LORD SNAPE CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Lord Snape from Baroness Prashar,
Monday 26 January 2009
Dear Lord Snape,
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 Moonie, Lord Taylor of
Blackburn and Lord Truscott.
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 Snape,
Thursday 29 January 2009
Dear Baroness Prashar,
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS: INQUIRY
INTO RECENT
PRESS ALLEGATIONS
Further to your letter, I now set out my response
to the Sunday Times' article as requested.
On or about 15 January 2009 I received a telephone
message from a woman identifying herself as Claire Taylor of Michael
Johnson Associates about a possible consultancy. I responded to
that message, and a meeting was arranged at my office.
She attended the meeting on Thursday 22 January
with a man who identified himself as David Thompson, the Managing
Director of MJA. He provided me with a business card in that name,
copy enclosed [not reproduced].
He informed me that MJA was a PR company initially
based in Brussels which was anxious to establish itself in London.
He further informed me that his company had a client from Hong
Kong who wished to open approximately 130 retail outlets in the
UK. He further stated that his client was concerned about the
impact of the Business Rate Supplement Bill currently before the
House of Commons.
I was asked by "Mr Thompson" if I
would be able to table or arrange to table an amendment to exempt
his client from the provisions of the Bill. My response was an
emphatic "No" and I went on to say that such would be
against the rules of the House and further that it was not possible
under those rules to introduce or amend legislation on behalf
of specific clients.
There followed discussion as to a possible exemption,
perhaps time limited, for all new start-up businesses generally
and could I consider putting down that sort of amendment. This
suggestion struck me as possibly a beneficial means to assist
all UK start-up businesses in the current economic downturn.
I said that it would not be sensible to deal
with the matter in that way as it could make it a political issue.
I suggested that it may be better to speak to someone at the Ministry
about whether they would be sympathetic to such an amendment,
given the welcome nature of potential new business for the UK.
I went on to discuss procedures in both Houses of Parliament and
how these procedures operate.
I must stress that during all of the above discussion,
there was no mention or suggestion of payment or retainer and
I would not have raised such.
Towards the close of the discussions, Mr Thompson
asked me if I would be interested in a consultancy with MJA. He
asked me what my fees might be. I explained that my usual fees
were £1,000 per month as a retainer and £500 per day,
and when asked what I thought that would amount to on an annual
basis I said that I did not normally undertake to charge more
than two days a month unless otherwise agreed. This would normally
amount to a maximum of £24,000 a year.
Mr Thompson asked if he could email me a proposed
consultancy arrangement. I said that would not be acceptable and
asked him to submit any proposals in writing to me at the House
of Lords. He agreed to do so and I accompanied both of them to
the front door. He never sent any proposals to me.
On the following day, during a train journey
to Birmingham, I received a telephone call from a Michael Gillard
of the Sunday Times. He told me that he wished to discuss
a meeting I had held and said that he believed that I had agreed
to table an amendment on behalf of someone from Hong Kong. I clearly
and expressly denied the allegation and said that I would call
him back at a more convenient time. I subsequently telephoned
Mr Gillard, read to him a statement that I had swiftly prepared
[enclosed and dated 23 January 2009]. Despite him promising to
ring me back before any publication, I heard nothing further prior
to publication of the article.
You will note that the purported quote from
me in the article was that I thought the proposed exemption would
be "beneficial" and that I undertook to "investigate"
further. This is wholly at odds with the context in which those
words appeared in my statement of 23 January, that is in the context
of all new start up businesses generally.
I must point out that it would be absurd, especially
given my experience and knowledge of parliamentary procedure,
to suggest I would even think of offering to change the law for
one person or party, and I most certainly did not do so.
I have instructed my solicitor to serve notice
on the Sunday Times in respect of the untrue and defamatory
content of their article and, at this time, I await their response.
I would wish to assure you that I intend to
co-operate fully with your sub-committee. I would appreciate receiving
from you details of the procedure to be followed and of my own
rights in that process. For example will I get the opportunity
to see any evidence produced by the Sunday Times beforehand,
and is it normal to attend with an adviser?
I note in the "Guidance for Members of
the House of Lords", paragraph 10 refers to your sub-committee
stating it "will not investigate allegations ... which are
subject to any proceedings in a court of law (for instance, an
action for libel)". I have asked the Registrar of Members'
Interests to advise me as to how this may affect my position in
view of the fact that I have already instigated action as above.
Obviously I cannot delay taking action against the Sunday Times
given the coverage and attack on my reputation in the media,
but I would very much welcome the opportunity to appear before
your sub-committee, and I will act entirely according to the due
House process.
I wish to emphasise to the Committee that I
firmly believe that at no time did I behave improperly or breach
the rules of the House.
Yours sincerely
Peter Snape
Enc
STATEMENT
Given over the telephone to Michael Gillard,
Sunday Times
Approximately 13.30 hours, Friday 23 January
2009
Telephone call from Claire Taylor from Michael
Johnson Associates Re: "a possible consultancy arrangement".
She asked for a meeting, which took place at my office.
Her colleague told me that they had a client
based in Hong Kong who was anxious to open over a hundred outlets
in the U.K. and was seeking an exemption from the proposed supplementary
business rates (a piece of legislation currently before the H
of C).
I said that under the rules of the House I was
unable to initiate any legislation on behalf of an individual
or company.
However, I did state that such an exemption,
perhaps time limited for all new start up businesses may be beneficial
given the current economic circumstances and undertook to investigate
further.
I was then asked if I would be interested in
accepting a consultancy with Michael Johnson Associates. I informed
them of my normal scale of fees and asked them to forward a formal
letter to me.
Peter Snape
23 January 2009
E-mail to Lord Snape from Mr Keith, Tuesday
3 February 2009
Dear Lord Snape,
Please would you tell me, in connection with
your libel proceedings, whether proceedings have been formally
instituted and whether a writ has been issued.
I would be grateful to have your reply before
Thursday morning of this week, 5 February, when the sub-committee
investigating the allegations made by the Sunday Times next meets.
Yours sincerely,
Brendan Keith
Letter to Lord Snape from Mr Keith, Wednesday
4 February 2009
[Similar to that printed to Lord Taylor of Blackburn
from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 February 2009, p TaC1-2]
E-mail to Lord Snape from Mr Keith, Saturday
7 February 2009
Please could Lord Snape be available at 2pm
on Tuesday 24 February to appear before Baroness Prashar and the
Sub-Committee on Lords Interests?
Letter to Mr Keith from Lord Snape, Wednesday
11 February 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for your letter of 4 February 2009.
Thank you also for providing me with a CD-Rom
recording of the meeting that took place on 22 January 2009 and
of the copy transcript provided to the sub-committee by the Sunday
Times. To date the Sunday Times have declined to provide
any such material to my solicitors in response to my libel complaint.
The CD-Rom recording appears to be just of the
meeting on 22 January 2009, whereas the Sunday Times transcript
includes also the telephone conversations the following day with
their journalist, Michael Gillard.
I note the Sunday Times have told the
sub-committee that their transcript is not complete and that they
have excluded material they considered not to be relevant and
inaudible passages. In the circumstances, I feel I must reserve
my position generally regarding the accuracy of the Sunday
Times' transcript of the meeting and the telephone conversations
with Michael Gillard.
You have asked me to provide comments on the
transcript. Having listened to the recording, it is clear that
some parts of the meeting are very difficult or impossible to
hear. The transcript may contain particular inaccuracies in addition
to those I list below. I note also that the recording includes
at the end, an un-transcribed part which appears to be a brief
discussion after the meeting between the two journalists. I have
been unable to hear sufficiently clearly what they are saying,
although it may be that a more sophisticated audio analysis would
be able to achieve this, and indeed such may assist with the entire
recording.
Subject to these general reservations and the
points I will come to later in this letter, my comments on the
accuracy of specific parts of the Sunday Times transcript
are as follows:
1.The transcript starts with a summary prepared by
the Sunday Times of the content of the meeting. I do not
accept that the summary is fair or accurate. I believe that the
Sunday Times have chosen to vastly oversimplify the discussion
that took place, and that the summary is, regrettably, tailored
and fashioned so as to support the allegations in their articles.
The 25 January articles accuse me, essentially, of corruption,
of being able to be bought and of being willing to bypass the
Rules of the House; charges I deeply resent and most strongly
deny. I hope that my comments will assist to clarify my own position
in the matter.
2.As an example of a potentially significant error
or omission, I refer to page 14 and the fourth paragraph from
the end of the page starting "I'd have to go back to the
bus business there".
I have listened to this part of the
tape. (This occurs at approximately 48.05 minutes into the recording.)
Although it is not entirely clear, the actual exchange appears
to be as follows, following some fairly inconsequential discussion
about travel and so on:
"JC: So have you amended any
legislation before on behalf of clients or?
LS: I think we are back to the bus
business there. I don't think I have got any specific amendments
I can think of, I have certainly amended legislation as an official
spokesman, but not on behalf of clients".
(My emphasis in respect of the omitted words.)
3.On page 15 in the section which starts "LS:
Oh fine", towards the end there are three dots which,
as your letter indicates, shows that a word or passage is missing
from the transcript. I have listened to that passage (which occurs
at approximately 50 minutes) and I believe the penultimate sentence
should actually read:
"... But I mean what I want
from you as far as we're concerned is if you'd summarise this
conversation, our agreement in a letter to me formally requesting
me to act as a consultant on behalf of, on the lines of ...".
Rather than as in the transcript which
states "on behalf of ...".
4.Appended to the transcript is a transcript of my
conversation with Michael Gillard the following day. I have not
been provided with a recording of that discussion. However on
page 19 there is reference to the statement that I read over the
telephone to Michael Gillard. I enclose a copy of that statement,
prepared swiftly, as Mr Gillard initially telephoned me during
a train journey and we agreed to speak later that day, when I
said I would give him a form of statement. I understood Mr Gillard
to assure me that he would contact me again before any publication,
however he did not do so. My statement made it clear that I had
said in the meeting that under the rules of the House I was unable
to initiate any legislation on behalf of an individual or company.
Both in my statement and in Michael
Gillard's record of our conversation, it states:
"However, I did state that
such an exemption, perhaps time limited for all new start up businesses
may be beneficial given the current economic circumstances and
undertook to investigate further" (per my statement) and
"that such an exemption perhaps time limited for all new
start up businesses may be beneficial in the current economic
circumstances and undertook to investigate such a possibility
further" (per Michael Gillard's record).
However, in the Sunday Times article
of 25 January 2009 across pages 4 and 5 this part is misquoted
as follows:
"Snape issued a statement saying
he had made it clear to the reporters that he was unable to `initiate
or amend any legislation on behalf of an individual or a company".
However, he did think the reporters' proposed exemption might
be `beneficial' and undertook to `investigate' further".
This gives a completely distorted impression
of what I actually said as Mr Gillard's own record shows.
I believe that the articles grossly misrepresent
our discussion.
MY COMMENTS
The facts, in summary, are I believe as follows:
1.On 15 January 2009, I received a telephone message
from a woman who had identified herself as Claire Taylor (who
I now know to be Claire Newell and will refer to as "CN")
of Michael Johnson Associates ("MJA") about a possible
consultancy. I responded to the message and we arranged a meeting
at my office.
2.The meeting took place on Thursday, 22 January
2009. CN attended with a man who identified himself as David Thompson
(who I now know to be Jonathan Calvert, and will refer to as "JC").
He said he was the Managing Director of MJA. He gave me a business
card, a copy of which is enclosed [not reproduced]. Both he and
CN appeared to be genuine business people.
3.JC informed me that MJA was a PR company initially
based in Brussels which wished to expand its business affairs
into London. He said they had a particular Hong Kong based client
who wanted to open a significant number of retail outlets in the
UK, despite the current economic situation. I thought that JC
referred to a figure of over 100 retail outlets (the figure I
had in mind was 130) but I note from the transcript and the recording
that he appears to refer to 40 retail shops. I am not sure that
much turns on this, but that I did think he had said over 100
is borne out in the statement that I read to him the following
day (see paragraph 2). JC described the outlets as in a similar
category to Gap or Uniqlo, so he was as I understood it, describing
a very significant retail business.
4.When asked if I could table or arrange to table
an amendment to exempt MJA's client I said no, very clearly. I
explained it would be impossible, and against the rules of both
Houses, and that it is not possible to introduce or amend legislation
for specific clients.
5.When JC put the question to me (see page 4 of the
transcript): "Now the question is, what we would do is
pay you on a retainer as a consultant to, in effect, help us amend
this bill. Now is that something A you would do and B you would
be able to do?
I replied: LD: I don't think I
would."
That seems to me to be perfectly clear.
I went on to explain that it is not possible to initiate legislation
which would benefit the person or party who provides the financial
interest. I also said: "So if I specifically worked for
your company for example then I would need to take advice if,
as these people are your clients whether or not I could. I certainly
couldn't if I was working for the clients themselves. But I would
need to take advice".
I also said I thought that provided
an interest was declared in the Register of Members' Interests
and subject to advice from the Registrar, that the declaration
in the Register would "also obtain if I work for your
company rather than specifically and likewise declare that you
have certain clients involved in this particular field".
7.I was making it clear that I could not pursue any
kind of legislative amendment on behalf of any specific party.
And that in the event that I were to be a consultant (with MJA)
such would have to be declared in the Register and I would take
advice from the Registrar of Members' Interests, and I might additionally
need to declare MJA's clients' interests. In other words, I was
anxious to make clear at the outset that I would take steps to
ensure that anything I did was in conformity with the Rules.
8.I referred to the need to take advice from and
establish the position with the Registrar of Members Interests
on several occasions and also to the Rules of the House.
9.I thought the general exemption suggested for all
new businesses, on a time limited basis, to be a sensible suggestion
and good for the country, particularly at this time. It appeared
that respected businesses and institutions such as the CBI were
concerned at the effects of the Bill on business.
10.I did not consider that an amendment would be
the best approach for this; I suggested that MJA should rather
approach a Member of the House of Commons (see page 6 of the transcript)
and I made other suggestions about affecting a general amendment.
I explained how the procedures work in both Houses.
11.The discussion was clearly a tentative one. At
the bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 of the transcript JC asks
if it "sounds like something you would take up on our
behalf" and I replied "Well, I'll certainly look
at it. I think it's interesting, something worth while".
While I was referring to the suggestion
of a general exemption for all new start up businesses on a time
limited basis my response again highlights the tentative nature
of our discussion.
12.I was then asked about my normal consultancy rates
and explained what those are.
13.At the end of the meeting I asked for MJA's written
consultancy proposals to be posted to me. As I thought I had made
obvious from the meeting, I would, if matters had progressed with
MJA, have had further discussions with them and taken advice from
the Registrar of Members Interests before taking it any further
forward.
SUMMARY
In summary, I am very conscious of the Rules
of the House, and have always abided by them. The meeting with
MJA discussed tentative proposals for a consultancy, which proposals
were never in fact received. Had they been, I would have considered
their communication and would have taken no steps to advance the
matter without seeking the advice of the Registrar of Members
Interests.
So far as the proposed general exemption for
all new start up businesses is concerned, this was a suggestion
in the context of respected business institutions such as the
CBI and others having concerns similar to MJA's clients who I
repeat they were likening to high street giants such as Gap and
Uniqlo. I took the view that were appropriate representations
to be made to the Ministry, they may well have been considered
in a favourable light as being in the UK's best interests. The
advice of parliamentary draftsmen was also mentioned.
I am deeply shocked by the allegations made
against me. In my view they are not supported by the recording
or transcript provided by the Sunday Times. I would welcome
any opportunity to clarify any further questions that the sub-committee
may have as I wish and intend to take all appropriate steps to
clear my name.
I have always been very careful not only to
act in accordance with the Rules of the House but to ensure that
there could be no perception that I was not doing so. Last year,
I tabled two amendments to the Local Transport Bill. Although
I had every belief that these amendments were appropriate, it
occurred to me that, because of my consultancy with First Group
Plc, there might be a perception of a conflict of interest and
I therefore did not take any steps to move the amendments.
I have had a long and unblemished political
career spanning over three decades. I am deeply concerned at the
damage caused to the reputation of the House, and to my reputation,
as a result of the Sunday Times articles. I do not and
cannot address or comment on the allegations made in regard to
the other peers. I do however wish to stress, as indeed I sought
to do immediately following publication of the articles, that
I deeply regret the allegations and the imputation they have cast
on the House and welcome this opportunity to seek to refute them
both before your Lordships in the House and elsewhere.
Since receipt of your letter, I have been advised
that my interview before the sub-committee has been scheduled
for 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 24 February 2009. I am planning to attend
without a representative. I would be grateful if you could kindly
confirm whether or not the matter will be heard in private and
whether a full transcript will be taken.
Yours sincerely
Peter Snape
Encs: Statement given over the telephone to Michael
Gillard [Sunday Times] 23.01.2009 [not reproduced]
Photocopy of business card of "David Thompson
of MJ Associates" [not reproduced]
Letter to Lord Snape from Baroness Prashar,
Friday 13 February 2009
Dear Lord Snape,
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
Letter to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins
LLP, Tuesday 17 February 2009
Dear Sir
Lord Snape
Thank you for your letter dated 13 February
2009 with enclosures as indicated.
Lord Snape is currently abroad, returning late
on Wednesday, 18 February. We note that you request any further
written response from him by Thursday, 19 February.
In the circumstances, Lord Snape has only had
very limited opportunity to consider the additional material kindly
provided under cover of your letter of 13 February 2009. With
that proviso, he has asked us to forward the enclosed statement
on his behalf, such to be considered together with his letter
dated 11 February 2009 and enclosures.
Lord Snape is pleased to confirm that he will
be attending before the Sub-Committee, as requested, on 24 February,
his interview having been scheduled for 2.00 pm on that date.
If we can provide any further assistance at
this juncture, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Yours faithfully
Michael Simkins LLP
Letter to Mr Keith from Lord Snape, Tuesday
17 February 2009
Dear Mr Keith
I write as requested in the letter of 13 February
2009 and further to my letter of 11 February 2009, with enclosures.
I am presently abroad and have, therefore, had very limited opportunity
to consider or analyse the further material comprising the additional
recordings and transcripts supplied under cover of your letter
of 13 February 2009, which you kindly forwarded in my absence
to my solicitor.
I wish to re-emphasise in the strongest terms
the matters as set out in my letter to you dated 11 February 2009,
and in particular to state that I do not believe that I have breached
the Code of Conduct; nor have I ever had the intention of breaching
the Code; nor would I ever consider or seek to do so. The transcripts,
including my several references in the meeting notes to the need
to take advice, to the Registrar of Members' Interests, and to
the rules, clearly supports this.
To address the additional issue identified in
the second paragraph of your letter of 13 February 2009, I did
not negotiate a fee with "MJA" with a view to agreeing
to breach paragraph 4(c) of the Code.
I have always acted on my personal honour and
integrity, and in over 30 years as a parliamentarian, no imputation
otherwise has ever previously been made against me.
I reiterate, therefore, that I most strongly
deny the accusations in the Sunday Times articles of 25
January 2009. When the journalist, Micael Gillard, telephoned
me following the meeting, I tried to clarify certain aspects as
put to my by Mr Gillard, but he clearly had a preconceived mindset.
The discussion during the meeting with the two individuals purporting
to be from "MJA" has been grossly misrepresented in
the Sunday Times articles and I deeply resent the charges they
have made and published against me.
I hope very much that my comments, both in my
previous letter dated 11 February 2009 and in this letter, will
assist to clarify my position. However if I can assist any further,
I shall of course be pleased to do so. I confirm that I will be
attending before the Sub-Committee, as requested, at 2.00 pm on
Tuesday, 24 February 2009.
Yours sincerely
pp Peter Snape
(approved by telephone)
E-mail to Lord Snape 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 Snape 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.
Letter to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr
Keith, Friday 27 February 2009
Dear Sirs,
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS
INQUIRY INTO
COMPLAINT AGAINST
MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE:
LORD SNAPE
This is in reply to your letter of 17 February
2009.
The Sub-Committee wishes to emphasise that it
is concerned to ensure a fair and just hearing for the four Members
of the House who are the subject of the Sunday Times allegations,
including Lord Snape.
The Sub-Committee has noted Lord Snape's 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 Lord Snape in person, and therefore proposes that Lord
Snape attend the Sub-Committee at 2pm on Tuesday 10 March in Committee
Room G of the House of Lords. Any final written submission should
be received by us not later than Thursday 5 March.
The Sub-Committee wishes to consider with Lord
Snape whether the Hansard transcript discloses that he was negotiating
with a supposed lobbying company "MJA" with a view to
becoming a parliamentary consultant to MJA, which was acting for
a supposed Hong Kong client, in return for a fee to "exercise
Parliamentary influence" to secure an amendment to the Business
Rates Supplement Bill, which would confer a two year exemption
for new businesses from the provision in that Bill allowing local
authorities to impose an additional 2% charge on the business
rate on properties over £50,000 in value, which agreement
would have constituted a breach of paragraph 4 (c) of the Code
of Conduct; and thereby failed to act "on his personal honour"
in breach of paragraph 4 (b) of that Code.
Matters arising out of the Hansard transcript
which the Sub-Committee will raise with Lord Snape are whether
he expressed a willingness—
| (i) | to seek to persuade a member or members of the House of Commons Committee considering the Bill in that Committee to table there the amendment sought by MJA;
|
(ii) | to approach John Healey MP, the Minister in day-to-day charge of the Bill in the Commons, to give favourable consideration to the proposed amendment;
|
(iii) | likewise, to persuade similarly in relation to Peers in the House of Lords;
|
(iv) | to approach civil servants on the Bill team for the same purpose; and
|
(v) | to circulate a draft of the proposed amendment to peers who might be persuaded to move it.
|
Yours faithfully,
Brendan Keith
| |
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Monday
2 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for your letter of 27 February 2009. I refer also
to my conversation today with Patricia in your office. I will
be taking instructions on your letter shortly.
I would be grateful if you could please confirm that the
other three peers the subject of the Sunday Times allegations
are also being seen by the Sub-Committee on or about 10 March
2009.
Are you able to provide me with information regarding the
procedural issues raised by Lords Truscott and Taylor, and whether
such have been addressed?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Monday
2 March 2009
Dear Ms Fehler,
Thank you for your email of earlier today.
I confirm that the other three Lords who are the subject
of the Sunday Times allegations have been invited or are
about to be invited to attend the Sub-Committee around the time
that Lord Snape has been invited to attend. He is not the only
one invited to appear before the Sub-committee.
Lord Moonie has been invited to attend on the morning of
Tuesday 10 March.
The other two are being invited for later that week and early
the following week, but it would not be proper for me to give
you details because they have not yet had formal notificaition.
I am expecting that such notification will be sent to them tomorrow,
after the next meeting of the Sub-Committee tomorrow afternoon.
The Sub-committee will be writing to the solicitors for Lords
Truscott and Taylor tomorrow on the subject of the various procedural
points that have been raised. Clearly at present I am not in a
position to give you further details.
I hope that this is helpful.
Best wishes,
Brendan Keith
Letter to Lord Snape from Ms Street, Wednesday 4 March
2009
Dear Lord Snape,
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 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
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Thursday
5 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Further to our email exchange below, I would be grateful
if you could let me know if there have been any pertinent developments,
in particular as to the timetable for the various attendances
before the Sub-Committee, and also as to the procedural issues
raised by Lords Truscott and Taylor.
Lord Snape will be responding to your letter of 27 February
today.
Kind regards
Catherine Fehler
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Thursday
5 March 2009
The Sub-committee instructed me on Tuesday night to write
to the solicitors for Lords Taylor and Truscott, conveying the
gist of the Sub-committee's deliberations on their letters.
My letters to them also proposed the days and times on which
the Sub-committee wished to hear Lords Taylor and Truscott in
person.
I do not believe that it is proper for me to disclose further
details without the authority of the Sub-Cttee, but I believe
also that if Lord Snape were to contact the two Lords they would
be willing to give him the relevant details.
So far as dates are concerned, we are seeing Lords Moonie
and Snape on Tuesday 10 March at 10 am and 2 pm respectively,
Lord Truscott (on present intentions) on Friday 13 March at 10am
and Lord Taylor (on present intentions) on Monday 16 March at
10 30am.
These dates and times are not known outside the Sub-Cttee
(except that Lords Taylor and Truscott obviously know the dates
of their own interviews).
I hope that this is helpful.
Best wishes
Brendan Keith
Letter to Mr Keith from Lord Snape, Thursday 5 March
2009
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS
INQUIRY INTO
COMPLAINT AGAINST
MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE:
LORD SNAPE
1. Thank you for your letter sent under cover of your
email of 27 February 2009.
2. I note that the Sub-Committee is concerned to ensure
a fair and just hearing for the four Members of the House who
are subject to the Sunday Times' allegations, including
me.
3. I have indicated my wish for the matter to be dealt
with expeditiously and fairly. I have also confirmed that I will
attend before the Sub-Committee and therefore propose to do so
as requested at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 March 2009, on the basis
that the other three Lords who are the subject of the Sunday
Times allegations will also be appearing before the Sub-Committee
on or about the same date.
4. Please treat this letter as my final written submission
in accordance with your request of 27 February 2009. This letter
should be read in conjunction with my previous correspondence
and in particular my letters dated 29 January 2009; 11 February
2009; and 17 February 2009.
5. I note that the Sub-Committee wishes to consider whether
the Hansard transcript discloses that I was "negotiating
with a supposed lobbying company `MJA' with a view to becoming
a parliamentary consultant to MJA, which was acting for a supposed
Hong Kong client, in return for a fee to `exercise parliamentary
influence' to secure an amendment to the Business Rates Supplement
Bill", which agreement would have constituted a breach
of paragraph 4(c) of the Code of Conduct; and thereby failed to
act on my "personal honour" in breach of paragraph 4(b)
of the Code.
6. As set out in my previous correspondence, these discussions
related to tentative proposals for a consultancy, which proposals
would have been put to me in writing had the matter developed,
but which were not in fact ever received. I would like to reiterate
that I was not negotiating with MJA during the meeting.
7. At the outset of the discussion, following the "Man's"
explanation of MJA, when I was asked expressly whether I could
be placed on a retainer as a consultant to help MJA/their client
amend the Business Rates Supplement Bill, and the question was
put to me: "Now is that something a) you would do, or
b) you would be able to do?" I replied expressly "I
don't think I would". That exchange and my following
explanation as to the fact that one cannot initiate legislation
which would benefit the person who pays you, and that I would
need to take advice, is set out on page 7 of the Hansard transcript.
(I also per page 7 referred to my existing declaration in the
Register of members interests).
8. I made this point again, for example at page 9 of
the transcript where I stated that it would not be possible "Because
I would be initiating legislation for a company from which I am
paid, which would be improper under the rules of the House".
9. I therefore consider that I made it clear at the outset
that I could not and would not seek to effect any amendment on
behalf of a party which was retaining me as a paid consultant,
and indeed that I would not take steps in breach of the rules
of the House.
10. Furthermore, throughout the meeting I referred several
times to the need to check the position with the Registrar of
Members' interests, to the need to seek his advice, and to the
rules of the House. For example in addition to the above, my further
comments on page 7 "I'd need to take advice"
and "I would have thought that's the way the rules would
be interpreted".
11. On page 8 I stated that "I will take advice
from the Registrar of Members' Interests in the Lords"
and that "I might well have to declare that you have certain
clients involved in this particular field" and I referred
again to the Registrar.
12. As these initial exchanges should have made absolutely
clear to MJA, the foundation for any discussions concerning any
consultancy arrangement were that these would have to conform
with the Rules of the House, and that I would seek to ensure that
such was the case.
13. On page 9 there are further references to the fact
that I could not initiate legislation for a company which paid
me because that would be "improper" under the rules
of the House. I sought to reinforce my unqualified response to
the question on page 7 by explaining that I could not seek any
exemption for any specific client whether MJA or otherwise.
14. On page 10 I refer to a question that the Registrar
of Members' Interests would ask me in the event that the matter
progressed to any formal proposal for a consultancy, in which
event I would have sought his advice.
15. By that point in the conversation I thought the position,
certainly so far as any potential consultancy was concerned, was
clear. That was the context in which all subsequent discussion
took place with, I believed, the representatives from MJA being
clear as to my position in that that I would, should the matter
be taken further, firstly be unable to seek to amend any legislation
on behalf of a party who was paying me and nor would I wish to
do so; and secondly that I would be entirely open and frank with
the Registrar of Members' Interests whose advice I would seek
and follow.
16. I was not aware that the two individuals were anything
other than young business people apparently lacking in experience
and knowledge of parliamentary procedures. I was endeavouring
to be helpful. The discussion was not expressed in formal or forensic
language, and we were not negotiating terms of an agreement, but
rather we were having a tentative discussion following which,
if MJA sought to do so, they would put their written proposals
to me, if I was then interested in progressing matters, a more
formal discussion could, if appropriate, ensue in conjunction
with advice from the Registrar
17. I was however impressed by the general proposal for
a potential exemption across the board on behalf of all new businesses,
for a limited period, which might stimulate and encourage economic
growth in the UK at this difficult time. As a former MP I was
particularly alert to what appeared to be potentially a sensible
and constructive idea. Having already made it clear that I could
not seek to effect any amendment on behalf of any particular party
and that all steps taken would need to be in conformity with the
rules and complete openness with the Registrar of Members' Interests,
we discussed possible steps that might be taken regarding a general
exemption, in the interests of business across the country as
a whole. I was naturally struck by the fact that the CBI and other
business organisations had concerns about the matter.
18. I was asked at a latter point in the meeting what
my normal consultancy rates are, and I provided the information.
I also indicated that were matters to progress and were consultancy
to be effect with MJA, which I would have assumed would relate
to advice on parliamentary matters, that it would be unlikely
to require more than one or two days per month for such general
parliamentary advice.
19. With regard to the specific matters arising from
the Hansard transcript which the Sub-Committee will raise with
me, and taking each in turn briefly, I would comment as follows:
(i) I did not express a willingness to seek to persuade any
members of the House of Commons Committee considering the Bill
to table the amendments sought by MJA. As I had made clear, any
steps I undertook would be dependant upon an affirmative response
from the Registrar of Members' Interests, and any steps taken
regarding an amendment could only have been on behalf of all new
businesses in any event, should the Registrar have provided confirmatory
response in this regard.
(ii) I did not express a willingness to approach John Healsey
MP, who I barely know, to give favourable consideration to the
proposed amendment. Had I spoken to him, and I would not have
approached him if the Registrar had said it was inappropriate,
I would have been similarly open with him in any such discussion
(in the event that the possible consultancy had progressed).
(iii) I did not express a willingness to persuade similarly
in relation to Peers in the House of Lords.
(iv) I did not express a willingness to approach civil servants
on the Bill team for the same purpose. It may have been considered
appropriate to enquire as to what they thought of a blanket amendment
but this, as with everything else, could only have arisen following
discussion with the Registrar.
(v) I did not express a willingness to circulate a draft of
the proposed amendment to peers who might be persuaded to move
it.
I note that under Rule 18 of the Code of Conduct it states
that the operation of the Register is overseen by the Sub-Committee
for Privileges on Lords' Interests and that the Registrar shall
consult the Sub-Committee when necessary. It further states that
the Registrar is available to advise Members of the House, and
that a Member who acts on the advice of the Registrar in determining
what is a relevant interest satisfies fully the requirements of
the Code of Conduct.
In summary therefore, whilst there was a certain amount of
informal language during the meeting, I believe I had made it
abundantly clear that, as is the case, I am very conscious of
the rules of the House, and have always abided by them. I consider
that the Sunday Times have grossly misrepresented the discussion
in their Article and that when I sought to clarify certain aspects
with their journalist the following day, they even misrepresented
the content of my then statement.
I have always been keen to put the interests of the House
uppermost and have acted on my personal honour. As set out in
the summary part of my letter of 11 February, last year I tabled
two amendments to the Local Transport Bill, and although I had
every belief that these amendments were appropriate, it occurred
to me that, because of my consultancy with First Group Plc, there
might be a perception of a conflict of interest and therefore
I did not take any steps to move the amendments.
In over 30 years as a parliamentarian, no imputation of impropriety
has ever previously been cast against me, and I am anxious to
have the opportunity to refute the allegations made and to take
all appropriate steps to clear my name.
Yours sincerely
Peter Snape
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Wednesday
11 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Following the session attended by Lord Snape yesterday, I
would be grateful for your clarification on the following points:
1 the letter from Susannah Street dated 4 March 2009
states that Lord Snape will have the opportunity to see the draft
transcript; can you kindly confirm when this is likely to be provided;
2 do you know what the likely timeframe is overall, regarding
this matter;
3 Lord Snape was concerned to learn during the session
that at least one member of the Sub-Committee was not aware of
his written submissions. Can you please confirm that all members
of the Sub-Committee will have considered the letters from Lord
Snape in connection with this matter, that is his letters of 29
January; 11 February; 17 February; and 5 March, 2009.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Wednesday
11 March 2009
1. Lord Snape and you will receive the transcript today,
I hope by about 5pm. I will email it to both of you.
2. We are interviewing the last of the four Lords next
Monday. I cannot comment on the timetable thereafter except to
say that the Sub-Cttee aims to complete its work as soon as practicable.
3. I am very sorry that Lord Snape got this impression
because all four of the letters were on the desks of each member
of the Sub-Cttee during the interview with him, and the letters
and the transcripts had been discussed from about 1.30 pm as a
preliminary to the questioning of Lord Snape. The Sub-Committee
has had eleven meetings before yesterday's, many of them all-day
meetings, at which they reviewed all the evidence and related
correspondence carefully and thoroughly. The Sub-Committee has
been scrupulous in its consideration of all the evidence.
However, given what you say in your email, I will ensure
that the Sub-Cttee is made aware of the point you make,
and that the letters from Lord Snape are recirculated to them
for their further consideration.
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Monday
16 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
To follow up from point 2 in your email of 11 March below,
I have been informed that Lord Taylor's session, scheduled to
take place today, did not in fact proceed. Are you able to let
me know why it did not proceed today, and when it is likely to
do so? I appreciate that the Sub-Committee aims to complete its
work as soon as practicable, once it has seen all four Lords.
We received the draft transcript of Lord Snape's session
last Thursday, and will provide some Notes on it within the seven
day period.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Monday
16 March 2009
I can confirm that it did not take place.
It would not be prudent of me to explain why it did
not take place.
His solicitors are Mark Stephens of Messrs FSI, who may be
able to help you on this. Alternatively, Lord Snape could ask
Lord Taylor himself.
Best wishes
Brendan Keith
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Monday
16 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for your response.
Do you have any indication of when Lord Taylor's session
will take place?
Regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Monday
16 March 2009
We have invited him for Monday of next week.
Letter to Ms Street from Michael Simkins LLP, Thursday
19 March 2009
Dear Ms Street
Re: Lord Snape
I write further to your email communication dated 11 March
2009 at 23:04 received 12 March 2009, enclosing the electronic
transcript of Lord Snape's evidence session with the Sub-Committee.
We note that this is a first proof only, and that the Clerks may
yet make small corrections to the transcript.
With regard to corrections, we have noted typographical amendments
required on page 10 under Q178 (regarding the quotation marks);
and page 51 under Q317 (the word "quite" is mistyped).
We have marked these accordingly as requested in your cover note
in red ink on a hard copy of the transcript which will be sent
to your office by courier today.
In addition, I enclose a Note of clarifications which we
request to be included within the transcript as appropriate, whether
by way of insertion or by way of footnote. We have put an asterisk
in the margin where any such clarifications are made.
We would request in any event that the attached note with
clarifications is circulated amongst the members of the Sub-Committee,
to assist with their deliberations.
We note that the questions start at no 154. We assume, but
would be grateful if you could please confirm, that the prior
questions relate to another evidence session.
If I can provide any further assistance at this stage please
do not hesitate to let me know. Meanwhile I would be obliged for
any further information you can provide as to the likely timeline
going forward.
Yours sincerely
Catherine Fehler
for Michael Simkins LLP
House of Lords Minutes of Evidence taken before Committee
for Privileges (Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests)
Lord Snape's clarifications:
1. Page 10—footnote. Re Q178, Chairman's reference to
Lord Snapes' submission of 29 January. Note Lord Snape's submission
of 29 January was provided prior to his receipt of the transcript.
(The initial transcript was provided under cover of Brendan Keith's
letter to Lord Snape dated 4 February 2009)
2. Footnote to Q217/Q222/Q226—please note following
references in the Hansard transcript to seeking advice; the rules
(ie the rules of the Code of Conduct): and/or to the Registrar.
(i)Page 7—"I'd need to take advice."
(ii)Page 7—"But I'd need to take advice."
(iii)Page 7—"I would have thought that's the way the
rules would be interpreted."
(iv)Page 7—"Although I worked for First Group which
is declared in the Register of Members' Interests."
(v)Page 8—"Although I will take advice from the Registrar
of Members' Interests."
(vi)Page 8—"I might well have to declare that you have
certain clients."
(vii)Page 8—"Yes, and put it in the Register."
(viii)Page 8—"I am sure that you went to the Register
of Members' Interests."
(ix)Page 9—"Provided I declare an interest first."
(x)Page 9—"Because I would be initiating legislation
for a company from which I am paid, which would be improper under
the rules of the House."
(xi)Page 10—"Well, the obvious question that the Registrar
would ask me would be."
(xii)Page 10—"I could well argue, I'm sure, under the
rules."
3. Q241—Footnote the quote from Baroness Manningham-Buller
in the penultimate line is not an actual quote from Lord Snape.
4. Re Q267—please insert after the words "a blanket
amendment provided I had been given the go-ahead" by way
of footnote or otherwise "by the Registrar".
5. Re Q282 and 283: Footnote. Re comment that Lord Snape knew
that "MJA" only had one client and Lord Snape's response
"No, sorry, my Lord,|..". See below references in the
Hansard transcript to MJA's clients.
(i)Page 5—(Man) "In particular, we've got one client|because
he was one of our Brussels clients."
(ii)Page 7—(PS) "I'd need to take advice, as these
people are your clients."
(iii)Page 8—(PS) "I might well have to declare that
you have certain clients involved in this particular field."
(iv)Page 20—(Man) "which initially we did as sort of
corporate communications for, um, all sorts of, er, clients."
(v)Page 20—(Man) "We have a number of|we have some
high-profile clients, reasonably high- profile clients like him,
and we have some businesses. We've done work for a couple of airlines."
(vi)Page 27—(PS) "I would quite like to meet your clients."
(vii)Page 28—(Man) "I think it is sort of an irritation
and when it is aggregated across many different businesses."
6. Page 51—Correction/Footnote: Top of page Lord Snape's
response under Q317 after the word "inaudible" add "or
that they had considered to be not relevant"—per letter
from Brendan Keith dated 4 February 2009 (copy attached). [Not
reproduced]
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Ms Street, Thursday
19 March 2009
Dear Ms Fehler
Thank you for your letter, annex and transcript, received
by email and hard copy today.
I will ensure that your note of clarifications is circulated
to the Sub-Committee.
I can confirm that the questionning of Lord Snape began at
question 154 and previous question numbers related to a previous
session/s.
I am sorry to say that I cannot give you any indication of
the likely timetable going forward.
Kind regards
Susannah Streer
E-mail to Ms Street from Michael Simkins LLP, Friday
20 March 2009
Dear Ms Street
Thank you for your response.
I would be grateful to hear from you or Brendan Keith regarding
the likely timetable going forward, as soon as the position on
that is clearer.
Kind regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Monday
23 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether the
session with Lord Taylor proceeds today, and if you have any further
information regarding the timetable generally.
Kind regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Monday
23 March 2009
The session with Lord Taylor scheduled for this morning did
not take place because Lord Taylor did not turn up. He sent a
"statutory declaration" which we devoted the morning
to reading and discussing.
A further and final invitation is going to him, for Wednesday
afternoon of this week, after which we will almost certainly proceed
in his absence.
Please treat this information with appropriate discretion.
Very best wishes
Brendan Keith
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Wednesday
25 March 2009
Dear Mr Keith
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether Lord
Taylor attended the session this afternoon, and if not whether
his session has proceeded in his absence.
I would also be grateful for an update as to the timetable.
Can you please confirm that Lord Snape will be advised in advance
prior to any publication of the transcript of his session, or
indeed of the Sub-Committee's report.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
E-mail to Michael Simkins LLP from Mr Keith, Wednesday
25 March 2009
Thank you for your e-mail.
Lord Taylor did not turn up this afternoon, and the Sub-Committee
had to proceed without him.
He had submitted on Monday a "statutory declaration"
in response to the allegations against him. The Sub-Committee
will have to come to a conclusion on the basis of this written
evidence alone.
As to timetable, I cannot be very helpful at present. The
Sub-Committee is considering each of the four cases separately,
on the merits of each case but will probably for convenience produce
a single report containing the four cases. The procedures require
the Sub-Committee before reaching its conclusions to share with
each of the four Lords those parts of its report dealing with
issues of fact. This part of the investigation and report is proceeding
well, and may be completed by some time next week, in which case
the draft of those parts of the report dealing with issues of
fact will be circulated to each Lord by the end of next week.
Once the Lord in question has considered these parts, and commented
if he so wishes, the Sub-Committee will proceed to reach its conclusions.
This last stage seems unlikely before the House returns after
the Easter recess.
Publication of the transcript of Lord Snape's oral evidence,
and other material, is not a matter for the Sub-Committee but
for the Committee for Privileges. Lord Snape will receive the
printed version of his evidence and the report of the Sub-Committee
at the same time as it is sent to the Committee for Privileges.
I do not know what the Committee for Privileges will do by way
of publication into the public arena, or when.
Letter to Lord Snape from Ms Street, Friday 3 April
2009
Dear Lord Snape
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),
states:
"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 let us have any comments or corrections
you wish to make 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.
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 Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Monday
20 April 2009
Dear Mr Keith
LORD SNAPE—COMMITTEE
FOR PRIVILEGES:
SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS
INQUIRY INTO
ALLEGATIONS PRINTED
BY THE
SUNDAY TIMES
ON 25 JANUARY
2009
Following my email today I am pleased to enclose a copy of
a letter from my client Lord Snape which I understand he has already
delivered (on his notepaper) to your office this afternoon.
The enclosures to that letter are enclosed herewith.
I will also be writing to you by email.
Yours sincerely
Catherine Fehler
for Michael Simkins LLP
Letter to Mr Keith from Lord Snape, Monday 20 April
2009
Dear Mr Keith
COMMITTEE FOR
PRIVILEGES: SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS'
INTERESTS
INQUIRY INTO
ALLEGATIONS PRINTED
BY THE
SUNDAY TIMES
ON 25 JANUARY
2009
Thank you for your letter dated 3 April 2009 with enclosed
documentation.
This letter contains my comments on the issues of fact in
relation to the Sub-Committee's current draft of its report, as
provided to me, in respect of the first 36 paragraphs; and my
comments on personal data which I consider should be redacted
from the transcripts, including the transcript of the evidence
on Tuesday 10 March 2009; the Hansard Transcripts as enclosed
with your latest letter (which conform with the Hansard Transcripts
previously provided, but in chronological order); and The Sunday
Times "version" as previously provided.
SUB-COMMITTEE'S
DRAFT REPORT
(FIRST 36 PARAGRAPHS)
In relation to the first 36 paragraphs of the Sub-Committee's
current draft of its report, I have the following comments:
2. Page 2, Footnote 3: we believe that the reference to paragraph
11 of the Report referred to in footnote 1 (which is p.1 of the
Sunday Times, 25 January 2009) is erroneous (we suspect
this should be a reference to Footnote 2).
3. Paragraph 19: I would reiterate that I have always been
careful to act in accordance with the Rules of the House and to
make it clear that I would do so. I have never had any intention
of breaching the Code, and I have made it clear that any steps
I would take must conform with the Rules.
ORAL EVIDENCE
TRANSCRIPT
In relation to the revised transcript of my evidence session,
I have the following comments:
(1)Page 25, footnote 2 (footnote to Q217): The text following
(iv) should read: page 7—"Although I worked for
First Group which is declared in the Register of Members' Interests"
(my emphasis).
(2)Page 39, footnote 6 (footnote to reply to Q267): The footnote
should read: "Comment by the witness: or otherwise by the
Registrar."
(3)Please add as a footnote under Q256 (on page 35): In the Sunday
Times transcript, their introductory summary concludes: "He
asks for the lobbying company's business proposal to be
put in writing". (my emphasis).
Please refer to this footnote also under Q316.
(4)Please add the following clarification by way of footnote under
Q315 (on page 50): The next sentence from the Summary section
of the letter dated 11 February 2009 states "Had they been,
I would have considered their communication and would have taken
no steps to advance the matter without seeking the advice of the
Registrar of Members' Interests".
(5)Re: Q321 page 55 please add a footnote as follows: My statement
dated 23 January 2009 read out to Mr Gillard stated "I said
that under the rules of the House I was unable to initiate any
legislation on behalf of an individual or company. However, I
did state that such an exemption, perhaps time limited for all
new start up businesses may be beneficial given the current economic
circumstances and undertook to investigate further". The
Sunday Times transcript records the latter sentence as
"that such an exemption perhaps time limited for all new
start up businesses may be beneficial in the current economic
circumstances and undertook to investigate such a possibility
further". However the Sunday Times article of 25 January
2009 states "However, he said he did think the reporters'
proposed exemption might be `beneficial' and undertook to `investigate'
further".
I enclose a copy of the transcript of the evidence session
on which it is marked with an asterisk where the above references
occur [not reproduced]. Also marked are suggested passages for
redaction (under data protection provisions and/or in the case
of the reference to Lynda Waltho, in light of the comments on
page 45 [of the original oral evidence transcript] indicating
that these passages would be excluded).
HANSARD TRANSCRIPTS
I enclose a copy of the Hansard transcripts enclosed with
your letter dated 3 April 2009 on which I have duly marked up
passages which I suggest should be redacted on the same bases
as above, and in the case of the conversation with my wife marked
as Telephone Call CD1 page 7 of 28 and page 8 of 28, on the basis
that she is not the subject of the investigation and there is
nothing in that conversation that could be construed as pertinent
to the investigation [not reproduced].
SUNDAY TIMES
TRANSCRIPTS
I enclose also a copy of the Sunday Times transcripts
which you previously provided to me, on which I have similarly
marked up passages for suggested redaction on the above bases
[not reproduced].
I note that the Sub-Committee's report so far as it concerns
me will be sent to me when the Sub-Committee has reached its conclusions,
which will probably occur later this week. I would request that
the report is provided to me and to my solicitor at the same time.
I note that it will be for the Committee for Privileges to consider
whether any of the evidence is to be published and when.
If I can provide any further assistance or if any questions
arise from the matters raised in this letter and enclosures, I
would be grateful if you could please let me and my solicitor
know as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Peter Snape
E-mail to Mr Keith from Michael Simkins LLP, Tuesday
21 April 2009
Dear Mr Keith
Thank you for your email yesterday. I spoke with your office
this morning and understand that you were in a meeting.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether the
other peers involved also responded to the letter of 3 April.
In the event that any of the peers were to appeal the Sub-Committee's
conclusions, would publication of the Sub-Committee's report be
withheld pending any such appeal?
Thank you for your assistance.
Kind regards
Catherine Fehler
For Michael Simkins LLP
Letter to Lord Snape from Mr Keith, Thursday 23 April
2009
Dear Lord Snape
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 and
your representatives 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
| 
