|
Letter from the Editor of The Guardian
to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
I enclose our latest submission on the oral
evidence of the MPs which I hope you and Mr Pleming will find
of some use.
It is, of course, essential that you have enough
time to produce a definitive report. On the other hand, we also
consider it important that your findings should be laid before
the Standards & Privileges Committee before an election,
so that they can in some form be put before the voters. We wonder
whether, if you cannot complete your report on our complaints
in the time available, it might be in the public interest to make
such findings and recommendations as you can at this stage available
and to submit them as a first report.
Our complaints against Smith and Brown are largely
admitted. Most of our indictments of Hamilton and Bowden are
made out. We are particularly concerned that there should be some
appropriate censure of the misbehaviour of Sir Michael Grylls,
who will cease to be an MP at the time when the election writs
are issued and may thereafter fall outside parliament's jurisdiction.
We are happy to help further in any way.
Alan Rusbridger
7 March 1997
A third submission to Sir Gordon Downey
from The Guardian
This document is in response to the oral
evidence from Neil Hamilton, Tim Smith, Andrew Bowden, Michael
Brown and written evidence from Lady Olga Maitland
I am
concerned to keep my comments on the transcripts you have sent
me as brief as possible. The public interest requires your report
to be in the hands of the Standards and Privileges Committee by
the time Parliament rises, so you will understand why I do not
oppose explanations. The Guardian cannot accept or regurgitate
points we have already made or which you have clearly taken on
board. Let me state, however, that there is nothing in the material
which causes us to withdraw the gist of the complaints we have
made: quite the contrary. Similarly I will not advert to any
of the matters arising from Greer in The Daily Telegraph,
other than his description (3 March, p. 15) of the benefits
he arranged to flow from BA and DHL to Christine Hamilton, and
therefore to her husband. These benefits were not, of course,
disclosed by Hamilton on the Register of Members' Interests. There
is an important principle here, which I do think you should endorse,
namely that benefits to a spouse (or secretary or both) must be
disclosed, the more so where they are or may be related to, or
are reward for, an MP's activities in the cause of the benefactor.
Christine Hamilton's travel was of benefit to her husband: it
partly paid for the couple's holiday. It derived from Greer, whose
business Hamilton was assisting. (I have not researched his speeches
or questions which might have assisted BA or DHL: I understand
there were several). The principle is important, and it adds to
the evidence which characterises the relationship between Greer
and Hamilton as corrupt. In general, I am struck by the attitude
of insouciance affected by Grylls, Hamilton and Brown towards
the "introductory commissions". These, it is now plain,
were the dishonest means by which Greer both rewarded his "stable"
of MPs and kept them under a continuing obligation to assist his
business by assisting clients of that business. Even if the
MPs did not know this (and of course they did) they all appear
unaware of the obvious vice of their conduct in accepting the
money. They were breaching their position of trust: the duty an
MP owes to all who seek his advice. It may be especially onerous
in the case of a constituent, but it applies whenever an MP is
consulted. The office is one of trust; MPs have privileges (both
personal and of access to Government power) and correlative duties
to give advice honestly and without hidden benefits or biases. In
advising third parties (whether friends or constituents or corporations)
to engage IGA, Grylls, Brown and Hamilton hid from the parties
to whom they owed the duty of trust that they were making a secret
profit out of this advice. This conduct is a disgraceful and dishonourable
betrayal of the trust inherent in their office, and their failure
to comprehend it, even now, demonstrates their unfitness to be
an MP. Hamilton and Brown last October hastily tried to regularise
their tax affairs when they realised they had been caught cheating
the Revenue: it is proof positive of their unfitness to be MPs
that they have still not disgorged the secret profits they made
from NNC and UST. Since they have not volunteered to pay back
the money, I trust that you will make a recommendation that the
Committee order them (and Grylls) to do so. These "commissions",
taken behind the back of Greer's clients from money they paid
him (his fee was doubtless calculated with the "commission"
in mind) belongs morally (and probably in equity) to those who
paid it on the advice of an MP who deliberately and dishonestly
omitted to tell them that he was taking 10 per cent. I
have no doubt that if a barrister recommended a friend or a corporation
to hire a particular solicitor, and later secretly accepted as
a reward 10 per cent of the fees the solicitor earned (as well
as a brief fee, in the case of Hamilton's "consultancy"
with NNC), he would be disbarred. The point is fundamental to
any profession, including that of Member of Parliament. In Hamilton's
case, what turns an unethical act into a criminal one is his intention
to hide it from the Revenue as well as from the Register. (The
one may supply the motive for the other). He is, after all, a
barrister specialising in tax, who must have realised that on
any view and whether under schedules D or E, these emoluments
were not in any sense "gifts". His explanation for
withdrawing the action becomes curiouser and curiouser. The bottom
line, I suppose is that he ran away from the case when he realised,
as did his lawyers, that The Guardian could prove he was
a liar and a cheat. I am amused at his claim that he would be
damaged by Greer's withdrawal: he has forgotten how vigorously
he opposed consolidation of the actions when we obtained this
by court order in 1995. It may be helpful if I state the facts
as we know them: 1. The hearing on our summons for discovery
was listed for Friday 20 September before J. Newman. We sought
disclosure of all payments by IGA to Hamilton, Smith, Grylls and
Bowden up to October 1994, and of Hamilton's tax returns. On Thursday
evening, counsel (Sharp and Robertson) agreed to vacate the hearing
on the plaintiff's undertaking to provide this discovery. It was
obviously relevant material and the IGA records must have been
in the possession of Carter-Rucks for some time. Some of them
were sent to us the next day. 2. On Thursday 26 September
there was a hearing before Bell J. attended by Ferguson and Sharp
for Hamilton, and by Patrick Maloney for Smith who moved the court
into camera to argue that Smith's name should be removed from
the pleadings and not referred to at the trial. In the course
of the argument, it was either specifically stated or envisaged
that a similar application would be made by Grylls and Bowden.
Bell J. adjourned the argument - as to what if any mention could
be made of other MPs who had not waived privilege - to the trial
judge on October 1. 3. The amended defence was not finalised
until the afternoon of Friday 27. It was ready, together with
the three new witness statements, for service shortly after 5
pm. No contact, however, could be made with Stephenson at Carter-Rucks. 4.
At 5.45 pm Ferguson offered to Robertson a settlement on a "walk-away"
basis for both plaintiffs. He said he had been to the Bar Council
because a conflict of interest had arisen. 5. At about 4 pm
on Saturday Robertson saw Ferguson to convey "The Guardian's"
terms. Ferguson confirmed the conflict and said that he was instructed
now only to convey "The Guardian's" terms. 6.
On the evening of the Sunday 28 Robertson had become concerned
at the propriety of the behaviour of Carter-Rucks, as reported
to him by Proudler. He telephoned Sharp, and asked her to confirm
that a genuine conflict had arisen and to explain Carter-Ruck's
position. She telephoned him back to confirm the genuiness of
the conflict, both in relation to counsel and to solicitors. She
further stated that Carter-Ruck had been "expressly approved"
by the Law Society to act as negotiator, notwithstanding his firm's
conflict. 7. It would have been obvious, on the Monday, to
the experienced solicitors - Carter-Ruck, Stephens and Grey -
that acceptance of "The Guardian's" terms meant
it could and would repeat the allegations and treat the withdrawal
as confirmation of its story. They withdrew nevertheless. They
now ascribe their behaviour to the fact that Greer disclosed evidence
of more payments to Grylls than he had mentioned to the Select
Committee in 1990. Quite what this has to do with the issues in
the libel action is not clear. What is clear is that:
(i) Smith, Grylls and Bowden might have
succeeded, on the Tuesday, in removing all mention of themselves
from the pleadings and the trial.
(ii) Greer's evidence to the Select Committee
was given under parliamentary privilege - although not an MP,
it might have been argued that his statements about Grylls, a
matter incidental to the issues in the trial, should not be impugned.
(iii) In any event, cross-examination as
to credit is subject to strict rules, including the rule that
the examiner is bound by the witness's answers. If we had asked
questions impugning Greer's credit on this score, we would have
been bound by the answer he has given to you, namely that it was
entirely an honest mistake on his part because he was told by
his bookkeeper that there were three payments, not six.
(iv) Further, we have this irony: he asserts
that this answer, which he asks you to accept as true, would somehow
have destroyed him if subjected to cross-examination in court
(v) In the litany of lies and half-truths
told by the plaintiffs, this one was no big deal. You will see
how we sized it up in paragraph 31 (iii) (b) of the Greer amended
defence: " . . . he did not refer to the full extent of
payments to Michael Grylls."¾ It is difficult
to see, in any event, how a dent in the credibility of one plaintiff
could create a conflict so fundamental that solicitors, as well
as counsel, had to retire. Hamilton may on Friday morning have
felt betrayed, but this could only have been at Greer's disclosure
of the truth, under his court obligation. Greer had actually been
protecting Hamilton ("B") throughout the Select Committee
hearing, misdescribing the payments and hiding from the Committee
that Hamilton had not disclosed them to the Revenue (see his interview
with Boris Johnson: he clearly knew what Hamilton was up to). Greer
and Hamilton gave different versions of the withdrawal. Greer/Stones
say that on Thursday counsel predicted that Greer would be "torn
to shreds" but that he was determined to fight on and only
agreed to withdraw at the weekend. Hamilton, on the other hand,
claims "Greer had decided to discontinue before I knew the
nature of the problem" and says that his withdrawal would
prejudice him - although the jury would hear nothing about it
and he had, originally, strenuously resisted our application to
consolidate. Gray's statement[30]
refers to the findings of a team of accountants (this report has
never been disclosed to us); it suggests Greer had "failed
to disclose" the Grylls payments (although his records were
obviously discoverable and should have been checked by Carter-Rucks
at an early stage) and identifies the "grave and irreconcilable
conflict" in some angry remarks made by Hamilton about Greer. This
is bizarre - if anyone "betrayed" him it was Carter-Rucks,
and not Greer, who had dissembled at the Select Committee in order
to protect him. The notion that after preparing a case for two
years, the solicitors (who have been paid £400,000?) and
counsel, who have been paid their brief fees (non-returnable?),
should walk out on the eve of the trial because of a "vocal
reaction" by one plaintiff about a development which would
not damage his case and only marginally impact on his co-defendant
is really quite Dickensian. Then we have Hamilton's explanation
for not seeking an adjournment. There is no question but that
he would have obtained it, and the QC's statement that a conflict
had arisen would have been accepted without requiring him to give
details. (But where was the conflict, once Greer had withdrawn?) However,
there was a better reason for an adjournment (or avoiding the
costs consequences of applying for one) because The Guardian
was applying to amend the defence and to serve the new witness
statements. Since it is a feature of defamation law that justification
increases the damage, Hamilton would, had the jury held in his
favour, have expected a six figure award from a jury who disbelieved
our new witnesses. Thus to Gray's factors; 1. True
but neutral. No costs because of "Guardian" last
minute application to amend and serve new witness statements. 2.
Greer's answer on Grylls - the incompetent bookkeeper - would
have been binding therefore little damage. 3. So why not fight? 4.
True, but Crockers are not the only law firm in London. A QC is
not necessary; many barristers would have volunteered to be in
"the libel trial of the century" for little or no fee.
Hamilton, a barrister, could have acted for himself (as Rupert
Allason, MP, a journalist, has done with notable success). 5.
("The impact of Greer's withdrawal . . . would be exploited
to maximum effect"). On the contrary, such evidence would
be totally inadmissible, as any lawyer should know. The jury would
on the judge's direction strictly consider the evidence for and
against Hamilton on the question of whether he was corrupt. No
judge would have allowed counsel for "The Guardian"
to refer to the circumstances of Greer's withdrawal. It may
be that Stones is correct: "people thought this case was
going to sink and people did not want to be associated with it".
It was going to sink under the weight of evidence against the
plaintiffs, not because Greer had once understated the payments
he made to Grylls. I am intrigued by Greer's comment that
Hamilton owed Carter-Rucks £100,000 - this firm is famous
for getting its money "up front". Could it be Carter-Rucks
were conducting this case for Hamilton (but not Greer) on a speculative
contingency basis, which Hamilton as a barrister would have known
to be improper? We can see from his account that he did
not have the money to pay this notoriously expensive firm, and
it would therefore be understandable that they would want to "walk
away" from the case when Hamilton's prospects of success
nose-dived from 90 per cent. It is a matter of some importance
for free speech in this country that newspapers should not be
subjected to gold-digging libel actions brought pursuant to secret
and unlawful contingency arrangements, especially when one party
is an MP. If your investigations of Stephenson, Carter-Ruck
and the Law Society show this to be the case, I would wish to
add it as a further ground of complaint against Hamilton, namely
that he was party to what he must have known was an unlawful contingency
arrangement. I should add that we did have some reason
to suspect that this was the case, and asked Carter-Rucks whether
the action was being maintained (correspondence can be provided).
They must have shown this to their client, which would make his
complicity in such an arrangement the more censurable.My short
comments on the hearings are as follows:Hamilton I note
that he continually disputes the authenticity of the message book
(Q 1936 and 1954-58). The plaintiffs had this information for
six weeks before they withdrew, and at no stage made any request
to see, let alone scientifically test, the original. Hamilton
appears to rely heavily now on his fellow-feeling for Fayed as
a victim of libel (Q 1961 and 1970). This does not bear analysis:
everything about their cases was different; the fight against
the BBC was not a "similar experience", the "hurt
and indignity" Al-Fayed felt about the inquiries into his
father's background bear no comparison with an examination into
whether Hamilton gave a Hitler salute in Berlin and so on. One
simply cannot buy this, any more than his belief in "The
Tebbit doctrine", as a motive for "taking up a cause"
as if he had been paid to take it up. At Q 2012 you refer
to sending our submission to Hamilton: presumably you will let
us see his reply? At Q 2022 you refer to the "courier"
message on 28 September 1988. Hamilton and Fayed had met on 14
September, and we could find no evidence that any document of
a kind which Hamilton might have needed to see had been produced
over the next fortnight. At Q 2064 Mr Pleming notes that the
Ritz visit "had been dealt with already by the committee".
I regard it as very important that you should in no way feel bound
by the committee's findings - indeed, that you should ignore those
findings. It remains our strong belief that committee was manipulated
by the Tory whips (see the Willets proceedings. See the Mitchell
proceedings, in particular paragraph 13, page vii and the evidence
of Terry Lewis MP and Angela Eagle MP, pages xi-xiv). We believe
that its dealings with Hamilton must be regarded as discredited,
indeed as null and void as the decision of any tribunal which
has been quashed because of bias. Conduct which that committee
found to be imprudent we urge you to find, on fresh and further
evidence, to be corrupt. One piece of fresh evidence which
is truly damning is that it transpires the Hamiltons stayed for
several days at guest apartments in the Ritz in mid-1990, as a
favour cadged from Fayed by Hamilton. I find it totally incredible
that he had forgotten about this over the past two and a half
years, when his every freebie was so critical to the case. It
is not the sort of favour you forget. He has deliberately and
dishonestly withheld this evidence. It showed that he had done
enough for Fayed to demand what he knew would be an expensive
favour; it showed he accepted it without registering it; it showed
that he knew very well the difference between the hotel itself
and Fayed's private apartments (which he tends to conflate in
all his explanations, from 1993 onwards and even at Q 2080 and
2114). Moreover this stay occurred after the content of
the DTI report became public knowledge. Mr Hamilton relies heavily
on that now to discredit Mr Al-Fayed as a liar. But in 1990 -
in full knowledge of that damning verdict - he was happy to overlook
it in order to cadge further hospitality off him. Q 2134.
I note that Greer in his Boris Johnson interview last Saturday
asserts that one of Hamilton's problems was that he did not declare
this money for tax. How could Greer be certain of this, unless
it had been discussed at the time as one of the reasons why Hamilton
would be prudent to withdraw? At Q 2190, the "consciousness
of guilt" evidence - that both Hamilton and Brown went to
the Revenue to confess in October just after the withdrawal -
adds force to this. Q 2152. This is an example of cheating
the Revenue which should be added to our complaint, item
8: not only did he fail to disclose payments, but he dishonestly
claimed deductions for expenses which had been met by Greer as
part of those payments! Incidentally, the Guardian
memoranda Hamilton refers to at the end of section one of his
analysis of Al-Fayed's evidence were not held back on discovery,
as Hamilton alleges. They were, to the contrary, precisely the
electronic file notes he attempted to make capital out of just
minutes before our oral appearance before the inquiry.
Greer While
certainly a tarnished source who is still lying in some respects,
Greer has some moments of frankness. Given his coy way of speaking,
his comment at Q 1392 that "Andrew and I got to know each
other perhaps a little better. He had done one or two things with
clients and one or two things to help me" may well translate
as "Bowden was promised the £5,300 as a reward for helping
me with Fayed" (and see Q 1438: Bowden was only assisting
with Fayed). I note that he confirms that he envisaged Bowden
becoming a paid consultant, and contradicts Bowden on the "no
lawyers" explanation (nothing to do with Land) and on the
"sacking" (see Q 1395, 1443). Fayed did not appear to
have taken to Bowden, because (as Fayed says) he was too greedy,
and Greer had raised in him too many greedy expectations. These
two close friends - Greer and Bowden - fell out so badly they
did not speak to each other for years (Q 1444). This is a falling
out of thieves, not friends. Q 1463. I have made the point
about Greer's knowledge of the Rowland accusatory letter, and
his discussion with Smith. Q 1544. I should be interested
in seeing any "short note" which explains how £13,333
can be a fee for the supply for a few days of press clippings. Q
1557. Interesting that both Greer and Hamilton make the same response,
a slur on "The Guardian", and not the obvious
honest response, which is to explain why they did not request
that the originals be ESDA-tested. Q 1579. This may be the
real "Grylls factor" in the withdrawal, known only to
Greer, Hamilton and Stephenson. Q 1645. This answer, we are
later told, is so patently dishonest that the whole case had to
be withdrawn. 1671 makes the point: no sensible answer is given. Q
1653. A loss leader? What is it leading to? Q 1681. When it
suits him Greer is happy to lay blame on the "total incompetence"
of his book-keepers. At other times (Q 1715, for instance) this
excuse is not needed, so he flips the coin: "again, it demonstrates
the way that we behaved in our bookkeeping ._._. behaving in a
professional manner." He wants it both ways. Q 1715.
My information is that Greer was touting his book to publishers
with a very different version of the Olga Maitland story, and
promising revelations to her discredit. He does not explain the
Hay invoice, or why in his cash-strapped company he should be
so absurdly generous to someone who had passed on a message for
him in Kuwait. Q 1717. Hamilton was advised not to answer
the letter. He should have done so openly, or not at all. Instead,
he answers through a trusted intermediary: "I can appreciate
your remarks".
Brown The answer at Q 2321 is important:
he asked Greer (the expert) whether he had to declare these payments
and was told "I did not have to". That was surely the
point, understood by Hamilton as well: the object of the exercise
was to cheat both the Revenue and the Registrar. Brown knew it
was a payment for services rendered, and hence declarable.
Malone
(written evidence) "As far as I was concerned that
was the end of the matter" says Malone of the meeting on
11 November and his report back. We known from Greer's correspondence
to Fayed it was not: Malone acts as a conduit, passing on the
minister's remarks (which the ministers did not think right to
commit to paper) and helpfully suggesting ways by which "The
Observer" might be attacked so as to bring the question
back into the minister's purview. He was more helpful to
Fayed than he admits, or than his position required, and he received
a substantial donation to his next election campaign which he
accepted knowing the source - Greer at least - whence it came.
He says he could not declare it because he was not elected, but
I am sure, like Bowden and Maitland, he would not have declared
it if he had been elected! What is emerging, surely, is a
serious loophole in the transparency arrangements for MPs, whereby
election "subsidies", paid as rewards for past help
and inducements for possible future help, never see the light
of day. I consider that, as an MP, Malone was wrong to accept
a donation from a lobbyist full stop, whether he was elected or
not. The problem inherent in his conduct can perhaps only be addressed
by legislation requiring all donations, whether to an MP's election
expenses or to his constituency at any time, to be publicly declared
and recorded.
Bowden The picture which is emerging is
that he did accept £5,000 at the first meeting, in return
for asking the aggressive questions, and that (egged on by Greer)
he did try to supplant Hordern (for twice his fee) and was "sacked"
because of his greed. It is plain that the "donation"
to his fighting fund was related to his work for Fayed and Greer. I
note that Smith's first payment was also in cash, of £5,000,
and in early 1987. I have made the point that our lawyers consider
Bowden to have been in breach of the election expense provisions
of the RPA, and his answer at Q 1204 shows that he is in breach
of them already in relation to the election which is now "imminent"
(thereby attracting the legal duty to work within the expense
limits). Even if he did not know the money came from Fayed, he
had a duty, when it came to him (in fact, after the election)
to register his relationship with IGA. I am amused by Bowden
at Q 1209. He claims he had no knowledge of the "donation"
coming from Fayed money and thought only that it came from Greer.
Yet the Magowan letter about spending it he long ago filed away
"in a large pile of papers I have in relation to Al-Fayed",
not in relation to Greer! [Emphasis added] Q 1220.
I do not believe he ever gave "lectures", and here he
virtually admits it. He was being paid for helping Greer with
clients, and was not disclosing the fact. Q 1248. Greer gives
a different explanation. The true one is that "no lawyers"
means "no credit-worthy witnesses to the receipt of a bribe". Q
1272. Bowden withholds information of relevance about Land. Later
he falsely states he had no knowledge of Land's payments (Q 1280)
and does not volunteer the admission he made to the "Sunday
Times" that Fayed offered him cash.
Grylls This
MP gives few satisfactory explanations for the many payments he
is shown to receive from Greer, and none for the £5,000 quarterly
payments. His letter to the Registrar on 14 June 1990 contained
deliberate lies concocted with Greer. He supports the "bookkeeper"
story, the tenuousness of which Hamilton and Greer now say was
the reason the libel action was stopped. Did they ask Grylls whether
he would go into the witness box, if necessary, to stand it up
as at Q 2358? Q 2362. Mister ten-percent has no concept of
the position of trust an MP is in when he gives advice. Q
2385. The question, in fact, answers itself. It is astonishing
- an appalling comment on Parliament's self-regulation, circa
1990 - that Grylls even thought he would get away with it. I would
urge you to take the same approach to the 1990 report on Grylls
as to the 1995 report on Hamilton. Q 2436. It is plain that
the £10,000 was ascribed to UTC to launder the fact that
it was a general Greer retainer to Grylls. I have to say that
Grylls is both the most experienced and the most cunning of these
corrupt MPs, and it shows in his arrangements. It could be altogether
in keeping with his modus operandi that he should require
Greer to be his "bagman" (or "envelope man")
rather than taking the risk, like Smith and Hamilton, of collecting
the cash himself. Q 2478. Grylls admits the central role
of the Trade and Industry Committee and its office bearers, which
is a key fact in this conspiracy. His answer at Q 2609 - which
is true enough - showed just how dishonest the conspirators were
when they met ministers to pretend that they were there on behalf
of the Committee, representing a backbench opinion solidly behind
Fayed. I make the final point that Grylls is a wealthy man
who has not sued "The Guardian" or the publishers
of "Sleaze". That is because our allegations against
him are true.
Smith Q 1038. I do not think corruption
of a hitherto highly regarded accountant and MP happens quite
like this, or quite as late as this. Smith is understandably
anxious to avoid any suggestion of being bribed for the adjournment
debate, but he has no relevant records. He is in all probability
bribed (or expects payment for) his flurry of activity in March
1987: he is calling Fayed direct at this time. Fayed does not
just pull £5,000 out of a suitcase and surprise Smith by
giving it to him. There is an expectation on Smith's part, a request
or certainly a heavy hint - the man is one of his party's leading
fund-raisers and he knows how to indicate to businessmen what
is expected of them. The fact that he came back for more, and
more, and more, proves the point. The fact that he was given
the money in cash, at private meetings in this period or by courier,
supports the case against Hamilton. It is clear now that Smith
kept no records at all, just stashed the cash in banks or building
societies or spent it. His estimate of £18,000 is probably
an underestimate. He has no tax papers recording it and I seriously
doubt whether he did in fact declare it in the global figure he
declared for tax purposes. Why should he be honest, having acted
dishonestly and corruptly in making the money? This makes his
resignation letter to the PM - on which the PM remarked - false
in one material particular. It is also false in another: he gave
the impression that the payments were belatedly registered. It
is now clear that they were not, in any proper or permanent form.
All his evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that these "fees"
were received as bribes. Q 1130 is very important. Here he
repeats his statement that he disclosed what had been going on
to the Government's chief whip (although he is not asked to identify
him or indicate the time when disclosures were made). "The
Guardian" wishes to make a complaint against the chief
whip, on the grounds that he failed to notify the authorities,
either parliamentary or police, after receiving an MP's confession
to serious criminal conduct which he had reason to suspect might
be ongoing with other MPs. The chief whip at the time was either
David Waddington or Timothy Renton, but Mr Smith should be asked
to confirm this.Lady Olga Maitland (written evidence) I
am wholly unsatisfied with Lady Olga's answers and believe our
complaint should be pursued. She was paid, during her election
campaign £3,000, by Greer. What did she do to earn this?
Both Greer and Maitland are silent on her work. Intervened? Passed
a message? - hardly work worth £3,000. Why does Greer
make her two payments for the same "work"? Greer's gratitude
might have been expressed with flowers. He was buying her influence
as a soon-to-be-elected MP, and he called it the debt, inter
alia, in respect of the Royal Marsden. It was quite wrong
of her to move the adjournment debate without disclosing her interest
in the hospital's lobbyist. She does not address the very important
evidence of Greer's post-election payments to her husband Robin
Hay, at the time she was campaigning for the Royal Marsden. As
I understand that Mr Hay is a Recorder, his involvement in what
one must suspect to be a payment to his wife may have a serious
dimension.
Alan Rusbridger
March 7 1997
30 Q 1872. Back
| 
