Letter to Scotland Yard

The investigations into Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s privately sponsored trips to Madrid and London have been taken beyond the Integrity Commission and straight to Britain’s Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard has now been drawn into the matter as a result of a letter written to its Commissioner by UNC MP, Roodal Moonilal, questioning whether the two energy corporations involved, British Gas and Repsol YPF contravened British laws when they offered the Prime Minister the free trips during his overseas tour last December. Scotland Yard’s Assistant Commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur in a letter dated April 27, confirmed to Moonilal that Scotland Yard will be looking into the “alleged provision of improper benefits to foreign public officials by UK companies.”

He stated that the matter had been referred to the Detective Chief Superintendent, Nigel Mawer of the Specialist and Economic Crime Unit for “detailed consideration.” “Mr Mawer will reply to you directly, in more detail, in due course,” Ghaffur told Moonilal. The Scotland Yard  investigation is likely to centre around whether British Gas and Repsol, which are registered companies in the UK, violated British law and more specifically the “Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.” Under this Act it is an offence for a British national or a body incorporated under UK laws to  give gifts to foreign public officials. Moonilal’s letter to the Scotland Yard Commissioner was written on March 31 and copied to three bodies — The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (London); Ethical Corporation (London) and Transparency International (London).

Moonilal told the Commissioner that he believed that there were grounds for Scotland Yard to “investigate or cause an investigation into, the circumstances under which both Repsol YPF and British Gas offered ‘travel and hospitality benefits’ to public officials from Trinidad and Tobago.” In his three-page letter Moonilal detailed the background to his request and pointed out that both  companies were heavily involved in the petroleum industry in Trinidad and Tobago. “Repsol, at the time when such offers were made and accepted, was in fact bidding for offshore blocks for hydrocarbon exploration in Port-of-Spain. There was, in fact, an active bid process in train when Repsol extended such offers to foreign public officials,” Moonilal stated. With respect to British Gas, the Oropouche MP pointed out that on the PM’s return from London,  he announced new business arrangements between British Gas and the Government, which “favoured” British Gas. Moonilal reminded the Scotland Yard Commissioner that Britain was a signatory to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention in the dealings with public officials and companies.

In his letter, Moonilal recalled that while Manning told the country that a privately sponsored trip “was normal practice with multinational energy companies,” British Gas had issued a release stating that the provision of  travel benefits was “not standard practice for international energy corporations.” The Prime Minister’s office has in fact provided information that other officials of the UNC had utilised the same facility on a previous occasion. Government sources revealed that the officials during a trade mission to Texas, Chicago and Washington in August 1998 accepted a Conoco-sponsored trip from Texas back to Chicago. Moonilal has been tenacious in his pursuit of this particular issue. Apart from asking questions in Parliament, it was at his insistance that the Integrity Commission, announced in February that it was undertaking an inquiry into the matter.

The Commission stated then that it was “seeking  information from the appropriate sources regarding the circumstances under which these trips were made available.” The Prime Minister has insisted that there was nothing improper about the private companies footing his travel expenses between Madrid and London and has provided information to the Integrity Commission. The Integrity in Public Life Act,  prohibits any public official from accepting fees, gifts or personal benefits  that are connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her performance of office.