|
WITNESS STATEMENTS BY MR IAN GREER[62]
Ian Bramwell Greer of 19 Catherine Place, London, SW1E 6DX
will say:
1. I am 62 years of age, having been born
in 1933. After leaving school at 17, I went on to further education
at a business college before, in 1953, commencing work for Conservative
Central Office as a Constituency Campaign Organiser. I later
became the then youngest Conservative Party agent in the country.
2. I have always, throughout my adult life,
taken a great interest in politics, probably through the influence
of my parents, who were both Salvation Army Officers and deeply
committed Christians who devoted a great deal of their time to
social work. I can recall at the age of about 12 or so delivering
leaflets in support of the late Winston Churchill's election
campaign. I recall that at the time I started work for Conservative
Central Office I was paid £6.00 per week which, even those
days, represented little more than a subsistence allowance. My
work involved establishing the structure of Conservative Party
organisations in the various constituencies where I was sent,
raising funds and seeking to introduce new members to the Conservative
Party. I thought a great deal about the possibility of standing
for Parliament myself but, since I do not come from a wealthy
background, and knowing how insecure an MP's position can be,
after 13 years I decided to concentrate on developing my own
professional career, outside the Conservative Party.
3. My first thought was to seek employment with
a public relations company, but my name was passed to the then
Lord Butler, better known as RAB Butler, the former Deputy Prime
Minister and Secretary of State for Education, and Sir Evelyn
De Rothschild, a member of the famous banking family, who were
involved in establishing the Mental Health Trust. I left the
employment of the Conservative Party in 1966 to become National
Director of the Trust, which was an organisation pledged to a
campaign to raise money and to change the attitude of both the
public and government towards the mentally ill. At the time, there
remained a great deal of ignorance about mental illness not only
amongst the public but also amongst politicians; the attitude
still at that time was to lock the mentally ill away from other
members of the community in huge, Victorian institutions. I recall
our campaign slogan at the time was "Hurt Minds Can Be Healed"
and I believe that a great deal of the work which I, and others
connected with the Trust, carried out, helped to enlighten both
the public and the legislators to have a greater understanding
of the problems of mental illness. I held the position for two
years, working as a lobbyist on behalf of the mentally ill, their
families and dependents.
4. My experience at the Mental Health Trust
demonstrated to me the contribution an effective lobbying campaign
can make. I was already aware, from my time at Conservative Central
Office, where I had always taken a keen interest in American
as well as British politics, of the far greater developed lobbying
system which had grown up in the US and the more effective way
in which campaigns were mounted, by both professional and non
professional lobbyists in the US, in order to ensure that legislators
had a better understanding of particular social or business concerns.
I was also aware of the very wide feeling amongst industrialists
that Members of Parliament and Government Ministers had no real
understanding of their needs, and the widespread feeling of MPs
and Government Ministers that industrialists did not understand
the process of government. I accordingly decided, with a colleague,
to start a political public relations company, Russell Greer Associates,
which was set up in 1968. With the benefit of hindsight, I can
see that the concept was ahead of its time. I found it very frequently
to be the case, when approaching potential clients, that the attitude
tended to be that the directors of a company felt they would
be able to follow what was going on in Parliament from reading
the Financial Times or, quite frequently, I would be told
that one of the directors had been close personal friends of
an MP for many years and was quite sure that the MP would keep
the company informed of anything it needed to know. Many of the
people I met at this time seemed to have great confidence in the
traditional "old boy" network and, although my intention
had been for Russell Greer Associates to be involved mainly in
political matters, it became largely a financial and general
public relations company. The years from 1968 until 1982 were
a time of great struggle for me financially, trying to develop
the business.
5. In 1982, John Russell and I parted company,
and I, in effect, re-launched my business as Ian Greer Associates
Limited (IGA), trying again to realise my initial ambition of
establishing a political relations company. I found that the
climate, by that time, had changed considerably since 1968, which
I put down to the great political turmoil in the aftermath of
the miners' strike and the continuing battles between the Government
and the unions. I suddenly found that industrialists I met were
starting to take politics much more seriously and the government
had shown that it was more prepared to address the major problems
and concerns of British Industry.
The battles with the unions at the time,
it seemed to me, created a need to bring industry closer to government.
When I spoke with potential clients, at this time, I found a
far greater interst in the services I would be able to offer
as a political consultant and lobbyist. It was also at around
this time that another lobbying company was set up, GJW, which
was formed by three former advisers to the leaders of the Conservative,
Liberal and Labour Party who had seen the same opportunities
as I had.
6. IGA was initially established with a staff
of three and two existing clients. The company grew, developed
and gained a reputation for professionalism over the next 13
years. IGA has acted as advisers to some of the best known national
and international companies, charities, trade associations and
professional bodies. We opened an office in Brussels and, at
the time the article which is the subject of these proceedings
was published in The Guardian, we employed a total staff
of 45. Our clients have included British Airways, DHL, Coca Cola,
the Royal Marsden Hospital and other commercial and charitable
organisations; there have also been organisations which have
approached us for whom we have declined to act, such as the former
Apartheid Government of South Africa, and the Pro-Whaling and
Pro-Fur Trapping campaigns where I felt strongly opposed to their
aims. IGA has also provided its services free to charities such
as Actionaid and to the UK/Brussels offices of the African National
Congress, in the run-up to the first all-party, non-racial democratic
elections in South Africa. Our success has been due to the commitment
and hard work of a small, enthusiastic team which has been deliberately
drawn from all three of the major political parties, from the
Civil Service and from business. As a company we are committed
to providing clients with a 24 hour service. Our reputation for
professionalism and integrity in our dealings with Governments,
MPs and Civil Servants and with our clients has been established
and widely recognised for many years. It took one article in
The Guardian newspaper on a day in October 1994 to destroy
the reputation of my company which I had built up over many years,
the allegation that I had arranged for payments to be made corruptly
to MPs strikes at the very heart of my business; obviously, the
nature of the allegation was such that existing clients and potential
clients could not be seen to employ me in case it were suggested
that they also, through me, might be making similar corrupt payments,
in order to advance their own interests. The only thing which
surprises me, and gives me some consolation, is that some of our
clients, sure from their previous dealings with me and my company
that the allegations are entirely false, have continued to employ
my company notwithstanding the risk that they may be criticised
in the press for doing so.
7. Companies employ accountants to provide
them with financial advice, lawyers to provide them with legal
advice and public relations companies to advise them upon dealing
with and presenting information to the media. Companies employ
political consultants for two essential reasons:
(a) to provide them with up to date information
as soon as it is available upon legislation, or proposals for
legislation, or policy announcements which may affect their commercial
interests;
(b) to assist the companies in making representations
to Ministers, Opposition Spokesmen, Peers, MPs and Civil Servants
in order to try to ensure that any concerns they have are considered
and addressed by those responsible for making the policy decisions
which may affect the company's interests.
8. Lobbyists, whether employed professionally
or not, are to be found representing the interests of all manners
of commercial organisations, trade unions, charities and environmental
groups. There are currently 6,500 professional lobbyists registered
in Washington alone; in Europe, operating within Brussels, their
are 93 professional lobbyists, some large companies and some
"one man bands". In the UK there are 50 professional
consultants, 20 large and 30 one man bands. In recent years there
has been a trend for public relations companies, lawyers and
accountancy firms to set up lobbying departments; some companies
have particularly well developed lobbying divisions.
9. Until the publication of the article in The
Guardian which is the subject of these proceedings, it had
been my experience that, increasingly, the Government, MPs on
both sides of the House of Commons and the Civil Service welcomed
the kind of professional representation which my firm, and other
professional lobbyists, provided. The advantages on both sides
of good communications between those responsible for the implementation
of legislation and those affected by it are perfectly clear, the
role of the professional lobbyist is to ensure that the clients'
concerns are communicated effectively and professionally to decision
takers and those who advise them. The benefit to Government Ministers,
MPs and Civil Servants is that they will know of any concerns
of the particular clients which they can then consider, take into
account, and then accept or reject when framing legislation or
making other regulations. Not only Companies but professional
bodies, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, and associations
such as the Newspapers Publishers' Association employ lobbyists.
10. It is, of course, the case that any
individual, any company or any other organisation has every right
to lobby MPs themselves. The same can equally be said that every
individual has a right to present his own case in court proceedings.
Litigants, however, will choose to instruct, and pay for, lawyers
to represent them in court proceedings because the lawyers will
have the experience and training, up to date knowledge of the
relevant law, will know all the relevant rules of practice and
procedure, and thus be able to present the case to the court
more effectively than the individual could on his own. It is for
much the same reason that people employ political lobbyists and,
just as both a Judge and a lawyer would be outraged at any suggestion
that a case was advanced by the lawyer arranging for a Judge
to receive "back-handers", so I am outraged by the suggestion
that I should arrange or in anyway be involved in making payments
to MPs to carry out work for me or for my clients, whether in
putting down Parliamentary questions or voting in a particular
way in the process of legislation. I have a good relationship
with many Government Ministers, MPs, Peers and Civil Servants,
I would never dare even to suggest to any of the people I know
that there would be some financial reward for them if they were
to carry out particular tasks for the benefit of any of my clients,
I believe and I expect that any lobbyists who made such a suggestion
would, at the very least, be rightly barred from the precincts
of the Houses of Parliament. I have never sought to bribe MPs,
or pay for them to ask questions and I do not believe any other
professional lobbyist would do so.
11. I was first introduced to Mohamed Al-Fayed
and his brother, Ali-Fayed in October 1985 by Lord King, the
Chairman of British Airways. As was well known at the time, Mohamed
Al-Fayed was engaged in a major personal battle with Tiny Rowland,
(the then Chairman of Lonrho) concerning the ownership of the
House of Fraser which controlled Harrods. When I met them, it
was in the aftermath of the release in 1984 of an interim report,
criticising Mohamed Al-Fayed, prepared by DTI inspectors who were
conducting an investigation of the House of Fraser under the
Companies Act. I met Mohamed Al-Fayed and his brother at their
apartment in Park Lane and they briefed me on their requirement
for professional political advisers, to work alongside their
lawyers, public relations consultants and other advisers. Their
particular concern was that they were being regularly attacked
by Tiny Rowland both through his newspaper, The Observer,
and in Parliament through Edward Du Cann MP who was also a Director
of Lonrho. I was told they were anxious to achieve a better understanding
by Minister and MPs of their personal commitment to and investment
in Britain and, to this end, they wanted to have the opportunity
to brief Ministers, MPs and Peers who had a particular interest
in the issues of trade, investment and industry. I was informed
that one of their solicitors, Michael Palmer of Palmer Cowen,
was in correspondence with Leon Brittan, then the Trade and Industry
Secretary about their concerns. It was explained to me that the
House of Fraser had retained Sir Peter Hordern MP as a consultant
for a number of years, but they were now looking to employ my
firm as political advisers to help them further in their attempts
to counter the attacks made upon them by Tiny Rowland. It was
agreed that my company would be retained at an annual fee of
£25,000. At no time then, or later, did I ever remotely suggest
that any part of our fees would be used to pay MPs nor did I
ever say to Mohamed Al-Fayed, his brother or to anyone else, anything
to the effect that it was necessary to rent MPs like a taxi,
as was alleged in The Guardian.
12. As with any
new client, it was necessary for my colleagues and I to be fully
briefed. My staff and I were shown material relating to the purchase
of the House of Fraser, and we had meetings with the company's
in house lawyer, Royston Webb and with other House of Fraser
advisers. All the professional advisers, such as the solicitors
they used, Herbert Smith, and Kleinwort Benson, their bankers,
were highly respected and I had no reason at the time to doubt
the information I was given. The impression I had was that Tiny
Rowland's campaign against Mohamed Al-Fayed was nothing more
than a case of "sour grapes" in that, as I understood
it, Lonrho had originally tried to acquire the House of Fraser,
but the bid for the company had been referred to the Monopolies
and Mergers Commission; my understanding was that Tiny Rowland
had then sold to Mohamed Al-Fayed a substantial share holding
in the House of Fraser and, thereafter, Mohamed Al-Fayed had successfully
bid for and acquired control of the House of Fraser, without
his bid being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
It was, I believe, common knowledge that Tiny Rowland had for
many years aspired to take control of the House of Fraser and
it was widely assumed that he bitterly resented Mohamed Al-Fayed
for beating him to it.
13. My brief from Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House
of Fraser, which we agreed on 5 November 1985, was to monitor
and keep them informed of any political developments which might
affect their interests. I was also asked to provide them with
my thoughts as to relevant Peers and MPs, in particular those
who had an understanding of, or responsibility for financial
investment or trade and industry matters who could be approached
so that they would have a greater understanding of Mohamed Al-Fayed's
side in the dispute with Tiny Rowland. The MPs whose names I
suggested particularly included the officers of the Conservative
Back-bench Trade and Industry and Finance Committees who, I knew
were beginning to take an interest in both sides to the dispute
and who, I felt, would be unlikely to be sympathetic towards Tiny
Rowland, Lonrho and The Observer newspaper, particularly
in the light of the criticisms of the activities of the Lonrho
Group made by Edward Heath, when he was Prime Minister. More
widely, I felt that there would be other Peers and MPs, both
Conservative and Labour, who would be concerned that, contrary
to the assurances given at the time Lonrho took over The Observer
Newspaper, Tiny Rowland seemed to be using the newspaper in order
to advance his own personal battles. One of the first tasks,
accordingly, which IGA carried out was to write to a number of
Peers and MPs who we felt would want to be briefed on the issue
of the House of Fraser's and Mohamed Al-Fayed's position.
14. From the time I first met Mohamed Al-Fayed,
and throughout the time IGA acted for him, I found him personally
a very charming and engaging character. I found myself sympathetic
towards him for what I believed were the spiteful and malicious
attacks against him by Tiny Rowland. On the other hand, he was
also highly temperamental, given to passionate outbursts of anger
and frustration, when he would complain about how the attacks
upon him by Tiny Rowland were continuing, about the length of
time it was taking the Government to clear him and about IGA's
lack of progress. I particularly recall Mohamed Al-Fayed on more
than one occasion making the ridiculous demand that I should
arrange for "processions in Parliament", presumably
with MPs marching in some kind of support of solidarity for him.
When he spoke to me in these states of agitation, I found the
only thing I could do, because it was so difficult to get through
to him, was to listen politely to what he said, to try to explain
to him that was not the way things worked and that he needed to
be patient in getting across to the Government and to MPs the
merits of his case. I found that when Mohamed Al-Fayed behaved
this way it was very helpful to talk to his long-standing in
house legal adviser, Royston Webb, who was always in my experience,
very loyal to Mohamed Al-Fayed, but always anxious to restrain
him from saying and doing things which would be unhelpful to
his cause. Royston Webb's reaction to this kind of situation was
to tell me not to take any notice of what Mohamed Al-Fayed said
he was in a such a state, that the mood would soon pass and that
he would forget all about it. I found Royston Webb very competent
and professional in my dealings with him and I was always struck
by his loyalty to Mohamed Al-Fayed in the sense that, even when
he was telling me to take no notice of the instructions Mohamed
Al-Fayed gave me, Royston Webb was always clearly trying to see
and work towards Mohamed Al-Fayed's best interests.
15. It is suggested by The Guardian,
in its defence, that IGA co-ordinated a kind of "gang of
four" MPs to conduct a Parliamentary lobbying operation
for Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House of Fraser. Sir Peter Hordern
was retained as a consultant by the House of Fraser and he was
obviously an MP with whom I kept in contact throughout the time
IGA acted for Mohamed Al-Fayed. Michael Grylls, Neil Hamilton,
and Tim Smith were all officers of the Conservative Back-bench
Trade and Industry Committee. I have known Sir Michael Grylls
MP since 1959, when I was the Conservative Party agent in Dartford
and he was a personal assistant to the then Conservative candidate,
Peter, now Lord Walker and, as Chairman of the Conservative Back-bench
Trade and Industry Committee he was someone I thought from the
outset would be likely to take a particular interest. I have
known Neil Hamilton MP for many years, first meeting him before
he became a Member of Parliament and while he was pupil at the
Bar, when I was introduced to him by his wife, Christine, who
has worked for many years as a secretary in the House of Commons;
because of my personal friendship with Mr Hamilton and because
of his interest in Trade and Industry matters, he was obviously
one of the first MPs I would approach. Tim Smith MP is not someone
I knew particularly well before, or got to know particularly well
during the time IGA acted for Mohamed Al-Fayed, I cannot now
recall whether it was I who introduced him to Mohamed Al-Fayed,
or whether someone else may have done so. I reject entirely the
suggestion that I in some way "co-ordinated" these
four MPs, if the word is intended to suggest that I in some way
corrupted them. My function was to help Mohamed Al-Fayed and
the House of Fraser present their case to MPs and, as always,
it is entirely a matter for the individual MP to decide for himself
whether he is sympathetic and whether he wishes to pursue the
case further, if he can.
16. It was alleged in the article published
in The Guardian that IGA paid the MPs, Neil Hamilton and
Tim Smith £2,000 a time to ask Parliamentary Questions on
behalf of Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House of Fraser. This allegation
is entirely false as, from the wording of its Defence, The
Guardian now appears to accept, although it has never published
any apology to me for making the allegation in the first place,
although it has never published any apology to me for making
the allegation in the first place, nor has it published any correction
to inform its readers. The Guardian, and other newspapers
and broadcasters with whom, it is quite clear, Mohamed Al-Fayed
has been in touch, will have given the public a completely misleading
idea of the purpose and nature of Parliamentary Questions. All
MPs, and MPs alone, have the right to put oral or written questions
to Government Ministers on issues of national or constituency
concern; very often the questions are not merely a request for
information, but designed to make a particular political point.
There are, in any one year, approximately 45,000 questions tabled
to Ministers and they cover every aspect of national life. If
a company, a charity, a trade union or a constituent makes representations
to an MP, if the MP is interested and regards the matter of national
or local concern, he and he alone can put down a Parliamentary
Question. Another means by which MPs may draw the attention of
the House of Commons to a particular issue is by tabling an Early
Day Motion, the extent of the interest in which may be ascertained
from the number of signatures put to it; which can vary from
a single signature to perhaps dozens. Early Day Motions are rarely
debated, but can be of significance in ascertaining the mood
of the House of Commons on a specific issue. My staff and I, in
common I have no doubt with other lobbyists, have on many occasions
drafted questions and sometimes Early Day Motions at the request
of MPs from all the main parties; the decision as to whether a
Question, oral or written, or an Early day Motion is tabled,
remains a decision entirely for the MP alone. I have never paid,
offered to pay or heard any MP suggest that he should be paid
for putting down a question or an Early Day Motion, and I do
not believe that any professional lobbyist would do so.
17. The work which IGA agreed to do for
Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House of Fraser is clearly explained
in a letter I wrote, marked "Strictly Private and Confidential"
to Mohamed Al-Fayed dated 23 January 1986, which I wrote in a
state of some embarrassment, after he had complained that one
of the MPs to whom I had suggested that he should write, Roger
Gale MP, had written back, pointing out that the letter sent to
him had been inappropriately worded, and Mohamed Al-Fayed had
taken offence with Mr Gale's letter. If, as according The
Guardian Mohamed Al-Fayed alleges, I had told him that he
had to rent an MP like a taxi, he would have found the wording
of my letter to him extremely surprising because, in the letter,
I make it quite clear that the work IGA would be carrying out
was designed to give MPs a much better understanding of Mohamed
Al-Fayed's position and the reasons why he felt aggrieved with
Tiny Rowland. If, as The Guardian would have its readers
believe, what was required of IGA was to bribe MPs, the letter
would make no sense whatsoever. IGA's papers on the House of
Fraser file have been made available to The Guardian in
the course of these proceedings and they show very clearly the
work carried out on their behalf and the approaches we made not
only to Conservative but also to Labour MPs and, indeed, Peers
from all parties. The work, as I saw it, was not essentially a
"party political" matter, although, as I anticipated
from the outset, the Conservative MPs we approached, generally,
were not at all favourably inclined towards Tiny Rowland and
Lonrho and were therefore inclined to be sympathetic towards
Mohamed Al-Fayed. Mohamed Al-Fayed was, however, very keen, particularly
in early 1989 to find a "champion" of his cause on
the Labour benches; Mohamed Al-Fayed appeared at that time, to
be becoming increasingly concerned that the DTI investigation
into the House of Fraser had not gone as he had wanted; for along
time, Mohamed Al-Fayed had shown a great deal of animosity towards
the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Michael Howard,
who he always blamed for being the architect of the DTI investigation
into the House of Fraser and he seemed to believe that Michael
Howard was part of some Jewish conspiracy against him. Clearly
the Conservative MPs who had been sympathetic to Mohamed Al-Fayed
would not be likely to criticise Michael Howard publicly and
therefore I agreed to make approaches to find out whether there
would be anyone in the Labour ranks who might be prepared to take
the matter up. I spoke with the late Allan Roberts MP (the then
Labour Party Frontbench Spokesman on the Environment) about Mohamed
Al-Fayed's concerns; it was he who told me that he had subsequently
spoken with Neil Kinnock, the then leader of the Labour Party;
who had taken the view that it was not a matter for a frontbench
spokesman, but had suggested that Alan Roberts raise it with
the assiduous back-bencher, Dale Campbell-Savours, who, from then
on, put down a large number of Parliamentary questions and Early
Day Motions supportive of Mohamed Al-Fayed or critical of Tiny
Rowland and Lonrho, even though he had previously put down questions
which were supportive of Tiny Rowland and Lonrho and critical
of Mohamed Al-Fayed. Thereafter, Royston Webb of the House of
Fraser worked directly with Dale Campbell-Savours, and drafted
for him dozens of Early Day Motions and Parliamentary Questions,
keeping me informed of their dealings. I should make it clear
that I do not suggest and I did not believe at the time or believe
now that Dale Campbell-Savours was paid by Mohamed Al-Fayed to
put down Questions or Early Day motions.
18. Whilst it was alleged in the article
in The Guardian that Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith had been
paid, through IGA, to ask Parliamentary Questions at £2,000
per time, it is now claimed by The Guardian in its Defence
served in the libel proceedings, very differently, that Neil Hamilton
was paid, over two and a half years, a total of £28,000
from Mohamed Al-Fayed personally at "face to face" meetings
and that Mr Smith received from Mohamed Al-Fayed personally over
approximately the same period, cash amounting to about £6,000,
and I am alleged to have known of this. Mr Hamilton, I am aware,
denies the allegation categorically; he has denied it in these
proceedings and he has denied it in the House of Commons. The
allegations made by The Guardian make no logical sense
to me at all; Tim Smith asked more questions in the House of Commons
than Mr Hamilton did, and Mr Campbell-Savours asked more questions
and set down more Early Day Motions than either of them did yet,
according to The Guardian, Mr Hamilton was paid £28,000,
Tim Smith £6,000 and Dale Campbell-Savours, I presume, noting
at all. The first time I even heard of an allegation of an MP
being paid to ask Parliamentary Questions was when this was raised
with me at a meeting I had with the Defendant journalist, David
Hencke, and a colleague of his from The Guardian, John
Mullin, at a meeting at my offices on 23 July 1993, of which
a transcript is available. It was made quite clear to me when
the matter was raised, that the allegation had nothing whatsoever
to do with Ian Greer Associates or Ian Greer but that it had to
do with the House of Fraser. I was told an allegation had been
made about the House of Fraser that, in return for Parliamentary
Questions being asked by a friendly MP, "a brown envelope
stuffed with fivers would be passed to the MP." In that
connection, Tim Smith's name was mentioned "because he put
down 17 questions". I made it quite clear to Mr Hencke and
his colleague that I had absolutely no knowledge of anyone paying
an MP to ask a Question and said that I would be amazed if any
Member of Parliament would allow themselves to enter into such
an arrangement. I regarded the very idea as so wild and ridiculous,
and it did not feature at all in the article Mr Hencke and Mr
Mullin subsequently wrote and published in The Guardian
on 5 October 1993, that I thought no more about it and did not
discuss it with Tim Smith who I did not know very well. My assumption
was that it was a preposterous allegation which had been made
by Tiny Rowland or someone from Lonrho in the midst of the war
of words they had with Mohamed Al-Fayed over the House of Fraser.
I did ring Royston Webb of the House of Fraser to report to him
the allegation which Mr Hencke had made; nothing Royston Webb
said led me to believe there was any truth in it. It did not occur
to me for one moment at the time, that the allegation might have
originated from Mohamed Al-Fayed himself. I do recall that at
one point whilst I was acting for the House of Fraser, Mohamed
Al-Fayed raised with me the possibility of the House of Fraser
employing Tim Smith as a consultant in addition or, perhaps,
in place of Sir Peter Hordern MP; I cannot recall whether I said
that I would speak with Tim Smith or whether I suggested that
Mohamed Al-Fayed should raise it with Tim Smith himself, but
I certainly do not recall anything coming of it. None of the MPs
with whom I was in contact whilst I was acting for the House
of Fraser ever mentioned to me receiving any money from the House
of Fraser.
19. It is claimed in the Defence that IGA
and I knew that Mr Hamilton had stayed at the Ritz Hotel in Paris
and run up a bill of over £2,000 at Mohammed Al-Fayed's
expense and that I knew that Mr Hamilton had deliberately omitted
to register this benefit. I knew, after his return, that Neil
and Christine Hamilton had stayed at the Ritz Hotel when on holiday
in France in 1987; as I recall neither Neil Hamilton nor Christine
made any secret of the fact that they had stayed at the hotel
and I can remember hearing them talk very openly about it in
the House of Commons. Neither I nor any of my staff, as far as
I am aware, checked the register of Members Interests to see
whether the visit had been entered. As far as I am concerned,
it is not my part to tell any Member of Parliament what he should
or should not register, it is a matter entirely for the MPs themselves
to decide. Mohammed Al-Fayed had, prior to Mr Hamilton's stay
at the Ritz, through me, invited Sir Peter Hordern, Neil Hamilton,
Sir Michael Grylls, Sir William Clarke and other Conservative
members of the Back-bench Trade and Industry and Finance Committees
by letters dated 3 April 1987. Mohammed Al-Fayed had purchased
the late Duchess of Windsor's home in Paris, which, apparently,
had been renovated and he appeared to be very proud to show it
off. At the time, I believe that invitations were issued to a
number of journalists, well-known industrialists and Members
of both Houses of Parliament to stay at the Ritz Hotel in Paris.
It was originally proposed that the MPs would stay for the weekend
of 25-26 April 1987 but, on 9 April 1987 the Secretary of State
for Trade and Industry announced that he was setting up an inquiry
into the House of Fraser and I wrote to the MPs concerned suggesting
that the visit should be postponed.
20. It is claimed in the Defence in these
proceedings that on 18 May 1987, Mohamed Al-Fayed gave to me
cheques totalling £18,000 for the purpose of putting IGA
in funds to make payments to Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith for
work they were said to have carried out on behalf of Mohamed Al-Fayed,
in tabling Parliamentary Questions and Motions. It is alleged
that IGA paid over some or all of this money to Neil Hamilton
and Tim Smith. The allegation is utterly false. A general election
was announced on 11 May 1987, and Parliament was dissolved on
18 May 1987. I have, and IGA has, regularly raised and donated
funds to the Conservative Party over many years. From my own
experience at Conservative Central Office and, at that time, working
with local Constituency Associations, I have known how urgently
funds may be needed locally to mount an effective campaign. For
this reason, at the time of general elections, I have myself sent
money and raised money specifically targeted to help out Conservative
Candidates in marginal constituencies. I explained in May 1987
to Mohamed Al-Fayed what I did, after he had told me that he
had made a large donation to the Conservative Party himself,
and he agreed to send me, for this purpose, the sum of £12,000.
Later the same week, I spoke to Mohamed's brother, Ali to see
whether I could raise further money and was subsequently sent
a cheque by Mohamed Al-Fayed for another £6,000. The funds
I raised came from more than one source; the funds I received
from Mohammed Al-Fayed were sent as donations to the Constituency
fighting funds of Conservative candidates. Since the funds were
raised from more than one source, none of the associations were
told from whom I had raised the money. In a letter I wrote to
Ali Al-Fayed dated 28 May 1987, I stated that I would let him
know, after the election was over, who was assisted; I have no
recollection or record of ever having done so, but Mohammed Al-Fayed
and his brother Ali Fayed knew exactly what the money was for
when they donated it. It is also clear from my letter of 9 October
1987 to Ali Fayed, in which I invited him to consider taking advertising
space at the 38th Winter Ball in aid of the Conservative Party
marginal seats both that I was helping to raise money for the
Conservative Party in this way and that it was my understanding
that he and Mohamed Al-Fayed were interested in supporting this
cause. The money I raised from Mohammed Al-Fayed in 1987 was certainly
not paid as some kind of reward of inducement to Neil Hamilton
or to Tim Smith, neither of whom were in marginal constituencies
and neither of whose associations therefore benefited in any way
from the donations which were made.
21. It is alleged in the Defence that on
1 February 1990, IGA rendered to the House of Fraser a special
invoice over and above a monthly retainer fee of £500 for
£13,333 plus VAT; this is alleged to have been specifically
to cover payments to Members of Parliament including Neil Hamilton
and Tim Smith. The position as far as IGA's fees was concerned
was that on 31 October 1985 the contract commenced at an annual
agreed fee of £25,000, plus expenses, with all invoices
being sent to Royston Webb or J Molloy at the House of Fraser
for their attention; on 28 November 1989, because of the Government's
delay in publishing the full report of the DTI investigation
into the House of Fraser, I agreed at a meeting with Royston Webb
that, from 1 December 1989, IGA's fees would drop to £6,000
per annum, to be invoiced at a monthly rate of £500. We further
agreed that if and when the DTI report was published, the fee
would be increased to reflect the additional work which we anticipated
would be necessary, as by that time it was becoming clear that
the report would be very damaging to Mohamed Al-Fayed and that
much additional work would be needed on the part of IGA to try
to defend Mohamed Al-Fayed's position as best we could. When,
two months later, it became clear that the DTI would be publishing
its report imminently, I agreed with Royston Webb a project fee
of £13,333 plus VAT which would cover a three month period
from 1 February to 30 April 1990. I subsequently sent him an invoice
for this sum in the usual way. The invoice was accounted for
in IGA's books in exactly the same way as all the other invoices
and no part of the funds received was passed to Neil Hamilton,
Tim Smith or to any other MP.
22. It is stated in the Defence in these proceedings
that I have admitted, as is the fact, in a letter dated 9 May
1990 which I sent to the Clerk to a Select Committee of the House
of Commons that IGA had, on six occasions between 1985 and 1990
made payments to individual Members of Parliament. As The Guardian
knows, because I made the position entirely clear when giving
evidence before the Select Committee, IGA, unlike some other
professional lobbying companies, has never retained as consultants
or as directors any Member of Parliament. It is, however, usual
business practice for lobbyists, in common with many other businesses
such as public relations companies, accountants and solicitors
to pay commissions for new business introductions. It is not,
for example, infrequently the case that a public relations or
another lobbying company may find itself unable to work for a
particular client because of an actual or potential conflict of
interests and will refer the client to another firm which will
agree to pay commission, often agreed at 5-10 per cent of the
first year's fees, if the client decides to instruct the company
to which he has been referred. Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House
of Fraser were introduced to IGA by Lord King of British Airways,
not by any MP, and no introduction fee was paid to either Lord
King or to any MP. It is the case that IGA has, on two occasions,
paid commission to Neil Hamilton for introducing new clients
to my company in this way. As far as I am able to recall, Neil
Hamilton, in late 1986 first introduced a client to me and, either
before the client decided to engage the services of my company
or shortly thereafter, I explained to Mr Hamilton that it was
my firm's usual practice to pay a commission in such circumstances
and it was agreed that IGA would do so in his case. As far as
I am concerned, the introduction of a new client is a benefit
to my company and the payment of a commission has the effect of
removing any sense of indebtedness or obligation on my part towards
the person responsible for making the introduction. Such a payment,
which is usual business practice, does not give rise to any continuing
obligation on the part of the person who has introduced the business.
23. It is also stated in the Defence that
I admitted in 1994 to a reporter from Central Television's Cook
Report that IGA could arrange to have Parliamentary questions
tabled on behalf of a client. Several articles have been published
in The Guardian under Mr Hencke's byline referring to this
statement, but I at no time saw the transcript upon which these
articles had been based until it was produced by the Defendants
in the course of these proceedings. In 1994 my company had been
approached by an organisation giving its name as "Ecocon
Ventures" who said they were acting as agents for Russian
investors who were considering the possibility of investing £40
million, and possibly £80 million in this country and that
they were particularly interested in the possibility of investing
in industries which were in the process of being privatised. Ecocon
Ventures was, in fact, a bogus "sting" operation set
up by the Cook Report, who had engaged David Hencke, although
I did not know it at the time, as an adviser; and had been provided
with the use of an apartment in Park Lane owned by Mohamed Al-Fayed,
although I did not know that at the time either. The object of
the "sting" was, quite clearly, to trap my colleagues
and me into some indiscretion which could be used to suggest that
we conducted our work in an improper, illegal or corrupt manner.
The nature of the Cook Report is well known, its aim is to expose
crooks and villians. I do not suppose for one moment that the
programme makers would have been interested in broadcasting a
positive piece about IGA and had my colleagues and I been tricked
into saying anything which was improper, I have no doubt at all
that the material would have been broadcast. It was in this context,
when dealing with an organisation prepared to invest £40
million and, possibly £80 million, I was asked whether it
would be possible to place a question in Parliament as part of
the process of gathering information. It is always entirely a
matter for an MP to decide whether he wishes to table a question
and that is why I said at the time that I could never go out
and say that we could get questions tabled, because it is the
MP who must decide; it is however the case that I was quite sure
and remain quite sure that if an individual or group of individuals
is considering investing £40 million or more in this country,
I would be able to find MPs, particularly those interested in
trade, investment and the privatisation process, who would be
prepared to ask legitimate and proper questions, if it would
help the investor to make the decision to invest his money in
this country. On seeing the transcript of my remarks for the
first time during the course of these proceedings, I am shocked
and appalled at the way in which Mr Hencke, in his articles in
The Guardian, has extracted what I said from its proper
context. It is clear from the transcript that, having made the
remark which I did, I then started to go on to explain that it
would very much depend upon what the question the investors wanted
asked was, what the object of the question was, upon the timing
and upon finding the right Member of Parliament who would be
interested in taking the matter up, before the journalist from
the Cook Report changed the subject so that I did not have an
opportunity to give a full explanation. It is quite clear from
the transcript, which Mr Hencke has obviously had for some time,
that in his articles Mr Hencke has, by taking my words out of
context, distorted their true sense.
24. I first became aware of Mr Hencke's
interest in myself and my company in the summer of 1993. I had
received several reports that Mr Hencke was making inquiries
about IGA and I agreed to meet with him, with a colleague, Angie
Bray, and a non executive director of IGA, Andrew Stone, who is
also a solicitor. The meeting took place on 23 July 1993. I explained
to Mr Hencke and his colleague who also attended the meeting,
John Mullin, that it had been reported to me by several clients
and by present and former members of my staff that he had been
making inquiries and had said in the course of some of those inquiries
that he was working on a "scandal" that would prove
shocking to IGA. I told him that I regarded his behaviour, in
this respect as quite intolerable. Neither Mr Hencke nor Mr Mullin
denied what I said, but merely sought to reassure me that they
were not there to do a "great hatchet job" but to do
a piece on lobbying and that the purpose of the meeting with
me was for them "to learn a bit of lobbying." Consequently
I was prepared to assist them. With the benefit of hindsight,
reading the transcript of the meeting following the publication
of the article in The Guardian of 20 October 1994, it
is quite clear that all the allegations which they published in
1994 were known to Mr Hencke at The Guardian in 1993.
Mr Hencke made reference to Neil Hamilton's stay at the Ritz Hotel
and, indeed, in the article subsequently published on 5 October
1993 under his byline, he made reference to this fact. He also,
at the meeting, put to me the allegation, which he made perfectly
clear had nothing to do with IGA or myself, but had something
to do with the House of Fraser, that "a brown envelope stuffed
with fivers" would be passed to an MP in return for asking
a Parliamentary Question; as I made clear at the time and have
made clear ever since, I had never heard of such a suggestion,
which I regarded as preposterous. I had no idea at the time that
Mohamed Al-Fayed had been in touch with The Guardian and
it was my assumption that this was simply a wild rumour which
I suspected may have emanated from the war of words between Mohamed
Al-Fayed and Tiny Rowland, where each appeared to be accusing
the other of dirty tricks and bribery and corruption. Although
the meeting took place in July, the article which resulted was
not published until 5 October 1993, conspicuously timed to coincide
with the political party conference season. I was annoyed and
upset by the article, particularly the obvious and plainly gratuitous
references to my personal circumstances which, to me, bore all
the hallmarks of the kind of prejudice which I would not expect
from The Guardian newspaper. I was, however, pleased to
see that, despite all the rumours I had heard of Mr Hencke's line
of questioning when speaking to IGA's clients and staff, there
was no allegation of any misconduct on my part and I thought at
the time that Mr Hencke must have been satisfied, from my meeting
with him, that, as is the case, the allegations he was investigating
concerning IGA and myself were totally unfounded. There were some
people who saw the article of 5 October and regarded it as a
very positive piece of publicity for IGA, although I did not myself
see it that way; with the benefit of hindsight, it is now apparent
to me that the purpose of the article was to give my firm and
me (of whom few of The Guardian readers, would ever have
previously heard) some prominence, to set us up in order to knock
us down.
25. From October 1993, Mr Hencke appears to
have been embarked upon a personal campaign to destroy my company
and me. He was engaged as an adviser for the Cook Report which
set up the covert operation in order to try to trap my colleagues
and I. Despite the efforts of the Cook Report to lure my colleagues
and me into some indiscretion, the transcripts show quite clearly
that my colleagues and I dealt in a perfectly open and straight
forward manner with the Cook Report journalists, under the impression
that we were dealing with a legitimate and bona fide potential
client wishing to introduce £40 million or more into the
country. After the Cook Report had decided, I have no doubt because
of the fact that there was nothing improper in our conduct, not
to broadcast the programme, Mr Hencke and The Guardian
chose to publish several articles suggesting that we were guilty
of misconduct and that we had used our influence in some way to
prevent the programme every being shown; I have no such influence
over Central Television or any other broadcaster. In an article
published in The Guardian on 12 May 1994, it was specifically
alleged that IGA had obtained details of a "confidential
report on the privatisation of the Insolvency Service",
an allegation which was entirely untrue; the details we had,
and supplied to journalists from the Cook Report under the impression
that they were a bona fide potential client, was from
a document which was publicly available to those who knew where
to look for it. It was also alleged in the article that I had
admitted breaking Parliamentary rules in getting questions tabled
for clients which is a distortion of the effect of what I had
said, as would have been clear to Mr Hencke from the transcript.
It was also suggested that IGA had made a "pitch" for
the business "in full knowledge of the company's questionable
background." In fact, the Cook Report journalists had been
at pains to assure us that there was nothing improper about the
Russian "principals" they claimed to represent, or about
the source of their principals' funds and, for our part, as is
clear from the transcript, we stressed to them that in dealings
with Ministers and MPs they would have to be open about such
matters and prepared to answer the questions which would inevitably
be asked, when I met with the Cook Report journalists, as is
clear from the transcript, when the spoke very vaguely and in
slightly suspicious terms about their "principals" and
the extent to which they had been "used to political power"
and had "amassed various artifacts", I immediately explained
"we are an honest company" and went on to say that
we must act in an honest and straight forward way, as I tried
to get across, politely to a potential client, that if (and I
had no reason to accuse them of dishonesty) there was anything
dodgy about their "principals" or their proposals to
invest in this country, they had come to the wrong company for
advice. Neither Mr Hencke nor anyone else from The Guardian
checked the facts with me or any of my colleagues prior to the
publication of the article of 12 May 1994.
26. Not surprisingly, given the nature of
the article of 12 May 1994, it led to concern in Parliament,
particularly amongst MPs who were not familiar with the way in
which IGA conducts its business in a professional, open and straight
forward manner. Having sparked the initial controversy with the
article of 12 May, David Hencke and The Guardian were
able to keep the story running throughout May, June and July.
Although the staff at IGA and I myself found the exposure we
were given by David Hencke and The Guardian extremely
irritating, we found that both MPs and our clients tended to take
the view that it appeared to be some kind of personal witch-hunt
on the part of David Hencke and The Guardian who, for whatever
reason had some axe to grind with IGA. IGA was able to demonstrate
that the most serious allegation which Mr Hencke and The Guardian
had made, that we had improperly obtained confidential information
not available to MPs, was entirely false and it was my experience
that most MPs thoroughly disapproved of the covert attempts on
the part of the Cook Report to entrap IGA. There were also MPs
who recognised, as I do, that if there had been anything genuinely
newsworthy or scandalous in IGA's conduct when dealing with the
Cook Report "sting", the programme would undoubtedly
have been broadcast. Whilst annoying and upsetting, the articles
in The Guardian during the summer of 1994 represented
a nuisance and did adversely affect the morale of the staff at
IGA, but did not appear to have a significantly detrimental effect
upon our business.
27. The only warning I had from The Guardian
that it proposed to run a full front page spread story alleging
that IGA and I had been paid by Mohamed Al-Fayed to pay MPs to
put down Parliamentary Questions, was a fax dated 19 October,
(timed received at my office at 16:16 hours) that day. All the
fax said was that Mr Hencke was "working on" the story
of my association with Mohamed Al-Fayed in the Harrods campaign
against Lonrho. There was nothing in the fax to indicate the
nature of the allegations which, by that time, The Guardian
must already have decided to publish, nor was there any suggestion
that an urgent response was required from me. Previously, when
I had met Mr Hencke in July 1993, he had not published the article
which resulted until three months later. Mr Hencke's fax to me
said that he had "many of the documents involved" in
the campaign, it is clear that he cannot have had any to support
the allegation which appeared in The Guardian the following
day that IGA had paid MPs to table questions on behalf of Mohamed
Al-Fayed and that IGA's monthly invoices would vary between £8,000
and £10,000 per month according to the number of questions,
because not only did it never happen, but The Guardian
do not seek to justify that allegation. I arranged for a fax to
be sent back to David Hencke that evening stating that we would
wish to consider responding to any questions which he might wish
to fax to us and invited him to contact us "during normal
office hours." We heard nothing from him.
28. In the light of my previous dealings
with Mr Hencke, and the nature of the articles he had written
in proceeding months, it is the case that I would have been most
reluctant to speak with him personally, but had I been aware
of the allegations I would have wished to ensure that the newspaper
heard what I would have had to say about the allegations and,
in particular, the extent to which they could rely upon the word
of Mohamed Al-Fayed. IGA's contract with the House of Fraser
had ended on 31 August 1994. On 22 September 1994, my office
had received a telephone call from Mohamed Al-Fayed's office inviting
me to meet him for tea later that day; I had not seen Mohamed
Al-Fayed for some time, but I had heard that it had been announced
earlier in that day that he had lost his appeal to the European
Court, where he was applying to set aside the highly critical
DTI report into the circumstances surrounding his acquisition
of the House of Fraser. I met Mohamed Al-Fayed that day and saw
him in the company of his assistant, Mark Griffths. Mohamed Al-Fayed
started the conversation by criticising Neil Hamilton who, at
the time, was the Minister for Corporate Affairs. He said that
he had thought that he was a friend and someone who, given the
opportunity, would help him. He complained that Mr Hamilton,
on being appointed to his ministerial position, had ignored him
and not even replied to a letter of congratulation Mohamed Al-Fayed
had sent him on his appointment to the DTI. I defended Mr Hamilton,
saying that I was sure that he was genuinely sympathetic towards
Mohamed Al-Fayed's problems, but I pointed out to Mohamed Al-Fayed
that it would have been wrong for Mr Hamilton to respond to the
letter since, as Mohamed Al-Fayed was well aware, there was litigation
between the House of Fraser and the DTI. I told him that it was
my understanding that, because of the support he had previously
shown Mohamed Al-Fayed, Mr Hamilton had himself decided that,
even though there was no legal impediment, it would be better
for another Minister within the DTI to handle any matters which
concerned the House of Fraser. Mohamed Al-Fayed ignored what I
said and, in one of his emotional outbursts, launched into a
string of allegations against the Government, in particular Lady
Thatcher and Michael Howard, the Home Secretary. He claimed that
there was no Prime Minister from Edward Heath to the present
day that had been free from bribery and corruption and repeated
at length allegations which I had heard him make before concerning
Michael Howard. Mohamed Al-Fayed concluded the meeting by telling
me that he had already seen Field Marshal Lord Bramall who he
reminded me was a close personal friend of both Her Majesty the
Queen and himself and that he had informed Lord Bramall that he
would be seeing Brian Hitchen, the editor of the Sunday Express,
to ask him to act as an emissary to the Prime Minister to inform
him that unless the DTI report into the House of Fraser was rescinded,
he would expose the corruption of Ministers and destabilise the
Government. He said to me that if the Government fell, he would
not care as he would sell the House of Fraser and live in France,
where he was appreciated and where he could gain citizenship
overnight. Throughout this tirade not once did he allege that
he had made any payments to Neil Hamilton, Tim Smith or anyone
else, nor did he make any accusations against IGA or myself. He
asked me to give some thought as to whom I could talk on his
behalf, stressing to me that he wanted to ensure that his message
was known and understood and that he would have no hesitation
in revealing all the information he possessed, unless the findings
of the DTI report were withdrawn. I had the opportunity to say
very little during the meeting, which lasted about 50 minutes,
and told him that I would consider what he had said and would
speak to one or two friends at the forthcoming party conferences.
29. As in the past when Mohamed Al-Fayed
had ranted in this way, I made an appointment to see Royston
Webb, his in house legal adviser, who I saw on Friday, 7 October
at his Office at South Street. Royston Webb, as always, received
me very courteously and I spent about 30 minutes with him. I told
him of the meeting I had had with Mohamed Al-Fayed and the threats
and allegations which had been made by him. Royston Webb expressed
frustration that Mohamed Al-Fayed was, as he put it, "once
again raking over the past" and explained that Mohamed Al-Fayed
had been very depressed by the European Court's decision and,
as we both knew, he tended to be very emotional at times. I asked
Royston Webb what he felt I should do and he suggested that I
should put the meeting out of mind and that he would once again
urge Mohamed Al-Fayed to forget about the DTI report and to "get
on with his life." I asked Royston Webb what evidence Mohamed
Al-Fayed had of corruption within the Government and he said
that he had "none that I have ever seen". Royston Webb
told me that he was unaware of any meeting Mohamed Al-Fayed might
have planned with Brian Hitchen, but explained that he had been
away in Dubai where he had been representing Mohamed Al-Fayed
in any important court action for several weeks and had therefore
been out of touch. He told me that one of the possibilities of
the proceedings in Dubai was that Mohamed Al-Fayed's passport
for the United Arab Emirates might be withdrawn, which he said
would be very embarrassing for Mohamed Al-Fayed in that he would
be left only with an Egyptian passport which would mean that
he would not be able to travel to his villa in Switzerland without
obtaining a visa. I recall that Royston Webb told me that his
colleague, Michael Cole, who dealt with the House of Fraser media
relations had been concerned that he had not been at the meeting
I had attended with Mohamed Al-Fayed the previous month and said
that, as far as Michael Cole was concerned, Mohamed Al-Fayed's
"constant story telling was fast becoming a resignation
issue." As an example of Mohamed Al-Fayed's unreliability,
Royston Webb, whilst we were discussing reports in the press
that Tiny Rowland and Mohamed Al-Fayed had finally come to terms
with each other, told me of one incident when Mohamed Al-Fayed
had, over lunch with Tiny Rowland, informed him that one of Mr
Rowland's most trusted employees has secretly visited Mohamed
Al-Fayed in the midst of the battle between them and provided
him with information about Mr Rowland's activities; according
to Mr Webb, Mr Rowland had been shocked by this revelation and
said "I would have trusted that employee with my life;"
after the lunch, Royston Webb observed to Mohamed Al-Fayed that
he had kept the story of the employee's visit very quiet and
asked him why he had not been informed; Mohamed Al-Fayed laughed
and said to Royston Webb "I didn't tell you because it never
happened." My meeting with Royston Webb concluded on friendly
terms; he told me not to worry about Mohamed Al-Fayed, that he
had been very depressed and that was the reason why he was behaving
so badly. He told me that Mohamed Al-Fayed has also let him down
badly in that he was due to give evidence in court in Dubai facing
serious charges of alleged corruption and bribery but, at the
last minute, Mohamed Al-Fayed had decided not to do so. Royston
Webb told me that, in spite of Mohamed Al-Fayed's failure to
appear as a witness, he felt the case was going quite well and,
ironically, said to me "think how compromised my position
would be if, in Dubai, I was representing him to be honest and
straight forward, and in London he was demonstrating the opposite".
30. It is clear from my experience of dealing
with Mohammed Al-Fayed that anyone who knows him understands
that when he is in a state of agitation, annoyed with someone
or about something, he is capable of launching into a tirade
of wild, unsubstantiated allegations, which harm himself as much
as anyone else he chooses to attack. David Hencke, Peter Preston
and anyone else from The Guardian who made inquiries of
those who knew Mohamed Al-Fayed would have known that when, for
whatever reason, he vents his anger and frustration, one cannot
rely upon what he says. Had I had an opportunity to speak with
David Hencke or Peter Preston prior to the publication of the
article of 20 October, I would have tried to get this point across
and would have tried to persuade them, at the very least, to
speak with Royston Webb, Mohamed Al-Fayed's loyal adviser, to
see what he had to say. After the publication of the article,
I myself spoke with Royston Webb and, upon the advice of my solicitors,
to whom I had explained my earlier conversations I tape-recorded
the conversations. From the transcript of this conversation it
is clear that Royston Webb would have told them that the allegation
concerning IGA's fees were untrue and it is also clear that no
one from The Guardian had spoken to him.
31. The effect of the publication of the article
of 20 October was devasting upon both my company and myself.
Although in the evening of 19 October I had heard from Neil Hamilton
that he had been warned that The Guardian had a major
story concerning him and IGA, it was not until late in the evening
that I heard that the article had been raised in the House of
Commons and was able to get a photocopy of it. By that time, I
had already been in consultation with my fellow directors and
IGA's solicitors to alert them to what was happening. As soon
as we had heard the detail of what was said in the article, we
instructed Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners to issue a Writ for
libel at the first opportunity the following morning. When I first
saw the article I simply could not believe that such allegations
could ever have been published. It struck me that the allegations
were so preposterous that I did not think anyone could possibly
take them seriously. My immediate thought was that Mohamed Al-Fayed
had finally gone completely barmy and that he was running out
of control without taking any advice from people like Royston
Webb. I could not understand how any newspaper could have run
such an article based, as it clearly was, upon the word of a
man like Mohamed Al-Fayed, without making any of the most elementary
inquiries or putting the allegations to me to allow me an opportunity
to respond. I was, I suppose, at that time in something of a
state of shock, refusing to believe what had happened. Having
instructed solicitors to deal with the case, my next thought
was to try to contact Royston Webb and Michael Cole at the House
of Fraser, thinking that they might be able to speak to Mohamed
Al-Fayed to tell him that he would have to withdraw the allegations
because they were so obviously untrue. Michael Cole, however,
refused to take my call and I had to leave a message with his
secretary urging her to ask Mr Cole to speak to me as a matter
of urgency; he did not return my call and I began to become more
and more concerned that Mohamed Al-Fayed, having made the allegations
in the first place would not be prepared to admit that they were
false because of the climb down and the loss of face this would
involve for him.
32. When I need to stay in London, I make
use of a flat above IGA's offices. I could see from very early
in the morning of 20 October that journalists and television
cameras were gathering outside the offices, and the telephones
were ringing with journalists trying to speak to me and to staff
about the story. Clients too were telephoning to try to find
out what was happening and what action IGA was taking if, as the
clients were informed, the allegations against the company were
entirely false. The nature of the allegations were such that,
unlike David Hencke's previous articles in The Guardian, the
impact across the media was enormous; the allegation was of corruption,
pure and simple, and therefore of a completely different nature
from anything which had gone before. What I found particularly
distressing was the effect the publicity generated by the article
in The Guardian had upon my parents who are both aged
90 and who were deeply upset, and upon the loyal members of the
staff at IGA who, understandably, were very worried about the
future and how, if at all, they would be able to reassure our
clients. Members of the staff were clearly concerned about their
jobs because it was obvious to all of us that there would be
many clients who would choose to go elsewhere rather than run
the risk of being tainted by association with IGA. For the best
part of a month following publication, journalists continued
to plague my staff, friends, neighbours and myself. Present and
former members of my staff reported to me approaches which had
been made to them with offers of financial inducements to supply
information about me, my personal life and my business. We also
noticed a BT marked van which was parked outside the offices
which, when we checked the registration number with the police,
we found had been sold by BT some weeks before and had been clearly
put there to carry out a surveillance operation on IGA's offices.
I found that approaches had been made to credit card companies
and banks trying to get personal information about my financial
affairs. I felt that my whole business and personal life was being
put under a microscope, all because of The Guardian article,
with journalists and others trying to find some kind of dirt to
use on me. While all this was going on, I was still desperately
trying to reassure clients, staff, friends and family not to worry,
that the allegations were false and that The Guardian
would eventually recognise this when it looked at the evidence.
In this, I over estimated the honesty of the newspaper, in that
it became clear when the Defence was served that, rather than
justify or defend what they had published, they simple came up
with new and different allegations, resting entirely on the word
of Mohamed Al-Fayed who The Guardian themselves, in 1990,
had condemned as an outright liar and an anti semite.
33. The damage to my reputation and to that
of IGA as a result of The Guardian article is incalculable.
Within days of the publication of the article in the Guardian,
two important clients of IGA, British Steel Tinplate and Price
Waterhouse, who had instructed IGA on behalf of the "big
eight" firms of Chartered Accountants, decided not to continue
to use IGA, British Steel Tinplate, who were paying a monthly
fee of £5,166.66 decided not to renew its contract and Price
Waterhouse gave us notice of its intention to withdraw the account
from us which had been worth £10,000 per month. What, however,
personally caused me the greatest distress was that Actionaid,
a charity for whom IGA acted without any charge other than for
expenses informed us that, in the light of the article, they
could no longer use IGA, I have for many years worked for Crisis
at Christmas and other charitable organisations for the homeless.
I have organised and worked with other staff members a midnight
soup run on the embankment. I have also helped to raise money
for AIDS and other charitable organisations. Through Actionaid
I have personally "adopted" six children whose education
I help sponsor. I was devastated to find that there was a charity
whose objects I supported who, because of the allegations in The
Guardian, would not even accept charity from me and my company.
34. The contents of this statement are true
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Ian Bramwell Greer
27 June 1995
62 Prepared for the libel action, Greer and Hamilton
v The Guardian. Back
|
