B) THE CHEQUE
FOR £13,333
205. The payment to Ian
Greer Associates of a sum of £13,333 (£15,332.95 including
VAT) in 1990 is not disputed. An invoice for that amount, dated
1 February 1990 and ascribed to "fees", was authorised
for settlement by Royston Webb on 19 February. The fees were intended
to cover a three month period beginning on 1 February. A note
in Mr Webb's writing, dated 12 February, says "Agreed with
AF". It is to be assumed from the form of Mr Webb's annotation
that a cheque for that amount was paid to IGA shortly after authorisation
and that it was a cheque from House of Fraser or a related company,
not a personal cheque from Mr Al Fayed.
206. What is at issue is
the purpose for which the payment was made. It was Mr Al Fayed's
contention, first in his solicitors' letter to the Select Committee
on Members' Interests in 1994, and subsequently in his witness
statement for the libel trial, that the sum of £13,333 was
for services rendered by Members, although in his oral evidence
Mr Al Fayed added the clarificatory phrase "through Ian Greer"[69]
Mr Al Fayed explained that, as with the alleged quarterly £5,000
payments, when Mr Greer asked for reimbursement of "overheads",
he had not enquired very closely what this term meant, but had
assumed it referred to the need to reward those Members who formed
part of the lobbying group. According to the book Sleaze,[70]
Mr Al Fayed believed that the additional payments were needed
by Mr Ian Greer because his basic consultancy fee of a little
over £2,000 a month was at the lower end of his normal scale
of charges for high-profile lobbying work of this kind.
207. To the claim by Mr
Greer that the £13,333 was a special project fee, The
Guardian replied in its second submission to the inquiry[71]
that such a project "was never undertaken" and "no
plans [for it] ever came into existence". The most that
Mr Greer appeared to have done following the official publication
of the DTI Inspectors' report was to provide a Parliamentary clippings
service. This, in The Guardian's view, strengthened the
theory that the purpose of the money was, in reality, to place
Mr Greer in funds to enable him to make payments to various Members
in connection with his lobbying operation. As it was put by Mr
Geoffrey Robertson QC, Counsel for the newspaper: "The curiosity
of this payment is that it was rendered ahead of time, according
to Greer, for work which was not in fact ever done".[72]
208. The remark by Mr Robertson
was a reference to the fact that the payment was authorised on
19 February 1987, but the publication of the Inspectors' report,
which was claimed to have given rise to the special project, did
not take place until 7 March.
209. Suspicions as to the
true purpose behind the £13,333 have been fuelled by the
extraordinary preciseness of the amount, which appears to be the
product of dividing some larger sum either by three or by a multiple
of that figure. Questioned on this point, Mr Webb told the inquiry
that, although he had authorised the invoice for payment, he had
not been "aware of any discussion that lay behind it".
And he added: "For example, if there had been a meeting
between Ian and Mohamed and they had decided that this sum was
to be paid for a particular reason, but for the sake of cosmetic
appearance let us call it something else, then it would be the
something else that I would be aware of". Mr Webb agreed
that the sum was an odd one and that it had probably resulted
from "a certain amount of horse-trading".[73]
C) THE CHEQUES
FOR £12,000 AND £6,000
210. Shortly before the
1987 general election, Mr Greer received two cheques from Mr Al
Fayed. The first, debited to Mohamed Al Fayed's account on 21
May, was for £12,000 and the second, debited on 2 June, was
for £6,000. The fact that these cheques were given to Mr
Greer is documented and is not challenged. As with the cheque
for £13,333 in 1990, it is the use to which the payments
were to be put (and were actually put) which is the source of
dispute between Mr Al Fayed and The Guardian, on the one
hand, and Mr Greer (and by extension the accused Members), on
the other.
211. In his witness statement
for the libel action, Mr Al Fayed referred to the cheques as "special
payments", adding: "I was specifically asked by Ian
Greer for this money to pay Messrs Hamilton and Smith and I paid
it to him for that reason".[74]
He challenged the explanation that the money was intended for
donations to a number of Conservative candidates' election expenses
on the grounds that he had already made a large contribution to
central funds and would not have been interested in assisting
with local campaigns.
212. Some support for Mr
Al Fayed's view of the purpose of the cheques as being for making
payments to a small group of Members emerged from the letter requesting
the second tranche sent by Mr Greer to Ali Fayed on 28 May 1987.
In this letter Mr Greer wrote: "I spoke to you last week
and you kindly said you would speak to Mohamed about the possibility
of helping one or two[75]
Conservative candidates during the election campaign. I think
a cheque for £6,000 would be sufficient ... I will let you
have a note after the election of whom was assisted". In
the event, no such information was provided to Mr Al Fayed.
59 This
is the term used in Sleaze (p 64). It has also been adopted,
for the sake of convenience and brevity, in this report. Back
60 In
certain press reports, Ms Bozek has been referred to as Alison
Foster, which is her maiden name. Back
61 60
Park Lane is one of two addresses which feature prominently in
the allegations - the other being Harrods. 60 Park Lane
is part of an apartment block owned by Mr Al Fayed and where he
has his residence and main office. Harrods, the department
store owned by Mr Al Fayed, is in Knightsbridge, where Mr Al Fayed
also has an office. A third address, South Street, close
to 60 Park Lane, is the headquarters of House of Fraser Holdings. Back
62 Q
69. Back
63 Q
217-228. Back
64 Q
422-3. Back
65 Q
639. Back
66 See
Appendix 5, para 43. Back
67 See
Appendix 94. Back
68 ie.
the set of four messages on a page; "questioned" in
this context means "whose authenticity has been challenged". Back
69 Q
573. Back
70 Sleaze,
p 64. Back
71 See
Appendix 30. Back
72 Q
808. Back
73 Q
1836-7. Back
74 Q
545. Back
75 Emphasis
added. Back
