|
Consolidated pursuant to order of Sir Michael Davies
dated 28 April 1995
1994-H-No-1654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN
(1)
NEIL HAMILTON
Plaintiff
and
(1) DAVID HENCKE
(2) PETER PRESTON
(3) GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
Defendants
1994-G-No-1776
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN
(1)
IAN GREER
(2) IAN GREER ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Plaintiffs
and
(1)
DAVID HENCKE
(2) PETER PRESTON
(3) GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
Defendants
STATEMENT OF DAVID HENCKE[13]
I, David Hencke, of 119 Farringdon Road,
London EC1R 3ER will say as follows:
1. I am a Reporter
employed by The Guardian. I have held that position since
1976 and I have been a journalist since 1968. I am The Guardian's
Westminster correspondent and have been the Westminster correspondent
since 1986. The contents of this Statement are true to the best
of my knowledge and belief. Exhibited to this Statement is an
Exhibit marked DH 1 which comprises documents referred to in the
Statement; all of the documents have been disclosed in these
proceedings. Unless otherwise specified, all page references
in this Statement are to Exhibit DH 1.
2. As The Guardian's Westminster correspondent,
I have an ongoing interest in the issue of parliamentary lobbyists
generally and their role in the political process. The role of
lobbyists at Westminster has become increasingly important over
the past 10 years; indeed, during the House of Commons session
1989-1990, the Select Committee on Members' Interests examined
the issue of parliamentary lobbying. Ian Greer, the Chairman
of Ian Greer Associates ("IGA"), is probably the best
known parliamentary lobbyist at Westminster. Mr Greer gave evidence
to the Select Committee enquiry in April 1990. Prior to writing
my first article about Ian Greer in mid 1993, I was aware that
in the course of giving evidence to the Select Committee Mr Greer
had said that he had made payments to three MPs in return for
them introducing business to IGA. Mr Greer was a reluctant witness
on one or two points put to him by the Select Committee as the
Minutes of his evidence demonstrates, pages 1-13. He refused
to name the three MPs who had received payments from him and in
a letter to the Clerk of the Select Committee dated 9 May 1990,
he referred to the three MPs under the code names A, B and C,
page 14. The Guardian's then political correspondent,
Alan Travis, wrote an article about Mr Greer's evidence which
was published in The Guardian on 24 May 1990, page 15.
That article pointed to the fact that following on from Mr Greer's
evidence to the Select Committee, the Registrar of Members' Interests
had written to all MPs pointing to the duty MPs had to register
commission payments received for introductions where they related
in any way to membership of the House.
3. In or about late June/early July 1993, I
had a discussion with The Guardian's then Editor, Peter
Preston, in which he told me that he had been speaking to Mohamed
Al-Fayed about an unconnected matter concerning relations between
the Conservative Party and individuals in the Middle East. Peter
Preston told me that in the course of that discussion Mohamed
Al-Fayed had also told him, almost in passing, that Mohamed Al-Fayed
had made payments to certain MPs, namely Neil Hamilton and Tim
Smith at the behest of Ian Greer in return for asking questions
in the House. Peter Preston told me further that Neil Hamilton
had stayed as a guest at Mohamed Al-Fayed's hotel, the Ritz in
Paris in 1987 and that Mohamed Al-Fayed was not prepared to go
"on the record" about these allegations. He told me
that Mohamed Al-Fayed had not given him any documents. Both Peter
Preston and I agreed that these were very serious allegations
of impropriety and that the allegations should be investigated.
Accordingly, he asked me and another reporter with The Guardian,
John Mullin, to devote some time to doing some background work
on Ian Greer.
4. By mid 1993, I was already interested
in Ian Greer principally because:
(i) He was Westminster's most prominent
lobbyist
(ii) He appeared to be a reluctant witness
before a Select Committee in that he had refused to answer certain
questions about payments he had made to MPs.
(iii) Other Parliamentary lobbyists had
expressed some concerns to me about the way Ian Greer had conducted
his business. These concerns focused on a number of matters including
the fact that Ian Greer had lobbied on behalf of one or two controversial
clients, including for example, the US Tobacco Company campaign
for Skoal Bandits, a chewing tobacco which had been banned by
the U.K. Department of Health; he had admitted making payments
to Members of Parliament and thirdly, he had allegedly provided
certain benefits, including providing facilities, to MPs.
Needless to say, Mohamad Al-Fayed's allegations
only increased my interest in him.
5. After my discussion with Peter Preston, John
Mullin and I spent a number of weeks investigating the story
on Ian Greer in the period end of June-July 1993 interviewing
probably 12-15 people. Some of the material I obtained during
this period was used in the story which was eventually published
in The Guardian on 20 October 1994. In particular, in
the course of talking to sources, a number of allegations were
made about Ian Greer which confirmed my view that the relationship
between him and certain MPs, in particular Neil Hamilton, had
led to practices which I thought brought into focus legitimate
public concerns about the way parliamentary lobbying was being
conducted in this country. These allegations included the following:
- that Neil Hamilton had taken a trip
to the Ritz Hotel which was paid for by Mohamed Al-Fayed and
in addition to free accommodation, Neil Hamilton, through the
good offices of Ian Greer, was able to obtain free air tickets
for that trip from British Airways.
- That there were particularly close
links between Neil Hamilton and his wife and Ian Greer and further,
Ian Greer's Managing Director, Andrew Smith used to stay regularly
with the Hamiltons. When Andrew Smith stood as a Conservative
MP in a seat in a remote Welsh valley, Neil Hamilton who was
of course himself in the middle of an election campaign, made
a special trip to the constituency to speak on Andrew Smith's
behalf.
6. One of the points which had emerged from
my background research was the closeness of the relationship
between Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer. John Mullin and I were particularly
interested in investigating that relationship not least because
of what Mohamed Al-Fayed had told Peter Preston about Tim Smith
and Neil Hamilton. Accordingly, in July 1993 both John Mullin
and I arranged to see Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton in the House
of Commons.
7. Both John Mullin and I saw Tim Smith in a
Committee Room in the House of Commons about mid morning. I cannot
recollect the precise date of the meeting but it was shortly before
the meeting we had with Ian Greer as referred to in paragraph
10 herein, so it must have been in the second half of July. I
did not take any notes during this meeting. I have no difficulty
in remembering the details however because it was such a dramatic
meeting. Not only did we have a meeting alone with an MP in a
Committee room (which is very rare) but secondly, and this was
a striking feature of the meeting, Tim Smith was very, very, nervous.
John Mullin asked Tim Smith about his relationship with Mohamed
Al-Fayed and asked him whether or not he had ever stayed at the
Ritz Hotel in Paris. Tim Smith told us that he had done some work
on the Lonhro account when he was an accountant with Peat Marwick
in 1971. He had taken a bit of an interest in Lonhro thereafter
and he agreed that he had put down 17 questions relating to the
House of Fraser between October 1987 and January 1989 but had
stopped after receiving a threatening letter from Lonhro. He told
us further that as a member of the Executive of the Conservative
Backbench Trade and Industry Committee (run by Michael Grylls
MP) he and several others were invited to an Ian Greer function
for the House of Fraser some time in 1985. He told us further
that Ian Greer had offered several MPs a visit to the Ritz Hotel
in Paris apparently at Mohamed Al-Fayed's instigation. This was
the first I had heard of this allegation. Tim Smith told us that
he had turned this down because he did not think it was right,
although he did accept two big teddy bears from Harrods which
he declared in the MPs' Register. We then asked him whether or
not he had received payments from Mohamed Al-Fayed in exchange
for asking questions on behalf of the House of Fraser in their
dispute with Lonhro. He denied that. We asked him whether or
not he had received £2,000 cash in a brown envelope for asking
questions and he said to that "that is certainly not true".
He said that he had not received any money for the conduct of
any Parliamentary business.
8. Shortly afterwards, on the same day,
we saw Neil Hamilton on the terrace of the House of Commons.
Again, I did not take any notes during this meeting. Neil Hamilton
confirmed that he had been a friend of Ian Greer for 15 years
and he had been introduced to him through Michael Grylls. He said
further that his wife Christine, had formerly been Michael Grylls'
secretary. He said that he had been introduced to the House of
Fraser through one of its consultants, Sir Peter Hordern. We
then asked Neil Hamilton whether or not he had stayed in the
Ritz Hotel in Paris as a guest of Mohamed Al-Fayed. He said that
"he might have stayed a night or two at the hotel".
We then pressed him and asked him "are
you sure it was not longer". He said words to the effect
that it might have been and then we presented him with the dates
and the room number. Just prior to the meeting with Tim Smith
and Neil Hamilton, I had had a discussion with Peter Preston during
which he gave me details of Neil Hamilton's room number at the
Ritz and of dates relating to Neil Hamilton's stay there. I had
this information on a scrap of paper in the meeting with Neil
Hamilton. I now cannot locate that scrape of paper. Then, despite
the fact that his memory appeared to have failed him a minute
or so earlier, Mr Hamilton went into graphic detail about his
stay at the Ritz Hotel and complained that the room he had received
had been a bad room with no view and that he thought the Ritz
was overpriced. We asked him why he did not declare the stay in
the Register of Members' Interests and he did not explain why
he had not. He may have mentioned that in his view it was not
registrable, or that he had overlooked it. We then confronted
him with the cash for questions allegation. Either John or I
directly asked him: "Have you received any cash from Mohamed
Al-Fayed in return for asking questions in the House on his behalf."
I also recollect that we mentioned the figure of £2,000 per
question asked. Neil Hamilton denied the allegation. He said
that he had never received any payment from Mohamed Al-Fayed
or anyone else other than those declared in the Register of Interests.
He asked whether we had any documents and I replied that we did
not. He had become quite angry by this stage and stormed off.
The whole meeting lasted about 20 minutes.
9. A number of things had impressed me after
the two short meetings with Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton - in
particular:
- That Tim Smith was very nervous when
we were speaking to him.
- That I had reason to doubt Neil Hamilton's
truthfulness. At first he appeared only vaguely to "recollect"
a day or two's stay at the Ritz but once we had confronted him
with the details of his stay, he then went into some considerable
detail about his stay there.
- Both had firmly denied the allegation
that they had received cash for asking questions in the House.
10. Both John Mullin and I discussed the
progress of our researches with Peter Preston and we agreed that
it was time to approach Ian Greer direct with some of the matters
that had been put to us. At about the same time, The Guardian
received a complaint from IGA's solicitors, Lewis Silkin, about
our actions. I had suspected that some people we had spoken to
had reported back to Ian Greer - particularly one of Greer's former
employees, Anne Pettifer. By agreement, both John Mullin and
I attended a meeting with Ian Greer at IGA's offices towards
the end of July. Also in attendance at that meeting was Andrew
Stone. Andrew Stone is a partner of Lewis Silkin, solicitors,
but he informed The Guardian that he was attending in his
capacity as a non-executive director of IGA. A tape recording
of the meeting we had with Ian Greer appears at Item 295 of the
Defendants' List of Documents. The recording is not always easy
to hear but in one section, John Mullin and I refer to Neil Hamilton's
stay at the Ritz Hotel as Mohamed Al-Fayed's guest which he had
not declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Of that stay,
Mr Greer said "under no circumstances whatsoever at any time
did we make any arrangements for anyone to go there." He
denied further that he had "act[ed] as a sort of channel
for the Fayeds, to make the arrangements". I note from items
35 and 36 in the Plaintiff's List of Documents, pages 16- 18,
that Mr Greer clearly was involved in Mr Hamilton's stay at the
Ritz. We then put the allegation concerning cash for questions
to Mr Greer although we did not reveal that we knew he was involved.
John Mullin said to Mr Greer "one allegation that has been
made . . . is that in return for a parliamentary question being
asked by a friendly MP, a brown envelope stuffed full . . . would
be passed . . .". Mr Greer replies "I have absolutely
no knowledge of this".
Mr Greer had accordingly denied any knowledge
of Mohamed Al-Fayed's allegation concerning "cash for questions".
11. After the interview with Ian Greer, I was
then ready to write a story about him which I did. As referred
to above, Mohamed Al-Fayed at that stage, had made it very clear
to the Editor that he did not want to be named as the source
of the story and for that reason, Peter Preston wrote the section
in the story which deals with Neil Hamilton's stay at the Ritz
to ensure that no specific mention was made to either Mohamed
Al-Fayed or the Ritz. It was clearly impossible to run the "cash
for questions" aspect of the story with Mohamed Al-Fayed
not being prepared to "go on the record". In addition,
he was still refusing to hand documentary evidence over to Peter
Preston.
12. We made one or two additional enquiries
after July of clients of IGA and then at the end of September
1993, I attended the Labour Party Conference. At about that time,
I was contacted by a man by the name of Peter Jukes who told
me that he was writing a play about Parliamentary lobbyists and
he was going to be attached to IGA throughout the Labour Party
Conference to get an inside view of how Parliamentary lobbyists
worked. During that Conference, Jukes met with me a couple of
times as well. Something quite odd occurred during the Conference
- I was told by a lobbyist who I spoke with at one of the functions,
that Andrew Smith, IGA's Managing Director appeared to be following
me. It was extremely odd but every time I appeared to move out
of Andrew Smith's eyesight, he accordingly moved. At one stage,
I noticed Andrew Smith hiding behind a pillar watching me; when
I moved, he did.
13. At about this time, Neil Hamilton wrote
a letter to Peter Preston at The Guardian, dated 1 October
1993, pages 19-22. I do not know why Mr Hamilton wrote to Peter
Preston on that date (after all, I had interviewed both him and
Ian Greer months before) but perhaps he had heard via Ian Greer
that I had been talking to other lobbyists at the Labour Party
Conference. In the event that letter contained a number of inaccuracies
which I pointed to in an article I wrote 12 months later, published
in The Guardian on 25 October 1994, page 23.
14. My article about Ian Greer was published
in The Guardian on 5 October 1993, page 24. I recollect
that on the day of publication, Ian Greer was having a reception
and both John Mullin and I went to the reception although we
did not intend to go in because we had not been invited. In fact
Ian Greer welcomed both of us with open arms and was extremely
hospitable. Neil Hamilton was there and, in passing, told me that
he had been on the telephone to Peter Carter-Ruck.
15. Shortly after publication of the article
on 5 October 1993, I was contacted by Sylvia Jones who told me
she was a researcher with the Central Television Programme, the
Cook Report. She told me that she wanted to do a Cook Report
style programme on IGA and wanted access to some of my contacts.
My recollection is that the Cook Report had to wait until early
1994 to get the go ahead to do the story which involved reporters
posing as clients for the purpose of obtaining information about
IGA's methods. I introduced her to a couple of my contacts and
as the Cook Report drew up more detailed plans, they decided to
employ me as a consultant to the programme. I had a series of
meetings with one of Central Television's senior managers involved
with the Cook Report, Clive Entwhistle, and together we tested
the idea of the investigation they were about to undertake. One
of the principal points they wished to explore was precisely what
courses of action it would and would not be ethical for a Parliamentary
lobbyist to pursue. During these conversations, I told the Cook
Report about what I had found out about the very strong relationship
between Ian Greer and Neil Hamilton and various other matters.
During the course of my consultancy, I obtained transcripts of
meetings held between representatives of the Cook Report (acting
under the guise of employees of a front company set up for the
purpose of the investigation, ECOCON Ventures Inc) and IGA and
correspondence between IGA and ECOCON Ventures Inc. Some of this
material is relevant to the issues in this action and has been
disclosed in the proceedings. I refer in particular to:
(i) the letter from Jeremy Sweeney of IGA
to ECOCON's president which refers to Neil Hamilton as being
a member of "a carefully selected group" which IGA was
going to bring together for ECOCON, pages 25-28.
(ii) the transcripts of the conversations
at pages 29-73 in which representatives of Ian Greer refer a
number of times to IGA's contact with Neil Hamilton and
(iii) the transcript of the conversation
between Ian Greer and ECOCON employees, pages 74-94 which includes
the following exchange between Ian Greer and an ECOCON representative
at page 83:
ECOCON representative: Erm . . . but
. . . placing em . . . placing questions . . . is that . . .
I mean it seems very straightforward here that you just can get
someone to. . .ask the right questions to make . . . to put .
. . to jockey your . . . information gathering into the right
position.
Ian Greer: We .
. . we . . . we would never go out and say . . . we can arrange
to have a question tabled . . . erm . . . but actually we can
. . . erm . . . if we went out and said that er . . . there's
bound to be someone who would take great offence . . . er to think
that a middle man . . . could arrange such a thing, but . . .
er as it happens . . . erm . . . yes of course we do." In
my view another of Mohamed Al-Fayed's allegations was confirmed
- Ian Greer was freely admitting that he could arrange to have
questions tabled in the House by certain MPs.
16. In the event, Central Television executives
halted the Cook Report investigation; I wrote up a number of
their findings, however, in an article published in The Guardian
on Thursday, 12 May 1994, pages 95-96.
17. The critical point raised in the transcripts
obtained by the Cook Report was the assertion by Ian Greer that
IGA's contacts with Conservative Ministers and MPs was such that
they were able to get MPs to table Commons questions to benefit
their clients. Accordingly, a number of MPs including Liberal
Democrat and Welsh Nationalist MPs backed a Commons Motion inviting
the Select Committee to order Central Television to make the
film available for a Commons enquiry into lobbying activities,
pages 97-98. Neither Ian Greer nor IGA complained to The Guardian
about the article published on 12 May 1994, although its directors
wrote to a number of MPs about it. I was able to obtain a copy
of one of these letters dated 19 July 1994 written from Robby
Macduff, an IGA director, to Jeff Rooker MP, pages 99-101.
18. The issue of MPs tabling questions in return
for cash had been one which had been the subject of a number
of rumours circulating throughout Westminster for some time. On
10 July 1994, the Sunday Times published its story which
confirmed that at least two MPs, David Treddinick, MP for Bosworth
and Graham Riddick, MP for Colne Valley, had accepted cash from
a businessman in return for tabling questions, pages 102-103.
19. At or about the time of the Labour Party
Conference in 1994 - I think it was towards the end of the second
week of October - Peter Preston told me that Mohamed Al-Fayed
had now changed his mind and was prepared for The Guardian
to publish the names of the MPs who had taken cash from him in
exchange for asking questions in the House, namely, Neil Hamilton
and Tim Smith. He was also prepared to let it be known that it
was the Ritz Hotel that Neil Hamilton had stayed at and that he,
Mohamed Al-Fayed, had paid for that stay. I did not go and see
Mohamed Al-Fayed immediately - I remember that I was at the time
covering one of the more important speeches of the political
year, namely the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative Party
conference. I went to see Mohamed Al-Fayed on the evening of
18 October, 1994. This was the first and only time that I had
met Mohamed Al-Fayed before publication of the matter complained
of. I would have spoken to Mohamed Al-Fayed for only 10 or 12
minutes. I spoke to a colleague of Mohamed Al-Fayed's, Michael
Cole, for about 20 minutes beforehand. The notes I took at this
meeting appear at item 287 of the Defendant's List and a literal
transcript of the notes at pages 104-108. The final page of the
transcript, page 108, however is a note of a discussion I had
on 19 October 1994 with a Liberal Party press officer. The notes
do not record everything that Mohamed Al-Fayed told me at the
meeting. At the meeting with Mohamed Al-Fayed I was told the
following:
(i) Mr Greer had contacted Mohamed Al-Fayed
in the early days of the Lonrho/House of Fraser dispute and told
him that his case was being badly presented. Mohamed Al-Fayed
said that Greer had told him that he would need MPs to present
his case in Parliament and that ªthese people are able to
rule the country - you can buy them like you rent a taxi, a London
taxi, you rent an MP". I was particularly struck by this
comment because he had used the word "rent" rather than
the word "hire".
(ii) The sum of £50,000 was paid by
House of Fraser to IGA as a fee.
(iii) Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith MP were
paid by Mohamed Al-Fayed sums of cash in return for them asking
questions about the House of Fraser/Lonrho dispute in the House
of Commons. Mohamed Al-Fayed said further that the payments worked
out at £2,000 for each question. I said to him that I understood
that the two MPs had asked 17 questions in the House relating
to House of Fraser/Lonrho and accordingly, I assumed that a total
of £34,000 had been paid over. Mohamed Al-Fayed indicated
that this was probably right.
In addition, Mohamed Al-Fayed mentioned the
figures of £8,000 and £10,000 which he said were paid
monthly to IGA. From what Peter Preston had previously told me,
although Mohamed Al-Fayed did not expressly refer to this fact,
I understood that the payments were made to Smith and Hamilton
via Ian Greer.
(iv) Mohamed Al-Fayed confirmed further
that Neil Hamilton and his wife had stayed for a week at the
Ritz. He said to me that they "returned for afternoon tea"
and even while still in France, had rung up the hotel asking
to come again. Mohamed Al-Fayed said that "[he] told the
President of the Ritz Hotel to tell [Neil Hamilton] the hotel
was full up. I never asked him to stay". Mohamed Al-Fayed
made a number of other comments about the stay at the Ritz Hotel
which appear in the article The Guardian published.
(v) Strikingly, Mohamed Al-Fayed compared
Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith with Dale Campbell Savours. Of Dale
Campbell Savours he said that he [Campbell Savours] "did
not want to receive anything" and Campbell Savours never
as much as took a cup of coffee from him. Of Peter Hordern, Mohamed
Al-Fayed said that Peter Hordern had been representing the House
of Fraser for years.
I do not remember whether or not Mohamed Al-Fayed
mentioned giving Neil Hamilton shopping vouchers - he may have
done so in passing. Peter Preston had certainly told me that Mohamed
Al-Fayed had given shopping vouchers to Neil Hamilton. I was
not as interested in the vouchers as I was in the cash.
At the end of the meeting, I was given a teddy
bear by Mohamed Al-Fayed and a book on the Ritz - I was embarrassed
about receiving these gifts but felt it was ungracious not to
take them. One of the things that struck me most about what Mohamed
Al-Fayed had said was not only that Ian Greer himself had approached
Mohamed Al-Fayed (and not the other way round) but Ian Greer
personally had chosen Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith as the MPs
who would ask the questions. Although this point is not expressly
referred to in my note, I have a clear recollection of it. I
thought it was absolutely astonishing that Members of Parliament
were being touted by a Parliamentary lobbyist.
20. During this meeting, Mohamed Al-Fayed gave
me a copy of the bill from the Hotel Ritz in Paris which provided
all details of the stay by Neil Hamilton and his wife from 8 September
1987 until 14 September 1987, pages 109-110. This was the first
time that I had seen a copy of the bill and it was the only document
I received from Mohamed Al-Fayed.
21. I knew that Peter Preston was working along
parallel lines with me and had been speaking separately with
Mohamed Al-Fayed. I discussed my meeting with Peter Preston on
the morning of the 19 October and he agreed that I should endeavour
to write the full text of the article by early afternoon so that
the lawyers could see it. I had a number of discussions with
Peter Preston throughout the day about the article and to a lesser
extent, with the night editor, Paul Webster, who needed to know
details about length and format, etc.
By that time, Peter Preston had received a number
of further documents from Mohamed Al-Fayed providing documentary
evidence of the Hamilton and Smith/Greer/ questions nexus. The
documents I had in my possession at the time of publication which
we had received from Mohamed Al-Fayed (over and above the Ritz
bill) appear at pages 111-123.
22. Peter Preston and I thought that we should
send a short fax to Ian Greer, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith to
let them know that we intended publishing an article about them
the next day. We shared the view that there was no need to go
into any particular detail in these facsimiles as the principal
allegations had been put to the three protagonists beforehand,
and they had been denied. I recollect that we arranged for the
faxes to be sent to the facsimile numbers of the MPs' private
secretaries to ensure that they came to the MPs' attention. In
addition we rang their secretaries to inform them that they were
coming. My recollection is that I made those telephone calls.
The facsimile to Neil Hamilton is at page 124. In that facsimile
I point out to Neil Hamilton that I now had in my possession,
many of the documents involved in the "campaign" referred
to. This was one of the principal things that had changed since
I had spoken to Neil Hamilton in July 1993 - during that meeting
he had asked me whether I had any documents and I said that I
had not. In fact I did not receive any documents until two days
before publication namely the copy of the Ritz bill from Mohamed
Al-Fayed on the evening of the 18 October and the others (at
pages 111-123). I cannot now locate the copies of the faxes that
I sent to Tim Smith and Ian Greer but of the three facsimiles,
only Ian Greer replied. I recollect that the only thing he said
in his reply really was that he would sue.
23. After I had written the article to be published
on 20 October 1994, Peter Preston told me that he had had a telephone
conversation with the Press Office of the Liberal Democrats and
he suggested that I telephone them. I rang the Liberal Democrats'
Press Officer to find out what plans they had to raise the issue
in the Commons that evening. The Press Officer told me that Alex
Carlile would raise it in the House and he also provided me with
a quotation of what Alex Carlile was likely to say. My notes of
that conversation appear at page 108. I then attended at the
House of Commons about 8.30 that evening and had a meal with the
Liberal Democrat Press Officer to whom I had spoken. After dinner,
I dropped in to see Alan Williams, MP and told him about The
Guardian's article. I believe he then spoke to certain Labour
Whips and I found out later that evening that one of the Labour
Whips had decided that a Labour MP, Stuart Bell, should raise
the matter in the House if the Liberal Democrats failed to. I
attended in the House of Commons that evening and as it happened,
Stuart Bell was the MP who raised the issue. I did not discuss
the matter that evening with anyone else at the House other than
Alan Williams MP.
24. The matter complained of was published
in The Guardian on 20 October 1994, pages 125-126.
25. I have read the Replies served by the Plaintiffs
in these proceedings. My comments are as follows:
(i) It is not my practice to send facsimiles
to people about whom I am about to write a story. It is my practice
however, to speak to those people beforehand. In preparation for
the article which was published on 20 October 1994, I had put
the allegations fairly and squarely to both Plaintiffs in July
1993. Having put the allegations to them then, I had no reason
to suppose that they would change their stories and that I needed
to put them to them again. Having said that, because both Tim
Smith and Neil Hamilton were Ministers, I thought that it was
essential to at least warn them that The Guardian was
about to publish an article about them and hence the facsimiles
were sent to Tim Smith, MP and the two Plaintiffs on the evening
before publication.
(ii) I knew of course what had been written
about Mohamed Al-Fayed in the context of the DTI enquiry. I was
also suspicious of some of the allegations that Mohamed Al-Fayed
had made to Peter Preston and which Peter Preston had passed
on to me. Other background work I had done however, together
with the documentation that had been provided to Peter Preston
from Mohamed Al-Fayed, convinced me that Mohamed Al-Fayed was
telling the truth in relation to the cash for questions issue.
In addition, I believed that he would hardly want to incriminate
himself for bribing Members of Parliament. Indeed, Michael Cole
had told me just before I met Mohamed Al-Fayed on 18 October
1994, that Mohamed Al-Fayed was going ahead with his interview
with me, despite receiving advice to the contrary.
(iii) I was not aware of Mohamed Al-Fayed's
citizenship application before I saw him on 18 October. I was
aware however, that he had recently lost his appeal to the European
Court of Human Rights. I knew as well that he was bitterly disappointed
at this loss and of course it occurred to me that that might
colour his judgement. But he had made the allegations concerning
cash for questions and Neil Hamilton's stay at The Ritz Hotel
to Peter Preston back in July 1993. I had incontrovertible evidence
about Neil Hamilton's stay at The Ritz Hotel and I knew that
Neil Hamilton had attempted to lie to me about that when I interviewed
him in July 1993. I knew further that the consequences of publication
for Mr Hamilton would be very grave but as a responsible journalist,
I could not allow that to deter me. In any event, it was a matter
for the Prime Minister at the end of the day as to whether Neil
Hamilton remained a Minister or not. As it happened of course,
Neil Hamilton did not resign as a result of The Guardian's
article but as a result of other matters which emerged after
publication of the matter complained of.
This article raised issues of very considerable
public interest. This is clearly evidenced by the nature of the
debate which had commenced prior to October 1994 about Ministers
receiving undeclared benefits in exchange for rendering Parliamentary
services and it is a debate which continued long after publication
of this article, and, directly as a result of it.
26 June 1995
13 Not all the documents originally attached to the
witness statement are printed. Internal page references relate
to the original documents. Back
| 
