Mr John Emmins
Chairman
National Federation of
    Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd
Catherine Place
London
SW1E 6HF

Dear Sir,

I am disappointed that your office has not seen fit to acknowledge or reply to my letter dated 5 August 2001 (ref: fsbfsb01/sdw).

That letter which was addressed to you, pointed to various serious allegations about the conduct of the affairs of your company, commonly known as the Federation of Small Businesses and termed the FSB. The allegations pointed to corrupt practices including questions of financial, administrative and 'moral' fraud, in the conduct of certain officers and directors of the FSB.

It has been suggested by an office of the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Minister for Small Business, and leaders, that I should pursue the allegations with you. On their accounts and with their knowledge I take this step to write to you again in the hope that meaningful progress might be made. As you may be aware I am also pursuing the matter of a proper police investigation.

Concerns about the conduct of FSB affairs and that of certain of its officers, in particular Company Secretary David Dexter, raises serious questions in widespread regions of the UK, so these are not matters of small local issues, raised by trouble makers, as implied by the FSB through its press officers.

Please permit me to press you, and your directors and shadow directors, to revisit this matter with less reliance upon information provided by FSB Company Secretary David Dexter. You should be aware that his credibility was questioned in a written decision in a case heard by Employment Tribunal (Scotland); case number, S/102682/99.

The Tribunal decision dated 29 September 2000, implied serious questions about the integrity of FSB internal disputes and disciplinary process by the criticism of David Dexter by questioning to various degree, the credibility of Leroy Bryan (Chairman of the FSB Disputes and Disciplinary Committee), and Timothy Walker (a solicitor and Secretary of the FSB Disputes and Disciplinary Committee).

I raise here the point of intra-FSB credibility to suggest that investigation of the manifold serious allegations against individual FSB officers and thus against the conduct of FSB affairs as a whole, could not be expected to command the confidence of those who have documented knowledge of the present state of FSB administration.

Page 1 of 5

The recent resignation of Donald Martin from two of his many FSB positions does little to clear the FSB slate. It is however, small step in the right direction.

Evidence of Donald Martin's racist, anti-semitic, and far-right associations, had been published in the Guardian and in International Searchlight over a number of years. Yet Donald Martin was retained as an FSB director, appointed National Vice-Chairman, and appointed FSB National Policy Chairman. The situation suggests a fundamental defect in the sense of moral and public responsibility of the majority of the related crop of FSB directors. It also not consistent with the multi-ethnic make-up of FSB small business members.

Unfortunately, various amendments of the Memorandum, Articles of Association, and Rules of the FSB, make it difficult for FSB members generally, to satisfy the qualifications set by the FSB hierarchy in the FSB constitution, for appointment to FSB regional and national FSB positions.

The high cost to FSB members of attending FSB national AGMs means that only 1000 to 2000 FSB-activists attend and decide upon FSB constitutional changes that appear to reinforce the positions fo FSB activists and existing officers and directors.

It is those FSB officers, directors and activists, who as well as being able to meet upgraded qualifying-conditions, also claim reimbursement from FSB funds for the cost of travel and accommodation, to attend the national annual conference which conveniently includes the AGM.

FSB membership, as reported by you Chairman, is said to exceed 160,000, so FSB constitutional changes appear to be decided upon by less than one percent (1%) of your membership; taking account of those attending the AGM and voting against proposed changes.

In any event, to enable rank-and-file FSB members to decide upon serious, and far-reaching proposals, members would need to be given adequate facts of relevant matters; especially information about FSB officers accused of mal-practice. I submit that in my experience that is not the case; at least up until this time.

As you no doubt know, under David Dexter's stewardship as Company Secretary, FSB members have difficulty finding out who their directors are, let alone finding out about the track-record of the individuals who are supposed to represent the interest of the FSB and of members generally. For example the FSB website appears not to have in any of its public areas, the names of its directors and national officers.

Why the secrecy in an organisation of a reported 160,000 members and which is said to influence Government?

In contrast to the 'Russian FSB', the administration of our FSB should surely be with open-hands (to FSB members); unless it is felt that the FSB-administration has incriminating skeletons behind a beguiling facade.

You may of course say that FSB directors have commissioned one or more investigation of the complaints which are again being tabled.

A response to such claim by you would be to invite you to place a copy of the report of each such investigation in the public domain by;

1. displaying the full text of relevant reports on the FSB website, and by,

2. sending a full copy of each such report to each FSB member in your next mailing,

Page 2 of 5

3. prevent the FSB hierarchy from spending thousands of pounds to bully into silence, FSB members who raise issues of serious concerns about the conduct of FSB affairs.

I am aware of three shameful 'so-called' investigations carried-out at substantial cost to FSB members funds. They were a waste of funds and a waste of time because in each case the investigators did not interview the complainants but appeared to meet with the accused.

For the first investigation of the three, two members of the FSB national executive committee were appointed by the committee, on 7 April 1999, to conduct the investigations. By a misnomer that national executive committee is called the 'Executive Board'.

An extract from the minutes of the 'Executive Board meeting read as follows;

"That National Vice-Chairman B Burns and Executive Board/Treasury Committee member E Burch be appointed to carry out an investigation into the financial affairs of the region including the setting up and running of the regional office and produce a factual report for consideration by the Executive Board."

Brendan Burns was based in Aberdeenshire, Scotland and Elwyn Burch based in Devon England. Both were current FSB directors and Elwyn Burch, was a member of the FSB Treasury Committee which had responsibility for overseeing FSB finances.

The complainants were not consulted in the matter of the establishment of a team for the investigation nor regarding its terms of reference. However some of the 'accused' were actually members to the committee which appointed the investigators.

Another question mark was the fact that during the period under investigation, several of those implicated in the allegations, had served or were serving, as fellow FSB directors/committee-members, namely; David Dexter, Bernard Juby, Gerald Godby, and Don Anslow.

The investigators did not interview any of the complainants, yet they found time to meet with the 'accused'. There also appeared to have been deception, when the contents of a memo dated

1 September 1999, from Elwyn Burch to me one of the complainants is related to details from the the minutes of an 'Executive Board' meeting 3rd September 1999. The memo read as follows;

"Unfortunately, neither Brendan Burns nor I will be able to attend the meeting proposed for Thursday 2 nd September to discuss the above matter. As I have not received any response from you regarding the meeting, I hope this will not cause too much inconvenience.

I shall be speaking with Brendan over the weekend and will try to re-schedule the meeting for a suitable date in the not too distant future."

On 3 September 1999 the FSB 'Executive Board' received a verbal report of the investigation to that date at its meeting held at Chesford Grange Hotel, Kenilworth, near Warwick.

Thirteen committee-members attended the meeting, including yourself Chairman, Elwyn Burch (t), Brendan Burns, David Dexter, Bernard Juby, Gordon Catto (t), Alan Wells (t).

It is notable that the persons marked with (t) were members of the FSB Treasury Committee which was responsible overseeing FSB financial affairs, and that as previously indicated, David Dexter and Bernard Juby were implicated in the allegations under investigation. So of thirteen 'Executive Board' members, six had good reason for determining that the complaints under investigation were without substance.

Page 3 of 5

I now invite you Chairman, to compare the contents of the above Elwyn Burch memo, with the following extract from the minutes of the September 3rd 'Executive Board' committee meeting;

"Mr Burch reported that he and Mr Burns had visited the Staffs and West Midlands former regional office that morning as part of the on-going investigation. They considered the investigation was now complete and the board requested a formal written report for the next meeting that addressed all matters raised in the letter signed by six members of the region."

To further crack the increasingly mottled facade of propriety about the FSB 'Executive Board' please allow me to further assist your recall of events, with a the following extract from the September 3rd 'Executive Board' meeting;

"The National Secretary, as Executive Board Liaison Officer, gave a full and detailed report on matters pertaining to Staffs and West Midlands regional committee. The board was UNANIMOUS in supporting this report."

Prior to a written report from the investigators being received and approved by the 'Executive Board', a senior FSB officer and director, at an FSB Staffordshire and West Midlands regional committee meeting held on 15 September 1999, stated with some certainty the outcome of the investigation; in a manner taken as a put-down of the complainants and a bolster to the accused.

The second investigation and its establishment of was so suspicious, that all seven signatories to serious written allegations refused to meet with the investigator. The complainants had stated disapproval of the conduct of the first 'so-called' investigation and I had reported my allegations to the West Midlands Police Fraud Squad. It was later found that the so-said 'independent investigator' had been appointed 'by hand of FSB Company Secretary David Dexter'. It was also found that a West Midlands Police Fraud Squad officer had discussed the matter with the FSB and David Dexter he had agreed with them that the FSB would appoint an 'independent investigator'. David Dexter was one of the persons complained against, yet as it happened he was left by the Police to deal with matter.

The investigation report was said to be confidential and FSB members whose funds paid for the report, have probably not even been told that there had been an investigation.

A third investigation, this time of allegations of racism, anti-semitism and far-right tendency, against Donald Martin, cost FSB members funds a substantial sum. Again the main complainants, the editors of International Searchlight magazine, were not interviewed. Have FSB members been told of this investigation?

Have FSB members been told of the enormous sums spent from their funds to stifle free speech of members and in so doing allow alleged financial and administrative corruption to continue to in FSB affairs? For some example of the wastage of FSB funds due to mal-administration, I cite the following to assist your recall:

1. the pay-off of Bill Anderson in Scotland;

2. the pay-off of Laraine Vowles in Kent;

3. employment tribunal, (referred to above), against former FSB director Malcolm Sanderson;

4. thousands spent on security guards at FSB AGM (Harrogate) to fend complainant-members;

Page 4 of 5

4. funds paid to Peter Smith, Stephen Collie and others to run FSB branches and regions where FSB directors deposed officers and committees democratically elected by local members. The removals from office and consequent disenfranchisement of local members, was usually done without a hearing, without proper notice of the facts and charges, and without notice or reference to local members.

Please accept this letter as a formal and public statement to you of very serious allegations of financial, administrative, and moral fraud in the conduct of certain officers and directors of the FSB. By its nature, such conduct brings the FSB into disrepute and is thus conduct which is against the interest of the members of the FSB. It is also conduct which has done human and material damage to myself and to certain members of the FSB.

It is my intention to continue to strive to clear my name of the slur of being summarily expelled from the FSB, without a hearing and without a proper statement to me of any charges against my conduct and against FSB membership.

It is also my intention to have my case heard by a properly convened, independent domestic tribunal or court of law, to which I intend to apply to have my expulsion nullified and my membership restored.

I also intend to continue to work with other in an effort to rid the FSB of corrupt and corruptive officers and directors, in the interest of the FSB and its membership as a whole.

As previously advised to the FSB please note that substantial outline facts of my allegations are on public notice on an internet website at http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~hbs

As chairman and long standing director of the FSB you will no doubt know that in the past the FSB has caused unfounded threats to be made to internet service providers which lead two ISPs to take my "FSB Scandal" web-pages off-line. Instead I invite written correction to me from yourself, the FSB or any other person, of any information on my website which they deem to be incorrect. My full contact details are shown on the website's homepage.

It is not my intention to do damage to any innocent party by any of the information publish on the website or elsewhere. Indeed I work for a just cause and have documentary affirmation of statements which I have posted on my website.

I would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt of this letter at your office and I look forward to your considered and constructive response.

Yours faithfully,

Hubert Taylor

Page 5 of 5