C) THE CHEQUES
FOR £12,000 AND £6,000
224. As confirmation of
his assertion that the two cheques from Mr Al Fayed for £12,000
and £6,000 were used for the purpose for which they had been
requested, Mr Greer pointed to the evidence of a schedule of payments
contained amongst the IGA accounting papers disclosed for the
court process.
225. This handwritten document,[80]
headed "General Election - 11th June 1987 - Expenses"
is in the form of a table, setting out in columns: the date, the
name of each recipient or donor, the amount of credit or debit,
and the running balance. The donations are recorded as: "May
19 - DHL International (the courier company) - £11,250";
and "May 30 - Cash receipts from M. Fayed - £18,000".
There then follows a list of recipients: a number of individually
named candidates and some local Conservative associations. Most
of the donations are for £500, a few are for £1,000,
and one - to the Kingston and Malden Conservative Association
- is for £2,000.[81]
Those of the recipients who are still Members of the House have
confirmed to the inquiry that they, or their local party, received
the amounts attributed to them in the schedule.[82]
226. The way in which these
payments are recorded indicates that those funded by Mr Al Fayed
were made some time after the £11,250 donation from DHL had
been exhausted. Of the £11,250 from DHL, a total of £10,250
had been paid out before the receipt, in two stages, of
the funds from Mr Al Fayed.
227. The only Members listed
in paragraphs 723 and 724[83]
whose local parties appear to have received a donation after
the DHL money had run out are: Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr Norman
Lamont, Mr Gerry Malone and Mr David Shaw.
228. At the foot of the
table is a note which reads as follows:
"Expenses paid
after date re Election
Accruals (paid 10/7
£1,000 plus £5,319.90)".
229. The figure of £5,319.90
is a reference to a cheque for that amount which was paid to Sir
Andrew Bowden's election fighting fund and which was earmarked
for the purchase of office equipment. This payment is dealt with
in more detail in a later section of the report.[84]
230. Analysis of the payment
schedule shows that some three items - presumably election-related
donations - totalling some £7,000 are not identified by the
name of the recipients. I received no evidence which linked this
money with any of the Members whose conduct is under investigation.
231. Referring to the possibility
that Mr Al Fayed had assumed the £18,000 was intended for
a much smaller group of Members - the lobbying group in fact -
Mr Andrew Stone, personal solicitor to Mr Greer, said that in
so far as this perception had been based on Mr Greer's use of
the words "one or two Conservative candidates" it was
misplaced. To Mr Greer this phrase could mean anything from one
to five hundred. It was a "diminutive expression, not one
that would be taken literally if you knew him".
232. Confirmation that the
purpose of the £18,000 was the distribution of relatively
small donations amongst a large group of candidates was provided
by Baroness Turner in her statement to the inquiry.[85]
The Position
of Sir Peter Hordern, Mr Smith, Mr Hamilton and Sir Andrew Bowden
in relation to the `Slush Fund' Allegations
233. Irrespective of the
question of whether a "slush fund" existed, I have received
no first-hand evidence that any Member of the lobbying group,
with the exception of Sir Michael Grylls,[86]
was paid money from it (as opposed to direct from Mr Al Fayed).
234. So far as Sir Peter
Hordern is concerned, it was alleged in the book Sleaze
that in late 1988 he had tabled questions hostile to Lonrho "in
return for payment". The implication was that, since it
had never been claimed that Sir Peter ever received cash
directly from Mr Al Fayed over and above his consultancy fee,
this money came from Mr Greer. In the event, during oral evidence
to the inquiry, The Guardian withdrew this allegation,
explaining that it had been based on a misinterpretation of the
documentary evidence.[87]
The Guardian accepted that no such questions were tabled
by Sir Peter.
235. Similarly, there is
no evidence available to the inquiry, either directly or in the
form of the documentation assembled for the libel action, linking
Mr Smith, Mr Hamilton or Sir Andrew Bowden with
cash payments[88]
channelled through Mr Greer. The principal circumstantial evidence
of such a connection was Mr Al Fayed's belief that the additional
payments he claimed to have made to Mr Greer were intended for
"his Members".
The Position
of Sir Michael Grylls in Relation to the "Slush Fund"
Allegations
236. The position in relation
to Sir Michael Grylls is rather less straightforward.
Sir Michael now accepts that he received three different types
of payments directly or indirectly from Mr Greer during the latter
part of the 1980s and the early 1990s. These were:
- commission
payments for introducing new clients;
- an
annual fee for advising the Unitary Tax Campaign[89]
(UTC), mainly paid direct to Sir Michael by UTC;
- an
additional or `top-up' fee paid by Mr Greer to reflect the additional
workload imposed on Sir Michael by his activities in support
of UTC.
76 
