|
CHAPTER ONE: MOHAMED FAYED'S ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST ME
1. Mohamed Fayed alleges that, in return for
performing various Parliamentary services for him, I corruptly
sought and accepted from him and from Ian Greer on his behalf
large sums of money and various benefits in kind.
2. These
allegations are lies.
His allegations are that:
(a) at Ian Greer's suggestion, Fayed
paid him tens of thousands of pounds expressly to pay me for putting
down Parliamentary Questions at £2,000 a time;
(b) in face to face meetings with Fayed
I demanded and he paid me, in consideration for these same Parliamentary
services, a total of £20,000 in cash and £8,000 in Harrods
gift vouchers;
(c) that I sought and Fayed paid me,
again in consideration for the same Parliamentary services, unspecified
sums of cash amounting to many thousands of pounds which were
left in brown envelopes for my collection at and collected by
me from his offices at 60 Park Lane or which were delivered to
me at unspecified addresses on his orders;
(d) that, in consideration of these same
Parliamentary services, I sought and he provided to me various
benefits in kind viz. 6 days hospitality at the Paris Ritz Hotel
in September 1987, two days hospitality at Balnagown Castle in
Scotland in 1989, Christmas hampers in 1988 and 1989 each allegedly
worth £185 and various other unspecified gifts.
(e) that I deliberately omitted, in breach
of the rules of the House, to declare or register any of these
payments or gifts allegedly received by me from him.
3. I
emphatically deny seeking or receiving directly from Fayed or
from Greer on Fayed's behalf any sums of cash or Harrods gift
vouchers. 4. I do not deny receiving Fayed's hospitality but
I emphatically deny that such hospitality was either sought by
me or that it was accepted as a quid pro quo for providing Parliamentary
services for Fayed or Greer. Fayed's allegations are lies.
FAYED THE INVENTOR OF THE "CASH FOR QUESTIONS"
HOAX - THE GUARDIAN HIS ENTHUSIASTIC ACCOMPLICE
5. The "cash for Questions" controversy
is a Fayed invention. Although we now know that Fayed paid Tim
Smith MP for help and advice it is not true that his payments
were related to specific Parliamentary activity, which was the
essence of "cash for Questions" and which made it such
a sensation. If Smith had registered his interest it appears that
he would not have broken any rules. 6. The Guardian adopted
and printed Fayed's allegations in October 1994 relying solely
on his uncorroborated word. There was no cogent documentary evidence
or any other witness evidence to support them. 7. Fayed has
succeeded spectacularly in disseminating his lies because The
Guardian enthusiastically and very professionally
orchestrated and broadcast them. As a result they were given sensational
front-page billing across the world. 8. The mere fact of such
high-profile repetition has subsequently lent them a spurious
credibility, despite Fayed's well-known and justified reputation
for dishonesty and ruthlessness.
FAYED AND GUARDIAN BAD FAITH REVEALED - PREJUDICIAL
PUBLICITY SURROUNDING CHANNEL 4 "DISPATCHES" PROGRAMME
AND THE GUARDIAN'S BOOK "SLEAZE"
9. Alan Rusbridger, the current editor of The
Guardian, announced on Newsnight in October 1996 that the
paper was conducting a "campaign" against me. 10.
This campaign started with the reckless endorsement by the then
editor, Peter Preston, of Fayed's lies in 1994. His successor,
Alan Rusbridger, has continued it with manic ferocity. 11.
In October 1996 The Guardian not only repeated the original
libels. It also printed for the first time Fayed's false allegations
that he gave me large sums of cash in face-to-face meetings and
that he arranged for large sums of cash to be collected by me
or delivered to me in plain brown envelopes. 12. The Guardian
and Fayed refused to cooperate with the Inquiry during October
and November and neither party has, to this day, made specific
allegations to you. It has been left to you to extract them from
The Guardian's draft amended Defence in the libel action,
which was produced in September 1996. 13. After several entreaties
to you to issue an ultimatum to them to produce evidence to justify
Fayed's lies, I again spoke to you at 5 p.m. on 28 November 1996.
You confirmed that you had still received nothing. In this conversation
I agreed to give you the master set of documents from the libel
action - not only my own but also The Guardian's. 14.
It is now clear why The Guardian and Fayed refused to cooperate
with you during these two months. When you began your Inquiry
you stated informally that you hoped to complete the taking of
evidence by the rising of the House for Christmas and to report
when the House resumed in January 1997. 15. On 16 January
1997 Channel 4 broadcast a "Dispatches" programme devoted
almost entirely to presenting The Guardian's allegations
against me in a nakedly partisan manner. A flavour of the programme
is given in the Channel 4 Press Release to be found in Appendix
1. The production company, Fulcrum Productions, manufactured the
programme with the active participation of The Guardian
and Fayed. 16. The broadcast was timed deliberately to coincide
with the publication of a book entitled "Sleaze" by
David Leigh, (a contributing editor of The Guardian's sister
paper, The Observer) and Ed Vulliamy, a senior foreign
correspondent of The Guardian. 17. The publisher is
Fourth Estate Ltd., which is 50 per cent. owned by The Guardian.
14 per cent. of Fourth Estate's shares are owned by Andrew Gifford
of GJW, one of IGA's competitors. Gifford appeared on the "Dispatches"
programme to make disparaging references to IGA but no mention
was made of his being a business partner of The Guardian
or his direct financial interest in the sales of the book. 18.
The book is a risibly unbalanced account from The Guardian's
standpoint of Fayed's allegations against Ian Greer and me, as
the Fourth Estate press release makes clear (see Appendix 1). 19.
Furthermore, the content and publicity surrounding the broadcast
and publication leave no doubt that the aim of The Guardian
and Fayed has been to poison the public mind against me, especially
in my constituency, and to render as ineffective as possible any
possible exoneration. 20. The publisher arranged for copies
of the book to be delivered in advance of publication to the local
newspapers in my constituency. Five weekly newspapers circulate
in the Tatton constituency. The Wilmslow Express Advertiser
Knutsford Express Advertiser are owned by The Guardian.
The Northwich Guardian and the Knutsford Guardian
have no connection with The Guardian, nor has the Northwich
Chronicle. 21. The Northwich and Knutsford Guardians
carried a report of a speech by me at a public meeting where I
referred to connections between The Guardian, Fulcrum Productions,
Fourth Estate Ltd and the delay caused to the Inquiry. The Northwich
Chronicle gave a notice of the book in an article of about
one third of a page deep inside the newspaper. 22. The
Express Advertiser covered the front page and two inside pages
with lurid extracts from the book, with no balancing comment whatever
apart from a bald denial of allegations by me. This full tabloid
treatment was exacerbated in the smaller Knutsford edition by
devoting a full three out of six news pages to the story. A week
later the Express Advertiser printed another four pages
of extracts, despite the Speaker's Statement on 28 January in
which she warned the media "not to repeat or pursue allegations
in a way that prejudges their validity pending the outcome of
investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner."¾ 23.
I drew to the Inquiry's attention long before Christmas The
Guardian's plans for a TV programme and a book. I invited
the Parliamentary Commissioner to intercede with Channel 4 to
persuade them to postpone the broadcast until after the Inquiry
had reported. Unfortunately, the Standard and Privileges Committee
did not feel able to accede to my request. 24. If the Inquiry
had reported in early January as was originally envisaged and
I had been exonerated on Fayed's allegations, The Guardian's
and Fayed's plans to secure a further bout of damaging publicity
for me through the TV programme, book and associated newspaper
coverage would have been stymied. 25. The Guardian
and Fayed deliberately refused to co-operate with the Inquiry
and failed to provide any allegations or evidence until the beginning
of December in order to facilitate the programme and the book.
The actions of the Guardian and Fayed display a contempt
for the Inquiry and the House. Their lack of good faith and their
deliberately prejudicial actions are, however, entirely consistent
with their behaviour throughout this whole saga.
FAYED THE SOLE SOURCE OF THE CASH FOR QUESTIONS HOAX
26. Fayed was the sole source of the "cash
for Questions" allegations against me until he produced three
long serving employees as witnesses out of thin air on 27 September
1996 - over three years after he first approached Peter Preston,
the editor of The Guardian. 27. Fayed contrived his
allegations for the most part so that they could be neither supported
nor undermined by documentary or corroborative witness evidence.
In order to rebut them conclusively I have to prove a negative
- that I never received from him payments in untraceable cash
and gift vouchers. This is inherently impossible to do - how could
I prove, for example, that I have not simply retained the money
in cash? 28. The Inquiry has to answer a simple question -
who is lying? Fayed or Hamilton? 29. Peter Preston and David
Hencke can reveal only what Fayed had told them. They swallowed
his lies and then uncritically regurgitated them - as proved by
the Discovery documents. 30. I have, so far as possible, produced
witness and documentary evidence to controvert Fayed's allegations.
But the disputes of fact are largely his word against mine. We
cannot both be right so the Inquiry has to decide whom to believe. In
arriving at a view on this question there is no avoiding a consideration
of Fayed's history as a liar and his previous many acts of bad
faith.
FAYED AN INVETERATE LIAR
31. Fayed, as I now know from personal experience,
is an inveterate liar, unscrupulous, malicious and bears a multitude
of grudges. 32. His credibility is directly in issue as he
is the sole "witness" to most of the alleged events
- for the simple reason that he fabricated them. Similar fact
evidence of his previous deceit and dishonesty must, therefore,
be directly relevant to your Inquiry. 33. Such evidence will
include:
(a) the DTI Inspectors' Report of 1990 showing
that he lied extensively in his oral and written evidence and
in documents which he had solemnly affirmed. [See Appendix 2].
(b) the case of Christoph Betterman, former
Deputy Chairman of Harrods, against whom Fayed invented and pursued
allegations of fraud and embezzlement in the period 1991-94. [See
Appendix 3]. As a direct result of false information laid
by Fayed before the prosecuting authorities in Dubai Bettermann
was tried on criminal charges of fraud, of which he was subsequently
acquitted. Fayed was later obliged to admit that his allegation
were invented.
(c) the evidence of Professor Barry Rider,
now Dean of Jesus College Cambridge and Director of the Institute
of Advanced Legal Studies, who was also the victim of Fayed's
false allegations of fraud and other criminal activity in 1989-90.
[See Appendix 4]. Fayed invented these lies in order to try
to undermine Professor Rider in his capacity as Special Adviser
to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in their 1989-90
Inquiry on Company Investigations. The Committee examined the
DTI's handling of the House of Fraser Inquiry and criticised the
Secretary of State for failing to seek to disqualify Fayed as
a company director on account of the lies which he told the Inspectors.
(d) documentary evidence volunteered by
Mr Tiny Rowland of the offer by Fayed of a bribe of $2 million
to Mr Adnan Khashoggi in an abortive attempt to persuade him to
sign an affidavit falsely claiming that he (Khashoggi) had lied
in the evidence he gave about Fayed to the DTI Inspectors. [See
Appendix 5].
FAYED'S BASE MOTIVES
34. Evidence of Fayed's base motives is also
directly relevant. The Inquiry will need to understand why he
has fabricated his allegations against me. He bore grudges against
me both personally and as a Government Minister. In particular:
(i) I was a member of the Government against
which he bore significant grudges; and
(ii) the Minister most responsible in policy
terms for dealing with his problems;
(iii) he was disappointed that I would not
abuse my position to assist him;
(iv) he considered that I slighted him in
not responding to his letter of congratulation to me on my appointment
as Corporate Affairs Minister. 35. I have adduced evidence
to prove that Fayed has made public his allegations against me
not, as he has falsely asserted, "out of public duty"
but directly as a result of:
(a) his continuing anger at the criticism
of the DTI Inspectors and his inability to influence the Government
to rescind it or to commission a new Inquiry to substitute more
favourable conclusions regarding his conduct.
(b) his anger at the delay in dealing with
his and his brother's applications for naturalisation, and their
eventual rejection.
(c) his anger at my failure to misuse my
position as Corporate Affairs Minister in the DTI to counteract
the criticism of the DTI Inspectors and to assist him in his litigation
against the DTI in the European Court of Human Rights.
(d) his anger at a perceived slight by me
in not responding to his letter of congratulation to me on my
appointment as Corporate Affairs Minister.
FAYED'S MALICIOUS AND VENGEFUL CHARACTER
36. Lastly, you will need to consider his malicious
and vengeful character. 37. Malice and thirst for revenge,
when combined with his natural dishonesty, have motivated Fayed
to invent a series of colossal untruths about me and others. 38.
Fayed could not have succeeded so spectacularly in his vendetta
without the boost to his much-dented credibility given by the
wholesale and uncritical adoption of his allegations by The
Guardian. The Big Lie was Fayed's; the means of its dissemination
was the Guardian. 39. It is difficult for a normal
person to believe that anyone would produce and broadcast so widely
allegations as sensational as those which Fayed has made against
me unless they were true. There is a strong temptation to believe
that there is no smoke without fire. But Fayed has instinctively
adopted the well-known Nazi propaganda technique - the bigger
the lie and the more widespread its dissemination the more easily
will normal people believe it. 40. Hitler explained the
psychology of this with compelling clarity in "Mein Kampf":
" . . . in the big lie there is always
a certain force of credibility; the broad masses of a nation .
. . more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie,
since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters,
but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate
colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could
have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously . . . The
grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after
it has been nailed down."¾
(see Alan Bullock: "Hitler - a Study in
Tyranny" page 70). 41. My description of Fayed's character
and conduct might appear superficially fantastic but I am not
his first victim. It is not necessary to peer into the crystal.
One can read the book.
CHRISTOPH BETTERMANN - A SUITABLE CASE FOR THE FAYED
TREATMENT
42. Fayed's malicious and vengeful character
is well illustrated by his treatment of Christoph Bettermann,
former Deputy Chairman of Harrods. 43. Between 1991 and 1994
Fayed subjected Bettermann to the same kind of outrageous treatment
as me. His case proved that, when Fayed has decided to destroy
someone for reasons of revenge, he will act ruthlessly and without
scruple. 44. He believed that Bettermann had crossed him.
So he invented a pack of lies against him and relentlessly pursued
him in a merciless attempt to destroy his character and career. 45.
In a carbon copy of my own experience Fayed fabricated allegations
of criminal corruption which were completely unfounded. He then
single-mindedly pursued them, using his vast wealth and position
to secure the arrest, detention and prosecution of Bettermann
in Dubai on trumped-up fraud charges of which he was wholly innocent. 46.
The only evidence against him was that of Fayed and his employees.
Bettermann was acquitted after a full trial on all counts. 47.
Bettermann subsequently sued Fayed for libel but, far from apologising,
Fayed repeated the allegations and used every device to prevent
him from securing justice. 48. Ultimately, however, Fayed
was forced to admit that he:
"had published the allegations knowing
them to be completely untrue and having fabricated them as part
of a wicked scheme to exact a cruel revenge on (Bettermann) for
his resignation from the Al-Fayed group". (See Bettermann's
Statement of Claim). 49. Fayed agreed to pay Bettermann a
six-figure sum in damages and his total bill including costs was
thought to have approached £1 million. 50. Brief details
of the Bettermann case are provided in Appendix 3. Mr Bettermann
is willing to give further evidence to the Inquiry and to make
available to the Inquiry any papers which are relevant.
| 
