ANNEX A
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton MP to Mr
Peter Preston, Editor, The Guardian
I know from an interview with David Hencke
in July and from reports of several people interviewed more recently,
he is preparing an article on Ian Greer Associates and the firm's
alleged improper influence on Ministers and MPs.
I have been told Mr Hencke intends to feature
me prominently and has been boasting that I will get into "a
lot of trouble" as a result. I hope, as Editor, you will
ensure that whatever may be published is balanced.
As I understand it, Mr Hencke is interested
in my acquaintanceship with Mohamed Al-Fayed and seeks to imply
(or perhaps state explicitly) impropriety on my part.
Almost all my time as a backbencher I was a
Trade and Industry Committee officer. Sir Peter Hordern MP was
consultant to House of Fraser and in 1984 invited the Officers
to lunch at Harrods to meet Professor Roland Smith and fellow
directors. The main issue was the Lonrho continuing offensive
in the wake of the prohibition of a Lonrho takeover by the Government.
My view was that there was no public interest
or consideration for the purposes of Competition Policy in the
ownership of Harrods/House of Fraser. I supported the 1984 Tebbit
doctrine (I still do as Competition Minister) that competition
is the main test of public interest.
Peter Hordern asked me, and fellow Committee
officers, to accompany him two or three times over the next few
years to see Trade and Industry Ministers to discuss the public
policy implications of the issue. This I was happy to do as I
knew a lot about Competition Policy both as an economist and a
lawyer. From what I knew about the Lonrho/Fayed feud, I sympathised
with the Fayeds whom, I felt, were being unfairly treated.
At some time during these years, IGA were
engaged by House of Fraser to promote their case to Parliament.
My interest in this dispute predates such involvement.
Mohamed Al-Fayed was refurbishing the Duke of
Windsor's villa in Paris and invited me, as part of a group of
MPs, to go and see it but, to the best of my knowledge, no such
trip took place and, if it did, I did not go on it.
In 1987, my wife and I planned a motoring holiday
in Alsace. I had come to know Mohamed Al-Fayed reasonably well
and, as a convivial person, I liked him. Talking about holiday
plans, I told him what we intended and he pressed us to drive
via Paris, see the villa, and stay in his private rooms at the
Ritz. I accepted and we stayed several days. Under the circumstances,
therefore, it is surprising that Mr Hencke claims to have a copy
of a bill - which he declines to show me - if there is such a
document it can only be a notional transaction for internal accounting
purposes as Fayed owns the hotel.
Clearly, Mr Hencke seeks to criticise me also
for not registering the Fayed hospitality in the Register of
Members' Interests. There is more attention to the subject about
registration of interests today than there was six years ago.
The visit was, in effect, to his private residence in Paris and,
therefore, the question of registering the interest did not,
I believe, arise.
He also intends, I gather, to make something
out of the fact that subsequent to my stay at the Ritz I put down
two PQs for Written Answer relating to the House of Fraser -
copies enclosed. These are the only references to the House of
Fraser/Lonrho under my name in the Hansard index since 1987. It
would seem rather difficult to justify any implication of impropriety
on my part arising out of material so anodyne. The costs of investigations
are always matters of public record.
It seems pretty clear that Mr Hencke is trying
to weave a conspiracy along the lines of: "Greer lobbies
for Fayed and persuaded Hamilton to put down PQs etc., as backbencher.
Hamilton then goes into Government as Competition/Company Investigations
Minister and uses influence to promote interest of Greer client,
Fayed".
This falls down as I met Fayed through Peter
Hordern before Greer was taken on. My interest in House of Fraser
disputes predates Greer's involvement. I have taken no part of
any kind in House of Fraser/Fayed matters since I joined the
Government in July 1990 - in fact not since the summer of 1988.
In particular, almost as soon as I arrived at
the DTI and discovered there were currently issues involving the
Fayeds which fell within my responsibilities, I instructed officials
not to send me any papers relevant to such matters; not to involve
me in any way in meetings and if Ministerial decisions were necessary
another DTI Minister should take them - which is what has happened.
This was on my own initiative. I felt it was
wrong that I should have any part to play in a dispute where I
had supported one of the parties in respect of some questions
- albeit those questions were now disposed of and the period
concerned was several years prior to my assumption of Office.
In law I would be entitled to perform Ministerial functions in
this matter but I have bent over backwards to avoid putting myself
in a position where I could be criticised (however erroneously
for) for acting unfairly.
I hope you will ensure that this fact receives
prominence in Hencke's article if printed and that the article
is both fair and balanced. I feel, however, that if it is there
will be nothing worth printing. That is why I write to you.
You will note that I refer this matter to my
Solicitor and, no doubt, you receive many such statements. I
would only add that although litigation is both time consuming
and expensive for all parties, I fought a successful libel case
against the BBC Panorama some years ago - costing the BBC a total
of £500,000. You may wish to check your cuttings. I will
have no hesitation in pursuing the legal route again, which might
be more necessary now because of my present Ministerial position,
if your newspaper prints any of the untrue facts and insinuations
that Mr Hencke appears to be planning.
1 October 1993 c.c.
Messrs Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners
Facsimile from Mr Neil Hamilton MP to
Mr Peter Preston, Editor, The Guardian
This is to confirm the assurance which you
have just given me in conversation, that you will not be publishing
the letter which I wrote to you on Friday last. The letter was
not written with a view to publication; had it been, it would
have been significantly longer in order to place it in its context.
The letter was written so that you should be
under no illusions about the allegations which David Hencke might
make and which might render you liable to an action for defamation.
I am grateful to you for your co-operation.
5 October 1993
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton MP to Mr
M Al-Fayed
It is now nine months since the latest Inquiry
into House of Fraser started. It is quite incredible that after
all this time there is still no indication of how long it will
be before the Inspector will report.
I greatly sympathise with you for having to
endure this trial to which so much publicity has been given by
those in the Lonrho interest - like The Observer newspaper.
In particular, I consider it a distasteful and
un-warranted intrusion into your private life and that of your
family, that the Inspector should be seeking details of your
ancestry, income and assets going back over a period very remote
from that now under direct investigation.
It seems to me that, quite apart from the privacy
to which you are entitled, the nature of the Inquiry turns on
its head the Government's stated policy on DTI investigations.
This Investigation has nothing whatever to do with competition
- which is supposed to be the essence of Government policy. How,
what is essentially an investigation into your means, can fit
into that is a mystery to me.
Everyone knows the Al-Fayeds to be amongst the
world's most significant businessmen. I have no doubt that, were
it not for the paranoid and personal vendetta pursued against
you by Tiny Rowland, you would not now be enduring the indignity
of this Inquiry.
Once this matter is successfully concluded (as
I am sure it will be) we must raise in the House of Commons the
propriety of such investigations. Having myself suffered invasions
of privacy, and campaigns of lies, in my successful battle with
the BBC in 1984/86, I have the greatest possible sympathy for
you. I know how frustrated you must feel on account of the length
of time it is taking for your reputation to be cleared of the
stain which Rowland has put upon it. It seems to me to add
insult to injury, and to be quite outside the legitimate scope
of the Inquiry, for your private life to be crawled over and
examined in respect of years which can have no conceivable direct
relevance to the Lonrho accusations.
This is yet another aspect of the matter which
we must seek to challenge in Parliament in due course.
28 January 1988
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton, MP to the
Rt Hon Lord Young of Graffham, Secretary of State, Department
of Trade and Industry
As you will know, along with the other officers
of the backbench, Trade and Industry Committee, I have taken
a close interest in the feud between House of Fraser and Lonrho.
Again, as you know, I have been most disappointed
at the DTI's failure to take action against Lonrho and Rowland
in respect of many nefarious dealings which have been the subject
of previous correspondence and meetings - in particular the Blorg/Contango
amethyst fraud.
You will have received, via Peter Hordern, a
collection of papers which prima facie provide evidence
of Lonrho's failure to disclose to its shareholders certain dealings
in emeralds; and, in particular, that Rowland was personally
involved in these events.
I understand that this evidence was not provided
to the Inspector during the 1976 Inquiry - even though it must
have been directly relevant to it.
It is a fortunate by-product of the Lonrho/Mayers
litigation in the US that evidence has come out that Lonrho still
possesses the Contango files. Surely, now the DTI ought to investigate
this evidence so as to see whether it might not be possible to
bring an action against Rowland and Lonrho? You will know
that the Fraud Squad has not lost interest in these matters. It
is difficult for some of us to understand why the DTI seems to
be less vigorous in its desire to get at the truth. Rowland and
Lonrho were long ago described as the "unacceptable face
of capitalism". The record gets worse with the years and
still nothing is done about their breaches of company law.
I do hope you will act swiftly to examine the
Contango file and take the appropriate action.
28 January 1988
Facsimile from Mr Ian Greer to Mr Al-Fayed
from Patrick Ferreira
Priority written question for answer on 7 June
1988 29 Mr Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster, what is the estimated cost to public
funds so far of the current inquiry into House of Fraser plc.
35 Mr Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster, when inspectors were appointed to
carry out the current inquiry into House of Fraser plc; and what
is the earliest date on which he expects to receive their report.
27 May 1988
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton MP to Mr
Al-Fayed
I have now returned from the USA and had an
opportunity to see the letter from David Young, a copy of which
I enclose.
I am glad to learn from Ian Greer that meetings
are taking place with the DTI concerning the Inspector's Report,
and I very much hope that this matter will not drag on for much
longer. Perhaps it might be useful if the three of us get together
shortly. I am now back in this country and will be dividing my
time between Cheshire and London.
1 September 1988
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton, MP to Mr
Mohamed Al-Fayed
I was very pleased to receive the excellent
letter from Royston setting out your reluctance to indulge in
a public slanging match with Lonrho. It was very important to
make sure that people do not interpret this silence as an acquiescence
in Lonrho's allegations. I have long felt that the length of time
which the libel actions are taking has given the wrong impression.
Therefore it was very necessary to tell people that you are seriously
going ahead with these as quickly as possible and all Lonrho's
attempts to wriggle out of them have been a total failure.
12 March 1989
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton, MP to Rt
Hon Douglas Hurd, CBE, MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department
I am deeply concerned by press reports referring
to the activities of Ahmed Gadafadam, until recently a board
member of the Aircraft Cargo Firm "Tradewinds", a Lonrho
subsidiary. I understand that Ahmed Gadafadam is a cousin of
Colonel Gaddafi, and brother of Said Gadafadam, Head of Libyan
Intelligence. I believe that the Gadafadam link with the Libyan
regime and the press allegations of illicit arms dealing must
warrant the closest examination.
My attention has been drawn to the regular use
by Lonrho of the company jet to and from Libya. It has been suggested
that Mr Gadafadam and Dr Ashraf Marwan, both close associates
of Mr Rowland, are regular passengers. I believe that Dr Marwan,
an Egyptian citizen, holds a diplomatic passport with the rank
of Ambassador. He is, I believe, also a close friend and associate
of Colonel Gadaffi. Lonrho's involvement with Libya and arms
dealing was recently reported in the Sunday Telegraph,
5 March, when it was suggested that Lonrho was seeking to block
British arms sales to traditionally pro-British countries.
The Libyan regime has made little secret of
its antipathy towards Great Britain. I strongly believe that an
urgent investigation should be conducted into Mr Tiny Rowland's
associations with Colonel Gadaffi, together with any links which
he, or his subsidiary companies, may have with the regime.
21 March 1989
Facsimile from Mr Ian Greer to Mr Mohamed
Al-Fayed
Tried to contact you earlier today without
success. Spoke to Brian Basham's office last night and today.
Agreed 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.
Suggest you mention that I will be in contact
when you see Michael Grylls because I believe he would want to
help.
Also believe letter possible from Neil to Chairman
of CAA about Marwan flights and facilities.
Please contact me if there is anything more
you want me to do. Returning to London on Sunday.
29 March 1989
Facsimile from Mr Ian Greer to Mr Royston
Webb
The following questions will appear on tomorrow's
Order Paper (please note additional questions).
Brian Basham alerted.
4 April 1989
PQ'S TO BE TABLED BY NEIL HAMILTON, MP
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if
he has seen the report in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 March
alleging attempts by Lonhro to frustrate British arms sales to
Kenya and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary for the Home Department
whether, given their implications for national security, he will
investigate reported links between the Lonhro subsidiary company
"Tradewinds" and the Libyan regime.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether he will investigate allegations of illicit arms dealing
with Libya by the Lonhro subsidiary company "Tradewinds".
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether foreigners who hold diplomatic passports but are not
accredited in the UK are exempted from normal entry procedures
when visiting this country.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs whether Dr Ashraf Marwan is an accredited
diplomat representing the Arab Republic of Egypt in the UK? The
last Question received the following Answer Mr Eggar According
to our records, Doctor Ashraf Marwan is not, nor has ever been,
an accredited diplomat representing the Arab Republic of Egypt
in the United Kingdom.
Letter from Mr Peter Preston Editor of
The Guardian to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, DL, MP, Chairman,
Select Committee on Members' Interests
I understand from what is being said today
that the Committee of Members' Interests may wish to examine
the matter of Mr Neil Hamilton MP, his stay at the Ritz Hotel
in Paris in 1987 and his subsequent questions and letters written
on behalf of the House of Fraser and Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed.
Can I please make clear to your Committee that
we at The Guardian are very happy to provide every jot
of information in our possession, including Mr Hamilton's bill
for his stay at the Ritz and subsequent correspondence on behalf
of the House of Fraser, together with a reasonable chronology
of dates and questions asked.
If this is helpful to you and your Committee,
please do not hesitate to let us know.
21 October 1994
Letter from Mr Peter Preston to Sir Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, DL, MP, Chairman, Select Committee on Members'
Interests
I wrote to you on 21 October offering to lay
before your Committee our records of the questions asked and
the expertise provided to Mr Al-Fayed to Mr Neil Hamilton, together
with all relevant circumstances covering the week's stay by Mr
Hamilton and his wife at the Ritz Hotel in Paris in 1987. In your
letter of 24 October, you thanked me for writing and said that
my anxiety to assist you and your Committee had been drawn to
the attention of the Registrar, who is also the Clerk of the
Committee of Members' Interests.
I understand that your Committee is now turning,
within days, actually of consider Mr Hamilton's stay at the Ritz.
It may be additionally helpful, then, if I reiterate my willingness
to assist - particularly since the Ritz stay forms no part of
Mr Hamilton's current legal proceedings against this paper.
I can produce details of at least nine questions
asked by Mr Hamilton in pursuance of Mr Al-Fayed's interests.
These questions, for the avoidance of doubt, came both before
and after Mr Hamilton's holiday at the Ritz Hotel. I can produce
the details of Mr and Mrs Hamilton's bill, signed for by Mr Hamilton
in person, and totalling well over £4,000 at 1987 exchange
rates. I can show the Committee specific instances of orders from
the Ritz bar exceeding £100 per item. I should add that
Mr Al-Fayed himself tells me that he would be willing to give
evidence to your Committee. But you may or may not think that
relevant. In any case, I am quite able to demonstrate that Mr
Hamilton could not have possibly stayed at the Ritz as though
he was staying at Mr Al-Fayed's own home - since Mr Al-Fayed
maintains a quite separate establishment in Paris, an apartment
block, for the precise purpose of entertaining personal guests
and members of his staff. All details of this secondary establishment
are there for you and your Committee. So, if you wished, would
be a sworn statement by Mr Al-Fayed describing how the excessive
use of the facilities of the Ritz Hotel by Mr Hamilton during
the week in question prompted Mr Al-Fayed to instruct the Ritz
not to offer Mr Hamilton a second holiday in such style.
At any rate, details of the questions and the
itemisation of the bill, together with other factual matters,
are here at The Guardian without troubling Mr Al-Fayed.
I would obviously be very happy if your Committee and the Registrar
should wish to come to us for assistance at this time.
28 November 1994
Letter from Mr Peter Preston to Sir Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, DL, MP, Chairman, Select Committee on Members'
Interests
I am enclosing for you, and your Committee,
a copy of the related documentation you requested concerning
Mr Neil Hamilton's stay at the Ritz Hotel in Paris. It would obviously
be wrong for me to rehearse matters too expansively here. The
material I enclose is really a selection of the documentation
in our hands as it effects Mr Hamilton's stay at the Ritz Hotel.
In section (1) a summary of the written questions
tabled and oral interventions by Mr Hamilton in direct relationship
to the House of Fraser. You and your Committee will obviously
note that this work occurred on both sides of the stay at the
Ritz Hotel. Mr Hamilton was, in whatever capacity, assisting Mr
Al-Fayed and his case both before the holiday in Paris and after
it.
Beyond that, you will find in (2) a summary
of the Early Day Motions tabled by Mr Hamilton in relation to
these affairs and in (4) a relevant selection of the correspondence
between Mr Hamilton, Mr Greer and Mr Al-Fayed to give some broader
context to matters.
At the heart of the submission, in (3), is a
copy of the actual Ritz Hotel bill. You will see that it is signed
for by Mr Hamilton. You will note that it relates only to the
extras incurred by Mr and Mrs Hamilton during their week at the
hotel and that it doesn't include the cost of Room 356, a perfectly
normal apartment in the hotel, available on an everyday basis
to customers at about £400 per night. This bill, to repeat,
is only for the extras ordered and signed for during Mr Hamilton's
stay. Committee members may like to know that the Espadon referred
to on a daily basis for bills of over £200 is the hotel's
restaurant; it does not seem necessary for me to comment in detail
on the other substantial costs incurred.
It would be my belief, on this evidence, whether
or not any further payments were made in other contexts, that
Mr Hamilton, in the light of the continuing work done for Mr Al-Fayed,
cannot have viewed this stay, or the costs associated with it,
as some kind of small, private holiday in the effective home of
a friend. Mr Al-Fayed, as you may know, maintains a separate
large apartment block in Paris where he habitually provides stays
for senior officials or long-standing friends. This is not the
case here. I cannot speak from the climate of the time or Mr
Hamilton's understanding of the Register of Interests in this
period. But I am bound to conclude, looking at this evidence,
that the interest was very clear and very intensive - and continuing.
Could I, as a further point of interest, draw
your attention to Mr Hamilton's letter to me of 1 October 1993,
after our original approach to him concerning the Ritz stay.
You will see there, on page 2, that he claims to have put down
only two parliamentary questions in total in Mr Fayed's interest
- and that he asserts that no work was done for Mr Fayed after
the summer of 1988. It is worth reiterating for your Committee
that, for whatever reason, these are simply not factual statements.
The facts are laid out in the documentation I pass to you.
I trust this is of help to your Committee. Please
do not hesitate to be in touch with me if there is any more I
can do.
14 December 1994
|