|
Letter from the Editor of The Guardian
to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
I thought I should send you a copy of the book[17]
which we are publishing today on the whole of the "cash
for questions" affair. Because this is a story that dribbled
out over more than two years, we felt it was important to attempt
to pull together all the strands of this complex story in one
volume. We also felt it was important that the story should be
told before voters come to make their choices in a general election.
I do not know whether you will want to treat
it as part of your formal evidence. Much of the material will
doubtless be familiar to you. But, in the sense that the amended
defence, which you are using as a basis for the case against
Hamilton, is a "defence" document, this book is, I suppose
a "prosecution" document.
You will also be aware that Channel 4 is showing
a "Dispatches" programme tonight on related matters.
I have not been at all involved in the making of this and will
not see it before it is transmitted, but I believe that it contains
important new material which you should consider. In particular,
I understand that the makers of the programme have spoken to
a senior executive of US Tobacco who says on camera and on the
record that the £6,000 that Hamilton received from UST via
Greer was not an introduction fee. You will know that Mr
Hamilton has consistently claimed that the fee was for introducing
UST to Greer, but not acting for them. The UST executive exposes
this as a lie and and states unequivocally that Neil Hamilton
had no influence on the choice of Ian Greer Associates as their
chosen lobbying contact. This new material may cause you to question
Mr Hamilton's veracity in other claims he makes concerning "introductory
fees".
I am sure that the producers of the film at
Fulcrum TV would be pleased to assist you in supplying you with
any of the evidence that they have gained, which includes further
material about Hamilton's relationship with Greer's company after
his appointment as Trade & Industry Minister.
I am glad that Nigel Pleming and Geraldine Proudler
have a direct channel of communication now. Geraldine has been
immensely busy working seven days a week preparing for a major
four-week libel trial which began yesterday in the High Court.
This was the same trial which was originally due to start in early
December. The fact that we have twice had to change leading counsel
between the end of November and the start of the trial, including
completely re-briefing counsel and re-interviewing all the main
witnesses, was one of the reasons she found it difficult to have
worked as quickly as she would have liked collating evidence for
your enquiry.
Alan Rusbridger
16 January 1997
17 "Sleaze: The Corruption of Parliament". Back
| 
