|
Submission to Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards from Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed
THE NEIL HAMILTON, MP, ENQUIRY
A. INTRODUCTION
1. On 5 December 1994, Mr Al-Fayed's counsel
wrote to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith DL MP, Chairman of the Select
Committee on Members' Interests, in connection with the complaint
made by Mr Alex Carlile QC MP to the Select Committee about Mr
Neil Hamilton. Acting on behalf of Mr Al-Fayed, D J Freeman outlined
Mr Al-Fayed's financial relationship with Mr Hamilton and advised
the Select Committee that Mr Al-Fayed was happy to assist the
Committee with its investigation of Mr Hamilton's conduct. The
Committee never followed up on Mr Al-Fayed's offer. No investigation
of Mr Hamilton's conduct was, to our knowledge, undertaken.
2. Nearly one year later, on 1 November 1995,
Mr Al-Fayed appeared before the Privileges Committee and, during
the course of his testimony, referred once again to Mr Hamilton's
conduct. It became apparent that the Committee on Members' Interests
had not copied Mr Al-Fayed's letter to the Privileges Committee.
Accordingly, Mr Al-Fayed placed his letter to the Chairman of
the Committee on Members' Interests before the Privileges Committee
and, on 30 November, Mr Al-Fayed's counsel wrote to the Clerk
of the Journals to advise that Mr Al-Fayed was prepared to appear
before the Committee to answer questions about matters not dealt
with in his earlier appearance, including Mr Hamilton's conduct,
and suggested that the appearance should take place before the
Christmas recess. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit
1. In his letter to the Privileges Committe on 4 December, attached
as Exhibit 2, Mr Al-Fayed reiterated his willingness to co-operate
with the Committee when he asked for a timetable for its investigation.
3. Subsequently, the matters raised in Mr Al-Fayed's
testimony before the Privileges Committee were, we understand,
referred to you, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Because the libel case brought by Mr Hamilton was in the midst
of discovery with a trial date set for October, 1996, all matters
relating to Mr Hamilton were deferred pending the resolution
of the lawsuit.
4. On 31 October, after Mr Hamilton dropped
his lawsuit against The Guardian, the Parliamentary Commissioner
asked Mr Al-Fayed to adduce any evidence in his possession relating
to any allegations against Mr Hamilton. The Parliamentary Commissioner,
of course, is aware of the correspondence about the Commissioner's
terms of reference and the procedures to be employed during the
course of the inquiry. On 21 November, the Commissioner informed
Mr Al-Fayed's solicitor in this matter, Mr Stuart Benson, of the
terms of reference and the procedures to be applied. This Submission
is made pursuant to the Commissioner's letter of 21 November
and the attached Proposed Procedures.
5. As set out in Mr Benson's letter of 2
December, we do not have a full set of the documents submitted
to your office on 29 November by The Guardian. We had
hoped that a full set would have been made available to us so
that we could make reference to a core bundle but because of legal
constraints on The Guardian, this was apparently not possible.
Accordingly, we are submitting a copy of relevant documents[2]
along with this Submission. However, because we do not have a
full set of documents at this stage, we reserve the right to
supplement this Submission in light of further evidence.
B. THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY
6. The Terms of Reference set out in the attachment
to the Commissioner's letter are as follows:
"To enquire into allegations of misconduct
against Mr Neil Hamilton and any other Members of Parliament
with a view to establishing whether there has been any breach
of House of Commons rules, in the letter or in the spirit, and
to report the findings to the Select Committee on Standards and
Privileges."
7. The allegations of which Mr Al-Fayed has personal
knowledge relate to the receipt by Mr Hamilton of monies without
declaring such receipt on the Members' Register of Interests and
then falsely denying that he had received the funds. However,
the enquiry, respectfully, should not be limited simply to that
issue. Both during and since the collapse of Mr Hamilton's case,
other allegations of misconduct have surfaced which require investigation.
In particular:
7.1 According to press reports, Mr Hamilton misled
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine when he was questioned
by Mr Heseltine as to whether he had any financial relationship
with Mr Greer. Mr Hamilton admitted during a BBC Newsnight broadcast
on or about 1 October that he received £10,000 as a commission
for introducing new clients to Mr Greer's firm. Mr Greer, we
understand, has confirmed making payments to Mr Hamilton. Indeed,
Mr Hamilton may have been one of the Members that Mr Greer identified
by code in a letter to the Clerk of the Select Committee as having
received money from Mr Greer's firm (a copy of that letter is
attached as Exhibit 3). There is apparently, however, a minute
of a conversation between Mr Hamilton and Mr Heseltine taken
by Sir Robin Butler which indicates that Mr Hamilton denied any
financial relationship with Mr Greer. (We have not been given
access to this document and can only rely on the press reports,
copies of which are attached as Exhibit 4.)[3]
7.2 Aside from misleading the Deputy Prime Minister,
Mr Hamilton also allegedly failed to declare the receipt of the
commissions from Mr Greer for introducing clients to Mr Greer's
firm.
7.3 In addition to receiving thousands of pounds
from Mr Greer, Mr Hamilton also apparently received gifts and
payments in kind worth thousands of pounds from Mr Greer. Mr Hamilton
reportedly used an Ian Greer company account at a London department
store (not Harrods) to purchase furniture. Mr Greer also reportedly
paid for paintings for Mr Hamilton and the Greer firm also bought
plane tickets for the Hamiltons. It is apparent that none of
these gifts or payments in kind were declared. It is not known
by Mr Al-Fayed, however, whether any of the monies he paid to
Mr Greer were used to buy gifts or make payments in kind to Mr
Hamilton. A review of Mr Greer's financial records would be required
to trace funds. The Guardian's report on the gifts and
payments in kind is attached as Exhibit 5. 1 Presumably, there
are documents produced by Mr Greer in the libel action against
The Guardian that would shed further light on this matter.
7.4 Payments were allegedly made to Mr Hamilton by
Mr Greer in connection with Greer's client, US Tobacco Inc. Mr
Hamilton claimed that the sum that he received was for introducing
US Tobacco to Ian Greer Associates as a client and not for representing
US Tobacco's interests in Parliament. Mr Hamilton wrote to the
Health Minister to advance US Tobacco's position before that
department; proposed an amendment to legislation in US Tobacco's
favour; and put down an early day motion favouring the company.
Neither the fees Mr Hamilton received nor a free trip to the
United States were declared by Mr Hamilton. We do not have access
to documents that would indicate how the payment was calculated,
when it was paid or when and how Mr Hamilton happened to meet
US Tobacco. Nor is it known whether the "commission payments"
that Mr Hamilton received from Mr Greer - to which reference
was made in paragraph 7.1 - are the same as the payments received
in connection with US Tobacco. Nor is it known if Mr Hamilton
met with health ministers regarding US Tobacco or what he told
them about his interests. Documents from Mr Greer's files and
perhaps Mr Hamilton's should help in clarifying this issue. See
Exhibit 6. 1
7.5 According to a Guardian article, Mr Hamilton
may also have received a payment from Strategy Network International
that was not disclosed on the Register of Members' Interests.
Exhibit 7. 1
7.6 Mr Hamilton reportedly lives in a house worth
£400,000 in Cheshire while also maintaining a flat in London.
In light of Mr Hamilton's parliamentary salary of £26,701
and his £10,000 out-of-London allowance (plus the secretarial
allowance to Mrs Hamilton), it is difficult to imagine how he
met the mortgage payments and other necessary living expenses
without receiving monies on the side that have gone undeclared.
See Exhibit 7. 1 Mr Hamilton's bank accounts and other financial
records should shed light on this question.
7.7 We understand that by the time that Mr Hamilton
dropped his lawsuit against The Guardian, he had not produced
his tax returns, as requested by The Guardian. Presumably,
Mr Hamilton should have been declaring on his tax returns the
sums that he received not only from Mr Al-Fayed but also from
Mr Greer and his firm as well as any payments that he may have
received directly from Mr Greer's clients.
7.8 According to The Observer, 13
October 1996, Mr Hamilton appeared to show favour to clients of
Mr Greer and, as a result of his receipt of fees or commissions
for introducing clients to Ian Greer and Associates, had a conflict
of interest in acting in favour of Mr Greer's clients. As The
Observer article alleges.
"As Corporate Affairs Minister, from April
1992 to October 1994:
- Insurance giant Prudential met Mr Hamilton
twice to seek looser regulation. It was paying Mr Greer at the
time.
- Controversial businessman Tony Berry,
of Blue Arrow, saw DTI action against him dropped while his business
partner was paying Mr Greer for other work.
- Mr Hamilton rejected action against
developer Trafalgar House, which was paying Mr Greer.
- Accountancy firms paying Mr Greer received
a ministerial promise to be `sympathetic' to their cause . .
. IGA promised the accountants that Mr Hamilton would accept a
`private briefing with IGA.' Mr Greer then confirmed: `IGA have
spoken off the record to Mr Hamilton . . . about the auditors'
case." Exhibit 8. 1 8. While Mr Al-Fayed does not have
personal knowledge of the matters set out in paragraphs 7.1 through
7.8, we do not understand the Terms of Reference to be limited
simply to allegations made by Mr Al-Fayed. The Speaker of the
House has called for a "full" enquiry but an enquiry
simply into the question as to whether Mr Hamilton received payments
from Mr Al-Fayed would not be "full" in light of all
the other allegations publicly made against Mr Hamilton. Indeed,
Mr Hamilton himself has called for this investigation, saying
he was taking his case to the Parliamentary Commissioner "to
clear his name" according to one report. He cannot, however,
have it both ways. That is, he cannot seek to clear his name by
insisting on an enquiry that is restricted to only one allegation
while there are other serious allegations outstanding.
9. Moreover, an enquiry into the matters set
out in the above paragraphs reflect on Mr Hamilton's credibility
and would, as well, corroborate Mr Al-Fayed's allegations. For
example, if Mr Hamilton lied to the Deputy Prime Minister, then
he is certainly capable of lying about receiving payments from
Mr Al-Fayed. If Mr Hamilton concealed payments that he received
from US Tobacco, then he would have the same motivation to conceal
payments from Mr Al-Fayed. If Mr Hamilton did not report on his
tax returns payments in kind from Mr Greer, then what credibility
does he have in denying receiving any monies from Mr Al-Fayed.
In short, an enquiry which encompasses the allegation set forth
above, all of which have been publicly made, is necessary not
only to determine whether Mr Hamilton has engaged in misconduct
but also because it will, we believe, corroborate Mr Al-Fayed's
allegations. If the Commissioner believes that it is not necessary
to investigate these matters or that he needs a particular complainant,
then we respectfully ask that he so notify us. (We note that
commentators in the press have opined that these matters should
be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner. See e.g. Exhibit
9.)[4]
C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE HIRING OF IAN
GREER ASSOCIATES
10. On 28 October 1985, Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed
met with Ian Greer of Ian Greer Associates ("IGA").
Mr Greer explained that he was a Parliamentary advisor and that
he would be able to meet with Members of Parliament to brief
them about matters important to the Fayeds and their company,
House of Fraser. In short, he told Mr Al-Fayed that he had lobbying
expertise that could be of assistance to the Fayeds in representing
their interests against the campaign then being waged by Lonrho
following the Fayeds' successful takeover of House of Fraser.
Mr Greer went on to explain that his client list included some
of the most prominent companies in the UK, including British
Airways. On the advice of his legal advisors as well as Lord King,
the Chairman of British Airways, whom Mr Al-Fayed knew, Mr Al-Fayed
agreed to retain Mr Greer and his firm.
11. For the preceding seven months, Mr Al-Fayed
and his family had been the target of a bitter campaign orchestrated
by Mr Tiny Rowland, Lonrho's chief executive officer. On 4 March,
the Fayeds had announced an all-cash bid for the shares of House
of Fraser, a company that Mr Rowland and Lonrho had been seeking
to acquire for nearly six years. By 11 March, Mr Al-Fayed and
his brothers had been successful in acquiring effective control
of HOF. Mr Rowland immediately began petitioning the Government
to refer the Fayed bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
But his efforts were not restricted merely to a request for an
inquiry.
12. Instead, Mr Rowland employed The Observer
newspaper and his Parliamentary contacts to bring pressure on
the Government to overturn the Fayeds' acquisition of HOF. On
10 March, The Observer, under the headline "The Bloody
Harrods Battle," published an article carrying Mr Rowland's
claim that the money being used for the purchase of HOF belonged
to the Sultan of Brunei and attacking the Fayeds' character. Nearly
every Sunday thereafter, The Observer published articles
attacking the Fayeds from one angle or another.
13. While we do not have a complete set of the
correspondence and meeting dates, it is apparent that Lonrho
representatives met with, or sent letters or made submissions
to, Government ministers or Members of Parliament on at least
10 occasions in the seven months between the date on which the
Fayeds acquired HOF and the date of the initial meeting with
Mr Greer. The Chairman of Lonrho, Sir Edward du Cann, who was
then also Chairman of the influential 1922 Committee, had been
particularly active in the House of Commons, lobbying on Lonrho's
behalf and mounting a parliamentary campaign against the Fayeds.
14. But the Lonrho campaign took on a completely
new dimension when Members of Parliament began to attack the
Fayeds from the floor of Parliament. There could be no doubt that
these attacks were inspired by Lonrho. But, at least to the Fayeds,
it seemed extraordinary that what was essentially a business dispute
between two men would find its way into Parliamentary questions
and debates.
15. Between the date on which the Fayeds
acquired HOF and Mr Al-Fayed's initial meeting with Mr Greer,
there were at least 10 Parliamentary Questions tabled in support
of Lonrho's campaign against the Fayeds.
15.1 On 11 March 1985, the day that the Fayeds
effectively acquired control of House of Fraser, Mr Teddy Taylor
MP tabled a Written Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry if he would refer the Fayed offer
to the MMC.
15.2 About one week later, on 19 March, Mr Bryan
Gould MP put down a Written Parliamentary Question asking the
Trade and Industry Secretary whether he was making inquiries of
the Egyptian Government about the Fayeds.
15.3 Eight days later, on 27 March, Mr Greenway
MP asked the Secretary if he intended to refer the Fayed acquisition
to the MMC, even though the Secretary had announced two weeks
earlier that he had decided not to refer the matter.
15.4 On 6 June, Mr Gould asked the Secretary
to publish any information concerning the financial backers behind
the successful bid to take over HOF which he had available to
him.
15.5 Eight days later, Mr Gould tabled another
Written Parliamentary Question, this one asking the Secretary
"if he had full information as to the source of financial
backing for the Al-Fayed bid for House of Fraser." 15.6
On 24 June, Mr Wrigglesworth MP, in a Written Parliamentary Question,
asked the Prime Minister if she was "satisfied with the
co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before a decision was reached
not to refer the Al-Fayed bid for the House of Fraser to the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission." 15.7 On that same
date, Mr Wrigglesworth put down two more questions for the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry, asking about the bases for the
decision not to refer the Fayeds' bid to the MMC.
15.8 Four days later, on 28 June, Mr Wrigglesworth
asked the Secretary if he had sought any evidence about the Fayeds'
financial capabilities from any sources other than the Fayeds
or their bankers.
15.9 Finally, before the Parliamentary break,
Mr Wriggleworth asked the Secretary on 12 July to disclose the
sources from which he obtained information about the Fayed.
16. Mr Teddy Taylor eventually would ask
23 hostile questions. Why was he so suddenly interested in Harrods?
What prompted him to lead this parliamentary campaign? The same
questions could be asked of Mr Wigglesworth and other MPs.
17. It was under these circumstances that Mr
Al-Fayed was advised to retain Mr Greer. If Mr Al-Fayed's position
were to be heard in the Halls of Parliament and if he were to
defend himself from the charges being hurled against him there,
he needed a Parliamentary advisor who could represent his interests.
Companies routinely retained Members of Parliament to advise
them about Parliamentary affairs, Mr Al-Fayed was advised. Mr
Al-Fayed knew this to be true since, when he acquired HOF, he
learned that HOF had employed a Member of Parliament, Sir Peter
Hordern, as a paid consultant.
18. Mr Al-Fayed was also well aware of Lonrho's
use of political influence. He had been invited to be a member
of the Board of Directors and joined the Board in 1974-75. Also
on the Board at that time were two Members of Parliament, Sir
Edward du Cann, MP, and Mr Duncan Sandys, MP, and also the Rt
Hon Angus Ogilvie. In addition to being a MP, Sir Edward du Cann
had also been former Chairman of the Conservative Party and was
Chairman of its 1922 Committee. All were non-executive directors.
They were paid very highly. Sir Edward du Cann in particular,
as part time Chairman, received in excess of £400,000 per
annum in the financial year immediately following the appointment
of DTI Inspectors. That figure was extraordinary even in light
of the sums being paid today, some 10 or more years later, to
other non-executive chairmen such as:
| Sir Michael Angus | Boots | £120,000 |
| Nicholas Baring | Commercial Union | £87,000 |
| Bob
Bauman | BR Aerospace | £51,000 |
| Lord Cairns | BAT | £67,000 |
| Sir Colin Corness | Glaxo Wellcome | £185,000 |
| Sir
Nigel Mobbs | Kingfisher | £165,000 |
All
of these men have a lifetime experience of running major companies.
They have an established reputation for delivering shareholder
value. What did Sir Edward du Cann and his colleagues bring to
Lonhro that justified such disproportionately high pay? Mr Rowland
made no secret to Mr Al-Fayed that these gentlemen brought political
influence. Mr Al-Fayed saw them in action, using parliamentary
and political influence and contacts to further Lonrho's interest.
19. That it was commonly accepted practice at
the time for senior Members of the House to couple their parliamentary
earnings with very substantial sums elsewhere in return for deploying
their parliamentary experience and contacts for the benefit of
their employer can be seen from the fact that Sir Edward du Cann's
£410,000 salary as part time Non-Executive Chairman of Lonhro
escaped criticism in 1977 when Cedric Brown's £491,000 salary
as full time Chief Executive of British Gas has recently been
castigated in Parliament. Mr Al-Fayed could see that, following
his family's acquisition of House of Fraser plc, Mr Rowland seemed
to be getting full value for his money! 20. Accordingly
when he found himself to be under attack by Lonrho's political
machine in 1985, Mr Al-Fayed was advised that he needed a firm
of Parliamentary lobbyists who would work on his behalf to brief
Members of Parliament on House of Fraser's position and to organise
certain members to lobby on HOF's behalf. This, he was advised,
was entirely regular. As noted above, some of the most respected
companies in England were clients of Ian Greer Associates.
D. THE GREER STRATEGY AND MR HAMILTON'S ROLE
21. Two days after meeting with Mr Al-Fayed,
Mr Greer sent a letter to him setting out his suggestion for
a strategy. That letter is attached at Exhibit 10. It appears
that the first MP that Mr Greer approached on Mr Al-Fayed's behalf
to carry out that strategy was Mr Neil Hamilton. Indeed, his initial
suggestion was to arrange for Neil Hamilton to table a question
drafted by Mr Greer and a lawyer acting for Mr Al-Fayed, Mr Michael
Palmer:
"I have now seen Michael Palmer and taken
a briefing from him. I have spoken to Neil Hamilton MP, Vice-Chairman
of the Conservative Party's Trade and Industry Committee, who
has agreed to table a question - a question, which is being drafted
by Michael and myself, to Leon Brittan. The House of Commons
rises today until Tuesday. The question will be published in the
Order Paper next Thursday." Mr Al-Fayed does not recall
ever meeting Mr Hamilton prior to this time.
22. On 7 November, 1985, Mr Greer sent a letter
to Mr Al-Fayed to confirm the financial arrangements. His company
would act as "Political Advisors" for a period of one
year at a fee of £25,000. Exhibit 11.
23. Shortly after the New Year, Mr Greer wrote
to Mr Al-Fayed to request a meeting to discuss plans for "establish[ing]
good working relationships with key Members of Parliament."
Exhibit 12. It became clear that Mr Neil Hamilton was
one of the Members that Mr Greer had in mind.
24. Throughout 1986, Mr Greer arranged for briefings
for Mr Hamilton and letters to be sent to him about Lonrho's
campaign against the Fayeds.
25. During that same year, Lonrho's Parliamentary
campaign against the Fayeds continued unabated. For example,
Mr Al-Fayed was advised by Mr Greer that two Questions had been
tabled by Teddy Taylor which, he wrote, appeared to be Lonrho
prompted. Exhibit 13. But Lonrho went further than simply attacking
the Fayeds. They extended their attack to the Members of Parliament
who appeared to support the Fayeds. For example, two Early Day
Motions (EDM) were tabled condemning Members who had called for
the enforcement of the undertaking requiring independent directors
for The Observer and Mr Rowland wrote to all Members enclosing
copies of the EDMs. The letter to all Members, of course, went
on to attack the Fayeds as well. Exhibit 14.
26. The year 1987 commenced with another motion
being tabled, this one condemning the treatment of staff by Harrods
"since the Al-Fayed takeover". The motion and the amendments
proposed to it were believed to be inspired by Lonrho.
27. At about the same time, 19 February 1987,
Mr Hamilton tabled two Parliamentary Questions, each asking for
a response from a Minister to letters that had been written to
him, one by Mr Al-Fayed and the other from a lawyer acting in
his behalf. Exhibit 15. The following month, Mr Hamilton tabled
another motion for HOF, applauding the agreement reached between
Harrods and its staff. Exhibit 16.
28. On 23 July 1987, Mr Hamilton wrote to Mr
Al-Fayed offering to be of more assistance. As Mr Hamilton wrote,
"I have now been elected Secretary of the
Conservative Finance Committee, all of which gives me a better
position from which you [sic] act on your behalf. Previously,
as a PPS, it was less easy." Exhibit 17.
In that same letter, Mr Hamilton enclosed a
letter he had written to the Chairman of the Stock Exchange calling
for a speedy inquiry into Lonrho accounts.
29. Lonrho's campaign did not cease with the
appointment of Inspectors in 1987. Mr Rowland continued to send
letters, pamphlets and books to Members of Parliament. On 12 July,
Mr Greer sent a note to Mr Al-Fayed describing what he was doing
to reply to the attacks:
"Have seen Neil and others. Expect Motion
to go down tonight. Am drafting series of questions to be put
to Trade and Industry next week and a further very strong anti-Rowland
motion before Parliament rises for the summer." Exhibit
18.
30. Two days later, Mr Hamilton tabled a motion
condemning Mr Tiny Rowland:
"That this House condemns the continuing
barrage of libellous and vicious propaganda being sent by Tiny
Rowland, allegedly on behalf of Lonrho plc and at the expense
of its shareholders, to honourable Members; further demands that
he refrains from pursuing his bitter personal vendetta against
the House of Fraser in this House; calls upon Mr Rowland to act
in a manner befitting that of a Chairman of an international
public company; and requests the Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry to call upon his inspectors to complete their inquiry
into the House of Fraser without further delay." Exhibit
19.
31. On 29 July, Mr Greer wrote again to
Mr Al-Fayed. This time he suggested a letter to be sent to Lord
Young:
"I have spoken to Neil Hamilton, he is
writing over the weekend - the letter will be hand delivered to
Lord Young on Monday. We have agreed the text of the letter and
it is strong." Exhibit 20.
Mr Hamilton's letter to Lord Young, about which
Mr Greer had written, is attached as Exhibit 21.
32. On 29 March 1989, Mr Greer wrote to Mr Al-Fayed
that he had "[a]greed with Neil Hamilton four questions
(faxed to you earlier today) which have now been sent to Brian
for use in tomorrow's press. Believe it will be possible to put
more questions down next week." Exhibit 22.
33. One week later, on 4 April, Mr Greer faxed
a note stating that "[t]he following questions will appear
on tomorrow's Order Paper (please note additional questions)."
A copy of the fax and the questions that were actually tabled
appear at Exhibit 23.
34. On 3 May 1989, Mr Greet sent to Mr Al-Fayed
an Early Day Motion signed by Mr Hamilton for tabling later that
day. Exhibit 24. Copies of Motions to which Mr. Hamilton added
his name on 3 May, 21 June and 28 June are attached as Exhibit
25. (Of course, Lonrho was continuing to arrange for the tabling
of Questions itself. See, for example, Exhibit 26).
35. Mr. Greer also worked closely with Mr Hamilton
in preparing letters to Ministers. For example, a letter dated
21 March, 1989, on Mr Hamilton's notepaper to Mr Douglas Hurd,
Home Secretary, bears the legend "Not To Be Released Under
Any Circumstances Without The Permission Of Ian Greer." Exhibit
27.
36. Mr Greer has been reported to have told
Central TV's Cook Report that he, in fact, could arrange for a
Parliamentary Question to be tabled:
"We would never say we can arrange to have
a question tabled, but actually we can. If we went out and said
that, there's bound to be someone who would take great offence
to think that a middleman could arrange such a thing but, as
it happens, yes of course we do." Cook Report (unbroadcast),
March 1994.
Mr Hamilton, the evidence seems clear, was one
of those MPs upon whom Mr Greer could call to arrange the tabling
of a Question or, for that matter, sending a letter or taking
other action on behalf of a client.
E. PAYMENTS MADE TO MR HAMILTON
37. From the 8th through the 14th of September
1987, Mr Hamilton and his wife stayed at The Ritz Hotel in Paris
as Mr Al-Fayed's guests. Mr Al-Fayed had extended the invitation
to the Hamiltons in recognition of Mr Hamilton's assistance.
To defray any further expenses for the trip, Mr Al-Fayed also
arranged for cash in an amount between £2,000 and £3,000
to be given to Mr Hamilton.
38. Mr Hamilton and his wife stayed at the
Ritz Hotel for six nights in September 1987. They occupied Apartment
356 during their stay. We understand that Mr Hamilton has suggested
that he and his wife occupied Mr Al-Fayed's private rooms. There
are however, no private rooms at the Ritz. Apartment 356 is an
ordinary double room, a fact that would be obvious to Mr Hamilton.
(Mr Al-Fayed's private guests in Paris are accommodated at private
apartments which he owns on the Champs Elysees.) The bill for
the Hamiltons' stay came to Ffr 21,104.45 (excluding accommodation).
A copy is attached as Exhibit 28.[5]
This is equivalent to £2,119.77 at 1987 exchange rates,
or £3,010.07 today (after uplifting in line with the RPI
index). Whilst Mr Hamilton was staying as Mr Al-Fayed's guest,
he was asked to sign a bill for everything but accommodation to
confirm he had received the meals and extras itemised. The value
of the accommodation he occupied was Ffr 14,760.00. This was
equivalent to £1,482.52 in 1987, or £2,105.18 today
(after uplifting in line with the RPI index). The total bill
for Mr Hamilton's six night stay was therefore £3,602.29
(£5,115.25 today).
39. A week or so later, Mr Hamilton asked if
he and his wife could stay again at the Ritz but Mr Al-Fayed
instructed the Hotel to indicate to Mr Hamilton that there was
no accommodation available as he felt that Mr Hamilton was abusing
his hospitality. A copy of the Hotel Manager's statement is attached
as Exhibit 29.
40. During the 1987 to 1989 years, Mr Hamilton
met with Mr Al-Fayed, often at Mr Hamilton's request, to explain
to Mr Al-Fayed all the efforts he was undertaking to provide advice
on Parliamentary matters and to assist Mr Al-Fayed's interests,
sometimes indicating that he was incurring Mr Rowland's wrath
in doing so. Mr Hamilton would make clear how much time he was
spending on HOF's behalf. Mr Al-Fayed took these entreaties to
be thinly veiled requests for compensation and Mr Al-Fayed would
oblige Mr Hamilton, giving him cash sums or Harrods vouchers.
Mr Hamilton would also occasionally call Mr Al-Fayed's office
and ask if an envelope was ready for his collection. On these
occasions, money would be placed in an envelope for Mr Hamilton's
collection.
41. In the letter of 5 December 1994 to Sir
Geoffrey Johnson Smith DL MP, to which reference was made in
paragraph 1 above, solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Al-Fayed
set out a schedule of dates on which sums were paid to Mr Hamilton.[6]
The dates were taken from Mr Al-Fayed's diary which recorded the
dates of meetings between Mr Hamilton and Mr Al-Fayed, Mr Al-Fayed's
recollection being that cash (a bundle of £50 notes) or
gift vouchers were handed to Mr Hamilton on every date on which
a pre-arranged meeting took place between the two of them, during
the years 1987 to 1989.
42. At the meetings prior to Christmas in
1988 and 1989 (15 December 1988 and 21 November 1989), Mr Al-Fayed
recalls giving Mr Hamilton Harrods gift vouchers in the sum of
£3,000 for Christmas shopping and at one of the meetings
in February 1989 (16 or 20 February), he recalls giving Mr Hamilton
£1,000 in gift vouchers. On one or more of these occasions,
Mr Hamilton broadly hinted that he wanted or intended to "go
shopping". As noted above, when Mr Al-Fayed gave to Mr Hamilton
cash sums, Mr Al-Fayed would hand to him an envelope containing
a bundle of £50 notes. (A bundle of £50 notes, as assembled
by the bank, would total £2,500). While Mr Al-Fayed does
not have evidence, independent of his diaries, of the dates on
which he gave vouchers or money to Mr Hamilton and does not contend
that he handed Mr Hamilton cash sums or vouchers on each and
every occasion the two men met, he is certain that vouchers and
cash were given to Mr Hamilton on each occasion. The two of them
met alone at one of Mr Al-Fayed's offices. As already stated,
the dates have been compiled from Mr Al-Fayed's diary entries.
Witnesses who were employed by Mr Al-Fayed during the relevant
time period can corroborate the fact that sums were prepared prior
to meetings between the two men and, indeed, can affirm that
Mr Hamilton would call Mr Al-Fayed's office seeking an envelope
for Mr Hamilton's collection. One of the individuals is still
employed by Mr Al-Fayed and another is a trainee solicitor at
a prominent London law firm.
43. As noted earlier, Mr Greer had advised Mr
Al-Fayed that he could arrange for questions to be asked, for
early day motions to be tabled and for the Government to be lobbied.
In fact, Mr Greer was able to accomplish much of this through
Mr Hamilton. As time went on, he explained that this was perfectly
normal and that other companies did the same thing. There was
no doubt that Lonrho was engaging in the same practice. Mr Greer
made it clear that it would be appropriate to show appreciation
for Mr Hamilton's efforts by offering him money. Indeed, Mr Greer
would ask on occasion for money in addition to his retainer which,
Mr Al-Fayed understood, would be offered to Hamilton. Because
Mr Al-Fayed knew that it was an established practice for MPs
to receive compensation for their Parliamentary advice, just as
HOF had been paying Sir Peter Hordern over the years before Mr
Al-Fayed acquired HOF, he acceded to Mr Greer's requests. Mr Al-Fayed
does not know whether Mr Greer actually passed on any of this
money to Mr Hamilton in cash or in kind.
44. There was never any tariff for Mr Hamilton's
services. Nor was there any quid pro quo. That is, Mr Al-Fayed
did not pay a sum of money to Mr Hamilton on each occasion that
he wrote a letter, tabled a question or a motion or engaged in
any other conduct to assist HOF or Mr Al-Fayed. By the same token,
there was not any prescribed amount paid for anything that Mr
Hamilton may have done. There was no contract or agreement placing
a restriction on Mr Hamilton with respect to his conduct in Parliament
or imposing on him any requirements to take any action in Parliament
in exchange for payments. Instead, sums of varying amounts were
initially paid to Mr Hamilton in appreciation for his advice
and assistance and then, over time, Mr Hamilton made it obvious
that he expected payment to be customary when the men met.
2 Not printed. Back
3
Not printed. Back
4
Not printed. Back
5
Not printed. Back
6
See Appendix 1. Back
| 
