Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report


APPENDIX 37

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


 
previous page contents next page
House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 8 July 1997