|
Letter from the Parliamentary Commission
for Standards to Sir Peter Hordern MP
As you know, I am conducting an inquiry into
allegations made against a number of Members, including yourself.
I am now in a position to set out in formal
terms the complaint made against you, principally by The Guardian.
The allegations of misconduct are, broadly, but not exclusively,
as set out in the draft Amended Defence of The Guardian
in the High Court action 1994 H No. 1654, dated September 1996,
which you may or may not have already seen (for your assistance
I enclose a copy of that Draft Amended Defence). Where there are
references in the list of allegations to Mr Ian Greer, the reference
should be read as if it included Ian Greer Associates Limited,
or any similar company or entity by which Mr Ian Greer carried
on the business of public affairs consultant and Parliamentary
lobbyist.
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT MADE AGAINST SIR PETER
HORDERN MP
1. From 1985 to 1990 you were a member of a
group of five Members of Parliament (Mr Neil Hamilton, Sir Michael
Grylls, Mr Timothy Smith, and Sir Andrew Bowden during part of
1987, and yourself), who comprised the parliamentary lobbying
operation for Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House of Fraser. As
a member of this group you, together with the other Members of
Parliament in your group, received material benefits for work
undertaken.
2. In April 1987 you accepted an invitation
from Mr Al-Fayed to spend the weekend of 25-26 April 1987 in
Paris staying at The Ritz hotel - with other Members of Parliament,
and Mr Al-Fayed. That visit was cancelled on or about 10 April
1987.
3. Although it is accepted that during this
period you acted as a paid consultant to the House of Fraser,
and such interest was declared in the Register of Members' Interests,
it is alleged that you must have been aware that Neil Hamilton,
Tim Smith and others were being paid to advance the cause of Harrods
and/or Mr Al-Fayed, but that you failed to disclose this fact
to ministers and colleagues at meetings attended by you - see,
for example, the meetings on 13 May 1987 and 14 December 1987
- see paragraphs 8B and 16 of the draft Amended Defence).
4. From associated documents it is alleged that
you further failed to declare your own financial interest on
various occasions when corresponding with Ministers and officials
or attending meetings on behalf of Mr Al-Fayed.
You will probably be aware that additional allegations
were made in the book Sleaze: the Corruption of Parliament,
published last week. It may be that these allegations will be
further developed and expanded in evidence to the enquiry from
The Guardian or other witnesses, and you may wish to bear
this in mind when producing your statement.
I would welcome a detailed, written response
to these allegations setting out which are accepted, which are
disputed and, in so far as actions or omissions are accepted
by you as correctly described, providing any explanations which
may assist me in my inquiry. As part of that written response
I would be assisted by details of all benefits (monetary
or otherwise, direct or indirect) received by you or by your family
from Ian Greer (of course including Ian Greer Associates Limited,
etc.) and/or Mr Al-Fayed (or Harrods, House of Fraser or any
related company). If payments were received in cash, I would appreciate
details of how such payments were made, when they were made,
and by whom and to whom they were made.
I do not seek to place any limit on the length
of any written statement which you may wish to submit, but so
that the inquiry can proceed I would appreciate your written
statement as soon as possible, and in any event, by 6 February
1997. If you propose to submit written statements from others
who may assist me in considering your responses to these allegations,
I would also hope that they could be provided to me by the same
date. If there are potential witnesses from whom you have not
been able to obtain written statements, please identify them
(with details as to how they can be contacted) and explain why
their evidence will assist me in investigation of the allegations
set out earlier in this letter.
DOCUMENTS
I would welcome copies of any documents upon
which you may wish to rely, which may show the limit of payments
received by you, and/or evidencing payments in money or benefits
in kind, including hospitality, from Mr Al-Fayed, Harrods, House
of Fraser, Mr Ian Greer (and/or Ian Greer Associates), whether
conferred directly or indirectly, including commission payments
(if any) for the introduction of new clients to Ian Greer and/or
Ian Greer Associates. In particular, I would want to see any
records kept by you of payments received.
PROCEDURE
I enclose a copy of the procedure note which
forms the basis for the conduct of my inquiry.
(Sir Gordon Downey)
28 February 1997
Extract from Letter from Sir Peter Hordern
MP to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
I reject the allegations of any misconduct
on my part absolutely.
BACKGROUND
I agreed to become the Parliamentary Consultant
to House of Fraser at the invitation of Professor Roland Smith,
the Chairman, in January 1982. I was invited to serve as consultant
in late 1981, but told Professor Smith that I would prefer to
await the publication of the Monopolies Commission Report on whether
Lonrho should be allowed to increase its stake in House of Fraser
beyond the 27 per cent that it owned, since the facts would then
be clearer.
The Commission recommended that Lonrho should
not be allowed to increase its stake, and the Government accepted
the recommendation.
The House of Fraser was, at the time, the largest
store group in Europe. It owned more than 100 stores in the major
towns and cities in Britain, including Harrods, and employed 22,000
people.
Lonrho, on the other hand, was a highly indebted
conglomerate. If it had been able to acquire House of Fraser
on reasonable terms, its own balance-sheet would have been transformed.
On the other hand, in my opinion, those working for House of
Fraser would have had their jobs put at risk if Lonrho had pursued
a policy of asset disposals.
Lonrho had significant political influence through
Sir Edward du Cann. I regarded it as my task to assist the Board
of House of Fraser to remain independent of Lonrho. Lonrho, despite
huge endeavours, has never been able to buy House of Fraser.
During my visits to House of Fraser stores all
over the country, I became attached to the managers and employees
of the stores. Professor Smith asked me to report my impressions
of my visits, which I did. I always reported to the Chairman,
Professor Smith.
I give this background because it is essential
to understand that my interest was not only declared, but very
well-known to Ministers for years before the Fayeds acquired
House of Fraser.
I frequently wrote to Ministers and visited
them when Professor Smith was Chairman of House of Fraser.
THE ALLEGATIONS
1. Disclosure of Interest
I have always declared my interest in House
of Fraser in the register of Members' interests from the beginning
of my association with House of Fraser until the end. This has
never been challenged, and, indeed, has always been openly admitted
by "The Guardian" and all other newspapers.
Although it is clear from your enclosures that
I did not always formally declare my interest in every letter
over a nine year period it would have been otiose repeatedly
to do so given my long and well-known connection with the company.
Moreover, my recollection is that I always formally declared my
interest in meetings with Ministers.
The important point, it seems to me, is not
whether I formally declared my interest to Ministers in writing
on every occasion after the Fayeds gained control, but whether
Ministers and the DTI in fact knew of my interest. I do not think
there can be any possible doubt in the DTI that I was House of
Fraser's parliamentary consultant.
My letters about Lonrho and House of Fraser
ran like a constant stream from the time of my appointment in
1982 till the time I left in 1991.
Of course, if my connection with House of Fraser
had not been known for years within the DTI and if I had written
to Ministers out of the blue, I would certainly have stated my
interest. But given the intensity and frequency of my correspondence
with Minsters on House of Fraser matters for years before the
Fayeds took control, I believe that further repetition was unnecessary.
If you feel it would be helpful to refer to
Professor Sir Roland Smith about this statement, I have his consent
for you to approach him.
You will find him at:
Professor Sir Roland Smith
Chairman
Hepworth Ceramics 5, Queen Street, WIX 7PH
I am sure that any scrutiny of my correspondence
with the DTI over the entire period would leave no doubt that
I had made clear my interest.
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
In late 1984 the Fayeds acquired the House of
Fraser. There was no reason to believe that Lonrho would slacken
their efforts to acquire House of Fraser, and indeed, they did
not.
I regarded my task, to defend the interests
of House of Fraser and its employees, as the same as it had always
been. In my letters to Ministers, I constantly referred to the
interests of those who worked for the company, as the documents
bear out. In the face of constant and intense controversy, it
was essential that the Board and their legal advisers should
have parliamentary and political advice.
Soon after the Fayeds acquired the House of
Fraser, they invited me to table Questions and Motions on their
behalf.
I refused to do so. Although, technically, it
would have been in order for me to do so, I have always held the
view, rightly or wrongly, that one should not table Questions
or Motions which purport to be in the public interest if a business
interest is being served.
I should like, therefore, to refer you to Page
70 of The Guardian publication "Sleaze".
"To defend his beleaguered client, Greer
fired back another salvo of planted PQs about alleged Lonrho arms
deals. Peter Hordern tabled them in exchange for payment".
I refute this allegation completely.
This tabling of Questions is alleged to have
taken place at the end of 1986. I have asked the Library of the
House of Commons to list all the Questions I tabled in both 1986
and 1987. I append this list. From this list, you will see that
I have never tabled any Questions which have any connection whatever
with House of Fraser, the Fayeds, or with Lonrho.
The statement in the book is, therefore, a total
fabrication.
3. Mr Greer
Since I tabled no
Questions, I certainly received no money for doing so from Mr
Greer.
Nor did I ever receive any payment from Mr Greer
of any kind. Nor did I ever require or receive any advice from
Mr. Greer in House of Fraser matters or any other matters.
I turn now to my relationship with other MPs
and the allegation that I was part of Mr Greer's Parliamentary
lobbying operation for Mohammed Al-Fayed, and House of Fraser.
The Fayeds clearly felt that their side of the
battle was not being publicly made. If I was not prepared to table
PQs or Motions, they would find an organisation to arrange this
for them.
One has to remember that the Fayeds were under
siege from Mr Rowland and Lonrho.
What is more, it was a very public siege, in
which their conduct, their reputation and their means were under
almost daily attack from Mr Rowland. It was perfectly natural
that they should seek to find some means of countering these
attacks.
The Fayeds told me that they had engaged Ian
Greer professionally, as it was perfectly in order for them to
do, although I advised against it.
My job was to advise the Fayeds on Parliamentary
matters, just as it had been before with Professor Smith. I frequently
met them, generally in company with their legal advisers. I wrote
to Ministers, and attended meetings with Ministers, just as I
had done previously with Professor Smith. Mr Richard Fleck of
Herbert Smith, Solicitors, Exchange House, Primrose Street, EC2A
2NY will confirm the fact that my role was to advise and represent
the House of Fraser.
I invariably sent copies of my letters to Ministers
to Mohammed Fayed. I am sure he sent copies of my letters to
Ian Greer. It was perfectly in order for him to do so.
4. Concerted Lobbying
It was quite natural
that Mr Greer should seek to persuade the officers of the Trade
and Industry Committee to attend meetings with Ministers in my
company. I naturally welcomed their support in a cause which
commended itself to them.
I do not think I ever corresponded with Mr Greer
on House of Fraser matters.
I certainly did not look to him for advice on
such matters. Nor, to my knowledge, did he ever advance any advice
to me.
I had no knowledge of any financial arrangements
that may have existed between Mr Greer and other MP's. Nor did
I assume that only those with a financial interest would support
the Fayeds.
I was not the only MP who disliked what Mr Rowland
was doing, and who felt sympathy for the Fayeds. Indeed, one
MP expressed himself frequently on these matters for whom there
was no question of any financial reward. I felt great sympathy
for the Fayeds whom I thought were unjustly treated.
I was paid to advise. I was certainly not paid
merely to lobby.
I advised the Fayeds, and the Fayeds alone.
I always declared my interest. The Fayeds engaged Ian Greer, as
they had every right to do so. That was the sum of my knowledge
of the matter.
I was naturally pleased that Sir Michael Grylls,
Mr Smith and Mr Hamilton took the same view of House of Fraser
and Lonrho as I did. As the officers of the Trade and Industry
Committee they would be expected to have a view. I was certainly
not aware that Mr Hamilton, Mr Smith and others were being paid
to advance the cause of Harrods and/or Mr Al-Fayed, if indeed,
they were so paid.
If they were so paid, it would have been their
responsibility to declare to Ministers their interests about which
I knew nothing.
5. Payments and other Benefits
My interest, that is House of Fraser, was always
declared on the Register and well-known from years of correspondence
to Ministers and the DTI.
Ministers at all times knew of my interest in
House of Fraser, which was of very long standing. I am not certain
what charge against me is implied by the reference to a planned
visit to the Ritz which was subsequently cancelled. My relationship
with House of Fraser and the Fayeds was in any event fully disclosed.
6. Your Inquiry
In view of the allegation
on page 70 of the book "Sleaze", I can well understand
why you sought to ask details of my remuneration. I trust that
you will now agree that there is no justification for doing so,
since no case exists against me.
You will know that it was not a rule at that
time that Members should declare what their earnings were, so
long as their interests were declared which mine always were.
Nor am I aware of any rule of the House that
Members who have correctly declared their interest, where those
interests have long ceased, should be expected to declare their
earnings from such interests especially in the face of unfounded
allegations.
I do not believe there is any precedent for
a Member who has always properly declared his interest, where
that interest has long ceased, to be asked to declare what his
earnings were.
As you know, the Code of Conduct relating to
the conduct of Members states, in paragraph 67, that "it
is not sufficient to make an unsubstantiated allegation".
And "that it would not normally regard a complaint founded
upon no more than a newspaper story as a substantial allegation".
In my case, it is surely clear that the allegation
against me is not only unsubstantiated but demonstrably false.
If a member may be subjected to false allegation
of incidents which took place years ago, even though his or her
interest was always properly declared, he should not be expected
to declare the benefits he received, but be given an opportunity
to rebut the allegations alone. Otherwise no member is safe from
false allegations.
I hope I have said enough to dispel any doubts
about my conduct and to persuade you that I have always declared
my interest. I trust that you will agree that there is no prima
facie case against me and that I should now be released from
the Inquiry.
5 February 1997
| 
