|
CHAPTER 3: THE BACKGROUND TO FAYED'S LIES
Fayed's Introduction to Greer
160. In his witness statement dated 23 June 1995 Fayed says:
"I had been recommended to Ian Greer Associates
in the autumn of 1985 after Mr Greer had contacted me to offer
his services." (paragraph 1).
Fayed lied in his very first paragraph, as part
of his attempt to present himself as the innocent dupe of "pin-striped
parasites".
161. Hencke regards this as a significant indication
of guilt:
"One of the things that struck me most
about what Mohamed Al-Fayed had said was not only that Ian Greer
himself had approached Mohamed Al-Fayed (and not the other way
round) but Ian Greer had personally chosen Neil Hamilton and
Tim Smith as the MPs who would ask the questions." (Hencke
witness statement paragraph 19).
This was clearly the effect which Fayed wished
to convey and explains the necessity for this initial lie.
Fayed and Greer - Who approached whom?
162. In fact, (as Fayed eventually admitted in his interview
on Channel 4's "Dispatches" programme on 16 January
1997), Greer was recommended to Fayed by Lord King, who effected
the introduction and made the arrangements for an initial meeting.
Ali Fayed had met King on a plane and complained
to him about Tiny Rowland's attempts to persuade the Government
to intervene to undo the Fayeds' takeover of HoF.
King was then Chairman of British Airways, which
was a client of IGA, and he recommended that the Fayeds engage
Greer to help them with the political aspects of their difficulties.
King did not "confirm", as Fayed puts it, that he regarded
Greer highly, (implying that King was providing a reference asked
for by Greer). King proffered this opinion gratuitously before
Greer knew he might be approached.
MPs for "Rent" or for "Hire"?
163. Fayed continued with his original and very grave allegation:
"Mr Greer specifically told me that it
was perfectly normal to pay MPs to ask questions in the House
of Commons and undertake similar activities. At one of our meetings
he told me that MPs could be rented like taxis." (paragraph
2).
This is a complete fabrication. Even the language
employed demonstrates this. A British person would not talk of
"renting" a taxi. David Hencke confirms the use of this
word (witness statement paragraph 19 (i)).
Hencke says:
"I was particularly struck by this comment
because he had used the word `rent' rather than the word `hire'."
Since he was "particularly struck" by this usage
it is odd that it did not excite Hencke's suspicions about whether
he was being told the truth. Greer would never have used "rent"
in this context. It is notable also that Michael Cole says "hire
MPs like taxis" in his News at Ten interview (see above,
paragraph 55).
164. "Cash for Questions" is a hoax
entirely dreamed up by Fayed. It is inherently improbable that
anyone (apart from the fictional Alan B'stard) would seek to
charge for each individual PQ. Had I engaged in such a practice
and been as venal as Fayed alleges one would expect me to have
asked far more PQs and on a more regular basis!
165. If
true, is it conceivable that Greer would have spoken in these
terms uniquely to Fayed and not to any other client?
Greer
has had hundreds of clients in his 25 years or so in business.
Surely, at least one other example of similar propositions would
have surfaced during the last two years had he been prone to say
such a thing?
166. My own and Greer's experience of the last
two years has been that every possible innocent breach of parliamentary
rules or minor indiscretion has found its way into the public
domain, usually as a result of someone seeking to settle an old
score. Someone somewhere would surely have appeared to corroborate
Fayed's experience had it been remotely true.
167. A list of IGA's former clients (curiously
omitting the Newspaper Publishers' Association, which includes
The Guardian) is helpfully appended to David Leigh's book
"Sleaze" at page 253. I respectfully submit that the
Inquiry should ask each of them whether Greer had ever suggested
paying MPs either as part of or in addition to his company's
fees.
168. "Cash for Questions" was a brilliant
propaganda invention, without which Fayed's story would not have
had its dramatic effect. But even the two clandestine entrapment
exercises undertaken by journalists on the strength of Fayed's
off-the-record allegations do not sustain the allegation of payment
per PQ, which is a self-evidently ridiculous proposition.
169. This is significant as:
(a) The Sunday Times exercise was
directly inspired by Fayed (now confirmed by David Leigh in "Sleaze"
at page 165); and
(b) the Cook Programme was inspired by
The Guardian, David Hencke was seconded to it by Peter
Preston, and the production team carried out their covert filming
in an apartment owned by Fayed.
170. A leading lobbyist like
Greer does not need to pay MPs to put down PQs and would be foolish
to incur the unnecessary expense. His expertise lies in knowing
which MPs are likely to sympathise naturally with his client's
cause.
He would be wasting his money to pay MPs for
doing a job which they would do in any event. Also a company
like IGA which had lots of blue-chip clients (as the Fayeds were
thought to be in the mid-1980s), would engage in ruinous expense
if it had to pay £2,000 per PQ as Fayed alleged.
171. In any case, the Fayeds were not in 1985-89
unpopular and had little difficulty in securing sympathy in their
feud with Tiny Rowland at least from Conservative MPs. IGA would
not have needed to pay for PQs, not least because Sir Peter Hordern
was House of Fraser's parliamentary consultant and he could perfectly
properly have put them down, just as he perfectly properly led
delegations to Ministers.
Why target Grylls, Hamilton and Smith?
172. Fayed went on to say:
"Mr Greer specifically put forward Neil
Hamilton and Tim Smith as MPs who would agree to be paid in exchange
for asking questions, lobbying and other parliamentary services."
(paragraph 2).
This is a lie.
For a so-called "investigative journalist"
it is quite astonishing that Hencke should accept this unquestioningly
at face value. Any lobbyist would naturally target the officers
of the backbench Trade and Industry Committee, which Greer did
- and as Peter Hordern did before he was engaged.
173. In 1985-86 Michael Grylls was Chairman,
I was Vice-Chairman and Tim Smith was Secretary. The Officers
of the Committee had all been for lunch at Harrods in February
1984 - when Professor Roland Smith was repelling Lonrho and long
before the Fayeds or Greer had any involvement.
174. It is quite amazing that Hencke should
have immediately believed Fayed's story that he was "touting"
us.
First, he should have been sceptical because
of Fayed's reputation as a liar.
Secondly, it is obviously the job of a lobbyist
to know which MPs are most likely to be helpful to his cause
by reason of (i) natural sympathy for his client's point of view
and (ii) the positions they hold in the parliamentary system.
175. The Government Department principally responsible
for the policy areas of importance to the Fayeds was the DTI.
What more natural, therefore, than to seek the support of the
officers of the Conservative backbench Trade and Industry Committee?
176. Tiny Rowland was hardly flavour of the month with Conservative
MPs. Between January and April 1984 his newspaper The Observer
published a dozen articles by David Leigh (who now appears in
this story as the author of The Guardian's book, "Sleaze").
These articles alleged that Margaret Thatcher's position had been
manipulated by Mark Thatcher to secure huge fees on building
contracts in Oman.
In Conservative circles the articles were universally
interpreted as an attack on the Prime Minister by Rowland. Loyal
Thatcherites like me did not like this and were naturally predisposed
to look favourably on the Fayeds as victims of Rowland's ire.
177. Furthermore, in 1984 Norman Tebbit changed
Government competition policy. The Government announced that,
in general, it would not thereafter intervene to block takeovers
unless there was some detriment to competition. Hence Hencke
must have expected, especially he was personally very well aware
of my radical free-market views, a natural resistance to a demand
for Government intervention to unscramble the Fayed takeover
of HoF. There was no competition-related reason to do so.
178. Hencke's "astonishment" at Greer's
very obvious advice is, therefore, impossible to understand. It
is explicable only by:
(a) ignorance on his part (an unlikely
explanation); or
(b) desire to believe what Fayed was saying
regardless of the truth - because it would make a good story
(an all-too-plausible).
179. Anyone who knows anything about Parliament
would find risible the suggestion that the most effective way
of achieving the Fayeds' objectives was to table written PQs.
Furthermore, one would have to be completely
crazy to think it worth paying £2,000 for each one. At best,
PQs would be an incidental element in their case - whereas Fayed's
tale puts this activity at the very centre of Greer's sales pitch.
180. I have known Ian Greer extremely well
since 1979. He never suggested at any time that I should be a
paid consultant to him or his company or that he would pay me
for helping any of his clients. He did not need to. If I believed
in a particular proposal I might help; otherwise I would not.
Fayed and Greer did discuss offering a consultancy
to Tim Smith in January or February 1987. But it is clear from
Greer's letter to Fayed dated 5 February 1987 that the intention
was that Smith should be a paid adviser to HoF and not IGA.
Greer said that he thought it unlikely that
Smith would wish to do this `before the General Election is over'.
It is not clear whether this proposal was ever discussed with
Smith who, in his evidence, said that he could not recollect
any discussion about this (Q 1027).
However, it was clearly contemplated by Fayed.
This is an important distinction between me and Smith which goes
far to explain why Smith was actually offered payment in May 1987
and thereafter, whereas I was not.
What is clear from the documents is that, contrary
to Fayed's lies:
(a) Greer never contemplated paying Smith
himself (still less with covert cash amounts calculated at £2,000
a time for PQs); and
(b) there was no suggestion that I should
be paid for anything which I did to help Fayed.
| 
