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
|