|
The Observer
Sunday, 27 November 1988
Young: 'It's my ball'
MELVYN MARCKUS
CITY EDITOR
IT IS tempting to assume that, as a small boy of short trousers age, Lord Young of Graffham (as the lad became known) was prone to bringing games to an abrupt halt by declaring, in a piping voice: 'It's my ball.'
Always a difficult argument to deal with; be it for those who have no claim to ownership of the ball or, in current parlance, for those outside Government.
It was of Friday that Young let it be known that he had decided not to refer Mohamed Fayed's highly controversial £615 million takeover bid for House of Fraser to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. According to the Department of Trade & Industry this decision was made 'in the light' of the DTI Inspectors' report on the House of Fraser affair.
The DTI, which has never won any medals in respect of communication -- or regulation for that matter -- added: 'This report, which is not being published for the time being owing to inquiries by the prosecuting authorities, indicates the existence of previously undisclosed material facts about the transactions.'
So now you know. Or, perhaps you don't.
The gold pack of Benson and Hedges, which just happens to be on my right at the time of writing, tells me: 'Smoking when pregnant can injure your baby and cause premature birth.' This, I suppose, is just a chance I will have to take. The point is, I understand the message whereas, despite the DTI's employment of more than 60 communications officers, I am at a loss to guess quite what message Young is attempting to put across.
The fact that the inspectors' report 'indicates the existence of previously undisclosed material facts about the transactions' hardly offers an explanation as to why Young has chosen not to refer.
Just to confuse matters further the DTI statement adds that although Young has concluded that 'a reference to the MMC would not be appropriate… it may be appropriate in due course for other steps to be taken in the light of the Inspectors' report.'
All of which brings us back to the ball. Lord Young has read and doubtless re-read the 750-page tome presented to him in July by Sir Henry Brooke QC and accountant Hugh Aldous. Neither I nor the media at large (stand by for Young's traditional leak to the Daily Mail) have had the pleasure of idly turning such pages and discovering the Brooke/Aldous perspective on Fayed, the self-styled Pharaoh who surrounds himself with bodyguards in Park Lane and barbed wire in the country.
In view of the fact that Young appears to have based his decision not to refer the House of Fraser affair on the inspectors' report it is well nigh impossible to challenge his judgment until the report is made public.
What I am prepared to challenge is the inevitable reference, between the inevitable commas, to Sir Gordon Borrie: namely that Young's decision has been taken 'in accordance with the advice of the director of Fair Trading'.
After all, did we not read the self-same words; referring to the self-same Borrie, at the time Norman Tebbit (arguably the villain of the piece) originally waved through the Fayeds' takeover bid for House of Fraser in the spring of 1985?
And was it not Borrie who was whispering into the ear of Leon Brittan when, as Tebbit's successor, he declared in the winter of 1985 that he saw 'no grounds whatsoever' for a DTI inquiry: an inquiry which has finally revealed 'the existence of previously undisclosed material facts?'
And, if my memory serves me correctly, did not Brittan state, at the time, that Borrie was 'making no further inquiries' into the House of Fraser affair and, in view of this, the possibility of a reference to the MMC 'was not under consideration'.
So it must come as a surprise to us all that Sir Gordon Borrie, who advised against a Fayed/House of Fraser reference in 1985, should adopt such a view in the current circumstances. To adopt any other view would, of course, be tantamount to admitting that he was mistaken in the first -- and second -- instances. Borrie, it must be said, is not renowned for such admissions and, on his record, should have stood aside on the issue.
All of which means the game has effectively stopped because Young and the 'prosecution authorities' have the ball.
For prosecution authorities read, presumably, the Serious Fraud Office -- the underfunded and understaffed enterprise set up earlier this year in London's Elm Street to deal with 'sensitive' investigations and major fraud cases such as Guinness and Barlow Clowes.
It is no secret that the DTI has been in contact with the SFO, led by John Wood, since Young originally received the House of Fraser report in the summer.
Lonrho, led by chief executive Tiny Rowland, who has consistently attacked the Government's handling of the House of Fraser saga, has turned to the Courts and, on Friday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Parker and Lord Justice Bingham gave the company leave to seek judicial review of Young's decision to await the views of the SFO before deciding if and when to publish the report.
What remains to be clarified, of course, are the intentions of Wood and his colleagues. As The Observer first reported last month the inspectors' report is understood to allege that Mohamed Fayed and his brothers may have committed a number of breaches of the Companies Act. Bearing in mind the fact that the SFO has had the best part of four months to get its serious act together, news of prosecution or a decision not to prosecute would already appear somewhat overdue.
But, as Young, and I suspect, the Prime Minister, are well aware, it is difficult to continue the game if some snotty kid takes away the ball. And, of course, such a state of affairs serves to minimise Government embarrassment, does it not?
|
|
