|
Letter from the Editor of The Guardian
to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Thank you for your letter of 16 October. I
can confirm that we do wish to lodge a formal complaint against
all the MPs you mention. Obviously we will formulate these complaints
with precision in due course.
Documents in our possession indicate that Sir
Michael Grylls received a number of payments from IGA which were
not properly disclosed either on the register or during the Select
Committee consideration of his case.
Sir Andrew Bowden made no declaration yet his
name is shown in IGA books as receiving £5,319 towards the
"Andrew Bowden Fighting Fund". The sum paid to this
fighting fund appears to have been paid in two weeks after the
election and to have exceeded by some way the entire amount he
spent in fighting the 1987 election. He is also recorded as receiving
a political donation of £500. At the time when these various
payments appear to have been made, both men were actively promoting
the case of Mr Al-Fayed at the instigation of Mr Greer.
Sir Peter Hordern on all occasions scrupulously
declared his retainer on behalf of the House of Fraser. However,
given the evidence we have of his close co-operation and numerous
meetings with Smith, Hamilton and Grylls, it would be useful
to know if he had any knowledge of the payments made to them.
We have reason to believe no mention was made of their interests
when he led them in delegations to Paul Channon and Lord Young
on behalf of the Al-Fayeds on three occasions in 1987. We consider
it important for you to establish the principle that an MP is
under a duty to declare the interests of colleagues if he knows
of them, on such occasions. Indeed there should be a duty on
all MPs to inform on colleagues known or suspected to be acting
with an undisclosed interest.
Gerry Malone allowed himself to give the appearance
of having been placed under an obligation by IGA in accepting
(with effusive gratitude) a £1,000 donation to his electoral
fund, having been very helpful to Greer and Al-Fayed some time
before. He appears to have acted as an unusual and unofficial
conduit between Leon Brittan, whose PPS he was at the time, and
Al-Fayed. Dr Mawhinney has recently, and rightly in our view,
warned candidates against such donations and we believe that
upholding our complaint against Mr Malone (albeit one that could
be made against other MPs as well) will establish the principle
that candidates should not accept money in any circumstances
from a lobbying organisation.
Lady Olga Maitland accepted cash and cheques
from Greer whilst a candidate, receipted after she became an
MP; and our evidence suggests her husband received a payment from
Greer after his wife became an MP. She has asked questions on
behalf of at least one Greer client. There appears to be a confusion
in the Greer books as to which sums of money were for work on
behalf of which clients - in particular the Governments of Kuwait
and Serbia.
We believe you should look at the lobbying
work undertaken (with Neil Hamilton) by Michael Brown on behalf
of Skoal Bandits in 1989. He received a fee of £6,000 for
introducing the business to Ian Greer Associates, which was never
declared.
Finally, we believe that you should investigate
the activities of Tim Smith. Despite admitting receiving money
from Al-Fayed in return for asking questions in the House of
Commons his case has never been heard by the Privileges Committee
or the Members' Interests Committee. We find this extraordinary
in a Parliament intent on proving its ability to regulate itself.
Indeed, so far from being judged by a House of Commons committee
he has now been rehabilitated by being placed on the Public Accounts
Committee, a body which supervises public spending. Mr Smith's
behaviour deserves investigation in itself, but it should also
be a factor in judging Mr Al-Fayed's credibility as a witness.
Doubtless you will wish to inquire whether the extent and nature
of the paid work he undertook on behalf of other commercial organisations
was an abuse of the procedures of the House.
Our complaints against Neil Hamilton are effectively
expressed in the amended defence which you already have.
In addition to these formal complaints I enclose
a further list of questions which I think any thorough inquiry
would wish to explore, and which I would be grateful if you would
place before members of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
One final matter concerns us: Mr Hamilton, Mr
Greer and other MPs persistently use an excuse for not registering
interests in the mid to late 80s the claim that there was a different
climate of public opinion in those times and that they are now
being judged retrospectively under harsher ground rules. We draw
your attention to a letter from Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Chairman
of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, to Neil Hamilton,
dated 24 November 1993. This was in response to a similar claim
made by Mr Hamilton at the time. Sir Geoffrey wrote to rebuke
Mr Hamilton in the following terms:
"The primary motive of the House when it
established the Register in 1974-5 was to reassure the public,
in the aftermath of the Poulson Affair, that the House of Commons
was not corrupt. If Members of the House, particularly Ministers,
are seen to treat its requirements lightly or negligently, that
purpose will be frustrated and demands for more stringent restrictions
on Members' outside activities will grow . . . Members should
not (however inadvertently) cast public doubt on the bona fides
of the Register and the House's attitude to it." That
seems to us to be a clear statement of the position as it pertained
at the time of the matters referred to above.
This letter is not intended to do more than
confirm our complaints. Once you have appointed counsel and worked
out a procedure, we are happy to discuss how best we can help
you with your injuries.
Alan Rusbridger Editor 18 October 1996
We believe the terms of reference should include: The
conduct of office bearers of the Conservative Trade and Industry
Committee (Sir Michael Grylls, Tim Smith, Neil Hamilton) in advancing
the cause of Al-Fayed between November 1985 and March 1990, given
that such office bearers were paid by Al-Fayed or Greer or both;
The extent to which their interests were not disclosed in:
(a) asking questions in the House;
(b) tabling early-day motions;
(c) writing letters to Ministers; and
(d) at delegations which met Ministers.
Whether Sir Peter Hordern, the paid retainer
to House of Fraser, was aware of the payments being made to the
office bearers of the Conservative Trade and Industry backbench
committee when he introduced their delegation to Paul Channon
and David Young; the extent to which DTI ministers Paul Channon,
Leon Brittan and Lord David Young were deceived as to the existence
of the financial interests of those who lobbied on behalf of
Al-Fayed; The behaviour of Gerry Malone in advising Al-Fayed
through Greer while he was PPS to Leon Brittan and subsequently
receiving and accepting £1,000 towards his election expenses
comprising Al-Fayed money forwarded by Greer which receipt he
effusively acknowledged.
The behaviour of Sir Andrew Bowden in asking
questions on behalf of Al-Fayed and then soliciting and/or accepting
a sum of £5,119 towards the Andrew Bowden Fighting Fund;
the conduct of Sir Michael Grylls in accepting very large sums
of money from Ian Greer; The conduct of Tim Smith and Neil
Hamilton in accepting cash from Al-Fayed without declaring such
payments; the extent of Mr Hamilton's rewards in cash and in
kind, including holidays in Paris, Scottish castles, New Orleans
and Aspen and New York, paintings, garden furniture, hampers,
personal accessories and Harrods pork and beef sausages. Whether,
and if so to what extent, Mr Tim Smith underwent vetting for his
sensitive position as Minister of State at the Northern Ireland
Office in 1993 and whether the vetting exposed his corrupt relationship
with Al-Fayed.
Whether and to what extent Neil Hamilton was
vetted before his appointment to the commercially important position
of Minister of State responsible for business ethics and whether
such vetting exposed his corrupt relationship with Al-Fayed or
any dubious business connections. Whether Neil Hamilton, while
a member of the Government as a whip (July 1990-April 1992) accepted
any fee or gift from Ian Greer Associates or any free lunches
from Plateau Mining. Whether Neil Hamilton as Secretary of State
at the DTI between April 1992 and October 1994 showed favour
to Ian Greer or, through Greer, to his clients and whether he
was paid or rewarded for showing such favours.
Whether the PM acted with proper urgency in
directing inquiries once the Al-Fayed allegations were made on
September 30 1994; why the PM failed to require the immediate
resignation of Tim Smith once he confessed to his corrupt relationship
with Al-Fayed and waited until this relationship was the subject
of publicity in The Guardian; whether the inquiry conducted
by Robin Butler into the allegations against Neil Hamilton deserves
the description of "an inquiry" and whether Hamilton
lied to Michael Heseltine and Major in respect of his financial
relationship with Greer and Al-Fayed; The propriety of Hamilton's
relationships while a minister with Plateau Mining, the "Big8"
accountancy firms and IGA and the propriety of his relationships
with Mobil Oil, Pinpoint International, and US Tobacco; Whether
it is honourable and ethical for an MP to make a secret profit
from performing a duty to a constituent (for example the secret
"commission" for £4,000 that Hamilton took from
Greer for advising his constituent, the National Nuclear Corp,
to use Greer's lobbying services); whether it was proper of Neil
Hamilton to fail to register his exotic trips and holidays at
the expense of UST; what other rewards he received from the company
and whether he declared his financial interest when lobbying
on behalf of the company the health ministers David Mellor and
Kenneth Clark and whether his activities delayed the ban on a
carcinogenic product for two years; Whether the PM deceived
the public when he asserted that the only benefit he had received
from Ian Greer was "a three minute ride in Greer's Jaguar"
when Greer himself maintains that he loaned his Daimler to the
PM free for four days and there is evidence of other payments
in kind from Greer to Major; the circumstances surrounding the
payment of £5,000 by Greer to publish certain speeches made
by the PM; Whether Lord MacKay truthfully told parliament
that the government "had no position" on the amendment
on the Bill of Rights in view of the PM's later admission that
he had his government "steer it through the House";
What exactly was the "conflict of interest" which
caused the collapse of the libel trial by Greer and Hamilton's
need to sack their solicitors, Messrs Carter Ruck. Why did such
conflict emerge four days before the trial after The Guardian
had demanded Greer's records of payments to Hamilton in the period
while he was a minister? Did Hamilton instruct Cart-Ruck not
to disclose this document? What is the significance of the
documents which remained undisclosed at the time the proceedings
were withdrawn; the point of such withdrawal presumably being
to keep them secret.
What is the significance of the red file comprising
200 pages of Government documents which John Major's QC told
the judge might be relevant to the case but which the government
did not wish to disclose? Did Lady Olga Maitland receive
large sums of money by cash and by cheque from IGA in 1992-93.
Was there any connection between this receipt and the questions
she asked on behalf of Greer's client, the Royal Brompton Hospital;
what was the relationship between Ian Greer, Lady Olga Maitland,
John Kennedy, (the prospective Tory MP) and the Government of
Serbia? A full investigation of the circumstances surrounding
the payments by Ian Greer and Ian Greer Associates to MPs over
the past 15 years; an analysis of Ian Greer Associates books to
discover how many MPs have received cash or rewards or material
benefits from IGA over the past 15 years and what they were expected
to do in return for such payments; The circumstances in
which David Willetts, a senior Government whip, discussed with
the chairman of the Privileges Committee how to "exploit
the good Tory majority" in a committee which had a judicial
function and is required by parliamentary law to act without
bias; The circumstances in which Andrew Mitchell, a Government
whip, came to be a member of that committee;
| 
