|
Submission from The Guardian
A NOTE ON NEIL HAMILTON'S FORMAL RESPONSE
TO SIR GORDON DOWNEY[19]
1. THE MONEY
Hamilton for the first time admits the
essential facts about his behaviour in this document. He admits
that on more than nine occasions he received money, gifts or
hospitality without declaring them, between 1987 and 1989. The
total value of the admitted benefits was at least £15,000.
They were received from Ian Greer and clients
of Ian Greer - Fayed, US Tobacco and the National Nuclear Corporation
at a time when Hamilton was undeniably promoting those clients'
interests in Parliament and with ministers. Hamilton also admits
that his parliamentary campaign on behalf of Fayed was prompted
by Greer.
At the same time, Hamilton's document both reveals
his lies and contains further lies, which he hopes Sir Gordon
Downey will believe.
We believe that the fact that Mr Hamilton
has sought to deceive the Parliamentary Commissioner is, in the
light of the Select Committee on Standards and Privilege's ruling
on David Willetts, an extremely serious matter in itself.
HAMILTON'S ADMISSIONS OF UNDECLARED BENEFITS
| 1987-89 | Harrods hampers
2, 1 bottle whisky, 2/3 ties - gifts from Fayed - value (£185
x 2) (say) £400 |
| September 1987 | Ritz Paris
6 nights with wife - gift from Fayed - value £4,221 |
| 29 April 1988 | Paintings - gift from Greer - value
£700 |
| 7 and 12 July 1988 | Furniture - gift
from Greer - value £959 |
| 1988 | Air tickets
- gift from Greer - value £1,594 |
| 13 July 1989
| Cash - gift from Greer - value £6,746 |
| Summer 1989 | St James Court Hotel one night - gift from UST -
value (say) £80 |
| 1989 | Balnagown Castle
- 2 nights with wife - gift from Fayed - value (say) £200 |
| October 1989 | Essex House Hotel - 2, perhaps 3 nights
- gift from UST - value (say) ($500 per night) £1,000 |
Total £15,900
Hamilton does not dispute that
he was extensively promoting Fayed's interests in Parliament,
at Greer's request, in concert with the other MPs in the group,
who were also being paid by Fayed (Smith, Hordern) or Greer (Grylls,
Bowden). He admits tabling an EDM for UST in December 1989. Although
he denies proposing a Tobacco Duty amendment on 13 July 1989,
the record shows he did. (See exhibits) He neglected to
mention it, but his activities as an MP on behalf of UST included
expensive lobbying of ministers, including no fewer than three
health ministers - Mellor, Currie, Clarke - in 1988-89.
2. MATTERS IN DISPUTE: WAS IT £15,000 OR £50,000?
The only factual matters remaining in dispute
between Hamilton and The Guardian concern the full extent
of benefits he got and never declared. Hamilton admits to £15,000
worth. He denies further allegations of extra thousands of pounds
in undeclared cash from Fayed, and says that Fayed is a notorious
liar.
3. HAMILTON'S OWN LIES
In evaluating the state of the evidence, Sir
Gordon may be helped by the fact that Hamilton's own continuing
behaviour demonstrates that he himself is unworthy of belief.
In his formal response to Sir Gordon, his admissions confirm
that he lied to Peter Preston writing as a Minister in 1993. In
that letter, seeking successfully to prevent the "Guardian"
exposing his conduct, he denied being prompted by Greer to lobby
for Fayed, saying: "This falls down as I met Fayed through
Sir Peter Hordern before Greer was taken on"
(3a) Lies
to Peter Preston
Now, in his statement to Sir Gordon, when
the documents have proved him a liar, he admits: "My first
connection with the Al-Fayeds was a telephone call I received
on or about 29 October from Ian Greer. He . . . asked whether
I would be prepared to support the Al-Fayeds against Lonrho. I
agreed." There were a total of five direct lies in that
letter to Preston, as events have subsequently proved. They are
detailed on page 162 of "Sleaze". Hamilton's determination
to lie was a key factor in The Guardian's evaluation of the
original Fayed documents.
(3b) Lies to Sir Gordon Downey
Hamilton
now goes on in his formal response to lie to Sir Gordon himself
over two matters - the "commissions" from Greer, and
the failure to register them.
(i) The Commissions
He says he got two
payments from Greer as introductory commissions, re National Nuclear
Corporation and US Tobacco. The evidence shows that he got not
two but four payments, and they were not at times, nor in sums,
relevant to NNC or UST "introductions". They do have
a demonstrable relevance, however, to his activities on behalf
of Greer's other clients.
NNC's Managing Director, John Durston, released
a statement in October 1996, saying that NNC entered into an
arrangement with Greer in March 1987, and paid a total of £60,000
over 18 months, the final payment being in September 1988. In
November 1987, they separately agreed to pay Hamilton £7,500.
They had no knowledge of any third set of payments between Greer
and Hamilton. The additional £4,000 that Hamilton claims
he received was 10 per cent of the first year's fees, and this
was the basis on which Greer customarily calculated his payments
to MPs. But in the course of the first year, Hamilton received
no money. In April 1988 he received his first gift. But it was
not £4,000 - it was paintings to the value of £700.
Apart from the blatant impropriety of (as Hamilton
maintains) taking undisclosed commissions to represent his own
constituents, his story makes no sense. The gifts do not relate
to the basis - of time, and money - on which he claims the commission
was calculated.
We consider that, in his eventual report,
Sir Gordon Downey should make it clear whether he thinks it appropriate
for MPs to accept extra money, whether declared or undeclared,
for acting on behalf of his own constituents. We think that most
reasonable people, whatever their view of MPs taking extra work,
believe that their MPs should at the very least represent their
own interests "for free" in return for the salary and
expenses they receive. Mr Hamilton claims the £6,000
he received from UST was also by way of an introductory commission.
He says [8.2] "I was not required or expected to undertake
any services in exchange for this payment, nor did I; it
was paid solely on account of the introduction. I did not think
at the time that such payments would reasonably be thought to
influence my conduct in the House, nor in fact did they do so."
(emphasis added) There is first of all the question of
whether the £6,000 was in fact a commission. We draw attention
to the relevant part of the C4 Despatches programme where John
Walter, the UK Corporate Affairs Director of US Tobacco says
on the record that Greer was not introduced to the company
by Hamilton:
Walter: "The company selected IGA
themselves."
Q: ".... not on an introduction
from Neil Hamilton?"
Walter: "Correct. As I say, we put
together a shortlist ...."
While undoubtedly
convenient for Mr Hamilton (and also Mr Greer) to be able to present
this payment as an "introductory commission" it is
questionable if it was, indeed so. There is Mr Walter's testimony.
And there is a pattern of representing UST's interests not only
in parliament but also ministers charged with formulating policy
directly affecting UST's interests in this country.
Even if it was a commission (which we dispute),
it is downright dishonest of Mr Hamilton to say that he did nothing
on behalf of UST in return for the fee he received or that anyone
could imagine that his lobbying activities on behalf of the company
were uninfluenced by the money he received. Pages 126-129
of Sleaze detail Mr Hamilton's meetings with no fewer than three
health ministers - Edwina Currie, Kenneth Clarke and David Mellor
- to lobby for the legalisation of UST's carcinogenic product,
Skoal Bandits. None of those ministers were told that Mr Hamilton
and Mr Brown had each received a £6,000 fee from UST.
We consider Sir Gordon Downey should take evidence
from these three ministers and ask whether they believe a £6,000
fee was something they should have been told about before these
meetings. Their opinion of whether they consider such payments
might reasonably be thought to have influenced Mr Hamilton's conduct
would be material.
(ii) The Non-Registration In Paragraphs
14.2 and 14.3, Hamilton admits that he should have registered
his commission payments' and did not. He pleads: `Under the rules
prevailing at the time, the position was a great deal less clear'.
We submit that the position concerning any sort
of payments could not have been clearer. There was a degree
of uncertainty before the establishment of the Register in 1975:
prior to the establishment of the Register it was classed as
a form of bribery to offer money or advantage to an MP to promote
any matter in Parliament. The acceptance of such a "fee
or reward" in connection with any matter submitted to the
house (i.e., by way of question or EDM) was a breach of privilege
classified as "corruption", and MPs were expelled for
receiving gratuities after bills had been passed (Erskine May).
However, post 1975 the only question was not
whether the money was received, but whether it had been disclosed
in accordance with the purpose of the register: viz
"to provide information of any pecuniary
interest or other material benefit which a member may receive
which might be thought to affect his conduct as a member of influence
his actions, speeches or votes in Parliament" In a
letter to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Chairman of the Select Committee
on Members' Interests dated December 12 1993 Mr Hamilton explicitly
acknowledged that, in areas of any doubt, it was up to MPs
to seek clarification:
"The onus is on the Member, in the
first instance, to determine what properly ought to be declared
......" [emphasis added]
So even if
- which we do not concede - there could reasonably have been any
doubt in Mr Hamilton's mind as to the position, he acknowledges
that it was his duty to clarify what he need or need not declare.
To argue now that the position was unclear is dishonest.
But there is, in any event, conclusive evidence
that he is lying.
In December 1989, the Registrar of Members Interests
circularised Hamilton, and all other MPs, with the following
warning:
"I have received a number of inquiries
recently about commission payments. The rules do not differentiate
between single and continuing payments . . . Single payments,
such as commissions received for introductions, should be registered
. . . where such payments relate in any way to membership
of the House" [emphasis added]
The context of this warning
was complaints to the Members Interests Committee about payments
being made by Greer himself to MPs. Greer was eventually to hide
Hamilton's identity in testimony as "MP B".
Despite this clear warning from the Registrar,
Hamilton deliberately concealed from the registrar his cheque
for £6,000 from Greer in July 1989. As we have seen he now
maintains this cheque was an "introductory commission"
(though we dispute this). Even if it was a commission, there was
no question that it related to membership of the House. That
very December, Hamilton tabled an EDM on behalf of UST and demanded
- and had - no fewer than three meetings with health ministers
in order to lobby for a UST product.
Therefore the position WAS clear. Hamilton made
no mistake in good faith, as he seeks to persuade Downey.
(iii) The lie to Heseltine
That there
is a pattern of lying is demonstrated by Hamilton's by now well-known
lie to Heseltine, when he was under inquiry. Hamilton gave him
an "absolute assurance" that he had had no financial
relationship with Greer.
This pattern of lies shows that Hamilton cannot
be believed. It is also significant to see what Hamilton is so
repeatedly lying ABOUT. The common thread is that he seeks to
conceal the money and benefits he is secretly getting from Greer
and from Greer's clients, and the extent of the Parliamentary
work he is doing for them. When evaluating the further weight
to be put on Fayed's evidence of extra cash payments, it may be
helpful to ask just what it is that Hamilton has consistently
sought to conceal.
The evidence shows that Hamilton lied not only
to the Editor of the Guardian; the President of the Board
of Trade; and Sir Gordon Downey: - but also to the Cabinet Secretary,
Sir Robin Butler, and through him to the Prime Minister.
(iv) The lie to The Cabinet Secretary (and thus
to the Prime Minister)
During the private enquiries inside
government following Fayed's allegations, Sir Robin Butler, the
Cabinet Secretary, was deputed to see Hamilton. This he did on
17 October 1994 at 9 am in his office at a meeting which Butler
later wrote a note of. (Note for the Record 24 October 1994).
Butler then went and reported personally to the Prime Minister
and Chief Whip, on what Hamilton had said in his defence. Alex
Allan, the Prime Minister's PPS, minuted that meeting.
Alex Allan's note records Butler assuring Mr
Major that, according to Hamilton himself: "He had been
introduced to Mr Al-Fayed by Sir Peter Hordern, when he was a
member of the backbench trade and industry committee. That was
before Ian Greer was employed by Mr Fayed. . ." This
is the same lie - now exploded - with which Hamilton sought to
divert The Guardian. It is clearly important to
him, because it casts the relationship with Greer into an innocuous
framework. It can be inferred that exposure of the true framework
of the relationship with Greer would have been dangerous to Hamilton.
Hamilton goes on to try to mislead Sir Robin as to the
quantity of parliamentary work he did for Fayed, presumably for
a similar reason. It is clear from Butler's notes that at the
9 am meeting, Hamilton presented him with a copy of the misleading
letter written to Peter Preston, and sought to persuade the Cabinet
Secretary that its contents were true.
"AL-FAYED'S LIES": A GENERAL OBSERVATION
Mr Hamilton has concentrated much of his efforts
since his libel trial collapsed on seeking to vilify Mr Al-Fayed
and establish that he is a liar. He repeatedly quotes the DTI
Inspectors' report on Mr Al-Fayed, together with a Guardian
editorial of the time to the same effect.
This line of attack cuts two ways, of course.
The more Mr Hamilton builds the case of arguing that Mr Al-Fayed
should have been treated as a pariah once the contents of the
DTI report were known, the harder it is for him to explain why
he continued to represent Mr Al-Fayed's interests.
The DTI report initially came into the public
domain in the notorious mid-week edition of The Observer
in 1989. Mr Hamilton argues that he was not sure of its authenticity,
but in fact its authenticity was never seriously questioned at
that time.
There is evidence that Mr Hamilton knew the
DTI inspectors were hostile to Al-Fayed from the Spring of 1988.
Indeed, he tabled a parliamentary question in May 1988 attacking
the very DTI inquiry on which he now places so much emphasis.
The clear purpose of this attack was to influence the outcome
of the inquiry.
Even after The Observer leak of the DTI
report Mr Hamilton continued tabling EDMs on Al-Fayed's behalf.
It might be thought a little late in the day to start using the
DTI report (on Guardian editorials based upon it) when
Mr Hamilton took so little notice of it (or them) at the time.
It suited Mr Hamilton to turn a blind eye to
allegations of Al-Fayed's dishonesty at the time, just as it suits
him to believe them now. Why?
Alan Rusbridger
10 February 1997
19 See Appendix 34 and 35. Back
| 
