|
Letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards to Sir Michael Grylls MP
Thank you for your letter of 23 January commenting
informally on your relations with Mr Greer and Mr Al-Fayed.
I am now in a position to set out in formal
terms the complaint made against you, principally by The Guardian.
The allegations of misconduct are, broadly, but not exclusively,
as set out in the draft Amended Defence of The Guardian
in the High Court action 1994 H No. 1654, dated September 1996
which you may or may not have already seen (for your assistance
I enclose a copy of that Draft Amended Defence). Where there are
references in the list of allegations to Mr Ian Greer, the reference
should be read as if it included Ian Greer Associates Limited,
or any similar company or entity by which Mr Ian Greer carried
on the business of public affairs consultant and Parliamentary
lobbyist.
Allegation of misconduct made against Sir Michael
Grylls MP
1. From 1985 to 1990 you were a member of a
group of five Members of Parliament (Mr Neil Hamilton, Sir Peter
Hordern, Mr Timothy Smith, (during part of 1987) Sir Andrew Bowden,
and yourself), who comprised the parliamentary lobbying operation
for Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed and the House of Fraser. As a member of
this group you, together with the other Members of Parliament
in the group, received material benefits for work undertaken
by you, from Mr Ian Greer.
2. In April 1987 you accepted an invitation
from Mr Al-Fayed to spend the week end of 25 to 26 April 1987
in Paris staying at The Ritz hotel - with other Members of Parliament,
and Mr Al-Fayed. That visit was cancelled on or about 10 April
1987.
3. During the period 27 March 1987 to 28 September
1989 you were paid various sums as set out in paragraph 12A of
the draft Amended Defence, described as commission or as fees
- in return for these sums you acted, in part, on behalf of Mr
Al-Fayed as instructed by Ian Greer.
4. You deliberately omitted to declare or
register the payments and benefits received as set out above,
by making appropriate entries in the Register of Members' Interests.
(I attach copies of your Register entries and
relevant correspondence from your Registry file. Please note that
these documents are supplied for your information and assistance,
and they are not to be taken as intended to corroborate or otherwise
the above allegation.) 5. Further, although you took an active
part in promoting the interests of Mr Al-Fayed (and/or the House
of Fraser) at the instigation of Ian Greer (for example, at the
meetings on 13 May 1987 and 14 December 1987 - see paragraphs
8B and 16 of the draft Amended Defence) you failed to disclose
that you were receiving substantial, annual sums from Ian Greer.
You will probably be aware that further allegations
were made in the book Sleaze: the Corruption of Parliament,
published last week. It may be that these allegations will be
further developed and expanded in evidence to the enquiry from
The Guardian or other witnesses, and you may wish to bear
this in mind when producing your statement. As an example, see
the allegation at page 132 - I enclose an extract from the book.
I would welcome a detailed, written response
to these allegations setting out which are accepted, which are
disputed and, in so far as actions or omissions are accepted
by you as correctly described, providing any explanations with
may assist me in the inquiry. As part of that written response
I would be assisted by details of all benefits (monetary
or otherwise, direct or indirect) received by you or by your family
from Ian Greer (of course including Ian Greer Associates Limited
etc.) and/or Mr Al-Fayed (or Harrods, House of Fraser or any
related company). If payments were received in cash, I would appreciate
details of how such payments were made, when they were made,
and by whom and to whom they were made.
I do not seek to place any limit on the length
of any written statement which you may wish to submit, but so
that the inquiry can proceed I would appreciate your written
statement as soon as possible, and in any event, by 6 February
1997. If you propose to submit written statements from others
who may assist me in considering your responses to these allegations,
I would also hope that they could be provided to me by the same
date. If there are potential witnesses from whom you have not
been able to obtain written statements, please identify them
(with details as to how they can be contacted) and explain why
their evidence will assist me in investigation of the allegations
set out earlier in this letter.
Documents
I would welcome copies of any documents upon
which you may wish to rely, which may show the limit of payments
received by you, and/or evidencing payments in money or benefits
in kind, including hospitality, from Mr Al-Fayed, Harrods, House
of Fraser, Mr Ian Greer (and/or Ian Greer Associates), whether
conferred directly or indirectly, including commission payments
(if any) for the introduction of new clients to Ian Greer and/or
Ian Greer Associates. In particular, I would want to see any
records kept by you of payments received.
Procedure
I enclose a copy of the procedure note which
forms the basis for the conduct of my inquiry.
Sir Gordon Downey
28 January 1997
Letter from Sir Michael Grylls MP to the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
There appears to be a "venom" behind
some of the allegations in the Harrods enquiry.
The information gathered, after many years of
determined research, embraces truths and half-truths, personal
vendettas, eavesdropping - pub gossip, set-ups, booby traps and
revenge. As this "trial" by press and media has evolved,
people have already been hurt.
For example, many of the cruel unsubstantiated
claims about Ian Greer's private life have undoubtedly contributed
to the collapse of his successful business.
I am, myself, surprised that I have now been
dragged into the Harrods enquiry by The Guardian when I
understand that Mr Al-Fayed has made it quite clear that I have
never asked for, nor been given, any money for taking an interest
in his cause.
I first met Mohamed Al-Fayed and his brother,
Ali, at a drinks party given by Sir Peter Hordern in his home
in Chelsea.
Sir Peter subsequently asked me if I would accompany
him on a delegation he was leading to the DTI on behalf of Harrods
- this I agreed to do. (I also accompanied him on further delegations
at a later date which were organised by Ian Greer) (see page
6-8B). I was not paid by Ian Greer to attend any of them, nor
was I paid to write to Ministers.
I also remember receiving an invitation which
I accepted, to a luncheon given in Harrods.
I supported Sir Peter on these occasions because
I had sympathy with the Fayeds in their dispute with Lonhro,
and for no other reason.
My principal concern was that Mr Fayed, who
was making a very considerable investment in this country, should
be hounded in the way that he was being hounded. Inward investment
is vital to the country, and should be encouraged rather than
discouraged.
If anyone had suggested to me at the time that
I was being paid, either directly, indirectly or surreptitiously
for any support that I was giving Mr Fayed, I would have been
horrified.
My wife and I also accepted an invitation from
Mr Fayed for two years running, along with several hundred fellow
guests, to join them for lunch in the Harrods tent at the Royal
Windsor Horse Show, of which Harrods was the "sponsor".
We accepted this as it was a kind personal invitation from Mr
Al-Fayed to a special and interesting event not because
I was being paid by either Mr Fayed or Ian Greer.
I did not declare these social events in the
list of Members Interests, as at the time there was no obligation
to declare "reasonable entertainment".
In answer to your specific question about payment
- I have never received any money either directly or indirectly
from Mr Fayed or Harrods - or from Ian Greer on behalf of Harrods.
So far as "benefits" are concerned
- Mr Fayed did give us a Christmas hamper. It came as a complete
surprise and was unexpectedly waiting on our doorstep when we
arrived at our home one Christmas Eve.
As a result of a passing mention in my wife's
"thank you" letter to Mr Fayed, when she said that we
were soon to be staying near his home in Scotland for a family
wedding, Mr Fayed invited us, and our children, to stay with
his family.
As is customary amongst friends, my wife reciprocated
Mr and Mrs Fayed's hospitality by inviting them both to
a private dinner party in our home in London, to which they both
came.
As a result of our meeting in Scotland, my wife
and Mrs Fayed and our children and the Fayeds' children became
friends.
When, some years later, we were staying with
friends in a Villa near to the Fayeds in St Tropez, it seemed
a natural thing to get in touch. My wife communicated with Mrs
Fayed, who invited our host and his family and all the children
out on to their boat. Again, as is usual amongst friends, our
hosts repaid this kindness by inviting the Fayeds and their family
back to tea at their villa.
It is correct that Mr Fayed invited my wife
and I to stay in Paris and visit the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's
house, which we were unable to accept as we already had previous
commitments. We had already refused this invitation before we
received Ian Greer's letter cancelling the trip. However, Mr Fayed
kindly invited us to join another Parliamentary trip which again
we refused.
See page 5 (8a).
Page 8 (i) These payments in no way relate to
Harrods or Mr Al-Fayed.
EXTRACT FROM LEIGH/VUILLIAMY BOOK[37]
1. Charles Church
So far as Mr Charles Church was concerned,
my wife and I knew him and his wife, Susanna, socially. They
lived in Hampshire and he was not a constituent.
It is true that his main office was in Camberley
although his businesses extended throughout the South of England.
It is a long time ago, nevertheless, I do remember
that for years Mr Church had been concerned and irritated by
some of the laws relating to planning and later felt that perhaps
the advice and help of a PR company might be beneficial if he
wanted to instigate a campaign for change.
Mr Church knew I was working with Ian Greer
through the Unitary Tax Campaign and asked if I could recommend
IGA.
In the event, very little materialised, as shortly
afterwards Charles Church was killed when his "Spitfire"
aeroplane crashed, and his hopes for changes in the law died
with him.
I was never involved with Mr Church in business,
and I never asked any related questions in the House of Commons.
2. Except in a very few instances when people
wanted me personally to advise them, I was approached because
the people were looking for political PR and knew IGA had a good
reputation.
They asked me if I would introduce them
to Ian Greer. I was happy to do so as I trusted him and respected
his team. However, there was an instance when I was set up by
Central Television with a bogus company. I could not see the
people myself as I was just leaving for a UTC trip to America.
As they seemed in a hurry for advice, I suggested IGA might be
able to help them.
INVOICES
So far as my invoices are concerned, everything
I did for Ian Greer was invoiced "TO FEES" and the amounts
were entered in my account book and I paid tax on them. How Ian
Greer entered his books was entirely a matter for him, and I
never at any time saw them or enquired after them.
He regularly worked out what he felt was a fair
amount for my extra time, mostly spent on Unitary Tax, but included
some for specific commissions. I accepted his figures without
question and invoiced him accordingly. This system was originally
suggested by Ian Greer as the simplest way of accounting.
I was always happy to help and grateful for
his recognition of the extra time I gave to the UTC and of the
referrals I passed on intermittently to IGA.
I consistently entered both Unitary Tax and
Ian Greer in the Register of Members' Interests and acted immediately
on the advice given to me by the Select Committee of Members Interests
after their enquiry in June 1990.
PARLIAMENTARY PASS
I notice there is an allegation that I was provided
with a Research Assistant. This is not true. It is true
that Mr Andrew Smith's pass was issued under the heading "Research
Assistant", as there are only two headings under which the
Serjeant at Arms issues these passes. Mr Smith had a House of
Commons pass as a matter of convenience as he frequently came
to see me on the Unitary Tax issue over some 10 years.
I had no personal benefit from this whatsoever.
Mr Smith never did any research for me personally.
UNITARY TAX
I was invited by 60 leading UK companies with
investments in the USA to help them with a serious taxation problem
in the US. This campaign spanned 10 years and involved visits
to both the East and West Coasts of America. Several were with
Members of the Opposition as well as Conservative Members of Parliament.
Normally business people accompanied me and
sometimes I went on my own. It involved much time and hard work
and eventually was successfully resolved to the ongoing benefit
of many British companies with investments in the USA.
GENERAL COMMENT
On a personal note, I am retiring from Parliament
in a few weeks' time after 37 years in public life. During this
time I have served by country and constituents to the best of
my ability.
I have encouraged and helped the interests of
businesses and have worked with colleagues and friends with enthusiasm
and integrity.
I have known Ian Greer for all these years,
and when our lives have crossed we have endeavoured to conduct
our business (with the help of his team) with dignity and openness.
Both sides of the House of Commons have been
aware of our connection, through the UTC, and the people and
business network which has been interlinked has never been a secret.
I have always been most careful not to ask questions
on any related matters, and have endeavoured to abide by the
guidelines set out in the Register of Members Interests as they
have evolved over the years. As you will see from my letter to
the Clerk to the Committee on 14 June 1990, I sought his advice
and he suggested that, in future, I should put Ian Greer under
category 4 (as opposed to category 2) which I accepted and subsequently
did.
6 February 1997
Letter from the Registrar to Mr Michael
Grylls MP
Select Committee on Members' Interests
The Committee considered your reply of 6 June
to Mr Campbell-Savours' complaint at yesterday's meeting.
They have directed me to ask you three questions
which they would be grateful if you would answer in writing.
1. In respect of what services were the payments
made? 2. What were the dates of the payments? 3. Were
the payments connected with Unitary Tax Campaign? Registrar and
Clerk of the Committee 7 June 1990
Letter from Mr Michael Grylls MP to the
Registrar
Thank you for your letter of 7 June.
In answer to your questions: 1. On three
occasions, friends of mine who were Chairmen of Companies, approached
me for help as they said they needed advice. Because I knew how
effective Ian Greer Associates (IGA) were with the Unitary Tax
Campaign (UTC), I suggested Mr Greer might be able to help them.
In each instance, they decided to retain the services of IGA
and I was subsequently offered and accepted a "one-off"
payment for these introductions by Mr Greer.
At no time did I have any responsibility whatsoever
for these people or their companies or to IGA either as an individual
or as a Member of Parliament.
2. The payments were made on the 1 November
1985, 14 May 1986, and 3 October, 1989.
3. The Payments were not connected with the
UTC although the name of IGA is beside that entry.
I am neither a Director nor Consultant to IGA
but I would like the Members of the Select Committee to know
that so far as I was concerned the name of IGA has been entered
in the Register from 1985. Therefore, it was there - on record
- for all to see, that I had a declared connection (through the
UTC) with Mr Greer. I have never sought to hide this connection.
I thought that was adequate declaration of interest for the years
1985 and 1986 to cover the "one-off" payments from
him.
I believe all my entries over the years, which
have included the mention of IGA, have been made in good faith
and in keeping with the Resolutions of the House as well as the
Rules laid down by the Select Committee, which I understand did
leave a degree of discretion to Members as to how they declared
their varying interests. (HC 102, 1974-75, paragraph 12).
The Select Committee has itself said in its
Report 1989-90 a "different Member may well, in good faith,
interpret the rules somewhat differently." For this reason,
I consulted the Registrar as to how best I should register IGA
in 1989 so there could be no area for doubt. It was decided that
as there was no specific category in the Register for "one-off"
payments, that category 4 (as opposed to category 2) appeared
to be the most appropriate place to register IGA. Although, if
one is being analytical, to describe IGA as a "Client"
is not an accurate description, as it implies a contractual arrangement.
Whereas that is not the basis of my connection (through the UTC)
with IGA. My "one-off" payments were unexpected and
spasmodic and may not necessarily happen again.
The Select Committee might care to consider
creating a new category of interests marked "one-off payments".
This would avoid any repetition of the misunderstanding, confusion
and doubt which, I gather, is shared by other colleagues; and
which must, I imagine, have been the reason for your circular
letter to Members on the subject of "one-off" payments
in December 1989.
I hope this clarifies my entries to the Select
Committee, and that it will be helpful in considering Mr Campbell-Savours'
letter.
14 June 1990
37 "Sleaze: The Corruption of Parliament." Back
| 
