Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton MP to Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
As promised yesterday I am putting on the message
board a copy of my Submission. This can be regarded as final,
subject to one or two provisos which should not cause you any
inconvenience:
(i) I will need to revise the table of
contents as the pagination has altered in places.
(ii) I will need to add a chapter analysing
the evidence of Fayed and his employee witnesses. This will stand
on its own and will run to 25-30 pages, some of it duplicating
earlier material particularly on the question of credibility.
(iii) I wish also to amplify my own evidence
- in particular on the questions to which considerable attention
was directed in oral evidence and which are not dealt with at
length in my Submission.
In particular we dealt with two issues that
go to my credibility:
(a) my telephone conversation with Michael
Heseltine on 21 October 1994; and
(b) also the tax and accountancy treatment
of commission payments.
On this latter point, my accountant has been
unavailable until today. I have asked him to draft a letter to
you as I suggested in my evidence last Thursday.
These are important parts of my case and, in
view of the importance obviously attached to them by Counsel,
I hope they will be given appropriate consideration. I do not
anticipate that this evidence will exceed 10- 15 pages.
ROYSTON WEBB
I have now read the evidence of Royston Webb.
In the light of various assertions he makes in respect of Tiny
Rowland I must ask you to invite further comment from Mr Rowland
on the contents of paragraphs 1752, 1754, 1818, 1819, 1820 (the
allegation that House of Fraser never offered payment to third
parties for anti-Rowland information or activity) and Webb's
closing submission in para. 1863.
These are all areas on which Mr Rowland can
give direct evidence:
(i) The circumstances in which Fayed left
the board of Lonrho. Either Webb knows the truth and is lying
or Fayed has lied to Webb.
(ii) The cost of the Lonrho battle with
the Fayeds and whether Rowland spoke to Webb in the terms he
alleges.
(iii) The alleged £5 million offer
to Webb and the alleged existence of witnesses.
(iv) Whether Rowland spoke to Webb in the
terms described on the occasion of the rapprochement with Fayed.
(v) Whether HoF paid for anti-Rowland/Lonrho
information or activity.
(vi) The circumstances of the $2 million
offer to Khashoggi.
Webb is obviously an important witness for Fayed.
For reasons I have already outlined, his credibility is suspect.
Mr Rowland's evidence is capable of shedding light:
(a) on whether Webb's assertions of fact
are correct; and
(b) whether Webb's own alleged recollections
of events are honest.
In my respectful submission, Webb's evidence
cannot be properly evaluated without hearing Mr Rowland's version
of the story.
26 February 1997
|