Sir John Butterfill, Mr Stephen Byers, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Geoff Hoon, Mr Richard Caborn and Mr Adam Ingram - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents

5  Rt Hon Richard Caborn

104.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP from the Commissioner, 31 March 2010

I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received from Mr Greg Hands MP about your conduct in respect of an interview you gave to an undercover reporter, in respect of an alleged possible appointment.

I attach the complainant's letter of 28 March inasmuch as it affects the complaint against you. I know you will have seen the Sunday Times report of 28 March on which this complaint is based.

In essence, the complaint is that you may have been engaged in lobbying activities in a way which is contrary to the rules of the House; that your conduct during an interview with a person who subsequently revealed herself as a journalist was 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 brought the House of Commons into disrepute.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides the following rules of Conduct:

"9. 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.

10. No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

...

15. 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."

The Code provides also in respect of the registration and declaration of interests as follows:

"16. 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."

The Guide to the Rules sets out categories of registrable interests including Category 2 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."

The rules in relation to Category 2 set out in the Guide for 2005 (which may be the one most relevant to this part of the complaint) include the following in paragraph 19:

"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'."

The Guide to the Rules also sets out the requirements where a Member has an agreement for the provision of services in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament. It includes the following:

"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."

More detailed provisions are set out in paragraph 49 to 54 of the 2005 guide.

Section 2 of the 2005 Guide deals with the Declaration of Members' Interests. You may wish to read this in full. Paragraph 55 of the 2005 Guide provides as follows:

"In 1974 the House replaced a long standing convention with a rule that any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, should be declared in debate, or other proceeding. The same rule places a duty on Members to disclose to Ministers, or servants of the Crown, all relevant interests. 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."

The rules in relation to lobbying for reward or consideration are set out in section 3 of the Guide. You will wish to read this in full.

Paragraph 72 of the 2005 Guide provides as follows:

"This Resolution prohibits paid advocacy. 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."

Paragraph 73 provides:

"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."

I would welcome your comments on the allegations made against you in the light of this summary of the rules. In particular, it would be helpful if you could:

1. Give me a full account of the circumstances in which you came to be interviewed by someone who subsequently revealed herself to be a journalist;

2. Confirm what you are reported to have said during that interview, and whether each such statement is true in particular in relation to the following:

a. That you said, "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." and, if true, whether that should be interpreted as an offer to influence or access Ministers once you had left the House, and whether you have at any time influenced or accessed Ministers on behalf of a sector or an individual company, and, if so, what were the circumstances, and whether you declared your interest;

b. That you said that you might be elevated to the House of Lords and, if so, you would be able to help the fictitious company with "Access to people … all this is all about contacts … it's not so much always about influencing—it's about getting information," and if true, whether this implied that you were offering to the company as a Member of the Lords access to your contacts and information;

c. That you said that one of your clients, the Fitness Industry Association, had "direct access" to health Ministers and, if true, whether you arranged that access, and, if so, what were the circumstances and whether you declared your interest in so doing;

d. That in respect of another of your clients, AMEC, you said, "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," if true, what receptions and other meetings you have set up for AMEC including any on the parliamentary estate and whether on each occasion you identified your interest;

e. That you said that you would be willing to help build relations with civil servants after you had stood down and that it would not be a problem to set up meetings with civil servants and, if true, the basis on which you made these offers and whether you have at any time set up meetings with civil servants on behalf of a client, and if so, what were the circumstances and whether you declared your interest;

f. That you told the interviewer that you charged £2,500 a day for your services.

3. Confirm whether you have at any time been paid £2,500 a day for consultancy or other services, and if so, by whom and whether you registered these payments;

4. Confirm what subsequent communications you or your legal advisers had with the reporters;

5. Confirm, if any of the allegations are true, whether you considered you had an obligation to make a Register entry or declaration, or both, in respect of any financial interest you had in these alleged activities and what action you took accordingly;

6. Confirm, if any of what you said was untrue, why you spoke as you did.

Any other points you may wish to make to help me with this inquiry would, of course, be most welcome.

I am writing to the Channel 4 programme makers to invite them to let me have your full interview and, if they do so, I may need to ask you about further points.

I would be grateful for a response to this letter by the end of April. You will appreciate, I know, that we are now very close to the Dissolution of Parliament. I do not expect, therefore, to be able to conclude this inquiry before then. I will, however, resume it once Parliament has been re-established and I know I will be able to look to you for cooperation on this after you have left the House.

I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow. If you would like a word about any of this please contact me at the House.

I look forward to your help on this matter.

31 March 2010

105.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 19 April 2010

Thank you for your letter of the 31 March 2010, re: the complaint from the Conservative MP, Mr Greg Hands. As I agreed with you on the telephone, I would like to preface the answers to your questions by giving you and your Committee a little background on my 27 years in Parliament as it relates to the issues under consideration.

As I said to the House on the 29th March 2010 in columns 545-548,[590] in the whole of my 31 years in elected public office, I have never taken any remuneration above that which was paid for by the office I held. 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.

My response to these enquiries resulted in accepting a number of positions both paid and unpaid, in preparation for my life outside Parliament. In late 2007 I believe it would have been sooner rather than later. However, I want to make it perfectly clear to Mr Hands's complaint as I did to the House on the 29th, at no time did I engage in any lobbying activity on behalf of any organisation registered in my Declaration of Members' Interests.[591] 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.[592]

Those not recorded in the declaration, but were referred in the Sunday Times entrapment interview are President of the ABAE England, President of the YHA and President of the UK School Games. Also, Trustee of the Football Foundation and the Prime Minister's World Cup Ambassador. All these are voluntary positions I accepted once I had announced my retirement from Parliament.

In my 27 years service to the House and Government I have worked to develop a greater understanding between Industry and Government. This is a point that I made to the House on the 29th March and my submission to the Public Administration Committee on the 8th May 2008,[593] which is documented in the Minutes of Evidence. On re-reading my evidence, my answer to Question 585 is particularly accurate with regards to the entrapment that the Sunday Times, tried to lure me into.

My reasons for serving for 14 years as a Trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust was to promote a greater understanding and awareness of the activities of Parliament and Industry.

In the role of Trustee of the IPT, I have given numerous talks to Industry on the role of Parliament, its Back Benchers and its Committee structure, and on how Government works with my experience of over 10 years as a Government Minister. Information I naively thought the Sunday Times journalist was interested in, but went on to totally distort what I had said. It is interesting to read the exchange of communications between the HA and the Sunday Times (Ref 6) which shows how a totally distorted interpretation can be placed on what I said. Again, since leaving Ministerial Office, I have given a number of talks on the role of Parliament and Government to many organisations.

One of my last initiatives with the IPT and its Chair, Bill Olner MP, was to meet the Speaker of the House and the Finance and Administration Committee to find a closer and more formal working relationship between the IPT and Parliament, this is still ongoing.

Now turning to your questions, the circumstances leading up to the entrapment, was a call to my office requesting a meeting with a representative from an American Company, Anderson Perry. I understand from my secretary that Ms Claire Webster rang on a number of occasions to arrange a date, after my secretary consulted me on this appointment, she went ahead and organised the meeting, something she has done on many occasions during her over 25 years of service. There was a difference however, that the reporter insisted to have in the meeting outside of the House of Commons in the Marriott Hotel, just across the bridge from the House of Commons. 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.

Question two I told the House on the 29th March 2010, what appeared in the Sunday Times was a fabrication of the information gained in the entrapment with the sole intention to deliberately mislead. I still stand by my statement and I am enclosing the correspondence between the Sunday Times and my lawyers.[594] I am also enclosing my response to [name] of the 19th March 2010.[595]

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. She consistently came back to this issue on a number of occasions and I repeatedly gave her the same answer. I am also enclosing correspondence between the PCC and myself, which may be of interest.[596] 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. I still have not received the transcript or the film of the interview even though it has now been requested on two separate occasions.

On question three, all my activities that should be recorded, are recorded in the declaration of the Members Interest.

On question four, these are, enclosed in my submission to the PCC.

On question five, I do not believe any of the allegations in the Sunday Times are true. All my activities have been within the rules laid down by the House Authorities and at no time have I brought the House into disrepute.

On question six, I believe that everything I said in the interview was consistent with what I have said in this letter.

I see from your letter that you have approached the Channel 4 Programme for the full interview, it was, as I understand it, the Sunday Times who initiated the entrapment and I hope that you will be able to get the film and the tape recording, which was referred to in the Sunday Times article.

Since the entrapment article in the Sunday Times I have received dozens of e-mails, texts and telephone calls of surprise and support and not one communication of criticism, or any indication that I have brought the House into disrepute.

I am enclosing for reference a selection of e-mails and letters I have received from the ABAE England, the YHA, the immediate past Master Cutler of Sheffield, [name] and the Director of Forgemasters, [name].[597] If you require further evidence, please let me know.

Also enclosed for reference is the correspondence between the Fitness Industry Association, AMEC and the Sunday Times.

I hope the information and the explanation I have given answers your questions and if you require any further information, or would like to meet, then I am more than willing to make myself available.

19 April 2010

106.  Official Report, HC Deb, 29 March 2010, cols 545-548

Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central) (Lab): In common, I think, with several other Members who will contribute today, this will possibly be my last speech in the House, after 27 years of representing Sheffield, Central, and after five years before that as a Member of the European Parliament. I was first elected to public office, as an MEP, in 1979, having left school at 15 years of age to start my engineering apprenticeship at the company that is now Forgemasters—a great company that has recently been in the news, and to which I shall return a little later.

I warmly welcome the Budget, like many of us who have been championing manufacture and wealth creation for many years. We see it as a Budget that recognises the need for the economy to be rebalanced, with a greater proportion of wealth creation being achieved through manufacturing. Its measures will help us to continue to take the country along that rebalancing journey.

The Budget's £2.5 billion one-off growth package is very important, particularly for areas such as Sheffield. There will be investment in the creative industries, digital communications, the medipark and the Advanced Manufacturing Park. That is a reflection of recent policy, particularly the new industrial strategy introduced by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills when he returned from Europe—I think his experiences as a European Commissioner must have had an effect.

I want to remind the House, however, that Sheffield has been modernising and repositioning its economy for more than a decade. We have been modernising to meet the challenges of the globalised world of the 21st century, with our two outstanding universities, a very strong further education college, industrial and commercial sectors that want to work in partnership, and the support of Yorkshire Forward, our regional development agency. We have developed, through those very strong partnerships, centres of excellence such as the medipark, the cultural industries, digital Sheffield and our advanced manufacturing park. The Budget will strengthen all four of those major activities, and those areas will be major centres of employment and wealth creation in the future.

Let us consider just one of those, the advanced manufacturing park, which is closely linked to the university of Sheffield under the leadership of Professor Keith Ridgway. The project was set up 10 years ago to address the productivity and the competitiveness of our aerospace industry, which is a sector that has an order book of more than £40 billion and that employs well over 100,000 people, many of whom are employed in the skills sector. The park has grown to be one of the most respected advanced manufacturing parks in the world.

The recent investment by Rolls-Royce and the Government in a nuclear manufacturing park, which is to be located alongside the aerospace facilities, will enable the techniques and innovation that have been developed over the years in the aerospace industry to be transferred to the nuclear sector, thus enabling that development to be a smart partner for the nuclear build programme. This is an area of great potential for British manufacturing and technology, addressing the green agenda not just here, but internationally. Twelve nuclear power stations could be built in the UK at the cost of about £60 billion. That is estimated to be about 4 per cent of the world's order book. Again, that development is encouraged by the announcement in the Budget.

I said that we had been working on this project for more than a decade. In fact, it was 10 years ago that I had dinner in the House—in the Churchill Room—with Phil Condit, then chief executive of Boeing, and Professor Keith Ridgway. From that dinner came the start of a £6 million investment to be made in the intellectual property of the university of Sheffield and the vision of Keith Ridgway. I facilitated that dinner and I am proud to have been involved in that project ever since.

Today, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and many other companies involved in the supply chain are involved in the park, with some of the work being done on blue skies technology and research and development. As I said, the nuclear new build programme and developments in the industry have attracted a good partnership between the Government and Rolls-Royce, which has resulted in a £35 million investment in that nuclear development.

In 2008, I organised another dinner in the House, which was similar to the one that took place in the Churchill Room 10 years ago. It enabled representatives of five universities, five captains of industry—Graham Honeyman, chief executive of Forgemasters, was there—and two Secretaries of State to discuss how universities, Government and industry could work together to exploit the nuclear renaissance for the UK for many years to come.

On Sunday, the Sunday Times accused me of acting improperly in organising that dinner—the dinner that brought together universities, Government and industry to discuss how we could act collectively in the best interests of UK plc. Throughout my 27 years in the House, I have been doing just that—acting in the best interests of the UK, be it through my post as Chair of the Trade and Industry Committee, in my role for the past 14 years as Trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust or through my contacts with the trade unions, employers' organisations and industrial groups. Those are all people who want British industry to grow and prosper. That is my record and I am proud of it. If it is wrong in the eyes of the Sunday Times, I plead guilty.

A few years ago, the House passed the Freedom of Information Act. The press were rightly at the forefront of the demand for it, but now, when the press use misleading evidence obtained through sting operations—this is evidence that could not be used in court—they believe that it is their right to keep it from those whom they accuse. My lawyers twice requested the information that appeared in the Sunday Times, but they did not receive any response. What people read in the Sunday Times was a deliberate fabrication, which was designed to mislead. I do not believe that we have a level playing field, and when the House returns it ought seriously to consider the balance between freedom of information and what the press are doing through their sting operations and not allowing those whom they accuse in the newspapers, and the nation, to challenge information that cannot even be used in the courts of this land.

Returning to the Budget, as I said, I started at Forgemasters as an engineer apprentice at the age of 15. Last week, on Friday, the MPs in Sheffield, the two vice-chancellors, the further education colleges and Yorkshire Forward met to discuss the skills agenda of the future, from our skill shortages, which could be an impediment to growth, to the quality of training needed to ensure that the aerospace and nuclear supply chains are up to scratch. We have concerns, although we warmly welcome the announcement of the promise on the skills agenda. The budget for this area should be increased, and we believe we need a clear focus on delivery. That is something we are working on as a result of that meeting, and we hope to produce some ideas about delivery, which we think is very important, and to remove some of the confusion around it. For the record, I shall continue to be involved in that when I have left Parliament.

Finally, I want to conclude on the subject of a significant investment in Sheffield Forgemasters—a 16,000 tonne forging press, which will be one of the largest forging presses, if not the largest, in the world. It has taken nearly three years to develop that plan and bring it to fruition, and I want to put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, his Ministers and special advisers, along with Tim Stone from PricewaterhouseCoopers. They have worked very effectively to make this happen. As for Sheffield Forgemasters, it has been said that this would not have happened had it not been for the vision of people such as Graham Honeyman, Tony Pedder and Peter Birtles, but there was also strong support from the work force. Half the company is now owned by the work force and the pride in those young people, particularly the 70 apprentices who work there, has to be seen to be believed. That has put us in a unique position at the beginning of the supply chain worldwide and for the nuclear new build. That, I believe, is very important if we are to capitalise and see an industrial renaissance coming out of that nuclear renaissance, particularly in engineering and manufacturing.

That was a great day, and it was great to be involved when that £160 million investment was announced by the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago. The very first job that I completed while serving my time as an apprentice and coming out of that was the building of a 4,000-tonne forging press, so, having represented Sheffield, Central and Forgemasters for 27 years, it will be very pleasing to see a forging press four times greater than that and the investment that is being made.

This is probably my last speech to the House, and I say with honesty that in my 31 years as an elected representative, I have never taken a single penny outside the salary that I have earned and been paid. It was only when I decided a couple of years ago to stand down and announced my retirement that a number of companies came to me and asked whether I would be a consultant and help them, probably as a non-executive director—never as a lobbyist. I was approached as someone who has been in the national institutions and who has also been an engineer. I am proud to have done that and I will continue to work for the betterment of British manufacturing, and particularly engineering, in which I believe very strongly, having had a father and a grandfather who were in the engineering industry-indeed, it runs through our DNA. It would be good to see the press talking this side of British industry up rather than talking it down.

29 March 2010

107.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn, from the Commissioner, 18 May 2010

Now that the new Parliament has assembled, I am resuming my inquiries into this complaint in respect of the interview which you gave to an undercover reporter. This letter is a response to your letter of 19 April.

I have, as you know, asked for a record of the full interview which you gave the reporter, and, once I receive that, I am likely to need to write to you again about it.

In the meantime, I think that it might be helpful if you could help me further on the matters covered in your letter of 19 April, in particular points on which it would be helpful to have a direct response to the questions I asked in my letter of 31 March. These points are:

37.  what the undercover reporter originally told you (or your office) about the purpose of the interview; why you accepted her invitation and confirmation that the date of your interview was 10 March 2010;

38.  what paid positions or employment you accepted while still a Member of Parliament, with dates of acceptance and the dates when you made any necessary registration in the Register of Members' Financial Interests (which I assume is the register which you refer to as the "Members' Declaration of Interests");

39.  specific responses to my question 2. You have given me a general answer but have not addressed any of the specific questions which I asked you in the six subsections of that question (subsections (a) to (f) ). I would be grateful if you could provide me with specific answers to each of the points I raise under each of those subsections. If you preferred, it would be open to you to defer answering these questions until I have resolved the matter of my request for the full transcript. If so, please let me know;

40.  I would be grateful if I could also have a specific answer to my question 3, which was whether you have at any time been paid £2,500 a day for consultancy or other services. If so, I would be grateful for the details. Your reference to all your activities having been recorded in the Register of Members' Financial Interests does not specifically answer that question.

You have referred to the speech you made in the House on 29 March 2010, and I will include the relevant sections of the Official Report in your written evidence. If you wished me to take account of any information in relation to your evidence to the Public Administration Committee, I would be most grateful if you could send me a copy of the relevant sections so that I can incorporate them in your written evidence.

It would be most helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks. I am grateful for your help.

18 May 2010

108.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 21 May 2010

I thank you for your letter dated the 18th May 2010. Would it be possible to clarify the request you have made for the full interview which was given to the Reporter, does include both the audio and film recording that was referred to in the Sunday Times article. Also could you confirm that I will have access to this information.

I understood the purpose of 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. My secretary googled the company and provided me with the background briefing for the meeting which was held on the 10th March 2010 (which we believe to be accurate but we have no means of checking back).

In answer to question two, my only paid position was after I had announced my intention in 2007 not to stand at the next General Election. I accepted two positions which were cleared by the Office of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and are recorded in my acceptance letter to them dated the 29th February 2008.[598] These two appointments were duly recorded in a letter to [name], Registrar of the Register of Members' Interests, in a letter on the 6th March 2008.[599]

Question three, I would prefer to defer as you suggested any detailed answers until you receive the tapes and film of the interview.

Question four, the notional daily rate for AMEC was £2,500 per day and £1,000 per day for the FIA. I say notional as a significant amount of time is required in preparing for meetings, reading background papers and preparing reports. [This] was all built into the daily rate. This I estimate was between two to three days per fee paid day. This is fully covered in the declaration in the Registers of Members' Interests.

Finally, you asked if I would highlight the points to be made in your Report from the evidence session which I attended at the Public Administration Committee. I don't think this would be helpful because it could be taken out of context. I would much prefer to have the full evidence session that I attended referenced in your Report. I believe the evidence session I was involved in is important as it gives my both views and opinion on Ministers accepting paid positions when they come out of office. I hope that this information is of assistance, but if you require further information, don't hesitate to contact me and I look forward to receiving the tapes and film recording of the entrapment.

21 May 2010

109.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 24 May 2010

Thank you for your letter of 21 May responding to mine of 18 May about this complaint in respect of an interview you gave to an undercover reporter in March 2010.

It may be helpful if I responded to each of your points as follows:

41.  I will show you anything which I receive from the production company in response to my request for material of the full interview;

42.  I remain unclear what the reporter told you or your office about what they wanted to discuss with you. Unless you provide me with further information on this, I will assume that you agreed to the meeting solely on the information that there was an American company looking to locate and invest in the UK. There was no suggestion at that stage that you would have any role in its activities. If this is wrong, please let me know.

43.  I would be grateful if you could identify specifically the paid positions you accepted, when you accepted them and the date of your registration, as requested in my earlier letter. The date of acceptance is not recorded in Register entries. It would also be helpful if you could let me have copies of the letters to which you refer, including your exchange of correspondence with ACOBA, so that I can enter them into the evidence.

44.  Could you send me the parts of your evidence session to the Public Administration Committee which you wish me to consider? I had hoped that you would be able to help me on identifying any other points you wanted me to take into account, in addition to your answer to question 585 which you referred to in your letter of 19 April. Without that, I will need to come to my own view on whether the whole of your responses in that session, or any other part of those responses, are relevant to this inquiry. Given, however, the importance which you understandably attach to your views on this matter, it would be most helpful if you could set them out, drawing as necessary on your evidence to the Public Administration Committee, so that I am able to consider them in the context of this inquiry.

I was grateful for the other information you provided in your letter.

It would be helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks. I will contact you when I hear from the production company. Thank you for your help.

24 May 2010

110.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 2 June 2010

I have now received a certified transcript of your conversations with the undercover reporter which are the subject of this complaint.

I enclose a copy of the certified transcript. This material is confidential to my inquiry and subject to parliamentary privilege. If it were disclosed to anyone else during the course of my inquiries, that would, as you know, be a contempt of the House. I would be grateful, therefore, if you did not disclose these transcripts further or use them for any other purpose.

When I initially wrote to you on 31 March I said that I would show you this transcript and might need to ask you some further points. These points are:

45.  You refer in your initial telephone conversation, and at various points in your interview, to your role as a non-executive director of Nuclear Management Partners. Could you confirm this appointment and let me know whether you considered registering it in the Register of Members' Financial Interests?

46.  You refer in a number of places to your proposals for restructuring health and wellness services in Sheffield, including the links you have with your friend who is Chair of the Health Authority (page 18). Could you let me know whether you linked this work to your work as consultant to the Fitness Industry Association, and whether the members of that Association were likely to benefit from these proposals? And in your contacts with Ministers and officials on these proposals, did you make it clear that you were a paid consultant to FIA?

47.  In various places (including pages 28, 29 and 42), you refer to the work you did with AMEC and in setting up a consortium to bid for, and win, a major contract. Could you help me on the dates when you undertook that work and whether it involved you making representations to Ministers or officials? If so, did you declare your interest?

48.  You refer on page 47 to you setting up "the whole regeneration of the company … I revamped the whole structure." Could you confirm that this was an accurate statement of the work you undertook for AMEC? How was this major task structured, were you given assistance, and how did you manage to achieve it given your parliamentary duties?

49.  On page 51, in response to the question about the kind of further expertise you would have been able to bring if you were to be elevated to the House of Lords, you responded, "Well, access, access to people. You're in the environment, you're moving around, you're doing it all the time. That will 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." Could you help me on whether it is reasonable to interpret those statements as suggesting that as a Member of the House of Lords you could secure access to Ministers for the company who was retaining you on its advisory board?

50.  On page 82, in answer to your question about how easy it was to get a Minister to go out for dinner, you 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 because it's easier for them." Would you let me know whether you set up for AMEC a dinner or dinners in the Palace of Westminster, and if so, what were the arrangements and did you declare a financial interest in booking the facilities and sending out the invitations?

51.  On page 84 you imply that you arranged a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Energy Minister for the MD of AMEC. Could you confirm the accuracy of that statement and, if so, the arrangements which you made, including whether you declared your interest to the relevant Departments in setting up that meeting?

52.  Finally, could you confirm the date of the interview?

I would, of course, welcome any other comments you may wish to make having seen the transcript, either on the context of your discussion or on particular points which you made.

I would welcome a response to this letter, and to my letter of 24 May. I appreciate that you may want a little time to read the transcript, but a response by the end of this month would be very welcome. Thank you for your continuing help with this.

2 June 2010

111.  Dispatches 'Politicians for Hire'—Transcript of Telephone Conversation with Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP on 16 February 2010

Telephone conversation between [reporter], under the name Claire Webster ("CW") and Richard Caborn ("RC")

(Recording starts a few seconds into the conversation)

RC:	Let me tell you what my position is I—I—I'm Member of Parliament as you obviously know, you probably know my background.
CW	Mmm.
RC	What I'm waiting for is the Election on the 9, on the 6th of May because that will then release me er but there's a number of things that I er, which will possibly happen then which, er I, er 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 er I really don't want to take anything on that I would have to then either say I couldn't do or, er, you know, would look at other opportunities.
RC	So I because I am already doing a couple, I thought I would have finished as a MP some time ago because there was supposed to be an election earlier than now but obviously that didn't happen but I am a non executive director of Nuclear Management Partners at Sellafield...
CW	Yes.
RC	...which is an American French and British Company and I'm also advising AMEC, the British FTSE 100 company and I just advise the Fitness Industry Association as well but that's, besides doing other things—in fact the reason I couldn't talk to you earlier—I'm President of the amateur boxing and things like that so...
CW	Yes so you're quite busy at the moment doing those things. So really the situation with you is that you want to see what happens with the election?
RC	I'll see what happens on the Election and then really I'll just reassess that depending on what will, what will happen immediately after that. So, I wouldn't, I won't say necessarily, I wouldn't say no. I'll have a look at what you're doing and that, it's not a no, but if you want to come back at some stage after the 6th May or...
CW	Yes that might be an idea, perhaps I can do that perhaps we can speak after that time and then by you'll know whether you're going into the House of Lords or what was it you...?
RC	I mean what I shall do, there's no doubt I shall set, I shall set a, well I've got a consultancy now and I shall expand that er if, you know, more than I would if I go to the other place. If I go to the other place then obviously I'd want to spend some time there doing things so er, you know so really the ball's up in the air at the moment. Er...
CW	Yes I see that. With your consultancy at the moment is that how you do your work for the other organisations—you do it via your consultancy?
RC	No; two of them I do. The third one I'm a non executive director—so that's direct. I'm a non executive director on Nuclear Management Partners which is a combination of three companies, URS Washington, US, ARETHA of France and AMEC of the UK—they came together to create that consortium that made the bid that won the bid for the Sellafield—
CW	Sellafield, yes.
RC	...and that was the contract Sellafield which was quite a (...INAUDIBLE...) large (?) contract. So I work with them as non executive director on that. And the other two are consultancies with AMEC and with the Fitness Industry Association.
CW	And what kind of consultancy work do you do for them? It just be would just be useful for me to know for later on...
RC	Well I do stuff on the engineering side, at the moment I'm negotiating with forces (?)(...INAUDIBLE...) with a major deal on the largest (...INAUDIBLE...) press (?) in (...INAUDIBLE...)I'm doing a lot on the supply chain of the nuclear power industry working with the advance manufacturing party set up (...INAUDIBLE...) just outside it. I do a lot of advice in those areas. I also, obviously, was Minister for Trade so I've been round the world, I've got lot of contracts there, and I advise AMEC on our international... see I was down in South Africa, I met with the South African energy minister and their people down in South Africa, so I do that as well. So you know, I make those connections really for UK Limited.
CW	It does sound like you do have very good contacts, as I'd expect really, through um, your um experience.
RC	Yes well I had ten years in the as a Minister obviously (...INAUDIBLE...) I did set up the Regional Development Agencies, (...INAUDIBLE...) set up Trade and Investment which was when I was Minister for Trade and then I was six years at Sport, after that was obviously winning the Olympics but we took in Sport as well so in that sense in those are the areas you know I've got some expertise in or at least contacts and expertise in, so.
CW	Mmm. That sounds perfect. I'll you what I think maybe we could progress this after the election, depending on what happens but I wonder if it might be worth meeting just for an informal coffee beforehand just to touch base and say hello so you know who I am and we could really do something after May.
RC	Yep, yep.
CW	Are you going to be contactable by e-mail over the next couple of weeks?
RC	Yes. If you, if you, there's two things, it's [...]
CW	Yes.
RC	Or if you ring [name] at the House of Commons which is [...] and arrange to come and have a cup of coffee. She'll put it in the diary and you could pop into the House if that's OK with you.
CW	Yes, yes, that would be a good idea.
RC	then she'll sort a time out and you can pop in to have half an hour.
CW	That would be great. That sounds great Richard.
RC	(...INAUDIBLE...) I mean I don't know much about your company either, so...
CW	I can send you some information if you like.
RC	If you would. I'll have look at that. OK?
CW	Nice to speak to you, thanks so much. Bye.
RC	Cheers, bye.

112.  Dispatches 'Politicians for Hire'—Transcript of Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP meeting, 10 March 2010

Music and papers rustling
CW	00:27:36	Hello.
RC		(on phone)
CW		Yes.
RC		Can you hear me?
CW		Oh hello how are you I was just looking for your mobile number actually I was just going to let you know I where, where are we sitting, where are you?
RC		(on phone)
CW		Oh me too I'm sitting down by the erm, err by the window. Did you just walk in?
RC		(on phone)
CW		Thank you.
Movement and music still playing [Dialogue about finding the correct location.]
RC	00:30:06	So you're Anderson Perry?
CW		Yeah, that's right erm, it was just erm, great to have a chat with you, really.
RC		Yeah, yeah yeah.
CW		In the last... (...INAUDIBLE...)
RC		Tell me a little bit about the set up.
CW		Yeah yeah I will.
RC	00:30:18	I'm not quite, I think I know....
CW		Yeah no problem. They're an American company erm, and in the last month or so I've set up the London office, we're based in St James' Square.
RC		Oh yeah.
CW	00:30:28	It's a lovely building there which is really great we're getting a whole floor ... so it's exciting erm, and the reason we're doing it is because so many of our clients have said to us look we've got more and more business interests in the UK now and we really need you to kind of help us with those. So...
RC		What, what you are, you are, it's engineering in the broadest sense, service engineering?
CW	00:30:50	Well no a bit of both actually, it's what they call it in the States is, there's another Anderson Perry and I wondered if you'd seen their web site.
RC		Yeah I've got the one from the States and I've got, that's the other one.
CW		Yes that's us yes. Yeah but yeah that's right.
RC	00:31:01	You've got a whole series (?) on err, it's basically engineering isn't it?
CW		Well actually we've got some engineering clients. But actually it's communications.
RC		Is it, oh.
CW	00:31:11	What they call it in America is bespoke consultancy and what that means you basically do everything. Erm, so sometimes that's kind of dealing with press and media enquiries and other times that's helping people with their investments and how supporting what they're doing erm, so just to give you an idea of some of the clients that we have, we've got defence clients in the states who, one of them makes their chassis for MPV vehicles...
RC	00:31:37	Oh yeah.
CW	00:32:13	So they've various contracts with the equivalent of the MOD there erm, and there's, erm, a kind of health client there does elderly care. And they've got various contracts to kind of look after elderly people and they're looking to expand here. And we've got a consortium of erm, people in the UAE who are interested in, they kind of do various investments erm but they're interested in getting more involved in the UK especially in property erm, and kind of infrastructure. They see it erm, actually as a great opportunity erm, about what's happening here in terms of property and seeing it as a good time to get involved erm, and to expand. So it's quite broad what we do actually and it's quite nice erm, And kind of the plan for the next couple of months is for me to set up an advisory board erm, and that will involve getting about 4 - 6 people together to give us strategic advice and also our clients to strategic advice when necessary. And that's one of the things I wanted to speak to you about really.
RC	00:32:39	Oh yeah.
CW		To see if that's the kind of thing you might be interested in doing when you step down or?
RC		How did you pick my name up?
CW		I asked one of my researchers to kind of draw up a list of people that were, there well connected and also had a consultancy background so were used to kind of dealing with business and doing that and then your name came up so hopefully we've got the right kind of person?
RC	00:33:00	No, I, I I, well I've been in Government you know I've been in Government 10 years, I've been in Parliament 27 and my .(...INAUDIBLE...)at the end of this Parliament to be 6th May. Erm, but I'm an engineer by, background as well and I do quite a lot in the, energy industry..
CW		Oh right.
RC	00:33:20	Yeah, I advise, AMEC
CW		I think you mentioned them when we spoke on the phone.
RC		Yeah and I'm also non executive director on err, and this is where I thought the connection had come from, a non executive director on Sellafield which is a big nuclear site erm, which because of the clean up (...INAUDIBLE...). There's an American company, quite a big American company, who is one of the three in the consortium, URS Washington and they are err, well they're a huge company, and the bit I'm involved in is the nuclear side and they cleaned up Savannah River which was a big nuclear site in the US. (...INAUDIBLE...) plutonium (...INAUDIBLE...) for the arms industry.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:34:05	And they came on board, with AMEC and with Areva France which are, is a big energy/nuclear company in France and those three made the bid collectively and I was at at the time but then they asked me to do it as a non executive director, I'm a non exec and that's where I thought(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Oh right.
RC	00:34:24	...because I looked after the US you see.
CW		Well it might have been because I asked them to speak to the, the guy that I got to the work I spoke to lots of our clients in the US, just to see if they'd erm, come across people, and to be honest I just got the final list.
RC		Yeah.
CW	00:34:36	I'm not particularly aware of where it all comes from.
RC		It came from anywhere.
CW		Yeah so it may erm, it may well be that, but I just wanted to kind of get a sense from you, with I don't know what kind of thing you'd be interested in and what kind of things you'd done previously to get an idea of your expertise?
RC	00:34:49	Yeah well I mean, it, in part, well I'm an engineer by profession and I went into Europe in err, in the European Parliament in 1979 for the first time and I was on the economic and military committee there with Jacques Delores who was our president at the time err and so I worked quite a bit in on the European scene and particularly on the industrial side in European Parliament. I came out in 83. err and into this Parliament, and then in the early 90's I chaired the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in a period when Michael Heseltine was the President of the Board Of Trade and I chaired that Committee through the inquiries on pit closures, on information super highway erm, the Aerospace (...INAUDIBLE...) and the international trade in South Africa (...INAUDIBLE...). And then I, then I went into Government and, and I was a Minister responsible for setting up the regional development agencies across...
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:35:55	...across England. I also started planning, new planning processes, then I left there, two years after I set the IVA's up and I went into trade and I was Trade Minister and created an organisation called UK Trade and Investment which put inward investment which was (...INAUDIBLE...) at the time (...INAUDIBLE...) together to, much more comprehensive approach to, to exporting, on a (...INAUDIBLE...) linked to the regions national and international, through UK Trade and Investment, UK TI as they called it. I did that for two years.
CW		That's interesting.
RC	00:36:31	Yeah and then I went into sport and I set up, restructured the whole sport, so on my watch was the whole Olympics as well but it, it linked a lot of that...on the health. The other thing I do advise as well is the Fitness Industry Association, the FIA.
CW		Oh right what do they do?
RC		They are, they bring together all the Lloyds Leisure's, erm, the, all the, well, public and private sector, all the, all gyms that we've got around this place err, First Leisure, Lloyds, and so on, all of those are under the FIA.
CW		Mmm.
RC	00:37:05	And the reason err is (...INAUDIBLE...) that because we're trying to fund the sports programme to get err a million people more active, by 2012.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:37:17	And it was to try and use that part of err, which I believe is, is underutilised erm, facility in the UK and link that into sport you know and to the schools to develop (...INAUDIBLE...)
		Coffee machine in background
CW		So that children would use those gyms for instance?
RC	00:37:33 00:38:45	Yeah, what, what we, we set out to do in 2001 there was less than 25 percent of the school population getting two hours of physical activity or sport. And we created the structure and by (...INAUDIBLE...) the School Sports Partnership where you have one sports provider, eight secondary schools, 30 primary schools, roughly speaking, and that created the partnership where we can be a suitable co-ordinator, which were teachers who have 2 or 3 days a week off, backed up by another teacher which organise the sport and physical activity and we took the average choice of sport and physical activity (...INAUDIBLE...) to no less than 14 choices, sometimes up to 24 and we moved we moved the physical activity from 25 percent when I left in 1997 to 85 percent and that means there are now around three million hours a week more physical activity in our education system than there was in 2001.
CW		Oh really.
RC		It's been the fastest move of (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		That's great.
RC		And as we got (...INAUDIBLE...) the Ofsted report. For the first time obesity and overweight have just started to level out in schools.
CW		Has it?
RC	00:39:02	Yeah we think err, the last stats, we can think that now it's obviously started to have an impact on... and we're extending that for two in school to three outside school.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:39:18	So we're trying to link the prevention but that also changes the culture. And that's great while you're getting the very controlled systems in the education system which you can do that and the structure and you do it and the kids are there 9 to 5.
CW		So what do they do go to the gym effectively?
RC		You know, they do all sorts, we do they, they've got two hours, they can do break dancing, they can do sport, they can do other things and we have, created structures which hopefully gives them a good experience of which they can, We've found that where kids have got into, particularly girls because they do (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah like hockey.
RC	00:39:55	Whatever, (...INAUDIBLE...) It turns them off, see? So what we said: No that's crazy! You've got to make, you've got to make the, the clothing that they wear acceptable to them they've got to have choice, they might want to do break dancing, (...INAUDIBLE...) they want to do dance, they might want to do, I don't know, (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah.
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...) and as I say you give a choice, of (...INAUDIBLE...) probably less than 14 (?) but some when they're 21, 24. Then when they come out, the experience is, they're more likely to stop in a (...INAUDIBLE...) physical activity if they've had a good experience certainly than if they've had a bad experience.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:40:39	So that's the rationale.
CW		That it'll be part of their life?
RC	00:40:42	And it's all starting to now feed through. Where does that leave us? It's left us with hopefully, when they leave school, where do you go? So we were trying to do all sorts of things that as well as sport creating the backbone of good structures? The private sector on board, the athletics associations, so they would open up their gyms. Err, for (...INAUDIBLE...) experiences.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:41:00	And what has been interesting with the FIA is where it is just a gym that has levelled off (...INAUDIBLE...), where when they are in the much wider complex of sport and physical activity. So where you go, where your family can go into, they might want to play badminton, they might want to swim, they might when they go into the gym, they might want to (...INAUDIBLE...) If you create a multi-choice activity for the, for the families then err, then they are more likely to stop (...INAUDIBLE...) exciting, continue.
		Pouring tea.
RC	00:41:41 00:42:19	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 and he's an, he's an engineer as well. He has been the chair for the Health Authority now err for probably 8 years, probably a bit more. And because I'm sort of finishing, I said you know I'd like to do this experiment. 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. He's been to the problems it's the biggest business(?) in Europe and it's very much an ambulance service it, it's a health service but a wellness service.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:42:26	And because of that you, we've built all sorts of cultures out of it. We're saying we're got to break them. And whilst we try to work the Health service into all sorts of different structures, we're thinking in the economy of scale with half a million people that two big hospitals, teaching hospitals, and a children's hospital along with two big universities that we ought to look at whether we can actually move the whole cultural agenda to prevention rather than cure.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:43:00	But we need to have, a, amendment on the legislation to give us, and we don't want anymore money. But we want to be able to utilise our disciplines so that if people are (...INAUDIBLE...) they've got to (...INAUDIBLE...) (eat less?), if people are obese they've got to get (the fat?) off (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Mmm.
RC	00:43:13	(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah.
RC		So we've got a lot of sticks and carrots but in doing that we'll link that to err the err industries and and saying be in no doubt we're going to leave it weeks or two weeks, but where you've got a health (...INAUDIBLE...) agenda (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Of course.
RC	00:43:33	(...INAUDIBLE...) So it's a win-win at the bottom line. It's a win-win on the bottom line at expenditure and you believe (?) cultural shift (...INAUDIBLE...) It's a bit like schools where you can actually over a period shift the culture there (...INAUDIBLE...) acceptable (...INAUDIBLE...) The reality is, that over the last two or three decades we have systematically taken physical activity out of everyone's lives by design. It's the motorcar.
CW		Yes you're right.
RC		Town planning, escalators all of them.
CW		To make life easier.
RC		Exactly.
RC	00:44:08	The television. We have remote controls, everything. So we (...INAUDIBLE...) in the developed world, we are, designing physical activity out of our lives. For the first time now we are designing it back in. and that's the challenge. We're saying you can do that any way (?) but moving shifting cultures is much more difficult than putting legislation to statute there's no resolution. I mean that could be helpful (...INAUDIBLE...) I mean the anti-smoking one was a classic.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:44:41	(...INAUDIBLE...) So that yes, I have been advising the FIA, I because I've got, I've got link into sports, err, physical activity, the schools (...INAUDIBLE...) for years now, err this and I advise them on the (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		And what are they looking to get out of it are they looking to?
RC	00:45:00	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. So basically, you've got an asset there that is under utilised.
CW		Yes.
RC		Can we use it?
CW	00:45:20	For instance a gym in the daytime might be quite empty, yeah.
RC		Erm, can, can we use that erm and can we utilise that? We're also looking at taking and it's not just in there, but moving in to communities and to community clubs, and saying that do you, like the Salvation Army, do you go out the client and then the client comes to you.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:45:55	And then you can bring the client in as well so it means that it's a two way flow. There's a lot, lot of ideas, certainly from their point of view it really is, 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.
CW		Yeah, then everyone's doing well.
RC		Yes exactly (...INAUDIBLE...) partnership (?)
CW		How easy is it to kind of liaise with Government and Ministers and Civil Servants and that kind of thing, because some of my clients are going to be looking to expand in the U.K., and to get closer to Government, but I just wonder how you do it practically?
RC	00:46:21	Well practically, I mean it's not very sophisticated, you know, 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 and utilising their, you know, their (...INAUDIBLE...) capacity.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:46:45	Erm and it was from that, well there's a number of ways in which you can, 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.
CW		Yeah, well exactly.
RC		Yeah that's, obviously an important aspect of this, but obviously we're in a changing situation. Nobody knows the—, where we're going to be on the 7th May this year.
CW		I know, well that's one of the questions, and that's one of the things I was wondering about the make-up of the Advisory Board, erm do you think it's the kind of thing you'd be interested in?
RC	00:47:20	Oh maybe yeah, but I mean the only things is as I don't, what I think I said to you before I. I don't quite know what I'm going to be doing after the 6th May. And I mean there's a possibility I will be in the House of Lords and, and I'm just going to have to find out exactly what I'm going to do there as well But yeah. I wouldn't particularly want to get anything in ... I think it would be wrong for you and wrong for me in, in the sense I don't want to really commit to something I can't do.
CW		No of course.
RC	00:47:53	So I'd have to, you know, obviously we'd have a. But yeah its seems I would be interested if circumstances arise.
CW		Yeah.
RC		Where I'm erm in the House of Lords, I am going to be doing more, I'm going to do more energy. They'll be a very big announcement next week, which I'll be dealing with, about the nuclear supply chain, the nuclear power supply chain.
CW	00:48:19	Are you still invol, are you still involved with kind of nuclear stuff for Government then?
RC		Well my, my, the company I used to work at is of course, it called (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Right.
RC	00:48:32	(...INAUDIBLE...) Which is a lot of (...INAUDIBLE...) For the energy ...(...INAUDIBLE...).. And one of the things (...INAUDIBLE...) Is there will be an announcement, they're going to build the largest (...INAUDIBLE...) facility in the world.
CW		Oh right.
RC		Which is the start of the nuclear supply chain. And if you, in broad figures, if I tell you that broadly there are probably in this country 8 to 10 generators erm and that will be worth around the 60 billion pounds.
CW		Oh my goodness.
RC	00:49:00	And that only represents 4% of the world's order book as of today. It shows you, this press, we will be the only one in the western world, that's including the U.S., the only other one this size is in Japan. One of the big bottlenecks of the nuclear new build, new generators that people (...INAUDIBLE...) is erm is this part of the supply chain.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:49:28	So that's that and the other part is, I've been deeply involved in the setting up of the advanced manufacturing (...INAUDIBLE...) partnership (?), which is erm, something we did that 10 years ago, on the back of Aerospace (...INAUDIBLE...) that conduit with the MD (?). 9, 10 years ago now with (...INAUDIBLE...) and it was out of that discussion that they decided they wanted to come to Britain, because we did a lot of titanium, we did a lot (...INAUDIBLE...) sheet/machine (?) titanium(...INAUDIBLE...) and that's now brought British Aerospace there, brought (...INAUDIBLE...) there, Smiths there, erm a lot of the (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW	00:50:13	Yeah.
RC		And we're moving advanced manufacturing aerospace into advanced British manufacturing for nuclear industry, so there's a lot for them. And so I've got to do a lot to make sure that UK Limited gets a lead position.
CW		Yeah.
RC		And so that's quite exciting.
CW	00:50:33	And what was the erm work that you were doing for erm the Sellafield people.
		More coffee noise.
RC		I, I, I advise, there was a bid, a consortium bid to get the contract to clean up and to look at all reprocessing of the fuel.
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:50:55	Bearing in mind it was the (...INAUDIBLE...) and I was, because I'd known AMEC for many, many years and 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, I did it. I worked with Areva, I worked with Washington and we won it, we won the contract and it was then they said would I go on and I went on as a non-executive.
CW		Oh right.
RC		But I still advise.
CW	00:51:30	Erm and what kind of erm how in what way do you advise them, cause I'm just trying to.
RC		On the board. Oh sorry AMEC?
CW		Yes that's right because I was just about the things.
RC		Oh AMEC, I mean I, AMEC I (...INAUDIBLE...) to me, then 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.
CW		Yeah.
Coffee machine over following section
RC	00:52:08	Erm but they also, they all said to me, (...INAUDIBLE...) nuclear and that as well (...INAUDIBLE...) so a whole series of things, you know. And then that I meet Samir Brikho who's MD and I say come and have a chat and he'll have some ideas you know, someone will think about those ideas, so it's quite right (?)(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW	00:52:35	No I was just thinking about what kind of things we would be after from the Advisory Board or from our Consultants, and I suppose one of the things erm we'd be looking to try to erm develop would be our relations erm with Government and Ministers and Civil Servants. And I just didn't know whether that was the kind of thing you'd be able to help us with?
RC	00:52:51	Oh yeah, yeah, obviously I know Ministers. But again it'll change, it could change, it's going to change anyway, irrespective of of—
CW		Yeah.
RC	00:52:59	Cause that many of my colleagues will be leaving. so there will be erm quite a big movement of personnel, personnel, it'll be very interesting, this new, maybe hung Parliament.
CW		Yeah.
RC		But that won't last for very long in my view, hung Parliaments don't last very long.
CW		Don't they?
RC		No, they'll be, depending on the composition. Probably a year, eighteen months and then they'll be another election, probably you know. But increasingly, but there's a lot in Europe you see. There's a lot European connections, and into the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
CW	00:53:33	Yeah.
RC		And in (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW	00:53:48	Well I suppose, if I just think about the kind of things that they'd be wanting to do, you know there's the health clients, so they'll be wanting to meet people in the Department of Health and various civil servants. Erm the guys we've got in the U.A.E. who are interested in developing erm going in to do kind of housing and construction erm that kind of thing, I , they'll want to meet all kinds of people there, they're interested in the Olympics, although I think, I don't know if that's too late for them. And then of course if we get erm World Cup they'd be very interested in that.
RC		Well the Olympic Delivery Authority is, I mean I set up the Olympic Delivery Authority.
CW		Oh did you.
RC	00:54:10	I took the Bill, I took, yeah I took the Bill through Parliament and set up the structures, and then I set up the, erm you've got the Olympic Board and then you've got effectively two structures, the ODA, which is effectively construction, the other one, which Coe Chairs, is the LOCOG, Local Organising Committee delivers the Games.
CW		Yeah.
RC		So you've got one who builds the services and infrastructure and the other one then comes in, takes that and delivers the games, I mean that's it.. And then we've just set up, or they have just set up a legacy company now as well, to look at (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW	00:54:47	Oh have they?
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...) games. So that, that's now erm underway.
CW		And in terms of, say if the Conservatives come in, at the next election, do you think that will affect how much you're able to help us?
RC		Well yeah, I mean to the point where I, you know, obviously the Ministers I know are in the main good friends of mine as well. But I mean a lot of the old Conservatives who are in all sorts of positions, where I can help will be. Look at Seb Coe, look at Colin Moynahan, he's conservative, Brian Mawhinney is. You know, and I think it's more about, at the end of it, do they trust you in the sense of your integrity and you know the subject you're dealing with.
	00:55:43
CW		Yeah.
RC		And that's true of civil servants as well, you know erm so.
CW	00:55:51	So you don't think it would be a problem setting up meetings with them.
RC		Oh no. I mean I set loads of meetings up when I was Minister, with all different parties. (...INAUDIBLE...) I set them up with a lot, there's a lot of ex-Conservative MPs | | stop tape 1| | who lost their seat and worked for all kinds of businesses who came knocking on my door.
END AUDIO SWITCHES TO "Caborn meeting wed 100310" from Dictaphone TC Differ from start
CW	00:54:26	Yeah.
RC	00:54:27	And there are some very nice and some very good and some that are not and not so good and that's their judgement at the end of the day.
CW		Yes I know I suppose that's true. But I would guess that civil servants, I would imagine there would quite a lot that might leave at the next election but equally there might be a lot that stay.
RC	00:54:44	Oh yes there will be a lot that are staying, I mean the civil service is quite a unique animal in that regard it tends to manage political change quite effectively er, so I would think this will leave not a lot
CW		Yea and you still have the relationships with them, do you?
RC	00:55:03 00:55:27	Yes I do. John Prescott and I are having a little party next Thursday night for all those who have been in private secretaries since we started. People who worked, not the big high flyers you know, but people within our private office who are head of our policy units, and you'd be amazed, one's my very first private secretary, was really, really good to me and he is number two in the Chinese Embassy now.
CW		Oh really?
RC	00:55:35	So I said I will text (?) them all before, (...INAUDIBLE...) it's that lump of people who's (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...)
RC	00:55:49	And you know a lot of them, a lot of them are around the world.
CW		Yeah
RC	00:55:53 00:56:24	And the other thing is, when I was Minister, for two years doing trade, and set up his clients and I did a lot of travelling, as I did with the Olympics as well. You get to know people and all of a sudden they pop up in another country than you've met them in. I was down at the er, at the, I was down, and I went to a state banquet last week with the president of South Africa. [Name] my wife, she went and um, and (...INAUDIBLE...) affair (?) but [wife] was sat next to a young guy who is now the private secretary (...INAUDIBLE...) to the, er, to er Prince Andrew.
CW		Oh really?
RC	00:56:36 00:56:53	And he, he told her a story which I can't recall to be quite honest, about when I went to see the (...INAUDIBLE...) and sorted out rather a rather intransigent situation by a member of staff and I gave him, and by all accounts, and I never knew this, but [wife] told me, how he was absolutely delighted. He said he had champagne corks popping when I'd left, because they had given him the biggest bollocking he'd ever had in his life (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Oh really
RC	00:57:01	But all the guys there, and this guy was there, he must have been (...INAUDIBLE...) but he's now become, he's now become er, the private secretary to Prince Andrew. So he was telling [wife]. It's a funny old world you see.
CW		Yeah
RC	00:57:15	And these things come back, cos there's not many parts of the world where you know I don't think I will know anybody.
CW		Yeah, is it easy enough to see civil servants cos I would always feel tricky just to call them up as Claire Webster and be hi ya, can I come and see you, but?
RC	00:57:31	But if you are, the real fixers in Whitehall outside the Ministers are the special advisers.
CW		Oh right and do you now them?
RC	00:57:42	Yeah that's, cos that's politically how they operate and they are, they come and go with Ministers.
CW		Right.
RC	00:57:51	They are the people that have the ear of the Ministers at the political level. They have civil servants and private secretaries (?) but you also have special advisors. And the other area that is quite good actually is the select committees.
CW		Oh are they? So it's worth knowing people that are on the select committees?
RC	00:58:15	Oh yes, very much so. cos when you give evidence, I mean I chaired a select committee for four years, Trade and Industry.
CW		Oh right.
RC	00:58:20	So you bring a lot of industrialist in or experts, obviously and they draw up a report going to Parliament and have to be responded to by Government. This is the Parliamentary system which is quite, or can be quite influential.
CW		Do you think you'd be able to help us with the select committees and special advisors in order to um, go and see them?
RC	00:58:44	Yeah, yeah, as long as you know how the system works that's the main thing. These people come and they go. They've chaired select committees. But the whole system is still there. How you influence the decision makers, that's the structure, that's not going to change. The personnel will change but the system doesn't change.
CW		Yea well I'm sure that's very true.
RC	00:59:04	And that's not the same in Europe as well where you have a totally different system which is a consensus and you are er, the political cabinet of the er, the commissions, the European Union again depending on what area they are in. You could have, you need to er, at least have so much (...INAUDIBLE...) that, that structure as well as individual (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yea
RC	00:59:33	Er, what areas are they in? They've got health?
CW		Yeah, we've got health, defence, um, kind of construction and engineering, they're quite interested in transport um.
RC	00:59:46	Are they, are they into energy at all?
CW		Um, a little bit, more the um, investors, they're the people that are particularly interested in getting involved in aviation and energy, because they see it as quite kind of hot topics. Um, and they've got a lot of money to um, invest and they see the UK as one of the places to do it.
RC	01:00:03	I'm not a financier I'm not.
CW		Nor am I.
RC		I'm not happy with that, not at all, but I could, you know I'm not in with them, I'm much more er, the engineering side, the wealth creation part of that, but not necessarily the investment side (?)
CW		No I think what they really looking for from us is guidance about what areas they should consider investing in, um, so you know sometimes that might mean a heads up on forthcoming policy, you know what's coming up, what's going to be a hot topic, um, and also introductions to people that they should be talking to.
RC	01:00:37 01:01:07	Well that's, that's the, relatively (...INAUDIBLE...). That's not hard in that sense, I mean it's when you get into... I'm a non-exec on the (...INAUDIBLE...) NFB (?), (...INAUDIBLE...) financing (...INAUDIBLE...) got to know your subject matter which, some board meetings are two days long some board meetings. and they get into some quite interesting, fairly high level, but for that you have to do a lot of reading. Every day you have to go, every other day, you know.
CW	01:01:22	Of reading yeah, I think actually I've got to report back to um, my board in the US in the next couple of weeks, and I think one thing that I will be certainly worth highlighting for me, is the good work you'd done for AMEC and Sellafield because obviously getting that contract is a massive thing. Was it a hard thing to get?
RC	01:01:37	It wasn't hard, it was well not what I think, I think it wasn't hard, it was (...INAUDIBLE...) it was a great look, what you'd one is you've brought three global companies, brought them together (...INAUDIBLE...) it's just me (...INAUDIBLE...) They've all got different skill sets.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:02:07	And different ways of doing things. as well: You've got America.
CW		Oh yeah, they do things differently.
RC	01:02:20	(...INAUDIBLE...) and then in a new (...INAUDIBLE...)
	01:02:26	Quality of people working (...INAUDIBLE...) and is of the highest calibre it really is absolutely and it's intellectually stimulating to be with them, I mean it's great, it was great. The one objective when you're moving towards, it's a bit like (...INAUDIBLE...) in that sense, there's a lot of similarities you know lots of er, I advised them on a lot, tactics, of how to get to that situation (...INAUDIBLE...)
RC	01:02:58	But once you've won it you have to start delivering that, different (...INAUDIBLE...) I had about three months of actually bringing them all together er, and it is, it is a peculiar thing because immediately you've won it you all go ah!
CW	01:03:17	Yes of course and it is quite scary isn't it, because you've suddenly got to do it. Yea how am I going to do this.
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:03:31	(...INAUDIBLE...) the other interesting bit about this is their company's credibility is on the line. It's not the (...INAUDIBLE...) it's the holding company and that (...INAUDIBLE...) item is there. And if anything goes wrong, it could be Areva, it could be URS, it could be AMEC...
CW	01:03:44	Of course yeah.
RC	01:03:45	Because it's their brand name.
	01:03:47	Cos they, they protect and rightly so cos they are, they are three world, you know, major world sector (?) companies so er, in that sense it's, it is quite interesting. They come together (...INAUDIBLE...)
RC	01:04:00	And [name], well (...INAUDIBLE...) my other non executive, we have a great time and we tell, we tell them the absolute truth of what we think, sometimes it hurts.
CW		[Laughing]
RC		But you know its good, they took us now, oh we've been at it now 2½ years.
CW		Oh really, oh well you must be enjoying it if you've stayed doing it that long.
RC	01:04:20	Oh yeah, yeah, oh yeah its erm its good. I went off to the U.S. Internal Affair, to attend this erm, to meet one of their guys(...INAUDIBLE...) and I went to France, (...INAUDIBLE...) for a time, to see the guys down there, so its, erm it is, its been a really interesting period, about bringing cultures together to work on a fairly complex issue.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:04:45	But we are, we're going to, but they are in themselves very professional people, you know that is great when you've got people like that.
CW		Yeah, one thing I wanted to get an idea from you, I know it's always a tricky conversation, but I'm going looking to appoint some members of the board, probably over, maybe in April, so you said that you'd be interested in doing something maybe after May, but one thing I wanted to get a sense of is what you'd be expecting in terms of erm remuneration, in whether you have a normal day rate that you'd look for to be an advisory board member.
RC		Well my, what they pay me, I'll tell you what they pay, they pay me, they pay me two and a half thousand pounds a day.
CW	01:05:21	Yeah, so would that be what your looking for?
RC		Yeah, that's what I, for yeah, plus expenses obviously.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:05:51 01:06:16	Erm and that's well we don't pay, oh sorry AMEC pay me, they don't pay me that, they just pay me like seventy-five thousand a year, as a board member, up to I think its 30 days, and if I do any time above that then I get extra, cause that saves all the messing about, when you're just paid, as a non executive, being paid seventy-five thousand erm and that covers my contract, board meetings and various other activities. But to be honest I'm doing quite a lot for that. 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 and it's become much wider (...INAUDIBLE...) Which is quite exciting from my point of view, but that's what really erm made, made a big, big difference on that so and our, we have a (...INAUDIBLE...)relationship, cause we have a thing called the nuclear non departmental public body. We are responsible (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah.
RC		On that particular subject (...INAUDIBLE...) and a lot of repositioning. but that is now, just about (...INAUDIBLE...) it's been quite interesting, quite exciting to erm to put together.
CW	01:06:54	Yeah I bet.
RC	01:07:14	And it's interesting how various companies have relationships with their Government. The Americans and their Department of Environment have a relationship with the American Government... Having a relationship with the French having a relationship with the French Government (...INAUDIBLE...), and now here, all different types of relationships. But when they're Here they've got to have our relationship.
CW		Exactly.
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...)British companies.
CW		Yeah, that's what our clients are saying as well, you know, they may be used to doing business in America, or in the Gulf of wherever, but how should they be doing business here? Who should they be meeting? You know how, does it all work?
RC	01:07:31	Well that's right, but (...INAUDIBLE...) this country, but these guys you know they'll, they've probably had quite a bit of experience on it.
CW	01:07:44	Yeah, yeah they do. Erm I think what we'd be looking to for the advisory board is having erm, I think you try something for the first 6 months and see how it's working, and then assess it. So we're looking for a meeting every other month, erm though you might want to up that to once a month after a while, so I would expect it to be, to roughly work out to prob, maybe erm a day for the meeting and a day for kind of reading, so that's going to be roughly.
RC	01:08:02	About 12 days a year.
CW		Yeah, erm and then of course we'd be looking for erm people to do consultancy work on top of that, and that would be up to you, if you erm wanted to do that, and wanted to get erm a whole (...INAUDIBLE...) depending on your time commitments.
RC	01:08:16	Yeah well that depends a lot on what I'm going to do to be honest. And I, I, I, I my view it will become clear [pause]. The biggest decision obviously is whether I go to the Lords. I will know that probably in the next erm five weeks, four or five weeks we will know who is going to be (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:08:42	That has to be announced before that, the erm the PM goes to the Palace and I shall know, and that will then really determine what I am going to do. Of course, if that doesn't happen then I'll continue to work on my consultancy. I will set an office up there or elsewhere and I'll take a slightly different course, but if I'm in Parliament still, then obviously that gives me access to a lot of other things.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:09:10	That, that's it really—
CW		I was going to ask you actually erm cause I know when we spoke on the phone you mentioned that you might go to the Lords, at, what kind of further expertise do you think that would bring if you were to be in the Lords?
[14:45]
RC	01:09:23	Well access, access to people. You're in, you're in, you're in the environment you're moving around, you're doing it all the time. That would give you a much wider view (...INAUDIBLE...) narrowness, very much into manufacturing (?), the energy sector, two directorships (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah
RC	01:09:54	Erm because that would be a base, (...INAUDIBLE...) Government (...INAUDIBLE...) access, constituency (?)(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		And by access do you mean that you'd be able to erm talk more, talk to people or?
RC	01:10:06	Yeah you you're there all the time (...INAUDIBLE...) Got access all the time. Access to Ministers, you've got access to all the information that's going around.
CW	01:10:20	Yeah, so you could just pick up information I suppose.
RC		You talk to people, you stop people (?) (...INAUDIBLE...), Yeah.
Prolonged rustling on microphone on following section.
CW		Very exciting for you isn't it?
RC	01:10:46	Yeah, yeah yeah, no I mean (...INAUDIBLE...), elected cause I've got a number of options, irrespective of what happens, I don't, I don't go there I will (...INAUDIBLE...), erm, (...INAUDIBLE...), erm (...INAUDIBLE...)on the, on the manufacturing and energy side (...INAUDIBLE...)a number of people, (...INAUDIBLE...), jobs with them (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW	01:11:10	So you will decide erm about those other jobs will you, erm after your, after you know about whether your going in to the Lords.
RC		Yeah, some of and as I've said to everybody I'm not going to make any decisions until I know, you know I, I (...INAUDIBLE...) I mean if that's in your time scale.
CW	01:11:28	Yes, yeah it is, yeah that would be erm fine for me really.
RC		Who else would you be looking to put on, what type of people?
CW		Erm I definitely I'm looking for someone who has a good business background, a banking kind of background actually, someone with a legal background, erm I'm I think I should probably be talking to maybe a conservative, though I don't know who. Erm, I was wondering about a former civil servant, erm I don't know if you have any recommendations or thoughts.
RC	01:11:56	In civil servants, erm I think the best thing to do is to let me know what portfolios you know what, what your looking for, the banking (...INAUDIBLE...), if you just let me know what you think your portfolio's going to be.
CW	01:12:12. 01:12:35	Yes, well at the moment it looks like health in terms of elderly care, erm it looks like defence erm in terms of getting contracts with the MoD pretty much, erm housing and infrastructure and transport, so big investment projects that the people from the Gulf can get involved with. And they are quite open, and quite interested in doing a number of things, erm but they're looking for big projects. So for instance with cross rail coming up, not cross rail sorry, well they could do that but I did wonder about the high speed 2.
RC		High speed 2.
CW		That's something else that.
RC		There is a big announcement tomorrow.
CW		Oh is there.
RC	01:12:46	That the high speed links, up in Manchester and Leeds possibly and (...INAUDIBLE...) to London.
CW		Oh wow.
RC		Would then I think (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		It would go across.
RC	01:13:02	So that, that's going to be a big announcement. The big infrastructure developments clearly are going to be on high speed rail. The other one's going to be on energy on a whole green energy agenda.
CW		Yes.
RC		Is big
CW		Yeah, so renewable.
RC	01:13:17	It's renewable, its nuclear, its carbon capture, they are the big infrastructure development. And because what we're trying to do is position nuclear (...INAUDIBLE...) UK Limited (...INAUDIBLE...), not just supply our own (...INAUDIBLE...) but to use it as a base for international development.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:13:32	And what you've got with Roath (?), I'm saying (...INAUDIBLE...), you've then got, they want to become, as they have done in the aerospace smart (?) partner, and they want to be smart partner (?)and (...INAUDIBLE...) And (...INAUDIBLE...), What we are going to announce next week on the Rolls/Roath (?) are involved (...INAUDIBLE...) partners between the two big (...INAUDIBLE...),
CW	01:14:01	Yeah.
RC	01:14:02	And therefore we will look, cross rail, development (...INAUDIBLE...), on them so we've got some very good engineers. And we've got, and what, with Rolls/Roath (?) we're looking at how you can take the, the aerospace manufacture or defence manufacture into the nuclear (...INAUDIBLE...) That, that area it's huge.
CW		And do you have a background in that because of your work, work? It's obviously one of your specialist areas.
RC	01:14:52	I'm an engineer. And so that, that is, and the other big one it really is health service, I mean we're spending a hundred billion pounds a year on a health service and it's got to move to prevention rather than cure and that is a big, that's a big issue, I mean how, how that will develop can be extremely interesting. And this thing we're going to do in Sheffield if we ever get off the ground, to look at this in a whole new structure of wellness not an ambulance service, not health service, but a wellness service, which then impacts.
CW		How does that work practically, does that mean they need to get contracts from the local, I don't know PCTs or the local councils.
RC		No, we've, we've, what we're thinking of doing is putting, well I'm trying to get Liam Donaldson, Liam Donaldson is the Chief Medical Advisor.
CW		Ah right yes.
RC	01:15:22	Top man and he's resigning, retiring, anyway come to you know Sheffield, so I've got two Vice Chancellors, I've got the head of the (...INAUDIBLE...), we're going to bring the Chairman of ?, David (...INAUDIBLE...), and there would have been two or three leading industrialists there (...INAUDIBLE...), And we're going to put together a strategy and if we set a Wellness Council up and from that we ran, this is where the Government comes in, it's got to give us the authority and the finance to do that. We would then paint a strategy, you will bring education into that, it would bring community into that, (...INAUDIBLE...), we would then be very strict in people who would have access.
CW		To that, yeah.
RC	01:16:05	So you'd have the, we'd get all GP's in, so they would have a referral, so it's not stuffing more pills down, it's saying no, you've got to start with exercise, or you've got to start with dieting and if you want your operation, then you've got to achieve this objective, if you don't and if we're really, really tough, say no, sorry, you've got to do it.
CW		It would be through this scheme that they have to do it.
RC	01:16:38 01:17:12	Yes that's right and its got to have, you know, it's got people to take more responsibility for their own well being than they have at the moment. It is too easy to turn the tap on the NHS (...INAUDIBLE...) bank and it cannot, it's got to stop (?) and this is, David asked me to go and see, David (...INAUDIBLE...), we had lunch a few weeks ago and he's been (...INAUDIBLE...) and he's just rescued the Shropshire Hospital that was in put in special measures he was the guy who went down and did that. Very good guy. And he used to shift over the next four to five years I just want to try to, to, to shift the whole debate, culture onto a, a (...INAUDIBLE...), trying to get a resolution to what we can do with the Health Service long term. And it always comes back to the wellness of the nation and that's how it...That's not so much to your client (...INAUDIBLE...),
CW		It's just quite interesting actually about you influence policy.
RC		Well we were making, we would ask Government to (...INAUDIBLE...) to us and that we're very high powered with Vice Chancellors of Universities, Chief Executives of Local Authorities along (...INAUDIBLE...)discuss, we, we, do it to industry as well, as well as the schools, we do it to industry, you do the whole thing of saying look, these are the targets we want obesity, these are the targets for physical activity, these are the targets that we are going to achieve collectively.
CW		Have you managed to get the Department of Health on side about it?
RC	01:17:50 01:18:41	Well that's why Liam Donaldson is key, cause Liam Donaldson doesn't come up and I, Liam and I work together, he set, I set up, he and I set up the first doctor sport and exercise (...INAUDIBLE...), which was a, quite a feat in itself, but that's another issue. This was about all the wellness agenda, it was really about that, and he and I, and if I can get Liam to come on to our Board, that's a big, big, sign and he is very, very influential. Really, really nice man, usually quite (...INAUDIBLE...)and if you could put people like that on the Board with strong local influence, vice-chancellor (...INAUDIBLE...) and liaise with the hospital structure, then, the you are in with a possibility of saying we, I ask my self the question what's Government got to lose? He says to us, cos it's restructured the bloody health service that many times, trying to achieve an objective and he's never done it. And this is the discussion that David and I had, and he's saying, oh by the way, the other interesting thing, (...INAUDIBLE...), the other interesting thing is that David is the Honorary Consul in South Yorkshire, (...INAUDIBLE...) Yorkshire, for Finland and he has been to Finland and he has seen what they have done on physical activity where they've taken that nation over twenty five years ago, the worst nation for coronary heart disease in the world, now to well above average.
CW		Oh really?
RC	01:19:18	Yes, and it is a fantastic and he's still involved in that and that's moving from prevention to cure. And they've done that, very, very effectively, you think, ok, that's a small nation, seven or eight million people something like that. But what's he's saying is we need to do it on a economy of scale that is big enough, well Sheffield is half a million people, its got all the institutions that you want at a fairly high level, hospitals and industrial premises. So if we ring fence and say so that's what we're going to do for the next five years, this is how we're
CW		So it's a kind of pilot in a way?
RC		Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't know, it may come off, I don't know, it may come off I don't know.
CW		Oh wow it sounds really exciting and presumable if you have erm Liam Donaldson on the Board, that the Department of Health thinks, well it must be a good idea?
RC	01:20:00	Oh yeah, he, he (...INAUDIBLE...), big tick. So we're having a dinner with him in a few weeks time erm, and we are going to have all the executives there, around the table, and we're just going to knock a few ideas together. And then we may well, after the election put proposition again and say well, you know, we would like to do this, this is what we want you to do.
CW		Do you think a Conservative Government would be up for doing it?
RC	01:20:35	I would think so, you know, I, cause they, whoever's in power they've got a bloody big problem with the Health Service, it, it, it's a huge expense, a hundred billion pounds a year, going up. And you're not addressing the underlying fault of health, which is the wellness agenda. In fact unless you start addressing that in a fairly radical way. So I think it will appeal to er it will appeal to (...INAUDIBLE...) because if we could actually crack it and get that activity levels and like they do the schools, that's why I become more and more confident, because as I say as we've lifted, continue to lift the level of physical activity in schools. that's what starting to happen and that change is good change.
CW		It's very interesting isn't it.
RC		Oh yeah, it's fascinating.
CW		It must be quite exciting to be involved with something like that?
RC	01:21:15	Oh yeah, I love it, yeah, I mean, that's why I've been Minister for ten years and I've enjoyed it all you know. And that's, you know, it's the sport for me, engineering, manufacturing, where I've got a bit of expertise, you know.
CW		It's interesting what you say about the House of Lords actually, I hadn't, I hadn't quite considered erm, how useful it can be to have a consultant or a Board member who's in the Lord's, it will be very interesting.
RC		It's, it's. All this is all about contacts, it really is, it's not even, not so much always about influencing things, it's about getting information. And that, that's absolutely key, because if you can get information that is very powerful. And it's how do you actually operate in those circles to extract that.
CW		So that you can work out where you should be expanding?
RC	01:22:06	Yeah, where you are expanding, where you've got policy development and the big macro picture of where do you want to be taking the nation's policies, whether it's on health, issues like the green energy agenda, climate change agenda. They are the big issues. And out of that comes opportunities.
CW		Yes, yes for your business.
RC		That's right, that's where it comes from and that's where, at the moment, and I, I don't see it changing dramatically, transport is still the big issue, green energy agenda is still a big issue, the health of the nation is a big issue. the all three big (?) and that's what's got to be addressed, how you address.
CW		I know, just have to wait and see.
RC	01:22:49	But again, you know, you see, going back to your client, it depends what are they, you know, what are they into, you know in those areas, what type of portfolios, you know, they're looking for. Are they all Americans?
CW		No, the guys in the Gulf aren't.
RC		Oh they're not Americans working.
CW		No, no they're not, no, one has an American wife, but no, they're not American.
RC		And how long have you worked with them then?
CW		Not very long actually, my old, I used to work for a PR Company.
RC	01:23:16	Who did you work for?
CW		Red Rooster?
RC		Oh yeah.
CW		And my old boss now works in the American office.
RC		Oh I see.
CW		In San Francisco, so erm, when they wanted to pull something together in London, he called me up and said oh, you know, would you do it?
RC		And that's who you're working for, not ...?
CW		Yes.
RC		So you're on your own, are you working for Anderson's now?
CW		Yeah, yeah, I'm working there now and I've kind of just taken on three other people to be full time members of staff, erm, and I'm going to take on some other consultants and maybe some people on retainer. And as we grow, then you just hope to take erm, more full time members of staff on really.
RC	01:23:48	So you are head of office here then?
CW		Yes I am, who would have thought?
RC		Yeah, yeah, what, what, what was the portfolio that Red Rooster used, I know the name, but.
CW	01:24:20	It was more kind of consumer work um really. So, whether it was kind of um, I don't know, alcoholic drinks for instance, you might have a brand like a big pub brand um, you'd be doing stuff for, so you'd be doing PR for them. And trying to think of strategies to get them some good kind of press and also manage their brand er generally. But it was largely consumer which is fun um. But I think this would be potentially far more interesting because it's far more varied. And it won't just be press relations um you know, I can do a number of things which is better.
RC		Yeah.
CW	01:24:32	Um, I want to bring someone in who can kind of help our clients to do some due diligence in the UK. If they're looking at doing investment, you need to know what you're getting involved in and who you're being involved with um. So, I'd be looking to maybe farm that work out initially and then when we've got enough of it in the UK, then you can bring someone in to specialise in that view.
RC	01:24:51	How big are, how big are they, Anderson, in the States?
CW		Fairly big, I think we're probably a medium size er company. They've got about 100 um full time members of staff, it's quite a big office in San Francisco.
RC		Is that, that's the base, San Francisco, yeah?
CW	01:25:03	Yeah. And they're quite er specialised. They're quite low key actually. They're not one of these kind of big agencies that kind of shouts about what they do, it's more that they kind of operate effectively er without making too much noise.
RC	01:25:16	You started in 1970s, there were five that started.
CW		Yeah.
RC		Yeah, yeah.
CW	01:25:19	Yeah, yeah, quite a long time ago.
RC		Two brothers wasn't it?
CW		Yes, it was two brothers, yeah.
RC	01:25:.23	I read up that and er are they still around?
CW		Er one of them has retired but yes, one of them is
RC	01:25:31	Yeah, yeah and it's still runs the family.
CW		Not so much anymore actually, no I think it, well things start to expand don't they? I think you can sort of start off as a family business um and then it changes.
RC	01:25:42	Yeah cause they did quite a lot on the, on the, on the local authority service industry on things like sewerage and water and at that didn't they?
CW		Yes, I think that's when they started, they had some clients that were involved in that kind of thing.
RC		Yeah, they did yeah, yeah, quite big.
CW	01:25:55	And then it expanded. And actually it's quite interesting to do such varied work. If you can, you know, as we both probably know, getting contracts at a kind of like local Government level can be very beneficial. And also, it's quite dependable er work um.
RC	01:26:10	Yeah, oh yeah, yeah. And I think that, and that until they decide to come into the EC.
CW		Yeah, mainly because their clients, their clients said to them "look, we've got a number of interests here, well our interests are growing in the UK and now we need some support to do that", so one of the, that's why I think the board would be so important really in terms of mapping out what the strategy should be.
RC	01:26:37	And you would expect your client to come to you and say, for advice or saying "this is what we'd like to do, what do you think?"
CW		Yes exactly. And also, I think they probably expect from us some ideas in what they should be doing. So, for instance, you know, look you said you were interested in kind of getting involved in big transport ....project, so why don't you think about investing in this? Here's some figures, this is what's going to happen. You know, consider it and then come back to us and we can do some further work, is the kind of thing you're up for.
RC	01:27:07	And is it, there's not going to be anything on the energy agenda?
CW		No, not at the moment. It's largely these um gulf guys that, they're very interested in getting involved in renewables er because they see it as a massively expanding market.
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...), the Gulf is going nuclear as well now.
CW	01:28:25	Ah yes I don't, well I don't know very much about energy you see. I don't deal with them very much um so, I.
RC		Oil (?)(...INAUDIBLE...) is going to run out (?)(...INAUDIBLE...) problem with the (...INAUDIBLE...) without oil (...INAUDIBLE...), I mean it's (...INAUDIBLE...), I mean (...INAUDIBLE...), slow in like Dubai they're desperate to make it into sport, (...INAUDIBLE...) and others are truly diversifying to, to get more sustainability of the economy. But one of the other (...INAUDIBLE...) is trying to stop using oil powered generation because it's better if it's (...INAUDIBLE...) so they, they see (...INAUDIBLE...) so it's er, so that part of it is very interesting, very interesting.
CW	01:28:35	Yeah, it's certainly worth speaking to them about that actually, to see what their thoughts are. So it may be that, that's one of the issues there um considering.
RC		No it's um, it's er and that more and more and more is coming out of the States, out of the, out of the Gulf (...INAUDIBLE...) states, I agree with you as we will.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:28:56	But that who gets the contracts, supply chain for the (...INAUDIBLE...) is about 20 percent, it's a bit like the Aerospace industry in that they can build a plane with money the, the, the electronics, the engine, the undercarriage, they're, they're the key components because that's where the real big money is. And with the nuclear generators, it's about 20 percent of it that is really high value. The rest of its bog standard stuff, you know, which any (...INAUDIBLE...) company can do it's, but if you can get into the niche market, that er 20 percent of that new build that's where the real wealth creation is and that's what we're looking at now.
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:29:38	That's quite an interesting (...INAUDIBLE...). But clean up is another one which we, we (...INAUDIBLE...), again, the Americans are bloody good at that (...INAUDIBLE...) so er, but my other expertise obviously is in sport.
CW		Yeah. Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens. Are you involved with the er World Cup bid?
RC	01:29:58	For (...INAUDIBLE...) 18, I'm (...INAUDIBLE...) Ambassador.
CW		Oh great, well that must be interesting.
RC	01:30:02	That will only be while the Prime Minister's there. While the Prime Minister is about, so knows, who knows, (...INAUDIBLE...) moving around like there was no tomorrow, so.
CW		Yeah, I know it's a really kind of changing time isn't it politically?
RC	01:30:14	Oh dramatically absolutely dramatically really is. So, what, by the time we get to the 6th of May I just don't know. It will be very, very interesting.
CW		Do you think it's too late for um people to be getting contracts for the Olympics? Or they don't miss a vote in terms of.
RC	01:30:30	Depends what you er, if you're talking er, there'll be a big legacy (...INAUDIBLE...) for (...INAUDIBLE...) there'll be a lot of reconfigurating er which they're looking at now or started looking at um. I, I mostly do the um, the thing I set up called 'UK School Games'.
CW		Oh right.
RC	01:31:32 01:32:03	Which um brings the elite of the schools and bit by bit we go to, we move it around, it's been in Glasgow now, Coventry (...INAUDIBLE...) and get to Sheffield and then I'm trying to get, immediately after (...INAUDIBLE...)Olympic (...INAUDIBLE...) and UK School Games I've got a scheme where, which I've been talking to Justin King from Sainsbury's he's a good guy, to do a scheme to bring 70 kids, every secondary school in the country to experience the facilities of the UK Olympics and watch their peer group. And that's about a quarter of million kids to bring in all that (...INAUDIBLE...) the games in the facility. And be there for the Olympics and the Para-Olympics. So, we're working on that. And what we've, the reason I'm telling you that is because, we are looking (...INAUDIBLE...) people who are going into legacy, they are looking at how they can then change the stadium from 90,000 seats down to 25,000 seats. They're talking about reconfigurating some of the arenas, they're looking at landscaping the parks, seeing how that can be re-configurated into a much more er open grass areas. So, there's a lot of work in that, you know, so.
CW		Yeah.
RC		But whether, that will be laid out I think in the next 12 months er. I mean, the whole facilities are ahead of schedule which is great er, we're on budget er so that, all that really is, has now been put to bed, you know, just a matter of (...INAUDIBLE...) There will be a little, a few contracts around on the running of the games er. But no, there won't be huge contracts, there'll be catering contracts.
CW	01:32:35	I'm just wondering if there's anything the um investors in the Gulf would want to get involved with.
RC		I think they'll be more after than before, if you see what I mean?
CW		Yeah, in terms of reconfiguration.
RC	01:32:43	Re-configure it again, yeah, reconfiguration and there'll be, there'll be quite some big contracts being made in the next 12 months on the catering part, things like that but um, that's on the consumer side, yeah, not on structural side.
CW		No, okay. Well listen thank you very much for.
RC	01:33:01	What you doing? You're reporting back to your boss.
CW		Yeah, I'll report back to him over the next week or two I think um and then they'll be coming over from the states um and they'll be setting out to meet with anyone that um I will be short listing. So, I don't know if you'd be around to maybe meet up with him.
RC	01:33:14	When would that be roughly?
CW		Probably sometime in April, I'd think, now.
RC		Yeah, yeah well I'll be around in April, not necessarily down here because obviously, the campaign probably will have started (...INAUDIBLE...) I think that's when it's starting, about 8th April.
CW	01:33:29	Okay, alright. So, that might be tricky for you then, meeting up in April, um.
RC		Well I can always pop down (...INAUDIBLE...) meeting (...INAUDIBLE...) er, but it won't be in the House cos the House will be shut completely
CW		Yes, it'll be funny won't it? Yes.
RC	01:33:43	(...INAUDIBLE...) finished so er, if you come across before the 30th, I think the 30th of March or possibly that first week in April, we will still be sitting.
CW		Oh right.
RC		I think we'll sit till about, probably about the sixth of April (...INAUDIBLE...) so I'll be around in London all that time.
CW		Oh okay, good.
RC	01:34:07	Yeah, so but after that, you'll, well you got my numbers, you can (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah I will, well yes I'll let you know how it's all progressing and it would be good to um meet again.
RC		Yeah, I'd like to, yeah, yeah, absolutely, I'd like to keeping touch, I'm always interested in what's happening anyway, you know, I mean and er you know, in that (...INAUDIBLE...) I can probably just give you a bit of advice if er (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah.
RC	01:34:33	(...INAUDIBLE...) I'm open to bringing investment into the country, you know, that's what you really want. I did that when I was in trade and industry and then er, if you can get a base here. I think that you're right in what you're doing, you need to have presence.
CW		Yes.
RC	01:34:51	(...INAUDIBLE...) but if you really want to service your client, then, all the companies I know are (...INAUDIBLE...) London (...INAUDIBLE...) their office is here in London.
CW		Yeah, well I think it's important too. Well it shows your serious doesn't it?
RC	01:35:08	It shows you're serious, it shows your commitment, it's far better for picking up intelligence, it's (...INAUDIBLE...) you know, you can use that to set dinners up with people. If I was doing it with you I would set up a whole series of dinners up with people who I know who link up to your clientele. (...INAUDIBLE...) (...INAUDIBLE...) (...INAUDIBLE...) invite them to come and have dinner.
CW	01:35:39	Yeah and who would you think the kind of top people would be that you'd need to be talking to?
RC		Well, I mean, it would depend on what level they're at, I would speak to people like Samir Brikho (...INAUDIBLE...) AMEC and, (...INAUDIBLE...) just below him and in terms of construction (...INAUDIBLE...) if it's on the energy agenda would be various supply chain companies then (...INAUDIBLE...) just invite(...INAUDIBLE...)because I know quite a lot (...INAUDIBLE...) I mean, I had a great, great session in the House where I had five Vice Chancellors, two Secretaries of State and six energy companies.
CW		Oh really.
RC	01:36:21	It was bloody good. It wasn't about a particular contract it was a discussion about where is UK Limited in a supply chain for Areva and Eon, British Energy were there er and then five Vice Chancellors and John Denham [?] it was a really, really good discussion.
CW		How easy is it to get a Minister to go out for dinner?
RC	01:36:45	Oh I mean, it depends on who it is. I think. It depends at what level they're at. If you are going to go in, if you're going to go in, we had, I did it with AMEC, Samir Brikho, their MD, great guy, big profile and he was in the Sunday Times and (...INAUDIBLE...) he's a real incredible thinker, he thinks out of the box and he said to me: Why don't we, don't we bring academia, producers and (...INAUDIBLE...) supply as well as (...INAUDIBLE...) producers (...INAUDIBLE...), Secretary of State for Energy and the one for Schools and so I set all that up. Now they came to that, they came to it because the quality of people sitting round the table and that's, to some extent, what you have to do. If you're talking policy on that level, then they'll come, you know and the right time. If it's all about limited contracts then, (...INAUDIBLE...) it'll be left to underlings.
CW	01:37:55	Is it best to do that in Westminster do you think, for dinner, or to go out for dinner?
RC		I'd do it at Westminster cos it's easier for them. It's easier for them to pop in, you see. And er, you have dinner and they're booked after it anyway. But then it depends, you know, there after with the process, you know, they will come on certain levels, (...INAUDIBLE...) you know, senior civil servants.
CW	01:38:18	And are they alright at coming along for dinner?
RC		Oh yeah, yeah, they're alright. Well, they always, it's all about networking. You're feeding them as much as they're feeding you.
CW		Yeah, and would you be able to help us with that?
RC	01:38:29	Yeah, yes, oh yes, I have a lot of people coming in. I have people like Rolls Royce (...INAUDIBLE...) this week, I had a meeting with a non executive director of Sellafield and an MP together. It's about bringing them in, but again, it depends what you're after, depends what you're trying to achieve.
CW		Yes.
RC	01:38:54	I mean, I think, I think if you're bringing in clients that are big hitters, then they will get in to see Secretaries of State and they will go and see Secretary of State for Climate and Energy, DECCA, off to see the Prime Minister. If Samir Brikho wants to see the Prime Minister, Samir Brikho sees the Prime Minister. He's a FTSE 100, he's got a huge amount of clout here, obviously, and abroad.
CW	01:39:22	And do you help him arrange that or does he do that?
RC		Yes I do it, and the Minister of Energy. (...INAUDIBLE...) And they come back to me and ask me about my dates? But that's in the present climate. What will happen after six of er, sixth of May I don't know.
CW		I know, we'll have to see.
RC	01:39:41	We'll have to see, yeah, that's why I'm um, we're trying to design a whole series of options.
CW		Yeah.
RC		We are where we are (...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		I know, yeah.
RC	01:39:53	So, er we'll keep in touch.
CW		Yeah, let's keep in touch and er I'll speak to you over the next couple of weeks.
RC		And if your guys come down, I can make it, I, you know, if you give me enough time, I can work around it and er...if it's whilst House is sitting fine, if it's not then, then I'll look at it from (...INAUDIBLE...) and have a chat to them and see what, you know and, and yeah, yeah, kick a few ideas about.
CW	01:40:12	Yeah, I'm sure we can work something out. Okay, alright, that was really good.
RC		Alright (...INAUDIBLE...)
Background noise
CW		Yes, I will. Yeah, that sounds really good.
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW		Yeah I bet. Alright, okay. Thanks very much for your time, alright, have a good afternoon, bye.
RC		(...INAUDIBLE...)
CW	01:41:40	Hi, that's right, thank you. Thanks. That's great, thank you very much. Bye.
[Knock at door]

113.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 8 June 2010

Thank you for your letter of the 24th May 2010 in response to mine on the 21st May 2010, also your letter of 2 June with the enclosed rough transcript of the Sunday Times entrapment. Whilst I do appreciate your efforts in obtaining the rough transcript would it be possible to secure the tapes and the film referred to in the Sunday Times article. I am informed that rough transcripts with all its (...INAUDIBLE...)s, 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.

Turning now to your questions in the letter of the 24th May 2010,

Question 2, has now been cleared up with the transcript of the telephone call to my 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. It was only after the Reporter pressed for a meeting did I agree and gave her the details of my secretary to arrange. You are therefore right to conclude "that there was no suggestion at that stage that I would have any role in its activities."

Question 3, I am enclosing the requested information, the letters of the clearance from ACOBA. My letter of the 29th February 2008 informing ACOBA that it was my intention to accept the appointments. Copy of my letter of the 6th March 2008 to [name], the Registrar for the Register of Members Interests. This was amended when I took up the position of a non-executive Director of NMP in September 2008 and which I wrote to [the Registrar], to amend my entry in the Register of Members Interest. I am enclosing a copy of my letter to [the Registrar] of the 9th October 2008.

Question 4, I would like you to consider, the three areas I covered in my evidence to the Select Committee on the 8th May 2008 (former Ministers taking up outside appointments, covered in question 542-543 and 544) (How the business appointment system could be improved, Question 548 and 585) (The difference between Lobbying and Consultants and the interaction of Business and Industry with Parliament and Government, Question 554, 555, 560 and 562).[600] This gives my position on these issues which I believe were consistent with the way I conducted the Sunday Times entrapment interview and are consistent with the Rules of House.

Now turning to your questions in your letter of the 2nd June 2010.

Question 1, is covered in the documentation submitted to Question 3 in your letter of the 24th May 2010.

Question 2, on the proposals for restructuring of the health and welfare services in Sheffield which are covered in the pages 18 and 57-63 in the rough transcript. No meetings or contacts have been made with Ministers or officials, the idea had been discussed with [name], Chairman of the Sheffield Heath Authority 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 whom 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.

Question 3, from October 2007-July 2008 I 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. On no occasion did I speak or consult with Ministers or government officials on this issue and for the record any of the directors or staff of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency who were the body awarding the contract.

Question 4, I was asked by the Board of the NMP to look at the delivery of the 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.

i.  In answer to your specific questions, yes the statement was accurate but the work was carried out on behalf of the Board of the NMP and not just AMEC.

ii.  The task was undertaken by staff of the NMP and consultants under my direction

iii.  Having just stepped down from being a Government Minister, this released time which I used to take a number of appointments both paid and unpaid. It should also be noted that my involvement with the Nuclear Industry was of great importance and, benefit to my constituency Sheffield Central, this is born out in the letters I submitted to your office from the past Master Cutler and Peter Birtles, Director of Forgemasters. It is also worth noting that at the Dinner of the 24th June 2008, referred to in your question 6, both the MD of Forgemasters and Vice Chancellor of Sheffield University were present and the issue of advanced manufacturing and forging capacity were discussed. Two years later in 2010, announcements on major investments by the Government and Rolls Royce were made into the University led Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Park in Sheffield. This was followed with a Government announcement on a major investment into what possibly could be the worlds largest forging press at Forgemasters in Sheffield. My involvement at a number of levels in the nuclear/manufacturing sector have had a beneficial effect for my constituency and Sheffield.

Question 5, I have read the incomplete rough transcript on pages 51 and 52 and it would be wrong to put the interpretation "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". Firstly, I am not on or have been offered or 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. Secondly, I had made it clear from the outset, if I was in the House of Lords I would spend time on public policy areas of green energy/manufacturing and sport and physical activity and the wellbeing agenda. This is borne out in a number of references in the rough transcript.

Question 6, The Dinner referred to on Page 82, was not set up for AMEC, it was set up to facilitate a discussion with academic[s], 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. The dinner took place on the 23rd June 2008 and the event number was 33845, House of Commons Catering.

Question 7, on the statement from Samir Brikho in the rough transcript is correct and "if Samir Brikho wants to see the Prime Minister, Samir Brikho sees the Prime Minister, he's a FTSE 100, he has got a huge amount of clout here, obviously, and abroad." I made the point that Chairman of major companies get access as of right to both the PM and Ministers. I have never arranged one to one meetings for Samir Brikho or any other industrialists with the PM or any other Ministers.

I hope that this information and explanation helps you with your enquiry and could I once again ask you to request copies of the original tapes and film of the entrapment.

8 June 2010

114.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP, from the Chairman of the Office of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, January 2008

You asked for the Committee's advice about accepting a part-time consultancy appointment with the Fitness Industry Association.

Our advice is that it would be proper for you to take up this appointment forthwith, but you should not be personally involved in lobbying Government Ministers or officials on behalf of the association, or its members, for a year after leaving office.

I should be grateful if you would inform us as soon as you take up this appointment or, if earlier, when it is announced. We shall otherwise not be able to deal with any enquiries, since we do not release information about appointments which have not been taken up or announced. This could lead to a false assumption being made about whether you had complied with the Ministerial Code.

Similarly I should be grateful if you would inform us if it is proposed to extend or otherwise change your role with the association, as, depending upon the circumstances, you may need to seek fresh advice.

Once an appointment has been publicly announced or taken up, we will include the main details, together with the Advisory Committee's advice on it and the date on which it was taken up, in both the regularly updated consolidated list on our website at www.acoba.gov.uk and in the next annual report.

If the Fitness Industry Association wish to refer to the Committee's advice in a public announcement, they may like to say something on the following lines:

"Mr Caborn consulted the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments about accepting this appointment. They advised him that it would be proper for him to take it up forthwith, but he should not be personally involved in lobbying Government Ministers or officials on behalf of the association, or its members, for a year after leaving office."

January 2008

115.  Letter to the Office of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, from Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP, 29 February 2008

Following correspondence from yourselves giving me permission to take on a consultancy with AMEC and a consultancy with the Fitness Industry Association I can now advise you that I have accepted both appointments.

29 February 2008

116.  Letter to the Registrar of Members' Interests, from Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP, 6 March 2008

I would be grateful if you would add the attached information[601] to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.

6 March 2008

117.  Extract from the Register of Members' Interests, 29 February 2008

2. Remunerated employment, office profession etc

  Consultant to AMEC; construction in the nuclear industry. (£70 ,001-£75 ,000)

Consultant to Fitness Industry Association; trade association for fitness industry. (£10,001-£15,000 + two health club memberships)

Chairman of the Football, Social and Economic Forum, Association of European Professional Football Leagues; governing body of European professional football leagues. (Up to £5,000)

5. Gift, benefits and hospitality UK

I received gifts of thanks from various sporting bodies once I had left the post of Minister for Sport (fishing rod, golf clubs, decanter and glasses, bottle of whisky and wine).

I attended the Rugby World Cup Final in Paris on 20 October

2007 as a guest of Betfair. They paid for my travel and accommodation costs.

29 February 2008

118.  Letter to the Registrar of Members' Interests, from Rt Hon Richard Caborn MP, 9 October 2008

I would be grateful if you would add the attached information to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests:

Under Remunerated employment, office, profession etc:

I am a non-executive director of Nuclear Management Partners (NMP)

Also, please alter the entry, Consultant to AMEC to read:

Consultant to AMEC (£20,000-£25,000)

9 October 2008

119.  Extracts from Mr Caborn's evidence to the Public Administration Committee on 8 May 2008, First Report of Session 2008-09, HC 36 II

Q542 Chairman: I am delighted to welcome Richard Caborn, [names of other witnesses]. We have asked you to come because the Committee is conducting an inquiry into lobbying. One of the matters on which we want to touch is what is sometimes called the "revolving door" issue, that is, the traffic from government into the outside world, particularly industry, business and lobbying, and also traffic the other way ...

Mr Caborn: The revolving door issue is an interesting one and we will answer that, but there was a life before and a life after being a minister, if I may say so. Whilst I have been in this place and had the privilege of representing Sheffield Central I have also spent five years as a Member of the European Parliament and, before that, I was a convenor of shop stewards at Firth Browns and now Forgemasters. I was Apprentice of the Year. I served my time and am immensely proud to be an engineer. As an engineer I have been consulted on many occasions. Before the revolving door issue arose I was consulted by Forgemasters to give advice on the building of a 16,000-ton forging press. If Members want to join me afterwards I will take them to my office and show them a picture on my wall of a 4,000-ton forging press. I am very proud that that was the first thing I built when I came out of my time as an apprentice engineer. I am advising Forgemasters on building the largest forging press in the world to take on, I hope, competition from Japan. In addition to that, I had European experience and spent 10 years as a minister. Further, like yourself I chaired a Select Committee, for four years on the Trade and Industry Committee, which at that time covered energy. You will remember that in the early 1990s the Department of Energy became part of the Department of Trade and Industry. I was the first chairman of that Select Committee which did a major report on energy policy and the closure of 31 pits at that time. I do not know why Ian McCartney and I have so excited some of members of the Committee that we have been mentioned in dispatches all over the place. It would be good to have an inquiry into why we have been singled out, if I may say so. That being the case, I am more than willing to answer "the revolving door". I do not believe that the revolving door that has excited some of the members of the Committee was anything to do with my being a minister; it was my incarnation before that.

Q543 Chairman: We see you as representative figures; we could have chosen others but happen to have selected you.

Mr Caborn: That is a good reason why.

Q544 Chairman: I am interested that you were Apprentice of the Year, but I do not think there is any discussion as to whether you are qualified to do the kind of work you are now doing. That is a quite separate issue. I return to the question. Faced with the prospect of pursuing these activities, you had to access the business appointments system. Perhaps you would describe how it worked for you.

Lord Warner: You ask how it was for me. People have commented on how young and healthy I look since I ceased to be a minister, so life has not been bad. Mr Caborn's point is an important one. I shall not give you my life history, but most of us did things before we were ministers. I was a minister for only four years and I had a lot of expertise and knowledge before that. It is that knowledge and expertise as much as anything that has been the reason why I am doing the particular things I am doing since I became a minister. As far as concerns the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments I just accepted it as part of life. After I ceased to be a minister I spent quite a few months doing nothing. Last September about nine months after I ceased to be a minister I went through a process of assembling a portfolio of activities some of which needed to be cleared with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and some of which did not. I filled in the forms and sent them off. They dealt with them in a reasonably sensible way and sent them back to me and said what I could and could not do. The main thing they said I could not do for the first year after being a minister was to lobby ministers, whatever that means. We might come to what that means at some stage. I have honoured that. In my first year out of office the only time I saw ministers was at their request to talk about government business.

...

Q548 Chairman: Presumably, you all think that to have a process of that kind is necessary, or was it seen as irksome?

Mr Caborn: I think it is necessary. There needs to be integrity and accountability in the system and that is part of it. From my point of view the 12-month period is fine and is absolutely right. The system must have that integrity. I have always taken the view as chairman of the Select Committee and during my 11 years as a trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust that it is absolutely right to try to bring industry and wealth creators close to Parliament so there is an exchange and an understanding of each other. I think that Parliament is the richer for that.

...

Q554 Chairman: I would like to get you to answer the question I asked which was: do you consider that the public thinks there is something unseemly about people who are still members of the legislature and working inside government taking on paid employment to lobby bits of government in which they are involved?

Mr Caborn: Obviously, you are going to lobby government. I looked at the questions very carefully. You will know that I was asked to come to this Committee late last week because my colleague Ian McCartney is having an operation. I read the terms of reference and some of the evidence that has been submitted to the Committee. It is all predicated on an attempt to affect Parliament and government. It is not about having a set of ground rules to ensure that Parliament and government are accessible. I go back to my earlier point. One thing I did when I was chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was to ensure, as far as I could, that Parliament was knowledgeable about what industry was saying. My 11 years on the Industry Parliament Trust were spent trying to bring Parliament and government closer to wealth creators in industry and commerce. It is as though we have in the House of Commons political virgins who cannot be touched by anybody who seeks to lobby them.

Q555 Chairman: It is the fact that large sums of money are involved in this relationship.

Mr Caborn: Let us come to that. The one interest you did not read out was mine: AMEC. I can tell you that AMEC for whom I am a consultant is more to do with my trade union and European background. I am an engineer. I have dealt with North Sea oil in which it has been deeply involved. I have also known the past three managing directors of that company on a fairly personal level. The reason I agree with the 12 months is that I was a trade minister for two years and that could have affected it. I think it was absolutely right that it should be 12 months in terms of the conditions laid down. But I am not in the game of lobbying government in that sense; I am there to advise on the skills I had before I became a minister.

...

Q560 Mr Walker: For the record, I have nothing against what any of you do, but ultimately business is about selling things and influencing buying decisions. It is not the public sector; it is about profit and the generation of it.

Mr Caborn: I accept that. There is no doubt that when you have been a minister a number of people come to you. I have been sports minister for a few years. I have now become president of the Amateur Boxing Association and the UK School Games and I advise the Prime Minister on the 2018 World Cup. I am also a member of the Football Foundation. None of that is paid work and I can assure you that I lobby very hard on those. As far as AMEC is concerned, it has a major constituency influence. If you look at the record, back in the mid-1990s I was very critical of government about how we had missed fantastic opportunities by standing down some of the best engineers and designers on the nuclear kit. I said at the time Michael Heseltine was president of the Board of Trade that we would rue the day we stood down some great engineers and teams. Out of the blue I got a call directly from AMEC asking whether I would advise them on some of the supply chain issues, which I did. Obviously, that has a big constituency interest. We could develop off the back of what I believe will be a nuclear and manufacturing renaissance, which is at the heart of my constituency and the company where I served my time. I was already in discussions with companies in my constituency about the supply chain when AMEC came along and asked whether I would advise them on wider social, regional and European issues. Obviously, being an engineer I agreed to that. I did not even know what they would pay me; it was only after that. I say that very genuinely. That was why I took the decision which was based more on my constituency and something in which I deeply believed. I am on the record as to that. I also say that having been in this place for 25 years and served on many committees it needs to open itself up. You are absolutely right that these types of inquiries should take place but they should not be predicated on trying to isolate this activity; they should be predicated on a set of rules on which the vast majority of people act, whether on the business side or our side, with integrity, honesty and openness. I entirely agree that you must have ground rules but the need for an interchange of ideas and views is absolutely essential. I have done that consistently for 25 years. When I took this job I did so for those motives.

...

Q562 Mr Walker: But your ability to influence may be changed?

Lord Warner: It depends how quick it is. I think that my ability to influence will be determined largely by whether people think I still have something sensible to say on health and social care and whether or not I am sufficiently well informed about developments in the sector on which I am advising. They may say that my time is up: I am out of touch and I do not know. I think that will have more to do with the passage of time and age than with a change of government.

Mr Caborn: I am in broad agreement with that. The fact I have been a minister is a minor consideration. Given the job I am doing now, it is much more to do with the background that I have been privileged to have outside as well as inside this place.

...

Q585 Jenny Willott: One matter that has been raised with us in relation to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is that there is no enforcement; it does not follow up. When you were given advice about what you could take up and for how long the lobbying ban would be in place, did you have any impression as to what would happen if you breached it?

Mr Haddrill: The thing that most concerned me was that I would damage the reputation of my new employer. If this is about integrity my new employer does not want there to be any question about whether or not it has acted with integrity. The fact that I have been through the business appointments process was included by them in the press notice that announced my appointment. I was perfectly open and said what the restrictions were. If I had breached them in the kind of public space in which we operated it would have been obvious and damaging. Therefore, there is a kind of self-enforcement. Is there any further enforcement? You write back after whatever period of time it is to say what you have done and that is about it.

Mr Caborn: Having been privy for 10 years to the discipline of public office, I believe that those standards are inherent in the way you conduct your daily life, whether it is in the business sector or anywhere else. It may well be that you will look at some type of enforcement of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. I agree that how it comes to its decisions could be more transparent; it could be more rigorous. There could be some face-to-face interviews, but the important point is: how do you address public perception? The fact is that you are holding this inquiry and there are journalists here who will probably not report it in the most objective ways. Their business is to sell newspapers. Without digressing, the fact that we are here is rather like the funding of political parties and the constraints on that. Are we using a sledge hammer to crack a nut here? I think that phraseology has been used before. It is about having integrity in the system to make sure it is transparent and robust. I think that is absolutely central. Once you have got that it is a matter of saying to the general public that that is what we have. I do not think that is out there at all. The danger is that if we do not have it people will become very concerned about anybody who comes to discuss matters either with ministers or Members of Parliament which to me is a negation of democracy.

120.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 9 June 2010

Thank you for your letter of 8 June responding to my letters to you of 2 June and 24 May.

You asked if I could secure for you the tapes and the film referred to in the Sunday Times article. As you know, the production company has provided a certified transcript of both your telephone conversation on 16 February 2010 and of your meeting. You will have seen from the start of the transcript that, following the preparation of a rough transcript from the production company, a solicitor 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 makes clear, there are parts where a word or words were (...INAUDIBLE...), and these parts have been identified.

I consider that the production company has satisfactorily met my request. They provided evidence in a way which is appropriate for my inquiry. It is, of course, open to you to identify any part of the transcript which you believe to have been inaccurately transcribed. But given that I received a certified transcript, which I have shared fully with you, I do not believe it is necessary for me to have the original audio or video in order to be able fairly to conduct this inquiry.

I was grateful for your responses to the matters set out in my letters to you of 2 June and 24 May. Although some of your responses touch on the same issues, you have not yet responded to the specific questions which I put to you in section two of my letter to you of 31 March. I referred to these again in my letter to you of 18 May. I would be very grateful, therefore, if you could let me have a response to these points, taking into account as necessary the transcript of your interview. I would hope you could let me have this by the end of this month. Once I receive that, I will consider whether I need to ask you any further questions either in response to that letter or in response to the helpful detailed points you set out in your letter of 2 June.

I am very grateful for your continued help with this matter.

9 June 2010

121.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 16 June 2010

Thank you for your letter of the 9th June in response to mine of the 8th June 2010. Whilst I fully respect your views of the transcript, which has been provided by the Sunday Times, I still have concerns that major parts of the transcript are missing. This concern is re-enforced by the experiences of colleagues, particularly Lord Snape. His enquiry in the House of Lords required obtaining a transcript from the Sunday Times. He later received the tapes which were transcribed by Hansard, and they were found to be significantly different.

Just a few points of concern

First point, how the transcript sequence goes from 00.55.51 on page 34 to 00.54.26 on page 35, this particular passage is referred to in your question 2e, which I will answer.

Second point, the (...INAUDIBLE...) on 01.34.33, I said at the beginning of this paragraph as the Former Minister of Trade and Industry, which totally changes the meaning of the paragraph.

Third point, Page 86 01.40.12, I said

Caborn alright "would you please put it down in writing so that I can consider any proposition after the Election." Again this puts the script into a totally different context.

Finally on the transcript itself, could you please indicate whether this has been treated by your enquiry as a conversation, an interview or an entrapment? I believe this question is of paramount importance to the enquiry and how such evidence is considered.

Turning now to your questions from the 31st March 2010. Can I say that I am sorry that I did not answer these in previous correspondence as I thought they had been superseded by your questions in subsequent correspondence.

Question 1, This has been answered in my letter dated the 8th June in answer to your question 2.

Question 2a, this is a reference on page 24 of the transcript. Where the FIA Statement to the Sunday Times said that they gained access to all types of people, including Ministers, as an organisation. Regarding reference to my time as Minister, I endorse this statement, as I met many organisations, including the FIA. They would just write into the Ministry for a meeting. The second part of this transcript, if the (...INAUDIBLE...)s had been transcribed, would have been a reference to the workings of the Select Committees and how they influenced both Ministers and Policy. On this specific issue it is interesting what the Sunday Times Editor is now saying about direct access. In his letter to the PCC, enclosed, he is clearly saying that the FIA did have direct access. That is why he omitted in the article, to having any reference to the statement that was directly to the newspaper by the FIA. However what the FIA said is not borne out in the Sunday Times article. This is subject to further correspondence with the PCC.

The answer to your question is no, this was an explanation on how the system works not an offer to influence or access Ministers either before or when I had left the House. I have never accessed Ministers or influenced Ministers through lobbying.

Question 2b, I have answered this question in my letter to you dated the 8th June 2010 in question 5.

Question 2c, I have answered this in my answer to 2a. In answer to your specific question, no I have never arranged any access for Health Ministers or any other Ministers for the FIA.

Question 2d, If you read the last paragraph on Page 29 and the first paragraph on Page 30, this was referring to the South African Government and the South African Minister for Energy, this is part of the (...INAUDIBLE...) transcript. The statement is true about South Africa, and the meeting with the South African Energy Minister.

Regarding Receptions and Meetings with AMEC, and other organisations, I have always declared them within the rules laid down by the House Authority.

Question 2e, I believe this question is a reference to pages 34/35, regarding civil servants. I was speaking about the time I was a Minister. 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 very clearly to answer your question, no, I have not set up any meetings with civil servants on behalf of any clients.

Question 2f and Questions 3 and 4, these have all been answered in previous correspondence.

Question 5, I confirm that the allegations made by the Sunday Times are untrue and unfounded, as I told the House on the 29th March and also the allegations of lobbying by Mr Greg Hands MP in his letter to you of the 28th March 2010 are also untrue. I made entries into the Register of the Members' Interests, and all the evidence relating to this as already been sent to you in previous correspondence.

Question 6, I confirm that all my statements in the transcript supplied are true and if a full transcript was provided this would show the correct context in which they were made.

Mr Lyon, once again I have tried to answer all your questions, posed by the entrapment, accurately and in detail and in the context I believe that the entrapment interview was being conducted. If you would find it helpful, I will be in London on the 21St and 22nd June and I would be happy to meet with you, rather than having to continue to send lengthy correspondence in writing. If you do need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

16 June 2010

122.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 23 June 2010

Thank you for your letter of 16 June responding to mine of 9 June following up our earlier correspondence.

I was most grateful for this prompt response. You kindly suggested that we meet on 21 or 22 June. I received your letter only on 21 June. While I am always ready to have an informal meeting if you would like one, I think it would be best to take your evidence in writing at this stage, although it may be helpful when that is concluded (as I hope it shortly will be) for us to meet for a formal interview so that I can conclude this inquiry.

I have noted your points about the transcript, for which I was grateful. I note also the letter from the Sunday Times to the Press Complaints Commission (where the interviewer does not share your recollection of your third point in relation to asking her to "put it down in writing so that I can consider any proposition after the Election.") I do not propose, however, to include the Sunday Times letter in the evidence for this inquiry since I do not believe my inquiry requires me to enter into your complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. As you know, I am inquiring into a complaint about your actions when you were a Member of Parliament, and not into the actions of the Sunday Times. But I have, of course, noted your firm belief that you were subject to entrapment. The question I will need to resolve is whether your actions in responding to the questions you were asked were in breach of the Code of Conduct for Members and its associated rules, as summarised in my letter to you of 31 March.

Turning now to your responses, it would be very helpful to have a little more factual information about the receptions, dinners and meetings you arranged on behalf of AMEC and the FIA when you were being paid by them. The points on which I would be grateful for your further help are as follows:

You say in your letter of 16 June in response to point 'd' in my letter of 31 March that "regarding receptions and meetings with AMEC and other organisations, I have always declared them within the rules laid down by the House." I have noted from the parliamentary website that you have 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 enclose the relevant extract from the published list of events and functions bookings.)[602] Could you let me know the form in which you declared your interest in these events and in any others which you sponsored on behalf of any organisation which provided you with remuneration (declaration is, of course, a separate requirement from registration)?

In respect of these events, do you have, or could you ask the funding organisation to produce, copies of the invitations? As you know, Members are required to identify their interest on the invitation and I do need to check on this.

If you could let me have a reply to this within the next two weeks, I would be most grateful. I can then consider whether I do need to trouble you for a formal interview.

Thank you again for your help.

23 June 2010

123.  Extract from list of event and function bookings by Members on behalf of outside organisations between 1 April 2004 and 30 September 2009

MP Name	Date	Event	Type	Numbers	Venue(s)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	05/07/2007	Fitness Industry Association	Reception	45	Astor Suite
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	23/06/2008	AMEC Dinner	Dinner	11	Dining Room D
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	03/12/2008	Fitness Industry Association	Dinner	23	Astor Suite
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	11/05/2009	AMEC Post Reception Dinner	Dinner	10	Dining Room C

124.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 1 July 2010

Thank you for your letter dated the 23rd June 2010 in recognition of mine of the 16th June 2010.

[Material not relevant to this inquiry]

Turning to your request for factual information about the receptions, dinners and meetings I arranged on behalf of AMEC and the FIA when I was being paid by them.

Firstly I did not arrange any meetings or receptions for either of the organisations whilst I was being paid by them. I did as your enclosure shows arrange dinners paid for by both AMEC and the FIA.

1)  The Reception referred to on the 5th July 2007 for the FIA, this was before I became a consultant for the FIA. I registered my interest in the FIA in February 2008 after it had been cleared by the office of the Advisory Committee on the Business Appointments.

2)  The AMEC Dinner on the 23rd June 2008. This dinner was my initiative designed to bring industry, academia and Government together to discuss the New Build Programme for Nuclear Power Stations. I asked AMEC to Sponsor this dinner. My office arranged with the Universities and Industry, the guest list and sent out the invitations. My interest in AMEC was registered in the Register of Members' Interests. I declared in the booking form of the Banqueting Department of the House of Commons Section 4 (yes AMEC). The eleven people who attended the dinner were thanked by me in my winding up remarks and AMEC thanked for hosting the dinner.

3)  The Dinner on the 3rd December 2008 for the FIA, my interest in the FIA was recorded in the Register of Members Interest. The invitations were sent out by the FIA with my name on as the sponsor for the event. I am enclosing a copy of a FIA invitation which is similar in type to the one used for the event.[603] I have checked the banqueting form in the House of Commons and whilst the FIA are the organisation I booked the dinner for, the booking form does not record my financial interest (section 4 of the booking form). My office may 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.

4) AMEC Dinner of the 11th May 2009, again my interest in AMEC was declared in the Register of Members Interests. Guests at the dinner were invited by me from those who had attended the AMEC Terrace Reception. The booking form at the Banqueting Office Records (Section 4—Yes AMEC). The eleven people who attended the dinner were mentioned in my winding up remarks, thanked for attending, as were AMEC for sponsoring the evening.

I hope this covers all the information you have requested and again if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

1 July 2010

125.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 6 July 2010

Thank you for your letter of 1 July responding to mine of 23 June following up our earlier correspondence.

First, on process. You asked whether, in the light of your further letter of 16 June, I would now be requesting the tape and video of your interview from the Sunday Times.

I set out in my letter to you of 9 June my response to your earlier request. As you know, I secured a certified transcript of your interview and telephone conversation from the solicitors of the production company who arranged for your interview. I do not consider that what you say about the transcript which Lord Snape received from the Sunday Times is evidence that there are material shortcomings in the certified transcript I have received from the production company and which I have shown you. Where sections are (...INAUDIBLE...), those have been identified. I have noted the three points you set out in your letter of 9 June and will take account of them as necessary in the course of this inquiry. I have noted in my letter of 23 June that the interviewer does not appear to share your recollection of the third point which you made in your letter of 16 June. While I am open to further argument, and to you identifying material inaccuracies which go to the substance of this inquiry, at this stage I do not believe it necessary or that I could be justified in asking for the video and recordings.

Turning to the substantive issues I raised with you:

1.  FIA reception, 5 July 2007. I note that you did not register your position as a consultant to the FIA until February 2008. Could you let me know, however, whether, at the time of the reception in July 2007, you had a reasonable expectation that you would be appointed a consultant and, therefore, that a financial benefit would accrue to you from the FIA? I ask because paragraph 73 of the Guide to the Rules (to which you may wish to refer) provides in terms: "Where a Member's plans or degree of involvement in a project has passed beyond vague hopes and aspirations and reached a stage where there is a reasonable expectation that a financial benefit will accrue, then a declaration explaining the situation should be made."

2.  FIA dinner, 3 December 2008. I have noted that, for the reasons you have explained, you did not declare your interest on the booking form. I note, too, that the FIA invitation, which I understand followed the format which you sent to me in respect of another Member's sponsorship of an FIA event, did not identify you as a paid consultant to the association. I will need in due course to check this with the House authorities.

3.  The AMEC dinners of 23 June 2008 and 11 May 2009. I note that you declared your interest on the booking form for both occasions. I note, too, that you thanked AMEC for hosting the event. Could you confirm that, to the best of your knowledge, there was no reference to your paid consultancy for AMEC on any invitation which was sent out for either event? Could you also confirm that you did not refer to your paid consultancy in your winding-up remarks at either event?

4.  AMEC Terrace reception. I note that the guests invited for dinner for 11 May 2009 had attended the AMEC Terrace reception. I had not identified this from the published list of events and function bookings made by you and you have told me in your letter of 1 July that you arranged no such reception for AMEC when you were being paid by them. Could you let me know whether you did in fact sponsor and book this reception and, if so, the date of the event, whether you declared your interest on the booking form, and whether your interest was noted on the invitation?

5.  Finally, could you confirm that you arranged no receptions, meetings or dinners with or for any other body or organisation which also provided you with remuneration?

If you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks, that would be most helpful. I have been most grateful for your prompt responses so far. Once I hear back from you, if there are no further points, I would propose to consult the House authorities about the arrangements for the events which you sponsored. It may be that we should then meet for a formal interview at what I hope then would be the conclusion of this inquiry.

Thank you for your help.

6 July 2010

126.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 9 July 2010

Thank you for your letter dated the 6th July 2010 responding to mine of the lst July 2010. I note your decision on the tape and the video and whilst I accept your decision, I do believe however that a newspaper that deliberately sets out to trap and then fabricate the information from the entrapment to discredit a person's 31 years public office and the institution he worked for, should be made to produce the full evidence. Only about 50% of the information has been made available even though my lawyers, the PCC and yourself have tried to access all the information.

Turning now to your questions.

1)  Prime Minister Mr Brown did not take up the office until the 27th June 2007. I offered my resignation as Minister to Prime Minister Brown, telling him that I would be retiring at the next General Election. He accepted and asked if I would be his World Cup Bid Ambassador, which I accepted. Before the 27th June 2007 and between the 27th June and the 5th July 2007, I had no discussions with any person or organisation about any paid position, including the FIA.

2)  I have nothing further to add to the information I gave you before, only to reiterate that I had registered my financial interests with the FIA and I had clearly stated on the booking form that the event was for the FIA. I had sent out invitations with my name as the sponsor and my mistake on the booking form was an oversight and in no way was I trying to deceive.

3)  The dinner on the 23rd June was a dinner I initiated, to discuss with different parties, the nuclear power station, new build programme. I requested AMEC to sponsor the dinner and my registration of Member's interest, the declaration on the House of Commons Booking Form and the thanks I gave to AMEC for sponsoring the dinner was sufficient to comply with the House Rules. There were no formal invitations sent out. I did not refer to my paid consultancy once, as I believed I had complied with, both the spirit and intention of the House rules.

4)  You are correct in believing I did not arrange the 11th May Reception for AMEC, this I understand was arranged by another MP. I took the opportunity to invite a number of guests to the Dinner who attended the Reception, no formal invitations were sent out for the Dinner and some of the guests were invited on the night.

5)  I can confirm that I have not arranged meetings, receptions or dinners for any other bodies or organisations as there are no other bodies that remunerate me. I have arranged many other functions for charitable and sporting bodies for which I have never received any payment.

I hope this information is useful and look forward to the conclusion of this enquiry.

9 July 2010

127.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 14 July 2010

Thank you for your letter of 9 July responding to mine of 6 July with some follow-up questions to help me with my consideration of this complaint.

I was most grateful for this prompt response. I am now writing to the House of Commons facilities department to ask for copies of the relevant banqueting forms, and for their advice on the dinners which you held for AMEC and the FIA. When I have their response, I will show it to your for any comments you may wish to make.

Thank you again for your help on this matter.

14 July 2010

128.  Letter to Director of Catering and Retail Services, House of Commons, from the Commissioner, 14 July 2010

I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received against the Rt Hon Richard Caborn when he was Member for Sheffield Central in respect of a meeting he had with an undercover reporter, parts of whose content was reported in the Sunday Times of 28 March 2010.

The matter on which I would welcome your help is in relation to dinners which Mr Caborn sponsored using House of Commons facilities for two organisations which were paying him as a consultant.

The first organisation was the Fitness Industry Association (FIA). Mr Caborn has told me that he sponsored a dinner for the FIA on 3 December 2008. His interest in the FIA had been recorded in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Invitations to the event were sent out by the FIA with him named as the sponsor for the event. I enclose a copy of a similar invitation which was sent out by the FIA for an event sponsored by another Member. Mr Caborn has checked the booking form which he completed in advance of this event, and has noted that, while he clearly stated on the form that the event was for the FIA, the form does not record in section 4 his financial interest. He believes that this was an oversight, and, if it was a mistake, he accepts responsibility for it.

I would be grateful if you could let me have a copy of the relevant booking form. It would be helpful, too, if you could confirm whether Mr Caborn was in breach of the rules in not identifying on that form that he was paid by the FIA. Could you also let me know whether in your opinion the House of Commons Banqueting Terms and Conditions required Mr Caborn to identify his financial interests on the invitation, or whether the format used is acceptable within the rules?

Mr Caborn also sponsored dinners on 23 June 2008 and 11 May 2009 for the construction company AMEC, for whom he was also a paid consultant. I understand that he declared a financial interest on the banqueting form for each occasion. There were no formal invitations sent out for either of these dinners. Invitations were informal, some of them by word of mouth. Mr Caborn tells me, however, that, in a speech winding up each event, he identified AMEC as the sponsor of the dinner. He has argued that, as well as having registered his interest in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, the declaration on the House of Commons booking form and the thanks he gave AMEC for sponsoring these dinners were sufficient to comply with the House rules.

In respect of these two AMEC dinners, I would be very grateful if you could let me have copies of the relevant booking forms. I would be grateful also for your advice on whether the identification of AMEC as the sponsor in Mr Caborn's speech at each event was 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 financial interest in AMEC.

If you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks, I would be most grateful. I would then copy it to Mr Caborn for any comments he may wish to make. Thank you for your help.

14 July 2010

129.  Letter to the Commissioner from Director of Catering and Retail Services, 27 August 2010

I am sorry that it has taken so long to reply to your letter of 14 July, but I believe that we now have all the necessary information to allow me to answer your enquiry.

Dealing first with the event for the Fitness Industry Association (FIA) on 03 December 2008, I enclose a copy of the Private Dining Confirmation forms relevant to this dinner.[604] You will note that we received two booking forms, each of which is only partially completed. One form was completed and returned directly to our 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. On this form, the Sponsor's section is marked "already completed" and "N/A", and although the questions for the Sponsor have been answered, this was crossed out prior to FIA forwarding the form to us. The second form leaves blank the section headed "Organiser to Complete", so makes no reference to the name of the event. The Sponsor's section clearly states "no" in response to the question "do you have a declarable interest relating to your sponsorship of this function?" This form is signed by Mr Caborn.

Since December 2000, the terms and conditions of booking for the banqueting service have included the following requirements under the section dealing with declaration of interests:

"The Sponsor is directly and personally responsible for the declaration of any relevant registered interest relating to their sponsorship of a function." (para 4.1)

"The Sponsor must complete the relevant section of the Private Dining Confirmation Form to indicate whether there or not there is a relevant registered interest. " (para 4.2)

Thus, there was no requirement for Mr Caborn to declare on the booking form itself that he was paid by the FIA, but if he was, I would have expected him to respond "Yes" to the relevant question on the booking form. The Private Dining Confirmation Form specifically states that, if applicable, "Relevant registered interest declared" must be stated on the invitation to the event. This is also clearly stated in paragraph 4.3 of the banqueting terms and conditions. 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. My opinion is consistent with the advice given to Sponsors by staff of the banqueting office if asked.

I also enclose 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.[605] Both forms are signed and dated by Mr Caborn, who has clearly confirmed that he does have a declarable interest relating to his sponsorship of the function. The note to Sponsors printed on the booking form instructing that "Relevant registered interest declared" must be stated on the invitation to the event was, thus, applicable in both instances. If no formal invitations were issued for these events, this does 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.

27 August 2010

130.  Letter to the Director of Catering and Retail Services from the Commissioner, 2 September 2010

Thank you for your letter of 27 August responding to mine of 14 July with the information to help me in the consideration of a complaint against the Rt Hon Richard Caborn.

I was most grateful for this information. There was one final point on which I would welcome your further help in relation to the confirmation forms for the Fitness Industry Association dinner on 3 December 2008. Mr Caborn has signed but not dated the form he submitted and there is no signature or date on the one from the FIA, although there is a fax line which suggests that it was sent on 31 December 2006. Could you let me know whether the Department has any record of when these forms were received by it, and whether it might be reasonable to conclude that the forms were submitted after the event.

I would be most grateful if you could let me have a response within the next week as you will I know appreciate both Mr Caborn and I would like to bring this matter to a conclusion. I am grateful for your assistance.

2 September 2010

131.  Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Catering and Retail Services, 6 September 2010

Further to your letter of 2 September, I can confirm that we recorded receipt of the signed event confirmation form from Mr Caborn on 23 October 2008 and the completed form from the Fitness Industry Association on or around 4 November 2008 (ie both forms were received prior to the event).

The fax date of 31 December 2006 printed on the form sent by the FIA cannot be correct, as we do not accept bookings for events more than 18 months in advance.

6 September 2010

132.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 7 September 2010

When I wrote to you on 14 July, I said that I was writing to the House of Commons Facilities Department for information about the dinners which you held for AMEC and the FIA in 2008 and 2009.

I have now heard back from the Department. I attach a copy of my letter to the Department of 14 July; and their response of 27 August with copies of the relevant private dining confirmation forms which were completed for each of these three events. I enclose also a copy of my follow-up letter of 2 September to the Department, and their response of 6 September.

As you will see, it would appear that you signed a confirmation form for the FIA dinner of 3 December 2008, stating that you did not have a declarable interest relating to your sponsorship of that function. You did declare your interest on the forms for the AMEC dinners of 23 June 2008 and of 11 May 2009.

In respect of the FIA dinner, the Department says that they would have expected you to have recorded on the booking form that you had a relevant registered interest if you were paid by the FIA (as I believe you have accepted). They have also advised that it would not be adequate merely to display the organiser's logo on any invitation to the event in order to comply with the requirement that any relevant registered interest declared must be stated on the invitation.

In respect of the AMEC dinner, the Department has noted that any relevant registered interests declared should have been stated on the invitation, but if no formal invitations were issued, you would still have had a responsibility overtly and specifically to declare to attendees that you had a relevant interest relating to your sponsorship of the dinner.

I would welcome any comments you may wish to make on the advice from the Facilities Department. In particular, since I understand from your evidence that no written invitations were sent out for either of the AMEC dinners, it would be helpful if you could address the implication of the Department's advice, which is that you should have made a specific reference to your registrable interest in the speeches which you gave at both events.

It would be helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next week so that I can bring this inquiry to a conclusion. I should say that I am planning to prepare a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges on my inquiries, although you should draw no inferences from that. You are one of a number of Members who have been subject to a complaint in respect of this matter. Once I have concluded my inquiries on each of these complaints, I will be preparing a draft memorandum for the Committee. I will show you the relevant sections of the factual sections of that memorandum so that you can check on their accuracy. I will then prepare my conclusions and submit the full memorandum to the Committee. The Clerk of the Committee will send you a copy of that full memorandum so that you can comment on it if you so wish before the Committee come to consider the matter.

Thank you for your help.

7 September 2010

133.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 10 September 2010

Thank you for your letter dated the 7th September 2010.

I have little to add, re:-the AMEC dinners, to the comments I made in the letter to you dated the 1st July 2010. No invitations were sent out, they were small dinners, I thanked AMEC for sponsoring the dinners, most if not all attendees knew of my consultancy with AMEC but I cannot recall specifically spelling that out on either of the two dinners.

On the FIA Dinner I thank you for providing the information sent from the banqueting department which goes some way to explaining how mistakes were made in filling out the forms. 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.

On the question of notifying those present at the FIA dinner of my consultancy with them, I thought that my registration in the Members' Register of Interests, 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.

I genuinely hope that this information can now bring this complaint to a final conclusion.

10 September 2010

134.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 13 September 2010

Thank you for your letter of 10 September responding to mine of 7 September with some further information about this complaint.

I was most grateful for this response. Subject to one point of clarification, I consider that I have now concluded my inquiries on this matter. The point of clarification is whether your office sent out invitations to the AMEC dinner held on 23 June 2008. I see at point 2 of your letter of 1 July, to which you referred, that you thought at that stage that your office had sent the invitations for that dinner. But you say in your letter of 10 September, or you had also said in your letter of 9 July, that no invitations were sent out since they were small dinners. For the sake of completeness, could you just confirm whether or not invitations were sent out for that dinner?

Subject to your response, I will now complete work on preparing the draft factual sections of my memorandum for the Committee on Standards and Privileges, as set out in my letter to you of 7 September. I will be back in touch when this work is concluded so that you can comment if necessary on their factual accuracy.

I look forward to hearing from you about the one outstanding point.

13 September 2010

135.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 15 September 2010

Thank you for your letter dated the 13th September requesting further clarification of the invitation to the dinner held on the 23rd June 2008 that AMEC sponsored. They were no formal invitations sent out for the dinner.

My office sent out letters to some of the invitees and that is the reference in the 1st July letter, the letter was as much to inform those invitees of the reason for the dinner i.e in discussions about Nuclear New Build, as the arrangements for the dinner.

Some invites were sent out by Sheffield University Vice Chancellor who selected the University invitees. Industry reps at the dinner were similarly invited, some by my office some by other invitees.

I hope this now clears up the issue you raised and brings this enquiry to a conclusion.

15 September 2010

136.  Letter to Rt Hon Richard Caborn from the Commissioner, 16 September 2010

Thank you for your letter of 15 September responding so promptly to mine of 13 September about the AMEC dinner of 23 June 2008.

I have noted that letters were sent out to some of those you had invited (presumably orally) and some invitations were sent out by the Vice Chancellor of Sheffield University. I believe I am right in concluding that none of the letters or Sheffield University invitations declared your registered interest.

It would be helpful if you could just confirm this assumption. On that basis, I believe my inquiry is concluded. I will now focus on preparing the draft memorandum.

I look forward to hearing from you. I am most grateful for your prompt responses.

16 September 2010

137.  Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Richard Caborn, 20 September 2010

Thank you for your letter 16 September re the dinner I initiated and organized for industrialists, academics and Ministers which was sponsored by AMEC at my request.

You are correct in making the assumption that the invitations to the dinner at the House of Commons on the 23rd June 2008 by the Vice Chancellor of Sheffield University and myself did not declare my registered interest.

Once again I hope this clears up the issue you raised and brings this inquiry to a conclusion.

20 September 2010

---

590   WE 105 Back

591   The Register of Members' Financial Interests Back

592   The Register of Members' Financial Interests Back

593   WE 118 Back

594   Not included in the written evidence. Back

595   Not included in the written evidence. Back

596   Not included in the written evidence. Back

597   Not included in the written evidence. Back

598   WE 114 Back

599   WE 115 Back

600   WE 119 Back

601   WE 117 Back

602   WE 123 Back

603   Not included in the written evidence Back

604   Not included in the written evidence.  Back

605   Not included in the written evidence.  Back

---

Prepared 9 December 2010