Main Index to all Sections

First Page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

22 July 1993: Guardian journalists David Hencke & John Mullin interview Conservative MPs Tim Smith & Neil Hamilton, separately, at the House of Commons.
    Prior to the interviews, David Hencke had made notes from the Register of Members' interests of the registered parliamentary consultancies of Tim Smith, Neil Hamilton -- and, significantly, Michael Grylls. 
    The journalists questioned Tim Smith first in a Committee Room.
    Neither Hencke nor Mullin make notes during the interview.  Immediately afterwards John Mullin writes up two pages of shorthand notes.  They record: a) that Smith is nervous; b) that his reason for supporting Fayed against Lonrho was his disgust at what he saw when he examined Lonrho's accounts when working for City accountants Peat Marwick in 1971; c) that he had attended a House of Fraser function organised by Ian Greer with other officers of the Tory trade & industry committee run by Grylls; d) that he had tabled 17 questions concerning House of Fraser between 28 October 1987 and 23 January 1989; e) that Greer had offered him and other MPs a trip to the Ritz which he had declined; f) that he had accepted gifts of big teddy bears for his children which he had initially registered and then withdrew; g) that he responded "that's not true" to a proposition that he had taken money [from Greer] to table parliamentary questions; and h) that he had denied receiving money for parliamentary business.
    Mullin's shorthand notes do not record Smith's response to any 'cash in brown envelopes' allegation.

    Hencke & Mullin questioned Neil Hamilton later that afternoon on the Commons Terrace.
    Neither Hencke nor Mullin make notes during the interview.  Immediately afterwards John Mullin writes up a single page of shorthand notes of the interview.  They record: a) that Hamilton thinks it ludicrous to suggest that an MP or Minister is influenced by lobbying which is a con and a waste of money; b) that he had been a friend of Ian Greer for 15 years, after being introduced by Michael Grylls, who was the boss of his wife, Christine; c) that he had been introduced to House of Fraser by the company's consultant, Sir Peter Hordern, and that it had appealed to his libertarian instinct; d) that he had stayed at the Ritz and paid his own fares and couldn't remember or explain why he didn't declare it; e) that he had received opera tickets too worth hundreds of pounds; f) that he had ruled himself out of [answering] DTI questions on House of Fraser-Lonrho battle [as a DTI minister]; and g) that he replies "Never received any payment other than those in the register of interests."
    In keeping with his notes of Smith's interview, John Mullin did not record Hamilton's response to an allegation that he had taken 'cash in brown envelopes'.  In contrast with his notes of Smith's interview, Mullin did not record Hamilton's response to an allegation that he taken money to table parliamentary questions either.  The logical explanation is that no such allegations had been made against Hamilton at this time. 
    David Hencke claims that he did not take any notes or make any tape-recording of the two interviews.

23 July 1993: Guardian journalists Hencke & Mullin interview Ian Greer at IGA's offices.
    After being forewarned by his clients that the Guardian are gunning for him, Ian Greer and his staff are wary of The Guardian's interest in their company.  Accordingly, when David Hencke & John Mullin arrive, one of Greer's account managers, Angie Bray, produces a tape-recorder and announces that she would record the interview.  David Hencke then produces his own tape-recorder that was concealed in his jacket, whereupon he places the machine on the table and proceeds to make his own recording openly. 
    A transcript of Ian Greer's recording, undertaken by respected company Tellex Monitors, shows that the interview begins with Greer berating Hencke for contacting his clients and making insinuations about him.  Greer suggests that the journalist should have telephoned him three weeks earlier [to ask for an interview] instead of upsetting his clients.  Then, after a few minutes of general settling down, the interview progresses to questions about Greer's relationship with the Conservative Party. 
    After a few minutes the two journalists bring up the subject of the commission payments that Greer had given Michael Grylls and two other unnamed MPs for introducing clients.  Following their discussion about these, the two journalists immediately probe Greer for his thoughts as to what Smith's and Hamilton's motivations were for supporting Mohamed Al Fayed. 
    A little later still, John Mullin asks Greer what his reaction would be to an allegation that "a friendly MP might table a parliamentary question for a brown envelope stuffed with fivers."  Greer expresses incredulity at the suggestion.  The journalists then propose Tim Smith as being one MP who might enter into such an arrangement.  Greer's response suggests genuine disbelief. 
    At no time during the interview do either Hencke or Mullin disclose to Greer that they actually suspect him of bribing Smith.  At no time during the interview do the journalists suggest that Hamilton had been accused of tabling parliamentary questions for cash.  Both these facts support the contention that no such allegations existed against Hamilton at this time.
    Later, to support its story that Fayed had already alleged paying Neil Hamilton 'cash in brown envelopes', the Guardian cited this transcript to support its claim that John Mullin had put a specific "brown envelope" allegation to Greer during the interview.  However, if Mullin was putting a specific allegation that he, Greer, had bribed MPs, Mullin could not have known the colour of the envelopes.  If, on the other hand, Mullin was putting an allegation that Fayed paid MPs, then that would not have been any concern of Greer's.  Furthermore, in his oral testimony for the parliamentary inquiry about the affair, Guardian editor Peter Preston admitted (no doubt inadvertently) that Fayed did not describe the colour of the envelopes during their first meeting.  In his witness statement Preston also clarifies that he and Fayed had had only one meeting prior to Hencke & Mullin beginning their inquiries. 
    These facts provide for only one logical explanation: when Mullin used the 'brown envelope' term, he was not putting a specific allegation, as the Guardian was to claim later, but instead merely airing to Greer a hypothesis that an MP might take a bribe to table a question (which is what Hencke & Mullin suspected Greer of doing) using the established "brown envelope" metaphor for a bribe, simply to test Greer's reaction to that hypothesis.  The likelihood that John Mullin had used the "brown envelope" phrase metaphorically is strengthened further by the fact that only five weeks earlier on 10 & 14 June Mullin had attended the High Court action of former Tottenham Hotspur manager Terry Venables who denied facilitating the transfer of footballers with secret bribes, known colloquially as "bungs" or "cash in brown envelopes".

15 September 1993: Guardian journalist David Hencke makes the first of over twenty entries into a file on the Guardian's office mainframe "Atex" computer concerning his & Mullin's investigation of lobbying company Ian Greer Associates.
    This first entry -- which is the largest by far -- summarises an opinion of Ian Greer and Neil Hamilton MP which Hencke had obtained from an unnamed informant.  The file in which Hencke makes this entry is called 'Peter Preston's computer queue', which is a message log to editor Peter Preston containing information about the investigation of Ian Greer. 
    In this first entry Hencke attaches great importance to Hamilton's failure to register his stay at the Paris Ritz,  and Hencke opines that this will damage Hamilton's reputation.  It is significant therefore that Hencke nevertheless makes no mention of Hamilton having been subject of any 'cash for questions' allegations, or 'gift voucher' or 'free shopping at Harrods' allegations at this time.  Such corruption allegations, had they existed, would be incalculably more damaging to Hamilton's reputation than not registering private hospitality, which no other MP had ever registered previously.  The logical explanation is that no corruption allegations had been made against Hamilton at this time. 
    This first entry reads:
    'The bull points of .. [informant's] .. view of Greer.
    1.  He steers clear of accepting hospitality from him after being warned off that "Greer crosses the line of what is acceptable --
         particularly in arranging gifts and looking for favours for people who help him."  Can't remember who told him to be clear
         but is racking his brain about it and will came back to me if he can.
    2.  Hamilton's undeclared acceptance of a gift while a backbencher is more serious than we realise.  Ministers are never
         targeted by lobbyists to ask parliamentary questions because they are useless as they can't do it under Parly rules.  So
         Hamilton would have known the position very well and should have immediately steered clear of it if he was ambitious for
         promotion. 
    3.  Scale of the gift -- and .. [informant] .. (I'm no saint he tells me) knows all about it -- is at the high end of Parly bribery.
         He's only dined once at the hotel -- but the luxury of staying at the Ritz for a week is way beyond the dreams of any MP
         without a big private income (it's way above free tickets to the opera). 
    4.  The only justification for not declaring it is that it's a present from a long standing friend and no way are the Al-Fayeds
         personal friends of the Hamiltons.
    5.  One thing you never do -- if you are going to accept such a favour -- is table any Parliamentary questions which will
         benefit the donor.  That is seen as bad and amounting to being paid for your position.
    7.  Hamilton would have known that a gift on that scale should automatically be declared.
    8.  His present position at the DTI is relevant to his past life.  Hamilton is likely to want to take every step to prevent it being
         published because it would be seen as being out of line by Parly colleagues.'

A further 20 entries over the next 12 months, made by Hencke and The Guardian's political editor Michael White, contained tittle-tattle about Ian Greer without any mention of Tim Smith or Neil Hamilton.  These include entries on 16 Sept. and 19 Oct. 1993; and 28 Feb.; 2 March; 16 March; 24 March; 17 May; 18 May; 23 May; 24 May; 13 June; two entries on 6 July; 11 July; 19 July; 11 Aug.; 7 Sept.; two entries on 27 Sept.; and 29 Sept. 1994. 

Previous page

Next page