Main Index to all Sections

First page of this document

The rumours about Ian Greer had begun ten years earlier, following an article in The Observer on 1 July 1984 by the paper's political editor, Adam Raphael, in which Raphael implied that professional lobbyists were paying MPs to table questions at £200 a time.  Raphael recorded the reaction of only one lobbyist to the proposition: rising star Ian Greer.  In the piece Greer denied that he paid MPs for parliamentary services, but his denial was made to look dishonest by Raphael's disclosure that Greer had paid a Labour MP £1,000 for his advice on lead in petrol. 

Five years later Raphael put Greer under the spotlight again, with a major article in The Observer on 9 April 1989.  Once again, Raphael raised an anonymous 'allegation' that MPs were being paid to table questions at £200 a time.

The allegations in this second, higher-profile article, gave rise to comments on the Floor of the House of Commons the next day, adding further to the rumours about Greer among Labour MPs and political journalists.  Six weeks later on 23 May 1989 Raphael gave evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry into lobbying, during which he admitted that he had no evidence to back up his charges, but the article had already caught the interest of a Left-wing political journalist named Andrew Roth, author of a journal listing MPs' interests and beliefs entitled Parliamentary Profiles.  Roth carried out some inquiries and discovered that Greer had given commission payments to the chairman of the Conservative back-bench Trade and Industry Committee, Michael Grylls MP, for introducing clients to his lobbying company.  Accordingly the next edition of Parliamentary Profiles carried a lurid profile of Grylls, in which Roth implied that his commission payments from Greer were really kickbacks for supporting the lobbyist's clients in Parliament.

The book's publication aroused the immediate interest of Labour MP Dale Campbell-Savours, who instigated and led a Parliamentary inquiry into Greer's commission payments a year later on 3 April 1990.  When Greer appeared before the committee of inquiry he acknowledged that he had given commissions to two other MPs besides Michael Grylls, but despite relentless questioning from Dale Campbell-Savours Greer refused to name them on the grounds that it was not his position to do so.  At the conclusion of its investigation the committee ruled that there was nothing improper in MPs receiving commission payments, and accepted Grylls' explanation that the rules governing the registration of MPs interests did not extend to payments that carried no obligation, such as one-off commissions.  Nevertheless the committee recommended that payments of whatever nature should be registered from then on to prevent insinuations such as Roth's being made again. The publication of their report nevertheless fuelled the deep suspicions about Greer among journalists and several Opposition MPs.  

The rumours came to head again three years later on 22 June 1993, in the run up to a Commons debate on lobbyists, when The Guardian carried an editorial by Hugo Young, the chairman of The Guardian's owners, The Scott Trust, entitled “Adding corruption to the impotence of public life”.  In his article Hugo Young alleged that “British public life is being corrupted” by a “growing army” of “power-peddling PR consultants and lobbyists”, who were “impotent and corrupt” and who “the world would be better of without”.
      A week later again on 28 June the long-awaited House of Commons debate on lobbyists was held, during which Labour MP Bob Cryer lambasted Greer for failing to disclose the names of the other two MPs besides Grylls to whom he had granted commission payments.
      Following the debate Hugo Young and his editor, Peter Preston, decided that it was high time that Ian Greer was taken down.  Accordingly, Preston dispatched The Guardian's Westminster correspondent, David Hencke, to do a little digging.

Hencke contacted a number of Greer's clients in an effort to unearth something, but despite his suggestions all gave the lobbyist glowing reports about his professionalism.  A few weeks later in July Peter Preston took it upon himself to approach Greer's most unpredictable client, Mohamed 'Al' Fayed, in order to acquire something to corroborate the paper's suspicions.  To obtain his co-operation Preston offered Fayed access to some confidential files that The Guardian had inherited a few weeks earlier on 1 June when the paper had acquired The Observer from Fayed's old enemy, Tiny Rowland of Lonrho plc.

In order to deliver his side of the bargain and get access to Rowland's files, Fayed strung Preston along and put Greer in the frame with a few half-truths.  Over the following week David Hencke, accompanied by Guardian journalist John Mullin, conducted interviews with Greer and two of Fayed's former Tory supporters, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith.  Nothing much came from Hencke & Mullin's inquiries. 
    Over the next twelve months there were two other attempts at sinking Greer, both of which failed.  The first of these was conduced by The Sunday Times in January 1994, which used a reporter posing as a Welsh road haulier who said he wanted parliamentary questions tabled about toll charges on the Severn Bridge.  He was prepared to pay, he said.  Greer passed the 'sting' with flying colours.  'We don't pay MPs to table questions,' he replied.
    In March, Central TV's 'Cook Report' had an attempt at entrapping Ian Greer, in a joint operation with The Guardian, but Greer passed that test too and the programme was cancelled.  The frustration at The Guardian was rising.

Then, in September 1994, the European Court of Human Rights threw out Fayed's appeal to quash the damning DTI report that had blackened his name and prevented him from acquiring British citizenship.  Fayed's anger spilled over.  Within days he tried to blackmail Prime Minister John Major into granting him a British passport and withdrawing the DTI report.  Major rebuffed Fayed on both counts.  Fayed's frustration and anger against the Conservatives rose even further.
    Four weeks later the volatile Egyptian had to pay a £5 million tax bill.  Fayed was outraged at having to pay such a massive sum to the same government that had decreed him unworthy of a British passport.  He finally relented and provided The Guardian with the kind of statement that its editor had sought fifteen months earlier.  As far as Fayed was concerned, The Guardian's determination to nail Ian Greer now suited his own vengeful agenda against the Conservative Party - and especially Conservative MP for Tatton, Neil Hamilton. 

Tragically, two years earlier in April 1992 Hamilton had been promoted to Minister for Corporate Affairs at the Department of Trade & Industry, inheriting responsibilities for the 1990 DTI report that Fayed had just failed to annul.  At the time of Hamilton's promotion Fayed could hardly contain his delight, and he sent Hamilton a letter of congratulation suggesting that they should meet up together. 
    To Fayed's thinking, Hamilton owed him a favour.  Seven years earlier during the mid-1980s, before the DTI report's publication when Fayed had been the toast of the Press, Hamilton had been among a handful of MPs who had supported the Egyptian's ownership of Harrods against attacks by Fayed's rival, Tiny Rowland.

    Hamilton had also enjoyed Fayed's hospitality, and like other MPs and journalists had enjoyed a private tour of Duke & Duchess of Windsor's former villa outside Paris, coupled to a stay at the Paris Ritz, both of which Fayed controlled. 
    However, to Fayed's great dismay, Neil Hamilton had refused to abuse his new ministerial position to help him get his passport.  Instead, Hamilton disclosed his former support to his DTI officials and delegated responsibility for the DTI report to another minister. 

Fayed never forgave him for what he saw as a snub and a betrayal of his hospitality.  Now, two years later in October 1994, Fayed's vengeance against his former supporter and the Conservative government of John Major dovetailed perfectly with The Guardian's vendetta against his lobbyist.

Introduction

Part Two