House of Lords - Privileges Committee

The Conduct of Lord Moonie, Lord Snape, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn - Privileges Committee Contents

LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN CORRESPONDENCE

Letter to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Baroness Prashar, Monday 26 January 2009

Dear Lord Taylor of Blackburn,

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 Truscott and Lord Snape.

I invite you to write to me putting your side of the story in response to the Sunday Times allegations. This is a preliminary step, and you will be given further opportunities to respond. We have asked the Sunday Times to submit to us evidence supporting its claims, and we will wish you to take the opportunity to comment on this evidence once it has been received.

You may find helpful the enclosed guidance for Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint has been made.

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Prashar

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Saturday 31 January 2009

Dear Baroness Prashar

SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGATIONS—YOUR INVESTIGATION

Thank you for your letter of 26 January 2009.

I am pleased that you are proposing to investigate the allegations made by the Sunday Times and the Times, and am most grateful for the opportunity to deal most fully with these, and with other allegations that have surfaced this week.

The Sunday Times is threatening further allegations this weekend, and I wish to respond to their campaign of vilification. However, as I am sure you agree, fairness demands that I should have sight of the Sunday Times evidence before providing my response to it. So, I would like to await delivery of that evidence, and perhaps be given a week following receipt to present my detailed response.

I can say at this point that having belatedly taken legal advice, I am confirmed in my view that none of my actions in relation to matters in which I have had an interest have breached either the criminal law, or the Rules and Codes of Parliament, and I look forward to the opportunity you have given me to make this clear.

Yours sincerely

Taylor of Blackburn

Letter to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 February 2009

Dear Lord Taylor,

As you may know, the sub-committee investigating the allegations made against you by the Sunday Times has now received transcripts and recordings of the interviews.

I enclose with this letter a CD-Rom recording the interview(s) and also a transcript of what is recorded on the CD-Rom. I should point out that the Sunday Times have told the sub-committee that the transcript is not complete because they have not included some early phone calls and some material that was inaudible or that they considered to be not relevant. They use three full stops (ie ...) to show when a word or passage is missing from the transcript.

The sub-committee will invite you to appear before them later this month. In the meantime they would be grateful for your comments on the transcript. Would you please also indicate whether you are satisfied that the transcripts accurately set out what took place at the interview(s) with the journalists concerned. The sub-committee also wish to receive, as preparation for the oral hearing with you later this month, a written statement setting out the facts relating to the events described in the allegations, as you see them.

It would very much help the sub-committee in its work if you let us have your comments no later than Thursday 12 February 2009. Please send them to me at the Judicial Office, House of Lords.

It is likely that the sub-committee will wish to interview you on Monday 23 February or Tuesday 24 February. Would you please indicate your availability on those days? In connection with your appearance before the sub-committee, it may be helpful if I send you another copy of the guidance for Members of the House against whom a complaint has been made. I draw your particular attention to para 25 of the guidance.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you believe that I can give you any further advice or information.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Saturday 7 February 2009

Please could Lord Taylor be available at 2.00pm on Monday 23 February to appear before Baroness Prashar and the Sub-Committee on Lords Interests?

E-mail to Mr Keith from Janet M Robinson, Saturday 7 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

Lord Taylor will be available to appear before Baroness Prashar and the Sub-Committee on Lords Interests at 2.00pm on Monday 23 February, subject to legal advice.

Kind regards

Janet M Robinson

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Thursday 12 February 2009

Would you please give Lord Taylor my apologies and say that the Sub-committee investigating the allegations against him wishes to take a little longer to consider the issues and now invites him to attend on Wednesday 25 February at 3.30pm and not as originally proposed. I very much hope that this will not inconvenience Lord Taylor too much.

Many thanks.

E-mail to Mr Keith from Janet M Robinson, Thursday 12 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

Lord Taylor will let you know as soon as he can confirm the date with his solicitor.

Kind regards

Janet M Robinson

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Thursday 12 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGATIONS—YOUR INVESTIGATION

Your letter of 4 February, which also enclosed a CD-ROM and what purported to be a transcript of its contents have been shared with me by Lord Taylor of Blackburn.

Having now carried out an initial analysis of the CD and its contents, I have, as I am sure you have, found it to be littered with recording inaccuracies. Furthermore, entire sections of the CD appear not to be transcribed despite being clearly audible.

As I am sure you will appreciate, it is vital for the sub-committee, yourself and Lord Taylor to have an accurate transcript to provide a full response to. In the circumstances, perhaps we could discuss on the telephone whether you would like me to arrange for an amended transcript or, as I suspect, you would like to have this done by the House?

Finally, I would be grateful if you could let me have copies of the correspondence passing between the sub-committee and the Sunday Times and would you please confirm for me that the Sunday Times has confirmed to you that they have handed over all relevant material in their possession including all original tapes, copies of emails, transcripts, information about the bogus companies, nom-de plumes etc. as relates to this matter including the sting operation.

As you can imagine, Lord Taylor, who is as you know not young, is anxious to assist and conclude this matter and I would invite you to telephone me to discuss how we might achieve that in the swiftest possible fashion.

With all kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Mark Stephens

Partner

Letter to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Baroness Prashar, Friday 13 February 2009

Dear Lord Taylor of Blackburn,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO RECENT PRESS ALLEGATIONS

Please find enclosed (i) the Hansard transcript of the recorded meetings 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. The Sub-Committee requests that you attend to give evidence on the new date of 25 February at 3.30pm, and hopes that this will not inconvenience you. 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 Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Tuesday 17 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

As already explained, Lord Taylor is anxious to assist the sub-committee in its investigation into the allegations made by the Sunday Times. However, you will understand his concern about the possible infringement of his human rights by the procedure that the sub-committee appears bent on adopting.

Paragraph 19(d) of the House of Lords Code of Conduct states very clearly that:

"In the investigation and adjudication of complaints against them, members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies".

Unfortunately, despite the distinction of several members of the sub-committee in the field of human rights, they appear to have overlooked some basic safeguards applied by the courts and professional bodies. In particular, they appear to wish to proceed by flouting both the letter and spirit of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Firstly, Lord Taylor asks for a copy of "the complaint" against him, if such a thing exists. The entire procedure of the sub-committee (as set out in the "Guidance for Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint is made") is based upon "the complaint", yet no such document has been provided to us. Is the sub-committee itself generating the complaint or has this been made by the Sunday Times (if so, when and how?). Obviously Lord Taylor must know the charge against him that the sub-committee is investigating before he can reply. This is a basic principle of procedural fairness and he will certainly not appear before the sub-committee unless he has details of the charge.

Secondly, Lord Taylor requires to see all the evidence and to have access to the full Sunday Times audio recordings. It is acknowledged by the Sunday Times that the transcript supplied omits large chunks of the audio recording. Furthermore, the audio recordings provided do not feature the telephone calls referred to in the transcript. More worryingly, the recording that you have provided has truly Nixonian gaps in it where many minutes are missing. This is not a matter of mistranslating words or phrases; it appears that certain elements of the recordings have deliberately been edited out. When we spoke last week in our unfortunately rushed call owing to my going into a tunnel at Heathrow airport, you said you were having Hansard prepare full and complete transcripts and they would be sent to me by post and electronically. Do you know when they will be ready?

I should also tell you that we have an expert on standby to examine the original of the audio recording. This is a fundamental right of a defendant in any case in the courts involving the use of tape recording. It follows that before Lord Taylor will appear, we must have an opportunity to examine the origin and provenance of the audio recording, which we infer the sub-committee believes shows that he is guilty of some as yet unspecified breach of the Code of Conduct.

Thirdly, there are aspects of the "Guidance for Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint is made" that concern us. For example, at para 26 we learn that the sub-committee applies the civil standard of proof. This is quite wrong—see In re A Solicitor [1992] 2 WLR 552 and the recent (December 2007) decision of Lord Mustill's inquiry into allegations of misconduct by the Chief Justice in Trinidad. We would wish to address the sub-committee on the need to apply the criminal standard of proof.

In addition, paragraph 25 of the Guidance suggests that Lord Taylor has no "right to silence" and that no legal representative will be permitted to address the sub-committee on his behalf. He is apparently to be invigilated by Members of the sub-committee, without any right to call witnesses. Again, this is a fundamental breach of Article 6. Moreover, it would appear the sub-committee is not preparing to call the Sunday Times journalists. Lord Taylor would very much wish to cross-examine them regarding duplicity and entrapment as well as the commission of the offence of contempt of Parliament. It would be wrong to use the recordings at all without those who surreptitiously made them attending for cross examination, and without the whole question of entrapment by the Sunday Times being explored.

May we suggest that the way forward is for Lord Taylor to be provided with "the complaint", or at least some details of the charges against him that are being investigated, and for arrangements to be made for our expert to examine the audio recordings. We would then wish to address the sub-committee on the above procedural points. Once Lord Taylor has been provided with proper disclosure, and the other matters are settled, it would then be possible to proceed to arrange a hearing date.

With all kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Mark Stephens

Partner

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Monday 23 February 2009

[Subject line: Please inform Lord Taylor] That the interview arranged by the Sub-Committee for Wednesday afternoon is postponed and that we will get back to you in due course to propose another day and time.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

E-mail to Finers Stephens Innocent 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 Taylor arranged for this Wednesday is postponed in view of the procedural issues raised by his legal advisers. We will propose a day and time for the rescheduled interview in due course.

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Monday 2 March 2009

It might help Lord Taylor to know informally that he will be receiving tomorrow or Wednesday a formal invitation to attend the Sub-Committee to assist them in the investigation of the Sunday Times allegations.

The date proposed is Monday 16 March at 10.30am.

Best wishes,

Brendan Keith

Letter to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 March 2009

Dear Sirs,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO COMPLAINT AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE: LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN

I am writing on behalf of the Sub-Committee in reply to your letter of 17 February 2009. The Sub-Committee has now carefully considered the issues raised in that letter and has instructed me to reply as follows.

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 Taylor. In the Sub-Committee's view, a fair hearing requires that the person whose conduct is being investigated is told the rules under which his conduct is being assessed, is shown all the evidence, and is given a fair opportunity to respond.

Fairness also requires that the individual peers are given an opportunity to respond in writing, which allows them to use the services of such lawyers as they wish to instruct. The Sub-Committee is a sub-committee of the Committee for Privileges and is bound by the Standing Orders of the House and by the procedures set out in the Committee for Privileges report, "The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members" (4th Report of Session 2007-08, HL Paper 205). The Sub-Committee has applied the procedures established for it in a manner that it deemed appropriate to the circumstances of the Sunday Times allegations.

The Sub-Committee is expressly forbidden to hear parties by counsel unless so authorised by Order of the House, and such Order could only be made on a motion in the House to dispense with Standing Order 67 (power to hear counsel).

The Committee for Privileges report referred to above stresses that "every effort is made to keep proceedings informal" (paragraph 25) and that "the Sub-Committee's proceedings should not acquire the formality of a court of law" (Appendix, paragraph 23). This is reflected in the standard of proof required in an investigation, which is "on the balance of probabilities" (paragraph 26).

The Sub-Committee will report its findings to the Committee for Privileges and through that Committee to the House. It will be for the Committee and House to approve, amend or reject these findings as they see fit. The respondents have a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges, and may move an amendment to any motion put before the House. We believe this provides sufficient opportunity for the respondents to challenge, if they wish, both the procedures and the way in which the Sub-Committee has applied them.

In the meantime the Sub-Committee must proceed with its task of investigation. The Sub-Committee has noted Lord Taylor'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 in any event to hear Lord Taylor in person, and therefore proposes that Lord Taylor attend the Sub-Committee at 11.00am on Monday 16 March in Committee Room G of the House of Lords. Any final written submission should be received by us no later than Tuesday 10 March.

I would like to confirm that the remedial action procedure remains open provided the conditions attaching to it are met. While the Sub-Committee believes that it would be helpful to them in their investigation to interview Lord Taylor, this meeting could of course be cancelled if Lord Taylor's final written statement showed it to be unnecessary.

The Sub-Committee wishes to consider with Lord Taylor 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 Taylor are whether he stated that:

(i) he could talk to a Minister in the Peers' Guest Room and thereafter take him/her next door to the Peers' Dining Room for lunch or dinner;

(ii) he had chaired Royal Commissions and had been adviser to about 15 Secretaries of State for Education including Margaret Thatcher;

(iii) he had, at Tony Blair's request, advised prospective Ministers and Secretaries of State on their role in a future government and on the distinction between being a Minister and a civil servant;

(iv) he had for the benefit of "Capricorn Experience" secured an amendment to a Bill "quietly behind the scenes";

(v) his method for securing amendments is to persuade "the parliamentary team, the draftsmen and so on" to amend a draft Bill in the way sought by him;

(vi) that he had chaired various Cabinet meetings, knew how the Cabinet works and knew the people who are the decision makers in various government departments;

(vii) companies for which he worked paid him within a range of £25,000-£100,000 per annum; thereafter he was informed by e-mail from "MJA" dated 12/1/09 that they were "willing to pay the market rate for his services and will use as our benchmark the amounts paid to him by his other consultancies";

(viii) he could secure meetings with Yvette Cooper, a Treasury Minister, and Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, because they had worked to him, and with him, for many years; or the appropriate meeting might be with a Junior Minister who could be invited to the House of Lords for lunch; or with senior civil servants; or the right civil servants; thereafter by telephone message to "MJA" of 15/1/09 he informed them that he had visited the Treasury and had secured a meeting with Yvette Cooper MP on Thursday of the next week after Cabinet to "discuss the matter in hand"; he received from "MJA" by e-mail of 20/1/09 a full briefing on the Business Rate Supplement Bill and confirmed to them by telephone message of 21/1/09 that the brief was "excellent" and that he now knew what "MJA" wanted to achieve and would "go ahead"; and later on 21/1/09 he left a telephone message for "MJA" confirming that he had met Peter Mandelson and Baroness Andrews and discussed the matter;

(ix) he has a team of people, about four who work with him, and for him, who do a lot of research work, all of whom are particular specialists in their own right who are brought in as appropriate to the work he is undertaking;

(x) he has worked with Ministers, Secretaries of State and civil servants for years;

(xi) he is in a position to talk to civil servants about the content of legislation;

(xii) he works within the rules but the rules are "meant to be bent sometimes";

(xiii) that he had chaired Select Committees and Royal Commissions;

(xiv) that he has had a very strong relationship with most government departments;

(xv) what he was hoping to do was to talk to the policy team dealing with the Business Rates Supplement Bill in Committee in the House of Commons and have the Bill altered "behind the scenes", rather than table an amendment; and

(xvi) that he had done a deal at £10,000 per month; and that he thought that the two people to whom he had been speaking were both good people and he would be delighted to work with them.

The Sub-Committee will wish to explore with him the honesty of his various statements about his prior experience in Government, his experience in dealing with Ministers and the meetings with Government Ministers which he claimed to have arranged or to have held.

The Sub-Committee hopes that this is helpful, and proposes now to move on from procedural matters to a prompt resolution of the allegations against Lord Taylor.

Yours faithfully,

Brendan Keith

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Friday 6 March 2009

Dear Mr Keith

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

Thank you very much for your letter of 4 March.

Lord Taylor continues to be keen to assist the Sub-committee with its investigations into the allegations. There are a number of issues which I would like to clarify or bring to your attention and this letter is without prejudice to other procedural issues about which I shall write to you substantively next week.

I have received copies of the transcripts prepared by Hansard and I note that there are some small errors which seem to be predominantly due to Lord Taylor's age and/or accent and as I have indicated, I will write to you with a view to seeking to agree those points in due course.

That said, neither myself or my client have copies of the transcripts and audio recordings (said to have been enclosed with Baroness Prashar CBE's letter of 13 February to my client) of the telephone calls recorded by the Sunday Times journalists and I would be grateful if these could be made available to myself and my client as soon as possible together with any contemporaneous notes of those telephone conversations.

Please may I have copies of notes, transcripts, letters etc in which contact between the Sunday Times and other members of the house as well as the sub-committee have been provided. Without having this in our possession, I am sure that you will agree that we have a significantly less complete picture of the evidence which will be considered than the sub-committee.

Please may we have, as requested in my letter of 17 February, details of the identity of any complainant or please otherwise confirm that there is not a complainant in this case.

In addition, I note your comment in your letter of 12 [correction: 13] February to Lord Taylor that Lord Taylor has "already submitted a Statement to the sub-committee". Lord Taylor tells me that hehas no recollection of such a Statement although he intends to respond. Please would you clarify the position for me and let have a copy of any submission which is regarded as a statement.

Please would you clarify and treat this as a request on behalf of Lord Taylor to be permitted to cross-examine witnesses including the journalists from the Sunday Times.

Finally, perhaps you would clarify for me whether it is proposed that the hearing will be in public, if so will radio and TV be permitted and if in private, is it proposed that a transcript will be made publicly available?

I look forward to hearing from you.

With all kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Mark Stephens

Partner

Letter to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Ms Street, Monday 9 March 2009

Dear Lord Taylor of Blackburn,

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 16 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 11.00 am. Please ensure that you arrive at least five minutes before you are due to appear before the Sub-Committee, and wait outside the room until invited in.

The evidence session will be held in private, but a verbatim transcript will be taken, to which you will have the opportunity to make minor corrections. The transcript may subsequently be referred to in the Report and published, at the discretion of the Sub-Committee and the Committee for Privileges. The transcript will be confidential to the Sub-Committee and the Committee for Privileges unless and until published. There will be no broadcasting and it would be preferable to avoid amplification, so if you need to use a hearing loop (or have any other special requirements) please let me know in advance of the session.

As set out in the report from the Committee for Privileges, The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members (4th Report of Session 2007-08, HL Paper 205), you may be accompanied to the meeting by a colleague, friend or legal adviser, but if you do bring a friend or adviser, you will be expected to answer all questions yourself. Standing Order 67 prohibits the hearing of parties by Counsel except as authorised by the House, so while you may take advice during the evidence session if you feel it to be necessary, any legal adviser will not be able to address the Sub-Committee. The report also says that every effort will be made to keep proceedings informal, and there is no expectation that you should be accompanied.

It is expected that reference will be made during questioning to the transcripts made by the Sunday Times and by Hansard, which have been forwarded to you. Please bring these with you and use page numbers to refer to this evidence, to avoid confusion in the transcript.

You may wish to know that your attendance at the Sub-Committee can be counted as attending the House for expenses purposes.

If there is anything more I can do to assist, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Susannah Street

Clerk to the Sub-Committee

Letter to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Wednesday 11 March 2009

Dear Mr Stephens,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE SUNDAY TIMES OF 25 JANUARY

I am writing in response to your letter of 6 March.

Please find enclosed copies of the transcripts and audio recordings which were enclosed with Baroness Prashar's letter of 13 February. (The receipt of this material was acknowledged by Janet Robinson on behalf of Lord Taylor of Blackburn on 14 February.) We have no contemporaneous notes of the telephone conversations other than those provided in the Sunday Times transcript, which I trust you have seen.

The complaints made against Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lord Moonie, Lord Snape and Lord Truscott are being treated separately, and documents relating to each case are confidential to those involved in that case.

You asked about the identity of the complainant. When the allegations were published in the Sunday Times of 25 January, they were taken so seriously that the Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, wrote on that day to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests requesting that the Sub-Committee begin an immediate investigation without waiting for a formal complaint to be made. Initially, there was uncertainty about whether the police might conduct an investigation of their own, because the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party had referred the matter to them. This uncertainty was removed when the police announced on 12 February that they would not be examining the matter further, and the Leader of the House then wrote again to the Chairman making a formal complaint against Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lord Moonie, Lord Snape and Lord Truscott.

The Sub-Committee received a letter from Lord Taylor of Blackburn dated 31 January, as well as letters from FSI dated 12 February, 17 February and 6 March. I enclose a copy of his letter of 31 January.

It will not be possible for Lord Taylor to cross-examine witnesses. The Sub-Committee is required to follow the procedure laid down for it in the fourth report of Session 2007-08 from the Committee for Privileges, The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members (4th Report of Session 2007-08, HL Paper 205), a copy of which I enclose. The Sub-Committee is not a court of law and its proceedings should not acquire the formality of a court of law.

The hearing will be in private, and no broadcasting or public access will be permitted. A full transcript will be produced and Lord Taylor will have the opportunity to make corrections to it. The transcript may subsequently be published, at the discretion of the Sub-Committee and the Committee for Privileges.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Registrar of Lords' Interests

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

We are surprised to not have had a reply to our letter to you of 6th March and even more surprised that Lord Taylor has received a letter from one Susannah Street, "Clerk to the sub-committee" thanking him "very much" for "agreeing to give evidence to the sub-committee on 16th March". As mentioned in our letter of yesterday, Lord Taylor has not made any such agreement. Ms Street's letter was not sent or copied to us, although the sub-committee is well aware that we represent Lord Taylor: this seems to us to reflect its desire to discourage the participation of lawyers, notwithstanding the pretence in the code that "in the investigation and adjudication of complaints against them, members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies".

The sub-committee's proposed conduct in respect of Lord Taylor is in blatant breach of this undertaking. You propose to deny him rights that anyone in court or in disciplinary tribunals would possess: for example the right to counsel, the right to cross-examine his accusers and the right to have charges against him proved beyond reasonable doubt (this is the standard that applies in professional discipline hearing: see Lynch v Law Society (1994), recently endorsed by Lord Mustill in his inquiry into allegations of misconduct by the Chief Justice in Trinidad). In your letter of 4 March you told us that the sub-committee "is concerned to ensure a fair and just hearing" but we have had, with regret, to advise Lord Taylor that, on the advice of senior counsel, the course you propose is neither just nor fair.

In the first place, the Code of Conduct under which you operate is contingent upon a complaint having been made. Indeed, the Committee for Privileges Report is headed "The Code of Conduct: Procedure for Considering Complaints against Members". We have repeatedly asked for a copy of the complaint against Lord Taylor the existence of which must be a pre-condition to any "procedure" but answer from you comes there none. In her original letter to Lord Taylor, on 26 January Baroness Prashar gave the impression that the Sunday Times had made a "claim" against him, and said "you may find helpful the enclosed guidance for members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint has been made". It would appear, however, that there has been no complaint at all against Lord Taylor and the pretence that there has becomes quite disturbing in light of your letter 4 March. That letter contained the sub-committee's allegation that Lord Taylor failed to act "on his personal honour" by making an agreement in breach of paragraph 4(c) of the Code of Conduct, and proceeded to raise with him 16 matters arising from a transcript of his meeting with agents provocateur working for the Sunday Times. It is now plain that the charges have been formulated not by the Sunday Times but by the sub-committee itself, purporting to act both as prosecutor and judge. This is plainly unfair, and a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention: this sub-committee cannot be an "independent and impartial tribunal" for adjudicating a complaint when it makes and formulates that complaint itself.

We would remind you of our request for copies of all the communications with the Sunday Times.

Lord Taylor has been entrapped by the Sunday Times, which enveloped him in a fog it generated in playing upon him with an orchestrated litany of lies. Although the Sub-Committee intends to interrogate Lord Taylor over extracts from the transcript of his meetings with the agents provocateur, these cannot be understood without exposing the background and context of the confidence trick that they played upon him, in breach both of the rules of the house and the rules of morality. He is entitled, at least in international law, if not by your Sub-Committee—"to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing "and "to examine and have examined witnesses against him". The Sunday Times confidence tricksters have supplied all the evidence against Lord Taylor upon which the Sub-Committee relies, and it is fundamental that he should be entitled to challenge it and those who produce it through cross examination, exposing their deceits in order to place his own conduct in a fair and contextual light. He is entitled to do that before he gives evidence. We gather from you letter of 4 March that the Sub-Committee does not propose to afford him this basic justice.

The reason you give, namely that the Sub-Committee must be authorised by the House of Lords to hear Counsel, is beside the point. If the Sub-Committee wishes to be fair, its chairman or indeed any member may make the appropriate motion to dispense with standing order 67, and there could be no doubt that the House would approve. We infer from the fact that no member of the Sub-Committee is willing to give Lord Taylor a fair hearing by allowing his representation by counsel or by using the committee's power to summons the Sunday Times journalists in order to be cross-examined by his counsel.

We have advised Lord Taylor that he should not accept the Sub-Committee's invitation to give "evidence" (apparently unsworn and to be given by way of invigilation from Sub-Committee members) until these basic safeguards, which apply in courts and disciplinary tribunals, can be afforded him. He will, however, accept the chairman's original invitation to put his side of the story, and will do so by way of a statutory declaration which we will submit to you on Monday. Thereafter, questions of oral evidence, cross-examination and remedial action can all be addressed.

Please send or copy all future communications with Lord Taylor to us in order to avoid delay. We put on record that Mr Stephens of this office was contacted by the Sunday Times last week and asked to comment on the allegation that lawyers for the members were using "delaying tactics" to draw out proceedings. When asked for the source of this allegation, the journalist said that it had come from a member of the Sub-Committee. In light of paragraph 20 of the report by the working group on the Sub-Committee on Lords interests, we invite your comment.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

E-mail to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Ms Street, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Mr Stephens,

Please find attached the two Hansard transcripts of Lord Taylor's meetings with the journalists, and the Hansard transcript of the telephone calls, as sent in hard copy to Lord Taylor and electronically to his assistant on 13 February and acknowledged on 14 February. The hard copies of all of these and the audio CDs will be biked to you shortly. Please note that it is important that Lord Taylor uses the hard copy of the Hansard of the telephone calls which we will send over, as the page numbers marked in manuscript would be essential in any oral evidence session.

Thank you,

Susannah Street (Clerk)

E-mail to Ms Street from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Susannah,

Thank you for your email below. We are looking forward to receiving the transcripts and audio recordings this afternoon, and will review them as soon as they arrive.

I'm not quite sure whether you yourself have actually reviewed the material that was sent to Janet Robinson on 13 February. What was received electronically was two audio files in the unuseable CDA format, and three documents purporting to contain complete transcripts of the meetings and phone calls between Lord Taylor and the undercover Sunday Times reporters.

With regard to the audio files received, it was assumed that these were an exact replica of the hard copy CD that was sent to Lord Taylor on 4 February, along with the Sunday Times transcripts, which we have of course rejected for inaccuracy.

In respect of the three transcript documents, the third, entitled, "Taylor of Blackburn Phone Calls Hansard", which you have attached to your email below, is a trancript only of the first call from "MJA" to Lord Taylor, and the subsequent call that the Sunday Times made to my client revealing themselves as journalists. This third transcript does not contain the calls of 15 and 21 January that are referred to at point (viii) in Brendan Keith's letter to us of 4 March. We trust that a Hansard transcript of these calls will be contained in the documents being sent to us this afternoon.

Kind regards

Mark

E-mail to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Thursday 12 March 2009

It appears that we asked the ST for the recordings of 15 and 21 January but have not yet received them.

We will of course let you have them as soon as possible.

E-mail to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for clarifying the position with respect to the audio recording and transcript of the phone calls that Lord Taylor is alleged to have made to the Sunday Times journalists on the 15 and 21 January 2009.

I would be very grateful if you could confirm that the Sub-Committee has been made aware of the difficulties that you have experienced in obtaining this material from the Sunday Times. We were labouring under a misapprehension that you had these in your possession, and are concerned that the Sub-Committee may also believe the same.

We are going to discuss the point internally, and will get back in touch with you.

Kind regards,

Caroline Kelly

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

Thank you for your letter of yesterday, which in our telephone conversation we realised had crossed with mine of today to you. In the light of this, you kindly invited me to review the position and revert to you, I have now had the opportunity to do this.

We have this evening dealt separately with the issue you raise in the first paragraph of your letter. I understand now that you do not in fact have either a recording, or a transcript of the alleged phone conversations between my client and the Sunday Times on 15 and 21 January to which you make reference in your letter to me of 4 March. We look forward to receiving these, and to receiving confirmation that the Sub-Committee have been informed of the gap in the evidence.

I note your comments in respect of the identity of the complainant to the Sub-Committee. It does seem to me that there continues not to be a formal complaint received by the Sub-Committee, merely a response from Baroness Royall to the negative press stories, which has now led us to the invidious position that I raised in my earlier letter, where the Sub-Committee is to act as both prosecutor and judge of my client. It remains our contention that to commence an investigation without a complaint upon which to adjudicate, places the Sub-Committee firmly in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The other issues that I have raised in my long letter of today appear to be outstanding and I must ask you to consider, and respond to the substantive points contained therein.

Yours Truly

Finers Stephens Innocent

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Friday 13 March 2009

Can you please explain the point about the self-destroying emails and what it is that you want from me?

I am in a meeting all day but do pse reply asap and my secretary can bring the email to me.

So pse copy it to her too.

E-mail to Mr Keith from Janet M Robinson, Friday 13 March 2009

Dear Brendan

I do not understand. I have not recently sent you an email.

Kind regards

Janet

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Friday 13 March 2009

That makes two of us who do not understand.

Best wishes

E-mail to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Friday 13 March 2009

Dear Mr Keith

Your note (below) has been passed to me following my conversation with your secretary. The position is that the Sunday Times appears to have used e mails that self destructed, in the course of their Bunco game.

I know that this is possible as I have a client that uses the technology. What I was unaware of, until today, was that this technology was being used by the Sunday Times in this case. My enquiry to you was to ascertain whether this has been noticed in any of the cases, and if the Sunday Times have been asked about this aspect of the matter and delivered up all relevant e mails to the sub committee?

Thank you for any light that you are able to shed—I know you have been tied up all day.

Yours Truly

Mark Stephens

E-mail to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Friday 13 March 2009

I am about to write to you on other matters, but I can say that I have no knowledge of e-mails that self-destruct. The ST have not been asked about this aspect of the matter because we did not know about it. But I will ask them this evening.

We have repeated our request to them to deliver up missing material and we await their reply.

Letter to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Friday 13 March 2009

Dear Sirs,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGATIONS

Thank you for your letter of 12 March sent by fax at 12.42 yesterday and for your letter emailed to me last night. The Sub-Committee has now had an opportunity to consider the various points that you have raised, and I have been instructed to reply as follows.

The Sub-Committee is puzzled that you still maintain there is no complaint against Lord Taylor. The Sub-Committee received a letter from Baroness Royall, Leader of the House of Lords, on 25 January asking that the allegations against the four Lords be investigated as a matter of urgency. The Sub-Committee deemed this to be a complaint. Baroness Royall wrote on 12 February in the light of the police announcement that there would be no criminal investigation by them to confirm that she was making a formal complaint against the four Lords.

Susannah Street's letter to Lord Taylor was a formal document sent more or less automatically to all persons appearing before House of Lords select committees, giving them details such as time and location of meeting. The letter was written on the understanding that Lord Taylor had agreed to attend the Sub-Committee. This understanding was based on statements in various correspondence of 31 January, 12 and 17 February and 6 March. The Sub-Committee understood Lord Taylor's firm initial reaction to its investigation set out in the final paragraph of his letter of 31 January to be positive. And your letter of 12 February states:

"Lord Taylor is anxious to assist and to conclude this matter. I would invite you to telephone me to discuss how we might achieve that in the swiftest possible fashion".

The Sub-Committee rejects the suggestion that Lord Taylor has been denied natural justice in the way in which the Sub-Committee has been conducting its enquiry. The Sub-Committee is committed to procedural fairness, and to being scrupulously fair to the four Lords involved in these allegations. This has been explained in our letter of 4 March and we reiterate the points made in that letter. We have now interviewed the other three Lords subject to these allegations, one accompanied by his solicitor, and we are satisfied that the procedures we have followed comply fully with the rules of natural justice.

My letter to you of 4 March also gave particulars of the specific matters arising out of the Hansard transcript on which the Sub-Committee would principally focus in its investigation. In the Sub-Committee's opinion, the giving of these particulars was a compliance with the rules of natural justice because you then knew the nature of the matters which the Sub-Committee considers could tell against Lord Taylor. These particulars were settled at a Sub-Committee meeting and were unanimously agreed by its members. The Sub-Committee emphasises that it is not acting as prosecutor and judge and the suggestion is unfounded because the purpose of giving the particulars was to inform Lord Taylor of the nature of the case he was invited to answer, as it appeared from the transcript. The Sub-Committee's proceedings are inquisitorial not adversarial, in common with all House of Lords select committees.

As I have already stated, the Sub-Committee intends to proceed with scrupulous fairness. We propose to rely primarily on the Hansard transcript of what in fact was said by Lord Taylor, and you may of course challenge the accuracy of the transcript, but cross-examination is not necessary for that purpose. We are not looking at the behaviour of the Sunday Times.

We have asked the Sunday Times for all relevant material relating to Lord Taylor, and to the other Lords, and we have asked them for an assurance that they have given us all the material that they have. We have yet to receive a response, but you can be assured that as soon as we receive this material, we will forward it to you. The Sub-Committee stresses that none of its members has given any details of its investigation to the press or spoken to the press.

Our procedures are determined for us by the Privileges Committee and we would like to have oral evidence from Lord Taylor, which under those procedures he must give himself. We are content to receive a statutory declaration on Monday, and we are willing therefore to postpone Monday's meeting with Lord Taylor in order to consider that declaration. But I have been asked to stress that the Sub-Committee reiterates its wish and its need to hear Lord Taylor in person. We also believe that this is in Lord Taylor's best interests, to put his side of the story on the record. Accordingly, we invite Lord Taylor to attend the Sub-Committee on Monday 23 March at 11.00 am in Committee Room G in the House of Lords. Further delay is in no-one's interests.

I would be grateful to receive your prompt confirmation that Lord Taylor will be attending the Sub-Committee on that date.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Monday 16 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

Lord Taylor is entitled to see any complaint made against him, including a "deemed complaint" by Baroness Royall. Please let us have copies of her letters to the Sub-Committee on 25 January and 12 February that are deemed to amount to a formal complaint.

The Sub-Committee may "intend to proceed with scrupulous fairness" but it obviously does not understand what fairness requires when the material upon which it has formulated the charge (acting as prosecutor, preparatory to acting as judge) has been elicited by the actions of agents provocateur. You admit that "we are not looking at the behaviour of the Sunday Times", and we regard as an admission of unfairness.

We are surprised that you have yet to receive an assurance from the Sunday Times and that you contemplate having more material to forward on to us. It is manifestly unfair to call upon Lord Taylor to respond until he has seen all the evidence against him. It is quite wrong for the Sub-Committee to play a cat and mouse game with him, threatening heavy handedly that "it is in Lord Taylor's best interests to put his side of the story," if the story against him has not been fully disclosed.

Once you confirm that he will not be ambushed by further evidence provided at its leisure by the Sunday Times, we will let you have his statutory declaration.

Yours faithfully,

Finers Stephens Innocent

Letter to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Tuesday 18 March 2009

Dear Sirs,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGATIONS: LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN

I have been instructed by the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests to reply to your letter of 16 March.

Your position as set out in that letter remains based on a false premise and complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Sub-Committee and of its proceedings. The Sub-Committee is a Parliamentary body. It is appointed to determine complaints that a Member of the House has breached the House of Lords Code of Conduct. It is not a court of law to hear cases. Our procedures are inquisitorial, not adversarial. It is the Sub-Committee alone that decides whom they would find it helpful to interview by way of formal oral evidence. There is no provision for examination of witnesses by anyone except members of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee is not sitting to adjudicate on an adversarial conflict between the Sunday Times and Lord Taylor.

The Sub-Committee points out that they are not prosecutors and it was in the interests of fairness and compliance with the rules of natural justice and in order to be helpful to Lord Taylor that they set out the main allegations for Lord Taylor's benefit. The Sub-Committee did this on the basis of the Hansard transcripts of what Lord Taylor said to the Sunday Times as recorded in those transcripts and, so far as we understand your position, there is no dispute about the accuracy of those Hansard transcripts. We understand that there is no dispute about the accuracy of the Hansard transcripts because, on behalf of Lord Taylor, you have not raised any such dispute. If however there is such a dispute, would you please immediately specify what it is.

I enclose with this letter further material that the Sunday Times has just delivered to us, and a copy of the covering letter from the Sunday Times which lists that material. This material has come with an undertaking by the Sunday Times that they have delivered all the relevant material that is in their possession. They have informed us that "to the best of our knowledge and as far as we can ascertain we have now supplied the Sub-Committee with all the material in our possession which relates to our contact with Lord Taylor [and the other Lords]. We have not destroyed any material or emails, and would never do so".

I have been asked to make it clear that the Sub-Committee would find it immensely helpful to hear Lord Taylor's account of this matter, and we repeat our invitation to him to attend on Monday next at 11 am in House of Lords Committee Room 4. If you continue to advise Lord Taylor that he should not appear, we would very much regret that outcome because we would welcome his assistance and, as I have stated before, the opportunity to hear him. But we will if need be in Lord Taylor's absence proceed to a determination without his oral evidence next Monday. In that event we would rely only on the undisputed sections of the transcripts already sent to you.

I enclose with this letter copies of Baroness Royall's letters to us, and also a letter to us from Mr Norman Baker MP dated 26 January 2009. We considered Baroness Royall to be the complainant because her letter was the first we received.

Yours faithfully,

Brendan Keith

Registrar of Lords Interests

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Friday 20 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

Thank you for your letter of 18 March.

We will be reviewing the comments in the letter, and will revert to you in respect of them.

Now that the Sunday Times has finally provided the outstanding information, we will let you have Lord Taylor's statutory declaration by 11am on Monday morning, after we have considered the new material.

I would draw your attention to Baroness Prashar's letter of 13 February to my client in which she invited him to respond in writing to the matters in question, and to your letter of 4 March 2009 in which you wrote that a statement of Lord Taylor may negate the need for him to appear before the Sub-Committee.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

E-mail to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Ms Street, Friday 20 March 2009

Dear Ms Kelly,

Thank you for this letter. Could you please clarify for us whether it is your understanding that Lord Taylor of Blackburn will not be giving oral evidence to the Sub-Committee on Monday 23 March? If this is the case, we will stand down our shorthand writers.

Thank you for your help, and kind regards.

Susannah Street (Clerk to the Sub-Committee)

E-mail to Ms Street from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Friday 20 March 2009

Dear Susannah,

This is our advice at this time given that we must still examine the additional evidence provided this week from the Sunday Times.

We will of course send to you on Monday morning the statutory declaration of Lord Taylor for the Sub-Committee.

Kind regards,

Caroline

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Monday 23 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

Please find enclosed the statutory declarations of Lord Taylor and Janet Robinson.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

E-mail to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Monday 23 March 2009

Dear Caroline,

This is to confirm receipt of the statutory declaration.

The Sub-Committee have spent the morning discussing it.

The Sub-Committee wishes to issue one more invitation to Lord Taylor to attend in person, on Wednesday afternoon of this week at 2.30 pm.

I will let you know the location of the meeting room as soon as possible.

The Sub-Committee wishes to explore with Lord Taylor the issues outlined in my letter of 4 March.

It would help the Sub-Committee greatly in its work if we could have electronic Word text of the two statutory declarations.

Best wishes,

Brendan Keith

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Monday 23 March 2009

Dear Janet,

As you know, Lord Taylor did not attend this morning at the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests.

The Sub-Committee wishes to extend one more invitation to him to attend, on Wednesday of this week at 2.30 pm.

I have already communicated this information to Messrs FSI. Would you also please pass the message to Lord Taylor.

Best wishes

Brendan Keith

E-mail to Mr Keith from Janet M Robinson, Monday 23 March 2009

Dear Mr Keith

I have passed on your message to Lord Taylor.

Kind regards

Janet

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Monday 23 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

Second Letter

Thank you for your email to my colleague this morning confirming receipt of Lord Taylor and Janet Robinson's statutory declarations, and inviting Lord Taylor to appear before the Sub-Committee on 25 March. You were well aware that he was advised not to attend today because of the concerns about procedural unfairness. We instead followed the route proposed by the Sub-Committee as to submitting a statement.

Lord Taylor respectfully declines the Sub-Committee's invitation to attend for invigilation.

We have pointed out at some length in previous correspondence some of the reasons why we have had to advise our client that the Sub-Committee's procedures do not comply with the fundamental rules of fairness: they deny him the right to confront those who have provided the evidence against him; they are sitting in private; they combine prosecutorial and judicial functions; they propose to adopt the wrong standard and burden of proof, and so on. There appear to be no procedural rules for the "hearing" to which he is invited: he will not be able give evidence on oath, or to be represented by a lawyer, or to call witnesses, nor will he be able to have the witnesses against him called for cross-examination, and so on as set out to you in earlier letters.

The Sub-Committee has chosen not to make good its promise in Paragraph 25 of the Guidance for Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint is made (under the heading "Procedural Safeguards"), that "in the investigation and adjudication of complaints against them, members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies." Nor have you made an application to dispense with the restriction as to the assistance of Counsel in Standing Order 67. The Sub-Committee's proposed conduct in respect of Lord Taylor is in blatant breach of the undertaking in Paragraph 25.

In these circumstances you will understand why we have reluctantly had to advise Lord Taylor to decline your invitation. He has instead done exactly what Baroness Prashar asked him to do in her letter of 13 February, and made a lengthy statement explaining his position. Moreover he has made it on his oath and will be subject to criminal sanction if it is untrue. We do not consider that the Sub-Committee can fairly ask for more.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

E-mail to Janet M Robinson from Mr Keith, Monday 23 March 2009

Dear Janet,

Thank you. I have now heard from Messrs FSI that Lord Taylor will not be attending.

Best wishes

Brendan Keith

Letter to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Wednesday 25 March 2009

Dear Sirs,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS

INQUIRY INTO SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGATIONS: LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN

I have been instructed by the Sub-Committee on Lords Interests to acknowledge your letter dated 23 March in which you inform us that Lord Taylor declines the invitation to attend the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee has asked me to say that they believe that in their previous correspondence with you they have already replied to all the points raised in your letter.

Yours faithfully,

Brendan Keith

Registrar of Lords Interests

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Thursday 26 March 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 25 March.

We accept that you have responded to some of our concerns. It is our position that you have allayed none.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

Letter to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Ms Street, Friday 3 April 2009

Dear Lord Taylor of Blackburn,

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 6.00 pm 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 and original emails relating to your case. The intention is that this sequence will be published alongside the Sunday Times version of the same events, which you already have. Please note that this sequence includes a number of short transcripts that you may not have seen before: Hansard transcripts of the section of the recording of your second meeting with the journalists which was previously missing, of a phone call between Jonathan Calvert and yourself on 16 January 2009, of an answerphone message left by Jonathan Calvert, and of four answerphone messages left by yourself for Jonathan Calvert. These recordings were recently sent to us by the Sunday Times, at our request, and transcribed by Hansard. Please let us have any comments or corrections you wish to make to this sequence of transcripts by 6.00 pm 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.

Finally, please also find enclosed a copy of a letter sent to us by the Sunday Times, at our request, stating Jonathan Calvert's recollection of his unrecorded phone call with you of Thursday 22 January. The Sub-Committee has decided to disregard this phone call, but you are free to comment upon it if you wish.

This is your final opportunity to comment upon the matters of fact and the accuracy of the evidence that the Sub-Committee has received relating to your case. Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Susannah Street

Clerk to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests

Letter to Mr Keith from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Tuesday 7 April 2009

Dear Sir

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

On the morning of Saturday 4 April 2009, I received a telephone call from Jonathan Calvert, one of the Sunday Times journalists who acted as an agent provocateur in meetings with Lord Taylor.

Mr Calvert informed me that he had heard that Lord Taylor "had refused to appear before the Lords as he wanted to appear through lawyers (you)".

I reminded Mr Calvert that the Sub-Committee's investigation into the allegations made by the Sunday Times was ongoing, and that I was therefore unable to comment. I did however explain that those representing the parties had been told by the Sub-Committee that we should make no comment to the media at all, and added that I was surprised that information of this type was being put about.

On 5 April 2009 an article by Mr Calvert entitled "`Lords for Hire' may be suspended" was published in the Sunday Times. In this article he referred to his conversation with me the day before and confirmed that I had "declined to comment on unconfirmed reports that Taylor had refused to go before the committee without his lawyer".

Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Committee for Privileges' "Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members" state clearly that:

"15 ... from the point that the Sub-Committee decides to undertake an investigation all evidence and correspondence relating directly to the inquiry is covered by parliamentary privilege. It must remain confidential unless and until it is published by the Committee for Privileges. If any such evidence or correspondence were to be published or disclosed to anyone else without the Committee's agreement, this would be a contempt of the House ...

16 ... The Committee for Privileges strongly deprecates the making of comments to the press by any of the parties to an investigation while that investigation is in progress ..."

We are extremely concerned that information contained in private correspondence between Lord Taylor and the Sub-Committee has been obtained by the Sunday Times. Even more disturbing is the fact that the information in question has found its way into the hands of Mr Calvert, who is himself a central witness in this matter.

The Sub-Committee has indicated that it intends to take no action in relation to the brazen breach of Parliamentary security—and also a contempt of Parliament—involved in the Sunday Times' undercover recording of Lord Taylor's conversations. Lord Taylor would be grateful for an indication from the Sub-Committee as to what steps it intends to take in relation to yet another flagrant breach of Parliament's rules by the Sunday Times.

Lord Taylor also requests an assurance from the Sub-Committee that it will do all that it can to prevent any further confidential communications finding their way into the hands of Mr Calvert and the Sunday Times.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

Letter to Ms Street from Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, Friday 17 April 2009

Dear Ms Street,

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LORD TAYLOR OF BLACKBURN IN THE SUNDAY TIMES

DRAFT REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE: "ISSUES OF FACT"

Under cover of a letter from you dated 3 April 2009, Lord Taylor of Blackburn was sent on a confidential basis a copy of the proposed first 36 paragraphs of the first draft report of the Sub- Committee on Lords' Interests into the allegations against him and other Members of the House of Lords printed in the Sunday Times on 25 January 2009. It was explained in the 3 April letter on behalf of the Sub-Committee that these paragraphs were the "parts of its report dealing with issues of fact". Lord Taylor was invited to send to the Sub-Committee any comments he wishes to make on these issues of fact, ostensibly in accordance with paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Committee of Privileges' "Code of Conduct for considering complaints against Members". At the end of the letter Lord Taylor is informed that "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".

Lord Taylor is concerned and somewhat confused by this 3 April 2009 letter.

Firstly, the letter states that there will be no further opportunity to comment on matters of fact, and yet the 36 paragraphs provided are extremely general and do not deal with the detailed facts of Lord Taylor's case, such as his meetings and correspondence with the Sunday Times' undercover journalists and his explanation for "stringing them along" in an effort to discover whether they were genuine or engaged in some kind of trickery or set up. It would be very surprising if there were not many other matters to be dealt with later in the report upon which findings of fact will be made. If Ms Street is willing to confirm in writing that the report will include no other findings of fact, then Lord Taylor's concerns on this point would be allayed. If no such confirmation is possible, fairness undoubtedly dictates that Lord Taylor must be given the opportunity to comment on these further findings of fact too.

Secondly, the Sub-Committee's attempt to give Lord Taylor "the opportunity to contest only issues of fact" is once again in flagrant breach of basic standards of procedural fairness. The Sub-Committee is conducting a public inquiry. Principles governing the fair procedure for such inquiries were established by Lord Salmon in the 1960s (the "Salmon principles"—see Cmnd 2152 (1963) and Cmnd 3121 (1966)). A basic principle is that where an inquiry makes findings that are adverse to an individual, that individual must be provided with those findings so that they may comment on them prior to the inquiry's report being finalized and published. The standard method for drawing criticisms to the attention of those subject to them is by sending what has come to be known as a "Salmon letter" setting out every criticism and inviting them to contest the basis for the finding.

This principle remains central to fair procedure. During the Matrix Churchill Inquiry in the early 1990s the Salmon principles were reviewed by Scott LJ, and in his report (Report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions (HC 115 (1995—6)) he confirmed that:

It is thus obvious that giving Lord Taylor an opportunity to comment only on "matters of fact" is completely unacceptable. Before finalizing its report the Sub-Committee must also inform Lord Taylor of any criticisms or findings that are adverse to him and give him an opportunity to challenge the basis for those criticisms or adverse findings.

The 3 April 2009 letter from the Sub-Committee also invited Lord Taylor to comment on the "sequence of events" as pieced together from the final Hansard transcripts and relevant emails. The letter states that it is the Sub-Committee's intention to publish this sequence "alongside the Sunday Times version of the same events, which you already have". It is our understanding that this is a reference to the Sunday Times' own transcripts, which were served on Lord Taylor at stages during the Sub-Committee's investigation. Since these number well over 100 pages, however, we may be mistaken. Is the Sub-Committee perhaps meaning to publish what the Sunday Times said in its original "exclusive" story? We would be grateful for clarification as we are simply unclear as to what is meant.

Finally, Lord Taylor was given an opportunity to comment on a letter from the Sunday Times concerning Jonathan Calvert's recollection of a phone call on 22 January 2009. The Sub-Committee indicated that it would "disregard this phone call". This is indicative of the Sub-Committee's failure to understand a crucial aspect of Lord Taylor's defence against the Sunday Times' allegations; that he made outlandish claims about meeting senior ministers in order to draw out those he suspected of being involved in a confidence trick on him. The telephone calls described in Mr Calvert's letter describe the zenith of Lord Taylor's attempts to catch out his deceivers.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT

Summary

1. The first 36 paragraphs of the draft report are a flawed statement of the background facts of this matter and they misrepresent Lord Taylor's position in relation to the Sub-Committee's investigation. In particular, the report is unfairly critical of Lord Taylor's decision to raise entirely legitimate objections to the procedure adopted—objections that the Sub-Committee in this draft report has once again failed adequately to address in the summary provided.

2. In particular, Lord Taylor is disappointed to see that the Sub-Committee's draft report seeks to justify the various flaws in its procedure on the basis that it is "a parliamentary body and not a court of law". It remains the case that the Sub-Committee has not complied with minimum standards of procedural fairness even if conducted on an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial basis. Lord Taylor's correspondence with the Sub-Committee and his decision not to appear before them can only be reported fairly when put into this context.

Sunday Times

Paras 5 to 10—"The sequence of events leading to the investigation"

4. In paragraph 6 "newspaper stories" are incorrectly described as "evidence".

5. Paragraph 7 refers to a letter to the Sub-Committee from Norman Baker MP, which Lord Taylor has been sent, but also mentions correspondence from Ben Wallace MP, Keith Pudney and Ian Dixon, all of which ask that an investigation be conducted. Lord Taylor has not had sight of these communications nor been given any opportunity to comment on them. We request that copies be provided immediately.

Sunday Times

(a)From very early in his correspondence with the Sub-Committee, Lord Taylor had requested the identity of the complainant and a copy of the complaint made against him. We had to remind the Sub-Committee that an entitlement to knowledge of the charge against him before Lord Taylor was required to respond to that charge was a basic principle of procedural fairness.

(b)In a letter dated 4 March a series of charges were finally put to Lord Taylor, but it swiftly became apparent that these had been formulated not by any complainant but by the Sub-Committee itself. It was not until 11 March 2009 that Lord Taylor was informed that the Sub-Committee was acting on a response from Baroness Royall to the negative stories that had appeared in the press—not any complaint. Baroness Royall only herself claimed to be making a complaint on 12 February 2009—more than two weeks after the investigation had begun.

(c)Regardless of whether the Sub-Committee was acting as an adversarial court of law (the procedural safeguards of which are explicitly promised in paragraph 19(d) of the House of Lords Code of Conduct) or on an inquisitorial basis, it cannot be for the tribunal itself to create the complaint and formulate the charges against Lord Taylor. The initiation of the action is a matter for the parties not the judge. This is the same even in an "inquisitorial" system such as that adopted in France. The failure to observe this fundamental rule left Lord Taylor in the unacceptable and unfair position that the Sub-Committee was both his accuser and his judge.

7. In paragraph 10 the draft report states that on 12 February the police announced that they would not be examining the matter further. The Metropolitan Police Service actually issued a statement on 11 February 2009 in which they did confirm that "the Metropolitan Police will not undertake a criminal inquiry into any of the allegations raised". However, the statement immediately added: "Should any further evidence or information come to light then clearly we will be under a duty to review this decision". Quite plainly, the police will be reviewing the Sub Committee's report as soon as it is published and any finding adverse to Lord Taylor may put him in jeopardy.

Paras 11 to 16—"Our investigation"

8. Paragraph 12 states that while 3 of the 4 Lords concerned appeared before the Sub-Committee "Lord Taylor declined our invitation to attend". No explanation is provided of Lord Taylor's legitimate reasons for so doing. This passage is likely to stigmatize Lord Taylor unfairly for his entirely reasonable decision not to appear in person before the Sub-Committee. His reasons are known to the Sub-Committee and are addressed further below. The only way to remedy this unfairness is for all correspondence between Lord Taylor's representatives and Ms Street and Mr Keith to be published as an annex to the report.

Sunday Times

agents provocateurs

Sunday Times

independent

Sunday Times

14. Later in paragraph 13 of the draft report, the Sub-Committee states that "(we took the view that we needed a complete transcript of the recordings if we were to be able to conduct a fair and thorough investigation. So we asked the House of Lords Hansard department to produce for us an independent transcript of all the recorded material supplied to us". This paragraph omits any acknowledgement of the role played by the Lords' representatives in ensuring that the Sub-Committee conducted its investigation on the basis of accurate and impartial recordings.

Sunday Times

17. Paragraph 15 refers to a submission from Lord Harris that has never been provided to Lord Taylor. This should be provided immediately so that we can assess whether it is of relevance to Lord Taylor's claim.

Paras 17 to 25—Our procedures

18. At paragraph 21 of the draft report the Sub-Committee notes its own determination "always to act fairly in accordance with the rules of natural justice". It then claims that "the Members whose conduct was being investigated were told the rules under which their conduct was being assessed, were given full particulars of the matters that the Sub-Committee would have to assess in determining whether they had breached the Code, were shown all the evidence, and were given appropriate opportunities to respond".

19. Lord Taylor notes with regret that the truth of this statement is belied by the way the Sub Committee has conducted its proceedings.

Standard of proof

20. Lord Taylor is gratified to see from paragraph 19 of the draft report that the Sub-Committee has recognized the seriousness of the allegations against Lord Taylor and his co-accused and "accordingly decided to apply a very high standard of proof". It is however inexplicable that the Sub-Committee has nevertheless concluded that a standard "falling just short of the criminal standard" is appropriate.

In re A Solicitor

Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof)

In re D (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervening)

McCann's case

24. It is clear that it is no longer appropriate to claim that a `heightened' civil standard of proof has been adopted. The Sub-Committee should acknowledge this and apply the criminal standard of proof to these proceedings, as Lord Taylor has submitted since the investigation began.

Lack of representation & cross-examination

25. Paragraph 20 makes clear the stark inconsistency of the guarantee of "safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies" set out in paragraph 19(d) of the 31 March 2002 Code of Conduct and the subsequent denial of legal representation before the Sub-Committee, despite the power to dispense with Standing Order 67, which Lord Taylor invited the Sub-Committee to do. This is both anticipated by the very existence of this provision and would have been very easy to achieve had the Sub Committee wished to treat Lord Taylor fairly. There is no doubt that the House would have agreed to dispense with the standing order to allow representation by counsel. So it is wrong to suggest that para 19(d) of the Code of Conduct has been adhered to. The Sub-Committee ought to make clear in its report the reason why it has chosen to deny the rights guaranteed in the Code of Conduct for the House of Lords for the past seven years.

Sunday Times

27. The Sub Committee gives the excuse that its desire to keep the proceedings "informal" enables it to override the fundamental safeguards of legal representation and proper testing of evidence through cross-examination. In the circumstances, and given the potential damage to Lord Taylor, this approach is deplorable.

28. In any event, it is inaccurate to suggest that legal representation and questioning of witnesses by the parties is not consistent with an inquisitorial process. In many jurisdictions where an inquisitorial model is preferred to an adversarial system persons under investigation are entitled to be represented by counsel, who are able to ask questions of witnesses.

agents provocateurs

Appearance before the Sub-Committee

Sunday Times

31. The procedural objections raised on Lord Taylor's behalf that are listed in paragraph 25 have been discussed at some length above. However, the suggestion that Lord Taylor criticized the Sub-Committee because it had "rushed into deciding that it should hear the four Lords in oral evidence" is simply not applicable to him. Lord Taylor simply raised legitimate objections to the Sub-Committee's procedure. As a result, this passage wrongly suggests that Lord Taylor acted hypocritically when later postponing his interview—something that could not be further from the truth of Lord Taylor's consistent position on the Sub-Committee's procedures. Any delay to the proceedings resulted only from the slow release of relevant material to Lord Taylor (a process that is still ongoing).

32. It is unclear why the Sub-Committee, in paragraph 24, is so certain that the remedial action procedure could not have been applied. The generic statement in paragraph 24 does not apply to Lord Taylor. He has apologised both before the House and in paragraph 42 of his statutory declaration for the mistakes that he made, albeit that he is innocent of the charge of accepting a financial inducement to amend legislation.

Failure to address the behaviour of the Sunday Times

Sunday Times

Sunday Times'

Sunday Times

mens rea

Sunday Times'

35. If the Sub Committee really does take Lord Taylor's outlandish words in their literal meaning without crediting his sworn explanation then he has no hope of a fair judgment.

36. The suggestion in paragraph 26 that Lord Taylor could make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is risible. Not only would such a complaint serve no purpose in relation to the appalling allegations that have been made against him, but also the industry-run PCC's lack of independence is widely recognized (see Sir David Calcutt's "Review of Press Self-Regulation" (Cm 2135 (1993)). Indeed, the PCC Code of Conduct was drawn up by Les Hinton, the head of News International in Britain, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation pays substantial sums to keep it going and remunerated. It is absurd of the Sub Committee to suggest that Lord Taylor's complaints could be fairly heard.

Paras 27 to 36—The allegations in more detail

37. As discussed above, paragraphs 27 to 36 skate so lightly over the facts that it is hard to believe that the rest of the report will not include greater detail on which Lord Taylor has the right to comment.

38. These paragraphs, incongruously entitled "The allegations in more detail", to some extent explain the undercover journalists' approach to the four Members of the House of Lords. Yet even here the duplicitous nature of the entrapment carried out by those journalists is not discussed. The background and context of the confidence trick played against Lord Taylor is crucial to a proper understanding of the meetings held.

39. The bias against Lord Taylor is further demonstrated by there being no mention of his insistence that he was not prepared to speak on behalf of the "client" or to ask Parliamentary questions. Also unmentioned is Lord Taylor's declaration to the undercover reporters of his honesty and that he would not break his oath.

Publication of correspondence

40. It is reiterated that in light of the unfair way in which this draft report treats Lord Taylor both in relation to the allegations against him and in relation to his participation in the Sub-Committee's investigation, it is formally requested that all of the correspondence sent to the Sub-Committee on Lord Taylor's behalf, as well as Lord Taylor and his assistant's sworn statutory declarations, be published as an annex to the final report.

Yours faithfully

Finers Stephens Innocent

Letter to Finers Stephens Innocent LLP from Mr Keith, Thursday 23 April 2009

Dear Sir,

I have been instructed by the Sub-Committee on Lords Interests to reply to your letter of 17 April to Susannah Street. I am instructed to reply in the following terms.

The Sub-Committee will proceed in accordance with the rules by which it is governed. As we have already explained these rules are to be found in the Privileges Committee 4th Report of Session 2007-08 HL Paper 25.

The procedures require that when we deliver our report to the Committee for Privileges, we send it at the same time to each of the four Lords concerned and to their respective solicitors. Our report does not exhaust the procedures available to your client. Once you have considered our report your client with the benefit of your advice will be able to decide what action is appropriate and this includes the right to mount an appeal to our parent Committee, the Committee for Privileges.

I am instructed also to say that there is only one further point in your letter to which the Sub-Committee wishes to respond. The Sub-Committee regards it in the highest degree unfortunate to accuse it of a pro-Sunday Times bias and of a desire to cover up all alleged wrong doings by the Sunday Times. In the Sub-Committee's view this accusation is utterly misconceived.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Registrar of Lords Interests

Letter to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Mr Keith, Thursday 23 April 2009

Dear Lord Taylor,

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.

Sunday Times

— Part of your correspondence with the Sub-Committee.

— The Statutory Declarations made by you and by Janet M Robinson.

— 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

1 See para K 1.6. Back

2 The allegations were, of course, referred to the police. Back

3 This paragraph was quoted approvingly by the Privy Council in Campbell v Hamlet [2005] UKPC 19. Back