|
8) OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
697. There remain a number
of other allegations against Mr Hamilton and Sir Michael
Grylls which do not conveniently fall within any of the other
categories of complaints which have been examined. These are:
- that
both Mr Hamilton and Sir Michael accepted payment
in addition to their Parliamentary salary to represent the interests
of their constituents;
- that
Mr Hamilton asked questions on behalf of Mobil Oil in return
for payment;
- that
Sir Michael solicited business for Ian Greer Associates
in the hope of receiving an introduction fee.
Mr Hamilton
National
Nuclear Corporation
698. The allegation that
Mr Hamilton accepted additional payment for representing
his constituents was as follows:
- the
National Nuclear Corporation (NNC) is based in Mr Hamilton's
constituency and many of his constituents are employed there;
- Mr
Hamilton received a commission payment from Mr Greer for introducing
NNC to Ian Greer Associates;
- Mr
Hamilton was employed for one year as a consultant to NNC
at a salary of £7,500;
- it
was already Mr Hamilton's duty as the relevant constituency
Member to represent the interests of NNC and its employees and
it was therefore improper for him to accept additional payment
for carrying out that duty.
699. Mr Hamilton's
response to this allegation was that:
- the
NNC had initiated the consultancy arrangement by approaching Mr
Hamilton[325]
(a fact confirmed by the NNC in a letter to the inquiry);
- any
suggestion that the £7,500 consultancy fee from NNC had purchased
Mr Hamilton's support in Parliament was false since he
had, ever since his election in 1983, spoken and acted in favour
of nuclear power and had continued to do so long after the consultancy
with NNC came to an end;
- the
payment reflected the additional time and effort Mr Hamilton
put in on behalf of NNC as part of the consultancy.
700. It was put to Mr
Hamilton[326]
that accepting a consultancy from NNC created a potential conflict
of interest for him in seeking to represent both the company and
others of his constituents with whom he was not in a financial
relationship. Mr Hamilton replied: "One would have
to have made up one's mind at that point as to whether the conflict
of interest was sufficiently great to require one to break the
relationship".
701. Mr Hamilton
was also challenged on his statement that the consultancy fee
was justified by the extra work involved in representing NNC's
interests. He accepted that if, for example, an individual constituent
came to him with a particularly complicated social security problem
which entailed a great deal of time and paperwork, no question
of charging for his services would arise. He again explained
that it was NNC which had approached him and the company had clearly
thought it appropriate to recompense him "for my pains".
He did not think it was "necessarily improper" to devote
part of his time to such employment.[327]
702. Mr Hamilton
acknowledged, in reply to a question from Counsel to the inquiry,
that it was likely that he would not have informed NNC at the
time he was offered a consultancy that he had received, or was
expecting to receive, a commission payment from Mr Greer which
was directly related to NNC. Explaining this, Mr Hamilton
said that he "would not have connected the two".[328]
Mobil Oil
703. The allegation against
Mr Hamilton relating to Mobil Oil was set out in the book
Sleaze. It is that Mr Hamilton, either during or
shortly after a one year consultancy with Mobil (worth, according
to The Guardian, £10,000), tabled Parliamentary Questions
in return for payment.
704. Mr Hamilton
stated that he had been appointed in 1989 as a consultant on taxation
matters to Mobil Oil and that this interest had been registered
(a fact confirmed by the Register for 1990).[329]
Mr Hamilton added: "I asked no Parliamentary Questions
on behalf of the company; nor was I ever asked to do so".
705. The analysis of Mr
Hamilton's Parliamentary activity between late 1989 and 1991
does not indicate that he tabled any questions, or tabled or signed
any Early Day Motions, or made any interventions in the House
that could be construed as directly relevant to the interests
of Mobil Oil.
706. The Guardian
questioned the reason given by Mr Hamilton for his employment
by Mobil, arguing that Mr Hamilton was not at that stage
an active tax lawyer. The book Sleaze also, however, quotes
Mobil as saying that one of their subsidiary companies was involved
in a dispute with the Inland Revenue over US/United Kingdom taxation,
a subject on which they regarded Mr Hamilton as an expert.
The Guardian pointed to the significance, in their view,
of the fact that at about the same time as Mobil concluded a consultancy
agreement with Mr Hamilton, they had engaged IGA as a Parliamentary
lobbyist.
Plateau
Mining
707. One other matter relating
to Mr Hamilton was raised in the book Sleaze in
a way which implied misconduct on his part. This concerned Mr
Hamilton's relationship with Plateau Mining, a mineral exploration
company. In the book, The Guardian claimed that shortly
after Mr Hamilton took up a non-executive directorship
with Plateau Mining, and following a director's report in which
his contribution to the company was praised, the company was floated
on the stock market. Eighteen months later the share price fell
from 90p to 13p, producing a significant loss for investors.
Moreover, according to The Guardian, although Mr Hamilton
resigned from the company on being appointed a Whip in July 1990,
he appeared to have continued to draw a salary until September
1990.
708. Mr Hamilton
explained that he had taken up the appointment with Plateau Mining
in January 1990 and the interest had been registered (a fact confirmed
by the 1991 Register). His salary had been paid quarterly in
arrears. Although he had left the company in July 1990, the company
had decided to pay him, as a valediction, a further quarter's
salary.
709. It was also alleged
in the book Sleaze that Mr Hamilton, after becoming
a Minister, attended an annual general meeting of Plateau Mining.
Mr Hamilton did not deny this but said that his principal
motivation had been the prospect of "a good lunch".[330]
He denied any impropriety on his part.
710. In so far as it relates
to Mr Hamilton's conduct as a Minister, this allegation
is beyond the scope of my inquiry. Nor was it claimed by The
Guardian that Mr Hamilton should have registered the
hospitality received from Plateau Mining.
Sir Michael
Grylls
Charles
Church
711. As with Mr Hamilton,
Sir Michael Grylls faced an accusation in the book Sleaze
that he took money, over and above his Parliamentary salary, for
services to a constituent which it was already his duty to perform
as the relevant constituency Member.
712. The specific allegation
was that Sir Michael accepted a commission payment from
Mr Greer for introducing as a client a property company, Charles
Church, whose headquarters were in Sir Michael's constituency.
713. Sir Michael's
explanation[331]
was that although he and Lady Grylls had known Mr Church and his
wife socially, Mr Church was not a constituent of his. It was
true, however, that Mr Church's company had its main office in
Camberley, in Sir Michael's constituency. Mr Church had
been aware that Sir Michael was working with Mr Greer through
the Unitary Tax Campaign and had asked if he could recommend IGA
as a suitable public relations company to assist in his campaign
for a change in planning legislation.
Rank Xerox
714. The final outstanding
allegation against Sir Michael Grylls is that, according
to the book Sleaze, he sought to promote the appointment
of IGA as a lobbyist by Rank Xerox, knowing that he would thereby
receive a commission payment from Mr Greer.
715. According to The
Guardian, in the early 1980s Rank Xerox was looking for political
support in its pursuit of an anti-dumping case against Japan and
made contact with Sir Michael in his capacity as Chairman
of the Conservative Party backbench Trade and Industry Committee.
At that time Rank Xerox were employing the public relations firm
Shandwick, and in particular Mr Keith Lockwood, to advise them
on tactics.
716. Mr Lockwood was quoted
in Sleaze as stating that he had organised a meeting between
a Rank Xerox executive and Sir Michael at the House of
Commons. The following day, Mr Lockwood had visited the company
and had overheard a telephone conversation between Sir Michael
and the Rank Xerox executive in which Sir Michael had said
that he would be willing to help with the campaign, but only if
the company engaged a good lobbying company. Whereupon, Mr Lockwood
claimed, Sir Michael offered Mr Greer's name and telephone
number. On being told that Rank Xerox already retained the services
of Shandwick, Sir Michael replied that, in that case, there
was "little he could do to help".
717. Mr Lockwood expressed
particular surprise that Sir Michael should have recommended
IGA to Rank Xerox since "at that time, Mr Greer did not have
an operation in Brussels and this was above all a European issue".
718. In a statement,[332]
Mr Lockwood confirmed that the account given in Sleaze
was correct as far as he could recall it. He could not, however,
remember the name of the Rank Xerox executive who had been present
at the meeting with Sir Michael and whom Sir Michael
had telephoned the next day.
719. Sir Michael,
in his oral evidence,[333]
expressed the belief that The Guardian's allegation was
based on a misunderstanding of his role. To the best of his recollection,
he had suggested that IGA might be able to help Rank Xerox but
once it was clear that they already employed a public relations
firm "there did not seem to be much more to be done".
Whether that constituted commission-seeking was "a matter
of opinion". But he denied that he had made any further
assistance on his part to Rank Xerox dependent on their appointing
IGA.
325 Q
2228. Back
326 Q
2229. Back
327 Q
2230. Back
328 Q
2225. Back
329 The
interest was first notified to the Registrar in November 1989. Back
330 Source:
Note by the Government Chief Whip, dated 24 October 1994 (not
appended). Back
331 See
Appendix 49. Back
332 See
Appendix 96. Back
333 Q
2408-2420. Back
| 
