In this final extract from his dissection of the 'cash for questions' political controversy, "In
The Public Interest",
Jonathan Boyd Hunt examines the roles in the affair of two widely respected individuals: 1)
Lord Alex Carlile of
Berriew QC (who, up to May
1997 was a LibDem MP and from
2001–
2011 served as the
Government's
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation); and 2)
Martin Bell OBE (the famous
BBC war reporter).
Lord Alex Carlile QC
Hunt begins by showing how, following the publication of
The Guardian's 'cash for questions' story, Alex Carlile submitted three complaints against
Neil Hamilton to the
House of Commons Members' Interests Committee. Hunt notes that Carlile had submitted his complaints in the face of
Hamilton's denials and despite offering no evidence to support them other than the word of
Harrods owner
Mohamed Fayed; and how Carlile had also ignored other MPs' transgressions which had emerged during that same period.
Hunt notes that four years earlier in the House of Commons Carlile had denounced Fayed as a perjurer; and a few months later had pressed the police to investigate allegations that Fayed was involved in the smearing of MPs with false bribery allegations — demonstrating how Carlile had believed Fayed to be both a liar and a vindictive person. Hunt then shows that Carlile would also have been aware that Fayed had cause to bear a grudge against
Hamilton — a grudge that could have motivated Fayed to make false allegations spitefully.
Hunt then shows how Carlile went on to become Fayed's most vocal supporter in
Parliament — and subsequently acquired directorships of four Fayed companies.
Martin Bell
Hunt notes that in
April 1997 Bell had stood against Neil Hamilton on an "anti-corruption" platform — i.e. a reference to 'cash for questions', though these allegations were at that time under investigation by Sir
Gordon Downey's parliamentary inquiry into the affair. Hunt shows how Bell later claimed that he had actually entered the election on the issue of Neil Hamilton's admissions of wrongdoing — but that this claim is belied by
Bell's demonstration of his unawareness, on the first day of his electioneering, of what Hamilton's wrongdoing was supposed to be.
Hunt notes too Bell's claim to have stood as an 'independent' candidate, when, in reality, his successful election as
Tatton's MP had been dependent on two party machines, plus The Guardian's national campaign, plus the decisive support of two Guardian-owned local newspapers that were distributed free to most homes in the constituency.
Hunt then examines Bell's record as an MP, on his proclaimed mission to clear up Parliament of 'sleaze'. How, as a
Member of the
Standards Committee, he had remained uncritical of
Labour Minister Geoffrey Robinson MP who was revealed to have not registered two directorships over four years totalling £202,
000 — a figure ten times greater than Neil Hamilton's failures of registration (for all of which Hamilton had mitigating explanations, unlike
Robinson).
As he draws his discussion to a close, Hunt recalls how, on
BBC TV's "
Question Time" in June 1997, following the election but prior to the publication of the official 'cash for questions' inquiry, a member of the audience challenged Bell as to the grounds on which he had stood. To this Bell pleaded that he had stood not on 'cash for questions' — which, he conceded, was "one man's word against another" (i.e. Fayed's vs. Hamilton's) — but on "Hamilton's admitted wrongdoing".
Bearing Bell's comment in mind, Hunt recalls how, for two whole years, The Guardian's 'cash for questions' story of Oct.
1994 had indeed depended on Fayed's sole word — that is until Sept.
1996 i.e. nine months prior to Bell's appearance on Question Time — when Fayed's secretaries
Alison Bozek and
Iris Bond, and doorman
Philip Bromfield, emerged claiming to have processed corrupt payments for Hamilton. Hunt says that this means, that when Martin Bell appeared on Question Time:
"it wasn't one man's word against Hamilton at all, but Fayed's word plus Bozek's word, plus Bond's word, plus Bromfield's word, and that that had been the case for the previous nine months."
Hunt added: "Bell's failure on Question Time to cite the three key witnesses' claims to justify his stance against Hamilton, and his failure to do so anytime since, betrays he knows they're lying, for if he thought there was a chance they were telling the truth, he'd be citing their claimed roles packing envelopes with cash every time the subject came up."
- published: 31 Oct 2014
- views: 305