|
Letter from Professor Barry Rider PhD
(Lond); PhD (Cantab); Hon LLD, Jesus College, Cambridge to the
Parliamentary Commissioners for Standards
Thank you for your letter of 5 February. I
understand that Mr Neil Hamilton MP has already submitted a statement
to you attached to which there are a number of appendices. He
has given me sight of appendix 4, which relates in part to me
and matters of which I have some knowledge. I can confirm that
the facts set out by Mr Hamilton fairly and accurately reflect
my own recollection of what transpired.
While I was head of the Commercial Crime Unit
of the Commonwealth Secretariat on several occasions information
came in to my possession which did not reflect well on certain
individuals associated with Lonrho. There was only one occasion
when we inquired into a matter relating to the Fayeds. Therefore,
when it came to my attention that scurrilous information was
being circulated about me, during the time I was advising the
Select Committee on Trade and Industry in relation to the House
of Fraser affair, I am afraid I jumped to the conclusion that
this was emanating from the "Lonrho camp". Indeed, I
think this was also the view of the then Clerk and at least one
member of the Committee. However, the nature of the attacks rendered
it increasingly difficult to reconcile this with what could reasonably
be taken to be Lonrho's objectives.
In my case the situation was even more confused
as at the material time I was also being vilified by others,
who were I am sure unconnected with matters before the Select
Committee. I am convinced that at least in part these other attacks
were related to certain allegations that I had made, while in
the Secretariat against individuals in authority, in regard to
their dealings with the BCCI, and perhaps more significantly to
allegations I had made against other persons and an offshore
bank which resulted in litigation and the conviction of those
involved. Obviously I do not want to furnish you with irrelevant
information, but in regard to Mr Hamilton's statement concerning
attacks on me, as opposed to others associated with the Select
Committee, it is important to put things in context. I would
not like to be unfair to Mr Al-Fayed and attribute more to him
and his associates than is deserving.
Any doubts that Sir Kenneth Warren, the then
Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Andrew Kennon, the then
Clerk and I had about the source of the attacks on persons associated
with the Committee's deliberations, and a significant proportion
of the highly personal attacks on me, being from a source other
than that near the Fayeds, was dramatically dispelled by evidence
gathered and in large measure vouched for, by the law firm Denton
Hall. Of course, we were all aware that Denton Hall was acting
from Lonrho, but in a series of meetings I had with senior representatives
of this firm, as well as senior counsel, I became more or less
convinced as to the veracity of the evidence that Denton Hall
had in its possession. I should add, that much of this consisted
of statements by Miss Francesca Pollard which was uncorroborated.
While Denton Hall encouraged me, and others, to consider taking
personal action on the basis of this information, I decided against
this. I did not have the means and was unprepared to accept financial
assistance and was in any case embroiled in litigation with the
gentleman in St Vincent and his offshore bank. It was also very
much the view of Sir Kenneth Warren and other members of the
Committee that this was best dealt with inside Parliament.
In the result, a file was submitted to the Trade
and Industry Committee by Denton Hall chronicling a series of
attacks on Sir Kenneth, certain other members of the Committee,
certain individual witnesses, Mr Michael Howard MP and myself.
There was also correspondence and discussions with Denton Hall.
It is my understanding that after due deliberation the Committee
decided to refer the matter to the police for investigation.
There was also some rather limited press comment. It was agreed
that Lonrho in its own litigation, which had been helped by Miss
Pollard's "repentance", should not refer to the attacks
on the Committee until Parliament had had an opportunity to fully
consider the matter. Lonrho was, however, I understand quite keen
to use at least some of the attacks on me, which could be isolated
from the Committee's work. In the result, this did not occur.
Of course, it must be remembered that towards the end of this
period Mr Tiny Rowland and Mr Al-Fayed had commenced negotiations
for a compromise and sadly, the partner in Denton Hall most involved
in all aspects of the case died of a heart attack.
The police investigation was conducted by officers
from New Scotland Yard and it is my understanding that a file
confirming most of the factual evidence given to the Select Committee
was passed to the then Acting Director of Public Prosecutions.
In the result, however, Sir Patrick Mayhew MP, while acknowledging
in a letter to the Committee that what had transpired was intolerable,
decided not to prosecute on the basis that so much would depend
upon the uncorroborated evidence of Ms Pollard. Since then, I
believe that there have been further attempts to undermine the
credibility of certain persons involved with this affair and I
have reason to believe that the Fayeds remain vindictive towards
me. Frankly, I cannot understand why this should be the case.
I can only assume that they and perhaps their advisers, consider
that my role in advising the Committee was more significant than
it was. Indeed, I find the whole saga bemusing to say the least.
I remain, however, saddened that what was a serious attempt to
undermine the proper workings of a Select Committee and impugn
the personal and professional integrity of those who did absolutely
nothing wrong and sought only to perform their public duty, has
been allowed to pass without public criticism. Indeed, the facts
have in the minds of some already been distorted if not manipulated.
Documentary evidence to support my comments
does exist and if I can be of any further assistance to your
own inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me. While I do
not relish the prospect of more personal attacks, which I am
confident will come, I do not like to see the sort of things that
have taken place pass without comment, particularly as the facts
may have some, albeit indirect relevance, to Mr Hamilton's position.
It was for this reason that I was encouraged to contact him.
Professor Barry A K Rider
11 February 1997
|
