Complaints against Mr Geoffrey Robinson

Since reporting to the Committee in my Memorandum of 22 June, I have received two further letters on the subject of which the Committee should be aware.

• On 25 June Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown sent me a copy of a letter he had sent to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking for an investigation into possible offences relating to false accounts under the Companies Acts. I have confirmed to Mr Clifton-Brown that, as in the case of Mr Wareing, I would regard such allegations as a matter for DTI and Companies House and therefore outside my remit.

• Mr David Heathcoat-Amory also wrote to me on 25 June drawing my attention to the 1990 Accounts of Central and Sheerwood PLC which showed emoluments of £150,000 for the highest paid director to cover the period 28 July 1987 to 31 December 1990. Mr Heathcoat-Amory claims that Mr Robinson has confirmed to the Daily Express that he was that director and that he received the money in January 1991. Mr Heathcoat-Amory pointed out that there is no record of a remunerated directorship in the published Registers dated 14 January 1991 and 13 January 1992.

I was already aware of this payment. In Annex C to my Memorandum of 22 June, Mr Robinson and his accountants confirmed that it was a single consultancy fee during his period as a director. The payment was referred to in paragraph 25 of my Memorandum.

Having received the payment, Mr Robinson in fact informed the then Registrar of his interest in February 1991 and the following entry appeared under Remunerated Directorships in the updates of the Register between February and November 1991:

"Central and Sheerwood PLC (from Jan 1991)."

There was no requirement under the rules to declare the amount of the payment.

There has been some confusion in the press about why this entry was removed before it appeared in a published Register. In their Third Report 1987-88, the Select Committee on Members' Interests had taken the view that all paid directorships held during a Parliament should be cumulatively listed in each Register published during that Parliament. The then Registrar sought to apply this guidance in each of the three following Registers, with only partial success. The recommendation of the Members' Interests Committee had not been endorsed by the House and the practice was abandoned for the 1992 Register.

Consequently, the entry was discontinued in November 1991 when the 1992 Register was being compiled and I can see no grounds for criticising Mr. Robinson on this account. The conclusions in my Memorandum of 22 June are therefore unaffected.

The Committee may also like to know that, with regard to the alleged payment of £200,000 from Hollis Industries, Mr Robinson has now told me that Arthur Andersen, the administrators of the company, are currently undertaking a scrutiny of the company's records with a view to checking the findings of Mr Stoney. The result may not be available for the Committee's next meeting but I have asked Mr Robinson not to delay his reply to the Chairman's letter of 23 June on this account.

30 June 1998