1.We have considered memoranda from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the complaints by Mr David Heathcoat-Amory, Member for Wells, and Mr Peter Lilley, Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, against Mr Geoffrey Robinson, Member for Coventry North West. The Commissioner's memoranda are appended to this Report, together with correspondence between Mr Robinson and the Commissioner and between Mr Robinson and the Chairman of the Committee (including papers received on 14 July).

2. We agree with the Commissioner that Mr Robinson should have registered a paid directorship in Swiss EDM/Agie UK Ltd between 1984 and 1987. We note that Mr Robinson has apologised for this omission and that he corrected it in 1987 when he became aware of it. Mr Robinson should have made it clear in his letter of 23 March 1987[1] to the Registrar of Members' Interests that this was a belated registration, and not the registration of a newly acquired interest.

3. Although the matter did not form part of the original complaints, the Commissioner investigated whether Mr Robinson's directorship in Transfer Technology Ltd/TransTec should have been registered. He found that it should, and we agree. The remuneration which Mr Robinson loaned back to the company was a benefit to Mr Robinson. Tax and National Insurance were paid on it. A directorship which is remunerated in this way, even if the remuneration is loaned back to the company, is registrable. We do not accept that the then Registrar of Members' Interests would, if the facts had been clear, have advised against registration of the directorship. Mr Robinson's shareholding in the company was properly registered.

4. On the evidence he had seen, the Commissioner thought the likelihood was that Mr Robinson did not receive remuneration as chairman of Hollis Industries PLC ("Hollis") and that the published accounts were in error. Mr Robinson gave us a categorical assurance, in his letter of 30 June[2] in reply to the Chairman's letter of 23 June,[3] that he did not receive any benefit directly or indirectly in respect of his chairmanship of Hollis. The firm of chartered accountants who deal with Mr Robinson's personal tax matters confirmed that there was no evidence whatsoever in his personal tax files that he actually received the remuneration referred to in Hollis's accounts, and that his personal bank statements for 1990 and 1991 did not indicate any receipt, directly or indirectly, from Hollis.[4] The administrators of Hollis (another firm of accountants) conducted an independent examination of the records in their possession and found no evidence that Hollis made any payment to Mr Robinson between 1 January 1989 and 11 December 1991, when the administrators were appointed.[5]

5. In his letter of 7 July[6] Mr Robinson drew our attention to certain papers found among Hollis's records in the possession of the administrators, namely an invoice to Hollis from Pergamon AGB PLC ("Pergamon"), to which were attached two handwritten notes containing a reference to a payment to Mr Robinson. He unequivocally assured us that this remuneration was not agreed by him and that no payment to him was ever made. He also provided us with evidence that a payment (as compensation for loss of office) of the same amount disclosed in Pergamon's accounts related to another director and not to him;[7] that his bank statements did not indicate any receipt, either directly or indirectly, from Pergamon;[8] and that his directorship of Pergamon was unpaid.[9]

6. We considered whether to investigate the records of Pergamon AGB PLC. We decided not to do so. Two firms of accountants have provided evidence that Mr Robinson was not a remunerated director of Pergamon, and we see no reasonable prospect that a further investigation, which would be a time-consuming and costly undertaking, would bring to light evidence which we could regard as conclusive.

7. We have received the clearest assurances from Mr Robinson that he did not receive the payment shown in the published accounts of Hollis. The statements of two firms of accountants support him. On the basis of the evidence we have seen, we believe the relevant entry in the published accounts is false, and we do not uphold the complaint.

8. The state of affairs revealed by the Commissioner's investigation reflects poorly on the chairman, directors and others responsible for producing and approving Hollis's accounts and their accuracy.

9. The Commissioner's investigations and the subsequent inquiries we made of Mr Robinson indicated that the payment he received from Central and Sheerwood PLC was properly entered in the updates to the 1991 Register.

10. We agree with the Commissioner in not upholding the remaining complaints of non-registration of paid directorships.

11. Mr Robinson did not meet all the requirements of registration. His conduct as a Member of Parliament does not reach the threshold which would justify the imposition of any penalty by the House.

2  Appendix 6. Back

3  Appendix 5. Back

4  Appendix 8, Annex A. Back

5  Appendix 8, Annex B. Back

6  Appendix 8. Back

7  Appendix 10, Annex B. Back

8  Appendix 10, Annex C. Back

9  Appendix 11, Annex. Back