STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN CBE OF
***, DO SOLEMNLY
AND SINCERELY
DECLARE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. I am 79 years of age and have spent the last
30 such years as a member of this noble House. I make this declaration
in order to refute, on my personal honour and my oath, any allegation
that I have deliberately and knowingly breached the code of conduct.
My character has gone without blemish and my record in attending
the House over 30 years is exemplary and there has been no previous
attempt to impugn my good name. I am advised that the Sub-Committee
should take these matters of character in account in my favour,
both as making it unlikely that I would fail to act on my personal
honour and as supporting the credibility of this declaration.
2. I am not going to blow my own trumpet, I
have done enough of that in private, as is apparent from the Sunday
Times transcript. I am a loquacious old man with an advanced
degree of self satisfaction but one who is easily confused, and
who rambles on, not always to the point. But I have done the state
some service and have done nothing to justify a wealthy newspaper
playing a monstrous trick upon me and then condemning me throughout
the nation for it and selling extracts from my private conversation
to broadcasters around the world. The Sub-Committee on Privileges
is my only protection—I do not have Max Mosley's money,
or the time left to me in this life, to bring privacy and libel
actions against the Murdoch press, however much I might wish to
do so. Part of me just wishes to dispel this awful black cloud
that they have hung over me by leaving the Lords and enjoying
what time I have left. Nevertheless, I am determined to refute
the allegations that I have ever been corrupt or let down my fellow
members or deliberately disgraced the House. I have done nothing
wrong—indeed I have done nothing, other than airily banter
with agents provocateur and I would have done nothing had their
conspiracy to destroy me proceeded any further. I am neither a
saint nor a lawyer: I am a former educationalist who is sometimes
out of his depth and who made a mistake in not explaining the
difference between a parliamentary and non parliamentary consultancy,
but I have never acted with the intention of breaching the code
of conduct or doing anything unethical.
3. I have worked in local government and education
most of my life and I was made a life peer by Mr Jim Callaghan
in 1978 after the Taylor Report on Education. I informally but
frequently advised Mrs Thatcher when she was Secretary of State
for Education, and when she took over the reins of government
she invited me to introduce my report in the Lords. When I entered
the upper house all those years ago I told the PM that I would
make a full time job of it. I have devoted the rest of my working
life to being a working peer—this is my day job, unlike
so many of my colleagues who maintain their occupation in business
or law or other employment from which they draw substantial salaries.
It has been small comfort in the last month that I have been described
as one of the most regular attendees (148 days last year) although
this is usually a prelude to sniping at my expenses. It has been
an honour to serve regularly in the house for 30 years. I listen
and sometimes participate in debates, especially on educational
subjects, and do my best to advance the public interest wherever
I can.
4. But I have had to earn a living. Many people—especially
journalists—do not understand that service in the Lords,
unlike the Commons, is unpaid. The Sub-Committee will know that
there is nothing wrong with a peer taking consultancies and I
have of course done so. Initially I did this with an education
business and then with BAE, helping it change its modus operandi
in Malaysia, avoiding corrupt payments and establishing technical
colleges there and offering scholarships to staff to study at
British universities. It is an irony that those parts of the transcripts
in which I condemn bribery and corruption and talk about helping
BAE adopt an alternative approach are never mentioned. It is clear
from what I say that I abhor corruption and will have no part
in it.
5. A theme of my consultancies from the beginning
was that they had some connection with my area, the North West,
and in particular had operations that generated jobs in the North
West. This has always been my obsessive interest. When the Sunday
Times spiders spun their web of deceit, their first inducement
to me was to help bring several hundred jobs to the North West.
I am sure that the journalist initially said this in a telephone
call—one reason I wanted to have him cross-examined. But
in any event, it was the message I took away from his description
of his client's intentions. He knew exactly how to get me interested—and
I make no apology for being interested. The North West is my area
and I have been humbled and privileged to help its people. I have
never taken more than about seven consultancies so that they bring
me enough to live comfortably, without interfering with my main
work of attending in the House. I should add that I have always
been an enthusiastic supporter of parliamentarians declaring their
pecuniary interests. In 1996 when the register first came in,
it was voluntary—and I was one of the first to register.
When it became compulsory as part of the Nolan reforms, I have
always registered every interest and in timely fashion. I have
erred only once by not disclosing an interest in the course of
a debate—and I made an apology for that a few days later,
as soon as my oversight was pointed out. I have never put down
an amendment to a bill on behalf of a client, or arranged for
a client to have favourable treatment from any minister or civil
servant as will be verified by Hansard and by civil service records.
I have certainly advised clients from time to time about which
minister they should try to see or how they should lobby or how
to structure a campaign in a way that appeals to parliamentarians,
but I have never acted, in relation to a company that has paid
me, without disclosing any financial interest that existed.
6. In about 1988 I met Janet Robinson, an astute
and careful woman and an ex-government scientist who looks after
me in every business sense. She deals with all my consultancies,
ensures that they are declared (her signature is on the Register)
and does all my correspondence and bookkeeping. She is, in effect,
my business partner and I would never conclude any agreement without
her involvement from the outset. I rely upon her for negotiating
my interests and advising me in every business thing I do, particularly
in making and concluding consultancy agreements. It is perhaps
the most absurd thing in the charge the Sub-Committee levels against
me that I am accused of negotiating an agreement—I can barely
negotiate a corridor and I invariably arrange for Janet to do
any real negotiating or contracting. She serves me as a barrister's
clerk serves a barrister and she negotiates the terms of the contract,
which I later sign in reliance upon her advice. Everyone we know,
knows that I would not make any agreement or even contemplate
making an agreement before Janet has been brought in. This was
never, in my mind, a serious negotiation, as I shall explain.
If it got past the preliminary stage—the stage at which
I was really trying to decide whether I would even entertain an
offer from these people—then I would have called Janet in
to do the negotiations.
7. At the time this awful business arose, I
was contemplating retirement when I turned 80 later this year.
But shortly before Christmas I had a call from a seemingly educated
and pleasant man who said that he was a partner in a big Brussels
based PR company, MJ Associates. I had never heard of this particular
company but I had no reason to doubt his confident statement that
he was looking for a consultant. I made it clear from the outset
that I was willing to help some businesses for free, but that
I was only available for work I thought worthwhile. This all came
out of the blue and the one thing that interested me—in
December 2008, as we slid into a depression and the press was
full of stories about job cuts, was the prospect of helping someone,
against the odds, to start a new business and employ people. I
invited him to take tea with me in the Lords. Why not, and where
else?
8. Now we move into transcript territory. My
lawyers tell me that if this were a hearing in a court or a disciplinary
tribunal, the transcripts might well not be admitted in evidence
against me, because they were plainly obtained by the unlawful
actions of an agent provocateur. I am therefore—and contrary
to the promise to members in paragraph 25—being treated
unfairly by having my nose rubbed in a transcript that would in
other fair jurisdictions be excluded as a result of its coming
into existence through a massive deception and invasion of privacy.
That deception was not, it is true, by a state agency, but by
Rupert Murdoch and his minions, and in this case Rupert Murdoch
carries more clout than most state agents. This scoundrel Jonathan
Calvert—and his accomplices spent lengthy time and much
money on concocting a false story for the purpose of duping me.
They cleverly, over two meetings, tried every trick in the book
to interest me and then to attempt to make me agree to do something
wrong. Their entry into parliament for this deceptive purpose
with an unlawful surveillance device was a breach of the rules:
they did not declare their recording device but smuggled it in
by some means about which the Sub-Committee is remarkably incurious.
They must have fooled or bribed or outwitted the security guards
and the surveillance machines and brought the device into the
tea room and the luncheon room, places where I had every reason
to expect privacy. My lawyers can explain if permitted (although
the Sub-Committee has so far not admitted representations by counsel)
why this behaviour is a breach of privacy and a breach of Article
8 of the European Convention. No doubt it would be justified in
the public interest if it produced evidence that I had committed
a serious crime, but nothing of this sort was a prospect and indeed
the tapes verify that I committed nothing. There was no justification
for the journalists to deprive me of my Article 8 right and there
is no justification for this committee to approve their conduct
by accepting the transcripts in evidence. The only way in which
the Sub-Committee can mark its displeasure is to refuse to accept
them.
9. That is not only an argument of law but of
morality. If the right to privacy means anything, it means being
able to converse in a tea room of parliament—or a tea room
anywhere—without being made the victim of an elaborate deception
and having your conversation secretly recorded. To my astonishment
the Sub-Committee has thus far had no qualms at all about accepting
this evidence, and has not even taken the necessary steps to permit
my counsel to challenge it, and by so doing has shown utter contempt
for members' rights to privacy. If that attitude is shared by
the privileges committee, then let me say only this. There will
soon be rooms in this House filled with "undercover reporters"
intent on getting scoops. If the Sunday Times gets away
with it, why not? In fact, why not go further and bug the tea
rooms and lunch rooms and committee rooms—it is only one
further step. There will be no end to it and the Houses of Parliament
will become places for tabloids to use secret surveillance devices
to pick up gossip and conversations and so on. And that development
will be your fault, because in your anxiety, or your fear, to
support the Murdoch press, you fail to take a stand for civil
liberty and against secret surveillance in this House. Of course,
if the Sunday Times can get away with it, so can the police
and the security services and members of the Sub-Committee will
apparently have no objection to that either. By failing to exclude
these surreptitiously obtained transcripts, the Sub-Committee
has already sold the pass. Indeed, it has asked to invigilate
me on these transcripts in detail, in a procedure that, I am advised,
is in breach of my rights under Article 6 as well as Article 8
of the Europe Convention. I cannot enforce these rights in the
High Court, because this is a parliamentary procedure, although
I may well be able to go directly to Strasbourg and argue that
my rights have been infringed. That is for the future.
10. There is, as the Sub-Committee will understand
even if journalists do not, no prohibition whatsoever on peers
taking on consultancy work. Whether or not there should be such
a prohibition is a matter of opinion: obviously in light of the
unpaid nature of membership of the House of Lords it would mean
that only the wealthy would be able to take on full time work
in the House. The Code of Conduct explicitly recognises our rights
to take such work and requires that it be registered. It must
follow from this that there is nothing at all inappropriate in
a peer considering an offer of work made to him or exploring,
in some detail, what that work might entail. Inviting persons
who purport to be in a position to engage a peer for legitimate
consultancy work to meetings in the tea and luncheon room of the
House is unexceptional: it is done all the time. Ever since I
became a member of the House in 1978, colleagues have used the
meeting and dining faculties of the House to entertain guests
with whom they are in some direct or indirect financial relationship.
This has never been frowned upon.
11. I spoke to this journalist on 17th December
and the next day. We had a brief cup of coffee—the transcript
lasts 20 pages. He seemed, at first blush, to be a friendly and
pleasant person who was genuinely concerned to help a legitimate
client contribute to the UK economy. I took him at his word and
was comprehensively gulled by the scoundrel. I can now see how
he was all the time setting me up. He begins with the loaded question
(at page 3) "You already work for several people?" I
then explained that I only worked for the people that I wanted
to work for—those who in my view wanted me to help them
towards something worthwhile for the country. I probed him and
he lied pursuant to his dishonest script about working in Brussels
and having a client who wanted to set up a retail outlet. These
blandishments were carefully rehearsed—see the top of page
4. I wanted initially to understand whether this project was at
all worthwhile and pressed him on what the retail outlets were
for and he went back to his script and told me that they would
be employing people here to sell clothes. So far, so unexceptional.
12. Then, at page 5, we see the poison trickle
out. A financial relationship is dangled and the charlatan says
"what we would be looking at for you to do ... for you to
speak in the chamber on our behalf, ask parliamentary questions,
amend certain bits of the legislation and ... to meet ministers".
The response is "inaudible" but I believe I spluttered
in my coffee at these outrageous suggestions. I was immediately
put on my guard—this nice, educated and decent man was either
very ignorant or very bent. My immediate response was to ask him
"how did you get my name?" It was the inappropriateness
of the suggestions put to me that made me begin to question his
bona fides. He calmed me down with a flattering answer and I went
off on a long disquisition about my previous experience, getting
carried away at times over the next few pages but emphasising—and
this was the point of my lengthy expostulation—that I would
not be party and had never been party to doing anything inappropriate.
This was the point of my reference to my Malaysian experience
on page 7—that I would not be party to "giving backhanders
to ministers" but had helped BAE out of this mire of corruption
by suggesting legitimate ways in which they could help the people.
13. I berated the disguised journalist for his
naivety both as a matter of principle and as a matter of practicality,
pointing out, because I thought this guy would be more persuaded
by an argument based on practicality rather than morality, the
ineffectiveness of having people speak for you in the chamber.
The point I was making is really one of blinding simplicity: you
will get a better hearing from a minister if you get your message
across to him in an informal situation—eg "over a pie
and a pint" rather than in a formal meeting when he or she
is surrounded by civil servants. I probably got carried away a
bit with my examples but I was not on oath or under any duty to
speak precisely: I was in a private conversation with a man of
exasperating naivety, and trying to bring home to him how his
conception of parliament was mistaken. I was trying to make the
obvious point that in relation to individual corporate matters,
it was pointless to expect speeches in the chamber to have any
effect. This is my honest opinion. Because some of his requests
seemed to me unethical, I laid down very clearly my own standards—that
I was "a straight, honest operator" because "I
believe in telling the truth... my credibility means a great deal
to me because at my age I am not going to lose my credibility
just for a few pounds... so I will not do anything that I think
is dodgy or crossing that line".
14. It must be remembered that I thought I was
speaking to a partner in a big PR company, and I wanted to make
it plain at the outset, crystal clear in fact, that I would not
do anything unethical or tell his client other than the truth,
however disappointing for his clients my honesty might be. I might
break the truth to him gently or in a roundabout way, but I would
not flinch from telling him the truth, in the entirely hypothetical
event that I would agree to act as consultant. I made it clear
(page 10) "I am not seeking work. It is my intention of finishing"
and I used the phrase "it was because you just whetted my
appetite to see what it was all about", I have been condemned
particularly for using this phrase, "whet my appetite",
but in context all it meant was that when he first contacted me
he attracted my interest by stating that they wanted my help in
generating 500 new jobs, many of them in the North West. It had
nothing to do with money, as I made perfectly clear.
15. The disguised journalist soothed my concerns
"it's you helping us out with any problems that come up in
the process of setting up this retail chain" and I then rattled
on. The example I gave about ID cards obviously relates to a matter
of some detail on which I had been advising a client, but I certainly
had not "got it delayed" in terms of any statute or
statutory amendment. My descriptions of what should be done at
the top of page 11 refer to "you" i.e. the company that
employs me as a consultant, and not something that I would do
personally. When I say "what <au1,2>you do is you talk
to the parliamentary team... <au1,2>you point to them the
difficulties that the retailer will be having... <au1,2>you
get them to amend it that way," I was referring to the perfectly
proper procedure that companies adopt if they want changes in
legislation: i.e. they go to the people responsible and make their
submissions. As consultant I may advise them on how to make their
pitch and whom to go to see—but it is the company's pitch
and not mine. I do not play any part in the amendments process.
I was telling them "what <au1,2>you do is you meet
the minister, <au1,2>you meet the various people."
I was not suggesting that I would do this for any company. I would
help identify decision makers; certainly that is the role of a
consultant.
16. I admit that at this point I began to blow
my own trumpet and I see that I fantasised about chairing "various
cabinet meetings" which of course is nonsense. I did give
them what I think is quite a good example of the kind of person
who makes decisions by referring to Garry Mohammed's role—and
this was all in the context of trying to get across to this foolish
and naive man that experts in the public service are the persons
to talk to about the commercial implications of particular legislation,
and this was not a matter that would normally take up the time
of the House. I was really uncertain about this man, he seemed
at one level so decent, but on another level so ignorant. But
he was purporting to represent a client with important job prospects
for the UK. That is why I said (at page 12) "I'm interested...
and this is only an introductory kind of meeting today."
He had hooked me, in the sense of getting me interested in a legitimate
and worthwhile project but I was being careful and making it clear
that we were not negotiating seriously or at all: we were merely
introducing ourselves.
17. I said in no uncertain terms that he was
entirely wrong in certain things and I meant "wrong"
in a moral sense. He then backtracked and apologised for his naivety.
I said in my straight -talking way that he was ignorant and he
started to talk about money but in an attempt to turn away from
this premature discussion I pointed out that money was not the
question: "it's just whether I want to do it or not, that's
the thing. And you've got to whet my appetite to get me to come
on board." It has been one of the most vexing and depressing
things about the obloquy I have suffered as a result of this dishonest
enterprise that the Sunday Times has presented this statement
and publicised and sold extracts from their recording on the basis
that by "whet my appetite" I meant "offer me a
large sum of money." This, as my previous use of "whet
my appetite" explains, was related to offering others employment
in the North West—that was my appetite—not offering
me money. This is just one example of where this secret recording
has been so damaging and so unfair.
18. I go on to make it very clear that I have
not begun to negotiate anything. I pointed out that I needed much
more detail to see whether I could help them or whether I would
be wasting my time, which "gets less the older I get."
Furthermore, in an important section at the end of page 13, I
tell the man that I want more details about him to decide "how
legitimate you are and so on." As we are winding up, the
journalist tries to snare me with questions about arranging meetings
with ministers and I humour him but essentially the meeting had
finished on an utterly inconclusive note, i.e. that I would check
them out and consider whether I could do anything worthwhile for
them. I am humouring him ("yep, yep, yep") but essentially
telling them that as a consultant I might do research and tell
them what their chances were of being successful with their proposal.
At page 16 I make it clear that in giving this opinion "I
will not charge you for it." In other words, I would give
them initial help free of charge, if I thought them legitimate
and their proposal in the public interest. At page 17, I tell
them in terms that "I don't get involved in details... I
will give you general advice" based on my 50 years of working
with government departments. I really do get some satisfaction
about using the experience I have acquired, and I feel good about
"helping young people like you". If only I had known
the truth!
19. I am disturbed that the Sub-Committee has
focused on parts of this transcript which have been taken out
of context and do not convey the reality of this meeting, which
I never conceived would be treated as a negotiation. I really
think that the emphasis at page 13 ("more details about you—how
legitimate you are"), which was the initial end of the coffee
taking phase, gives the lie to this allegation. I further draw
attention to the transcript at the bottom of page 17 and top of
page 18 where we are walking to the exit and I emphasised to this
imposter that "I promise you nothing. That's number one and
I am absolutely, completely honest with you and I will tell you
"yes" or "no" on any scheme that you produce
as to whether I think you should run. You or your client will
make you own mind up after that... I'm a great believer in honesty
because if I have got decisions to make I can only make them if
I have the true picture." In other words, I would need much
more information to decide whether a) this fellow and his firm
were legitimate, b) this fellow's client was legitimate, and c)
whether the client was even worth helping, and if I decided to
do so I would, free gratis and for nothing, tell him the truth
about his project. It is interesting to see that right at the
very end, page 20, it was left for him to get in touch if he wanted
to, and in one of his few truthful observations his concluding
remark is "it's up to us to convince you, obviously."
He was reflecting what was my understanding and intention, and
what he had clearly picked up from my demeanour and body language
(not possible to discern from a transcript), and the general tone
of the meeting, namely that it was obvious that I was not at this
point prepared even to consider a negotiation until I knew a lot
more about him, his company and his client.
20. I am also concerned to draw the attention
of the Sub-Committee to the fact that the original transcript
supplied by the Sunday Times appears to have deliberately
omitted several of the many exculpatory statements I made during
the course of the two meetings with these journalists. By way
of example, I draw your attention to page 8 of the Sunday Times
transcript, which purports to document the end of the first meeting
I had with Jonathan Calvert. Rather than transcribe the contents
of the conversation at this point, which is clearly audible on
the recording that was passed to me, the entry on the transcript
reads: "Conversation continues as Lord Taylor takes Calvert
to the peer's entrance where they part." None of this conversation
is written down. Comments I made during this part of the encounter,
and which are documented from page 15 onwards of the Hansard transcript
that we subsequently received, include the unequivocal statement
I made that what I would do for a company who engaged my services
was to "do all the research and tell you what chances you've
got of being successful." I went on to say to Mr Calvert
that, if I decided to take on the consultancy that was being offered,
that because "I don't get involved in detail" what I
would do would be to "give [MJA] the general advice...and
give [MJA] some idea of the way things will go." No effort
was made to record my subsequent comment that "I promise
you nothing. That's number one." I went on to reiterate in
the firmest of tones that my role, if I accepted what was being
offered, would be to advise on the likely success of a proposed
scheme, and that in doing so I would be "absolutely completely
honest with you...You or your client will make your own mind up
after that." Such deliberate omissions lead me inexorably
to the conclusion that the intention, quite clearly, of the transcript
that the Sunday Times provided, was to set me up even more
than they had already done.
21. I would like to have been a "fly on
the wall" back at the Sunday Times office in Wapping
when they played this tape. They must have been disappointed that
their vast expense in setting up this sting operation had, in
my case, not produced any result. I had not been attracted by
their offers of money, I had not been persuaded that the exercise
was worth my while or was in the public interest. I had no intention
to follow up their approach—it would be down to them. I
imagine that they considered whether their game was worth the
candle. They had baited the hook but having sniffed it, I was
swimming away. It must have been a narrow decision as to whether
to follow up. But I guess that having spent so much time and money
on setting up the trap, they wanted to persevere. For that reason
they produced a more lengthy document, utterly dishonest in conception
and in its terms, but cleverly designed to persuade me that there
was a real matter on which I could, in the public interest, offer
my expertise. They say it was sent on 12th January. It was picked
up by Janet, who said to me that there was something odd about
it and that obviously although I could act as a consultant and
give them advice, I could not intervene in Parliament for them.
She said we should make no decisions. I did not read the text
closely or to the end, I am afraid—all I understood was
that there were things that I might help them about but that Janet
said I should be suspicious of them and what they might really
want, and make no immediate decisions. I did not focus on or understand
any of the details about BRS and I certainly did not discuss the
subject at the meeting on the 15th. I did not even check whether
the House had custody of the Bill (I have now established that
it did not).
22. Early in the New Year, Janet tried to find
out more about this PR company. Her researcher reported that there
was very little information available about them on the web and
out of interest I telephoned the number of the card that had been
given to me on December 17th. I was told that the managing director
was out but would call me back. This was further evidence of how
elaborate the Sunday Times pretence was. My research did
however establish that there was a conglomerate called Wong Hing
in China. The man (Calvert, pretending to be Thompson) did call
back and went on with a cunning explanation that most of their
work was in Europe and that was why so little information was
available. My technological knowledge is limited and I am afraid
that I accepted this dishonest explanation which reassured me
enough to accept his invitation to another meeting at which he
expressed the wish to bring a colleague who coincidentally bore
my name—Taylor. I agreed, but invited them to have lunch
with me as it is more difficult for me to get about and I prefer
to spend my day in the House. The explanation had been carefully
constructed, possibly with the assistance of lawyers or political
consultants, which again demonstrates the length which they were
prepared to go and the money that they had invested in trying
to entrap me. There is no doubt that they had a commercial motivation:
they have not only sold extracts from the secret tape they made
of me to broadcasters, but they have promoted the circulation
of their newspaper on the back of this so called "scoop".
23. I wish to point out, in relation to this
second meeting, that at no stage did they lure me into breaching
Code 4(c) which provides that members of the House:
"must never accept any financial inducement
as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence".
At no stage in these introductory discussions
did I accept any financial inducement, as a reward, or incentive
for exercising parliament influence or for anything else. Neither
meeting was, on my part, a serious discussion about any agreement,
much less an "acceptance".
24. The second meeting began with the woman,
who seemed at first to be a decent and competent executive, producing
the usual spate of lies to put me off my guard. However, I had
given some thought in the preceding weeks to this approach, and
was not reassured by their unconvincing explanation as to why
they did not promote themselves. I should say that at this meeting
I had at the back of my mind an episode some years ago when I
became the intended victim of a confidence trickster who persuaded
me to book the Cholmondeley Room for what he claimed was a charity,
but the police called me two days before to tell me of his previous
convictions and that he was currently under investigation by the
Fraud Squad. I cancelled immediately, but with some embarrassment.
I therefore had suspicions that these people may not have been
what they seemed.
25. I did tell the woman that my behaviour was
"unorthodox" but that of course is not the same as unethical.
I made it clear that her partner was naive and did not understand
the way parliament or the civil service worked. I went off at
various stages on a bit of a roll about my background and experience.
I have thought about my tendency to sound off in this way and
my assistant Janet has discussed it with me. I have to accept
that I am a somewhat lonely old man without regular companionship,
and that I may well have used this occasion as an opportunity
to discourse to company, and simply to talk very loosely, perhaps
envisioning myself as the powerful politician I might once have
liked to be. In this sense I allowed an element of fantasy to
enter into what I assumed was an entirely private occasion, over
a meal for which, of course, I was paying. It may be that I was,
in my own mind, using these two people as sounding boards for
my own benefit. I boasted about myself extensively and somewhat
exaggerated my abilities and political powers and my closeness
to ministers and senior civil servants.
26. Nonetheless I made it clear that I would
not dream of doing anything wrong and again tried to explain why
it was necessary for their client to approach civil servants and
ministers directly rather than hire spokespeople to make speeches
in the House. I remained sceptical about these two but was again
reassured by their reference (page 9) to Trevor Hemmings, a close
acquaintance who shares an interest in dyslexia. This was another
devious and despicable lie, but it took me in to the extent that
I was prepared to suspend my judgement a little longer. At the
beginning of this meeting, I was genuinely in two minds and my
suspicion is reflected in a number of aspects of the conversation.
At this point, as they played their Trevor Hemmings trick, I was
lulled into a sense of reassurance. I relaxed and began virtually
to soliloquise about the way in which companies should interact
with local councils. I repeated much of what I had said at the
first meeting to the woman, who was rather charming and I'm afraid
played on my age and susceptibility. I told her about assessing
chances of planning success and gave her the lecture—it's
quite true, of course—about politicians being more open
minded "over a pie and a pint" rather than when surrounded
by their "Sir Humphreys" who are planning to persuade
the minister of the prejudgment they have already made. I was
not of course suggesting that I was open to receiving payment
for influencing ministers over a pie and pint in the dining room.
This was never my intention. There is nothing sinister about my
advising them to meet ministers informally rather than formally—it
is simply the truth that all lobbyists understand—it, is
merely a reflection of the way in which, civil servants, when
present, manage to control ministers and inhibit their imagination.
27. I point to my determination (at page 15)
to get across to these people that "I am very very aware
of the credibility that I achieved in over 50 years... I am not
going to put myself in an embarrassing situation or do anything
that I think is illegal or use my position in any way for monetary
gain. After all these years I am not going to do that. I will
work within the rules." So far, so obviously good—I
am getting across to people whom I do not really trust that there
is no way in which I will accept money to do anything illegal
or unethical. I go on to say "but rules are meant to be bent
sometimes" which has been the other quote for me that has
been endlessly replayed on radio and television and in newspaper
headlines. Again, it is taken entirely out of context. The saying
that "rules are meant to be bent sometimes" is an old
Northern saying and is probably common in many other geographical
areas. In fact, I am told that the hero of the book "To Kill
a Mockingbird", Atticus Finch, who is fiction's most ethical
and admired lawyer, instructs his daughter with exactly this phrase
"rules are meant to be bent sometimes" to cater for
justice in special situations. That is precisely the way I used
the phrase. In context and not in isolation. This is all part
of a passage in which I insist that I will never be party to breaking
the rules that the Sub-Committee has wrongly accused me of breaking.
I make it clear that I am not going to accept money as an incentive
or reward for doing anything improper.
28. At page 16: I make it clear that everything
is hypothetical and we are not negotiating any agreement:
"I promise you nothing and will make no
promises... if I decide to work for you of course".
The man, no doubt disappointed that his trick
hasn't worked, says "you still haven't..." and I make
clear "because we (I am thinking of Janet) haven't decided
yet. And it is not just a question, my dear friend, of you inviting
me to join you it is whether I want to or not." They still
try to tease me into making some other statement that can be taken
out of context and broadcast but I am wary and offer them lunch.
29. The prospect of a free lunch obviously excites
the agents provocateur: the greedy woman orders halibut prawns
and beef and several glasses of wine and we engage in minor chitchat.
I pay—they don't. But I am still bothered about what they
are really up to and who they really are. Their persistent questions
about my contacts and their desire to meet various people are
starting to make me more suspicious. They stroke my ego and ask
about my favourite holiday places and so on—no doubt to
put me off my guard. The woman proceeds to lie about their so-called
firm and all the staff they have in London. In fact it was this
lie (at page 34) which revived my suspicions, because I had been
told that they were not detectable on the internet. I do recall
repeating my story about BAE, to reinforce the position that I
was not in favour of anything corrupt. The man at page 38 tries
to come to a crunch but I am not prepared to make any agreements—
"first of all, I'd like to know who I'm working with"
and I didn't believe that these people had a company operational
in London. I let them know that I was interested in sorting out
problems and that I was not satisfied that they were being open
and honest with me and at page 40 I tell them that "you might
even be a reporter from one of the newspapers in disguise."
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
30. They raise the question of their website,
no doubt to see whether that is bothering me. I detect some holes
in the woman's story, and ask some questions about her while she
visits the lavatory. These concerns read me to try to push them
into giving me information upon which I can make up my mind whether
to have anything further to do with them. At page 50 I come back
to the nagging question in my mind as to how they ever decided
to come to me. That is when I decided to push them—I had
in my mind that the only way to bring this business to a conclusion
was to pretend that we had done a deal and then see what they
said. I really thought that their messing me around had some ulterior
object. So I thought I would bring them to the crunch, pretend
we had an agreement and see what they did. That is why I pretended
at page 51: "we've agreed that we're doing the deal... when
do we officially start? When do you want to start? Just name a
figure. We've said 10 are you happy about that?" This elicited
a statement from the woman that the client didn't worry about
cost and the man wanted to know all about a lunch with Peter Mandelson.
31. I called their bluff by telling them that
the agreement would be notarised by Janet who would put it in
the Declaration of Interests "so that it's open and above
board." At this point they seemed to lose interest—for
my part, I at this point had heard enough and I asked for their
card to get something concrete from them as I was not satisfied.
I was not prepared to act for a company that they could not persuade
me was going to be worthwhile and they were certainly ignorant
and hinting at having me do things that would have put me in breach
of the Code. They became very evasive when I asked about their
corporate operations in the UK arid about their parent company.
I do know a little about public relations and by this point they
struck me as poseurs. We had an inconsequential conversation about
education—I really was not interested in dotting any "i"s
or crossing any "t"s about any deal or any relationship.
We did not have one, and I know that had they continued their
conspiracy, we never would. I would not have acted for them and
their client, at least until I was given further information about
them. I happily chatted about their children's education, and
when the woman said "you must let us take you somewhere"
I said hastily "no I never go out, actually." I really
did not want to see them again. I played along with their polite
requests to "bounce ideas off you" but I maintained
my suspicions and we chatted about the advantages of Eurostar.
I made no arrangements to see them again—the last twenty
minutes of the meeting rather fizzled out.
32. Nevertheless, my suspicions and, I must
admit, my curiosity remained after the meeting. I was not prepared
to enter into any relationship with these people, but I did feel
the need to know what they were about—and why they had come
to me in particular. I was conscious of the previous attempt years
before to involve me in a sting and I began to wonder what was
behind this obviously expensive and carefully thought out effort.
Was I really going to be of assistance in progressing this enterprise,
or were they playing me for a sucker who might lend his name to
a money laundering front for drugs (I vaguely remembered a case
involving someone called Howard Marx whose range of frock shops
were a front for drugs).
33. Perhaps it was not the best decision I have
ever made, but I chose to follow up the meeting with a call to
Mr Calvert. Despite the appalling invasion of privacy involved
this call was, inevitably, also recorded by the Sunday Times
and I have very recently been sent a copy of their transcript
(which comes in the "Extra recordings" document). In
light of the scandalously edited Sunday Times transcripts
of the undercover recordings in the House of Lords I have no reason
to trust this one. Nevertheless, it is all I have received so
I will give it the undeserved benefit of the doubt. When making
the call to Calvert I thought that if I gave him the impression
that I was taking his proposal seriously and carrying it through,
he would be forced to either come clean with his deception or
produce his client and finally establish his legitimacy. I told
him that I had arranged a meeting with Yvette Cooper for the following
week. I also tested him by asking him for further information,
both on the Business Rates Supplement Bill (the name of which
I couldn't even remember) and on his own company. I wanted to
see what he could come up with. I also tried to put a little pressure
on by reminding him on page 7 about the money he had agreed to
pay, and asking him whether he was sure about it. On page 8 I
attempted to flush out the client by asking to meet him.
34. I was somewhat surprised to receive a full
and impressive business brief from Calvert just a few days later.
It seemed so genuine that I thought to myself that I had perhaps
misjudged these people. Little did I know the remarkable lengths
the Sunday Times were prepared to go to in their attempts
to dupe me. Since my previous efforts had produced no certain
result, I decided that I would `up the ante' further to finally
bring this matter to a head and see whether they took fright or
flight. I therefore left a message claiming to have discussed
their case with Peter Mandelson and Baroness Andrews and that
I would be meeting Yvette Cooper and local authority teams. I
did this so that they would think (wrongly, of course) that I
really had moved and that they would have to either abandon their
efforts or produce their client and establish his legitimacy.
I said that I would be meeting Cooper later that day. I said this
to pretend that their names and their client's name was being
fed into a political and bureaucratic process.
35. Shortly afterwards—indeed, within
a day or so, my trick worked to the extent that another reporter
from the Sunday Times telephoned to tell me that it had
been "an undercover job". He accused me of agreeing
to work for them for £10,000 per month and to have actually
done so by meeting Mandelson and Cooper. I think this must be
the basis of the charge against me under 4(c) of the Code of Conduct.
36. Of course, it is all ridiculously wrong.
I never met Mandelson or Andrews and I was pleased to tell the
Sunday Times that I had not done so and was playing their
reporters along. I made it clear that "I've signed nothing
or agreed nothing. I've approached no one at all about it... I
was conning two reporters." I made it clear to the Sunday
Times that "I've not taken a penny and would never take
a penny" and that "it is improper of them to come under
false pretences." The Sunday Times of course did not
publish these comments. I made it clear that my comments about
meeting ministers and senior civil servants were in the context
of going through the appropriate channels and the usual channels.
Again this explanation was not published.
37. I turn now to the charge that has been devised
by the Sub-Committee, acting (as my lawyers have pointed out)
both as prosecutor and judge. Obviously I am unhappy with this
position, I am accused of 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
fail to act "on his personal honour" in breach of paragraph
4(b) of that code. I have a number of points to make about this
charge:
(i) In the first place it appears to be devised
to accuse me of committing an offence which is not in fact encompassed
by the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is very clear. It
says that a peer "must never accept any financial inducement
as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence".
It is very plain from these transcripts that I never did accept
a financial inducement and I never did exercise parliamentary
influence on behalf of this supposed company. That should be the
end of the matter. However the Sub-Committee, straining itself
to find a basis for condemning me, has decided to use paragraph
4(b) as a means of incriminating "negotiation". My lawyers
tell me that this is unacceptable and further evidence of the
unfairness of the Sub-Committee. I am sorry to hear that. I am
not guilty of a breach under 4(b) and I have always acted on my
personal honour. I did not "negotiate" for this financial
deal.
(ii) The absurdity of this charge is plain from
the detail. Where in these 80 pages of transcript do I ever speak
about "conferring a two year exemption for new businesses
from the provision in the Rate Supplement Bill allowing local
authorities to impose an additional 2% charge on the business
rate on properties over £50,000 in value"? It is nonsensical
to suggest that this was ever discussed let alone that I ever
agreed to support this proposition. It was certainly set out in
the cleverly devised five page memorandum, but "the Hansard
transcript" which is the subject of the charge (namely the
first two meetings) was before I ever received that. The Hansard
transcript in fact discloses that nothing was said about any "additional
2% charge on the business rate on properties over £50,000
in value" and I invite the Sub-Committee, which has drawn
up this charge and is proceeding to judge me on it, to point out
any page of the Hansard transcript that refers to this 2% charge
on the business rate on properties over £50,000 in value.
I am old and my eyes are not the best but I have read this wretched
transcript time and again and I find no reference to any amendment
that would confer a two year exemption for new businesses from
the provision in the Business Rate Supplement Sill etc etc.
38. I have already explained that these were
private conversations conducted in good spirit over tea and lunch
and that I am an elderly man who is prone to speak at some length
and on occasions boastfully and may get carried away and exaggerate
from time to time. I imagine most people do in private conversations
and I wonder how many members of the Sub-Committee could read
without blushing a transcript of all their conversations that
had been secretly recorded. However what I insist is that these
conversations were entirely preliminary: they were not, as far
as I was concerned, serious negotiations, let alone an agreement
or acceptance for the purposes of Code 4(c). They were merely
an exploration on my part of an unusual, possibly wrong but also
possibly valuable approach by people purporting to be from a large
Brussels PR company with a client who was proposing to launch
a job creation business. I had absolutely no intention, at any
time of the Hansard transcript or later to enter into an agreement
or to create legal relations with people whom I had not yet checked
out.
39. The committee has asked various questions
arising from their interpretation of parts of the tape. Let me
make clear now the following:
(i) I have never invited any minister to the
peer's dining room for a meal or to talk to me in the peer's guest
room, when acting on behalf of any client or in any context where
I may expect a financial reward from such invitation or meeting.
(ii) I have obviously chaired the committee that
led to the Taylor report and I have discussed educational matters
with Mrs Thatcher both when she was a minister and when she was
Prime Minister. Obviously I have not chaired Royal Commissions
and any suggestion that I did was a slip of the tongue. I was
once the National President of the Education Authorities of the
United Kingdom and none of the myriad of opportunities I have
taken to advise in relation to education was other than in the
public interest.
(iii) I have indeed spoken to members of the
Labour Party when they were in opposition about their role in
a future government. This has included general discussion and
advice about the respective role of ministers and civil servants.
These discussions were not clandestine and were entirely appropriate
in the light of my many years of experience at Westminster. I
did speak about this to Tony Blair although I think the context
in which I mentioned this was a boastful and somewhat exaggerated
one. I was embellishing my qualifications and history of parliamentary
service.
(iv) I have worked with Experian since 1999,
keeping it informed of any developments that may be of interest
to their business and advising on the appropriate people to speak
to in government and civil service. However, most of the work
for Experian is entirely unconnected with parliament and I do
not see this as a parliamentary consultancy. Any success they
have had over the years in amending draft legislation has been
a result of direct interaction between the company executives
and the legislatures I have never myself secured or attempted
to secure any amendment to any bill "quietly behind the scenes"
or otherwise. The reference to Capricorn "experience"
in the Hansard transcript is an error. Experian Ltd is a company
that provides information on the financial status of businesses
and individuals and my relationship as a consultant to this company
has always been declared in the Register of Lords Interests. I
have never spoken in the House on any matter concerning Experian
Ltd and I have had no need to declare my interest in the House.
(v) I have never secured any amendments by persuading
"the parliamentary team, the draftsmen and so on" to
amend a draft bill on behalf of my clients. I have never approached
legislatures directly. I have occasionally advised clients on
the appropriate people they should approach themselves directly
and sometimes advised on when and whether it would be appropriate
to make such an approach. As I have pointed out above, the transcript
records me saying "you do it quietly behind the scenes"
and "you" talk to the parliamentary team" and "you
point out to them the difficulties". I was doing no more
than giving a flavour of what a company can itself do quite properly,
if it has concerns about forthcoming legislation. My words have
clearly been misunderstood.
(vi) I have never, obviously, chaired a cabinet
meeting because I have never been in cabinet. This reference was
an exaggeration—a momentary flight of fancy—in the
course of a genial conversation. I am however well aware of how
cabinet works, as you would expect given my long period of service,
and I am well aware who are "the decision makers" in
government departments. This is surely uncontroversial. While
I might share elements of my knowledge and experience with a client,
or anyone else who might ask me and listen to my answer, I would
never put any decision maker in a compromising position or act
against the public interest.
(vii) The Code of Conduct does not prohibit members
being paid as consultants and does not put a limit on consultancy
fees. As I have been a member of the House of Lords since I was
49 years old, well before my retirement age, I have needed to
work as a consultant to earn income and the rules have always
permitted me to do so. My consultancies have been declared and
recorded on the register of interests as required by the Code
of Conduct, and voluntarily before the Code of Conduct. I have
once received a sum as large as £100,000 per annum for consultancy
work, which was intensive and had nothing at all to do with parliament.
In any event many of the services are provided free of charge
or to charities at my own expense if the project on which they
are working "whets my appetite".
(viii) It is certainly the case, and I fully
accept, that the language I used in this private conversation
recorded by the Sunday Times suggests that I might be able
to arrange meetings with Yvette Cooper and Jack Straw, but that
was not my intention—I said this in order to flush out the
real reason why they were approaching me and to bring them to
the point. The meetings with the ministers were a fabrication
on my part in order "to up the ante" and either scare
them off if they were tricksters or draw them out if they were
not—they were clearly withholding something. And it would
essentially produce the real owner of this strange company for
me to meet. In the context of my scepticism about MJA, and in
this private conversation before any relationship had been entered
into, let alone money changing hands, my false statement was in
no way a breach of the Code of Conduct. I have to say that I do
not consider that approaching ministers, having explained that
I am working with a certain company, having declared my interest
and suggesting that the company has some reasonable points to
make and would like to meet the minister could be other than proper.
However, I have myself never approached a junior or a senior minister
or a civil servant and asked them to meet with a client. I have
of course indicated to clients with which appropriate ministers
they might make contact.
(ix) I have Janet Robinson, who is full time,
and I have a part time researcher, who does not usually work in
the House of Lords. Any additional research is carried out for
me by the companies themselves.
(x) I have worked at Westminster for many years
and obviously have contacts and discussions with various members
of governments and civil servants. I have not however approached
such figures on behalf of a client as a result of any financial
incentive. I have sometimes approached them for reasons of public
interest.
(xi) I have spent many years in the House of
Lords but before that my work in education led me to have various
good relationships with members of that department. I have had
the opportunity to speak to civil servants about the content and
legislation particularly in the education area and I have commented
when I thought it right as a matter of public interest. I have
never, however approached civil servants about the content of
legislation on behalf of a client. I have advised clients from
time to time on the appropriate department to address its concerns.
(xii) I have always worked within the rules,
although I am a great believer in interpreting them with commonsense
rather than legalistically. I think everyone agrees that there
can be exceptional cases and that over proscriptive rules can
do more harm than good. I have not broken the rules or, to my
knowledge, bent them. I have pointed out already that the context
in which this reference appears in the transcript: the phrase
is proceeded by my statement that I will absolutely not put myself
in an embarrassing situation or do anything that is illegal or
use my position for monetary gain. I made it very clear to Calvert
at our first meeting that "I am not going to lose my credibility
for a few pounds".
(xiii) I accept (again) that my statement about
select committees and Royal Commissions was an exaggeration in
a private conversation after I had become somewhat carried away
with my tame and attentive audience.
(xiv) I do indeed have a strong relationship
with several government departments, albeit not with "most
of them". This is a minor exaggeration.
(xv) There was no detailed discussion of the
Business Rates Supplement Bill and it was only referred to in
passing. I had not decided to work with MJA and I was planning
to do further checks on their authenticity and reputability. Obviously,
in the hypothetical event that these checks were positive, I would
have been willing to direct them to the appropriate government
department so they could present their concerns about the legislation
in question. This would have been perfectly proper and within
the rules of the House. I would never have contemplated talking
to the policy team myself or seeking to amend legislation "behind
the scenes"—this is something that I have never done
and certainly not something that I would begin to do at the age
of 80.
(xvi) I deny that any deal had been finalised
with MJA. No money exchanged hands and nothing was ever done by
me on MJA's behalf. They mentioned £10,000 and at one point
I pretended that the deal was done and said more or less let's
get on with it: they backtracked; it was part of my test of whether
they were genuine. I really wanted to find out what they were
about—they seemed to be good people but so naive about what
was and what was not permissible that their motives were hard
to ascertain. I guess I am a fairly open and straightforward north
countryman who imagines that others are honest. I was still determined
to check their authenticity and repute and I might have been prepared
in that hypothetical case to work with them. However this stage
was never reached. The Hansard transcript records no more than
preliminary discussions at which there was never on my part any
attempt to enter into legal relations.
40. I wish sincerely to apologise to all my
fellow peers for what turns out to be my gullibility and indeed
stupidity. But I assert that I have never acted against my personal
honour or deliberately in breach of the Code of Conduct: I am
confident in my own conscience that I have at all times followed
the rules and directions of the House and put the public interest
first, and that has certainly been the case in my 31 years as
a member. I should add that I have been the victim of a notorious
entrapment: that I have been made a laughing stock up and down
the country by the Sunday Times exploitation, for their
own financial reward, of their secretly and unlawfully conducted
taping. I have been branded as corrupt and my reputation has been
wrongly destroyed. I do not have the time left to me or indeed
the financial backing to bring actions for libel and or breach
of privacy: I am reliant on my colleagues to defend me. I am deeply
sorry for the foolish exaggerations.
41. I would like to say two things, finally,
to the Sub-Committee. Firstly that I hope that you recognise that
I have been the victim of a vendetta by a powerful force in this
country which has stripped me of my privacy and used my own loose
language, out of context, to destroy my reputation. I have been
made to feel like Malvolio at the end of "Twelfth Night"—exposed
to the world as a knave and a fool, although now with some insight
into the faults which made me an easy prey to these dishonest
sensationalists. I have suffered greatly in the past weeks both
in mental anguish (which has affected my health) and financially:
my days as a consultant are over and I have had to expend a hefty
five figure sum on retaining lawyers to deal with all the fallout
from the media enquiries generated by the Sunday Times.
That newspaper, in pursuance of its vendetta has several times
threatened to publish completely false "follow up" stories,
and my solicitors have had to deal extensively with these enquiries,
to show the stories to be false. Other newspapers have done the
same thing, circling over me like vultures. I have myself partly
to blame, of course, but they would not have come after me if
I had not been a member of the House and if my privacy had not
been invaded in the first place.
42. But more importantly I do most humbly and
sincerely wish to apologise to all my fellow peers, because in
the cause of pillaring me, the press have cast aspersions on utterly
blameless colleagues and on the House and its work in general.
I have explained, and I reassert, that I have had no intention
to breach the code and I am actually innocent of the charge that
the sub-committee has formulated. But I am guilty of boasting
and exaggerating and with hindsight I realise I should have handled
my suspicions about these people in a completely different way.
My worst mistake, I think, was in not making clear to them at
the outset the difference between being a consultant and being
a parliamentary consultant, and clearly explaining to them what
a peer was allowed to do for them in each capacity, if ever a
financial relationship were to be negotiated. That said, I can
only repeat on my oath that I have never accepted, and would certainly
not in this case have accepted, a financial inducement for attempting
to alter or affect parliamentary legislation.
AND I make this solemn declaration conscientiously
believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions
of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.
Declared this 23 day of March 2009
at Tuckers Solicitor's
39 Warren Street, London
before me: F.S. Baard.
Solicitor
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, JANET MARIE ROBINSON OF
*** DO SOLEMNLY
AND SINCERELY
DECLARE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. I have worked with Lord Taylor of Blackburn
CBE since November 1990 as his assistant and the person who deals
will all of the business side of his affairs, from negotiating
terms in relation to any retained advisor roles that he has undertaken,
to ensuring that his declarations are compliant with the rules
of the House both in their terms and spirit and managing any fees
that he is paid for consultancy work. I also run his diary, do
research, prepare and file quarterly VAT Accounts and prepare
his annual tax returns for the Accountant.
2. I have had the opportunity of reading the
Statutory Declaration of Lord Taylor and am able to say that so
far as matters are within my own knowledge, that they are accurate.
In particular, our division of labour as set out in paragraph
6 is correct, as are the reservations which Lord Taylor mentions
that he had about the agents provocateur from the Sunday Times.
It is fair to say that I myself had misgivings about their approach
to Lord Taylor, but there was nothing solid that I could put my
finger on—just one of those occasions when something doesn't
seem quite right. Certainly the approach, as it purported to be,
from a lobbying company, was not something which Lord Taylor has
ever undertaken in the past. He has always steered clear of working
for lobbyists. I had discussed my unease about the approach with
Lord Taylor on several occasions after contact was first made,
and before the Sunday Times revealed themselves. As will
be seen from the Register of Members Interests, all of his consultancies
have been directly with the companies concerned, and not via intermediaries.
3. As a result of a request from Lord Taylor,
my son, who undertakes research and technical work on behalf of
Lord Taylor, investigated the fictitious PR company and Wong Hing
(their supposed client). A quick Google search reveals that there
is in China, apparently based in Ningbo, a real and substantial
conglomerate of that name. Lord Taylor could not remember the
name of the individual who was said to be behind the company and
nothing was revealed about the mysterious "Emerald Corporation"
which, according to the journalist's tale, was based in Hong Kong
but backed by a large regional conglomerate.
4. One point I should make expressly clear is
that at no time did Lord Taylor ask me to entertain negotiations—as
would have been his invariable practice—nor did Lord Taylor
ask me to enter into arrangements with either the company, any
principal or indeed the PR agency "MJA Associates."
This corresponds exactly to Lord Taylor's position that he had
not agreed to undertake any work for any party in connection with
this approach. Neither did he ask me to notarise any agreement,
or to prepare a declaration of interest, as he usually would if
an arrangement was going to be progressed further. Clearly the
bluffing described at paragraph 31 of Lord Taylor's statement
was just that.
5. I should also draw to the Sub-Committee's
attention the fact that Lord Taylor does not use the internet
and therefore his emails actually come to me in Kent. This arrangement
means that all emails in this matter sent to Lord Taylor from
"MJA" came to me at home, rather than directly to Lord
Taylor. As you can imagine, this set-up leads to attendant delays
in Lord Taylor seeing his emails. While of course, the emails
in question here would eventually have been seen by Lord Taylor,
I cannot say with any certainty when. Lord Taylor had expressed
a desire to remind himself and refresh his memory about the people
he was meeting, but may not have had the opportunity to do so
by the time of the meeting.
6. When I first started working with Lord Taylor
I suspected that he might be suffering from a mild form of dyslexia,
although he has never admitted as much to me—I suspect he
has been too proud. With this in mind, in order to be sure that
he understands fully any important communications, it has always
been my practice to read the documents to him out loud, in addition
to forwarding hardcopies.
7. An email was sent by "MJA" to Lord
Taylor arriving with me on 12 January, after the first meeting.
It was not picked up by Lord Taylor until the morning of the second
meeting, the 15 January. The second email, which enclosed a briefing
note on the Business Rates Supplement Bill, arrived after Lord
Taylor had had the second meeting with the undercover journalists.
If matters had progressed, the emails would have been read to
him, but as we never reached that stage this did not happen. Importantly,
I never read the briefing note to Lord Taylor.
8. There is one other matter that I wish to
raise, which is that the two emails sent to Lord Taylor by the
Sunday Times did not all stay in my inbox. I noticed that
two emails, I think I can best put it, "evaporated"
in that they were not deleted by me but they ceased to be in the
in-box after a period of time and so I could not forward them.
I raised this recently with Mr. Stephens who advised me that he
has a client that uses such technology and he was aware that this
was technologically possible.
AND I make this solemn declaration conscientiously
believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions
of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.
Declared this 23 day of March 2009
at Tuckers Solicitor's
39 Warren Street, London
before me: F.S. Baard.
Solicitor
|
