E-mail to the Parliamentary Commissioner
from Mr Kevin Maxwell
Please see my replies below.
Thank you for your helpful reply to my letter
of April 2nd 2001 and offer of further assistance with my enquiry.
[Kevin Maxwell] Please let me know if indeed you
did receive directly from Dechert the copies of 1999 letter and
Please would you let me know the following:
1. Who attended the C&S Board meeting
on 7th December 1990?
Given the passage time and in the absence of contemporaneous documentation
including board minutes or access to my electronic diary (copies
were, as of 1996, maintained by the SF and I believe Price Waterhouse)
I cannot assist you.
2. Where was it held?
Without access to the minute book, I cannot assist you. Typically
board meetings involving corporate transactions (ie transactions
above the operating level involving my father would have been
held either at his office at Maxwell House, Fetter Lane or at
his office in the MGN building on Holborn Circus.
3. What discussion took place at any time
on 7 December concerning payment to Geoffrey Robinson for his
services, or the services provided by TransTec, to any other company?
As my previous response has indicated, I recall many conversations
with Geoffrey Robinson about compensation and fees over time.
However, I cannot independently recall any specific meeting on
December 7, 1990. Some of these conversations would have involved
discussions about his role at TransTec.
4. What sorts of payments were you and Michael
Stoney able to make in 1990 without the agreement of the late
Mr Robert Maxwell?
As per my previous evidence, only my father had the power to commit
the company and spend cash on his own authority and with his sole
signatory. Specifically no payments or compensation in cash or
in kind would be made to any "internal" or "external"
director by Michael Stoney or me acting together ob any combination
of authorised signatories and or directors without the express
approval and instructions normally in writing (which could be
a simple initial on a piece of paper) but sometimes verbal of
5. Did you or you and Mr Stoney ever make
any such payment to Mr Robinson or to TransTec, either without
authorization from the late Mr Maxwell or with this authorization?
Any payment to Geoffrey Robinson must have been approved/instructed
by my father.
6. You say you now believe that Pergamon made
the payment and that the invoice and handwritten annotations are
For the avoidance of doubt I have said that I believe that the
invoice and annotations are authentic. On the balance of probabilities
Pergamon made the payment. What I have gone on to say is that
without accurate banking information it will not be possible to
be certain one way or the other and above all it will not be possible
to identify the beneficiary with certainty.
Do you now recall signing the cheque in question?
Who else other than you was authorized to sign
that particular cheque (00 1751)?
I have no specific recollection of the cheque in question. I cannot
recall unaided the details of the bank mandate. My father would
have had sole signatory rights up to any amount. I recall that
Michael Stoney and I were amongst the next level of signatories
ie where 2 directors were required to sign off and that
our limit together would definitely have exceeded £200,000.
However, each payment at this amount would have required the authorisation/approval/instruction
of my father.
Who do you believe signed the cheque in question?
Michael Stoney would probably be able to assist you on this issue
better than I, however, to the best of my recollection this type
of payment would normally have been signed off by my father alone,
or might have been signed off by Michael Stoney and another director
(including myself) or indeed any two directors once my father's
authorisation and instructions had been made clear. But for the
avoidance of doubt, I have no specific recollection of the cheque
If you were able to provide me with additional contemporaneous
documentation, I will undertake to review the material and let
you know what, if any, additional information may be triggered
by such a review.
3 April 2001