Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report


APPENDIX 15

Letter from the Editor of The Guardian to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

  I am writing to you to give you some idea of the scope of the inquiry which we believe any investigation of Neil Hamilton will involve. In addition, we would like formally to register a complaint against Tim Smith MP, who admitted taking cash for questions in October 1994 but who has never been investigated by either the Privileges Committee and the Members' Interests Committee. Since the case against him was exactly the same as the case against Neil Hamilton we believe that it is central to the matter currently in hand.

  You will know that the Guardian has reservations about the investigation which has been referred to you. We were more than happy to meet Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer in the High Court, where their evidence would have been tested on oath, in public and under rigorous cross examination by barristers who had spent more than two months familiarising themselves with the case. Our estimate was that each man would have faced a week of cross examinations. Mr Hamilton was not happy to subject his case to this sort of scrutiny. He now faces an inquiry which will apparently meet in private, where his evidence will not be given under oath and with as yet undefined powers to cross examine or subpoena documents or witnesses.

  In addition, we were greatly disturbed by a memorandum given to us on discovery which strongly suggested that the previous examination of Mr Hamilton's case by a Select Committee was gravely compromised. It showed that on the very day of The Guardian's original article in October 1994 the chairman of the Member's Interests Committee, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, had an improper conversation with a senior Government whip, David Willetts, about the case.   During the course of the conversation, as minuted by Mr Willetts, the two men discussed two options: (a) the acquittal of Mr Hamilton "exploiting the good Tory majority" on the committee; or (b) a ruling that the matter was sub judice. In the event the committee behaved exactly as discussed by the two men. On the issue of Mr Hamilton's stay at the Ritz the committee's verdict was settled on the casting vote of the Chairman - precisely in line with (a). On the issue of cash for questions the matter was ruled sub judice - precisely in line with (b).

  I find this improper conversation extremely worrying, not least because Sir Geoffrey is also a member of the current Standards and Privileges Committee. I think your investigation should include a judgment as to whether you believe the due Parliamentary processes were indeed compromised. You might further consider whether it was appropriate for a Government whip to have been put onto the committee, the first time in the history of select committees that such a thing had occurred.

  I herewith enclose a copy of The Guardian's amended defences to the libel action brought by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer, as drafted by leading counsel, Geoffrey Robertson QC. I send it to you so that you can get some idea of the way in which we would have justified our original allegations against the two men. It will also give you some sense of the way in which we believe the matter goes far beyond Hamilton and Greer itself. We believe it goes beyond the narrow question of whether Mr Hamilton and Mr Smith took cash from Mr Al-Fayed - though they clearly did. It shows how Mr Hamilton has been in the habit of supplementing his parliamentary salary for nearly 10 years and that he has seldom been open in declaring an interest in the way he has lobbied parliament and Government politicians. We believe it demonstrates that he lied to both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Finally, we believe it shows how the Conservative backbench Trade and Industry Committee was compromised by the activities of Ian Greer.

  We think you should investigate all these matters. This would require that, besides Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, you should also question Sir Michael Grylls, Sir Peter Hordern, Gerry Malone and Sir Andrew Bowden about their relationship with Ian Greer Associates. The discovered documents from Greer, which will form an essential part of the evidence, may also lead you to the conclusion that you would want to talk separately to Lady Olga Maitland.

  In view of the Prime Minister's comments on the Frost programme concerning the speed with which these allegations should be investigated our suggestion is that you might consider these matters in two stages. The case against Hamilton and Smith would comprise Stage One (though any investigation would have to view their activities in the broader context outlined above). Stage Two would examine the other MPs and ministers whose behaviour we feel fell below the standards Parliament has a right to expect.

  We would further suggest that The Guardian should be allowed orally to present the case made in the enclosed amended defences. I would be happy to appear before any open hearing accompanied by the Guardian's solicitor, Geraldine Proudler, and our leading counsel, Geoffrey Robertson QC. I would suggest that three days be set aside to hear a proper presentation of these matters.

  I must now raise four doubts about the present membership of the Standards and Privileges Committee:

  (1)   In view of the Willetts memo and the unprecedented presence on the Members' Interest Committee of a Government whip, I am concerned that it is any longer appropriate for the membership of the committee to be determined by the whips office. It would surely be more appropriate for the membership to be determined by a resolution of the entire House.


  (2)   In view of the Willetts memo, public confidence in the Standards and Privileges Committee surely demands that Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith cannot be a member of any body hearing the current case against Hamilton and Smith.


  (3)   Mr Doug Hoyle has admitted that he accepted a contribution of £500 towards his election expenses from Ian Greer Associates in 1987. We would argue that public confidence similarly demands that Mr Hoyle cannot be part of a committee hearing the case against Mr Hamilton and Mr Smith.


  (4)   Between 1986 and 1987 Neil Hamilton was PPS to David Mitchell, another member of the committee. In view of this close working relationship we believe that public confidence would be better served if Sir David were to stand down from the committee.

  In addition to the amended defences I also enclose a copy of the letter I last week sent to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Speaker, together with the Willetts memo. I will in due course supply an inventory of the documents we received on disclosure from the Government and from Ian Greer. You should know that there were a number of other documents demanded on subpoena which we had not received by the time the case was abandoned. These included Mr Hamilton's tax returns. In addition to documentary evidence we believe it vital that you subpoena a suppressed Central TV programme on Ian Greer in which he admits that, if hired, he can get MPs to ask questions - though it is something he will deny publicly.

  I am also enclosing some of the questions any enquiry should be prepared to ask. This is simply so that you can gain a notion of the magnitude of the enquiry we believe is necessary. This is not a legal document, but an attempt to indicate our main areas of concern.

  Finally, we believe it vital that justice is seen to be done in this case. I refer you to the letter to the Times last Saturday written (before even the emergence of the Willetts memo) by Vernon Bogdanor, the distinguished Professor of Government at Oxford in which he said:

  "The committee has a Conservative majority. Any committee composed of Members of Parliament, however fairly it appears to operate, would not command the full confidence of the public in the present climate."   We believe that, at the very minimum, all hearings involving Mr Hamilton and Mr Smith should be in open session.

  We are happy to provide any documentation to support the case made in the enclosed amended defences once we have a clearer idea of your terms of reference.

  I have copied this letter and its enclosures to the Speaker, to Lord Nolan and to the senior Conservative and Labour members of the Committee.

  I look forward to hearing from you.

8 October 1996

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


DRAFT/AMENDED DEFENCE

  1. Paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.

  2. Save for the word "enormous" (which is not admitted), paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.

  3. The Defendants admit publication in The Guardian on the 20 October 1994 of the words set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, and they further admit that the said words were published of and concerning the Plaintiff in the way of his occupation as a Member of Parliament and in relation to his conduct therein. Save as aforesaid, paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim is not admitted.

  4. The Defendants do not admit that the said words bore or were understood to bear the meaning pleaded in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, whether in their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo.

  5. Further or alternatively, in their natural and ordinary meaning and/or in any innuendo meaning which the Plaintiff may establish at the trial, the said words are true in substance and in fact. If and insofar as may be necessary, the Defendants will rely upon section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952.

PARTICULARS OF MEANING

  The Defendants will justify the said words in the following meanings:

  (A)   that the Plaintiff was paid tens of thousands of pounds by Mr Mohamed al Fayed, and requested and received a free week's holiday for himself and his wife at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, where he ran up a further bill of over £2,000 on extras, for asking parliamentary questions and tabling parliamentary motions and other parliamentary services (including correspondence and meetings with Ministers) and that he did not disclose those benefits by declaring them in the course of rendering such services or by registering them on the Register of Members' Interests;

  (B)   if necessary, the Defendants will allege that the same was done corruptly and in breach of the privileges of the House of Commons (as defined in the extract from Erskine May quoted in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim).


  (C)   irrespective of (B) above, the Defendants will allege that the same constituted conduct unbecoming of an MP, falling short of the standards of propriety which the public (rightly) requires of MPs.

PARTICULARS OF JUSTIFICATION

  (1) On the evening of the 28 October 1985, Mr Ian Greer ("Greer") of Ian Greer Associates ("IGA"), who are parliamentary lobbyists, met Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed ("Al-Fayed"), and agreed in principle that IGA would act as "Political Advisers" to him.

  (2) Within two days, Greer had spoken to the Plaintiff, who was then Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party's Trade and Industry Committee, (and thus potentially a key figure in Al-Fayed's battles against Mr Rowlands and Lonrho, which significantly took the form of both sides placing pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate and take action in relation to the conduct of the other side in its attempts to acquire House of Fraser, and in other respects). The Plaintiff had immediately agreed to table a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in a form drafted for him by IGA and one of Al-Fayed's advisers. On the 7 November 1985 two questions by the Plaintiff were accordingly published in the House of Commons order paper.

  (3) These matters, and the Plaintiff's willingness to table Parliamentary questions, were duly reported by Greer to Al-Fayed, in order to assist Greer/IGA in agreeing their retainer with Al-Fayed. On 7 November 1985, Greer wrote to confirm that IGA would act as "political advisers" to Al-Fayed for a period of one year from 1 November 1985, at a fee of £25,000 plus VAT.   (4) From 1986-90, the Plaintiff was a member of a group of four Members of Parliament (namely Tim Smith, Michael Grylls, Peter Hordern and the Plaintiff), co-ordinated by IGA, who (together with a fifth MP, Andrew Bowden, between February and July 1987) comprised the parliamentary lobbying operation for House of Fraser and Al-Fayed and who (separately or together) regularly met with IGA and Al-Fayed to discuss tactics. All members of this group received material benefits from Al-Fayed and/or IGA in the course of this work.   (5) On or about the 24 February 1987, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was pressed in a parliamentary question tabled by the Plaintiff to respond to letters from Al-Fayed and one of his professional advisers.

  (6) On the 10 March 1987, the Plaintiff tabled an Early Day Motion applauding Al-Fayed and deploring parliamentary attacks upon him and congratulating the Government for allowing Al-Fayed's company to acquire Harrods.

  (6A) On 3 April 1987, Greer/IGA wrote a "private and confidential" letter to Hamilton, inviting him and his wife, with other parliamentary colleagues (including Tim Smith, Michael Grylls, Peter Hordern and Andrew Bowden) to join Al-Fayed for a weekend in Paris, staying at the Ritz. Greer wrote that the invitation was "in every way a private invitation and I would therefore be grateful for it being kept as such". However, on 10 April 1987, Greer/IGA wrote a further "private and confidential" letter to Hamilton and other prospective guests, stating that he thought it would be "inappropriate" for the visit, planned for 25-26 April, to go ahead in the light of the previous day's announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the inquiry into the House of Fraser.

  (7) Between 18 and 27 May 1987, Al-Fayed gave to Greer cheques totalling £18,000 for the stated purpose of placing IGA in funds to make payments to MPs including the Plaintiff and Mr Tim Smith MP, for their work on Al-Fayed's behalf inter alia in tabling parliamentary questions and motions, and in writing letters to and meeting Ministers. Following the receipt of this money, Greer/IGA made various payments to the Plaintiff in cash or kind.   (8) Over the next two and a half years, the Plaintiff received from Al-Fayed personally at face to face meetings, in the form either of cash (which was handed over in instalments of £2,500 in £50 notes) or of Harrods gift vouchers in £100 denominations, a total of £28,000 (or thereabouts), for the most part in cash. The said sums were handed over at meetings either at Harrods or at Al-Fayed's Park Lane offices on the following dates: 2 and 18 June and 8 July 1987; 18 February, 19 July, 4 October, and 15 December 1988; 25 January, 16 and 20 February, 27 July and 21 November 1989.

  (8A) Over the same period, the Plaintiff also received from Al-Fayed further sums in cash, which were collected by the Plaintiff from the front desk at 60 Park Lane, Al-Fayed's offices or delivered to him. On each occasion, the cash was in a sealed envelope. On numerous occasions, the Plaintiff telephoned Al-Fayed's office to ask whether there was an envelope for him. If cash had been put into an envelope for him, the Plaintiff was so informed (by Alison Bozek, Al-Fayed's PA); otherwise, cash was put into an envelope after the Plaintiff's call. On several occasions, cash was put into an envelope and taken to the front desk for collection by the Plaintiff or delivered to him. Further, prior to the Plaintiff's visit to the Ritz, Al-Fayed instructed Ms Bozek to leave an envelope containing cash (between £2,000 and £3,000) at the reception desk at 60 Park Lane for the Plaintiff for his trip. That instruction was carried out and the Plaintiff collected the envelope.   (8B) The Plaintiff also received payment from Greer/IGA in the sum of £10,000 as follows:

  (i)   Greer/IGA paid £700 to Tony Sanders Antiques, Penzance, Cornwall, on or about 29 April for pictures for the Plaintiff;

  (ii)   Greer/IGA paid £959.85 to John Lewis on or about 9 September 1988, in respect of furniture bought there on or about 7 July 1988 and 12 July 1988 by and for the Plaintiff and his wife Christine. On 7 July 1988, two tables, a baseweight, parasol and six chairs were purchased; on 12 July 1988, Mrs Hamilton bought and signed a receipt for a further four chairs. Mrs Hamilton arranged delivery of the furniture;

  (iii)   Greer/IGA paid for air fares for Mr Hamilton in the sum of £1,594 at a date between 30 June 1988 and 24 April 1989, in connection with a trip by Mr Hamilton and his wife to New Orleans and Aspen, Colorado in the summer of 1988;

  (iv)   Greer/IGA paid Hamilton £6,746.05 by cheque to him dated 13 July 1989.   (8C) The payment referred to 8B above has been described by the Plaintiff as being ex gratia "commission" in respect of clients he introduced to Greer/IGA, namely, the National Nuclear Corporation (NNC) and US Tobacco (UST). However:

  (i)   the Plaintiff did not declare or register on the Register of Members' Interests any such commission payments. Payment of money or benefits in kind by a lobbying company to an MP manifestly should be declared and registered;

  (ii)   in respect of NNC, that company was a constituent of the Plaintiff, since its headquarters were located in the Plaintiff's constituency. Any introduction by him to parliamentary lobbyists would be part of his duties as an MP, for which no secret profit was proper;

  (iii)   in respect of UST, the Plaintiff and his wife received benefits directly from UST, including stays at the expensive and luxurious Essex House Hotel in New York and St James Court Hotel in London and, it is to be inferred expenses and fees, for his parliamentary services and activities in seeking to advance the interests of UST, including by writing to, meeting and talking with Ministers at the Department of Health, tabling or supporting EDMs (namely supporting an EDM dated 13 October 1986 and tabling an EDM dated 20 December 1989 proposing the annulment of Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989) and by tabling an amendment to the Tobacco Products Duty Bill on 8 June 1989.   (9) The said sums and benefits in kind referred to in 8, 8A, 8B and 8c (iii) above represented payment for the Plaintiff's services amongst other things in tabling parliamentary questions and motions and other parliamentary services as particularised herein.

  (9A) On 13 May 1987 and 20 July 1987, the Plaintiff went as a delegate to Ministers (respectively Channon and Young) to plead Al-Fayed's case. He was due to attend in the same capacity on 14 December 1987 for a further Ministerial meeting and apologised profusely to Al-Fayed for his inability to do so.

  (9B) On 23 July 1987, the Plaintiff wrote to Al-Fayed announcing his election as Secretary to the Conservative Finance Committee and as Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Trade and Industry Committee, which (he wrote) gave him a "better position" to act on Al-Fayed's behalf. The Plaintiff enclosed a copy of a letter of the same date, written by the Plaintiff "as Vice Chairman of the Conservative Trade and Industry Committee", to the Chairman of the Stock Exchange, advancing Al-Fayed's interests.

     (10) From the 8 to the 14 September 1987 at the Plaintiff's request and as further consideration for his said services, he and his wife stayed in room 356 at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, the nightly rate for which was approximately £275, and ran up a bill for extras of over £2,000, all at Al-Fayed's expense.

  (11) On the 21 November 1987, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, raising concerns about the Department of Trade and Industry's inquiry into House of Fraser and the Fayeds, and about Lonrho and its associates.

  (12) Following a discussion with Al-Fayed, and in consultation with IGA, on the 28 January 1988 the Plaintiff wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pressing him to take action against Lonrho and Mr Rowland in relation to certain allegedly nefarious dealings in amethysts and emeralds. On the same date, at Al-Fayed's request, the Plaintiff wrote to Al-Fayed a letter fawning on him and expressing disgust at aspects of the Department of Trade and Industry's inquiry into House of Fraser and the Fayeds, which he promised to challenge in Parliament in due course.

  (13) On or about the 27 May 1988, the Plaintiff tabled two written questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, querying the cost and delay of the said Department of Trade and Industry inquiry. IGA duly reported to Al-Fayed the questions and the answers.

  (14) On or about the 12 July 1988, the Plaintiff tabled a parliamentary motion condemning the "barrage of libellous and vicious propaganda" issued by Mr Rowland in reference to House of Fraser and Al-Fayed, and requesting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to call upon the inspectors to complete their inquiry without delay. IGA duly reported to Al-Fayed on the said motion and the amendments tabled thereto.

  (15) On the 29 July 1988, the Plaintiff wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raising concerns about the conduct of the said inquiry. This letter was part of a planned programme of pressure on the Secretary of State co-ordinated between IGA and Al-Fayed and the members of the group of four MP's referred to in (4) above, following the presentation of the DTI inspectors' report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the 23 July 1988.

(16) On 6 December 1988 the Plaintiff wrote to the Home Secretary complaining about and pressing for action in relation to the leaking of the Department of Trade and Industry report (which was exclusively reported in a special mid-week issue of The Observer newspaper).

  (17) On the 15 February 1989, the Plaintiff intervened in Parliament to condemn a journalist and writer (David Leigh) as a propagandist employed by Mr Tiny Rowland.

  (18) On the 12 March 1989, the Plaintiff wrote a fawning letter to Al-Fayed in relation to his stance in the continuing battle with Mr Rowland.

  (19) On the 21 March 1989, the Plaintiff after consultation with IGA wrote letters to the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Defence calling for an urgent investigation into alleged links between associates of Mr Rowland and Lonrho with Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime. Draft letters were prepared on the Plaintiff's headed Parliamentary stationery by IGA, which had been provided to IGA, and were marked not to be released without the permission of Greer. Lord Trefgarne replied to the Plaintiff on 3 April 1989.

  (20) On or about the 29 March 1989, the Plaintiff agreed with Greer the terms of four parliamentary questions to be tabled by him, which were faxed by Greer to Al-Fayed and sent to Al-Fayed's public relations consultants for use in the press. Greer indicated to Al-Fayed in a fax dated the 29 March 1989 that he believed it would be possible to put more questions down the following week, and that the Plaintiff could write to the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority complaining about facilities afforded to an associate of Mr Rowland. At the beginning of April, four parliamentary questions were tabled by the Plaintiff relating to Lonrho and its associates.

  (21) On the 7 April 1989, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Department of Trade and Industry about alleged trading links between Lonrho and the Libyan regime.

  (22) On the 18 April 1989 the Plaintiff (with others) tabled an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons calling upon Mr Rowland to divest himself of his interest in The Observer.

  (23) On the 3 May 1989, the Plaintiff tabled an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons calling for an immediate investigation into Lonrho's operations in the light of its, and its associates', close links with Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime, having given advance notice of the Motion to Greer, who faxed it to Al-Fayed.

  (24) In May and June 1989, the Plaintiff (with others) tabled four further motions in the House of Commons condemning Mr Rowland's proprietorial interference with The Observer newspaper and calling on himself to divest himself of his interest in the newspaper, and accusing Mr Rowland of pressurising The Observer to publish a fabricated story, and criticising Mr Rowland's and the editor of The Observer's (described as "the Lonrho broadsheet") links to the Iranian regime, and accusing Mr Rowland of pressurising The Observer into publishing a false story about Mark Thatcher, and expressing concern at the admitted inability of The Observer to justify its contention that the Sultan of Brunei was involved in Al-Fayed's takeover of Harrods, and calling for the replacement of the independent directors of The Observer.

  (24A) In 1989, the Plaintiff and his wife holidayed at Balnagown, the Scottish country estate of Al-Fayed. In that and other years he received various gifts from Al-Fayed, including hampers valued at £185 each and personal accessories.

  (24B) On the 6 December 1989 the Plaintiff wrote to the Home Secretary complaining about and pressing for action against police officers Gooch and Morgan in relation to the leaking of the Department of Trade and Industry report (which had been extensively reported in a special mid-week issue of The Observer newspaper on 30 March 1989).

  (25) On the 1 February 1990, IGA rendered to House of Fraser a special invoice (over and above its monthly retainer of £500) for £13,333 plus VAT, specifically Greer having told Al-Fayed that this sum was to cover disbursements to Members of Parliament including the Plaintiff.

  (26) On the 13 May 1992, the Plaintiff as a Department of Trade Minister answered a parliamentary question from Mr Alex Carlile concerning the adequacy of the investigations carried out by the inspectors into the Al-Fayed's takeover of House of Fraser.

  (27) The Plaintiff deliberately omitted to declare or register any of the said payments and benefits received, from Al-Fayed, as pleaded in Paragraphs 8, 8A, 8B, 8C(iii), 9A, 10 and 24A above. The Plaintiff was under a duty to do so, by making appropriate entries in the Register of Members' Interests and by making an appropriate declaration in all correspondence and meetings with Ministers or Parliamentary colleagues.

  (i)   Those payments and benefits amounted to a "pecuniary or other material benefit which a member may receive which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament" and were manifestly registrable;

  (ii)   The Plaintiff was reminded of his obligations in respect of the Register by the Registrar of Members' Interests by a letter sent to all MPs (including the Plaintiff) in December 1989 which reminded MPs (amongst other things) that "one-off" payments to them should be declared;

  (iii)   The Plaintiff could and should have registered those benefits at the time they were received and (having failed to do so) could and should have registered them subsequently. As the Plaintiff knew, the Select Committee on Members' Interests had questioned Greer about his "commission" payments to MPs in April 1990.   6. Further or alternatively, the issues in this action cannot be inquired into in this or any Court without infringing parliamentary privilege, and accordingly the Defendants will contend that this action should be stayed.

  7. Further or alternatively, the occasion of publication of the words complained of was an occasion of qualified privilege.

PARTICULARS

  (1) The words complained of were published of an elected Member of Parliament (and Minister of the Crown) in relation to his parliamentary conduct and the discharge of his duties and functions as an elected Member of Parliament, and were specifically directed to whether his said conduct was motivated by the interests of his constituents and the public interest generally, or by covert personal financial gain and benefits in kind.

  (2) In the premises, the Defendants had a duty or interest to publish the said words to readers of The Guardian newspaper, and readers had a corresponding interest to receive the same.

  8. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Claim are denied.

  9. No admissions are made as to any of the facts and matters alleged in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim. The claim that damages for libel have been aggravated by a proceeding in Parliament is not justiciable in this or any Court.

  10. The Plaintiff's resignation from office as a Minister was not a direct or reasonably foreseeable consequence of the matters complained of in the Statement of Claim:

  (1)   Neither The Guardian articles nor any repetition of them elsewhere would have led to the Plaintiff's resignation; the allegations therein of payment for questions were investigated by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, and on 19 October 1994 upon the Plaintiff's signing a statement denying them the Prime Minister concluded that there was no reason for the Plaintiff to resign. This decision was subsequently confirmed after and because the Plaintiff gave an absolute assurance to the President of the Board of Trade that not only had he never received money from Al-Fayed via Greer but that he had not had any form of financial relationship with Greer.

  (2)   On the 21 October 1994, the Plaintiff made light of the allegations against him, and in particular of his undeclared acceptance of the opulent services of the Ritz Hotel in Paris at enormous expense to Al-Fayed, by remarking that he would be registering a biscuit given him in a school in his constituency in the Register of Members' Interests. This remark was rightly regarded by the Prime Minister as inappropriate for a Minister of the Crown.


  (3)   On the 21 October 1994, Mr Alex Carlile MP referred the matter of the hotel bill to the House of Commons Select Committee on Members' Interests.


  (4)   On the 24 October 1994, The Independent and Times newspapers published stories (to which the Defendant will refer) concerning a payment to the Plaintiff from Strategy Network International, a Public Relations firm with strong links to South Africa, which the Plaintiff had not registered because his consultancy ended after less than four weeks.


  (5)   On the 25 October 1994, it became known at Westminster that the Plaintiff issued a statement to newspapers in his constituency in which he compared his decision to resign while fighting a libel action to the Prime Minister's decision not to resign while suing Scallywag magazine. This comparison was rightly regarded as inappropriate by Ministers.


  (6)   On the evening of the 24 October 1994, allegations against the Plaintiff unconnected with the allegations complained of herein were made to the Prime Minister. Those allegations included:

(i)   allegations in respect of Plateau Mining Plc ("Plateau"), a failed mining company of which the Plaintiff had been a director, which was closely connected with a company in respect of which a fraud investigation was taking place. The Plaintiff admitted attending AGM and lunch on two occasions after becoming a Minister as a spectator "for a good lunch" and agreeing to give a reference for a former Plateau executive;

(ii)   allegations about money he had received for tabling questions helpful to Mobil Oil some years before declaring any interest therein;

(iii)   the allegations published in The Independent, referred to in (4) above;

(iv)   concern as to why the Plaintiff had not disclosed his interests in HoF/Lonrho matters on his appointment as DTI Minister.   

The Defendants are unable to give particulars of the said allegations pending answers to interrogations and to subpoenas for the production of documents.

  (7)   On the afternoon of the 25 October 1994 the Plaintiff attended a meeting in Downing Street with Mr Richard Ryder (the Government Chief Whip), and Mr Michael Heseltine (the Plaintiff's Departmental head), and Sir Robin Butler (the Cabinet Secretary), at which the new allegations were put to him.


  (8)   Thereafter the Prime Minister considered whether the new allegations prevented the Plaintiff from carrying out his responsibilities as a Minister, and concluded (with the Plaintiff's agreement) that they did. For that reason, the Prime Minister accepted the Plaintiff's resignation.


  (9)   The Plaintiff would in any event have been required to resign Ministerial office by reason of the following:

(i)   the findings of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that the Plaintiff should have declared his visit to the Ritz;

(ii)   the fact that the Plaintiff gave an absolute assurance to the President of the Board of Trade that he had had no financial relationship with Greer (see 10(1) above). That assurance was false to the Plaintiff's admitted knowledge (see 8B above).

(10)   In any event, on his resignation, the Plaintiff received a severance payment to compensate him for his loss of office.   11. Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim is not admitted.

  SERVED this 14th Day of December 1994 by Messrs Lovell White Durrant of 65 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2DY (ref: L1/GAP) solicitors for the Defendants.

JAMES PRICE

  RESERVED this day of September 1996 by Messrs Olswang of 90 Long Acre London, WC2E 9TT, Solicitors for the Defendants.

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON QC
HEATHER ROGERS


 
previous page contents next page
House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 8 July 1997