|
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton MP to the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Thank you for sending me a copy of Andrew Roth's
letter. Little of it relates to me but I would like to add some
perspective to Mr Roth's evidence.
Unfortunately he has not declared his relevant
interest in this matter. He has omitted to say that the Manchester
Evening News, which employed him for many years is owned
by The Guardian Media Group. In fact the MEN makes the
profits which pay for the losses on The Guardian and The
Observer. Roth is, therefore, a Guardian pensioner.
He establishes his credentials as an ostensibly
impartial observer of the Parliamentary scene. It is true that
he has been in and around Westminster for over 40 years. He came
to this country from New York in the late 1940s because the USA
was a rather uncomfortable environment for a Communist in the
days of Macarthyism and the activist Un-american Activities Committee
of the US Congress.
He is, therefore, by no means an impartial observer
and is parti pris in this matter. He is also a fully paid-up
conspiracy theorist who, true to his real credentials as a Marxist
determinist, believes that there must be an economic motive behind
MPs' activities, especially if they are right-wing.
I note with interest that he vetted "Sleaze"
prior to publication and that the only mistake he corrected related
to himself! As the book is littered with errors, (many of them
easily verifiable matters of fact, e.g., the location of the
Table Office or the name of Gerald Howarth's wife) his views on
me, Ian Greer and others can safely be taken with a pinch of
salt.
ROTH'S ERRORS ABOUT ME AND MY WIFE
As an indication of his general lack of reliability,
he is wrong in every particular where he mentions me or my wife.
A. His notion that Dale Campbell-Savours'
mother paid for our victory party after the BBC libel case is
utterly ludicrous. I have met Mrs Campbell-Savours only once
- when I addressed a Society for Individual Freedom lunch last
year in the House of Lords.
As a matter of fact we did the catering for
our party ourselves, purchasing the food and drink from Sainsbury's
and relying on friends to help out with the organisation of the
party.
I am very surprised that Roth says he was present.
I have no recollection of inviting him and cannot think of any
reason why we should have wanted to. The party was for friends
and those who helped us against the BBC. He was in neither category.
His assertion that he told Michael Cockerell
to cave in and pay up is news to me. Gerald Howarth, my co-plaintiff
against the BBC does not remember Roth being at the party either
and, as he actively dislikes him, it is unlikely that he could
have been there in any capacity other than a gate-crasher. The
more likely explanation is a muddled recollection on Roth's part.
B. Roth is also wrong about my wife's first
employer. This was not Sir Gerald Nabarro but Wilfred Proudfoot
MP. As the circumstances in which Sir Gerald "poached"
her were the subject of newspaper gossip at the time there is
even less reason for Roth to be ill-informed. However, it indicates
how he can have endorsed as accurate such a slap-dash and biased
work as "Sleaze."
THE DEMONISING OF GREER
Roth's description of Greer as "uniquely
corruptive" is preposterous. All lobbyists operate in much
the same way and, no doubt, most have their successes to boast
about. Many lobbyists have paid MPs. Indeed they have often had
them as directors of their company, e.g., Mrs Ann Taylor, shadow
Leader of the House was, (until the Fayed "cash for questions"
furore made discretion the better part of valour), a director
of Westminster Communications, as was Sir Marcus Fox - both of
whom at the time were members of the Privileges Committee! There
are many other examples.
As you will know, there is no evidence that
Greer "paid MPs directly for putting down questions"
although very many MPs will have done so quite lawfully as part
of a consultancy arrangement with other lobbying companies or
directly on behalf of organisations of which they were, themselves,
parliamentary representatives.
MPs have routinely been paid for "peddling
their influence" (as Roth tendentiously puts it), including
union-sponsored MPs who owe their place in Parliament to the
support of a particular union.
For example, Glenda Jackson is sponsored
by ASLEF and asked 20 written PQs relating to the railways between
January and May 1995 alone. She also regularly made speeches in
debates against rail privatisation. There is nothing wrong with
this but it is unlikely that she would have become so interested
in rail transport without the ASLEF connection. She is better
known for her experience in the footlights rather than on the
footplate. Roth does not animadvert upon this kind of influence
yet it is, in reality, little different from other kinds of consultancy
arrangement as a means of motivating MPs to do what they would
otherwise not do.
Roth's demonising of Greer is unbalanced and
distorted. It is for Greer to defend himself against Roth's criticisms
but to single him out for criticism "uniquely" in the
lobbying business is absurd.
CENTRAL TV ENTRAPMENT EXERCISE
As to the "Central TV scam" I knew
nothing of this until it was revealed as a hoax. It should hardly
have come as a surprise to Roth that Greer would try to secure
a meeting with me on the subject of privatisation of the Insolvency
Service, as I was at the time the responsible Minister. No doubt
he would have similarly identified the holder of the office for
the time being whoever that might have been. It would be a remarkable
lobbyist who did not attempt to persuade a client that he was
well-connected - that is what the lobbying business claims to
be about.
It is true that his BA/BCal campaign was very
successful - though I was not involved in it. But the most astonishing
lobbying success of the 1983-86 Parliament was not Greer's. That
accolade belongs to the campaign to stop the proposed liberalisation
of the Sunday trading laws.
That was the only occasion when the Government
(which had a notional majority of 144) was defeated in a vote
in the House on a major item of Government legislation. The lobbying
was organised by the shops union USDAW through their sponsored
MPs (led by Ray Powell MP) in conjunction with various church
groups. Professional lobbyists were engaged on both sides.
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON'S ALLEGATIONS TO ROTH
1. I have no idea what Robertson meant by saying
that Roth's planned disclosure of Grylls commission payments
compelled the Greer organisation to take evasive action. As far
as I am aware there was no change in Greer's practice at all;
Grylls received commission payments on the same basis later than
July 1989.
2. The Guardian has not, to the best
of my knowledge, alleged that Greer had "fabricated a number
of invoice documents." The only undisputed fabrication of
documents is the Fayed/Preston fax purporting to come from Jonathan
Aitken - although Fayed has previously been known to forge documents
such as birth certificates. Roth alleges nothing germane
about me in his letter except that he implies that the motivation
behind my libel action against The Guardian was the desire
to make myself rich and them bankrupt. Having fought a libel
action previously, I am well aware that neither of those understandable
desires could have been realised by such a means. Knowing the
pressures and worries of fighting a libel action as a private
individual of limited means against millionaire individuals and
organisations, I issued my writ with a very heavy heart. My sole
motivation was authoritatively to refute the Fayed/Guardian allegations,
to clear my name and salvage my career.
17 March 1997
| 
