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 refer to the Plaintiffs. 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
Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs for reward convened
and co-ordinated the activities of a group of four Members of
Parliament as a parliamentary lobbying operation for House of
Fraser and Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed, including arranging for questions
to be asked and motions to be tabled in the House of Commons,
arranging for MPs to correspond and meet with Ministers
and passed payments amounting to thousands of pounds
assisting in making payments to MPs including Mr Tim Smith
MP and Mr Neil Hamilton MP in relation to their said services,
on top of thousands of pounds paid and other benefits provided
to them by Mr Al-Fayed direct.
(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), it will be
alleged that the Plaintiffs directed the Parliamentary activity
of MPs for the benefit of Al-Fayed and of IGA, in the knowledge
that the MPs were receiving rewards in respect of such activity
which were not being properly declared or registered.
PARTICULARS OF JUSTIFICATION
(1) On the evening of 28 October 1985, the first
Plaintiff (hereinafter "Greer") met Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed
("Al-Fayed"), and agreed in principle that the
second Plaintiff (hereinafter "IGA") would act as "Political
Advisers" to him
for a period of a year at a fee of £25,000 plus
VAT
(2) Within two days, Greer had spoken to Mr Neil Hamilton
MP ("Hamilton") 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 Rowland 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). Hamilton 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 Hamilton were accordingly published in
the House of Commons order paper.
(2A) Further on 31 October 1985 Greer
met Michael Grylls MP, Chairman of the Conservative Party's backbench
Trade and Industry Committee in connection with Al-Fayed.
(3) These matters and Hamilton's willingness to table
parliamentary questions
and the answers to the 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.
(3A) On 11
November 1985, Greer took Gerry Malone MP, Parliamentary Private
Secretary to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to
meet Al-Fayed.
(4) On the 17 June 1986, in an adjournment
debate in the House of Commons, Mr Tim Smith MP, ("Smith")
raised the issue of the independent directors of The Observer
newspaper and interference by Mr Rowland, and accused Mr Rowland
of running a series of false stories amounting to a personal vendetta
against the Fayed brothers.
(5) From 1986 until 1990 this time onwards, Hamilton and Smith were members
of a group of four Members of Parliament (the other two being
Mr Michael Grylls and Mr Peter Hordern), 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.
(5A) Greer instigated and directed parliamentary
activities by the group collectively and by its members individually,
as in his judgment the interests of Al-Fayed and his own business
with Al-Fayed required. In particular, he arranged for questions
to be asked in Parliament, for Early Day Motions to be tabled
in Parliament and for letters to be written to Ministers (the
questions, EDMs and letters being mostly drafted in whole or
in part or in consultation with Greer/IGA or Al-Fayed's lawyers)
and for delegations briefed by Greer or Al-Fayed's lawyers to
meet Ministers. The occasions relied upon are set out below and
in an annexed chronology.
(5B) Between 1985 and 1990,
Greer/IGA received very substantial payments from Al-Fayed
in respect of the activities referred to in Paragraph 5A above:
(i) Greer/IGA submitted monthly
bills to Al-Fayed, which were paid by standing order. Between
1985 and 1990, the total of such bills was approximately £136,000;
(ii) an additional payment of £18,000,
as pleaded in paragraph 9 below;
(iii) an additional payment of £13,333,
as pleaded in paragraph 30 below;
(iv) additional regular cash payments,
provided by Al-Fayed to Greer/IGA in a sealed envelope. Greer
or a member of IGA staff telephoned Al-Fayed's office at 60 Park
Lane to ask whether an envelope or money had been left for him.
On at least half a dozen occasions, cash payments in a sealed
envelope (consisting variously of approximately £3,000,
£6,000 or £9,000) were delivered by Al-Fayed's PA,
Alison Bozek, to the front desk of 60 Park Lane for collection
by Greer/IGA; on other occasions Al-Fayed's secretary, Iris Bond,
arranged for further cash payments in a sealed envelope (amounting
to approximately £2,500) to be left at the front desk of
60 Park Lane for collection by Greer/IGA or to be couriered to
Greer/IGA. On (at least one occasion), Greer collected the envelope
in person. On 19 September 1988 Greer telephoned Al-Fayed's office
to state that payment was due for July, August and September;
and on 4 November 1988, Greer telephoned asking for £5,000
for those months.
(6) Between the 11 March 1987 and the
23 January 1989, Smith asked a total of 28 questions in the House
of Commons relating to the alleged misdeeds of Lonrho, or the
Department of Trade and Industry investigation of House of Fraser
and Al-Fayed, or Mr Rowland's circulation of defamatory material
concerning Al-Fayed (in particular a booklet entitled "A
Hero from Zero"; on the 23 January 1989 Smith asked the Solicitor-General
whether he would be recommending it for the Booker prize for
fiction). Subsequently, Mr Smith received a letter from Mr
Rowland, accusing Smith of receiving payments, which accusation
Smith discussed with Greer and with Al-Fayed's lawyer. Thereafter,
Mr Smith's activity in support of Al-Fayed was greatly reduced
by Greer; Hamilton's role in asking parliamentary questions was
increased.
(7) On or about the 24 February 1987,
the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was pressed in a
parliamentary question tabled by Hamilton to respond to letters
from Al-Fayed and one of his professional advisers.
(8) On the 10 March 1987, Hamilton tabled an
Early Day Motion deploring parliamentary attacks upon Al-Fayed
and congratulating the Government for allowing Al-Fayed's company
to acquire Harrods.
(8A) On 3 April 1987, Greer/IGA wrote a
"private and confidential" letter to Hamilton, inviting
him and his wife, with other parliamentary colleagues 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".
Greer/IGA also invited the following persons to visit Paris as
guests of Al-Fayed: Tim Smith, Andrew Bowden, Michael Grylls,
Peter Hordern, Sir William Clark. However, on 10 April 1987, Greer/IGA
wrote a further "private and confidential" letter to
Hamilton and the 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.
(8B) On the 13
May 1987, a delegation briefed by Greer/IGA consisting of Hamilton,
Smith, Hordern and Grylls met Paul Channon, a Minister at the
Department of Trade and Industry.
(9) On the 18 May,
Al-Fayed gave to Greer cheques totalling £18,000 for the
stated purpose of placing IGA in funds to make payments
to MPs including Hamilton
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 and made payments
to or on behalf of other MPs who might in the future be useful
to Al-Fayed and/or to other IGA clients, including Andrew Bowden
who received a total of approximately £6,000.
(9A) On 23 July 1987, Hamilton 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. Hamilton enclosed a copy of a letter of
the same date, written by Hamilton "as Vice Chairman of
the Conservative Trade and Industry Committee", to the Chairman
of the Stock Exchange, advancing Al-Fayed's interests.
(9B) On the 29 July 1987, Hamilton and Hordern
met David Young, a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry,
which meeting followed a meeting at Harrods between Hamilton,
Hordern, Al-Fayed and one of his advisers.
(10) Over the next two and a half years, Hamilton 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.
(10A) Over the same period, Greer/IGA
made payment to Hamilton in the sum of £10,000 as follows:
(i) Greer/IGA paid £700 to Tony
Sanders Antiques, Penzance, Cornwall, on or about 29 April 1988
for pictures for Hamilton;
(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 Hamilton and his wife, Christine. On 7July 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
of Hamilton in the sum of £1,594 at a date between 30.6.88
and 28.4.89, 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.
(11) Over approximately the same period, Smith received from
Al-Fayed personally cash amounting to approximately £6,000.
(12) The said sums and benefits referred
to in Paragraphs 10, 10A and 11 above represented payment
for Hamilton's and Smith's services in tabling parliamentary
questions and motions and other parliamentary services as particularised
herein.
(12A) In support for the contention that
the matters pleaded in Paragraph 10A above represent material
benefits in relation to Parliamentary activities carried out
in connection with the interests of Al-Fayed and/or IGA, the
Defendants rely upon the fact that Greer/IGA made payments to
other members of the group referred to in Paragraph 5 above as
follows:
(i) Greer/IGA made substantial payments
to Michael Grylls, made up in part by payments described as `commission':
(a) £5,750 on 27 March 1987;
(b) £1,083.33 on 12 September 1988;
(c) £8,050 on 6 January 1989;
(d) £5,750 on 1 June 1989;
(e) £5,750 on 1 July 1989;
(f) £5,750 on 28 September 1989;
and in part by payment described as
`fees'. According to working papers prepared by IGA's accountants
in respect of the year ending 30 June 1990, Greer/IGA's `usual
fees' to Mr Grylls were £10,000 per year.
(ii) Greer/IGA paid Andrew Bowden £500
in the financial year ended 30 June 1987 and paid a further £5,319.90
by cheque dated 25 June 1987 payable to the `Andrew Bowden Fighting
Fund'; and upon the matters pleaded in Paragraph 31 below.
(13) The Plaintiffs knew of the said payments
to Hamilton and Smith by Al-Fayed direct. It is not alleged that
they knew in advance that any particular payment was to be made.
(14) From the 8 to the 14 September 1987
at Hamilton'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.
(15) On the 21 November 1987, Hamilton 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.
(16) On the 14 December 1987, Smith met the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with Michael Grylls
and Peter Hordern to discuss the said inquiry. Hamilton was
due to attend that meeting, and wrote to Al-Fayed to apologise
profusely for the fact that he was unable to attend.
(17)
Following a discussion with Al-Fayed, and in consultation with
IGA, on the 28 January 1988 Hamilton wrote to the Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry, pressing him to take action against
Lonhro and Mr Rowland in relation to certain allegedly nefarious
dealings in amethysts and emeralds. On the same date, at Al-Fayed's
request, Hamilton wrote to Al-Fayed a letter fawning on him and
expressing disgust at aspects of the Department of Trade and
Industry's inquiry into the House of Fraser and the Fayeds, which
he promised to challenge in Parliament in due course.
(18) On or about the 27 May 1988, Hamilton
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.
(19) On or about the 12 July 1988, Hamilton
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.
(20) On the 29 July 1988, Hamilton 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, coordinated
between IGA and Al-Fayed and the members of the group of four
MP's referred to in (5) above, following the presentation of
the DTI inspectors' report to the Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry on the 23 July 1988.
(21)
On the 6 December 1988 Hamilton 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 extensively reported in a special mid week issue of
The Observer newspaper).
(22) On the 15 February 1989,
Hamilton intervened in Parliament to condemn a journalist and
writer (David Leigh) as a propagandist employed by Mr Tiny Rowland.
(23) On the 12 March 1989, Hamilton wrote a
fawning letter to Al-Fayed in relation to his stance in the continuing
battle with Mr Rowland.
(24) On the 21 March 1989, Hamilton 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 and Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime. Those
letters were drafted by Greer/IGA on Hamilton's headed Parliamentary
stationery, 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 1989.88.
(25) On
or about the 29 March 1989, Hamilton 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
Hamilton 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 Hamilton relating to Lonrho and its associates.
(26) On the 7 April 1989, Hamilton the
Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Department of Trade and Industry
about alleged trading links between Lonrho and the Libyan regime.
(27) On the 18 April 1989 Hamilton (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.
(28) On the 3 May 1989, Hamilton 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.
(29) In May and June 1989, Hamilton (with
others, including Smith on 2 and 15 May) tabled four further
motions in the House of Commons condemning Mr Rowlands' proprietorial
interference with The Observer newspaper and calling on
him 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.
(29A)
On 6 December 1989 Hamilton 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
issue of The Observer newspaper dated 30 March 1989).
(30) On 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 to cover
disbursements to Members of Parliament including Hamilton and
Smith.
(31) As the Plaintiffs knew, Hamilton and Smith
(and Grylls and Bowden) deliberately omitted to declare or register
any of the said payments and benefits received from Al-Fayed (directly
or by the Plaintiffs). As the Plaintiffs also knew, they were
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) The payments and benefits
pleaded above amounted to a "pecuniary or other material
benefit which a member may receive which might reasonably by
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 Plaintiffs knew that
the payments made and other benefits from Greer/IGA to MPs (including
Hamilton, Grylls and Bowden) were not being disclosed or registered.
The Register of Members' Interests is and was at all material
times readily available to Greer/IGA.
(iii) Greer/IGA sought to keep
the fact that they made payments to MPs secret from Parliament
and the public:
(a) when interviewed
for the purposes of a "TV Eye" programme in or about
April 1984, Greer clearly stated that Greer/IGA did not make
payments to MPs;
(b) in his evidence
to the Select Committee on Members' Interests on 25 October 1988
Greer stated that IGA was completely dissociated from MPs; when
he gave evidence to the same committee on 3 April 1990, Greer
claimed that IGA had made commission payments to only three MPs
(whom he refused to identify). That statement was false to his
knowledge. He did not refer to the full extent of payments to
Michael Grylls; to the payments to Andrew Bowden; to payments
he now says were made for the benefit of MPs in their constituencies
and/or fighting funds in the 1987 and 1992 elections; or to payments
made to other MPs including Walter Johnson MP (1984), Michael
Brown MP (1988).
(c) when interviewed
by the First Defendant and John Mullin on behalf of the Third
Defendant on or about 23 July 1993, Greer denied making payments
to MPs. That denial was false to Greer's knowledge. By that time,
IGA had also made payments to Lady Olga Maitland, billed and
received when she was an MP (1992).
(iv) in the premises, Greer/IGA connived
with the MP's non-registration of payments or benefits which
ought to have been registered.
(32) Following publication of the words
complained of herein, Smith resigned as Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Northern Ireland office on the ground that he
had accepted fees from Al-Fayed.
(33) The Defendants will further rely on
Greer's admission in a letter to the Clerk to a Select Committee
of the House of Commons (Mr Hastings) dated the 9 May 1990 that
IGA had made payments to individual Members of Parliament, on
his evidence to that Select Committee on 25 October 1988 and 3
April 1990 and on Greer's admission in
1994 to a reporter from Central Television's Cook Report (who
was posing as a potential client of IGA) that IGA could arrange
to have a parliamentary question tabled on a client's behalf.
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
elected Members of Parliament (and Ministers of the Crown) in
relation to their parliamentary conduct and the discharge of their
duties and functions as elected Members of Parliament, and were
specifically directed to whether their said conduct was motivated
by the interests of their 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. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is
denied, and no admissions are made as to the matters alleged
in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim.
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. Each and every allegation contained in paragraph
8 of the Statement of Claim is denied.
11. Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim is
not admitted.
Served etc.
James Price
Re-served etc.
Geoffrey Robertson QC Heather Rogers
Letter from the Editor of The Guardian
to The Rt Hon John Major, PC, Prime Minister, The Rt Hon Tony
Blair, PC, Leader of the Opposition, The Rt Hon Paddy Ashdown,
PC, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, The Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd,
PC, Speaker of the House of Commons
In the course of the proceedings brought by
Neil Hamilton MP against The Guardian we were supplied
with copies of a number of documents, including the attached
which was disclosed by The Treasury Solicitor.
I am well aware of the obligation upon The
Guardian not to use any of the documents disclosed for any
collateral or ulterior purpose nor otherwise to misuse them,
and I have no intention of doing so. I do not believe that in
sending a copy of it to you I could be regarded as breaching that
important rule; on the contrary, for the reasons of clear public
interest referred to below, I consider it my duty to bring this
document to your attention as the Privy Councillors most able
to ensure the integrity of Parliament.
It is a copy of a minute made by David Willetts
MP in 20 October 1994 when he was a senior Government Whip. Although
the name of the person referred to as "he" has been
defaced, it is reasonable to assume that it was Sir Geoffrey
Johnson-Smith, the chairman of the Committee on Members' Interests
or, if not him, then another Conservative member in a senior
position on that committee.
The document discloses that:
(a) The chairman of the committee (or a
senior Conservative on the committee) was in discussion with
a senior whip about the handling of the latest allegations (regarding
cash for parliamentary questions) against Mr Hamilton which had
been made that day in The Guardian; and
(b) The whip, known to be a close associate
of the Prime Minister, was prepared to consider the deliberate
stifling of proper debate and investigation in the committee by
"exploiting" the built in majority.
Moreover, the mention of No. 10 at the outset;
the fact that the exchange was recorded in the Government Whips'
Book and the timing - the exchange took place at the very time
that Mr Hamilton's future as a Government minister was under
consideration by the Prime Minister - give rise to the reasonable
presumption that the matter under discussion was already, or
would shortly become, a matter for discussion between the Chief
Whip and Mr Major.
In fact, of course, the committee did behave
exactly as discussed by Mr Willets. 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 the second proposal
discussed by Mr Willetts. On the issue of cash for questions for
Conservative Majority was exploited in line with the first proposal
discussed by Mr Willetts: the matter was set aside on the grounds
that it was sub judice.
It will be remembered that, for the first time
since Select Committees were set up in 1979, a Conservative whip,
Mr Andrew Mitchell, served on the committee.
I am sending this letter to each of you with
its enclosure because it appears to indicate, at the heart of
government, a willingness to subvert for party political purposes
the very procedures which are designed to ensure the proper standards
of rectitude in public life and which are now to be used in the
further investigations into Mr Hamilton. The allegations which
would have been aired in the proceedings brought by Hamilton against
The Guardian are now to be the subject of investigation
by Sir Gordon Downey. However, his powers to call for witnesses
and evidence are subject to the decision of the Conservative
majority on the Privileges and Standards Committee which he serves;
and that majority would be able accordingly to control or at
the very least influence to a material degree the scope and rigour
of his investigation. Moreover, it is the committee, not Sir Gordon
which determines not only the outcome of the inquiry, but also
whether the report should be published or kept secret. Leaving
aside the question of what should in due course be done about
the state of affairs revealed by the whip's minute, I am sure
that you will wish to consider urgently what steps can be taken
at this stage to reassure the public that the forthcoming investigation
is, and is seen to be, beyond the reach of party political interference.
I would respectfully suggest that only an enquiry under the Tribunals
and Inquiries Act of 1971 could at this stage rescue the procedure
from the grave doubt which must now surround it.
4 October 1996
|