declared her interest.
She also avoided breaching the prohibition on paid advocacy by
connecting her lobbying to a wider involvement of the private
health sector generally and not just PiC. It has to be said, however,
that PiC, as a major player in that field, could expect to be
a major beneficiary of Ms Hewitt's efforts to engage the private
sector more in mental health provision. I shall address the implications
of this in my concluding section. I do not consider, however,
that Ms Hewitt breached the rules of the House in making the statements
she did.
viii. Carbon reduction.
Ms Hewitt said that she had spoken both to officials and Ministers
about a carbon reduction regulation which, in her view, disproportionately
affected private equity firms, for one of whom, Cinven, she acted
as a paid consultant.
690. I accept Ms Hewitt's evidence, supported by
the then Minister Rt Hon Joan Ruddock MP, that Ms Hewitt properly
declared her interest in speaking to Ms Ruddock briefly about
these regulations. I accept also that she spoke on behalf of the
whole sector, and so did not engage in paid advocacy for the exclusive
benefit of Cinven. I accept, too, that her reference to speaking
to officials (which she did not do) was a minor slip. I conclude,
therefore, that Ms Hewitt was not in breach of the rules of the
House in what she said. I shall reflect on the operation of the
paid advocacy rule in my concluding remarks.
ix. Payments from clients. Ms
Hewitt told the undercover reporter that her day rate for Cinven
was a bit over £3,000.
691. I accept Ms Hewitt's statement that the payments
she received had been at the level she told the undercover reporter
and were properly registered in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests. I conclude, therefore, that Ms Hewitt was not in breach
of the rules of the House in respect of the registration of Members'
interests in making this statement.
Overall conclusion: Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt
692. My overall conclusion, therefore, is that Ms
Hewitt was not in breach of the Code of Conduct and its associated
rules in the statements she made to the undercover reporter. Accordingly,
I do not uphold the complaint against her. In my view, however,
some of her statements raise wider issues, which I shall address
in the concluding section.
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon
i. Use of knowledge and contacts.
Mr Hoon told the undercover
reporter that he was looking forward to translating his knowledge
and contacts about the international scene into "something
that, bluntly, makes money."
693. I accept Mr Hoon's statement that he had developed
a good understanding over the past 25 years of how international
organisations operate. I accept that what he said to the undercover
reporter related in terms only to his international work. His
statement that he wanted to use this international experience
to make money was a prime example of what he described to me as
an embarrassing phrase. But it was an informal meeting and he
had less reason, therefore, to pick his words. The policy, articulated
by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, is that it
is in the public interest that former Ministers with experience
in Government should be able to move into business or other areas
of public life. The clear implication of that statement is that,
in doing so, they would receive remuneration. It is no breach
of the rules for a former Minister to put his or her knowledge
and even his or her contacts at the service of a paid business
interest, provided he or she meets any requirements of the Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments. Nor is there any such prohibition
on former Members of Parliament, many of whom must also be expected
to seek alternative means of employment once they leave the House.
I shall reflect on the possible implications of this for former
Members of Parliament in the concluding section. But I conclude
that while the tone and choice of words may have been ill-judged,
Mr Hoon was not in breach of the rules of the House in making
this statement.
ii. Offering to chair a company.
Mr Hoon said that he was in negotiation with "quite a
big company" and that they were going to pay him an amount
of money that "I find frankly embarrassing".
694. I accept Mr Hoon's evidence that he believed
that he was about to be made such an offer at the time of his
meeting, although in the event nothing came of it. Again, while
the tone may now seem embarrassing, I conclude that there was
no breach of the rules of the House in Mr Hoon's statement.
iii. Leading a delegation to a Minister.
Mr Hoon said that he did not mind leading
a delegation in to see a Minister. He made clear that he wanted
to give strategic advice and not act as some sort of lobbyist.
695. I accept Mr Hoon's evidence that he recognised
that there could be times when, once he was no longer a Member
of Parliament, he might be asked to lead a delegation in to see
a Minister on behalf of a company. That was action he envisaged
taking once he was no longer a Member of Parliament. No question
of a breach of the rules can therefore arise. I conclude, therefore,
that Mr Hoon was not in breach of the rules of the House in making
this statement.
iv. Access to Defence Ministers.
Mr Hoon said that if
a former Minister asked to see the Defence Minister, he did not
think that there would be "any difficulty".
696. I accept Mr Hoon's evidence that he was "showing
off" in making this statement and trying to impress.
Mr Hoon was right to point out to me that this would only be possible
if there was a good reason for such a meeting. I conclude that
Mr Hoon was not in breach of the rules of the House in making
this statement.
v. Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The reporter told Mr Hoon that one of the company's clients had
mentioned this defence review at the MoD. Having referred to the
Green paper not saying very much, and the need for the review
to identify challenges arising from defence cuts, Mr Hoon referred
to the work he was doing on NATO having to fit with that. He offered
to talk to Anderson Perry's clients about how the NATO policy
fitted together with the national defence policy, which he identified
in terms as the strategic defence review. The reporter followed
up by asking Mr Hoon about giving clients of the company a "steer
... on where ... defence policy is going". The reporter
then implied that they would like this so that they would know
"what they should be bidding for". Mr Hoon said
that, while it would take some time, he knew "some of
the people on the team in the MoD who are working on this, because
they briefed me about this." He continued that some of
the people he was seeing "are doing both, they're both
advising me as to what the Government position is, but also working
separately on the ... defence review." [514]
697. Mr Hoon has sought to explain his statement
by suggesting that he was referring only and at all times to the
UK Government officials briefing him on what the UK Government
wanted to see from the NATO review of defence policy. He said
that the only insights he had about the Defence Review were ones
based on his own experience and judgement. His evidence is that
he was not holding out the prospect of briefing the company about
the UK's defence policy and the strategic defence and security
review based on his discussions with officials involved in that
review.
698. I do not accept Mr Hoon's interpretation of
what he said. I find wholly unconvincing Mr Hoon's explanation
that, in his statement that he knew "some of the people
in the team in the MoD who are working on this, because they briefed
me about this", the first "this" did
indeed refer to the defence review, but the second referred only
to the NATO briefing. In the context of the discussion, what he
said could only have been understood as an offer to brief Anderson
Perry's clients on the strategic defence and security review,
drawing on briefings he received from MoD officials. I have no
reason to doubt Mr Hoon's statement that he would never do such
a thing. But in my judgement, that was not the impression he gave
during the meeting. I consider that a Member of Parliament, who
had had close links with the MoD, suggesting that he would act
in this way brought the House of Commons, if not its Members generally,
into disrepute. Mr Hoon had no reason to believe that the person
he was speaking to was an undercover reporter. He should have
recognised that that person would be reporting back his conversation
to her American employers so that they could consider whether
to employ him on the advisory board. To have offered to act in
this way, or even to have given the impression that he might act
in this way, however misleadingly, was in my judgement a serious
breach of the rules of the House because it brought the House
of Commons into disrepute.
699. Mr Hoon has also argued that there could be
no question of him needing to consider whether to declare a financial
interest to the officials who briefed him, since his meeting was
not, in effect, a "communication" which he was
having with servants of the Crown. I find this argument unconvincing.
The fact that the officials were communicating to him (and not
he to them) does not, in my judgement, make it any less of a communication.
And paragraph 86 of the 2009 Guide to the Rules refers specifically
to the requirement to declare a relevant interest during meetings
with Ministers and public officials.[515]
Mr Hoon's briefings were self-evidently meetings with public officials.
And I do not accept that he was absolved from this responsibility
by defining his NATO work as not being a parliamentary duty. The
purpose of the provision is transparency. Had Mr Hoon had a financial
interest in the information he was receiving, it would have been
right for him to have told that to the officials, since that might
have affected the briefing they were providing. But there is no
evidence that at that stage Mr Hoon had such a financial interest,
or that he had a sufficiently strong expectation of having such
an interest, to require its declaration. Whatever impression he
sought to give the interviewer, it had not in my judgement passed
beyond "vague hopes and aspirations", in the
words of paragraph 73 of the 2009 Guide to the Rules. I conclude,
therefore, that Mr Hoon was not in breach of the rules in not
declaring a financial interest to officials briefing him in relation
to the NATO review, since he had, at that stage, no such interest
to declare.
vi. NATO defence policy. Mr
Hoon appeared to hold out the prospect of briefing a private equity
fund about the relationship between the NATO and National Defence
Policy which he said was "the strategic defence review,
one down" and which he said he was developing, and "how
it actually all fits together". [516]
700. I recognise that Mr Hoon was engaged in supporting
NATO in the development of its defence policy. I have no reason
to doubt his statement that that was a public process. And I accept
that his reference to the policy he was developing was to the
NATO defence review and not the UK strategic defence review. But
Mr Hoon's offer appears to go beyond a briefing about some public
process. I consider that the clear implication of what he was
saying was that he would give the private equity firm a briefing
about the NATO policy which he claimed to be devising and developing,
and its relationship to the UK's strategic defence review. I consider
that the clear impression he gave went beyond offering an informed
outsider's analysis, to suggesting that he could draw on his access
to information about the NATO defence review and the UK's Strategic
Defence and Security Review for the benefit of the private equity
fund. The impression he would have given to the interviewer was
that he was offering an inside track on defence strategy to the
fund (a track which would also be available to Anderson Perry's
clients). While I consider this less clear-cut than his offer
to draw on his contacts with MoD officials to brief Anderson Perry's
clients on the strategic defence review, I conclude that holding
out the prospect of this briefing for private equity fund was
a breach of the rules of the House because it brought the House
generally into disrepute.
vii. Private equity briefing. Mr
Hoon said that he might go and talk to a private equity firm about,
among other things, defence policy more generally.
701. I note Mr Hoon's statement that this was clearly
aspirational, and that he had no current plans to do this. In
any event, I do not consider that telling the undercover reporter
that he was prepared to brief a private equity firm about defence
policy more generally had the effect of bringing the House of
Common or its Members generally into disrepute. There can, in
my judgement, be no objection to a former Member of the House,
experienced in defence matters, speaking to private equity firms
or any others about general defence policy as long as he or she
does not imply that such a briefing would draw on confidential
information. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Hoon was not in breach
of the rules of the House in making this statement.
viii. Defence policy document.
Mr Hoon offered to present
to the company's defence clients a document which he said he had
just got "from Washington".[517]
He had earlier in the interview identified this as an academic
document.
702. I accept Mr Hoon's evidence that this document
was an academic document produced for the NATO review which was
intended for publication and has now been published. It is reasonable
to conclude that the interviewer should have recognised this as
the document referred to earlier in their discussion. There could
be no breach of confidence in Mr Hoon presenting such a document
to others. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Hoon was not in breach
of the rules of the House in making this statement.
ix. Bank business.
Mr Hoon told the undercover reporter that a US investment bank
wanted to "build a business around me".
703. I accept Mr Hoon's evidence that this was an
exaggeration and that, had anything come of this proposal (which
it had not), he would have acted no differently from any other
chairman of a company. But I do not consider that this exaggeration
amounted to a breach of the rules of the House. I conclude, therefore,
that Mr Hoon was not in breach of the rules of the House in making
this statement.
x. Daily consultancy rate.
Mr Hoon told the undercover reporter that
he had been offered £3,000 a day for a day's work, which
he was thought was about right for his daily rate.
704. I accept Mr Hoon's evidence that this was reference
to an offer he had received from a television company for work
after the election. No question of registration therefore arises.
I conclude that Mr Hoon was not in breach of the rules of the
House in respect of the registration of Members interests in making
this statement.
Overall conclusion: Rt Hon Geoff Hoon
705. I consider that Mr Hoon was in breach of the
rules of the House in making statements to the undercover reporter
about disclosing confidential information he implied he was receiving
or could access from the MoD about the UK's Strategic Defence
and Security Review for the benefit of business clients who might
be considering seeking contracts with the MoD and for the benefit
of a private equity fund. I accept Mr Hoon's statement that, even
if he were party to such information (which he said he was not),
he would not have divulged it. But by holding out the prospect
of doing so, I consider that he breached the rules of the House
by bringing the House of Commons and its Members generally into
disrepute, contrary to paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct, and
that was a particularly serious breach. In this respect, I uphold
the complaint against him.
Rt Hon Richard Caborn
i. Accessing Ministers. Mr
Caborn told the undercover reporter that there were a number of
ways in which it was possible to access Ministers, whether it
was a sector or an individual company.
706. I accept Mr Caborn's statement that he has never
accessed or influenced Ministers through lobbying on behalf of
a paying client and that his comments were a statement of how
the system worked. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Caborn was not
in breach of the rules of the House in making this statement.
ii. House of Lords.
Mr Caborn said that there was a possibility that he would be in
the House of Lords and that this would provide access to people,
including Ministers, and to "all the information that
is going around. If you can get information, that is very powerful."
707. I accept Mr Caborn's statement that, if he were
to be elevated to the House of Lords, he would act in accordance
with its rules. I consider, nevertheless, that this statement
was ill-judged, not only because of his suggestion that he might
be elevated to the House of Lords, but because of the clear implication
that that would provide him with access to people, including Ministers,
and access to information which would be of benefit to his paying
employers. While I consider that these statements reflect poorly
on Mr Caborn, I conclude that they were not of such a degree as
to bring the House of Commons and its Members generally into disrepute.
I conclude, therefore, that Mr Caborn was not in breach of the
rules of the House in making these statements.
iii. Fitness Industry Association: Ministerial
access. Mr Caborn told the undercover
reporter in referring to the Fitness Industry Association (for
which he was a paid consultant) that "we get access to
Ministers", particularly Health Ministers.
708. I accept Mr Caborn's evidence that he has never
arranged access to Health Ministers or to any other Minister for
the FIA. I accept also that Ministers see the FIA without such
intervention. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Caborn was not in
breach of the rules of the House in making this statement.
iv. AMEC. Referring
to his work in South Africa on behalf of AMEC, for whom he was
a paid consultant, Mr Caborn said, "if they want a reception
in the House of Commons and if they want to get advice from Government,
then I get advice from Government and I introduce them to people."
709. I accept Mr Caborn's evidence that, in referring
to him getting advice from Government for AMEC and in making introductions,
he was referring to the South African Government. I conclude that
he was not, therefore, in breach of the rules of the House in
making this statement. I consider later Mr Caborn's activities
in arranging events in the House of Commons paid for by AMEC.
v. Relationships with civil servants. Mr
Caborn told the undercover reporter, in answer to questions about
setting up meetings with civil servants, that he had lots of meetings
with civil servants when he was a Minister and was about to arrange
a party with his former private office.
710. Mr Caborn's answer self-evidently did not answer
the question, since, as he says, he was referring to a time when
he was a Minister. I accept Mr Caborn's statement that he had
not set up any meetings with civil servants on behalf of any of
those who paid for his services when he was a Member of Parliament.
I conclude, therefore, that Mr Caborn was not in breach of the
rules of the House in making this statement.
vi. Health and wellness services: Sheffield.
Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter about the proposal he had
discussed with the Chairman of the Sheffield Health Authority
about restructuring health and wellness services in Sheffield
and that the Chairman was "a friend of mine whom I have
known for many years." He also told her that he had been
advising the FIA, who were looking to use their assets more effectively.
He said that they wanted to get referrals to the services from
doctors.
711. I accept Mr Caborn's statement that he arranged
no meetings or contacts on this matter with Ministers or officials.
I accept, too, that, while he did not declare his financial interest
in the FIA when having his discussion with the Chairman of the
Sheffield Health Authority, he had raised the matter with the
FIA at one of their regular meetings (as well as with other organisations)
and that he would have declared such an interest in future if
the idea had gone beyond "its infancy". I recognise
that the strict terms of the Guide to the Rules appear only to
require the declaration of an interest to Ministers or Crown servants,
including executive agencies. The Chairman of a health authority
does not come into either of those categories. Nevertheless, the
Guide to the Rules is not a legal document and Members are expected
to abide by both the spirit as well as the letter of the rules.
And I note that paragraph 86 of the 2009 edition of the Guide
(repeated from the 2005 edition) says that the requirement to
declare a relevant interest extends to meetings with "public
officials".[518]
712. Mr Caborn has stated that he would have made
any necessary declarations about his association with the FIA
had the idea gone further. I consider that he would have been
right to have made such a declaration to the Chairman of the health
authority at his initial meeting. This is because the Chairman
was holding an important and influential public appointment within
the public sector; because the FIA had a self-evident potential
financial interest in the restructuring of health and wellness
services in Sheffield, moving them "to prevention rather
than cure", as Mr Caborn said in his meeting with the
undercover reporter; and because, as Mr Caborn told the reporter,
the idea would require legislation, thus linking it to Parliament.[519]
The proposal stood to benefit FIA members financially by allowing
them to make their facilities available to the NHS. Mr Caborn
should, therefore, in my judgement, have declared his financial
interest at the outset and not left it until later. I therefore
find that Mr Caborn was in breach of the rules of the House in
not declaring his financial interest in the FIA when he had his
discussion, albeit of a preliminary nature, about the possible
restructuring of health and wellness services in Sheffield with
the Chairman of the Sheffield Health Authority.
vii. AMEC contract.
Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter
that, at the request of AMEC, he had advised a consortium on bidding
for a major contract in respect of fuel reprocessing at Sellafield.
713. I accept Mr Caborn's evidence that he did advise
AMEC and other partners in the consortium in respect of this contract,
but that he did not speak to or consult Ministers, Government
officials or any of the directors or staff of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Agency which was awarding this contract. There was, therefore,
no requirement on him to declare his interest to any of these
bodies. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Caborn was not in breach
of the rules of the House in making this statement.
viii. AMEC structural revamp.
Mr Caborn told the undercover reporter that he had revamped the
whole structure of AMEC.
714. I accept Mr Caborn's evidence that he had assisted
the Board of Nuclear Management Partners in restructuring their
socio-economic policies. While, therefore, Mr Caborn's statement
may have been something of an exaggeration (he did not restructure
the whole of AMEC), I do not consider that it was so much of an
exaggeration as to bring the House of Commons generally into disrepute.
My conclusion, therefore, is Mr Caborn was not in breach of the
rules of the House in making this statement.
ix to xii. Receptions and dinners in the House
of Commons. My inquiries
into the receptions and dinners which Mr Caborn was associated
with arose from a reference he made to the undercover reporter
about organising receptions and dinners in the House of Commons.
My conclusions on each of the events I have considered are as
follows:
ix.
FIA reception: 5 July 2007. I accept that Mr Caborn was
not a consultant to the FIA when he held his reception on behalf
of the FIA and had no reasonable expectation of such employment.
He was not, therefore, in breach of the rules of the House in
making this booking without declaring an interest in the FIA.
x. AMEC dinner: 23
June 2008. I accept that Mr Caborn properly
declared his interest in AMEC on the booking form for this dinner.
I accept, too, that no formal invitations were issued, so it was
not possible to identify Mr Caborn's financial interest in AMEC
on those invitations. But I find that he was in breach of the
rules of the House in not declaring that financial interest to
those who attended the dinner, as he could well have done in his
winding-up remarks at the dinner.
xi. FIA dinner: 3 December
2008. Mr Caborn was in breach of the rules
of the House in not declaring his interest in the FIA on the booking
form submitted for this dinner, which he had sponsored. I accept
that there would appear to have been a muddle between Mr Caborn's
office and the office of the FIA, which may account for this error.
Nevertheless, Mr Caborn signed a form which stated that he did
not have a declarable interest, when he clearly had one. He was
also in breach of the rules of the House in not ensuring that
the invitations for the dinner sent out by the FIA clearly identified
and declared his financial interest in the FIA as the sponsor
for the event. On both counts, I find that he was in breach of
the rules of the House.
xii. AMEC dinner: 11
May 2009. I find that Mr Caborn did properly
identify his interest in AMEC in the booking form for this dinner.
I accept that there were again no written invitations, so it was
not possible for Mr Caborn to declare his registrable interest
on any invitation. But he should have identified his registrable
interest to those attending the dinner, as he could well have
done in his winding-up remarks. In not doing so, he was in breach
of the rules of the House.
xiii. AMEC meeting with Prime Ministers. Mr
Caborn said that, if the Managing Director of AMEC wished to see
the Prime Minister, he was able to do so. When he was asked if
he had helped AMEC to arrange the meeting, Mr Caborn answered,
"Yes I do it and the Minister of Energy."
715. I accept Mr Caborn's statement that chairmen
of major companies do have access to Ministers, including the
Prime Minister, without, in effect, the need for his intervention.
I accept also his statement that he has never arranged meetings
for the Managing Director of AMEC or other industrialists with
the Prime Minister or any other Ministers. It is difficult, therefore,
to interpret his statement to the undercover reporter that he
did arrange such a meeting, including for "the Minister
of Energy." I note that Mr Caborn might here have been
referring to South African Ministers. I consider that there is
sufficient doubt on this point for me not to suggest that Mr Caborn
was providing an inaccurate answer. I conclude, therefore, that
Mr Caborn was not in breach of the rules of the House in making
this statement.
xiv. Payments. Mr
Caborn told the undercover reporter that his current clients paid
him £2,500 a day.
716. I accept Mr Caborn's evidence that this was
a reference to the day rate paid by AMEC, although the FIA paid
less. I accept also that Mr Caborn properly registered
his payments in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
I conclude, therefore, that Mr Caborn was not in breach of the
rules of the House in respect of the registration of Members'
interests in making this statement.
Overall conclusion: Rt Hon Richard Caborn
717. I find that Mr Caborn was in breach of the rules
of the House in not declaring his financial interest in the FIA
when he had a preliminary discussion with the Chairman of the
Sheffield Health Authority about restructuring health services
in Sheffield in a way which could have benefited members of the
FIA; and that he was in breach of the rules of the House in one
failure to declare his registrable interest on a booking form
for a House of Commons dinner, and otherwise failing to declare
his relevant interest, either on the invitation or in his remarks
to those attending three of these events. I have no evidence that
any of these breaches was caused by deliberate intention: it was
more likely that they were the result of careless oversight. They
were therefore less serious on that account. In this comparatively
limited respect, I uphold the complaint against him.
Rt Hon Adam Ingram
i. Network of former Ministers.
Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter that ex-Ministers would
become "a point of contact in the political network"
and that "all of that ... can be established ..."
718. I accept Mr Ingram's statement that he was not
suggesting in these remarks that a formal network of ex-Ministers
be set up to help make contact with people working in Departments.
There is not sufficient evidence, from his statement, to draw
that conclusion rather than his own conclusion that former Ministerial
colleagues would naturally maintain their contacts. In any event,
Mr Ingram was referring to activities once heand former
Ministerial colleagueshad left the House of Commons. No
question of a breach of the rules of the House therefore arises.
I conclude that Mr Ingram was not in breach of the rules of the
House, therefore, in making this statement.
ii. Contacting civil servants. Mr
Ingram told the undercover reporter that he had good contacts
with civil servants and that it was civil servants who dealt with
contract issues.
719. I accept Mr Ingram's statement that he did not
have contact with civil servants on behalf of clients, or lobby
on their behalf when he was a Member of Parliament. Inasmuch as
he was referring to using contacts with civil servants once he
was no longer a Member of Parliament, such contacts would not
be a breach of the rules of the House. I conclude, therefore,
that Mr Ingram was not in breach of the rules of the House in
making this statement.
iii. Consortium to bid for MoD work. Mr
Ingram said that he knew of a consortium being put together to
bid for outsourced defence contracts, but he was "not
going to touch it" until he was no longer a Member of
Parliament.
720. I accept Mr Ingram's statement that, while he
had been contacted by a business acquaintance in respect of this
project, he had done no work for it, had received no payment,
and had no contact with Ministers or civil servants about it.
This was consistent with what Mr Ingram told the undercover reporter,
which is that he would have no involvement with this project until
after he had left the House of Commons. No question of a breach
of the rules of the House therefore arises. I conclude that Mr
Ingram was not in breach of the rules of the House in making this
statement.
iv. Defence academy in Libya and (v.) teachers
for the academy. Mr Ingram told the
undercover reporter of his paid work for companies seeking to
build a defence academy in Libya, and subsequently seeking to
supply its teachers.
721. I agree with Mr Ingram that there was nothing
improper about his work on this project. He properly registered
his interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests,
for the design and construction companies and for the company
which hoped to provide the academy with teachers. I conclude that
Mr Ingram was not in breach of the rules of the House in making
these statements.
v. EDS. Mr Ingram
referred to his work with EDS, and that it would probably come
to the end once he was no longer a Member of Parliament.
722. Mr Ingram properly
registered his interest in EDS in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests, and also registered his pay band and an agreement for
services, as Members are required to do when providing services
in their capacity as a Member of Parliament. Mr Ingram has argued
that he was not providing such services, and only lodged the agreement
and pay band because, in such matters, he always "erred
on the side of caution".
723. I agree with the evidence to me from the Registrar
of Members' Financial Interests that, on the basis of Mr Ingram's
description of his role, he was right to have registered his interest
as providing services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament
because I consider that, among other things, that was what he
was doing. There is, therefore, no question but that Mr Ingram
was fully within the rules of the House in the way he registered
his work for EDS. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Ingram was not
in breach of the rules of the House in making this statement.
vi. Identifying former civil servants.
When asked about the possibility of identifying former civil servants
who might be able to serve on the boards of companies, Mr Ingram
told the undercover reporter that he had "some there (the
MOD) in mind".
724. Mr Ingram has sought to argue that he did not
maintain contacts with civil servants so he could recommend them
for future employment. He was not offering himself as a headhunter.
I consider, however, that Mr Ingram gave the clear impression
that he had some civil servants "in mind" whom
he would be prepared to recommend to the company for an advisory
board appointment. I do not regard this as a breach of the rules
of the House. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Ingram was not in
breach of the rules of the House in making this statement.
vii. Relationships with Ministers and civil
servants. Mr Ingram
said that he could "work at" helping the company
to develop their relationship with Ministers and civil servants.
725. Mr Ingram has sought to argue that he had said
that he "could work at that" because he had no
experience of being paid to develop relationships with Ministers
and civil servants. I find that an unconvincing interpretation
of what he said, but there can be no breach of the rules in a
former Member of Parliament seeking to develop a relationship
with Ministers and civil servants on behalf of a paying employer.
I conclude, therefore, that Mr Ingram was not in breach of the
rules of the House in making this statement.
viii. Contact with a possible Conservative
Defence Minister.
In answer to a question about whether a Conservative Administration
would change Mr Ingram's role on the imaginary advisory board,
he referred to a parliamentary colleague whom he believed was
likely to become a Defence Minister in the new Conservative administration
(he was not so appointed) and that he would give that person good
advice: he added, "I don't know if that's of interest
to you."
726. I accept Mr Ingram's explanation that he would
seek to give advice to an incoming Defence Minister of whatever
political persuasion in the interest of good governance. But I
consider that the suggestion that this contact might be of interest
to the company seems to me to suggest that Mr Ingram was seeking
to persuade the company that he would be able to continue to act
in its interests with Ministers in a Conservative administration.
That would clearly be work undertaken once Mr Ingram was no longer
a Member of Parliament. He could not, therefore, be in breach
of the rules of the House in making such a contact. I conclude,
therefore, that Mr Ingram was not in breach of the rules of the
House in making this statement.
ix. Day payments for consultancy work.
Mr Ingram told the undercover
reporter that his day rate varied between £1,500 and £2,000.
727. I accept Mr Ingram's evidence that the statement
he made to the reporter about his payment levels was accurate.
I accept, too, Mr Ingram's evidence that he properly registered
the payments he received in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Ingram was not in breach
of the rules of the House in respect of the registration of Members'
interests in making this statement.
Overall conclusion: Rt Hon Adam Ingram
728. I conclude that Mr Ingram was not in breach
of the rules of the House in any of the statements he made during
the course of his meeting with the undercover reporter. I do not
therefore uphold the complaint against him.
Concluding observations
729. The interviews which these six Members unwittingly
gave to an undercover reporter, and my inquiry into the statements
they made, raise in my judgement some questions about the adequacy
of the rules on lobbying by Members of Parliament, and former
Members of Parliament. I am in no position to make any recommendations
on these matters, since that would require extensive consultation
and further consideration which would not be appropriate for this
inquiry.
730. I therefore make the following observations
in case the House were to decide, in the light of this inquiry
or any other considerations, that a wider review of the content
and operation of the rules on lobbying should be undertaken.
731. My observations relate to the operation of the
paid advocacy rule and to lobbying by former Members of Parliament.
Paid advocacy rule
732. A resolution of the House of November 1995 prohibits
paid advocacy. The operation of this provision has developed since
then, initially tightening the provision and, since the House's
consideration in 2001/2 of a report by the Committee on Standards
in Public Life, introducing some liberalisation in the way Members
may act. The current position is that Members may now speak freely
on matters which relate to the interests and affairs of a body
or individual from whom they receive a financial benefit, provided
that any resulting benefit is not exclusive to that body or individual
but shared more widely, and that the financial interest is properly
registered and declared. So Members can speak from experience
on issues affecting a particular business or other sector, even
if those who stand to benefit include but do not wholly comprise
individuals or bodies who have paid for their services. The position
is broadly the same if a Member has a problem involving a company
within his or her constituency. [520]
733. This inquiry has, however, raised some questions
about whether this rule is still operating in the public interest.
It has suggested that it is possible and within the rules for
a Member to make arguments on public policy which either are initiated
by those who employ them, or which would clearly benefit such
people. So, as long as the Member argues that there should be
a change in a regulation to benefit a particular business sector,
and they declare their financial interest, they can do so despite
the fact that they work for and are paid by a dominant business
in that sector. I consider that the effect of the rule operating
in this way is to risk giving the impression, at least, that the
Member can advocate a policy or lobby a Minister or officials
for a personal benefit rather than a public purpose. It would,
in my judgement, be desirable to find a way of avoiding such an
outcome while still enabling a Member of Parliament fully to represent
their constituents and to speak freely on public policy issues.
One answer may be that if a Member has such a paid position, they
should resign from it if they wish to make public policy points
in the business sector in which that company or organisation undertakes
significant operations, or if they have a constituency interest
in that company's or organisation's objectives, subject to any
necessary saving if the Member is asked by their constituent to
take up their particular case.
Activities of former Members of Parliament
734. This inquiry has shown that, once a Member of
Parliament has left the House, there is nothing to prevent them
using contacts which they have developed as Members of Parliament
in lobbying Ministers or civil servants, including paid advocacy
in the exclusive support of those who are paying them.
735. There are restraints on former Ministers in
taking up outside appointments, which are managed by the Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments. There are no such restraints
on former Members of Parliament. While there should be no suggestion
that former Members of Parliament should not seek paid employment,
it might be right to consider some restrictions on the activities
they can undertake in the first few years once they have left
Parliament.
736. I consider that it would be unrealistic, and
not in the public interest, for former Members of Parliament to
be restricted from taking up paid positions which draw on their
knowledge and experience gained when a Member of Parliament. I
consider also that it would be unrealistic and not in the public
interest to prevent former Members of Parliament giving advice
to their employers about the conduct of Government and parliamentary
business, including how best to influence a policy being considered
by the Government or by Parliament. Lobbying is a necessary and
longstanding part of the democratic process. But I have some concern
about former Members of Parliament making direct contact with
former parliamentary colleagues or Government Ministers and with
civil service contacts on behalf of an employer which is paying
them.
737. As this inquiry has shown, it is human nature
that former colleagues would expect to have access to those whom
they knew when Members of Parliament. It would be wrong if people
thoughtas under the current arrangements they mightthat
former colleagues were given preference over others. It might
be worth considering, therefore, whether Members of Parliament,
Government Ministers and public officials should be prevented
under their respective rules from receiving representations or
delegations requested or led by a former Member of Parliament
for a set number of years when that Member is being paid by those
who would benefit from that contact. There would be nothing, of
course, to prevent a former Member of Parliament seeking to make
such contacts with Ministers and former colleagues and civil servants
when they wish to do so on their own account or when they are
not receiving payments from an organisation likely to benefit
from those contacts. The mischief which needs to be considered
is whether former Members of Parliament should be able to be "hired
hands", using the contacts they have made in the course
of their parliamentary duties to benefit directly an employer.
22 November 2010 John Lyon CB
1 An extract is at WE 1 Back
2
Some of these interviews had been covertly filmed. Back
3
WE 2 Back
4
WE 3 Back
5
WE 4 Back
6
WE 5 Back
7
WE 6 Back
8
WE 7 Back
9
WE 24, WE 57. Back
10
WE 8 Back
11
WE 11 This letter is summarised beginning at paragraph 43. Back
12
WE 10 Back
13
WE 9 Back
14
The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating
to the conduct of Members 2005, HC (2004-05) 351. The version
of the Code in this edition is identical to that in the 2009 edition. Back
15
In the 2009 edition this phrase was replaced with: "ie those
current within the previous twelve months". Back
16
In the 2009 edition this paragraph was amplified as follows:
"Members are also required to declare relevant indirect interests,
for instance those of a spouse or partner, and also non-registrable
interests of a financial nature where these are affected by the
proceedings in question (as, for instance the possession of a
second home when the council tax treatment of these is under discussion).
Members may also think it appropriate to declare non-financial
interests of the kinds itemised in paragraph 64 where these are
relevant to proceedings." Back
17
The terms of this Resolution are reproduced in the 2005 Guide
to the Rules at paragraph 71. Back
18
Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Con.
4557-I, paragraph 3.96 Back
19
Not included in the written evidence Back
20
Not included in the written evidence Back
21
See paragraph 445 below. Back
22
WE 11 Back
23
WE 8 Back
24
WE 1 Back
25
WE 12 Back
26
WE 13 Back
27
Not included in the written evidence Back
28
The British Insurance & Investment Brokers Association (BIIBA)
(1992-97), the IFA Association (1992-97) and the British Venture
Capital Association (BVCA) (1994-2001). Back
29
WE 14 Back
30
The version in Sir John's letter was "gives me another string
to my bow so far as I am concerned". See WE 12 and paragraphs
44 and 49. Back
31
WE 15 Back
32
WE16,17,18 Back
33
WE 12 "b) The work that I had done in the past was entirely
unremunerated and related to representations made to me by constituency
companies, many of whom were involved in Government in diverse
ways, notably in the fields of insurance, financial services and
manufacturing, for example, Cobham (formerly Flight Refuelling),
who employ a very large number of my constituents and who came
seeking my support and that of other neighbouring M.Ps." Back
34
WE 15 "Paragraph 2(b): My past unpaid work under this heading
was related only to companies based in my constituency or employing
large numbers of my constituents. Examples are Liverpool Victoria,
Portman Building Society, Lloyds TSB, Abbey Life etc., all of
whom would contact me from time to time on a wide variety of issues
to raise with the Government. These might have related to taxation,
regulatory matters etc." Back
35
WE 18, 00:28:55 Back
36
WE 18, 00:30:20 Back
37
WE 18, 00.48.22 Back
38
WE 18, 00:58:44 Back
39
WE 18, 01:02:38 Back
40
WE 19 Back
41
See WE 18, 00:38:19 Back
42
WE 18, 00:25:37 Back
43
WE 18 00:58:.44 Back
44
WE 20 Back
45
WE 12 Back
46
WE 18, 00:58:44 Back
47
WE 21 Back
48
WE 18, 00:38:19 Back
49
WE 18, 00:35:34. Sir John said, "Well I can tell you that
once I had some people who wanted me to help them put lots and
lots of money into the UK and when I dug deeply, the source of
the money was not very, strictly kosher... So I just turned that
down... I'd need to be pretty reassured." Back
50
WE 18, 00:50:04 Back
51
Not included in the written evidence Back
52
Not included in the written evidence. Back
53
WE 18, 00:30:20 Back
54
WE 22 Back
55
Not included in the written evidence Back
56
WE 19 Back
57
WE 18, 00:50:04 Back
58
WE 23 Back
59
WE 19 Back
60
WE 18, 00:19:11 Back
61
WE 18, 00:50:04 Back
62
WE 18, 00:38:19 Back
63
WE 18, 00:25:37 Back
64
WE 18, 00:46:45 Back
65
WE 18, 00:43:39 Back
66
WE 18, 00:43:39 Back
67
WE 18, 00:25:37 Back
68
WE 18, 00:28:55 Back
69
WE 18, 00:30:20 Back
70
WE 18, 00:38:19 Back
71
WE 18, 00:38:19 Back
72
WE 18, 00:48:22 Back
73
WE 18, 00:48:22 Back
74
WE 18, 00:50:04 Back
75
WE 18, 00:50:04 Back
76
WE 24 Back
77
WE 7 Back
78
WE 2 and WE 4 Back
79
WE 25, 26, 27 Back
80
WE 27, 00:03:16 Back
81
WE 27, 00:03:33 - 00:03:37 Back
82
WE 27, 00:03:40 Back
83
WE 27, 00:03:50 Back
84
WE 27, 00:03:58 Back
85
WE 27, 00:04:05 Back
86
WE 27, 00:04:18 Back
87
WE 27, 00:04:53 Back
88
WE 28 Back
89
WE 29 Back
90
WE 24 Back
91
WE 25 Back
92
WE 30 Back
93
WE 32 Back
94
WE 33 Back
95
Mr Byers' legal representatives made similar points in correspondence
with the production company after the meeting but before the programme
was broadcast. Not included in written evidence Back
96
WE 30, 31, 32, 33 Back
97
WE 34 Back
98
WE 30 Back
99
WE 32 Back
100
WE 33 Back
101
WE 24 Back
102
WE 25 Back
103
WE 25 Back
104
WE 25 Back
105
WE 27, 00.04.53 Back
106
WE 35 Back
107
WE 36 Back
108
WE 27, 00:03:25 Back
109
WE 27, 00:02:27 Back
110
Registered in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Back
111
WE 30, 32, 33 Back
112
Vice President of Wallsend Boys Club; President of CORE (a group
of community organisations in the north east promoting renewable
energy); President of GLOBE International (a group of parliamentarians
from G20 countries dealing with climate change and the environment);
Chair of the Policy Council of Labour Friends of Israel and a
member of the Editorial Board of Inside Ukraine, a publication
of the International Centre for Policy Studies, Kiev. Back
113
WE 34 Back
114
WE 37 Back
115
WE 38 Back
116
WE 39 Back
117
WE 38 Back
118
WE 40 Back
119
WE 41 Back
120
WE 42 Back
121
WE 1 Back
122
WE 36 Back
123
WE 43 Back
124
WE 38 Back
125
WE 44 Back
126
WE 43 Back
127
WE 27, 00:03:25-35 Back
128
WE 41 Back
129
WE 45 Back
130
WE 30, 32, 33. The letters from Mr Byers's legal representatives
are not included in the written evidence. Back
131
WE 46 Back
132
WE 1 Back
133
WE 41 Back
134
WE 1 Back
135
WE 47 to 51 Back
136
WE 47 Back
137
WE 27, 00:04:53 Back
138
WE 48 Back
139
WE 49 Back
140
These principles are quoted at paragraph 38 above. Back
141
WE 50 Back
142
WE 27, 00:04:53 Back
143
WE 52 Back
144
WE 46 Back
145
WE 51 Back
146
Quoted at paragraph 37 above. Back
147
WE 53 Back
148
WE 54 Back
149
WE 55 Back
150
WE 35 Back
151
WE 41 Back
152
WE 40 Back
153
WE 56 Back
154
WE 27, 00:04:05 Back
155
WE 27, 00:04:05 Back
156
WE 27, 00:03:40 Back
157
WE 27, 00:03:53 Back
158
WE 27, 00:03:53 Back
159
WE 27, 00:04:23 Back
160
WE 27, 00:02:20 Back
161
WE 27, 00:02:20 Back
162
WE 27, 00:03:25 Back
163
WE 27, 00:03:28 Back
164
WE 27, 00:02:27 Back
165
WE 27, 00:03:35 Back
166
WE 27, 00:03:50 Back
167
WE 27, 00:04:18 Back
168
WE 27, 00:04:45 Back
169
WE 27, 00:04:45 Back
170
WE 27, 00:03:58 Back
171
WE 57 Back
172
WE 5 Back
173
PiC was a subsidiary of Cinven. Back
174
WE 60, 00:46:24 Back
175
WE 60, 00:47:44 Back
176
Not included in the written evidence Back
177
WE 58, WE 59, WE 60 Back
178
WE 60, 00:47:44 Back
179
WE 60, 00:52:30 Back
180
WE 60, 00:17:15 Back
181
WE 57 Back
182
WE 58 Back
183
WE 61 Back
184
From the Guidelines issued by the Advisory Committee on Business
Appointments. See paragraph 40 above. Back
185
WE 59 Back
186
WE 57 Back
187
WE 60, 00:55:04 Back
188
When asked by the undercover reporter (WE 60, 00:54:50) about
arranging for her clients to see Ministers, Ms Hewitt made a number
of suggestions. She said:"when I was Business Secretary,
I would cheerfully accept hospitality invitations, for instance."
Later she said that if Rt Hon David Cameron were to be elected
"he might well decide, because of all this sleaze and expenses
stuff to frown on hospitality". Ms Hewitt also said of ways
for clients to see Ministers: "the think tank and the seminar
route I think is a very good one and an amenable one." On
the same issue she also said that: "sponsorship of events
at party conference... is a classic one" and "if it's
at cabinet level, you really need to talk to the special advisers".
Ms Hewitt also said that:"the other one that can be useful,
but may be less appropriate for your clients is the constituency
route." Back
189
See paragraph 22 above. Back
190
See paragraph 26 above. Back
191
WE 60, 00:45:25 Back
192
WE 65 Back
193
WE 62 Back
194
See paragraph 36 above. Back
195
WE 60, 00:46:24 Back
196
WE 60, 00:46:51 Back
197
Not included in the written evidence. Back
198
WE 58 Back
199
WE 65 Back
200
WE 62 Back
201
WE 58 Back
202
WE 60, 00:50:48 Back
203
WE 58 Back
204
WE 62 Back
205
WE 61 Back
206
WE 62 Back
207
WE 63 Back
208
A Department of Health note of the 21 May meeting is at WE 65. Back
209
WE 61 Back
210
WE 63 Back
211
WE 60, 00:44:44 Back
212
The note of the meeting had said that Ms Hewitt would "submit
a note outlining the points she has raised for the National Programme
Board to consider." Back
213
WE 63 Back
214
WE 60, 00:46:09 Back
215
WE 61 Back
216
WE 60, 00:44:44 Back
217
WE 63 Back
218
WE 75 Back
219
WE 77 Back
220
WE 67 Back
221
WE 68 Back
222
WE 66 Back
223
WE 59 Back
224
WE 59 Back
225
Not included in the written evidence. Back
226
WE 61 Back
227
WE 62 Back
228
WE 70 Back
229
WE 72 Back
230
WE 73 Back
231
WE 70 Back
232
WE 76 Back
233
WE 71 Back
234
WE 59 Back
235
In commenting on a draft of this memorandum, Ms Hewitt told me
that it was not the case that she regarded the position offered
by the undercover reporter as a major board position. As she believed
the context made clear, in the discussion she was referring to
a non-executive directorship with a publicly quoted company (WE
60, 00:06:11). Back
236
WE 76 Back
237
WE 78 Back
238
WE 80 Back
239
WE 81 Back
240
WE 60, 00:55:04 Back
241
WE 60, 00:50:48 Back
242
WE 60, 00:52:53 Back
243
WE 60, 00:18:21 Back
244
WE 60, 00:18:49 Back
245
WE 60, 00:17:15 Back
246
WE 60, 00:45:12 Back
247
WE 60, 00:46:24 Back
248
WE 60, 00:46:09 Back
249
WE 60, 00:46:24 Back
250
WE 60, 00:45:25 Back
251
WE 60, 00:48:28 Back
252
WE 82 Back
253
WE 90, 00:30:15 Back
254
WE 90, 00:12:28 Back
255
WE 90, 00:02:10 Back
256
WE 90, 00:04:00 Back
257
WE 90, 00:23:36 Back
258
WE 90, 00:23:17 Back
259
WE 90, 00:23:08 Back
260
WE 90, 00:14:20 Back
261
WE 84 Back
262
WE 85 Back
263
WE 90, 00:23:08 Back
264
Not included in the written evidence Back
265
WE 86 Back
266
WE 87 Back
267
Not included in the written evidence. Back
268
WE 88 Back
269
WE 90, 00:29:19 Back
270
WE 90, 00:23:08 Back
271
WE 84 Back
272
WE 90, 00:23:54 Back
273
WE 82 Back
274
WE 84 Back
275
WE 90, 00:28:22 Back
276
WE 83 Back
277
WE 91 Back
278
WE 84 Back
279
WE 90, 00:22:22. Mr Hoon referred to the paper in the transcript
as follows: "I carry around with me a paper that we are working
on now, and indeed I've just written a paper for the National
Defense University of Washington, on how we see the development
of those capabilities." Back
280
WE 92 Back
281
WE 88 Back
282
See paragraph 35 above. Back
283
Mr Hoon said:" I'm then hoping to go on the board of a FTSE
100 company as a non exec." WE 90, 00:18:14. Back
284
WE 92 Back
285
WE 93 Back
286
See paragraph 35 above. Back
287
WE 90, 00:18:14 Back
288
Ibid. Back
289
WE 94 Back
290
WE 90, 00:23:36 Back
291
WE 90, 00:19:42 Back
292
WE 95 Back
293
Paragraph 73 of the 2009 edition of the Guide to the Rules provides:
"The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader
in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests
in three important respects. As well as current interests, Members
are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant
interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only
interests held in the recent past, i.e. those current within the
previous twelve months, need normally be considered for declaration.
Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant.
Where, for example, a Member is debating legislation or making
representations to a Minister on a matter from which he has a
reasonable expectation of personal financial advantage, candour
is essential." Back
294
See paragraph 32 above. Back
295
WE 93 Back
296
WE 94 Back
297
Article Two of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
provides: "2. The Code applies to Members in all aspects
of their public life. It does not seek to regulate what Members
do in their purely private and personal lives". Back
298
WE 90, 00:22:52 Back
299
WE 90, 00:23:17 Back
300
WE 90, 00:23:36 Back
301
Not included in the written evidence. Back
302
WE 90, 00:23:54 Back
303
WE 90, 00:24:10 Back
304
WE 96 Back
305
See paragraph 35 above. Back
306
See paragraph 32 above. Back
307
See paragraph 30 above. Back
308
WE 84 Back
309
See paragraph 391 below. Back
310
WE 97 Back
311
Mr Hoon's letter said that "In relation to these meetings
with civil servants I have previously made clear ... that these
meetings were an opportunity for the British Government to influence
my thinking. I was not trying to influence theirs. As a result
paragraph 74 of the Guide applies." This was a typing error:
Mr Hoon had intended his letter to read, "As a result paragraph
74 of the Guide does not apply." Back
312
WE 98 Back
313
See paragraph 18 above. Back
314
See paragraph 388 above. Back
315
WE 99 Back
316
"Yeah, no I mean it will take some time, but, but the team,
and I know some people on the team in the MOD who are working
on this, because they brief me about this." Back
317
WE 100 Back
318
WE 101 Back
319
WE 84 Back
320
WE 87 Back
321
WE 91 Back
322
WE 90, 00:28:32 Back
323
WE 82 Back
324
WE 102 Back
325
WE 90, 00:14:20 Back
326
WE 103 Back
327
See paragraph 384 above. Back
328
WE 90, 00:30:15 Back
329
WE 90, 00:12:28 Back
330
WE 90, 00:02:44 Back
331
WE 90, 00:04:00 Back
332
WE 90, 00:21:22 Back
333
WE 90, 00:23:54 Back
334
WE 90, 00:23:17 Back
335
WE 90, 00:23:08 Back
336
WE 90, 00:28:32 Back
337
WE 90, 00:29:19 Back
338
WE 90, 00:28:22 Back
339
WE 90, 00:22:22 Back
340
WE 90, 00:19:42 Back
341
WE 102 Back
342
WE 10 Back
343
WE 104 Back
344
WE 112, 00:46:45 Back
345
WE 112, 01:21:15 Back
346
WE 112, 00:46:21 Back
347
WE 112, 00:51:30 Back
348
WE 112, 00:55:51 Back
349
WE 105 Back
350
The Register of Members' Financial Interests. Back
351
President of ABAE England; President of the YHA; President of
the UK School Games; Trustee of the Football Foundation; the Prime
Minister's World Cup Ambassador. Back
352
See WE 106 Back
353
See First Report of the Public Administration Committee, Session
2008-09, HC 36-II, Ev.79-92. WE 122 Back
354
Ibid. Ev.85 Back
355
WE 105 Back
356
WE 107 Back
357
WE 106 Back
358
WE 119 Back
359
WE 108 Back
360
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments Back
361
WE 115 Back
362
WE 116 Back
363
WE 109 Back
364
WE 107 Back
365
WE 110, WE 111, WE 112 Back
366
WE 111 Back
367
WE 112, 00:41:41-00:45:55. Mr Caborn had said "You're (?)
looking at a fairly big scheme changing. You're looking at very,
very much in its infancy. The Chairman of the Health Authority,
who is a friend of mine who I have known for many years... So
what we're looking at is zoning the whole of Sheffield and asking
the government there to give us much more freedom on how to expand.
And whilst we try to work the Health service into all sorts of
different structures ... we ought to look at whether we can actually
move the whole cultural agenda to prevention rather than cure...
But we need to have, a amendment on the legislation to give us,
and we don't want any more money... So that yes, I have been advising
the FIA ...They are looking at using their private sector, they
are looking to use their assets more effectively, because they
are the peer groups of a new organisation(?). See if we can buy
that then we could get referrals to the services from doctors,
into that, then you can link that together ... well it's improving
their bottom line that's what they're in business for, if they
can do that then, with a social aspect to it as well, then it's
a win-win situation." See also 01:14:52-01:20:35. Back
368
WE 112, 01:05:51. This related to work at Sellafield. Back
369
WE 112, 01:05:51. Mr Caborn had said, "I set up the whole
regeneration of the company, because they had a commitment to
socio-economic development and I did not like the structure so
I revamped the whole structure..." Back
370
WE 112, 01:09:23 Back
371
WE 112, 01:36:45 Back
372
WE 113 Back
373
WE 109 Back
374
Mr Caborn had told the undercover reporter in the telephone conversation:
"What I'm waiting for is the election on ... the 6th of May
because that will then release me but there's a number of things
... which will possibly happen then which ... I ... really have
to find out before I commit myself any further, er there's a possibility
I might go to the House of Lords, for example, or things like
that. So I have got to wait for that to settle down so at the
moment ... I really don't want to take anything on that I would
have to then either say I couldn't do or ...you know, would look
at other opportunities. " Back
375
WE 109 Back
376
WE 114 Back
377
WE 115 Back
378
The consultancy with AMEC and another with the FIA Back
379
WE 116, WE 117 Back
380
WE 118 Back
381
WE 109 Back
382
WE 119 Back
383
WE 110 Back
384
Mr Stone is now Chairman of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation
Trust Back
385
Letters not included in written evidence. Back
386
WE 112, 01:36:45 Back
387
WE 112, 01:38:54 Back
388
WE 120 Back
389
WE 104 Back
390
WE 107 Back
391
WE 121 Back
392
The transcript at 01.34.33 reads "(INAUDIBLE) ... I'm open
to bringing investment into the country, you know, that's what
you really want." Back
393
WE 113 Back
394
WE 112, 00:51:30 Back
395
WE 106 Back
396
WE 10 Back
397
WE 122 Back
398
WE 121 Back
399
WE 123 Back
400
WE 124 Back
401
WE 122, WE 123 Back
402
Not included in the written evidence. Back
403
WE 125 Back
404
See paragraph 35 above. Back
405
WE 124 Back
406
WE 126 Back
407
WE 128 Back
408
WE 129 Back
409
Not included in the written evidence. Back
410
See paragraph 39 above. Back
411
See paragraph 39 above. Back
412
Not included in the written evidence. Back
413
WE 130 Back
414
WE 131 Back
415
WE 132 Back
416
WE 133 Back
417
WE 124 Back
418
WE 134 Back
419
WE 124 Back
420
WE 133 Back
421
WE 126 Back
422
WE 135 Back
423
WE 136 Back
424
WE 137 Back
425
WE 106 Back
426
WE 119 Back
427
WE 112, 00:46:45 Back
428
WE 112, 01:09:23 Back
429
WE 112, 00:46:21 Back
430
WE 112, 00:51:30 Back
431
WE 112, 00:55:51 Back
432
WE 112, 00:41:41-00:45:55 Back
433
WE 112, 00:50:55 Back
434
WE 112, 01:05:51 Back
435
WE 112, 01:36:45 Back
436
Mr Caborn says that he thanked AMEC for sponsoring the dinner,
which was small, and that most if not all of those attending knew
of his consultancy for AMEC but he cannot recall specifically
spelling that out. Back
437
WE 112, 01:38:54 Back
438
WE 112, 01:39:22 Back
439
WE 112, 01:04:45 Back
440
WE 10 Back
441
WE 138 Back
442
WE 141, 00:23:20 Back
443
WE 141, 00:24:38 Back
444
WE 141, 00:25:05 Back
445
WE 141, 00:11:24 Back
446
WE 141, 00:00:23 Back
447
WE 141, 00:03:23 Back
448
WE 141, 00:06:06 Back
449
WE 139 Back
450
WE 141, 00:08:56 Back
451
WE 141, 00:18:08 Back
452
WE 141, 00:29:10 Back
453
WE 141, 00:04:58 Back
454
WE 142 Back
455
WE 10 Back
456
WE 143 Back
457
Mr Ingram said, "I could work at that yeah." WE 141,
00:29:10 Back
458
WE 138 Back
459
WE 141, 00:24:38 Back
460
WE 141, 00:11:24 Back
461
Argus Libya UK LLP; Electronic Data Systems (EDS); Argus Scotland
Ltd; Ingram Advisory Ltd; Signpoint Secure Ltd; International
School for Security and Explosives Education (ISSEE). Back
462
WE 141, 00:29:10 Back
463
See paragraph 557 below and WE 143. Back
464
WE 143 Back
465
WE 144 Back
466
WE 141, 00:23:20 Back
467
Not included in the written evidence. Back
468
WE 141, 00:20:04 Back
469
WE 141, 00:04:58 Back
470
WE 141, 00:05:25 Back
471
WE 141, 00:05:42 Back
472
WE 145 Back
473
WE 138 Back
474
WE 143 Back
475
Not included in the written evidence. Back
476
WE 141, 00:05:42 Back
477
WE 146 Back
478
WE 147 Back
479
WE 148 Back
480
WE 149 Back
481
WE 150 Back
482
WE 151 Back
483
Not included in the written evidence. Back
484
Not included in the written evidence. Back
485
Not included in the written evidence. Back
486
Not included in the written evidence. Back
487
Not included in the written evidence. Back
488
Not included in the written evidence. The Registrar said she had
referred to "draft e-mails" from the Executive Assistant.
This is because it was her practice to print off e-mails for filing
before she actually sent them. Evidence (for instance, responses)
suggests that they were indeed sent. Back
489
WE 149 Back
490
WE 152. My letters to the Registrar of 15 July and 2 September,
and her response of 9 September, together with its enclosures. Back
491
WE 141, 00:08:14 Back
492
WE 153 Back
493
WE 148 Back
494
WE 147 Back
495
WE 154 Back
496
WE 155 Back
497
WE 148 Back
498
WE 156 Back
499
WE 141, 00:23:20 Back
500
WE 142 Back
501
WE 141, 00:24:38 Back
502
WE 141, 00:11:24 Back
503
WE 141, 00:00:23 Back
504
WE 141, 00:03:23 Back
505
WE 141, 00:08:56 Back
506
WE 141, 00:19:21 Back
507
WE 141, 00:29:10 Back
508
WE 141, 00:05:42 Back
509
WE 141, 00:06:06 Back
510
WE 98 and WE 90, 00:23:36 Back
511
WE 27, 00:02:08, and WE 29 Back
512
Paragraph 1a of the Conduct of Conduct for Members of Parliament Back
513
Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament Back
514
WE 90, 00:23:54 Back
515
The first sentence of paragraph 86 reads, "The requirement
to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers
almost every aspect of a Member's parliamentary duties extending
to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials." Back
516
WE 90 00.22.52 Back
517
WE 90, 00:28:22 Back
518
The first sentence of paragraph 86 of the 2009 Guide to the Rules
reads, "The requirement to declare a relevant interest at
the appropriate time covers almost every aspect of a Member's
parliamentary duties extending to correspondence and meetings
with Ministers and public officials." Back
519
See footnote number 369 above and WE 112 Back
520
Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members, 2009,
paragraphs 95 to 101 Back
|