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
ALLEGATIONSYOUR
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
ALLEGATIONSYOUR
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 wrongsee 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
shedI 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
securityand also a contempt of Parliamentinvolved
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 (19956))
he confirmed that:
"(iii) proposed criticisms should be drawn
to the attention of the objects of the criticisms so that they
can, if desired, make representations or offer additional evidence
in response before the criticisms become final".[1]
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 adoptedobjections 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.
3. The Sub-Committee's repeated assertion that
it is a "parliamentary body" does not deal with the
fact that it is a public authority for the purposes of the Human
Rights Act 1998, subject to the fairness provisions of the European
Convention on Human Rights, whose decisions and recommendations
will severely affect Lord Taylor's rights and reputation. Indeed
his persecutor, the Sunday Times, has been advocating his
expulsion form the House of Lords. The Sub Committee is strangely
coy about whether it constitutes a public authority under the
HRA. It plainly answers to the definition in s.6 HRA which covers
"tribunals" and only excludes "a person exercising
functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament".
The Sub Committee must therefore comply with the provisions of
the ECHR. If it considers itself exempt from such obligations
simply because it is a "parliamentary body" then it
should say so and give a full explanation as to why.
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.
6. In paragraph 8 of the draft report, the Sub-Committee
states that on 26 January 2009 the 25 January letter from the
Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, was
taken "to be a complaint for the purposes of commencing an
enquiry into the allegations, and agreed to conduct an investigation".
This letter was not, on any sensible reading, a complaint and
in any event Baroness Royall is herself a member of the committee
charged with considering complaints against member of the House
of Lords. She was in reality passing on the complaint that had
been made to the world at large by the Sunday Times. Moreover,
(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 pressnot any complaint. Baroness Royall only herself
claimed to be making a complaint on 12 February 2009more
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.
9. The explanation in paragraph 13 that the Sub-Committee
decided oral evidence from the Sunday Times reporters was
not required because "we had no remit to examine the behaviour
of the Sunday Times" is dealt with below in the commentary
on paragraph 26.
10. It is also noted with concern that paragraph
13 fails to recount how reluctant the Sunday Times was
to disclose the material in its possession, and the way in which
that material was maliciously edited before being provided to
the Sub-Committee.
11. Indeed, it took more than a month and a half
before the Sunday Times finally handed over all the transcripts
it had prepared of the secretly recorded conversations between
Lord Taylor and its undercover agents provocateurs. It
is important to note at this stage that from the beginning the
Sub-Committee was content to rely on the accuracy of these transcripts.
Indeed, copies were sent to Lord Taylor and he was asked to provide
his response to the newspaper's allegations on the basis of what
they contained.
12. Obvious and alarming gaps and flaws in the
Sunday Times transcripts were noted by Lord Taylor's representatives
and brought to the Sub-Committee's attention. These included missing
exculpatory passages (such as Lord Taylor insisting that he is
honest and would not break his oath). These gaps and flaws can
only have been deliberately engineered on the part of the Sunday
Times. It was only after the completeness and accuracy of
these maliciously edited and incomplete transcripts was challenged
on Lord Taylor's behalf that the House of Lords Hansard department
was instructed to prepare independent transcripts.
13. The report should include a chronology of
the slow and incomplete "drip feed" of crucial information
to the Sub Committee from the 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.
15. The failure or refusal of the Sub Committee
to include any account of the devious behaviour of the Sunday
Times and how it was only rectified by Lord Taylor and his
representatives is an indication of its determination to cover
up all wrongdoing by the newspaper. This is a lamentable feature
of its procedures; a lamentable feature which is also evident
in the way in which it has protected the Sunday Times reporters
from cross-examination.
16. Paragraph 14 again entirely fails to record
that the Sunday Times deliberately censored relevant and
exculpatory material in an effort to make Lord Taylor's behaviour
appear more serious. This is yet another example of pro-Sunday
Times bias.
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 25Our 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.
21. Once the seriousness of the allegations against
Lord Taylor was recognized the only possible conclusion was that
the correct standard must be proof beyond reasonable doubt, ie
the criminal standard. Lord Taylor has repeatedly directed the
Sub-Committee to the case of In re A Solicitor [1992] 2
WLR 552, which made clear that the criminal standard of proof
applies in disciplinary proceedings where what is alleged is tantamount
to a criminal offence.[2]
22. In any event, it is far from clear what a
standard "falling just short of the criminal standard"
actually means, or how it could be applied in practice. The judgment
of Lord Lane in In re A Solicitor warned of adopting a
standard somewhere between civil and criminal:
"It seems to us, if we may
respectfully say so, that it is not altogether helpful if the
burden of proof is left somewhere undefined between the criminal
and the civil standards. We conclude that at least in cases such
as the present, where what is alleged is tantamount to a criminal
offence, the tribunal should apply the criminal standard of proof,
that is to say proof to the point where they feel sure that the
charges are proved or, to put it another way, proof beyond reasonable
doubt".[3]
23. More recently, in Re B (children) (sexual
abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35 and In re D (Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland intervening) [2008] UKHL 33
the House of Lords have made it clear that there is just one standard
of proof in civil proceedings, and that a heightened standard
must mean the criminal standard of proof. In the former case Lord
Hoffman confirmed:
"13 ... I think that the
time has come to say, once and for all, that there is only one
civil standard of proof and that is proof that the fact in issue
more probably occurred than not. I do not intend to disapprove
any of the cases in what I have called the first category, but
I agree with the observation of Lord Steyn in McCann's case,
at p 812, that clarity would be greatly enhanced if the courts
said simply that although the proceedings were civil, the nature
of the particular issue involved made it appropriate to apply
the criminal standard".
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.
26. Despite the fact that the Sub-Committee considers
itself to be an inquisitorial forum, it is nonetheless investigating
grave allegations and its findings could result not only in significant
damage to Lord Taylor's reputation but potentially also in expulsion
from the House of Lords (as the Sunday Times, indeed Mr
Calvert, continues to urge) and prosecution for criminal offences.
As a public body under the Human Rights Act 1998, and indeed as
a public decision making body, the Sub-Committee owes duties of
fairness commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations
against those it is investigating.
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.
29. The Sub-Committee is asked to note in its
report that Lord Taylor and his representatives believe that there
was a pressing need to cross examine the undercover reporters
and took grave exception to the Sub-Committee's decision that
there was no need to seek oral evidence from, or indeed question
in any way, the undercover reporters who, acting as agents
provocateurs, provided all the evidence against Lord Taylorand
indeed were the true complainants.
Appearance before the Sub-Committee
30. In paragraph 22 the Sub-Committee notes that
Lord Taylor "said in the House on 26 January that [he] wished
to be able to refute the allegations in person before the Sub-Committee".
This is not denied by Lord Taylor. His statement was, however,
made on the anticipation that the procedures of the Sub-Committee
would permit him to have a fair hearing, including legal representation
and the right to cross examine his accusers, namely the two Sunday
Times journalists. This expectation was entirely reasonable,
given the assurances set out in para 19(d) of the Code of Conduct.
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 interviewsomething 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
33. At paragraph 26 of the draft report, the
Sub Committee explains that it "was not within our remit
to examine the conduct of the [Sunday Times] journalists
or issues of entrapment or the undercover use of recording equipment
on parliamentary premises". This does not explain or excuse
the Sub-Committee's complete failure to consider the admissibility
before it of improperly obtained evidence, or to consider the
effect on Lord Taylor's mind of the gradually dawning realisation
that he may be the victim of a confidence trick.
34. Furthermore, Lord Taylor explained in his
statutory declaration that he acted in the way he did because
of the Sunday Times' attempted entrapment, of which he
became increasingly suspicious. This led him to make outlandish
claims about meeting senior ministers in order to draw out and
expose those he suspected. These statements were taken literally
by the Sunday Times, but in any consideration of Lord Taylor's
mens rea they must be read in terms of his purpose in making
them, namely to "flush out" the truth. Both taking evidence
from the Sunday Times' reporters and permitting their cross-examination
was essential to a fair consideration of Lord Taylor's defence
to the allegations against him.
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 36The 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.
The Sunday Times transcript
of your telephone calls/meetings/emails with the journaliststhis
transcript was slightly tidied up by the Sunday Times when
we requested an electronic copy, but we consider that no substantive
changes have been made.
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
|