| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Campbell-Savours: And more effectively.
Mr. Howarth: And more effectively, the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
It is an important point. However, the most important point is that an analysis of Ian Greer's accounts disproved beyond doubt that Neil Hamilton had received payment from Mr. Fayed via Ian Greer, and that charge, which was the essence of The Guardian's charge in October 1994, was dismissed by Sir Gordon Downey. The accusation that Neil Hamilton had received gift vouchers from Harrods was also dismissed.
As the legal action was proceeding, Mr. Hamilton sought the permission of Parliament to change the law so that he could take the case to court. He took it to court, and Mr. Fayed then changed the allegations about cash and said that, rather than being paid by Ian Greer Associates, it was paid face to face. Neil Hamilton pointed out that at one of the meetings where these cash payments were supposed to have been made by Mr. Fayed, Timothy O'Sullivan, a man of undoubted integrity, was also present. Mr. Fayed had forgotten that one, so it was no longer possible to argue that Neil Hamilton had been paid face to face. What happened then? Ah, we come to the brown envelopes. The brown envelopes were the means by which the payment was made. Mr. Fayed is a man most familiar with the transmission of cash through brown envelopes. I know because I have a constituent who used to be in his employ, and he tells me all about it. It is not all dishonourable stuff. It is the largesse of the man. He has much of it. Nobody knows where it comes from but he has much of it.
We found that Neil Hamilton had not been paid through Ian Greer. Sir Gordon agreed with that. He had not been paid face to face, because an independent witness proved that that could not have happened, at least on that particular date, and therefore must have undermined Mr. Fayed's credibility. Finally, at the door of the court, at the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we had the third allegation: that the cash in the brown envelopes was collected from the desk of Fayed's Park lane offices and couriered to Neil Hamilton's home. That is the changing scenario against which the judgments were to be made.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and inverness, West referred to the verdict in Scotland of not proven. I say to the Chairman of the Committee, it is a cardinal principle of English law--not Scottish law--that a man is innocent unless and until proved otherwise. In its report, the
Committee has failed to produce the evidence that Neil Hamilton received money from a very powerful business man.
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend and I sit on the Home Affairs Select Committee. He will recall that he has heard the Home Office Minister arguing in terms that where policemen face dismissal for serious disciplinary offences, the standard of proof should be the criminal one--beyond a reasonable doubt. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the appropriate approach to take with hon. Members of the House?
Mr. Howarth:
I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He has made a most important point. It is a most cavalier attitude if the House is saying that in this case a former Member of Parliament's entire life can be destroyed, completely shattered, simply on the balance of probabilities. That is not good enough. I do not think that Sir Gordon Downey's compelling evidence--his words--is compelling in the least. He has failed to say how much Neil Hamilton took. He has failed to say when he took it. He has failed to say how he took it. Above all, he has failed to say what happened to the money when he had taken it. As to how much he had taken, Sir Gordon is instructive. In volume I of the first report, at page 122, he says:
Mr. Howarth:
It is a lot of money, but it is no basis upon which a former Comptroller and Auditor General should charge a Member of this House and say
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) has said from a sedentary position that it was a lot of money. Sir Gordon also charged Mr. Hamilton with failing to declare a one-month consultancy, which added up to £667 and which he described as a material sum of money. So Mr. Hamilton has been stuffed both ways--£667 is judged a serious amount of money when it comes to non-registration of a consultancy, but between £18,000 and £25,000 is a cavalier amount of money.
It is instructive to read what Sir Gordon says in the report about what happened to the money. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that we must deal with the appearance, but that is absolutely breathtaking. To suggest that just because the public think that something wrong was committed, we must therefore go along with that, is a most extraordinary attitude. It is gravely damaging in one who is a member of the Committee, which should operate on the basis of fact alone and not on the basis of conjecture.
The Chairman of the Committee has said that it has not been possible to find hard evidence either way. Of course, it would be possible because Sir Gordon has gone through
Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton's bank accounts, building society accounts and all other accounts. He cannot find the money. What does he say about that in the report? He uses the following words:
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes):
Is it also right that the House should also ignore the corroborative circumstantial evidence which is in the Commissioner's report, such as that provided by the telephone message pads, which suggest that Mr. Hamilton was, to use the words in the report, "soliciting" for the preparation of payments? Should we also ignore such evidence or should we regard it as compelling circumstantial evidence?
Mr. Howarth:
The hon. Lady is a new member of the Committee and a new Member of the House, but--
Shona McIsaac:
I am capable of judging a case.
Mr. Howarth:
The hon. Lady does not need to get too excited because I was about to deal with whether that evidence was compelling or not. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady would be interested in considering what was the corroborative evidence. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am dealing with it. As for the message pads, the messages were taken by staff, and I want to deal with the staff.
Mr. Howarth:
No, I will not give way because time is getting on.
Miss Widdecombe:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howarth:
I will give way to my right hon. Friend. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Well, she is a lady as well.
Miss Widdecombe:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the exchange between him and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) provides an ample demonstration of the reasons why at least two of us on the Committee wanted to go through the evidence and test it thoroughly? Surely it amply demonstrates the exact problem that we faced--there was one piece of evidence followed by another, another and another, which we wanted to test.
Mr. Howarth:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, with whom I agree entirely. That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches at least, and, I believe, elsewhere in the House, are concerned about the findings of the Committee because there has not been an opportunity to
It is interesting that, in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), Sir Gordon said:
"The total amount received by Mr Hamilton is unclear, but it is unlikely to have been less than that taken by Mr Smith (between £18,000 and £25,000)."
Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley):
That is a lot of money.
"it is unlikely to have been less than"
while also saying,
"The total amount . . . is unclear".
I do not believe that a servant of the House--the Chairman of the Committee tells us that that is what he is--has any business making that kind of accusation.
"I am unable to shed any light on what became of this money . . . Given the relatively modest sums involved, and the fact that the payments were spread over a period of more than two years, the absence of such documentary confirmation of their receipt is perhaps not surprising."
That is not an acceptable judgment on which to condemn a man who has given great service to the House; a man who has given great service as a Minister; and great service to the country. He should not be condemned on the basis of such cavalier behaviour. The House ignores those facts at its peril.
"They cannot all be telling the truth and this has underlined the crucial importance of seeking independent corroboration for the allegations."
Sir Gordon did not explain why Al Fayed's employees were not independent in the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but suddenly became so in Mr. Hamilton's case. It is up to Sir Gordon Downey to explain that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |