|
COMPLAINTS FROM MR
MOHAMED AL FAYED,
THE GUARDIAN AND OTHERS AGAINST
25 MEMBERS
AND FORMER MEMBERS:
FURTHER REPORT
The Committee on Standards
and Privileges has agreed to the following Report:
1. |On 3 July 1997 the Committee
published the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
on allegations made against twenty-five Members and former Members.
The report exonerated the majority but a minority of those investigated
were criticised, some severely so. In the Committee's report
which accompanied the Commissioner's findings we drew attention
to the right of those criticised to submit a written statement
to the Committee rebutting or challenging any findings of the
Commissioner. We also notified the former Members concerned that
such representations must be submitted to the Committee within
fourteen days.
2. We accept the Commissioner's
findings that the following Members and former Members have no
case to answer:
Mr Robert Atkins, Mr Alan
Beith, Mr Vivian Bendall, Mr John Bowis, Sir Graham Bright,
Mr Nirj Deva, Sir Anthony Durant, Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr Doug
Hoyle, Mr Norman Lamont, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr Gerald Malone,
Mr David Mellor, Mr Michael Portillo, Mr David Shaw, Mr Chris
Smith, Sir Malcolm Thornton, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Sir John Wheeler.
3. The following Members
have made written representations to the Committee: Sir Andrew
Bowden, Mr Michael Brown, Sir Michael Grylls, Mr Neil Hamilton,
and Mr Tim Smith. These have been published as House of Commons
Paper No. 30-IV. We also received a letter from Mr Ian Greer.
We have taken account of these representations in reaching our
conclusions. None of the former Members have asked, either in
their submissions or subsequently, to appear before the Committee.
4. In his submission, Mr
Neil Hamilton challenged in some detail the findings of the Commissioner
and his methods of inquiry. We have not completed our examination
of the points raised by Mr Hamilton, and we will issue a further
report at a later stage.
5. Apart from Mr Hamilton,
those former Members who have made representations to us challenging
the Commissioner's findings have done so on the basis of his interpretation
of the facts, rather than on the facts themselves. None of them
has offered any new evidence.
6. We would wish to emphasise
that our function is not that of a Court of law. In examining
the Commissioner's report on his investigations our duty is to
consider to what extent the rules of the House were infringed,
and to determine whether and to what extent the conduct of any
of the former Members investigated fell short of the standards
which the House and the public are entitled to expect of Members
of Parliament.
7. Our findings are set
out below: in each case they are prefaced by those of the Commissioner
which are printed in italics.
8. Mr Michael Brown:
The Commissioner's findings were as follows:
(i) Mr Brown failed
to register an introduction payment from Mr Greer in relation
to US Tobacco.
(ii) Mr Brown persistently
and deliberately failed to declare his interests in dealing with
Ministers and officials over the Skoal Bandits issue.
(iii) Mr Brown has expressed
regret for these omissions.
9. In October 1996 Mr Brown
admitted that he had made an error of judgement in failing to
register certain interests and apologised to the former Committee
on Standards and Privileges and to the Commissioner. He was right
to do so. He has now repeated that apology while maintaining
that he did not "deliberately and persistently" fail
to declare an interest in United States Tobacco to Ministers.
Given the circumstances of the payments, we accept the Commissioner's
judgement. Mr Brown's conduct fell below the standards which
the House is entitled to expect of its Members. If Mr Brown were
still a Member we would recommend a period of suspension from
the service of the House.
10. Sir Peter Hordern:
We have not received representations from Sir Peter Hordern.
The Commissioner found that:
(i) Sir Peter
had no obligation to disclose to Ministers the interests of his
colleagues; and, although the extent to which he declared his
own interests on House of Fraser matters fell well short of the
terms of the 1974 Resolution, there is no evidence that Ministers
and officials were misled by this.
(ii) The spirit of the
rules would have been better observed had Sir Peter made a separate
Register entry in respect of Mr Al Fayed's hospitality, but this
omission was not improper by the standards accepted at the time.
(iii) The allegation that
Sir Peter tabled questions for cash is without substance and has
been withdrawn.
11. The principle of frankness
of disclosure of financial interests in relevant dealings with
Ministers and other Members is of long standing in the procedures
of the House and in 1974 the House formally agreed the following
Resolution:
"That, in any debate
or proceeding of the House or its Committees or transactions or
communications which a Member may have with other Members or with
Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant
pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct
or indirect, that he may have had, may have, or may be expecting
to have."[1]
12. We have examined the
evidence Sir Peter Hordern gave to the Commissioner's inquiry.
We note that, throughout the period when he was employed as a
consultant to the House of Fraser between 1982 and 1991 he registered
his interest under the "Employment or Office" category
as "Consultant to House of Fraser plc". His recollection
was that he had declared an interest on most occasions when dealing
with officials and always in meetings with Ministers. The Commissioner
found some evidence that Sir Peter had declared his House of Fraser
consultancy at least once in communicating with Ministers and
that it was probably true to say that they were aware of this
association.[2]
13. The Commissioner's criticism
of Sir Peter Hordern's entries in the register are set out more
fully in paragraph 821 of his memorandum to the Committee-
"Sir Peter Hordern
properly registered his consultancy with the House of Fraser under
the category "Employment or Office". Having done so,
he saw no necessity to register the hospitality he had received
from Mr Al Fayed at the Ritz and Balnagown Castle. In my view
the spirit of the Register requirements would have been better
observed by separate registration, particularly as the hospitality
was personal to Mr Al Fayed, whereas the consultancy was with
the House of Fraser. On the other hand, the rules were not as
clear cut in the 1980s as they are now and I would not see this
as grounds for censure."
14. We accept the observations
of the Commissioner. Our conclusion is that, while in some respects
Sir Peter Hordern's entries in the Register should have been more
informative, there was no attempt on his part to conceal his interests.
15. Sir Andrew Bowden:
The Commissioner's findings were:
(i) There is insufficient
evidence to substantiate the allegation that Sir Andrew received,
or demanded, cash payments from Mr Al Fayed in return for lobbying
services.
(ii) The election donation
of £5,319 from Mr Greer was intended as a reward for lobbying
and Sir Andrew probably knew it came originally from Mr Al Fayed.
(iii) Sir Andrew failed
to register, as he should have done, this election campaign donation.
(iv) Sir Andrew failed
to declare his interests in dealings with Ministers and officials
over House of Fraser, and, in one case, gave a positively misleading
explanation for his representations.
16. Our conclusions are
as follows:
(i) The Committee accepts
the Commissioner's finding in paragraph (i) above.
(ii) We consider it to be
unlikely that Sir Andrew Bowden did not at least guess that the
source of the £5,319 he received was Mr Al Fayed.
(iii) We note that Sir Andrew
has apologised for the failure to register the campaign donation.
(iv) We accept the findings
of the Commissioner in paragraph (iv) above and reject Sir Andrew
Bowden's representations. Irrespective of the source of the payment,
and whether that source was known to Sir Andrew or not, the cheque
he received placed him under an obligation to Mr Greer, whose
business was that of a parliamentary lobbyist. He was therefore
under a clear duty to declare that interest in any representations
he made on behalf of any of Mr Greer's clients. We also note
with concern the evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal his
motives in a letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
in March 1987.[3]
17. We conclude that the
conduct of Sir Andrew Bowden fell below the standards which the
House is entitled to expect of its Members. If Sir Andrew Bowden
were still a Member we would have considered recommending a period
of suspension from the service of the House.
18. Sir Michael Grylls:
The Commissioner's findings were as follows:
(i) Sir Michael received
payments from Mr Greer (though not in cash) which were neither
introduction commissions nor fees associated with the Unitary
Tax Campaign.
(ii) It is not possible
to conclude that these payments originated from Mr Al Fayed, although
Sir Michael actively participated in the Greer lobbying operation.
(iii) Sir Michael deliberately
misled the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1990 by seriously
understating the number of commission payments he had received;
and by omitting to inform them of other fees received from Mr
Greer.
(iv) Sir Michael persistently
failed to declare his interests in dealings with Ministers and
officials over the House of Fraser.
(v) Sir Michael's action
in taking a commission payment for introducing a constituent to
Mr Greer was unacceptable.
(vi) There is insufficient
evidence to show that Sir Michael solicited business for Mr Greer
in expectation of commission payments.
19. We accept the conclusions
of the Commissioner for Standards contained in paragraphs (i),
(ii) and (iii) above. It is quite clear from the evidence assembled
by the Commissioner that Sir Michael Grylls' business relationship
with Mr Greer was a close one which lasted over several years.[4]
The extent of his relationship is scarcely apparent from his
entries over that period in the Register of Members' Interests.
In his letter to the Committee of 17 July Sir Michael Grylls
said that "it is not a requirement of the rules on Members'
Interests for Members to declare the reasons for payments".
He added "my overall interest was declared in the Register".
This is not true, since payments were received from Ian Greer
when no adequate indication appears in the Register. Sir Michael
would appear to have forgotten that the fundamental purpose of
the Register, on which its specific rules are based, is "to
provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material
benefit which might reasonably be thought by others to influence
his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament" and
that there is a general duty on Members to keep the overall definition
of the Register's purpose in mind when registering their interests;
and to make a full disclosure of those interests. Sir Michael
Grylls claims that he did not inform the Select Committee on Members'
Interests in 1990 of his other payments from Mr Greer since "the
central issue behind the 1990 inquiry was the question of the
commission payments". We consider this reply to be disingenuous.
Moreover, like the Commissioner, we find it very difficult to
believe that when he submitted that evidence he had forgotten
half, or more than half, of the commission payments he had received
from Mr Greer. We conclude that Sir Michael Grylls deliberately
misled the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1990.
20. We also accept the Commissioner's
finding in (iv). Despite the Commissioner's findings in (ii)
above, Sir Michael Grylls, given his remuneration from Ian Greer
Associates and his close association with the lobbying group orchestrated
by Mr Greer, should have declared an interest in dealing with
Ministers and officials on matters concerning the House of Fraser.
21. We do not accept the
Commissioner's finding in paragraph (v) in respect of the receipt
of a payment from Mr Greer for introducing a constituency company.
This was not against the rules. However, we believe such a payment
to be wholly inappropriate.
22. Deliberately misleading
a Select Committee is certainly a contempt of the House: taken
together with our other findings, we conclude that the conduct
of Sir Michael Grylls fell seriously below the standards the House
is entitled to expect of its Members. Were Sir Michael Grylls
still a Member we would recommend a substantial period of suspension
from the service of the House, augmented to take account of his
deceit.
23. Mr Tim Smith:
The Commissioner's findings were as follows:
(i) Mr Smith accepted
cash payments directly from Mr Al Fayed of between £18,000
and £25,000 in return for lobbying services. There is no
evidence to indicate that he received cash from Mr Al Fayed indirectly
through Mr Greer.
(ii) The way in which
these payments were received and concealed fell well below the
standards expected of Members of Parliament.
(iii) The allegation that
Mr Smith was paid to initiate an Adjournment debate in 1986 is
not substantiated.
(iv) Mr Smith's financial
interest in relation to House of Fraser was only registered in
January 1989 when it had been publicly exposed by Mr Rowland;
and then only hesitantly for a period of two and a half weeks.
This has to be seen as a disingenuous attempt at concealment.
On any view, this was a totally unacceptable form of registration
by Mr Smith.
(v) Mr Smith persistently
and deliberately failed to declare his interests in dealings with
Ministers and officials over House of Fraser issues.
(vi) To his credit, Mr
Smith eventually admitted receiving payments, although not until
he was asked in 1994; and he expressed his regrets for the non-registration
and non-declaration of interests.
24. Mr Smith has admitted
a substantial part of the allegations against him and has made
a full public apology. In his letter to the Committee he accepts
that the way in which he received payments from Mr Al Fayed fell
"well below the present standards expected of Members of
Parliament". However, he questions whether he is being judged
against standards prevailing in the mid-1980s. We do not accept
Mr Smith's comments which ignore the background to the establishment
of the Register of Members' Interests in 1975 and the long standing
rules of the House. Mr Smith's concealment of payments he received
from Mr Al Fayed in return for using his position as a Member
to press for action by Ministers would have been a clear contempt
of the House at any time since the decision by the House in the
Boothby case in 1941.[5]
We would also remind Mr Smith of the rule of the House on declaration
of interest agreed in 1974 and quoted above (paragraph 19).
25. Mr Smith's conduct fell
seriously below the standards which the House is entitled to expect
of its Members. We acknowledge his later candour. However, had
he still been a Member we would recommend a substantial period
of suspension from the service of the House.
26. We recognise that, in
practice, the powers of the House to punish non-Members are limited.
In a future report we shall offer advice to the House on appropriate
penalties and sanctions for Members, former Members and other
persons involved in unacceptable behaviour.
1 CJ
(1974) 143-144 and see HC 688 (1995-96), Appendix. Back
2 Commissioner's
report, paragraph 831. Back
3 HC
30-I, page 103, paragraphs 677-679. Back
4 Summarised
in paragraphs 769-770 of the Commissioner's Report HC (1997-98)
30-I. Back
5 Select
Committee on the Conduct of a Member, HC (1940-41) 5. Back
| 
