Main Index to all Sections

Section Seven Index:
Trial by Conspiracy

    Former Tory minister Neil Hamilton may or may not be guilty of taking illicit payments to ask parliamentary questions in the 1980s; I am not particularly concerned either way.  What does concern me, however, is the way that public discussion of the issues raised by the case is being curtailed today.  An investigative journalist, Jonathan Hunt, has been branded an unethical fantasist and virtually accused of blasphemy, for suggesting that there is no hard evidence that Hamilton did it.  Whatever any of us think of Hamilton, the attempt to discredit Jonathan Hunt and warn people off even considering his story is a worrying development.  It raises questions about press standards and journalistic freedom that are of far wider importance than the fate of an ex-Tory MP.
    Jonathan Hunt has spent the last nine months investigating the Guardian's 'cash-for-questions' story, and the subsequent inquiry run by Sir Gordon Downey, the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.  The Downey inquiry concluded that there was 'compelling evidence'' that Neil Hamilton had taken cash bribes from Mohammed Al Fayed to ask questions in the House of Commons.  Much of the evidence before Downey was supplied by the Guardian newspaper.
    Now Jonathan Hunt has produced a lengthy report which concludes that Neil Hamilton should not have been found guilty of the charges brought against him.  These charges, says Hunt, were largely concocted by the wealthy businessman Mohammed Al Fayed as part of his personal grudge against Hamilton.  They were published by the Guardian newspaper as part of its campaign against Conservative government sleaze.  And finally they were endorsed by the Downey inquiry, under pressure to prove that the new system of parliamentary regulation worked.
    Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has gone ballistic over Hunt's 107 page report, 'Fayed, the Guardian and a Cover-up', denouncing it as 'a work of fiction and malevolent fantasy'.  As well as rubbishing Hunt's (modest but respectable) credentials as a journalist, Rusbridger issued an all-purpose warning to any paper which might be tempted to run the story:

'Anyone who is claiming to talk about journalistic ethics who uses that document in support is so far detached from reality that their case is automatically and immediately undermined.' (UK Press Gazette, 23 January 1998)

    That is a remarkable statement from the editor of a leading national newspaper.  It seems that anybody who even questions the Guardian line is to be deemed unethical, 'automatically and immediately' putting themselves beyond the pale.  Hunt says that he has already been warned of a possible libel action and the publication of damaging, and unfounded, allegations about his previous career in the road haulage business.  When I talked to a member of the Guardian's sleaze-busting team, David Hencke, he was clear: anybody who thinks that the Guardian got it wrong over Hamilton must, by definition, have some kind of ulterior motive.
    In fact Hunt's main motivation seems to be frustration that nobody will put their prejudices aside and consider the evidence he has gathered.  With the Guardian bristling defensively, the chances of a rational debate are slim.  Whatever the truth or otherwise of Hunt's allegations, nobody has yet even reported the story in the wake of Alan Rusbridger's edict.  The Guardian dedicated thousands of feet of newsprint to putting its case against Hamilton, yet has so far refused to respond to the questions Jonathan Hunt has raised.  The result of all this is that people are being denied the chance to consider all sides of the story.  That kind of selective attitude to the evidence cannot be healthy for public debate on any issue.
    It is not hard to understand why the Guardian might be upset about Jonathan Hunt's allegations.  The exposure of Neil Hamilton as a corrupt politician, bought by Harrods owner Mohammed Al Fayed, was a turning point for the newspaper.  Exposing Hamilton's corruption was a key moment in a campaign that culminated in the exposure of Tory minister Jonathan Aitken.  The Guardian's reputation as the fearless enemy of corruption was made by facing down libel actions from Hamilton and Aitken.  Even staunch rivals wearily acknowledge that the Guardian's sleaze-busting has made it the paper of the moment.

    Those of us with no stake in the Hamilton story, however, are entitled to hear the case for the defence and judge for ourselves, whatever edict Alan Rusbridger might issue.  So what is Hunt's story that the Guardian says I should not report -- and, by implication, that you should not read?  In the interests of free speech, here is an outline.
    Hunt's argument is that there are important inconsistencies in the evidence against Neil Hamilton.  In particular, Hunt alleges that the one serious charge of which Hamilton was found guilty by Downey, that of accepting cash bribes from Mohammed Al Fayed, only surfaced halfway through the sleaze investigation, when Al Fayed turned on his former Tory allies and decided to embellish the case against them.
    The story begins in November 1985 when Egyptian millionaire Mohammed Al Fayed employed Ian Greer Associates, a lobbying firm, to help him promote his business interests, at a price of £25,000 a year (just over £2000 a month).  Al Fayed had just bought House of Fraser (including Harrods), to the irritation of his long-standing rival Tiny Rowland.  In return Rowland lobbied the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate the Al Fayed brothers' questionable past.  An investigation would threaten Mohammed Al Fayed's application for British citizenship.  He wanted allies in high places.
    One of the MPs that Ian Greer enlisted to help Al Fayed was Neil Hamilton, the abrasive right-winger who had sued Panorama in 1983 for implying that he was a fascist.  Between November 1985 and May 1989 Hamilton asked nine written parliamentary questions and put down three early day motions generally supporting Al Fayed against the DTI investigation.  Hamilton stayed six nights at Al Fayed's Ritz Hotel in Paris at the millionaire's expense.
    Most damaging for Hamilton, Ian Greer Associates had made payments to him of £4000 and £6000 for introducing clients National Nuclear Corporation and US Tobacco to Greer around the same period.  Those payments were not recorded in the register of parliamentary interests (Hunt claims this was in line with the less exacting standards of the register at that time).  They were, however, recorded in Ian Greer's accounts -- which Hunt points out meant that they could be proved to be legitimate payments and not bribes.  In July 1993, the Guardian began investigating Ian Greer Associates.  Then editor Peter Preston applied a time-honoured principle of investigative journalism: follow the money.

At that time, says Hunt, the Guardian was working on the theory that the commission fees paid to MPs for introducing clients to Greer were disguised bribes for asking questions in parliament.  In the event, however, as Hunt notes, nobody has been able to prove that those commission payments were bent.  Indeed, the Downey inquiry eventually conceded that 'there is no evidence that Mr Hamilton received cash from Mr Al Fayed indirectly through Mr Greer.'

Previous article

Continued overleaf