|
A submission to Sir Gordon Downey from
The Guardian
This document is in response to a submission
from Sir Michael Grylls MP[27]
The Guardian complaints against Grylls are not fully
formulated in your letter of 28 January.
We regard him, as Sleaze makes clear, as the
person most singly responsible for bringing Parliament into disrepute
though his corrupt links with Greer throughout his time as chairman
of the Conservative backbench Trade and Industry Committee.
I note that Al-Fayed has not alleged that Grylls
received cash payments in envelopes like Hamilton, Smith and
Bowden. This does not necessarily mean that he did not receive
any. You will note the strong friendship between the two men's
wives and families which still persists, and his eagerness to
tell you (6 February) what he understands Fayed's position to
be. However, to uphold our complaint it is not necessary to show
payments via Fayed. Grylls was receiving so much only from Greer,
only some of it (and that only notionally) related to "introductory
commissions" that he was in effect working for Greer, or
for whatever Greer client he was asked to help. Indeed, as soon
as Greer was hired by Fayed he contacted Grylls (31 October 1985)
and made a payment to him the very next day.
The complaint against him might be formulated
as follows: Sir Michael Grylls was not a fit and proper person
to serve as a Member of Parliament, whose traditions he disregarded
and dishonoured by: 1. Entering into a corrupt association
with the lobbyist Ian Greer and his company IGA, whereby he was
regularly and secretly paid large cash sums in return for providing
parliamentary services to Greer clients. Such of the said cash
sums as have been traced by the complainant amounting, between
1987 and 1992, to over £86,000, and include the payments
listed in para 12 A(i) of the amended defence in Greer v The
Guardian.
The said parliamentary services he provided
between 1986 and 1990, in the case of Greer client Al-Fayed,
included
(a) writing letters to ministers, and to
the Attorney General;
(b) attending meetings with ministers;
(c) attending many meetings with Greer
and with other MPs paid to serve in the Al-Fayed cause;
(d) supporting initiatives in the House
in defence of Al-Fayed and in attacking his enemy Lonrho.
2. Exploiting since 1981 his chairmanship of
the back-bench Trade and Industry Committee to make secret profits
for himself by:
(a) directing persons and companies who
sought his assistance in that capacity to IGA, knowing he would
receive a secret commission from IGA;
(b) lobbying ministers to favour clients
of IGA, without revealing that he was working for and being paid
by that company.
3. By deliberately omitting to disclose his
close relationship with IGA on the Register for the years 1988
and 1989 (when he was particularly active in Greer's interests
on behalf of Fayed) and by deliberately making a misleading declaration
as to the relationship with IGA in the years 1986 and 1987.
4. By lying to the Select Committee on Members'
Interest in (a) a letter of 6 June 1990, in which he claimed
always to have registered appropriate interests in relevant years
which excluded 1988 and 1989 and (b) in a letter dated 14 June,
in which he claimed he had received only payments in respect only
to three companies (there were at least five), on only three
occasions (there were at least 10).
5. By refusing to give any assistance as an
MP to Rank Xerox, which had approached him as chairman of the
Trade and Industry Committee, until they had hired IGA to act
for them, this demand being made in the knowledge that he would
in that event receive a lucrative "kick-back" from IGA
(for further details, see Sleaze p. 29-31).
6. By making the same demand of British Airways,
in the knowledge that he would receive a "kick-back"
from IGA which he would not pay over or disclose to BA.
7. By making a speech in the House in support
of BA and putting down BA-related PQs (24 July 1987; 15 July
1988) without disclosing his interest as a paid lobbyist for Greer
clients or as the recipient (with his wife) of the reward of
a free BA trip to Rio de Janeiro.
8. By writing to a constituent, John Jillings,
attacking a book critical of Al-Fayed without disclosing his
own links to Al-Fayed and his lobbyist (Sleaze page 98).
9. By conspiring with Greer to receive £10,000
from the contract Greer would sign with Whitbread, such payments
being described as an "introductory commission" but
in reality being a reward for services which Grylls had and would
continue to perform for IGA clients including (but not limited
to) Whitbread.
10. By making a similar arrangement, also in
1989, to receive £6,500 from IGA as 10 per cent of money
paid by Honour Hong Kong, to lobby in parliament for that company
and for other Greer clients.
11. By making a similar arrangement with Greer
in respect of money received from Biro Bic.
12. By failing to take the proper action after
realising that Greer lied in evidence to Select Committees in
1988 and 1990.
13. By advising a constituent, a property
company in Camberley run by Charles Church, to employ IGA, and
then taking a secret profit by way of an "introductory commission"
from IGA which was not revealed to the property company.
14. By deliberately omitting to disclose on
the Register his relationships, direct or through IGA, with the
companies in 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 above, and his relationship
with Al-Fayed, which included at the very least, over several
years, free lunches, hampers (worth £185 each) and a holiday
at Balnagown.
15. By improperly obtaining for an employee
of IGA, Andrew Smith, a House of Commons "Research Assistant"
pass to which Grylls knew he was not entitled but which would
benefit his work for IGA.
The allegation in paragraph 5 above can be confirmed
by Keith Lockwood: the allegations to the same effect in Sleaze
were published to his knowledge and approval. His telephone number
is 01483-423150.
We enclose three pages of calculations by David
Leigh and Jamie Wilson which may be of interest. The first table
shows the £86,000 received by Grylls from Greer. The second
shows the chronology of Grylls references to Greer on the Register
- which until 1990 give no inkling of any relationship other than
(in 1986 and 1987) through the Unitary Tax Campaign. The third
table contains some examples of other remuneration - he was receiving
£35,505 from Electrophonetics, at least £5,000 from
Cape and almost £10,000 from Le Carbone.
Grylls letter of 6 February is vague and evasive.
He fails to meet most of our allegations. It may be helpful for
you to see the Central Television evidence showing the alacrity
with which he recommended IGA.
We are most struck by his description of how
Greer "regularly worked out what he felt was a fair amount
for my extra time ._._. I accepted his figures without question
and invoiced him accordingly" This is bizarre, unless Grylls
is - as we suggest - at the beck and call of Greer and his clients
and paid by Greer according to how he has performed for them.
It was certainly not "the simplest way of accounting"
although it was the simplest way for Greer to pay him his rewards.
He does not mention it, but Greer also thought
it appropriate to pay him £10,000 every year - entered by
the accountants as "usual fees".
Grylls was continuously in Greer's pay before,
during and after the period during which Grylls carried out Greer's
wishes in lobbying for Fayed. It now seems to be admitted by Grylls
that the regular flow of money was only notionally related to
"introductions", or to Grylls' work for that long-standing
Greer client, the UTC. Grylls describes it as a "system"
- one which was plainly convenient for both of them.
Grylls spoke in Parliament for a Greer client
on whose specific behalf he had received money (British Airways
- speech in 1987 Sleaze, page 32). He took money from Greer for
introducing him to a constituent - the company Charles Church.
The payments are listed in Greer's books as relating to "Charles
Church Developments". This firm, as Grylls admits, was located
in his own constituency.
On his own admission, Grylls was receiving payments
from Greer during the period when Grylls was helping Greer's
client Fayed. Grylls gave false evidence to the Select Committee
on Members' Interests as to dates and numbers of payments for
"introductions". Greer's books show a continuous stream
of payments. There were not three companies "introduced"
but at least five.
Grylls does not appear to deny that he received
money re BA, Whitbread, Charles Church, Biro Bic and Honour Hong
Kong. We have done no extensive research on possible linked parliamentary
activity. It is curious that Whitbread was in fact a long-standing
client of Greer, which makes the "introductory commission"
appear even more notional.
Gryll's constituents - and the public in general,
particularly those who went to him as chairman of the backbench
Trade and Industry Committee - were entitled to know that he had
financial benefits coming indirectly from at least five organisations.
They were also entitled to know that he was getting paid regularly
by Ian Greer, a lobbyist. And they were also entitled to know
that he was working in Parliament on behalf of at least one controversial
Greer client - Fayed. None of these facts could be discovered
from the register of Members's Interests.
The entries Grylls made were misleading, and
deliberately so. He has been careful to obscure the fact that
he has enriched himself from major companies through Greer, all
this business attained because he was a Member of Parliament
who was chairman of an important backbench committee of the governing
party.
It can now be seen that Greer's evidence to
the Select Committee was a travesty of the truth. Given the closeness
between the two men - they regularly dined, according to Greer's
diary - they must have put their heads together in respect of
it. Indeed, when the clerk (Mr Hastings) first wrote to Greer
questioning his previous evidence about being "completely
disassociated" from MPs, he replied to the Committee on 30
October 1989, the very day on which his diary records a meeting
with Grylls, obviously to formulate the reply. Grylls must have
learnt of the evidence Greer subsequently gave, parts of which
we know to be incorrect - certainly not the full truth.
If the new Standards and Privileges Committee
is to work, it must place a duty on MPs who know that evidence
given to it is false or incomplete to come forward and tell it
the full truth. Thus Grylls should be censured for permitting
Greer to "cover up" for him as well as for his own untruths
when he came before the Committee in 1990 and minimised his financial
transactions with Greer.
Alan Rusbridger
pqs:
86/7 on international courier companies (DHL)
BABCAL merger
24 July 1987 BA
15 July 1988 Hong Kong
On our available documentation, he was paid (int al) the
following by IGA
| November 1985 | Unknown sums (his evidence
to MI Committee |
| 14 May 1986 | Unknown sums (ditto) |
| 27 March 1987: | pounds 5,750 (pounds 5k plus VAT |
| FY June 1986-June 1987 | pounds 12k plus pounds 15k comms i.e. total
pounds 27k |
| FY June 1987-June 1988 | pounds 8,400 UTC
pounds 1,250 Biro Bic (i.e. total pounds 9,650 |
| 12 September 1988: | pounds 1,083.33 (comm Charles Church and Biro Bic) |
| 6 January 1989: | pounds 8,050 (pounds 7k plus VAT |
| 1 June 1989: | pounds 5,750 (pounds 5K plus VAT |
| (Totals FY June 1988-June 1989 | pounds 5k plus pounds 12k fees plus pounds 1,083 comm i.e. total pounds 18,083) |
| 1 July 1989: | pounds
5,750 (pounds 5k for a "quarter" |
| 28 September1989: | pounds 5,750 (pounds 5k for a "quarter") |
| (FY June 1989-June 1990 | pounds 5k Whit comm plus
pounds 1,166.67 comm plus
pounds 10k "usual fees" i.e., total pounds
16,166.67) |
| 1 June 1992 | pounds 5k plus pounds 875 VAT
"Fees" |
| (FY 1991-92 | pounds 10k fees) (or maybe
pounds 1k - hard to read |
| (FY 1992-93 | pounds 5k plus
pounds 5k fees i.e., total pounds 10k |
| March 1994 | pounds
130 (silver magnifying glass-gift from IGA |
The Draft TOTAL IS MORE THAN pounds 86,000.
May 1990 Committee report: Greer said Ian
Greer Associates had made two PAYMENTS in 1985 and 1986 to MP
A (GRYLLS) and a further payment to him in the past two years.
PAYMENTS were also made to MP B in 1986 and 1988 and a payment
to MP C in 1988.
Mr Greer later wrote to the committee, saying that
his company had made two PAYMENTS to Member A in 1985 and 1986,
two to Member B in 1986 and 1988 and one to Member C in 1988.
A further payment had been made to Member A earlier this year.
The Tory MP Sir MICHAEL GRYLLS told the committee
that he took three PAYMENTS for introducing company chairmen
to effective lobbyists. He argued that he had a degree of discretion
as to how they declared their interests and that there was no
category for one-off PAYMENTS.
Consultant to: (and the nature of his declarations):
For comparison: only one declaration: 1975: consultant to
Edward Butler Wine Group January 1985: adviser to the United States
Unitary Tax Campaign plus six consultancies January 1986: adviser
to the Unitary Tax Campaign (I. Greer Associates) first reference
to Greer plus seven other remunerated consultancies.
January 1987:
adviser to the Unitary Tax Campaign
(I. Greer Associates) plus eight consultancies.
December 1987: A
dviser to Unitary Tax Campaign plus
six consultancies
January 1989:
adviser to the Unitary Tax Campaign plus six consultancies
8 January 1990:
Le Carbone Lorraine (GB) Ltd
Sterling Winthrop Group Ltd
Chysauster Homes Ltd
adviser to the Unitary Tax Campaign plus nine consultancies.
Clients: Ian Greer Associates. first mention as a
client - covering everything. January 1991:
Digital Equipment Company Ltd
Association of Authorised Public Accountants
Biwater Group Ltd
Humphreys and Glasgow Ltd
Harlingspear Ltd
Pittard Garnar plc
Doctus plc
Allied Partnership Group plc
Freight Complex Development and Management Ltd
adviser to Unitary Tax Campaign
Clients: Ian Greer Associates
Soil Structures International Ltd
Companies:
Vosper Ltd 1981-85
Chysauster Homes Ltd, company
running retirement homes; subsidiary of O'Connor McGrath plc.
7 November 1988-29 January 1991; went insolvent and
liquidators called in April 1991. Grylls was creditor for pounds
4,313. Took until 1996 for all assets to be realised. Still not
wound up 17 June 1996.
Sterling Winthrop (US drugs) 1986-31 December
1991. 20 December merged with Sanofi UK Ltd. and became Sanofi
Winthrop Ltd. In 1994 was a director of Sanofi Winthrop Pension
Trustees Ltd. chair of the all-party pharmaceutical group 1981.
Le Carbone (Great Britain) Ltd, makers of carbon products;
parent company French; chairman in 1981; pounds 3,750; pounds
5,814 in 1982; pounds 6,000 in 1983; pounds 6,324 in 1984; pounds
7,000 in 1985; pounds 7,500 in 86; pounds 8,508 in 1987; pounds
8,508 in 1988; pounds 9,500 in 89; pounds 9,500 in 90; pounds
10,500 in 91; pounds 11,085 in 1992; pounds 11,012 in 1993; pounds
10,865 in 1994 and 1995.
CT Oil & Gas Ltd. a small prospecting company
with a subsidiary in Texas. 3 March 1989 to 29 November 1991.
No directors remuneration in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Dividend paid
on preference on 8 August 1989 at 75p: 6,081 ordinary shares;
7,948 preference. Dissolved and struck off the register 13 June
1995 Section 652(5) C Act 1985.
Cape plc., big building materials firm, part
of Charter plc, now divested of asbestos products; non-exec, 2
August 1990 - entry records being parliamentary spokesman for
the Institute of Directors salary unclear; either up to pounds
5,000 or up to pounds 10,000. 1992 accounts show no one in the
nil - pounds 5,000 range.
What he did in parliament, meetings, letters
etc. The 1996 accounts show him receiving fees of pounds 13,000
- he has joined the remuneration committee.
Electrophoretics International, medical research
into protein markers; dir 13 July 1994; non-exec chairman 13
October 1994; held 3,000 pounds 1 shares; 300,000 1p shares in
1995. salary pounds 35,505.
A submission to Sir Gordon Downey from
The Guardian
This document is in response to a submission
from Tim Smith MP[28]
Mr Smith admits that he got £18,000 in cash handed over
personally by Fayed. This is a quite dramatic confirmation of
Fayed's own claims as to his modus operandi.
Mr Smith's claims that he did not get a bribe
to stage the 1986 adjournment debate is unsupported, and surprising.
His claim to have no records is not consistent with his resignation
statement that he had declared the payments on his tax returns.
Presumably, he may have put some of the cash in a bank at the
time.
Mr Smith pretty well admits that he stopped
taking money following delivery of Rowland's letter threatening
to expose him in February 1989.
He admits starting to take bribes on the eve
of the 1987 Election. This is the same time at which Fayed alleges
he began to pay cash to Hamilton as well as private meetings.
Mr Smith's confession to the receipt of £18,000
from Al-Fayed at least relieves us of rehearsing the evidence
against him. His letter to you contains a number of lies and
half-truths which you will probably have picked up from the documents
and chronology: the purpose of telling them seems to be to minimise
his role and to distance himself from Greer.
The complaint against him might be formulated
as follows: Tim Smith is not a fit and proper person to
be a Member of Parliament, because
(i) Between 1986 and 1989 he solicited
and/or received at least £18,000 in cash and other material
benefits, as bribes to do favours for Mohamed Al Fayed and to
put his power and privileges as an MP at Fayed's disposal.
(ii) Between 1986 and 1989 he was corruptly
motivated in his actions taken on Al-Fayed's behalf in the House,
inter alia in tabling questions and signing early day motions
and proposing an adjournment debate;
(iii) He went as a delegate to ministers
on three occasions to argue on Al-Fayed's behalf, dishonestly
pretending to them that he was concerned as Vice President of
the back-bench Trade and Industry Committee, rather than admitting
he was an agent retained by Fayed.
(iv) He wrote numerous letters to ministers
without disclosing that he had been paid to write them by Al-Fayed.
(v) Having received bribes of over £18,000,
he deliberately failed
(a) to register any financial interest, or
(b) to notify the Speaker, Privileges Committee
or the police;
(c) to make full disclosure as an MP to the
Prime Minister or Cabinet Secretary of his corrupt and/or criminal
conduct when offered the security-sensitive post at the Northern
Ireland office.
(vi) In September 1996, in breach of the
Code of Conduct for MPs (Resolution of House, 19 July 1995) he
failed to uphold the law, acted selfishly and opaquely and contrary
to the public trust reposed in him and contrary to the public
interest, in refusing to assist the course of justice at the trial
of Hamilton and Greer v The Guardian and indeed attempting
to obstruct justice by having his name removed from the pleadings
in the case.
You will note that we have this time called
a spade a spade, i.e., a bribe a bribe. What Smith and Hamilton
received was what both the law and the general public would call
a bribe: i.e., to prostitute their public office and lend their
parliamentary power and privilege to the cause of Al-Fayed.
It is historically what parliament would have
called a bribe, from the Speaker's Case in 1695 until the establishment
of the Register, the ironical effect of which was to remove the
language of bribery and corruption and replace it by the concept
of failing to register. Clandestine payments now involve a member
being dealt with for "failure to register" and not
for corruption. In our respectful view, it is time Parliament
viewed the conduct of MPs like Smith and Hamilton as the general
public does, i.e., as criminal conduct for which they should
be put behind bars.
Perhaps the most satisfactory recommendation
you could make to the committee in both men's cases is that the
evidence against them be sent to the DPP in order that they be
prosecuted, for common-law bribery. You will be aware that the
stumbling block to this approach was always Lord Salmon's view
that an MP did not hold an "office" - this was rejected
by Mr Justice Buckley's judgment in R v Harry Greenway
in 1993.
Buckley J did not think Article 9 prohibited
prosecution of an MP where the bribe had been received outside
parliament (as here) for services other than speaking in the
House - i.e., for lobbying ministers in the manner of Smith and
Hamilton, and perhaps for tabling written questions.
You will see that we have added, in ground (vi),
a post-Nolan Code point about which we feel very strongly. Smith's
evidence was important to establishing the truth of the issue
in the libel action, and he knew it. Instead of behaving as the
Code requires, selflessly upholding the law by assisting the court
towards a just decision, Smith did everything he could to prevent
the truth from coming out. We are told he wrote to the Lord Chief
Justice complaining that his name was mentioned in the pleading:
he certainly wrote to us saying he would not comply with any
subpoena. He instructed counsel to apply for his name to be struck
out of the pleadings.
In so acting, he may have been within his legal
rights (the court never ruled on the matter). But his behaviour
was cowardly, refusing to assist justice in order to save himself
from embarrassment. We believe the public would have nothing
but contempt for his action, and it would lower MPs in their estimation.
If the "Personal Conduct" section of the code is to
mean anything other than seven vague generalities, he must be
condemned for his behaviour as a potential witness which was
selfish, lacking in integrity, designed to cover up his own misbehaviour
and entirely lacking as a leadership example.
We append some questions[29]
prepared by Geoffrey Robertson for Smith's examination, so you
can appreciate both his relevance to the trial and his reasons
for making himself unavailable.
We comment on Smith's letter as follows:
PAGE 1
Paragraph 3 - This is extraordinary. A trained
accountant like Smith would instinctively provide fee-notes and
receipts for any consultancies or fees which were above-board.
These were bribes. Presumably, he has his tax returns, 1986-90,
or can give you permission to obtain them from the Inland Revenue.
Paragraph 4 - His interest in the House of Fraser
stemmed from the prospect of financial reward.
PAGE 2
Paragraph 3 - Smith was calling Al-Fayed in
January 1986: it may well be that he took the initiative in referring
his services, and was then referred to Greer (they had lunch on
29 January 1986).
PAGE 3
Paragraph 1 - "I drafted them all myself"
- not according to Greer correspondence.
Paragraph 4 - This is deliberately misleading:
Smith is back-dating his knowledge that the inquiry was damning
for Al-Fayed, in order to provide a pretext (other than the Rowland
letter) ducking for cover in February 1989. In fact, it is clear
from the letter of 29 January 1988, Greer to Smith at Plaintiff's
discovery 323 that Smith knew from January 1988 that the report
would condemn Fayed. He knew Fayed would have to "take a
deep breath" if the Report "goes the way we think it
will." That is why, throughout 1988, he rubbishes the Inspectors,
their procedure and then the (unpublished) report. He knew for
certain it would be a disaster in early March 1988 (when Fayed
walked out - i.e., did not co-operate with the Inspectors) and
was well aware that his paymaster had been condemned in the report
when he accepted a bribe to write his extraordinary four page
letter to Lord Young on 18 August 1996.
Paragraph 5 - We do not accept that the payments
did not begin until 1987. He needed to be persuaded to move the
adjournment debate and Greer knew how to persuade: see Sleaze
page 67. The fact he had no records of the payments characterises
them as bribes (although what about his tax returns?). We suspect
he is so anxious to distance himself from Greer precisely because
he was paid by that route for the adjournment debate. The envelopes
came at private meetings the following year.
PAGE 4
Paragraph 2 - It would be interesting to see
Smith's diaries - they record more meetings than do Al-Fayed's.
Most significantly, how many meetings do they record with Greer?
And when? Paragraph 3 - This is not conduct which is naive.
It is conduct which is criminal. Smith plainly solicited the
payments, which he neither billed as fees nor receipted as fees.
Al-Fayed would pay him by whichever method he preferred.
PARAGRAPH 4
(i) Smith minimised (he did not terminate)
his relationship with Greer and Al-Fayed after Rowland accused
him of taking bribes, in the letter of 28 January 1989. On 30
January he sees Al-Fayed - no doubt to solicit danger money -
and at some stage gives a copy of the Rowland bribery letter to
Greer, because on 3 February Greer (not Smith) faxes this letter
to Palmer for legal advice. On 8 February Smith meets Greer and
on 13 February meets Al-Fayed (another final pay-off). What this
chronology demonstrates is that, contrary to both their protestations,
Greer knew about the bribery allegations against Smith and we
believe he must have known about the bribes.
(ii) Here is a mystery. We have never seen
any letter written by Smith to the Registrar on 6 February. We
hope Smith can provide it and we can see a copy. Was this the
famous occasion on which he disclosed his receipt of two teddy
bears, thus demonstrating his brazen contempt for the whole process?
What exactly did Smith tell the Government chief whip? No doubt
you will call him to give evidence. If he was in fact told by
Smith about the payments from Al-Fayed, then we would wish to
lodge the strongest complaint against the chief whip for not acting
appropriately or at all on this information.
PARAGRAPH 5
The report was officially published in March
1990. It was unofficially published - everyone knew it was the
real thing - in March 1989. Smith knew from early 1988 which
way it was going.
PAGE 5-6
(1) It is surprising that all these MPs now
deny that they were members of a lobby group. They were (in the
libel action, this was admitted in the Reply) and they were orchestrated
by Greer.
(2) What did Greer do to "persuade"
Smith to move an adjournment debate? (6) The relationship
was not terminated in February 1989. Smith and Hamilton met Greer
and Al-Fayed in April, and in May Smith tabled an EDM.
Smith meets Greer on 5 and 6 April and again
on 7 and 27 November. On 21 November 1989, Smith is still telephoning
Fayed. What happened, after the Rowland allegation, was that Greer
took Smith out of the question-firing line. But he was still
on the team.
(7) This is so understated as to make us wonder
whether Smith, notwithstanding his confusion, has really come
to terms with his conduct. You will be aware of all the letters
he wrote to ministers and the three occasions on which he met
them.
(8) We do not believe this. We have not been
able to find evidence that any payment was entered on the Register.
PAGE 7
5A. Greer quite clearly directed Smith's parliamentary
activities. As he told Fayed, Smith will behave "as we wish".
6. The chronology gives the lie to Smith's claim.
How did Greer get hold of the Rowland letter, to fax it to Palmer?
It was Greer who thereafter reduced his activities, after Fayed
had paid him the danger money.
13. We do not believe this. Greer even arranged
for Smith to meet Pollard to progress the allegations against
Michael Howard: he must have had Smith either in his debt or
have known that he was in Al-Fayed's debt.
Do let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
We have noticed that Greer made considerable use of Smith (prior
to his becoming a minister) in his pitch to the "Big 8",
and so it could be interesting to examine their relationship
over this matter.
Alan Rusbridger
27 See Appendix 49. Back
28
See Appendix 42. Back
29
Not printed. Back
| 
