LORD MOONIE CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Lord Moonie from Baroness Prashar,
Monday 26 January 2009
Dear Lord Moonie,
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS: INQUIRY
INTO RECESS
PRESS ALLEGATIONS
In view of the allegations published in the
Sunday Times of 25 January, the Sub-Committee on Lords'
Interests met on Monday 26 January and decided to undertake an
investigation, at the request of Baroness Royall of Blaisdon,
into the claims made against you, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lord
Truscott and Lord Snape.
I invite you to write to me putting your side
of the story in response to the Sunday Times allegations.
This is a preliminary step, and you will be given further opportunities
to respond. We have asked the Sunday Times to submit to
us evidence supporting its claims, and we will wish you to take
the opportunity to comment on this evidence once it has been received.
You may find helpful the enclosed guidance for
Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint has been
made.
Yours sincerely,
Baroness Prashar
Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Moonie,
Monday 2 February 2009
Dear Baroness Prashar
Thank you for your letter of 26 January, which
I received yesterday, owing to the way in which my internal mail
is delivered to me, via my secretary. I would be most grateful
if in future mail from the Sub-Committee could be delivered to
my home address above, or to my email at *** if urgent.
I am happy to respond in full to the allegations
made in the Sunday Times on 25 January. I am glad that
you have requested details of any recordings made, and trust that
they will produce the original record rather than a paper transcript
or paraphrase of what is alleged to have taken place, for the
sake of accuracy and fairness.
I reject any allegation that I have acted improperly,
since I made it clear that I would consult senior colleague(s)
before giving details of what I could do for them, and made no
offer to them that I would do anything that was thought to be
outside the code of conduct. I append a paper copy of an email
which I sent to "David Thompson" on 23 January in support
of this [reproduced as part of the Hansard transcript]. I should
add that what took place was by nature a preliminary discussion
only, which I would have expected to have been followed by the
submission to me of a draft contract for consideration, as has
been the norm for other consultancy work which I carry out. I
stressed the need for further consultation, as I have not in fact
carried out any parliamentary lobbying in the past.
I do have a declaration in the Register under
section 12a for Americium Developments which I made initially
because I was uncertain what I might be asked to do in the course
of my work. I have never done any work for this company which
could be considered to fall within this section and have today
written to the Registrar asking that this consultancy be transferred
to section 12d where it belongs. I apologise for this oversight
which I recognise I should have amended earlier.
There is also the matter of an article in yesterday's
Sunday Herald, and further mention of the subject on television
which I feel may be germane to your investigation if only indirectly.
The allegation is made that I have asked questions on behalf of
a company on whose UK Advisory Board I sit, Northrop Grumman.
(Copy attached) [Not reproduced]
I sit on an Advisory Board for NGIT, a subsidiary
concerned with information technology. I am forbidden in my contract
from carrying out any externally-facing work, which can be confirmed
by our colleague, Lord (George) Robertson, who chairs it, and
I can confirm that I have never asked a question on behalf of
any outside interest. The questions which I have put down over
the past few months stem from work carried out by my researcher,
Mr Robin Ashby on my behalf, and in general relate to Defence
Procurement (I am a former Defence Minister) and cover facts which
have appeared in obscure Defence Journals, which we feel should
appear on the Parliamentary Record.
In conclusion please find attached:
1. A brief summary of the chronology of events
of the past few weeks as I recall them.
2. A copy of the email which I sent to "David
Thompson" on 23 Jan. [Not reproduced]
3. A copy of an email detailing what a colleague
of mine was able to find out about "MJ Associates" for
information only. [Not reproduced]
4. A copy of the article in yesterday's Sunday
Herald taken from their webside. [Not reproduced]
I shall be happy to provide any further information
which you may require.
Yours sincerely
Lord Moonie
CHRONOLOGY OF
EVENTS RELATING
TO INVESTIGATION
Either the week the House rose for Christmas,
or the week before we resumed I received a call from "Claire
Taylor" purporting to represent "MJ Associates"
and asking if I would consider acting for them as a consultant.
No details were given but we agreed to meet for a preliminary
discussion at Westminster on 13 January at 10.30 am.
We met as agreed over coffee in the Pugin Room.
Ms Taylor was with a man who introduced himself as "David
Thompson". They said that they represented far east business
interests who intended to open a chain of "fashion"
retail outlets in the UK. These interests were concerned about
the Supplementary Rates Bill, then in the Commons, and wanted
to try to amend the Bill to provide a derogation for new businesses.
I have served on many Bills in the Commons both in Opposition
and in Government and thought that such an amendment was arguable,
and possibly desirable.
I explained that they would have to find someone
prepared to amend the Bill, as I could not do that myself. There
followed discussion of how interested members could be found and
approached. When asked if I could do this, I explained that I
had no direct experience as such, and would therefor have to seek
advice from senior colleagues to establish what was and what was
not acceptable. I said that the rules were unclear, and the sanctions
risible (Oh for a less flippant tongue!) and after some toing
and froing and discussion of possible fees and other potential
interests which separate clients might have I agreed to recontact
them at a later date, as I was heading abroad the next day. I
found them remarkably ignorant of parliamentary procedure, but
put this down to the fact that they were relatively new to the
business.
That afternoon I had a brief conversation with
Lord (Jack) Cunningham who briefly underlined the difficulties
of representing such an interest in the House. I recall touching
on the ways in which they could approach members, for example
through local MPs or by making common cause with the many other
outside interests who might have an interest. I tried to contact
MJ Associates to speak to "Thompson" early the following
week but was told he was unavailable. He contacted me on the 21st,
about 11.00 am and after a short conversation I said that I would
email him details of putative fees as the next step. Frankly,
by this time I was less than enamoured with the prospect of working
at what promised to be rather a boring task but rather than an
outright no I emailed him asking for a fee which I rather hoped
would be too much, and yet again stressing the need to abide by
the rules at all times.
On Friday 23 I received a call on my mobile
from "Taylor" who rattled on rather about sending me
a contract and asked me outright if I would write to John Healey
for them, and mentioned a possible fee of £500-1,000 per
month. My suspicions of her motive in speaking to me were confirmed
and I made my excuses and hung up.
Lord Moonie 2/2/09
Letter to Lord Moonie from Mr Keith, Wednesday
4 February 2009
[Similar to that printed to Lord Taylor of Blackburn
from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 February 2009, pp TaC1-2]
E-mail to Lord Moonie from Mr Keith, Saturday
7 February 2009
Please could Lord Moonie be available at 3.30
pm on Tuesday 24 February to appear before Baroness Prashar and
the Sub-Committee on Lords Interests?
Letter to Mr Keith from Lord Moonie, Sunday
8 February 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for your letter of 4th inst. I assume
that by now you have received my letter of last week with my initial
response to the allegations in the Sunday Times.
I have listened to the recording and read the
transcript, which in my opinion is a fair but not 100% accurate
representation of what took place on 13 January, and in the phone
conversation of 23 January. The material also includes my email
of 21 January, which again is accurate.
I have the following observations to make:
1. The recording, although not easy to follow,
much better captures the nuances of what took place, and I submit
emphasises the informal nature of the discussion which took place.
I do not believe that I offered at any time to do anything which
could be construed as against the spirit nor the letter of the
rules.
2. I disagree with the account given by Mr Calvert
of a conversation which he claims took place on 20 January my
recollection is that this was on the morning of the 21st, just
before I emailed him. I most certainly did not say that I would
write to Mr Healey on their behalf. I was standing in a shop in
Knightsbridge at the time and made a perfunctory response to his
enquiries.
3. The telephone call from Ms Newell on Friday
23 was in my opinion an attempt to make this accusation stand
up and my response was clear.
4. There is one part of my conversation on the
13th which causes me concern, and it refers to the help which
I might seek from Lord ***. In no way did I intend to suggest,
as I seem to have done that my colleague would speak directly
on behalf of outside interests, quite the reverse. I was using
him as an example of someone who would know what was permissible
and what was not, and I wish to make that clear.
I should be able to attend the sub-committee
on either of the dates suggested. However there is a small chance
that I may be required to attend an emergency board meeting in
Gibraltar for PartyGaming PLC, where I am senior non-executive
director. It concerns a matter of great importance and frankly
it would not be acceptable for me to miss it. It should however
only involved one of these days but I cannot at this time say
which, or if indeed it will take place that week at all.
Yours sincerely
Lord Moonie
Letter to Lord Moonie from Baroness Prashar,
Friday 13 February 2009
Dear Lord Moonie
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS: INQUIRY
INTO RECENT
PRESS ALLEGATIONS
Please find enclosed (i) the Hansard transcript
of the recorded meeting with the Sunday Times journalists,
(ii) audio recordings of the telephone calls recorded by the Sunday
Times journalists, and (iii) the Hansard transcript of those
telephone calls. This is the final evidence that the Sub-Committee
is admitting (in addition to the audio recordings and transcripts
already provided by the Sunday Times and sent to you).
The purpose of the Sub-Committee's inquiry is
to determine whether the facts apparently disclosed by the tapes
and transcripts constitute any breach of the Code, in particular
paragraph 4 read in the light of paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12.
The Sub-Committee will be concentrating on whether any of the
four Members concerned can be shown from the material in the tapes
and transcripts to have breached in particular paragraph 4(c)
of the Code. The Sub-Committee will be considering whether a Member
who negotiated a fee with a view to agreeing to breach paragraph
4(c) would be acting on his "personal honour" and would
thus be in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code in the light of
the Nolan principles.
You have already submitted a statement to the
Sub-Committee but I now invite you to respond further in writing
if you wish to do so with a full and accurate account of the matters
in question in the light of all the material now available. This
will be the basis for the oral evidence session to which you have
kindly agreed on 24 February, and therefore it would greatly help
the Sub-Committee if this written response could reach us, care
of Brendan Keith in the House of Lords Judicial Office, by Thursday
19 February. I draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of
the Committee for Privileges report The Code of Conduct: procedure
for considering complaints against Members (4th Report of
Session 2007-08, HL Paper 205).
Yours sincerely
Baroness Prashar
E-mail to Lord Moonie from Mr Keith, Monday
23 February 2009
This is to inform you that the interview between
the Sub-committee investigating the Sunday Times allegations
and Lord Moonie arranged for this Tuesday is postponed in view
of procedural issues raised by legal advisers to certain of the
four Lords concerned. We will propose a day and time for the rescheduled
interview in due course.
Apologies for any inconvenience.
E-mail to Mr Keith from Lord Moonie, Tuesday
24 February 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for letting me know of the postponement
of my hearing with the Subcommittee. I note the reason which you
give for this.
I must point out that I have raised no legal
matters with you nor do I intend to have any adviser present with
me.
I must however register with you my strong objection
to being treated as part of one investigation of four individuals
rather than as one case to be decided on its own merits. That
being so I can see no reason for me to be subjected to further
delay with its attendant anxiety and uncertainty.***.
I wish my views to be made clear to the chairman.
If these matters cannot be resolved to my satisfaction then I
regret to inform you that I shall play no further part in this
investigation.
Yours sincerely
Lewis Moonie
E-mail to Lord Moonie from Mr Keith, Friday
27 February 2009
Dear Lord Moonie
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS: INQUIRY
INTO COMPLAINT
AGAINST MEMBERS
OF THE
HOUSE: LORD
MOONIE
Thank you for your e-mail of 24 February.
The Sub-Committee has noted your wish for a
speedy resolution of the matter, and agrees that it is desirable
to proceed expeditiously. The Sub-Committee would find it helpful
to hear you in person, and therefore proposes that you attend
the Sub-Committee at 10am on Tuesday 10 March in Committee Room
G of the House of Lords. Any final written submission that you
might wish to submit to the Sub-Committee should be received by
us not later than Thursday 5 March.
We look forward to seeing you on 10 March.
Yours sincerely
Brendan Keith
E-mail to Mr Keith from Lord Moonie, Friday
27 February 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for your email. I shall be happy to
attend the Sub-committee on 10 March at 10.00 am as requested.
I should give you notice that I have some major dental surgery
taking place on Friday next, and while I do not anticipate any
problems, it is only polite to flag this up in advance. Likewise
the business matter which I believe I mentioned is still not resolved,
and as one of only two independent directors who for legal reasons
can vote if required, I shall have to fly to Gibraltar at short
notice, although I shall endeavour to ensure that this is not
on 10 March.
I have nothing to add to my statements to date,
other than to point out a typographical mistake in the date which
I gave for my email, which should of course read 21 January and
not 23. I am grateful that the Sub-committee agree that this matter
should be dealt with expeditiously, and in conclusion can only
restate my belief that I did not breach the rules of the House
regarding the nature of work which I offered to do for MJ Associates
should they proceed with a formal agreement, which I would have
expected to include the type of written contract which normally
accompanies such an agreement.
Yours sincerely
Lewis Moonie
Letter to Lord Moonie from Ms Street,
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Dear Lord Moonie
COMMITTEE FOR
PRIVILEGES: SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS
INQUIRY INTO
ALLEGATIONS PUBLISHED
AGAINST CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE
BY THE
SUNDAY TIMES
ON 25 JANUARY
2009
Thank you very much for agreeing to give evidence
to the Sub-Committee on 10 March. Baroness Prashar and the other
Members of the Sub-Committee welcome the opportunity of this discussion.
I am therefore writing to confirm arrangements for your meeting
with the Sub-Committee.
The meeting will be held in Committee Room G,
near to the Attlee Room. The sign outside the room should read
"Baroness Prashar". Your evidence session is due to
begin at 10am, and will not last beyond 2pm. Please ensure that
you arrive at least five minutes before you are due to appear
before the Sub-Committee, and wait outside the room until invited
in.
The evidence session will be held in private,
but a verbatim transcript will be taken, to which you will have
the opportunity to make minor corrections. The transcript may
subsequently be referred to in the Report and published, at the
discretion of the Sub-Committee and the Committee for Privileges.
The transcript will be confidential to the Sub-Committee and the
Committee for Privileges unless and until published. There will
be no broadcasting and it would be preferable to avoid amplification,
so if you need to use a hearing loop (or have any other special
requirements) please let me know in advance of the session.
As set out in the report from the Committee
for Privileges, The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering
complaints against Members (4th Report of Session 2007-08,
HL Paper 205), you may be accompanied to the meeting by a colleague,
friend or legal adviser, but if you do bring a friend or adviser,
you will be expected to answer all questions yourself. Standing
Order 67 prohibits the hearing of parties by Counsel except as
authorised by the House, so while you may take advice during the
evidence session if you feel it to be necessary, any legal adviser
will not be able to address the Sub-Committee. The report also
says that every effort will be made to keep proceedings informal,
and there is no expectation that you should be accompanied.
It is expected that reference will be made during
questioning to the transcripts made by the Sunday Times
and by Hansard, which have been forwarded to you. Please bring
these with you and use page numbers to refer to this evidence,
to avoid confusion in the transcript.
You may wish to know that your attendance at
the Sub-Committee can be counted as attending the House for expenses
purposes.
If there is anything more I can do to assist,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Susannah Street
Clerk to the Sub-Committee
Letter to Lord Moonie from Ms Street,
Friday 3 April 2009
Dear Lord Moonie
COMMITTEE FOR
PRIVILEGES: SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS
INQUIRY INTO
ALLEGATIONS PRINTED
BY THE
SUNDAY TIMES
ON 25 JANUARY
2009
Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the 4th Report of Session
2007-08 from the Committee for Privileges, The Code of Conduct:
procedure for considering complaints against Members (HL Paper
205), state:
"If the investigation has uncovered material
evidence that is at variance with the Member's version of events,
this will be put to the Member, who will have a chance to challenge
it. Before reaching its conclusions, the Sub-Committee will also
share with the Member a draft of those parts of its report dealing
with issues of fact, so that the Member has an opportunity to
comment on them."
"If there remain significant contested issues
of fact, the Sub-Committee will agree its own account of the facts
of the case, while drawing to the attention of the Committee for
Privileges and the House any challenge to this account made by
the Member concerned."
Accordingly, please find enclosed a copy of
the first 36 paragraphs of the Sub-Committee's current draft of
its report, setting out the background and basis of the Sub-Committee's
investigation, which the Sub-Committee considers to be the "parts
of its report dealing with issues of fact". The Sub-Committee
would be grateful if you would send us any comments that you wish
to make on these issues of fact. Please note that all comments
must be received by 6pm on Monday 20 April 2009, and no comments
can be accepted by the Sub-Committee thereafter. Please also note
that the intention of this stage of the Sub-Committee's procedure
is to allow you the opportunity to contest only issues of fact.
The Sub-Committee's complete report, so far as it concerns you,
will be sent to you when the Sub-Committee has reached its final
conclusions, probably (in confidence) in the week beginning 20
April. We are grateful for the evidence you have given us, and
it will be for the Committee for Privileges to hear any appeals.
Please also find enclosed a copy of the sequence
of events that we have constructed from the Hansard transcripts
relating to your case. The intention is that this sequence will
be published alongside the Sunday Times version of the
same events, which you already have. Please note that you have
not previously seen one of the Hansard transcripts here included:
of a phone call between yourself and Claire Newell on 23 January.
The recording of this call was recently sent to us by the Sunday
Times, at our request, and transcribed by Hansard. Please
let us have any comments or corrections you wish to make to this
sequence of transcripts by 6pm on Monday 20 April. We would be
grateful if you would also send us an indication of any personal
data that you would wish not to be published; please note that
corrections and deletions will be made at the discretion of the
Clerks.
Also enclosed is a copy of the oral evidence
transcript. Please let us have any final corrections or comments
that you wish to make by 6pm on Monday 20 April. Please note that
we have not yet received any comments from you, as requested by
email on 16 March.
Finally, please also find enclosed a copy of
a letter sent to us by the Sunday Times, at our request,
stating Jonathan Calvert's recollection of his unrecorded phone
call with you of Tuesday 20 January. The Sub-Committee has decided
to disregard this phone call, but you are free to comment upon
it if you wish.
This is your final opportunity to comment upon
the matters of fact and the accuracy of the evidence that the
Sub-Committee has received relating to your case. Thank you for
your assistance.
Yours sincerely
Susannah Street
Clerk to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests
Letter to Lord Moonie from Mr Keith, Thursday
23 April 2009
Dear Lord Moonie
I enclose a copy of the Report of the Sub-Committee
on Lords' Interests on your conduct, following the allegations
in the Sunday Times on 25 January 2009 which were subsequently
the basis for a complaint referred to the Sub-Committee by the
Leader of the House.
You will find enclosed those sections of the
Sub-Committee's Report which describe the factual background to
the complaint, the interpretation of the Code of Conduct, and
the Sub-Committee's analysis of and conclusions on your own conduct.
The text has been agreed by the Sub-Committee, so while it will
be subject to some final proof-reading and technical corrections,
there will no further substantive changes.
I have not enclosed those sections of the Report
which relate to the conduct of the other three Peers who have
been under investigation.
I also enclose proofs of the evidence relating
to your case, which will be published alongside the Report itself.
This proofed evidence is as follows:
— The Hansard transcript of your telephone
calls/meetings/emails with the journalists.
— The Sunday Times transcript of
your telephone calls/meetings/emails with the journalists—this
transcript was slightly tidied up by the Sunday Times when
we requested an electronic copy, but we consider that no substantive
changes have been made.
— The transcript of your oral evidence
session, as corrected.
— Part of your correspondence with the
Sub-Committee.
— Other written evidence.
This is the first proof of the evidence. Mistakes
will have been made by the printers and further non-substantive
amendments and corrections will have to be made by the Clerks
before publication. Any redactions are yet to be made. Any material
redacted from the evidence itself will also be redacted from any
correspondence published with the Report.
I also enclose a letter from Lord Harris of
Haringey of 26 January 2009 which will be proofed and published
with the "other written evidence".
I also enclose a list of the correspondence
with you that the Sub-Committee proposes to publish. I would be
grateful if you would send any comments on this list to Susannah
Street, Clerk to the Sub-Committee, by Friday 1 May.
Please send any comments relating to this evidence,
including regarding any omissions or any further material that
you wish to be redacted, to Susannah Street, Clerk to the Sub-Committee,
by Friday 1 May. Please send to the Clerk of the Committee for
Privileges any technical points regarding the Report that do not
need to be considered by the Committee for Privileges.
Two further appendices will be added, explaining
to the reader how to understand the referencing system applied
to the evidence, and listing any suggested corrections to the
Hansard or Sunday Times transcripts which are not included
in the published correspondence. A standard introduction page
will also be added, with factual information on the Committee.
I am at the same time forwarding the entire
Report and all the evidence to the Clerk of the Committee for
Privileges.
The Committee for Privileges will be following
the procedure set out in the Committee's 4th Report of session
2007-08, which was agreed by the House on 18 December 2008. This
procedure is summarised below.
In accordance with paragraph 19(e) of the Code
of Conduct, you have a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges
against the Sub-Committee's findings. If you choose to exercise
this right, you should submit your appeal in writing to the Clerk
of the Committee for Privileges not later than noon on Tuesday
5 May. In so doing you should set out the grounds for your appeal
in full, and enclose such supporting material as you think appropriate.
The Committee for Privileges will consider the
Report by the Sub-Committee, along with any appeals which have
been lodged, on the afternoon of Monday 11 May.
Paragraph 34 of 4th Report states that any Member
who decides to make an appeal is "as a courtesy … given
the opportunity to appear in person, if he or she so wishes".
Paragraph 35 continues: "the Committee will not normally
reopen the Sub-Committee's investigation. Rather the Members of
the Committee will use their judgment to decide whether, on the
balance of probabilities, they endorse the conclusions of the
Sub-Committee."
If you exercise your right to appear in person
the Clerk will contact you to confirm the time and place. You
will be invited to make an oral statement, and this may be followed
by brief questions for clarification. However, the Committee will
not seek to reopen the Sub-Committee's investigation by means
of detailed questioning, and the meeting is likely to be short.
The meeting will be held in private, but a transcript
will be taken, and will be published in due course. In accordance
with paragraph 25 of the 4th Report, you may bring a friend or
adviser to the meeting; this person may sit next to you, and you
may consult him or her in the course of the meeting. However,
you will be expected to speak and answer any questions for yourself.
You are reminded of Standing Order 67, which states that Select
Committees "shall not hear parties by Counsel unless so authorised
by Order of the House".
Members of the Sub-Committee who also sit on
the Select Committee will take no part either in considering the
Sub-Committee's Report or hearing any appeal. The Leader of the
House, as the complainant in this case, will similarly disqualify
herself from considering the Report or hearing any appeal.
The Sub-Committee's Report will not be published
by the Sub-Committee: it will be published by the Committee for
Privileges as the first appendix to their Report.
The Report and all evidence submitted to the
Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests are privileged, and should remain
confidential until such time as the Committee publishes them.
I draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the 4th Report,
concerning privilege and contempt of the House, particularly in
relation to disclosure before publication. For its part the Sub-Committee
has made every effort to ensure the confidentiality of its Report.
If you have any questions regarding the procedure
that will be followed by the Committee for Privileges, please
write to or contact the Clerk, Christopher Johnson, who will be
handling the process from this point on. His email is johnsonc@parliament.uk,
and his telephone extension is x8796.
Yours sincerely
Brendan Keith
Registrar of Lords Interests
| 
