Main Index to all Sections

Index to Jonathan Boyd Hunt's correspondence with Martin Bell

July 17, 1999

Martin Bell MP
House of Commons
London  SW1A 0AA


Dear Martin,

Thank you for your letter dated 12 July.  I welcome your assurance that you are not going to be drawn into long correspondence regarding your allegations of Neil Hamilton's 'wrongdoings'.  However, as you have not yet listed what these are supposed to be I must repeat my request that you do so.  As a former journalist, no doubt you respect my refusal to be fobbed off.  In other words, this correspondence can be as long as you want to make it.

Though you avoided listing any specific allegations against Neil Hamilton, you referred in general terms to some 'gifts' that he is supposed to have had, adding the comment: 'If the people of Tatton had wished such a man to represent them, they would have voted for him.'  It is precisely because I have investigated all the allegations against Neil Hamilton and found him to have done nothing improper that I believe the people of Tatton were misled.  Your referral to him in the terms 'such a man' implies the opposite.  This is why I believe it is only fair that you supply an itemised list of your reasons for remaining as MP for Tatton, such as, for example, what these 'gifts' are supposed to be.

Though you avoided my central question, you cited the Standards and Privileges Committee's decision in 1997 that Neil Hamilton would have warranted a substantial period of suspension from the House.  But, as my letter to Sir Gordon Downey makes clear, which I copied to you last week, Downey presented the evidence to the Committee quite perversely. 

In fact, five MPs have become so troubled by Downey's judgements that they have written to him requesting that he explains himself.  One MP has suggested that he be hauled before the Standards and Privileges Committee whilst another has indicated an intention to call for an adjournment debate on his handling of the Inquiry.  It is inconceivable that former Committee Members Ann Widdecombe and Quentin Davies, who rejected Downey on the 'cash' issue, would endorse any of Downey's conclusions nowadays.  Unless you can show that they would still back such a communiqué I suggest you refrain from taking comfort from their original endorsement.

Instead, as per my suggestion, you might consider following the aforementioned MPs' examples and write to Downey demanding that he answers my questions.  If your claims to support Neil Hamilton's cries for justice are genuine it would be the first thing you would do. 

Talking of which, you also raised your record of support for Neil Hamilton.  In particular, your stated hope that Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life would recommend a retrospective appeals procedure in his case.  However, last year you and your colleagues on the Standards and Privileges Committee considered this very issue, and, though there was nothing to prevent you granting Neil Hamilton a right of appeal, in your report dated 17 November 1998, you and your colleagues concluded:

'The recommendations in this report are addressed to complaints which may arise in the future. They are not retrospective.  There is no question of re-opening any case on which we have reported to the House, still less any case on which the House itself has come to a resolution.'

Despite your utterances, you did not vote against this communiqué nor did you even abstain.  To the contrary, you endorsed the decision to deny Neil Hamilton the chance of an appeal.

Later that evening you took part in a Commons debate during which Gerald Howarth MP criticised heavily Downey's lamentable handling of his Inquiry.  But, though by this time you knew just how McCarthyist his Inquiry was (e.g. not calling witnesses who challenged Fayed's and his employees' evidence, among other iniquities) you sprang to Downey's defence. 

When you entered the election in April 1997, many decent people in Tatton believed the Guardian's and your portrayal of Neil Hamilton as a person unfit to serve the constituency.  These same decent people probably believed your portrayal of yourself as a person of integrity and impartiality (and, subsequently, as a champion for justice). However, as I stated in my last letter I cannot find any valid reasons to justify your intervention in the election.  Surely, given your intention to remain as MP for Tatton for the full term, you owe it both to the democratic process and the people of Tatton themselves to explain on what grounds you remain as Parliamentary representative for their constituency? 

I therefore conclude by repeating my request that you put together an itemised, definitive list of what you allege Neil Hamilton's wrongdoings to be, so that they can be tested by the facts, and the people of Tatton given the opportunity to appraise them for themselves.  This is the very essence of democracy.  To rebuff such a request is not to cock a snoot at me, but to cock a snoot at the people of Tatton and democracy itself.

I look forward to your early reply.


Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Boyd Hunt


cc The People of Tatton for Justice

Martin Bell's reply to J B Hunt's first letter

Martin Bell's reply