Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report


APPENDIX 33 - Continued

CHAPTER 2: FAYED'S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME AND IAN GREER

(A) Fayed's first set of allegations

The Guardian 20 October 1994 - cash for questions

  51. Fayed's precise allegations, which gave rise to the article of 20 October 1994, are listed in page 19 of Hencke's witness statement. They have been positively disproved by documents disclosed on Discovery by Ian Greer.

  "At the meeting with Mohamed Al-Fayed I was told the following:

  (i)  [that MPs could be "rented like taxis"]

  (ii)  The sum of £50,000 was paid by House of Fraser to IGA as a fee.

  (iii)  Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith were paid by Mohamed Al-Fayed sums of cash in return for them asking questions about the House of Fraser/Lonrho dispute in the House of Commons. Mohamed Al-Fayed said further that the payments worked out at £2,000 for each question. I said to him that I understood that the two MPs had asked 17 questions in the House relating to House of Fraser/Lonrho and accordingly, I assumed that a total of £34,000 had been paid over. Mohamed Al-Fayed indicated that this was probably right.

    In addition Mohamed Al-Fayed mentioned the figures of £8,000 and £10,000 which he said were paid monthly to IGA. From what Peter Preston had previously told me, although Mohamed Al-Fayed did not expressly refer to this fact, I understood that the payments were made to Smith and Hamilton via Ian Greer." (Hencke witness statement paragraph 19).

  52. Even on its face this is inconsistent nonsense and it can be positively disproved by resort to Greer's documents. (B) Fayed's second set of allegationsThe Guardian defence 14 December 1994 - the three cheques

  53. Eight weeks later, in The Guardian's Defence of 14 December 1994, Fayed made two additional claims:

  (a)  "On the 18th May 1987 (he) gave to Greer cheques totalling £18,000 for the purpose of placing IGA in funds to make payments to (Hamilton) and Mr Tim Smith MP for their work on Al-Fayed's behalf, inter alia in tabling parliamentary questions and motions. IGA paid over part of the said sum to (Hamilton)." [Paragraph 5(7)].

  In paragraph 7 of his witness statement of 23 June 1995 Fayed is even more emphatic:

  "I made special payments at two other times (apart from the regular fees paid) to Ian Greer for payment to Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. The first of these was in May 1987 when I gave Ian Greer two cheques of £12,000 and £6,000 to enable him to pay Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith for their parliamentary work.

  I was specifically asked by Ian Greer for this money to pay Messrs Hamilton and Smith and I paid it to him for that reason. These two cheques were not paid to Ian Greer to pay Conservative candidates in the 1987 General Election as the Plaintiffs allege. Indeed I had already made substantial donations to the Conservative Party at about this time totalling £250,000 through Lord MacAlpine and would not have paid any further sums to Ian Greer for this purpose."

  In fact the two cheques WERE solicited for the 1987 General Election Fighting Funds of 26 candidates - 21 Conservatives, two Labour and three Liberals. The returned cheques survive and the accounts of the receipt and disbursement of this money are produced at Appendix 6. It is also clear from Greer's letter to Al-Fayed soliciting the £6,000 that this is so.

  (b)  "On the 1st February 1990 IGA rendered to House of Fraser a special invoice (over and above its monthly retainer of £500) for £13,333 plus VAT, specifically to cover disbursements to Members of Parliament including (Hamilton)." [Guardian Defence Paragraph 5(25)].

  54. All these allegations are completely false. Those relating to the cheques for £12,000 and £6,000 are rebutted not only by accounting evidence provided by Ian Greer but also by an admission on national TV by none other than Michael Cole, Fayed's own spokesman.

MICHAEL COLE CONTRADICTS FAYED'S ACCOUNT

  55. Michael Cole, acting as official spokesman for Fayed, gave an interview for News At Ten, broadcast on 2 October 1996 - the day following the settlement of the libel action.

  The following extract from the programme was transcribed by Tellex Monitors Ltd:

  Trevor McDonald:

    "The row over parliamentary sleaze spread beyond the former Trade Minister Neil Hamilton today to embroil more than 20 other MPs. They were all given money for their election campaigns by the lobbyist Ian Greer. He insisted today there were no strings attached but in an astonishing intervention the Harrods boss Mohamed Al-Fayed said he gave money to Mr Greer after Mr Greer told him`you could hire MPs like taxis'."

  Michael Cole (Spokesman for Mr Al-Fayed):

    "Mr Greer approached Mr Al-Fayed and said he needed money for some of the MPs who were going to be fighting the 1986-87 General Election. Mr Al-Fayed agreed to give him money, he gave him two cheques, one for £12,000, one for £6,000 drawn on his personal account."

  56. In contrast, Fayed said in his witness statement on 23 June 1995:

    "These two cheques were not paid to Ian Greer to pay to Conservative candidates in the 1987 General Election."

  Fayed lied.

  Yet in paragraph 13 of the same statement he said:

    "I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief."

  That also was a lie.

THREE BASIC FALSEHOODS

  57. (1) There was no £50,000 "fee" to IGA as Fayed falsely alleged.

  The regular payments made by HOF to IGA are fully invoiced and recorded on both sides.

  HOF paid IGA a retainer of £25,000 per annum from 31 October 1985 to 28 November 1989, not £8,000 and £10,000 per month, as Fayed falsely alleged.

  This was subsequently reduced, as Fayed admits in (b) above, to £6,000 per annum from 29 November 1989 to 31 August 1994, when the contract was terminated.

  58. (2) The three cheques

  (i)  1987 General Election Fighting Funds and the cheques for £12,000 and £6,000.

    The cancelled cheques from Ian Greer and Greer's accounts demonstrate that Fayed's personal cheques for £12,000 and £6,000 were paid expressly as contributions to 26 candidates' fighting funds in the 1987 General Election - 21 Conservatives, 3 Liberals and 2 Labour.

    No part of this money was paid to or me or Smith. The detailed account is appended to this Submission as Appendix 5.

  (ii)  The cheque for £13,333.

    On 1 February 1990 HOF paid IGA an extra cheque for £13,333 plus VAT. This followed from an agreement with Royston Webb on 1 December 1989 that the retainer be reduced to £6,000 but that, if the DTI Report were published, a special fee would be negotiated to reflect the extra work anticipated on account of the expected criticisms of the Fayeds.

    Two months later, when it became clear that publication was imminent, Greer agreed a special project fee with Webb of £13,333 plus VAT to cover the extra work involved in dealing with it. The sum was invoiced and accounted for in the usual way by IGA and paid in the usual way by HOF.

ROYSTON WEBB CONFIRMS NO IMPROPER PAYMENTS TO GREER

  59. Greer met Royston Webb, HoF's legal director, at noon on 7 October 1994 to talk about the meeting Greer had had with an emotional Fayed on 22 September.

   Greer asked Webb what evidence Fayed had of corruption within Government. Webb replied: "None that I have seen."

   On 20 October Greer spoke on the telephone from London to Webb in Dubai. Neither in the meeting nor the telephone calls was there any suggestion whatever that the above mentioned payments from HOF to IGA had been passed on to MPs as Fayed had alleged to The Guardian.

  When Greer told Webb of Fayed's allegations his replies were as follows:

  Webb:  "My only knowledge was of the fixed fee arrangement which was an annual fee agreed and paid monthly. I don't know of any variable . . . Apart from odd expenses here and there."

  Greer:  " . . . he's completely dotty, he said that the invoices used to vary on a monthly basis, or quarterly basis, dependent upon how many Questions had been asked, which of course is wholly untrue."

  Webb:  "I have no knowledge of that whatsoever."

  This conversation took place before Fayed made his allegations about the cheque for £13,333. The invoice was sent to Webb on 1 February and, in addition, bore VAT of £1,999.95. It is doubtful that VAT would normally be charged on corrupt cash payments!

60. (3) THE ALLEGATION OF £2,000 PER QUESTION FOR 17 QUESTIONS

Fayed's arithmetic doesn't add up

  (a)  This allegation is self-evidently absurd and can be disproved simply by tabulating the questions Smith and I asked.

    The Guardian records that I asked 9 written PQs and 1 oral supplementary PQ (which actually had nothing to do with the Fayeds at all; it was related to Observer journalist, David Leigh and his book on the Westland affair).

    I tabled 3 EDMs and signed 5 EDMs tabled by others. By contrast Smith asked 26 written PQs, 1 oral PQ, initiated an adjournment debate, tabled 1 EDM and signed an unknown number of other EDMs.

    Fayed evidently had no idea how many PQs had been asked by Smith and myself and he simply took at face value Hencke's (wildly incorrect) assertion that between us we had asked 17. Hence, 17 x £2,000 = £34,000.

  (b)  Secondly, Fayed claimed that IGA's fees varied from £8,000 to £10,000 per month. Hencke never asked to see the evidence and simply took Fayed's false statement at face value. The documents from HoF disprove it.

  61. Paragraph 19(iii) of Hencke's witness statement has obviously been cobbled together in an attempt to explain how The Guardian article of 20 October 1994 came to be written despite a complete lack of corroboration from witnesses or documents.

  Hencke relies on scrappy but purportedly contemporaneous notes of his only interview with Fayed prior to publication - which lasted a mere 10-12 minutes on 18 October 1994.

  The article differs substantially from the notes upon which it purports to be based.

  (i)  The article does not mention the figure of £34,000 for 17 PQs.

  (ii)  The article does, however, state that alleged payments to IGA of £8,000 to £10,000 per month varied according to how many PQs were asked. Surprisingly, Hencke's note does not explicitly mention this claim.

  (iii)  Nor did Fayed tell Hencke that Greer transmitted the cash to MPs; Hencke relied on Preston (who had kept no notes) for that vital allegation.

  62. Had Fayed made it prior to publication, there would surely be some mention in the 20 October article of his extraordinary allegation that £20,000 was paid in cash to me in face-to-face meetings.

  If he did make such an allegation why was it not noted by Preston or Hencke and why was it not printed as part of the article?

  There can be only two rational explanations: either Fayed did not invent this allegation until after 20 October or Preston and Hencke thought that Fayed was not telling them the truth.

  If it were true why did Fayed not make that allegation prior to 20 October? The only rational explanation is that it was invented afterwards, when it became obvious to Fayed's advisers that his original story fell to bits as soon as the documents were examined.

FAYED'S THIRD SET OF ALLEGATIONS - DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS

  63. Fayed's allegations of secret cash payments made face-to-face were completely different from the original allegations which he had made to Preston and Hencke, and on which the article of 20 October was based.

  The first mention of such allegations appeared in The Guardian's Defence which was produced on 14 December 1994:

    "Between 1987 and 1989 I made a number of payments in cash or Harrods gift vouchers directly to Mr Hamilton when he visited me at Harrods or at my London residence at 60 Park Lane."(paragraph 3).

  These allegations are lies. Fayed, of course, cannot prove them positively by resort to documentary records because the alleged transactions did not take place. They are carefully contrived to put me in the difficult position of having to prove a negative.

  64. Such transactions would be plainly corrupt. Why, if Fayed knew it was wrong, was he a wiling party to corruption? Fayed was reported in The Guardian as saying, when allegedly told that one had to pay MPs:

    "I could not believe that in Britain, where Parliament has such a big reputation, you had to pay MPs. I was shattered by it." (The Guardian 20 October 1994 column 2).

  So shattered apparently, that he mentioned his incredulity to no one - not even those, like Royston Webb, who authorised payment of the bills (see above paragraph 58(iii)) or Sir Peter Hordern MP, HoF's long-time Parliamentary Consultant.

  Whilst it is easy to imagine Fayed dabbling in corruption it is impossible to imagine his being shocked by it. This is another lie.

FAYED THE SOFT TOUCH

  65. Fayed says in his witness statement (paragraph 4):

    "There were a number of occasions when Mr Hamilton came to see me either at Harrods or at . . . 60 Park Lane and on each occasion when he and I were alone, he asked for money."

  This could not be a clearer statement: that I demanded money after I arrived at meetings.

  66. However, that is a different story from that of his long-term secretary, Iris Bond, who appeared for the first time in this saga on 27 September 1996. She was equally clear in her statement that Fayed often prepared payments in advance of meetings:

    "on several occasions prior to a meeting with Mr Hamilton Mr Fayed would make a remark that he was coming to collect his money." (Bond witness statement paragraph 6).

  67. The most likely explanation for her late appearance is that she (and Bozek) were intended as substitutes for Fayed, whose story is so full of holes that it resembles a colander. Despite having eighteen months in which to cook up her story of corroboration her statement is obviously a last-minute cobbling together to plug obvious gaps in Fayed's much earlier statement.

  68. Even now Fayed is still changing his story. In his Submission to the Inquiry, at paragraph 40, Fayed has resiled from the statement quoted in paragraph 65 above. He now says that I did not ask directly for money but alleges that I made "thinly veiled requests for compensation". The veil has only just appeared.

  He has obviously now been told that, if he had responded to a demand for money in exchange for specific Parliamentary services, he would be guilty of a breach of privilege. To avoid this required a change in the language of his statement - so a new paragraph was cobbled together.

  69. That these are blatant lies should be apparent on even a cursory analysis.

  Is it really credible that Fayed simply handed money over on every single occasion when it was allegedly demanded?

  Did he never demur - even though on a great many occasions I had done or would be doing nothing in return?

  He is a tough international businessman used to doing complex deals for over forty years and getting value for money. What was he getting for all these supposed payment?

  70. His explanation is plainly ridiculous:

    "I felt embarrassed to turn him down and so I invariably gave him a bundle of £2,500."

  Why was the amount invariably the same, when there were large variations in both the amount of parliamentary activity and the length of time between the alleged payments?

  Even if we accept at face value his explanation that he felt embarrassed, there was no necessity for him to be equally generous on each occasion. He could have found a convincing excuse to give less - e.g., the briefcase stuffed with £5,000-£10,000 of cash, which he revealed as part of his office furniture on the Dispatches programme, had not been topped up.

  71. How was the alleged demand for money made? Did I just demand "money" tout court, without naming a particular sum?

  If I demanded the specific sum of £2,500, why should Fayed have paid it when it patently bore no relation to any parliamentary activity?

  If I did not demand specific sums why did Fayed not scale down the amounts I was given, if he thought I was being too greedy?

  72. The inference of his comparison between me and Tim Smith (he was "far less greedy" according to Fayed) is that I did demand specific sums. The rationale for the alleged demands is as obscure as the rationale of the alleged payments. The only rational explanation is the truth - that neither demands nor payments were made. The story is a lie invented by Fayed.

FAYED CHANGES HIS TUNE

  73. Fayed says in his witness statement (paragraph 5) that:

    " . . . there was no tariff for such services."

  Perhaps the demand was akin to the highwayman's: "Your money or your life!"

  74. His original allegation, by contrast, was very specifically related to parliamentary activity:

    Mr Greer "told me he could deliver but I would need to pay. A fee of about £50,000 was mentioned. But then he said he would have to pay the MPs, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, who would ask the questions . . . I asked how much and he said it would be £2,000 a question." (The Guardian 20 October 1994 cols. 1 and 2).

  75. However, by the time Fayed came to make his witness statement eight months later he was far less emphatic about the details:

    "In the autumn of 1994, when I discussed the payments I had made to Neil Hamilton with the Defendants I believe (sic) I mentioned that I paid Mr Hamilton £2,000 per question. This was simply a rough guess on my part as to how much I appeared to be paying per question and . . . was not a figure charged to me as there was no tariff for such services." (para. 5).

  76. Fayed may be an experienced liar but, fortunately for those interested in the truth, not a very accomplished one. He keeps forgetting the lies he has told previously and inconsistencies continually crop up.

  Even in this instance - which was the central allegation in The Guardian's main article on the subject - he is apparently incapable of remembering the details which ought to be most memorable: not only what the "tariff" was but also who allegedly made the payments of £2,000 per PQ, Greer or himself.

  77. To begin with he said it was Greer (Guardian 20 October 1994).

  Secondly, his story changed and he said he paid face-to-face (14 December 1994).

  Thirdly, he alleged not only that Greer paid me £2,000 per question but that, in addition, he paid me himself additional sums of £2,000 at "a rough guess" (his words) - for the very same questions! (26 June 1995).

  Fourthly, more than three years after his original allegations were made to Peter Preston, he produced yet more - that large unspecified sums of cash were left for collection in brown envelopes. (27 September 1996).

  78. The Guardian article of 20 October 1994 is quite categoric:

    "Greer . . . said he would have to pay the MPs Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith . . . and he said it would be £2,000 a question."

  79. Hencke's witness statement is also categoric on the amount of allegedly paid but rather confused about the transmission mechanism.

  Surprisingly, during Hencke's interview with Fayed, Fayed did not say whether the alleged payments were made indirectly by Greer or directly by Fayed. Even more surprisingly, the "Journalist of the Year" was not curious enough to enquire about this essential detail:

    "From what Peter Preston had previously told me, although Mohamed Al-Fayed did not expressly refer to this fact, I understood that the payments were made to Smith and Hamilton via Ian Greer." (Paragraph 19 (iii)).

  Admittedly, as Hencke spoke to Fayed before he published his devastating article for only "10-12 minutes", he had little time to ask even the most obvious question!

FAYED'S PREDILECTION FOR CASH

  80. Realising that there may be a basic lack of credibility in his allegations of direct cash payments, Fayed was obliged to lay the foundations by confessing that he regularly sends someone to the bank to get large bundles of cash - thus making it impossible to connect the dates and amounts allegedly paid to me with any entries on his bank statements:

    "I should first explain that for many years I have always had readily available fairly substantial sums of cash. I have always preferred cash as a method of settling bills rather than cheques or credit cards."

    "From time to time I arrange for one of my staff to go to the Midland Bank in Park Lane where my personal accounts are held to draw cash against a personal cheque from me. This cash is always presented by the bank in bundles of £50 notes. Prior to the new £50 note coming into circulation the bundles were of £2,500 each. Once the new smaller note came into circulation recently the bundles increased to £5,000 each."

    "I therefore had easy access to cash during 1987, 1988 and 1989 without my needing to arrange for it to be specially drawn." (Paragraphs 3 and 4.)

  When Fayed was interviewed for Channel 4's "Dispatches" programme he revealed that he routinely keeps to hand a briefcase stuffed with £5,000 to £10,000 or more of cash.

  81. One has to ask: why?

  Why should a reputable businessman not wish to pay bills by cheque or credit card - especially if they are for substantial sums? For his own protection as the high-profile proprietor of the world's most prestigious store, surely, he would wish to keep some records, especially for tax and accounting purposes?

  Does he demand receipts for his cash payments? If not, is he not knowingly or impliedly a party to frauds on the Revenue or others?

  What about his accounting records? I infer that, whatever the transactions are, they must contain illicit elements - otherwise he would surely wish to account for his expenditures for tax purposes so as to claim the relevant deductions.

  82. To test Fayed's assertions the Inquiry ought to demand production of a record of his cash transactions for the longest practicable period.

  My wife and I have had to authorise the disclosure of all our own financial records for the period 1985-92 - bank statements, credit card statements, property transactions, mortgage transactions. In the absence of independent evidence to corroborate Fayed's allegations of his credibility ought to be tested in the same way as mine.

  It would be instructive to know what kinds of transactions these cash payments involve. It would also be instructive to know who is receiving large unrecorded sums of cash from him.

  83. It would almost certainly throw a great deal of light on his probity or lack of it, which is of direct relevance to his credibility as a witness who claims to be honest.

  As his bank will keep a record of all cheques for at least five years and possibly more I submit that the Inquiry should demand production of all cheques drawing cash for the period concerned or for the relevant period in order to test the truth of his assertion.

THE CHEQUES FOR £12,000 AND £6,000

  84. If he prefers "cash as a method of settling bills rather than cheques" one has to ask also why he said in paragraph 7 of his witness statement that he personally paid Ian Greer two cheques (for £12,000 and £6,000).

  85. He falsely alleged that this money was paid to Greer expressly to pay me and Tim Smith for tabling PQs. As already noted, the money was actually solicited and paid as contributions to the 1987 election fighting funds of 26 parliamentary candidates, largely but not exclusively Conservatives. Neither I nor Smith received any part of it.

  Neither Fayed nor The Guardian has ever produced a shred of evidence to justify this allegation.

  86. Four questions immediately prompt themselves:

  (a)  If he really had made such plainly (and on his own admission) illicit payments to Greer would there not have been even more reason to make them in cash rather than by cheque, to reduce their traceability?

  (b)  If these two extra cheques were really to cover payments to Smith and me for PQs, and those PQs formed part of IGA's services to HoF, why were the two above mentioned payments made from Fayed's personal account and not from a HoF account?

    [HoF made regular monthly payments to IGA by cheques against invoices, and irregular payments by cheques against invoices to cover disbursements and special items. Furthermore, Fayed alleged that Greer told him at the outset that MPs would need to be paid for PQs as part of IGA's contract (see Fayed quoted in The Guardian 20 October 1994 and Fayed witness statement paragraph 2).]

  (c)  The Cheque for £13,333.

    Why, was the cheque for £13,333 in February 1990 (paragraph 7 Fayed witness statement) paid from a HoF account and not from his personal account?

    Fayed may argue that it was necessary to route the money through his personal accounts in order to hide the true nature of the transaction. In that case, why was this payment made from a HoF account?

    Fayed alleges that the £13,333 payment was made for the same reason as the two earlier payments for £12,000 and £6,000 - Cash for Questions. If that were true one would expect this payment to have been made also from a personal or other non-HoF account.

    As the special payment of £13,333 was paid against an invoice to HoF it must have been authorised by Royston Webb. If Fayed is telling the truth about the purpose of this payment Webb must have known that the money was

    ". . . for services rendered by MPs including Mr Hamilton. . ." (Fayed witness statement paragraph 7).

  I submit that the Inquiry should call Royston Webb to give evidence on oath about the nature of this payment.

  Webb denied knowing anything at all about illicit payments (see transcript of telephone call between Greer and Webb 20 October 1994). He went on to say that, if The Guardian had mentioned him

  "not by name, but being in receipt of various documents . . . as an adviser . . . if the inference is that I was aware of these payments . . . I regard that as professionally quite damaging."

  There are only two possible explanations for Webb sanctioning this payment if Fayed is correct:

  (i)  either Webb knew that the purpose of the payments was to pay Smith and me (which he denies); or

  (ii)  Fayed told Webb to pay the £13,333 but either lied about its purpose or refused to give a reason for it.

  Neither explanation seems plausible from his ingenuous reactions in his conversation with Greer from Dubai - which Webb had no reason to know was being recorded.

  The real truth is that Fayed is lying.

  (d)  How could this February 1990 payment possibly be for PQs when Smith last asked a PQ on 23 January 1989 and I last asked a PQ in April 1989?

  Accounting evidence comprehensively demolishes Fayed's allegation that Greer paid Smith and me tens of thousands of pounds for PQs. His allegations that he handed me cash and vouchers are demolished by the weight of their own inconsistency and irrationality together with contrary evidence from an independent witness.

FAYED'S STORY CONFUSED AND CONFUSING. WHO PAID WHAT TO WHOM?

  87. Fayed says in his letter to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith of 5 December 1994 that, in addition to the sums alleged to have been paid to me by Greer, he (Fayed) paid me £28,000 in cash and Harrods gift vouchers - which, on the arithmetic he agreed in his discussion with Hencke, leaves £6,000 for Smith (a figure, I understand, he has confirmed in his Submission to the Inquiry).

  It is obvious that this arithmetic does not add up.

  88. Fayed said to Preston that I was paid £2,000 per question by Greer.

  By December 1994 his story was becoming even more confused and confusing - he now said he paid me himself £2,000 per question "at a rough guess".

  By this stage his advisers at least must have done some basic research and noticed that I had asked nine or 10 PQs relevant to HOF/Lonrho. That is probably why he invented the allegation of paying me £20,000 in cash (supplemented by the inexplicable £8,000 in gift vouchers and the allegations produced two years later of unspecified thousands more in brown envelopes).

  Having started with the total of £34,000 and only thereafter discovering I had asked only nine or 10 PQs, Fayed was obliged by his own tariff (later disowned) to arrive at the alleged split between Smith and me. Unfortunately for Fayed, the arithmetic makes no sense at all.

FAYED ATTEMPTS TO SQUARE THE PAYMENTS CIRCLE

  89. Faced with having to provide further details for The Guardian's Defence, Fayed had to try to square the circle of accounting for the alleged cash payments to Smith and me.

  However, the differences between the amounts which he alleged he paid to Smith and to me are incomprehensible.

  90. Smith did vastly more than I did, yet he was allegedly paid vastly less: £6,000 for his 26 PQs compared with £28,000 (plus many unspecified thousands more "remembered" two years later) for my nine or 10 PQs.

  At £2,000 a time Smith should have been paid £52,000 by Greer for Questions alone. The modest nature of IGA's retainer of £25,000 per annum proves, in itself, that Fayed's allegation of massive payments from Greer to Smith and me is an absurd lie.

91. COMPARISON OF SMITH AND HAMILTON'S PARLIAMENTARY ACTIVITY

  In the 1985-86 Session I asked two PQs; Tim Smith asked none.

  In 1986-87 I asked one PQ and Tim Smith asked nine.

  In 1987-88 I asked two PQs and Tim Smith asked 16.

  In 1988-89 I asked three PQs and Tim Smith asked two.

  I also tabled one EDM in each Session 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Smith tabled one EDM in 1988-89.

  Smith also had an Adjournment Debate on 17 June 1986 (surely worth many times the "going rate" for a written PQ!)

  If Greer had indeed been paying £2,000 per PQ (and presumably additionally from EDMs, etc.) there would have been little if anything left from his £25,000 pa. Indeed in 1987-88 he would have made a very substantial loss!

  92. Fayed was no doubt alerted by his advisers to this arithmetical difficulty once they got hold of him. Hence, much later he invented (and induced his long-serving secretary, Iris Bond, and PA, Alison Bozek) to assert that he also made payments of £5,000 per quarter to Greer in cash.

  Fayed had never mentioned this allegation to anyone:

   -   not to Preston and Hencke nor any other journalist;

   -   nor does it appear in his witness statement - which is very detailed about his alleged payments to me.

  The Bond/Bozek statements appeared nearly two years after The Guardian libel; after such a lapse of time, what credibility can attach to them?

  93. If Fayed is capable of inventing stories of cash payments to me and Greer, he is certainly capable of making actual cash payments to his long-serving employees to induce them to tell lies for his benefit. Bozek, in particular, has a known track-record of lying to official agencies on Fayed's behalf (see below paragraph 147).

  94. Realising, by the time of drafting his witness statement that the allegations he had previously made to Preston and Hencke would be impossible to justify and easy to disprove, Fayed opted for studied vagueness and amnesia:

  "Mr Smith also came on occasion to meetings alone with me in 1987, 1988 and 1989 and I also gave him cash for the work he was doing. The sums involved in total were very much less than I paid to Mr Hamilton. I have a less clear recollection of the exact dates and amounts paid to Tim Smith because the sums involved are much smaller - he was far less greedy - and because he stopped undertaking parliamentary work at a fairly early stage . . . " (paragraph 12 witness statement).

  It seems that Fayed claims that I demanded and he meekly gave me money at every single meeting when we were allegedly alone, whereas Smith's demands were intermittent!

  95. If Smith and I were acting dishonestly and in concert, as Fayed originally alleged, why was he uncomplainingly prepared to pay me a vastly greater rate for doing less? Why pay me at all, if he could get Smith to do the job at a fraction of the cost?

  His assertion that Smith was "far less greedy" reveals a new inconsistency in his claim of a "going rate" of £2,000 for PQs. If Smith knew of this "going rate" (a necessary implication of Fayed's story that Greer was paying us both at this rate), why would Smith adopt a different and "much smaller" figure when allegedly demanding money of Fayed directly?

  His assertion that I was far more "greedy" seems inconsistent with his statement in his Submission to the Inquiry that I merely made "thinly veiled requests" for compensation, as opposed to demands for money.

  96. Fayed's explanation that he cannot remember "the exact dates and amounts paid" to Smith "because he stopped undertaking parliamentary work at a fairly early stage" is also impossible to understand. It is inconsistent with the facts. Smith's last PQ was asked on 23 January 1989; his last EDM was tabled on 15 May 1989.

  97. This is a completely incredible explanation of the startling contrast between the total clarity of his alleged recollections of dates and amounts in relation to me and the total obscurity of his recollections in relation to Smith. Ten of the 12 alleged payments to me are dated BEFORE Smith "ceased to act". Only two payments were allegedly made thereafter, and those dates are only a short time later than 15 May: viz. 27 July and 21 November 1989.

  98. Furthermore, after co-signing Smith's EDM of 15 May I had myself stopped "work", apart from co-signing two of Dale Campbell-Savours' EDMs on 21 June 1989. So I am at a loss to understand Fayed's attempt to justify his selective memory lapse by reference to a disparity of parliamentary activity between me and Smith. It is not consistent with the facts.

  It is also impossible to understand any rationale for the total amount alleged to have been paid.

  Within that total it is, if anything, even more impossible to discern any rationale in the alleged payments and the actual parliamentary activity allegedly undertaken in return.

  99. The following tables set out the relationship between the alleged payments and the Parliamentary activity I undertook in relation to matters of interest to HoF:

Chronology of alleged payments and Parliamentary activity

---

Date

---

7 November 1985	2 WPQs (Lonrho and Observer)
24 February 1987	2 WPQs (Replies to letters)
11 March 1987	EDM 724
13 May 1987	Meeting (DTI Channon, Hordern, Grylls, Smith)
2 June 1987	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
18 June 1987	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
8 July 1987	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
29 July 1987	Meeting (DTI Young, Hordern, Smith)
8-14 September 1987	Ritz visit
21 November 1987	Letter (D Young)
28 January 1988	Letter (D Young)
Letter (M Al-Fayed)
18 February 1988	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
7 June 1988	2 WPQs (DTI Inquiry progress and cost)
12 July 1988	EDM 1358 (Rowland propaganda barrage)
19 July 1988	Alleged payment £2,500
29 July 1988	Letter (D Young)
1 September 1988	Letter (M Al-Fayed)
4 December 1988	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
6 December 1988	Letter (Waddington)
15 December 1988	Alleged Payment £3,000 Gift Vouchers
25 January 1989	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
15 February 1989	OPQ (David Leigh and Westland)
16 February 1989	Alleged Payment £1,000 Gift Vouchers
20 February 1989	Alleged Payment £1000 Gift Vouchers
12 March 1989	Letter (M Al-Fayed)
21 March 1989	Letters D Hurd (not sent) and G Younger
6-12 April 1989	4 WPQs (Lonrho arms sales and Marwan)
7 April 1989	Letter DTI (Lonrho and Libya)
18 April 1989	EDM 758 (Dale Campbell-Savours)
9 May 1989	EDM 801 (DC-S)
May 1989	EDM 809 (Lonrho and Gaddafi)
15 May 1989	EDM 857 (T Smith)
21 June 1989	EDM 992 (DC-S)
21 June 1989	EDM 993 (DC-S)
27 July 1989	Alleged Payment £2,500 cash
21 November 1989	Alleged Payment £3,000 Gift Vouchers
Relationship between alleged payments and parliamentary activity
Date
November 1985 to February-May 1987	4 WPQs 1 EDM 1 Meeting with Ministers
2 June 1987	First alleged payment £2,500 cash
18 June 1987	Second alleged payment £2,500 cash
8 July 1987	Third alleged payment £2,500 cash
29 July 1987	1 Meeting with Ministers
September 1987	Ritz visit
November 1987-January 1988	2 letters to Ministers
18 February 1988	Fourth alleged payment £2,500 cash
June-July 1988	2 WPQs 1 EDM
19 July 1988	Fifth alleged payment £2,500 cash
29 July 1988	1 letter to Ministers
4 December 1988	Sixth alleged payment £2,500 cash
6 December 1988	1 letter to Ministers
15 December 1988	Seventh alleged payment £3,000 Vouchers
25 January 1989	Eighth alleged payment £2,500 cash
15 February 1989	1 OPQ
16 February 1989	Ninth alleged payment £1,000 Vouchers
20 February 1989	Tenth alleged payment £1,000 Vouchers
March-June 1989	4 WPQs 3 letters to Ministers 1 EDM tabled 5 EDMs signed
27 July 1989	Eleventh alleged payment £2,500 cash
21 November 1989	Twelfth alleged payment £3,000 Vouchers

Analysis of work done if assumption of alleged payment in arrears

Alleged payments
1. £2,500	4 WPQs 1 EDM 1 meeting with Minsters
2. £2,500	Nothing
3. £2,500	Nothing
4. Ritz £4,00	1 meeting with Ministers
5. £2,500	2 letters to Ministers
6. £2,500	2 WPQs 1 EDM
7. £2,500	1 letter to Ministers
8. £3,000 GV	1 letter to Ministers
9. £2,500
Nothing
10. £1,000GV	1 OPQ
11. £1,000 GV	Nothing
12. £2,500	4 WPQs 3 letters to Minsters 1 EDM tabled 5 EDMs signed
13. £3,000 GV	Nothing
Analysis of work done if assumption of alleged payment in advance
Alleged Payments
1. £2,500	Nothing
2. £2,500	Nothing
3. £2,500	1 meeting with Ministers
4. Ritz £4,00	2 letters to Ministers
5. £2,500	2 WPQs 1 EDM
6. £2,500	1 letter to Ministers
7. £2,500	1 letter to Ministers
8. £3,000 GV	Nothing
9. £2,500	1 OPQ
10. £1,000 GV	Nothing
11. £1,000 GV	4 WPQs 3 letters to Ministers1 EDM tabled 5 EDMs signed
12. £2,500	Nothing
13. £3,000 GV	Nothing

  100. Large amounts of money were allegedly paid for doing nothing and bursts of activity went completely unrewarded:

  In the period March-June 1989 4 of my 10 PQs were asked, six of my seven EDMs signed and three of my six (The Guardian says seven) letters to Ministers written. This unusual burst of activity apparently merited only the alleged "invariable" £2,500.

  There is a cluster of three alleged payments of £2,500 for no ostensible reason in June and July 1987.

  Similarly, two payments of £2,500 in cash plus three payments in gift vouchers to a total of £5,000 (£3,000, £1,000 and £1,000) were allegedly made for no ostensible reason between October 1988 and February 1989.

  101. There is virtually no related parliamentary activity in exchange for these large alleged payments, whether viewed as alleged payments which are contemporaneous, in advance or in arrears.  So why would Fayed have meekly paid up?  What is the logic of Fayed's alleged behaviour, considering that nine of his 12 alleged payments are dated after my visit to the Ritz, where he felt (see paragraph 11) that I had "abused his hospitality"? This supposed gratuitous generosity is inconsistent with the reason he gave for his alleged refusal of a request for a return visit to the Ritz.

  102. The irrationality of his original allegations is striking enough. But that was compounded on 27 September 1996 when Fayed's employee witnesses were suddenly produced from thin air to allege that, in addition to the payments alleged above, still more unspecified amounts were allegedly paid in cash in brown envelopes on unspecified dates; additionally £2,000-£3,000 was allegedly given immediately prior to my departure for the Ritz.

  103. These utterly inexplicable allegations call to mind a remark made by A P Herbert's father:

  "Sir, your last remark is like the 13th stroke of a crazy clock which not only is itself discredited but casts a shade of doubt over all previous assertions."

  It is surprising, for example, that Fayed's generosity was augmented rather than diminished by his feeling that I had abused his hospitality!

  104. Fayed's allegations of payments in cash are very perplexing, particularly he is emphatic that I explicitly related my demands to parliamentary activity:

  "Whilst I knew that I was already paying Ian Greer Associates a consultancy fee, Mr Hamilton would tell me that he was undertaking a lot of work for me, that it was expensive and that he needed money for that work." (paragraph 4 Fayed witness statement).

  He goes on to reinforce this rationale (but does not explain what "expensive. . .work" needed reimbursement):

  "During the period I made payments to Mr Hamilton he was undertaking a large amount of Parliamentary work for me . . . each time I made a payment to him at his request it was because he had or was going to undertake some Parliamentary work for which it was appropriate to be paid."

  This reasoning is flatly contradicted by the facts set out above.

FAYED'S SELECTIVE AMNESIA

  105. Oddly, although his memory is apparently good enough to remember the varying amounts allegedly paid (which are not supported by documentary records), he cannot remember the specific activities to which any of those numerous alleged payments supposedly relate (which are recorded in documents)!

  106. He seeks refuge in convenient obscurity:

  "I cannot now remember the specific activities he undertook each time he visited me to ask for money."

  " . . . some of what he did, for example speaking to other MPs or Government Ministers, is not recorded."

  He has never identified any of these individuals, nor the subjects allegedly discussed, nor noted any result of my alleged lobbying.

  107. Greer was meticulous in reporting back to Fayed when there was any activity - as is evident from the Discovery documents and Fayed's own telephone message records. It would be strange for Greer not to have produced some notes of all this "unrecorded" activity in view of The Guardian's description of IGA's role in paragraph 5(4) of their pleaded Defence:

  ". . . Hamilton was a member of a group of four members of Parliament . . . co-ordinated by IGA, who comprised the parliamentary lobbying operation for House of Fraser and Al-Fayed, and who (separately or together) met regularly with IGA and Al-Fayed to discuss tactics."

  Presumably Greer would have wished to demonstrate, for his own commercial reasons, how busy and influential he was being.

  108. Fayed clearly did not understand when he made his original allegations about me that he was in danger of incriminating himself if he were believed - that it is as much an offence to offer a bribe as to receive it, particularly if it were related, as he alleged, to specific Parliamentary activity on a tariff basis (see Commons Resolution 2 May 1695 C J (1693-97) 331).

  It is amusing, therefore, to see the effects of his lawyers subsequent attempts to steer Fayed out of this danger in paragraph 44 of his Submission to the Inquiry.

  Quite contrary to Fayed's original specific allegation of £2,000, per PQ or even his "rough guess" of £2,000, he now says:

  "There never was any tariff . . . Nor was there any quid pro quo. . . Mr Fayed did not pay a sum of money on each occasion . . . . By the same token, there was not any prescribed amount paid for anything . . . . There was no contract or agreement placing a restriction on Mr Hamilton with respect to his conduct in Parliament or imposing any requirements to take any action in Parliament in exchange for payments." (Fayed Submission paragraph 44).

  This statement flatly contradicts Fayed's categoric assertion in paragraph 4 of his witness statement that

  " . . . each time I made a payment of money to him . . . it was because he had or was going to undertake some Parliamentary work."

  In June 1995 he clearly alleged that there was a quid pro quo. In January 1997 he denies it.

  Fayed has quite clearly been induced by his advisers to change his evidence in order not to contravene the House's Resolution of 15 July 1947 as amended on 6 November 1995 (of which he was blissfully unaware when he made his original allegations to Preston et al.).

  109. Selective amnesia and unaccountable gaps in important contemporaneous documentation are notable features of Fayed's catalogue of lies. But it is also a feature of The Guardian's case.

THE GIFT VOUCHERS

Hencke and Preston - gaps in the memory  110. For example, just as Fayed does not explain what activity the alleged £8,000 of gift vouchers relates to, Hencke says (paragraph 19):

  "I do not remember whether or not Mohamed Al-Fayed mentioned giving Neil Hamilton shopping vouchers - he may have done so in passing."

  Hencke does have notes of his meeting with Fayed but cannot remember this detail. Paradoxically, he has no notes at all of his discussions with Preston, but is nevertheless able to recall:

  "Peter Preston had certainly told me that Mohamed Al-Fayed had given shopping vouchers to Neil Hamilton."

  As noted already, Preston has "lost" his "jottings" of the ten or more interviews he had with Fayed, so there is no documentary corroboration.

  111. As the gift vouchers were, to all intents and purposes, like banknotes it is difficult to understand why Hencke should say:

  "I was not as interested in the vouchers as I was in the cash."

  112. Fayed has never explained the difference in behaviour between on the one hand, my alleged boldness in asking for cash and, on the other my alleged reticence in relation to the vouchers: i.e., allegedly I baldly "requested" cash (eight occasions) but only "broadly hinted" I wanted gift vouchers (four occasions).

  113. He has also failed to explain why, as alleged, he gave me invariable amounts in cash (£2,500) but variable amounts in vouchers - £3,000 on two occasions and £1,000 on two occasions.

  114. Nor has he explained why I would want gift vouchers in preference to cash.

  The vouchers could be traced (through serial numbers) whereas cash could not.

  Also vouchers would be exchangeable only in Harrods; why would I wish to restrict myself to the one location, which whilst of high quality is also expensive?

  115. Even on the voucher allegations Fayed has been inconsistent. The News of the World of 23 October 1994 carried an "Exclusive" story under the headline:

   -   "Minister: I didn't take Harrods voucher".

  This story was given to the paper by "a close aide" of Fayed, presumably Michael Cole, Fayed's PR officer. Having failed to get me sacked on day one, this allegation was clearly invented to put further pressure on me to resign. Chris Anderson, the reporter, wrote:

  "Now the Fayed camp has raised the stakes in a clear bid to force the Minister's resignation."

  116. There are two inconsistencies in the story:

  (a)  Fayed has always maintained that he gave me £8,000 in gift vouchers but

  "the Al Fayed aide said no record had been kept of the number of vouchers the Minister had received. But he agreed their total value would have been around £15,000."

  (b)  The aide also said: "They were usually £1,000 vouchers" and the article was accompanied by a photograph of a specimen £1,000 Harrods voucher which could have been provided only by Fayed's aide.

    Fayed himself has always maintained that he gave £100 vouchers in four tranches, two of £1,000 and two of £3,000.

  117. In view of Fayed's obvious lack of grasp of detail on any subject it is truly remarkable that he should be able, without any documentary record, to remember after a lapse of five years or more the exact amounts of gift vouchers allegedly given on the four dates.

  118. Fayed should be asked in oral evidence, without notice and without resort to documents or prompting, to recount the dates and amounts alleged to have been given to me. He should have no difficulty in remembering as he was able to do this from memory for the drafting of the D J Freeman letter, there being by his own admission no documentary record of these alleged payments.

  It is highly unlikely that he would remember the detail even though he has set it out so precisely on paper. Given the gravity of his allegations, the detail ought to be in the forefront of his mind. Failure to recall the detail correctly should be another pointer to the falsity of his claims.

MICHAEL COLE THE MEDIA MANIPULATOR

  119. This story illustrates very well the manipulative techniques which Cole employs to disseminate Fayed's lies.

  120. He had first trailed it without identifying me, his victim, in the previous day's Daily Mail, where a story appeared under the headline:

  "Riddle of the Tory and Harrods gift vouchers."

  Cole told Gordon Greig:

  "two more Ministers have been asked to answer allegations of corruption" and "a senior Tory MP had accepted Harrods gift certificates worth thousands of pounds". (Daily Mail 22 October 1994).

  121. This "leak" was contrived to keep pressure on the Government by conveying the impression that two more Ministers and a senior backbencher were about to become embroiled in the scandal.

  In fact, the two Ministers "asked to answer allegations of corruption" were not newcomers to the saga at all, but Michael Howard and Jonathan Aitken, who had been in Fayed's sights from the beginning; and the "senior Tory MP" was me.

  122. Fayed, himself, is directly quoted in this story. Greig had been told:

  "Mr Fayed appears determined to pursue his claims. He has gone back through his personal diary to produce a list of times and dates that the senior Tory he accuses had visited him.

  "Some meetings were in his suite of private offices, guarded by former SAS men, at the top of the Harrods building. Others were at 55 Park Lane, where Mr Fayed owns a building which houses his penthouse home.

  "He said yesterday `I saw him countless times in the late 1980s. Every time it seemed to see me (sic) he was having an anniversary or a birthday or his wife's birthday'.

  "`I must have given him gift certificates worth thousands of pounds. I used to say "Have these on me and go and spend them'.

"  His personal diary pages were the only evidence he produced to back up his cash/voucher allegations (until the long-serving employee witnesses were suddenly produced on 27 September 1996).

  He has in the last two years accused no-one other than me of accepting vouchers. So this can have referred only to me. That being so, there are four more inconsistencies revealed by his reported remarks:

CAN FAYED VOUCH FOR THE VOUCHERS? - FURTHER INCONSISTENCIES

  123. First, he says that I visited him at 55 Park Lane, which he also owns. In his witness statement he is quite clear that:

  "Mr Hamilton . . . visited me either at Harrods or at my London residence 60 Park Lane." (paragraph 3 Fayed witness statement).

  This could be a mistake of Greig's. But there was no reason for him to know that Fayed also owned 55 Park Lane.

  124. Second, his remarks in the Daily Mail make no mention of my asking for vouchers. In fact, he unambiguously states the opposite - that he took the initiative in offering them to me:

  "I used to say `Have these on me and go and spend them'."

  125. Third, in his witness statement he enumerates exactly the number of times he alleges he handed over gift vouchers - four times. But the implication of his remarks to the Daily Mail is that there were many more times:

  "I saw him countless times in the late 1980s. Every time it seemed to me he was having an anniversary or a birthday or his wife's birthday . . . I must have given him gift certificates worth thousands of pounds."

   The dates on which the vouchers were allegedly given bear no relation to any of my or my wife's anniversaries or birthdays. In fact three of them were in very quick succession for no apparent reason - 15 December 1988, 16 and 20 February 1989.

  Fayed obviously contrived his original cash (and subsequent voucher) allegations in such a way as to require me to prove a negative (that I did not receive these sums). He carefully selected dates in his diary which allegedly record meetings between us with no-one else apparently present. He then made up his story that "on each occasion when he and I were alone he asked for money" (paragraph 4).

  I cannot confirm or deny meeting Fayed on the dates alleged (save the meetings concerning Timothy O'Sullivan) as, unfortunately, I no longer possess my engagement diaries for the relevant years. It could well be that, as sometimes happened, meetings which had been agreed were postponed at short notice and rescheduled, without the necessary diary-erasure being made.

  126. Fourth, his witness statement, a solemn and important document in which he ought to be extremely careful to ensure accuracy and freedom from ambiguity, contains an inconsistency even on this vitally important allegation. In fact there are four different versions:

   (a)  In paragraph 4 he says I always asked for money.

  (b)  But in paragraph 9 he says that on four occasions I did NOT ask for money - merely "broadly hinted I wished to go shopping"!

  (c)  Michael Cole, however, told the News of the World that

    "Mr Al-Fayed has claimed the senior Tory demanded vouchers".

   (d)  Cole's account contradicts Fayed's as reported above in the Daily Mail article by Gordon Greig: ("Have these on me").

    Both Fayed and Cole are lying.

  127. Fortunately, I am not entirely dependent on textual analysis to reveal Fayed's lies. On one occasion I was accompanied by an independent witness: Timothy O'Sullivan.

THE FORGOTTEN WITNESS - TIMOTHY O'SULLIVAN

  128. Timothy O'Sullivan, an author friend of mine of long-standing, was planning a book on the Royal Household and royal servants in particular.  My wife and I had given blow-by-blow accounts to all our friends of our visit to the Ritz and the Duke of Windsor's villa (so much for The Guardian's allegations of concealment!). In the course of such a conversation with O'Sullivan he expressed a desire to meet the Duke's butler, Sidney Johnson, who had given us a tour of the Duke's villa in Paris (which had been the original purpose of Fayed's Ritz invitation). Fayed had taken Johnson over with the villa.

  129. I agreed to ask Fayed if Johnson would agree to be interviewed. Fayed arranged this and a meeting took place at 60 Park Lane at noon on 24 May 1988. I was present but Fayed was not.

  130. Some time later O'Sullivan and I discussed the potential for books in several other Fayed-related topics viz. the Paris Ritz, the Windsors' Paris villa and Harrods. I agreed to approach Fayed once more on O'Sullivan's behalf and see if I could interest him in any of these projects.

  131. Fayed agreed to see us and I took O'Sullivan to meet Fayed at Harrods at 5 pm on Monday 20 February 1989.  Fayed, having forgotten that O'Sullivan was with me, later dishonestly claimed that on this occasion he handed me £1,000 in gift vouchers.

  132. In paragraph 5 of his witness statement dated 26 June 1995 O'Sullivan states:

  "Throughout the time we spent at Harrods Neil and I were constantly in each other's company. In particular, Neil was not at any time alone with Mr Al-Fayed. Mr Al-Fayed did not at any time during the visit give Neil any money, whether in the form of cash, cheques or otherwise. Nor did Mr Al-Fayed give Neil any vouchers. In fact I do not believe any papers passed between those at the meeting other than" ... (a book O'Sullivan had written on Thomas Hardy, which he gave Fayed as evidence of his writing ability and published work).

  The Guardian has never contradicted O'Sullivan's statement. Fayed did so only in oral evidence to the Inquiry on 23 January 1997.

(D) FAYED'S FOURTH SET OF ALLEGATIONS

Fayed's last minute employee witnesses The Guardian draft amended defence 27 September 1996

  133. Each of Fayed's three sets of allegations is discredited:

   -    by accounting evidence;

   -    by independent witness evidence;

   -    and by the weight of their own contradictions and irrationality.

  In so far as they depend upon his uncorroborated word they are also fatally flawed by evidence of his previous dishonesty as a witness.

  134. Presumably, that is why, on 27 September 1996 Fayed suddenly produced out of thin air a set of wholly novel allegations and three long-serving employees as witnesses. Given the importance of these witnesses and their evidence it is startling that they were not produced until nearly two years after publication of The Guardian libels and only a few days before the trial of my libel action was due to begin.

  135. The witnesses were as follows:

  (a)   Philip Bromfield, a security guard at Fayed's apartment block at 60 Park Lane, who falsely claims to remember my collecting an envelope of unspecified contents twice in the years 1987-89.

  (b)   Iris Bond, a secretary in Fayed's office since 1979, who falsely alleged that Greer was paid additionally £5,000 quarterly in cash.

  (c)   Alison Bozek, Fayed's PA from 1981-94, who falsely alleged that he paid me unspecified sums of cash, stuffed into brown envelopes, which were either left for collection at the reception desk at 60 Park Lane on unspecified dates or which were delivered to me at unspecified addresses on unspecified dates.

(A) THE SECURITY GUARD

  136. Philip Bromfield, a security guard employed by Fayed since 1983 at 60 Park Lane, made a statement on 27 September 1996 that he remembered "at least two occasions" on unspecified dates when an envelope was sent down to the front desk from Fayed's office.

  He also "remembered" that he was informed that I would be

  "stopping by to collect the envelope".

  He also "remembered" that

  "on each of these occasions Mr Hamilton personally came to the front desk and told me his name and then asked me if I had an envelope for him. Because I recognised Mr Hamilton I would hand over the envelope to him."

  These allegations are lies.

  137. Bromfield entered this saga two years after the commencement of legal proceedings against The Guardian and well over three years after Fayed first made his allegations to Preston. He purports to recall details of the utmost insignificance to him which occurred (allegedly) between seven and nine years ago.

  138. He does not say what the envelopes purportedly contained. Even if I had "at least twice" collected envelopes as alleged, why should he remember such a trivial occurrence after such a lapse of time? It would be interesting to know whether handing over envelopes full of cash to callers is a regular part of his duties.

  139. I have no recollection of ever collecting an envelope from 60 Park Lane; I went there only to meet Fayed or Sidney Johnson.

  140. In the 1980s, apart from a very brief burst of publicity surrounding my success in a libel action against the BBC in October 1986, I was to all intents and purposes an unknown backbencher. My photograph rarely appeared in the national Press (and almost never outside the parliamentary reports in the "quality" newspapers). I rarely appeared on TV.

  141. As my limited parliamentary activity on behalf of Fayed generated no personal publicity for myself, even if one makes allowance for the possibility of some gossip amongst Fayed employees, it is difficult to see why Bromfield should have paid much attention to me at the time - and even more difficult to see why his recollections should be so clear after all this time.

  142. A security guard ought to be a person of high probity. But Fayed on occasion instructs his security personnel to do his dirty work for him.

  Noteworthy in this respect is John McNamara, HoF Head of Security and, presumably Bromfield's boss. Christoph Bettermann wrote to me on 3 January 1997 to give me some examples from his own personal experience of McNamara's dishonesty:

  In the Bettermann case McNamara

  (a)   clandestinely recorded a conversation with Bettermann and lied when Bettermann asked him whether he was doing so;

  (b)   lied in telling Bettermann that Hamid Jafar was not the owner of Crescent Petroleum, Bettermann's employer;

  (c)   lied in saying that one of Bettermann's colleagues had freely signed a statement saying that Bettermann had defrauded Fayed's company, IMS, of $450,000.

  The Bettermann case is examined in Appendix 3 for the light which it throws upon Fayed and his employees as accomplices in the manufacture and dissemination of lies.

  143. McNamara also collaborated with Fayed's personal assistant, Mark Griffiths in producing the fabricated Francesca Pollard letters, which were riddled with lies about Michael Howard, Tiny Rowland and many others.

  Reference is made in Appendix 4 to the Francesca Pollard case in connection with the attempts by Fayed to destroy the reputations of the Members of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and its Special Adviser, Dr Barry Rider, who were investigating the DTI's failure to seek Fayed's disqualification as a company director after the DTI Inspectors' criticisms.

  If HoF's Head of Security can be such a willing tool of Fayed and guilty of so many acts of dishonesty it is not difficult to imagine a junior guard following his example. The rewards would no doubt be ample; the penalty for refusing to participate no doubt severe.

(B) THE SECRETARY AND THE PERSONAL ASSISTANT

  144. Two other witnesses from amongst Fayed's aides in his inner sanctum were also simultaneously produced.

  IRIS BOND had been a secretary in Fayed's office since 1979.

  ALISON BOZEK was Fayed's PA from March 1981 to September 1994, since when she has been a trainee solicitor with Allen and Overy.

  145. Both of them claim to have been witnesses to Fayed's stuffing brown envelopes with cash destined for me, to have done so themselves and to have left such envelopes for collection at the reception desk at 60 Park Lane.

  146. (Bozek's legal career ought to be cut short in view of her past dishonesty (as to which see below paragraph 147) and her lies to the Inquiry. Her ingenuous confession to being Fayed's accomplice in bribery (as to which see paragraph 144 (f), (i) and (j) below) stands in marked contrast to the apparent fastidiousness of Royston Webb, Fayed's senior in-house legal adviser. In a conversation with Ian Greer on 20 October 1994 Webb says:

  "I gather that I was mentioned, not by name, but being in receipt of various documents that were . . . as an adviser. Now I'm going to have a serious word with Peter Preston about that because if the inference, when I've read the article in a considered fashion, . . . is that I was aware of these payments, then Preston is going to print a withdrawal of that. Because I regard that as professionally quite damaging." (page 4 transcript)).

  There are many inconsistencies and perplexities revealed by their witness statements:

  (a)   Addresses of the invoices.

     Bond's very first assertion (a simple matter of fact) in her witness statement is incorrect. She says:

  "Ian Greer Associates would send invoices to the 60 Park Lane offices for payment. These invoices would then be forwarded to the accounts department for payment."   The documents disclosed on Discovery reveal that there were two kinds of invoice sent by IGA to HoF and neither of them went to 60 Park Lane - nor were they forwarded to "the accounts department". Fayed had nothing to do with paying them.

  First, a monthly retainer invoice was sent in the relevant years directly to Royston Webb at 14 South Street; secondly, invoices for disbursements and extra charges were sent directly to J Molloy (Company Secretary of the Al-Fayed Investment Trust, the Fayed holding company) at the same address. This system continued until 30 April 1991 when the invoices were sent directly to the same individuals but at a new address, 55 Park Lane.

  (b)   £5,000 bundles or £2,500? - Bond contradicts Fayed.

  Bond says she remembers taking £5,000 in cash to Harrods.

  "as (Fayed) was expecting Mr Hamilton there".

  The implication of this is that the whole £5,000 was destined for me. This is inconsistent with Fayed's statement about his invariable practice of giving me £2,500 bundles and also that I took the initiative in demanding the money.

  "There were a number of occasions when Mr Hamilton came to see me at Harrods or at my residence at 60 Park Lane and on each occasion when he and I were alone, he asked for money . . . I felt embarrassed to turn him down and so I invariably gave him a bundle of £2,500." (Paragraph 4 Fayed witness statement).

  (c)   New allegations of £5,000 cash per quarter for Greer.

  Bond alleges, for the first time in these proceedings, that Greer received, in addition to the sums invoiced to HoF,   "quarterly payments of £5,000 in cash".

  Greer emphatically denies this allegation. It is notable that Bozek says, inconsistently with Bond's story, that the amounts varied:

  "On occasion, Mr Al-Fayed would ask me to place amounts of cash in an envelope for Mr Greer and I recall putting amounts of between £2,000 and £5,000 in envelopes at various times." (para. 5).

  What were these alleged payments for? Clearly they can have had nothing to do with bribing MPs for putting down PQs if the quarterly amount never varied from £5,000, given that the volume of parliamentary activity varied a lot.

  Why were these payments made in cash from Fayed personally, whereas the HoF monthly retainers, intermittent extras and the £13,333 special payment were all made by HoF cheque?   Were these payments reported to HoF accountants and Royston Webb?   If not why not?   Were these payments reported to the Inland Revenue? If not, why not?

  (d)   Greer's alleged telephone calls asking for cash.

  Bond also alleges that:

  "On these occasions I would inform Mr Al-Fayed that either Ian Greer or his secretary had telephoned asking for payment." (paragraph 4).

  Greer's secretary during this period, Liz Swindin, will be able to deny making any such calls.

  If such payments were regularly £5,000 a quarter one wonders why Greer would have had to telephone for them. Bond's statement implies that Greer invariably telephoned for these payments. Why would he invariably need to telephone Fayed given that he regularly met him in one-to-one meetings at Fayed's offices?   Furthermore, Greer would certainly not need to take the risk of implicating his secretary in such an obviously illicit arrangement (with all the dangers incurred thereby for himself).

  It is even more unlikely that Greer would expose himself to the obvious dangers of leaving such dangerously incriminating messages, which would have been written down or recorded by Fayed's secretaries, whom he would not have known whether to trust.

  A file of telephone messages was disclosed by Fayed for the first time in early September 1996. Despite Bozek's evidence of the frequency of his importunate telephone calls, only two such demands are purportedly recorded in the file.

  These alleged demands for payment are recorded only for the 18 or 19 September 1988 (this note is not dated and I am surmising the date from its position in the book) and again on 4 November 1988.

  Both of these demands refer to the same period: July, August, September 1988. The later message reads.

  "To: MF Date: 4 November Time: 11.15

  From: Ian Greer

  Message: You owe July, August, September £5,000 Iris tell AF"   It is incredible that only one demand should have been recorded if this happened every quarter and especially so as, according to Bozek:

  "Mr Greer would often phone and ask me whether Mr Al-Fayed had left an envelope for him . . . Mr Greer was very persistent and would sometimes phone four or five times asking for the envelope."   Furthermore, if the allegation were true it is surprising that there are not more "reminder to pay" messages as, according to Bozek:

  "Sometimes Mr Al-Fayed expressed annoyance with Mr Greer asking for cash and would make him wait for his money."   I believe that these messages are wholly or partially forgeries.

  (e)   Bond and Bozek disagree - where was Greer's cash delivered? Bond's statement is inconsistent with Bozek's.

(i)   Bond is categoric: Fayed invariably instructed his staff to send the money from his office to Greer.

   Having told Fayed about Greer's phone call demanding money:

   ". . . Fayed would in my presence place two bundles of £2,500 notes in £50 denominations in a plain envelope which he would then instruct me to deliver to Mr Greer. I would then arrange for a porter to deliver the envelope to Mr Greer at his office, although sometimes Mr Greer personally collected these envelopes from the reception desk at 60 Park Lane and I believe on some occasions he arranged for a courier to make collection." (paragraph 4).

(ii)   According to Bozek, however, Fayed would sometimes hand it to him in a meeting:

   "Mr Al-Fayed . . . would . . . in my presence put £50 notes, made up in bundles of £2,500, in an envelope which he would then either give to me to arrange for delivery to Mr Greer or hold ready for his meeting with him."

  (f)   Why would Fayed personally stuff the envelopes?   Bozek says that she did the stuffing:

  "On occasion Mr Al-Fayed would ask me to place amounts of cash in an envelope for Mr Greer and I recall putting amounts of between £2,000 and £5,000 in envelopes at various times" and

  "Mr Al-Fayed would . . . instruct me to get an envelope and place the cash in an envelope for Mr Hamilton. This happened on several occasions." (paragraph 7).

  Bozek was obviously trusted implicitly by Fayed as she apparently had access to large amounts of untraceable cash and was knowingly party to numerous illicit activities.

  As she was so trusted in these matters it is difficult to understand why Fayed went so frequently, but not invariably, through the ostentatiously elaborate procedure of asking for the envelope, asking for the cash and then always putting the cash in the envelope in the presence of a witness. Unless he felt the need to practise his ability to stuff envelopes why would he perform this administrative task himself?   Bozek is now a trainee solicitor and Fayed clearly intends the Inquiry to be impressed by the implicit probity of a member of that profession. However, it must have been clear to her, by the regularity of the alleged cash payments and the irregularity of the method of payment, that these must be illicit transactions.

  Her explicit willing complicity in dishonesty must call into question the truthfulness of her evidence - especially when combined with evidence of her previous false statements (see paragraph 147 below).

  (g)   Greer more memorable than Hamilton.

  Bozek's statement does not mention a specific amount of cash in "my" envelopes. She recalls simply that:

  ". . . Fayed would, in my presence, place cash in an envelope . . . or instruct me to place cash in an envelope for Mr Hamilton." (paragraph 7).

  This allegation is curiously lacking in detail when compared with the precision of her recollections of the amount allegedly paid to Greer:

  ". . . Fayed . . . would then, in my presence, put £50 notes, made up in bundles of £2,500 in an envelope . . ." (paragraph 4).

and her vague recollection of the amount allegedly paid to me prior to the Ritz trip:

  " . . . between £2,000 and £3,000 . . ." (paragraph 9)

  (h)   Bond/Bozek inconsistencies - the cash totals.

  Bond asserts that the bundles of cash were always £5,000 for Greer and £2,500 for Hamilton:

  "Mr Al-Fayed would in my presence place two bundles of £2,500 notes in £50 denominations in an envelope which he would then instruct me to deliver to Mr Greer."

  ". . . prior to a meeting with Mr Hamilton, Mr Al-Fayed would make a remark to the effect that he was coming to collect his money and would prepare an envelope for him with a bundle of £2,500 notes in my presence." (paragraph 6)   Bozek, however, recalls "putting amounts of between £2,000 and £5,000 in envelopes at various times" allegedly for Greer.

  If the sums paid were supposedly related to "work done" (as in "every month we got a bill for parliamentary services and it would vary from £8,000 to £10,000 depending on the number of questions": Guardian 20 October 1994) it is inexplicable that they were invariably £2,500 and £5,000.

  If they were not related to work done, why were they paid?

  (i)   A blizzard of cash. How many payments?   Bozek alleges that:

  "Mr Hamilton phoned the office on numerous occasions enquiring whether Mr Al-Fayed had an envelope ready for him." (paragraph 7).

and that:

  "Mr Hamilton was as persistent as Mr Greer, if not more so, in asking for his envelope. He would sometimes phone saying that he would be stopping by at very short notice to pick up the envelope." (paragraph 8).

  These allegations are lies.

  Bozek implies that there were many such payments, although she does not specify the exact number.

  First, she alleges that there were times when an envelope had already been prepared prior to a phone call:

  "Mr Hamilton phoned the office on numerous occasions asking whether Mr Al-Fayed had an envelope ready for him. If an envelope was prepared . . . I would tell (him to) come . . . to pick it up." (paragraph 7).

  It is reasonable to assume from this language that this happened at least three times and possibly more.

  Secondly, she alleges there were occasions when no envelope had been prepared prior to a phone call.

  These occasions can be further sub-divided into two types, for she clearly states that Fayed himself on some occasions and she on others put the cash in the envelope:

  "If no envelope was ready . . . Mr Al-Fayed would, in my presence, place cash in an envelope for me to arrange for delivery to Mr Hamilton, or instruct me to get an envelope and place the cash in the envelope for Mr Hamilton." (paragraph 7).

  As a trainee solicitor with a top-flight City firm the Inquiry is entitled to assume that she has chosen her words with precision.

  The language employed implies that Fayed and she each did this at least two or three times. So she is alleging a minimum of half a dozen or so instances in addition to the other three or more mentioned in the last paragraph.

  (j)   The Ritz cash advance. Tricks of memory   She also alleges that she left an envelope containing money for me to collect prior to my departure for the Ritz. Here she employs an interesting form of words:

  "Mr Al-Fayed asked me to leave an envelope containing between £2,000 and £3,000 at the reception desk" (paragraph 9).

  What does she mean? Did Fayed not stipulate an exact amount? Was she given a discretion over exactly how much to hand over? Did she, perhaps, on occasions keep some for herself?   Her memory of the preparatory telephone conversation is apparently good enough, after a lapse of nine years, to recall trivial elements; e.g., that I . . .

  " . . . made no mention of staying at Mr Fayed's private apartment" and also that "before I (i.e. Bozek) had a chance to phone, Mrs Christine Hamilton telephoned me." (paragraph 9).

  But she cannot apparently remember the precise amount of money that she personally stuffed in the envelope.

  [Incidentally, to the best of my recollection I can say that, prior to our departure for France we did not go via London. We drove from Cheshire to Portsmouth, where we stayed the night with my parents and caught the ferry to Cherbourg early the following morning. We then stayed for several days with a family friend who lived in Carentan (Normandy) before driving on to Paris. Bozek should be invited to say, without being told these details, when she thinks she left the envelope for collection prior to the Ritz visit.]   Unlike Bozek (whose trained legal mind seems somewhat erratic) Fayed and Bond are blessed with total recall. They say with precision that the amount handed over was invariably £2,500.

  In view of Bozek's precision on some less memorable elements of the story one can only speculate on why, except for a vague recollection in one instance, she is always silent in her witness statement on the very important question of the amounts of money allegedly in envelopes destined for me.

  By contrast, curiously, her memory is very clear in the case of Greer:

  " . . . (Fayed) would then, in my presence, put £50 notes, made up in bundles of £2,500, in an envelope." (paragraph 4).

  In the case of Bozek, fortunately, there is a precedent. This is not the first time she has given false evidence on Fayed's behalf.

BOZEK'S PREVIOUS LIES

  147. On Fayed's instructions she previously made a false declaration to secure permission to enter the UK for a Chinese Sri Lankan cook employed at Fayed's residence in Surrey.

  Christoph Bettermann has very clear recollections of this lie and is prepared to give evidence to the Inquiry on oath on this and all other statements ascribed to him.

  In 1989-90 Fayed wanted a cook to work for him at his country house in Oxted, Surrey. International Marine Services, (the Fayed company based in Dubai, of which Bettermann was MD), had its own catering department and Fayed asked that the company's best cook be sent for testing and training to England.

  Bettermann sent a Sri Lankan by the name of Ho Chee Sing. Fayed liked the man and his cooking. IMS were informed that he would not return to Dubai but would stay in Oxted and Fayed would obtain the necessary visa for him.

  Some time later Fayed told Bettermann that he might be questioned by Immigration officials about Ho Chee Sing as he had been apprehended when re-entering the UK. When questioned, Ho had given Bozek's address and telephone number.

  Upon Fayed's instructions, Bozek confirmed Ho's story and told Immigration officials that Ho was to stay with her during his visit to London. Bozek said that she lived with Bettermann at that address as his girlfriend and that he was Ho's boss.

  Apart from Bettermann being Ho's boss, this was completely untrue. Bettermann never had a relationship with Bozek; he did not live with her, had never visited her home and, indeed, did not know where it was.

  Fayed later told Bettermann of this and asked him to confirm this story if he was questioned.

WHY WERE THESE EMPLOYEES TWO YEARS LATE IN COMING FORWARD?

  148. Fayed's witness statement makes it absolutely clear that there was no corroborative witness to his alleged direct cash payments.

  "Our meetings were alone and, although my diary confirms the dates of the meetings no-one else would have seen the money being given to Mr Hamilton." (paragraph 4)   However, by the time we were nearing trial, Fayed obviously felt that his story lacked credibility without corroboration.

  149. The pattern of alleged payments is irrational and many of his claims are absurd. But the most dangerous problem for him was that I had produced a witness (Timothy O'Sullivan - see paragraphs 128-32) who accompanied me on one occasion when he allegedly gave me gift vouchers. He had forgotten about him and it was not until we had exchanged witness statements that he was reminded.

  150. That explains why he later felt the need to produce his own corroborative witnesses - but in typical Fayed fashion he went over the top. He produced three, two of whom claimed to have been intimately involved in preparing bundles of cash.

  Iris Bond's witness statement ostentatiously states that

  "on several occasions prior to a meeting with Mr Hamilton, Mr Al-Fayed . . . would prepare an envelope for him with a bundle of £2,500 notes in my presence" after Fayed had made

  "a remark that he was coming to collect his money". (paragraph 6).

  Similarly, Alison Bozek

  would inform Mr Al-Fayed of Mr Hamilton's call and Mr Al-Fayed would, in my presence, place cash in an envelope for me to arrange for delivery to Mr Hamilton." (paragraph 8).

  Bond was produced as a late witness purportedly to corroborate Fayed's claim to have handed money to me face-to-face. But Fayed must have contemplated (with good reason) that her late appearance might damage her credibility.

  Hence, he produced Bozek as a witness to an analogous but wholly novel fabricated transaction - cash in brown envelopes.

  The late appearance of these witnesses can be explained only by the need to plug the gaps in Fayed's evidence which were revealed to him after the production of my witness statement and to avoid the need for him to give evidence in Court.

FAYED THE AMNESIAC

  151. Alan Rusbridger has written that:

  "Fayed may not have a head for detail . . . " (Spectator 26 October 1996).

  But, surprisingly, Fayed's memory for detail is apparently so good that he could, without any documentary record, recall five to seven years after the event, the different amounts he supposedly gave me in cash or gift vouchers on different dates.

  (a)   Fayed "forgot" about Bond.

     If his memory is so powerful it seems a curious lapse to have "forgotten" until a few days before the trial that "on several occasions" Bond was "in his presence" and watched him stuffing money in an envelope; and also that, on another occasion, she took £5,000 cash to Harrods on his personal instructions with the express purpose of giving it to me!

  (b)   Fayed "forgot" paying £5,000 per quarter in cash to Greer.

     If the Bozek/Bond/Bromfield witness statements are to be believed, they also indicate that Fayed apparently "forgot" that he had paid Greer in cash £5,000 per quarter for nine years!

  (c)   Fayed "forgot" about Bozek and the brown envelopes full of cash.

     Additionally, according to the same sources, Fayed also apparently "forgot" that, on frequent but unspecified occasions, he arranged for me to collect from his office envelopes which he and Bozek had personally stuffed with large but unspecified quantities of cash.

  Furthermore, the "cash in brown envelopes" allegations are inconsistent with Fayed's categoric assertion in his witness statement of June 1995:

  "I can therefore confirm that cash payments were made to Mr Hamilton in two ways: Firstly, in face to face meetings and secondly through Ian Greer." (paragraph 8).

  How was it that he "forgot" about this third way in which huge sums of money were allegedly paid by him to Greer and me?   The total amount alleged to have been secretly paid to Greer exceeds £180,000. The total amount alleged by Fayed's employees to have been collected by me in this way is tantalisingly obscure but must have amounted to at least £15,000-£20,000 (see analysis in paragraph 146(i) above).

  It is quite incredible that Fayed could have forgotten transactions of such a nature if they had occurred with such regularity and involved such large sums of money as alleged.

  One possible explanation could be that Fayed makes so many illegal cash payments that even repeated instances can be forgotten in a memory dulled by habituation to malpractice. If so, his accomplices, Bond and Bozek, may suffer a similar confusion of memory. The more likely explanation is that anyone accustomed to acting so dishonestly would have no difficulty in inventing lies (or corroborating them) when convenient to do so.

  The true reason, in my submission, for the late appearance of these witnesses and their lies is that Fayed was a reluctant witness. As far as I am aware, he has never appeared to be cross-examined in Court in any of the many cases in which he has been Plaintiff or Defendant.

  The employee witnesses appeared at the last moment as a "fig-leaf" to cover the prospective non-appearance of their employer in Court. Their evidence was to be a substitute for his.

  It is quite incredible that, after the exhaustive inquiries which solicitors for The Guardian must have undertaken, such important corroborative evidence could have been "forgotten" for so long - especially since Bond is:

  "a secretary in Fayed's office at 60 Park Lane, a position . . . held since 1979" (Paragraph 1 Bond witness statement).

and Bozek was:

  "a Personal Assistant to Mr Al-Fayed in his office at 60 Park Lane between 1981 and September 1994." (Paragraph 1 Bozek witness statement).

  They worked daily in the inner sanctum. It was obvious from the start that the corroboration they could provide would be vital. The only credible reason for their last-minute arrival is that they were suborned and their evidence concocted to fill the holes in Fayed's original ill-thought out story.

COMPENDIUM OF FAYED'S ALLEGATIONS

  152. So the totality of Fayed's allegations is:

  (i)   on eight occasions Fayed handed me personally a bundle of £2,500;

  (ii)   on four occasions he handed me personally a total of £8,000 in Harrods gift vouchers;

  (iii)   on at least half a dozen and perhaps up to 10 occasions Bozek left envelopes containing at least £2,000 for collection;

  (iv)   on at least one occasion Bond left such an envelope for me.

  These sums are additional to the money he alleges Greer paid me at the rate of £2,000 per question.

  153. I infer that the overwhelming majority of these sums were allegedly paid post September 1987. At that time Fayed's story is that he refused to let my wife and me return to the Ritz.

  "as I felt he (i.e., Hamilton) was abusing my hospitality" (Fayed witness statement paragraph 11).

  It seems incongruous that, whilst allegedly refusing me hospitality which cost him next to nothing, he was simultaneously showering me with enormous sums of money - apparently for little or nothing in return!

  154. There are two obvious questions to ask at this point:

     (1) What was I doing in exchange for all this money?   I demonstrate above that there is no pattern or rationale to the alleged payments from Greer and Fayed when set against the relevant parliamentary activity.

  This irrationality is compounded by the "cash in brown envelopes" allegations. It is notable also that, in contrast to the earlier cash/voucher allegations, Fayed has produced:

  (a)   no dates on which the alleged payments were made, nor has he

  (b)   specified even how many such payments there were.   The pattern of alleged payments is rendered thereby even more random and incomprehensible.

  (2)   Why pay me vast sums of money when Dale Campbell-Savours would do the "work" for nothing?   Between 1985 and 1990 (when I joined the Government) the comparative table of relevant activity reads as follows:        

	Campbell-Savours	Hamilton
Written PQs:	28	8
Oral PQs:	4	0 (or 1)
EDMs tabled:	61	3
EDMs signed:	?	5

     Interestingly, Fayed himself, in his interview with Hencke on 18 October 1994 drew attention to Campbell-Savours' activity. As Hencke points out:

  "Strikingly, Mohamed Al-Fayed compared Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith with Dale Campbell-Savours. Of Dale Campbell-Savours he said that he `did not want to receive anything' and Campbell-Savours never took so much as a cup of coffee from him." (paragraph 19(v) Hencke witness statement.)   Oddly, for the Journalist of the Year, it did not seem to occur to Hencke to ask Fayed, when he was talking about Campbell-Savours, why he did not use him for more of the routine PQs and EDMs and save himself the heavy expense he allegedly incurred in employing me!

155. TWO OBVIOUS QUESTIONS

  Fayed also told Hencke that "Peter Hordern had been representing House of Fraser for some years".

  It apparently did not occur to Hencke also to ask two further questions:

  (a)   in that case why was Hordern not used to put down written PQs?

  (b)   why pay Hamilton (as I infer from the sums of money alleged) vastly more than Hordern?   It would, of course, have been difficult for Hencke to ask searching questions of Fayed because, as he admits:

  "I went to see Mohamed Al-Fayed on the evening of 18 October 1994. This was the first and only time that I had met Mohamed Al-Fayed before publication of the matter complained of. I would have spoken to Mohamed Al-Fayed for only 10 or 12 minutes." (paragraph 19.)   Just enough time to be ushered in and bow out, having taken a brief dictation from him, but not enough time to ask a single intelligent question to test his veracity.

  It is true that he also:

  "spoke to a colleague of Mohamed Al-Fayed's, Michael Cole, for about 20 minutes beforehand". (paragraph 19.)   Cole is the Harrods PR man. His job is to manipulate the media. This must have been his easiest job ever!

156. OTHER OBVIOUS QUESTIONS HENCKE NEVER ASKED

  (A) Is it really credible that I would compromise myself in such a blatant way by discussing such matters on the telephone with a secretary that I knew only in passing? Or compromise myself by so regularly collecting money from unknown security guards - who must be presumed, from long practice in Fayed's service, to suspect the contents of the envelopes that are so regularly deposited with them.

  (B) What security system was employed to log the receipt and collection of mail at 60 Park Lane? If large sums of cash are placed in plain envelopes, surely some signature must be demanded as proof of receipt? Where is the documentary evidence?   (C) My meetings with Fayed were supposedly as frequent as:

  "about once every four to six weeks, although there were times when the visits may have been as frequent as once a week". (Paragraph 6.)   If so, Bozek's description of my frenetic phone calls to pick up envelopes on other occasions is even less credible. With so many face-to-face meetings why would I need to supplement them with a regular intermediate collection of envelopes?   If one inserts these alleged extra payments into the analyses of payment and parliamentary activity (above) the allegations seem even more irrational and absurd.

  157. The careful construction of the pantomime of envelope-stuffing described by Bozek and Bond prompts at least three questions:

  (1)   in view of the foregoing why was Fayed so careful in his witness statement of 23 June 1995 to make it clear that there was NEVER a corroborative witness to the alleged cash payments?

  (2)   why, by contrast, was there ALWAYS a corroborative witness present for the envelope-stuffing according to the latest allegations?

  (3)   why have these new witnesses been so long in coming forward - especially as they are all very long-serving employees and easily contactable for a statement?

  158. The answer is simple - as with the employee witnesses in the Bettermann case, their false evidence has been concocted to justify the lies of their employer and to plug gaps which were not noticed or ignored at the time the earlier lies were invented.

  Fayed did not think his story through in sufficient detail in advance. Had Peter Preston asked some elementary critical questions prior to publication perhaps Fayed would have realised the obvious weaknesses and attempted to remedy them at an earlier stage.

RUSBRIDGER BLOWS THE GAFF

  159. The current editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger is aware of the problem of Fayed's inconsistencies and unreliability. His lame excuse is:

  "Mr. Fayed may not have a head for detail, but he knows when he has bought a man." (The Spectator 26 October 1996, page 40).

  It ought to be the duty of supposedly responsible journalists to test to destruction the details of a story such as this from an obviously tainted source in order to establish its credibility.   In their slavering excitement and desperation to get a "scoop" Preston and Hencke and all those involved in the production of this story suspended their critical faculties.

  Consequently, Fayed faced up to the problems only as the libel action proceeded - his story changed as it was discredited and inconsistencies emerged.

  (a)   The original allegation involving the two cheques to Greer for £12,000 and £6,000 was disproved by documentary evidence; as was the allegation of £8,000-£10,000 per month varying according to the number of PQs asked. Similarly, the allegation involving the cheque for £13,333, is disproved by circumstantial evidence.

  (b)   This was succeeded by the uncorroborated allegation of face-to-face cash payments which was contrived so as to require me to prove a negative. When this was disproved by cogent witness evidence and detailed critical analysis . . . .

  (c)   . . . Fayed then produced a third allegation - the cash in brown envelopes. It was only at this stage that he produced some purported corroboration to plug the earlier gap and to support the latest lie.

---

---

Prepared 8 July 1997