|
CHAPTER 9: ANALYSIS OF FAYED'S ORAL EVIDENCE TO THE
INQUIRY
1. Fayed's memory too untrustworthy to be relied
on. 595. Fayed has made, in documents solemnly constructed
at leisure and with the benefit of extremely competent legal
advice, a large number of precise and extremely serious allegations
of dishonesty on the part of the MPs and Ian Greer.
Under oral cross-examination this purported
precision is utterly destroyed, demonstrating that his carefully
contrived allegations are falsehoods and inventions.
596. The following is a catalogue of his
admissions of inability to remember the facts on a range of issues,
some peripheral but many central to his whole case.
There is no excuse whatever for this vagueness.
He has pursued his vendetta singlemindedly for three and a half
years. He could not even be bothered to rehearse effectively,
in order to remember the lies he had previously told.
(a) Q505. Origin of Ritz invitation After
disputing that he originated the invitation to the Ritz, he then
said: "I cannot confirm what happened in casual discussions,
no confirmation." (b) Q518. Balnagown Castle He did
not remember that Peter Hordern was present with me at Balnagown.
Presumably, he was reminded of my visit by some written record.
Why, therefore, could he not also remember Hordern? (c) Q526-7.
Invitation to dinner "I do not remember if he invited
me. I have no recollection." His own message pads record
such an invitation.
(d) Q528. House of Commons gifts He does
not remember whether I gave him any gifts. Yet I frequently reciprocated
his casual gifts and gave him a House of Commons Wedgewood Coffee
service following our visit to the Ritz.
He was supercilious in a newspaper comment
about some House of Commons cuff-links which I gave him, an incident
confirmed by Royston Webb.
(e) Q559. The 1987 election contributions "Do
you have any recollection of this letter? (to Ali soliciting the
cheque for £6,000)." "No." Q560:
"Or of Ali talking to you?" "I do not remember
that at all. It is a long time ago." (f) Q567. Advertising
in Conservative brochure. "Do you remember (Greer) asking
you to pay for some advertising in the Tory Party brochure?"
"I am sorry. I do not remember." The request was
made in a letter which survives.
(g) Q600. How much was Tim Smith paid? "
. . . Figures that have been mentioned over the years range from
£25,000 down to £6,000." "It is really
difficult to remember this." Tim Smith says he was paid
£18,000.
(h) Q611. Andrew Bowden's activities "I
do not know if he put motions or something like that, I do not
remember if he put questions." (i) Q629. Meetings with the
`group' of MPs. " . . . there would be group meetings,
would there not?" "To the best of my recollection.
I cannot just confirm them." (j) Q647. Why had Fayed never
mentioned before 27 September 1996 the alleged quarterly cash
payment to Greer of £5,000. "Because you do not
want me to remember eight years ago, every aspect of everything
because I am running a business with 30,000 people . . . "
Q651: " . . . I would explain it to
my brother, maybe he mentioned it to me and I do not put it. I
do not remember."
Q655: "There is no mention of what on
your employees' evidence is approaching £40,000 of cash
payments, £5,000 a quarter for two years or so."
Q657: "In the witness statement there
is no mention of this at all."
Q658: "It is merely because it was not
that important?"
"It was still important but I do not
recollect . . . I cannot remember everything happening eight
or nine years ago with all my commitments and all my business
occupations. . . . (k) Q669. Was Hamilton asking for payments
in 1985 and 1986? ªI cannot remember and confirm this
now. I will have to go back again." Christopher Carr
QC confirmed that no allegations were made against me prior to
2 June 1987.
(1) Q679. Why no mention of cash in brown envelopes?
"I had not to be very specific because I am not writing
a Bible, it is an answer that would have happened nearly ten
years ago, eight years ago." (m) Q712. Did Greer know about
these alleged cash payments?. "I do not really remember.
I cannot recollect".
Q714: "If it was happening you
would tell Mr. Greer, would you not?" "I do not
remember that I told him. I cannot recollect that I told him."
(n) Q774. The Fayed Story was changed over time. "You
cannot just expect me in ten years to be sure. I am telling you
to the best of my recollection . . . You cannot just be sure
100 per cent. These are basically the facts. To the best of my
recollection. You cannot just have everything. I never expected
this would happen to me . . . I never thought I would be in a
position like this, never ever did I think that." 597.
Of course, it is quite understandable that one's memory should
play tricks after so many years. When confronted initially by
Hencke I had considerable difficulty in remember exactly what
I had done in the House of Fraser battle in the 1980s.
Even when I checked the record for the purposes
of my letter of 1 October 1993 to Peter Preston I made errors
of omission - because of the peculiarities of the Hansard index.
These and other misconceptions have been
corrected following two years of painstaking research. The Guardian
castigated me as a liar for making mistakes in a very hasty attempt
to stave off their imminently anticipated damaging attacks (see
"Sleeze pages" 159-162).
598. This contrasts, starkly with their egregious
tolerance of Fayed's mistakes, wild inconsistencies and obvious
lies.
Forgetting that, in 1990, it was Fayed (not
me) whom The Guardian had castigated as a liar and a cheat,
David Leigh ludicrously describes Fayed as
" . . . an Egyptian innocent abroad . .
. a lad up from the country in a Ben Johnson comedy, immediately
surrounded by the smart operators of Bartholomew Fair seeking
to empty his purse." (Page 164).
599. Fayed is later described as
" . . . maddeningly broad-brush . . . so
vague with dates. . . . (Page 209).
On the contrary, Fayed's problem is the opposite
- a claimed precision which cannot be substantiated.
Leigh writes:
ªThe original details from Fayed in the
article - how much money, when, to whom, what for - seemed vague."
(Page 207).
This was not true.
600. Fayed's allegations had been precise -
that Greer paid MPs £2,000 a time for PQs, that he charged
Fayed a £50,000 fee plus a monthly retainer of £8,000-£10,000
which varied according to the number of questions. Each of these
very precise allegations has been conclusively proved to be false.
In the words of Counsel to the Inquiry to Fayed:
Q569:
"In a case where crucial documents are
few and far between the documents support Mr Greer and not you."
601. The details which Leigh describes as vague refer
to allegations which did not appear in The Guardian
article - because they were not invented until after it was published
(the alleged direct cash payments).
These sought-after details were later provided
in the D J Freeman letter of 5 December 1994 (produced in conjunction
with The Guardian Defence in the libel case) - which Fayed's
Leading Counsel implied on 23 January 1997 were, unfortunately,
not vague enough! 602. Leigh asserted that, when Preston
went for the first time to see Fayed:
"He put on the biggest pair of kid gloves
he could find and carried a very long spoon." (Pages 155-6)
Yet this alleged initial circumspection was not apparent
in The Guardian's subsequent acceptance of Fayed's uncorroborated
assertions, which they swallowed greedily and whole.
603. Although Leigh refers to
" . . . internal Guardian memoranda
which contained `some pretty brutal assumptions and a lot of cynical
humour,'" (Page 207) no weight appears to have been
given to Fayed's known character as a liar nor to his obviously
tainted motives in producing his allegations.
(The documents referred to in this passage have
not been produced, despite Discovery. They could well provide
interesting insights into The Guardian's state of mind
prior to 20 October 1994 and throw light upon their bona fides
in endorsing Fayed's lies).
604. It may be that, despite all the work which
I have done to try to tie up loose ends and plug gaps, obscurities
and errors remain. But there is a big difference between, on the
one hand, limited changes in a story resulting from the appearance
of new documents or new argument and, on the other hand, the exposure,
by the slightest pinprick of enquiry, of a long-term and calculated
deceit.
2. FAYED'S ORAL EVIDENCE CONTRADICTORY
(a) The D J Freeman letter of 5 December 1994
605. Embarrassingly, Fayed's Leading Counsel, Christopher
Carr QC, had to begin Fayed's evidence session by admitting the
shaky nature of the foundation stone upon which was built the
whole edifice of Fayed's allegations of direct cash and voucher
payments.
Q473 The D J Freeman letter to the Chairman of
the Select Committee on Members' Interests dated 5 December 1994
"I make no bones about it. There are
very particularised indications of dates of meetings and payments
in that statement . . . we had to find out precisely how in preparing
the statement they arrived at such precision . . .
The answer to that is this: their instructions
from Mr Al-Fayed were `every time I met Mr Hamilton he asked
for a payment and I made a payment.'
D J Freeman took that as the basis for their
preparing the statement. What they did was to investigate and
research all the occasions when there were meetings with the aid
of diary notes, references and the like, and then based on that
methodology said that a payment was made on those dates."
606. What does this mean? It can mean only that Fayed's precise
allegations were not true. This appears also to be the understanding
of Counsel to the Inquiry (see Q662).
Yet Fayed had solemnly confirmed all the
details
(i) in a letter forming the basis of
a complaint to the Members' Interests Committee by Alex Carlile
QC MP;
(ii) in his witness statement taken
by Lovell, White, Durrant for the purposes of the libel action
on 23 June 1995;
(iii) in his Statement to the Privileges
Committee on 1 November 1995;
(iv) in his written submission to the
Inquiry, 12 December 1996.
607. Fayed's evidence on the alleged cash/voucher
payments collapsed in confusion:
Q662: "Do you still say . . . that whenever
you met you gave him cash?"
"Definitely, yes. To the best of my recollection
I can say most of the times when we met he always asked for cash."
Q663: "Maybe two or three times I did
not give him any cash." 608. Fayed's Counsel had
tried to get him off the hook on which he had impaled himself.
He initially attempted to shift the responsibility for the precise
allegations from Fayed to D J Freeman. If successful that would
have (inter alia):
(i) made it easier for Fayed to explain
the incomprehensible pattern of alleged payments; and
(ii) neutralised the evidence of Timothy
O'Sullivan.
609. However Fayed failed to comprehend the
plot and still insisted under cross-examination that on EVERY
occasion, (i.e. on all the dates in the D J Freeman letter),
I asked for and he gave me cash or vouchers.
610. (b) The Ritz.
(i) Fayed denied that the original invitation
came from him.
Q. 491: " . . . a trip was being organised
for Mr Hamilton and Parliamentary colleagues to go to Paris at
your expense and at your invitation. Did that invitation happen
or not?"
Fayed: "Not from me."
Q. 492: "This is all made up by Mr Greer."
Fayed: "Absolutely." 611. Fayed
was then shown the extract from his own telephone message book
noting a message from Greer cancelling the trip.
He then said (at Q. 503):
"It was not my initiative at all, it was
Ian Greer's initiative." Finally he retired into amnesia:
"I cannot confirm what happened in casual
discussions, no confirmation." 612. (c) Fayed confused
about the chronology.
Q. 510: " . . . on the first trip he
asked me, that was nothing to do with Greer. The time after, the
one Greer was discussing to send a team of people . . . nothing
materialised from it." He was clearly confused and
thought that I visited the Ritz prior to Greer's initial letter
of invitation.
631. (d) Balnagown.
Q. 517: "Was it an apartment, a flat
or a house?"
"A bungalow for guests." This
is not correct. We had to climb stairs to get to the flat, which
was above former stables, now converted to a garage. I have a
photograph of the building to prove it.
614. (e) Dinner invitations to House of
Commons.
Q. 526: "Were you invited to go to the
House of Commons and eat with him?"
"I have never eaten there, no. I have had
several invitations but I have never eaten there."
Q. 527: "You had the invitations but
you did not go?"
"I do not remember if he invited me. I
have no recollection." He was invited several times
by me. I could not match his scale of hospitality but I attempted
to reciprocate. His assertion is contradicted by his own telephone
message pad, which notes a call from my wife on 27 January 1988
offering five dates for dinner between 23 February and 17 March.
There were other invitations but he never accepted.
615. (f) House of Commons gifts.
Q. 528: "Did you receive any gifts from
Mr Hamilton . . . ?"
"I do not remember." This is
a strange memory lapse - it contradicts his disdainful references
(reported in the Press and also confirmed by Royston Webb) to
the quality of some House of Commons cuff-links which I gave him,
amongst many other gifts. I recall asking Peter Hordern what
I could give him and he said that Fayed liked gifts from the
House of Commons shops as they could not be obtained generally.
616. (g) Andrew Bowden.
In Q. 572 et seq. Fayed reasserted that
he paid Greer money (including the cheques for £12,000, £6,000
and £13,333) to pass on to MPs.
In paragraph 7 of his witness statement and
elsewhere Fayed stated that the MPs were Tim Smith and me.
In Q. 574 he added Sir Andrew Bowden to the
list. He had mentioned Bowden in his evidence to the Privileges
Committee on 1 November 1995. This allegation was excised from
the printed Report so I did not know about it until I read the
transcript of his evidence of 23 January 1997 before the Inquiry.
Bowden's name never featured in the libel proceedings.
Bowden was not referred to in the notes of Fayed's conversations
with Preston or Hencke. Fayed has failed to explain Bowden's absence
from his earlier allegations.
617. (h) Timing of initial alleged cash
payments.
Q590: "How long was (Hamilton) being
paid in cash before Mr Smith raised it?"
"I think two or three months, to the best
of my recollection." It is not clear why Fayed is now
able to recollect this timing in view of paragraph 12 of his witness
statement, which is completely unspecific about payments to Smith:
"I have a less clear recollection of the
exact dates and amounts paid to Tim Smith . . ." 618.
Further, Fayed went on to say:
Q598: "(Smith) started a few months
after Mr Hamilton?"
"Right. Yes, he put down some questions
and then other Members of Parliament started attacking him so
he stopped." Christopher Carr QC stated at Q669:
"It is certainly no part of the documentary
records or statement of evidence by Mr Al-Fayed that payments
were made other than as indicated starting in June 1987."
619. Hence, by inference, Fayed alleged that Smith did not
ask for cash until around September 1987. This was contradicted
by Smith's own evidence that he was paid for the first time in
May 1987 and received seven or eight further payments, ending
in February 1989.
620. In answer to Q598 Fayed seemed to say that
Smith started putting down questions later than me, which explained
why he allegedly started asking for cash later. This is difficult
to comprehend.
Smith was much more active than I in Sessions
1986-7 and 1987-8. He asked 9 PQs in 1986-7 compared with my
1; and 16 in 1987-8 compared with my 2. Smith had also had an
Adjournment Debate in 1986.
621. Although it is true that he stopped being
active in support of Fayed following attacks by Tiny Rowland
(who was one of his constituents) in January/February 1989, I
did nothing after his last recorded activity (on 15 May 1989)
apart from co-signing 2 EDMs of Dale Campbell-Savours on 21 June
1989. So there is no reason for Fayed to be any more or less
forgetful of the details of his allegations about Smith than about
me (see my submission paragraphs 94 et seq.).
(i) Length of time alleged cash payments continued
- Hamilton.
622. Fayed said in Q591 that he paid me cash
over a period of
" . . . eighteen months, I think, maybe
two years." This contradicts the account in the D J
Freeman letter and his witness statement, where Fayed asserted
that the payments started on 2 June 1987 and continued until
21 November 1989 - a period of nearly two and a half years.
623. His vagueness and inconsistency on this,
arguably the most important single allegation against me, indicates
that no credibility can seriously be attached to his precise claims.
Hence, Mr Carr's attempt to divert responsibility for the detail
of his allegations onto D J Freeman.
(j) Length of time alleged cash payments continued
- Smith.
624. In Q597 Fayed said:
"To the best of my recollection, two or
three months." His answer to Q598 implies that Smith
stopped asking for cash after Rowland started attacking him. But,
if he was paid for a total of only two or three months (starting
in September 1987), he could not have been asking for cash throughout
1988, when he was at his busiest in support of Fayed! This
is inconsistent with Fayed's assertion in paragraph 12 of his
witness statement that
"our (i.e., Fayed and Smith's) relationship
ended in 1989." It is also inconsistent with Smith's
own recollection that he ended the relationship in February 1989.
(k) The amounts alleged to have been paid -
Hamilton.
625. In answer to Q601 Fayed is preposterously
vague and inconsistent:
"Hamilton, I think, maybe took £40,000,
£50,000 or £60,000." One is tempted at this
point to utter the time-honoured cry of the auctioneer: "Any
advance?" It contradicts Fayed's categoric written evidence
that I received £20,000 in cash and £8,000 in vouchers.
(l) The amounts alleged to have been paid -
Smith.
626. In answer to Q601 Fayed says Smith was
paid "maybe around £10,000." This is inconsistent
with Fayed's earlier assertion that Smith was paid £6,000.
This figure was arrived at by deduction from the £34,000
figure quoted by Hencke and which Fayed then claimed to have paid
Smith and me jointly.
It is noteworthy that, in October 1994 (over
two years nearer the alleged events), he alleged he paid us jointly
less than he now alleges he paid me alone! Furthermore,
if he did pay Smith £6,000, that contradicts his assertion
in answer to Q675 that he also paid him in bundles of £2,500.
More importantly, it contradicts Smith's own
evidence that he was paid about £18,000 altogether.
(m) The amounts alleged to have been paid -
Bowden.
627. In evidence to the Privileges Committee
Fayed alleged that Bowden asked for a retainer of £50,000
a year (see Q613).
Yet, in answer to Q609, he alleged that Bowden
had asked for £60,000 a year plus an arrangement fee of
£50,000.
In answer to Q613 he confirmed his evidence
to the Privileges Committee on 1 November 1995:
"Is that still your recollection?"
"I think so." In giving the answer
to Q613 he contradicted the answer he gave to Q609 only seconds
before! (n) Royston Webb's evidence.
628. In answer to QQ613-7 Fayed asserted that
Royston Webb, his former Legal Director, was a witness to the
alleged payment received by Bowden.
Webb's evidence does not support Fayed's assertion.
He was not a witness to the alleged payment. All that he can
say is:
"Mohamed Al-Fayed subsequently told me
he had paid £5,000 to Andrew for his initial work."
629. Even this limited, hearsay corroboration of Fayed's
evidence contradicts his statements in the tape-recorded conversation
with Ian Greer of 20 October 1994:
"I have a very good relationship with Dale
Campbell-Savours, absolutely straightforward. First of all I
said I haven't read the article . . . I did not know. I have
no knowledge on these matters . . . but then I don't know everything
that he does at a long shot. Certainly because I'm not aware of
any such arrangement doesn't mean that there were no such arrangements."
On page 3 of the transcript of the telephone conversation,
Webb makes clear that he knew nothing of Fayed's allegations
about Smith and he is silent about any such arrangement with Bowden:
"Tim has resigned on the grounds that there
were such payments which he did not disclose. Presumably the
inference that's now been drawn is that these payments were made
through you (i.e., Greer)." That last sentence obviously
indicates that Webb knew nothing about the allegations of direct
cash payments - which is not surprising as they did not surface
for the first time until six weeks later on 5 December 1994.
630. Furthermore, Webb appeared incensed to
be told that Fayed had implicated him in the story:
"I gather that I was mentioned, not by
name, but being in receipt of various documents that were. . .as
an adviser. . .if the inference is that I was aware of these
payments, then Peter Preston is going to print a withdrawal of
that. Because I regard that as professionally quite damaging."
(Page 4).
Fayed's assertion of Webb's complicity in the
alleged arrangement with Bowden is, therefore, inconsistent with
the necessary implication of Webb's statement of 20 October 1994
that he knew nothing about it. Webb's statement of 13 February
1997 is inconsistent with his earlier conversation.
(o) The alleged `group' of MPs.
631. In Q631 Fayed is asked:
"So you had lots of private relationships,
is that right?"
"Not lots, with only two guys, with three."
This contradicts the story which Fayed told The Sunday
Times in January 1994, that he had paid a group of four MPs
(see Privileges Committee First Report 1994-95 paragraph 11).
632. It also contradicts Fayed's witness statement
of June 1995, where he alleges that he paid only two MPs (Smith
and Hamilton). Of Grylls and Hordern Fayed says:
"I was never asked for nor gave cash to
Sir Peter Hordern or Michael Grylls." (Paragraph 2).
Bowden is nowhere mentioned.
(p) The alleged quarterly cash payments of
£5,000 to Greer.
633. This allegation first appeared on 27 September
1996.
Royston Webb denied any knowledge of irregular
payments in his taped conversation with Greer on 20 October 1994:
"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." (Page 2) He also
denied any knowledge of this in his letter of 13 February 1997
(see paragraph 6).
634. Fayed was asked why he had not mentioned
it earlier:
"Because you do not want me to remember
eight years ago every aspect of everything . . . " (Q647).
However, this response is inconsistent with
his answer to Q719.
635. Fayed was asked whether there might not
be some confusion in his mind about payments to Hamilton. He
reacted indignantly:
"Confused?"
Q720: "How, if I gave him that money with
my hands? Do you not think I remember I gave him the money? What
do you mean I am confused?" 636. On his own admission
he allegedly gave Greer even more money (at least £40,000)
at his own hands or on his direct instructions - even making
Greer "phone four or five times asking for his envelope"
(Bozek witness statement paragraph 4).
If he "remembers" that I received
cash because he handed it to me personally why did he forget allegedly
handling larger sums to Greer? 637. His indignation at the
slur upon his memory in Q719 is inconsistent with his nineteen
protestations during his cross-examination that he could not
be expected to remember events of eight years ago.
638. Fayed implied that he was reminded of the
alleged £5,000 quarterly Greer payments by his secretaries
(see Q653). This new allegation directly contradicts the tenor
of his earlier witness statement, where he was careful to emphasise
that his secretaries would not have seen him making cash payments.
There was no mention of Greer's alleged quarterly
£5,000. This is extraordinary as he professes to remember
the details of alleged irregular payments of varying amounts
to Hamilton but not the regular and unvarying alleged payment
to Greer! 639. In answer to Q653 Fayed also said:
" . . . this is recorded expenses."
This statement contradicts the evidence given by Iris Bond
at Q237 the previous day:
" . . . if we needed money for our petty
cash he (Fayed) would give us some and we would obviously record
all payments with our petty cash in our own book, but the money
that was given to Mr Al-Fayed was Mr Al-Fayed's, so obviously
I would not be aware unless he specifically told me what the purpose
was or what he was doing with that money." Bond
alleged that payments to Greer were not recorded.
640. The key to establishing the truth about
this allegation perhaps lies in Fayed's response to Q658. Asked
why he had mentioned in the D J Freeman letter the cheques for
£12,000, £6,000 and £13,333 but not the quarterly
£5,000 payments, he replied:
"Maybe the secretaries knew about it and
they had not mentioned it to me. Only when they had to come and
make a statement then they remember everything that happened.
I cannot remember everything happening eight
or nine years ago with all my commitments . . . " Fayed's
"amnesia" requires no further comment. His statement
that the secretaries "had to come and make a statement"
is telling.
(q) The secretaries as witnesses to the alleged
Hamilton payments.
641. The allegation that the secretaries were
aware of cash payments to Hamilton directly contradicts Fayed's
two categoric assertions in his witness statement that
" . . . no-one else would have seen the
money being given to Mr Hamilton" (paragraph 4).
and that
"I can confirm, therefore, that cash payments
were made to Mr Hamilton in two ways: firstly, in face to face
meetings and, secondly, through Ian Greer." (paragraph 8).
In answer to Q678 Fayed said:
"I call my secretaries, Alison or Iris,
and say: `Please go to the petty cash, take out £2,500, take
it down to the doorman and it will be collected by Neil Hamilton
or his wife.'" 642. Fayed implied that this happened
on a number of occasions. Bozek was rather more expansive and
said in her witness statement that I telephoned `on numerous
occasions' to enquire if an envelope was ready.
Bozek's account is inconsistent with Fayed's.
She alleged that I telephoned for an envelope and that she then
told Fayed. Fayed would then stuff an envelope `in (Bozek's)
presence' and she would arrange delivery.
Fayed, however, says that he arranged for envelopes
to be left for me only if he was "not available" (Q678).
In those circumstances Bond or Bozek would stuff the envelopes
on Fayed's instructions. Otherwise Fayed would do it and hand
over the money "when he and I were alone" and "no-one
else would have seen the money being given." 643.
It is impossible to understand Fayed's description of the secrecy
of this alleged operation in his witness statement if (a) I was
in the habit of telephoning "on numerous occasions"
to ask brazenly for "my envelope" and (b) Fayed was
accustomed to instructing his secretaries to arrange for the cash
to be handed over.
644. Furthermore, Fayed justified his handing
over these large sums of money allegedly on account of my describing
the amount of work I had been doing for him, or meetings attended
- "what a great job he is doing for me" (Q585). This
appears to be inconsistent with his arranging for me to be paid
when he was "not available" and, hence, unable to hear
my alleged "sales pitch." 645. Is it really credible
that he would react, simply on account of a telephone call, like
a Pavlovian dog and arrange for me to be paid, for reasons he
cannot now recall and on dates neither he nor his secretaries
can now specify (or even identify approximately)? 646. Fayed's
explanation for this startling amnesia is totally unconvincing:
"I had not to be very specific because
I am not writing a Bible, it is an answer that would have happened
nearly ten years ago, eight years ago."(Q679).
" . . . I am not a young man any more .
. . things start dehydrating, you do not remember things."
(r) Fayed's age: 647. "I am 64 years old."(Q680).
This contradicts the findings of the DTI Inspectors
that Mohamed Fayed was born on 27 January 1929. Hence, when he
claimed to be 64, he was actually within four days of his sixty-eighth
birthday. (See DTI Report paragraph 3.6.4.) (s) Fayed's
bugs.
648. Fayed denies having recording equipment
at 60 Park Lane:
"All this is bullshit, no disrespect. People
talk rubbish. Why do I need to bug people with recordings."(Q688).
This is inconsistent with the evidence of Christoph
Bettermann, who was, himself, clandestinely recorded at 60 Park
Lane at around the same time.
Fayed also secretly recorded his conversation
with Tiny Rowland in 1994, after their temporary rapproachement.
His head of security, MacNamara, also secretly
recorded his conversation with Bettermann in Malaga in 1991,
to try to entrap Bettermann into confessing a bogus insurance
fraud.
(t) Fayed's alleged sense of "public
duty" or "conscience".
649. Fayed, when asked why he waited five to
seven years to reveal his allegations, said "someone like
me has a conscience" (Q692). This echoes the report in The
Guardian of 20 October 1994 that he was acting "out
of public duty" (see also Q693).
650. The reality is that he was incensed that,
as a DTI Minister, I stood aside from taking decisions on matters
affecting his interests when he obviously expected me to help
him in breach of my public duty:
"He knew what the DTI did to me and if
he had any conscience or any humanity inside him after all that
he had done, taking my cause and defending me in the House of
Commons, at least he might have had the courtesy to review the
situation." (Q702) 651. Furthermore, he was obviously
incensed at the Ministerial reply I gave to a PQ by Alex Carlile
on 13 May 1992. "Sleaze" records Fayed's anger:
"He told Carlile the inquiry had been `independent
. . . a carefully considered and thorough investigation."
"This reply, drafted by his officials and
signed off by the Minister, was a cynical, diametric opposite
to Hamilton's previous claims as a backbencher that the inspectors'
behaviour had been `such a monstrous injustice' that it amounted
to the work of a `twentieth century Spanish inquisition.'"
"Fayed must have gasped in astonishment
at his former lackey's shameless U-turn." (Page 148).
Here is one of the most important real reasons
for Fayed's targeting me as part of his vendetta against the
Government and the Conservative Party.
652. Fayed denied feeling insulted by my failure
to reply to his letter of congratulation on appointment as Corporate
Affairs Minister (see Q703).
However, his anger is palpable in his reply
to Q707:
" . . . he thinks he is already God.
He got what he wanted, a Minister, he did not need me any more."
Quite how I "needed" him as a backbencher is not
clear. It is very clear that Fayed "needed" me as a
Minister, but my personal probity came as a severe disappointment
to him.
(u) No response to Fayed's letter.
653. I did not reply to Fayed's letter because
I was advised that it would not be appropriate to do so since
Fayed was suing the DTI in the European Court of Human Rights.
In answer to Q 705 he also denied that I telephoned
him.
Q706: "No contact."
"Absolutely not." 654. This answer
contradicts what he told Brian Hitchen, for onward transmission
to the Prime Minister, on 25 September 1994:
"Mr Hamilton had rung Mr Al-Fayed and complained
vociferously, saying that he would have to distance himself from
him in future." "Sleaze" corroborates Fayed's
lie to Brian Hitchen:
"Hamilton, keeping his nose clean, did
not even give Fayed the courtesy of a reply. The munificent Egyptian
was affronted to get a phone call instead in which it was explained
that Hamilton felt it best to `distance himself' from the owner
of Harrods from now on." (Page 148).
This was completely untrue. I would hardly say
that I felt it best to distance myself from him "from now
on." To the best of my recollection, I did not meet him
again after the end of 1989, although I may have spoken to him
on the telephone in the summer of 1990.
(v) Fayed's claim that Greer knew about
direct cash payments.
655. Q711: "I think he knew definitely."
This is incomprehensible. If Fayed was paying directly and
Greer knew it, why would Greer pay the MPs separately. Similarly,
if Fayed knew he was paying Greer £5,000 per quarter to pay
the MPs why would he need to pay them himself additionally? Fayed,
however, could not recollect whether he did tell Greer that he
was making direct cash payments (see Q712 and Q714).
In answer to Q715 he admits "It is possible"
that he did not tell Greer.
(w) The size of the vouchers.
656. Fayed was hopelessly confused as to the
value of the vouchers he alleged he gave me. The D J Freeman
letter and his witness statement say they were £100 vouchers.
But in answer to Q743 Fayed contradicts his
earlier evidence:
"So he would have in his pocket three vouchers
for £1,000?" "Yes." In answer to Q747
he is inconsistent yet again:
" . . . it was three thousand in gift vouchers
of £500 or £1,000." When challenged in Q748
about the inconsistency with his earlier claims that they were
£100 vouchers he squirms:
"It is a possibility. I just mentioned
the 100, the 500, maybe 1,000." In answer to Q750 he
compounds confusion:
"I cannot just count them and make a record
if it is a voucher for £50 or £100." (x)
Broad hints about shopping.
657. Fayed said in his witness statement that
on four occasions he gave me gift vouchers because I "hinted
broadly that I wanted to go shopping." However, in
his answers to Q763, he implied inconsistently that there were
many more occasions:
" . . his anniversary, is wife's birthday
or another occasion, friends' birthdays, things like that . .
."
" . . . Christmas, also Easter, any occasion
that he could capitalise to get money," (Q764) 658.
In his oral evidence Fayed contradicted his written evidence in
another respect. His witness statement is clear that I specifically
asked for vouchers on the four occasions he allegedly gave them.
But in answer to Q766 he now said that
"If I did not have cash I would give him
vouchers." 659. Furthermore it is difficult to reconcile
this account with the evidence of Iris Bond
" . . . that prior to a meeting with
Mr Hamilton Mr Al-Fayed would make a remark that he was coming
to collect his money and would prepare an envelope for him. .
." (witness statement paragraph 6).
660. Fayed's evidence is that all our meetings
alone were pre-arranged and that on every occasion I asked for
payment and he gave it. He also said that he
" . . . had easy access to cash during
1987, 1988 and 1989 without needing to arrange for it to be specially
drawn." (witness statement paragraph 4).
Therefore, it is difficult to see why he should
have found himself without a mere £2,500 cash and have to
give me vouchers. This is particularly incomprehensive when his
staff go regularly to the nearby Midland Bank in Park Lane to
collect the cash.
661. Bozek said that huge quantities of cash
flowed in and out of Fayed's office. On each visit to the bank
" . . . it was usually £25,000 or
something like that in cash" (Bozek evidence Q74) and
" . . . we had about £2,500 a week in petty cash."
662. Furthermore, Fayed's personal chauffeur, Glyn John,
said in his witness statement that he usually collects cash from
the bank
" . . . two or three times a month."
(witness statement, paragraph 2).
663. Bozek also said that she would, additionally
send "usually a security man" to collect cash. Unless
she is contradicting John's evidence that must mean that the
security men's cash withdrawals were additional to the chauffeur's.
664. Hence, the inference is that well over
£75,000 per month in cash washed through Fayed's office.
If nearly £1 million a year is spent in that way, it seems
most unlikely that Fayed would be short of £2,500 on four
occasions between December 1988 and November 1989, those being
the only occasions when he allegedly gave me gift vouchers.
| 
