The following are some notes on Mr Hamilton's written response to my report.[16] The paragraph references apply to the response or my report as appropriate.

Procedures - Paragraphs 1-23

Among Mr Hamilton's arguments are the following:

(i)    that the inquiry procedures lacked the safeguards of a court

(ii)    that he was denied the right to comment on my findings before publication

(iii)  that the burden of proof should have been placed squarely on the prosecution

(iv)  that the standard of proof should have been "beyond reasonable doubt"

(v)    that evidence was not taken on oath

(vi)  that cross-examination was not allowed

(vii)  that some documents were not sent to him for comment

(viii)  that "Al Fayed's witnesses" were not independent; and that it was inconsistent to reject such evidence in the Howard case but to accept it in his

(ix)  that much of the evidence was circumstantial, unreliable, or would not have been admissible in a court:

e.g.  -  second-hand evidence from Royston Webb (relied on)

-  that of Iris Bond (partially rejected)

-  character reference for Alison Bozek

-  documentary evidence was fragmentary

-  Al Fayed testimony was inconsistent and contradictory

(x)    that rules of registration were applied retrospectively in respect of

-  private hospitality

-  his financial relationship with a company in his constituency

Comments seriatim

(i)    My approach was set out in paragraphs 69-73 of my report and Annex 1. This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action. The proposed procedures were shown in advance to the previous Select Committee and to complainees. The approach was inquisitorial, not adversarial. Its sole purpose was to arrive at the truth, not to achieve a "conviction". Furthermore, the allegations made against Mr Hamilton that he took cash payments from Mr Al Fayed formed but one aspect of a far wider investigation which I was undertaking. Had Mr Hamilton felt it necessary to retain court safeguards he would have needed to continue with his libel action.

(ii)    Mr Hamilton is right in saying he was prevented from commenting on my findings before publication. This was at the specific request of the former Committee. (The same applied to the Howard case).

(iii)  As this was an inquisitorial process, there was no prosecution and no reversal of any burden of proof. All evidence was receivable and it was my task to assess its relevance and weight. I relied largely on Counsel to the Inquiry to test evidence for and against the allegations in a neutral way. I deliberately took little part in the examination of witnesses to avoid being cast in the role of prosecutor.

(iv)  Since this was not a court action I deliberately avoided judicial concepts of standards of proof. In any case "beyond reasonable doubt" was of doubtful relevance given that this was not a case involving criminal charges (see paragraph 76) or criminal sanctions. Indeed, the substance of the case stemmed from the abandoned civil libel action where the standard of proof would have been "balance of probabilities". In practice my approach was more stringent than this and I assured Mr Hamilton at an early stage that I would require higher standards of proof for the more serious allegations (see letter of 18.11.96, attached).

(v)    I have no powers to take evidence on oath. The position is explained at paragraph 72 of my report.

(vi)  Examination of witnesses was conducted by Counsel to the Inquiry and myself. Where witnesses were contradicted by later evidence they were given the opportunity to comment further. This procedure was designed to serve the inquisitorial approach which I was adopting. (The Committee itself, of course, has no powers to permit cross-examination of witnesses).

(vii)  I am satisfied that Mr Hamilton was provided with documents, or summaries of evidence on which reliance was placed. Of those he mentions in para 23(iii), some went to his lawyer (for example, the oral evidence of Mr Greer) and some raised no new evidence (for example the later Guardian submissions). There clearly comes a point where, on practical grounds, the exchange of evidence has to be brought to an end and this was provided for in the procedures.

      As to the tape mentioned in para 23(iii) (d), Mr Hamilton claims that this evidence (which was originally supplied to me in connection with the Michael Howard inquiry) shows Mr Al Fayed denying that he made any cash payments to Mr Hamilton.   In fact there are inconsistencies between the tape and the transcript, and other passages on the tape supported the main thrust of the allegations of cash payments to Mr Hamilton. Given these inconsistencies, I decided not to place weight on this evidence (see footnote 177, page 61).

(viii)  There is no useful comparison to be made between the Howard case and this inquiry. In the former, none of the witnesses for the "prosecution" had any direct involvement in alleged payments. The allegation was that payments were made by Tiny Rowland and the evidence turned largely on varying interpretations of taped conversations. In the Hamilton inquiry the witnesses were directly involved in payments. The witnesses were not the same people in the two cases.

(ix)  Where evidence was circumstantial (as with the documents) its limited value was acknowledged. On the examples given

-    I specifically did not rely on Royston Webb (para. 802)
-    the character reference was given limited weight (para. 799)
-    the documentary evidence, although fragmentary, was thought significant enough to warrant suggestions from Mr Hamilton that it might have been fabricated (paras. 426-428)
-    I did not say that Al Fayed's word was unreliable. I said I was not prepared to rely on it, uncorroborated, given the outcome of previous inquiries and separate allegations against Mr Al Fayed whose validity I was not in a position to judge (para. 744-745)
-    the Register has never exempted "private" hospitality which in any way relates to membership of the House. Given the nature of Mr Hamilton's work on Mr Al Fayed's behalf any hospitality Mr Hamilton received from Al Fayed was registrable.

      Mr Hamilton may have a point about financial interests with constituency companies. The report makes it clear that it is in my view wrong to make money from a constituent (except, of course, from e.g. family businesses, law firms, partnerships etc. pre-dating election): but this may not be the normal perception and is something the Committee will need to decide both as regards past practice and the future. (I deal with this point more fully below.)

Report Findings - Paragraph 24 et seq.

There is virtually nothing in the remainder of Mr Hamilton's submission which was not included in his earlier evidence. Some of the comments and judgements he seeks to refute are not in fact being made and other statements in the Report are misquoted. I can only illustrate this by listing examples and pointing to references in the Report at which the evidence was considered. These are not, of course, comprehensive.

  Response: para 24(2)

  Mr Al Fayed's former solicitors D.J. Freeman have confirmed that specific dates included in the original allegations were deduced from diary entries when it appeared that Al Fayed and Mr Hamilton had met alone. I have not relied on them. Inconsistencies in the allegations are acknowledged - para 789 (i).

  I rejected the allegations relating to gift vouchers because there was no direct corroboration of Mr Al Fayed's evidence on the point.

  I did not see as a `critical issue' the question of whether Al Fayed had met Mr O'Sullivan. In fact, Al Fayed said he may have said "hello" to him on one occasion (paras 463-464).

  Response: para 24(3) and (4)

  For the reasons set out above I have not relied on specific dates. I made quite clear that the amount of payment was uncertain but was unlikely to be less than that received by Mr Smith (para 857).

  The reasons for finding evidence of payment "compelling" are set out in paras 788-795. They are reinforced by my findings on the credibility of witnesses (paras 797-807).

  Response: paras 25-26

  I have not said "Fayed's evidence is unreliable in general". I acknowledged there were inconsistencies in his allegations, though the main thrust remained constant (para 789); and that I was not prepared to rely on his uncorroborated evidence, given the adverse findings of earlier inquiries which I could not evaluate.

  Mr Greer did not produce "comprehensive documentary evidence positively refuting all these false allegations" (relating to cash payments and a possible "slush" fund). The documentary evidence related to the cheques for £12,000 and £6,000 (para 760), and the use to which they were put (not involving Mr Hamilton) could have been the source of misunderstanding between Greer and Al Fayed (paras 762-763). I had no satisfactory explanation of the cheque for £13,333 plus VAT but concluded that there was no evidence that any of the money went to Mr Hamilton. I concluded that it was "highly probable" that Mr Greer accepted cash payments (para 756).

  In his response and in earlier submissions Mr Hamilton has laid great stress on the inconsistencies in the dates and methods of payment referred to in Al Fayed's evidence. It is a fair point and I placed little reliance on Al Fayed's recollection of detail. Indeed, where the evidence could not be corroborated from other sources (e.g. in the case of payment of gift vouchers) I was not prepared to accept his evidence at all.

  Mr Hamilton complains that I made no specific finding that an envelope containing cash had been sent to his home. I felt it unnecessary to be so specific for the purposes of my findings: but for the record, I have no reason to disbelieve Ms Bozek's evidence on the subject - para 789(v).

  Response: paras 27-28

  I felt it right to evaluate the credibility of witnesses in their own right and not to assume that they were "tainted by association".

  Although Ms Bozek left Al Fayed's employment only three weeks before Mr Hamilton issued his writ, the libel action was thereafter stayed until September 1996. By the time Ms Bozek gave evidence to the inquiry she had not been employed by Mr Al Fayed for almost two-and-a-half years.

  Response: paras 29-39

  I did not overestimate the importance of Ms Bozek's reference but cannot accept that it was of "no value". I am not sure why Mr Hamilton would think it appropriate for me to ask for Mr House's opinion of her earlier conduct: presumably Allen & Overy would not have knowingly recruited a dishonest person.

  I took account of Lord Harris' reference (Vol II Appendix 88 page 481) although this related very largely to Mr Hamilton's beliefs and the causes he espoused. Again, I regarded it as of some value.

  Mr Hamilton feels I have overlooked Ms Bozek's "moral deficiencies". Against this I think it is relevant to point out:

-  that Ms Bozek was not under investigation


-  that, in my view, it is appropriate to set higher standards for elected representatives (and the public service generally) than for those in a business environment


-  that Ms Bozek was an employee acting on the instructions of a boss on a short fuse


-  I had (and have) no evidence of dishonesty on her part


-  I acknowledged that Ms Bozek and Ms Bond were reluctant to answer questions on whether other people received large cash payments from Mr Al Fayed; and that a subsequent letter only confirmed that they were aware of no such payments to other Members.

  Mr Hamilton believes Ms Bozek's answers about Francesca Pollard damage her credibility (Vol III Questions 86, 88 and 89). Here she said

    "It is possible Mr Al Fayed gave her money but I really do not know"

  Asked if she put any money in envelopes for her she said

    "Not specifically, but I am sure there were envelopes left for her, whether they contained money, I do not know".

  This might have been evasive, but in my view, was not critical to Ms Bozek's reliability as a witness to this inquiry.

  Response: paras 40-46

  I do not accept Mr Hamilton's charge of bias. Following the examples cited in para 803, I found it difficult to escape the conclusion that his credibility had been damaged - particularly because of his attack on the honesty of The Guardian's journalists and the circumstances of his dealings with Mr Heseltine.

  It was clearly not for me to form a view on the tax issues but I remain concerned. Contrary to the implication in Mr Hamilton's response, I have still not had a satisfactory reply from his accountant.

  The only reason for referring to the confusion over his conversation with Mr Al Fayed in 1990 (para 581) was that (coupled with evidence from Mr Al Fayed) it left me unable in my conclusions to say whether he had visited the Ritz on that occasion or not. I thought a more relevant point (para 811) was that Mr Hamilton was undoubtedly still seeking a favour from Mr Al Fayed, long after the adverse findings of the DTI inspectors.

  Response: paras 49-53

  The introduction to para 803 says "It has been argued (i.e. by witnesses) .... that Mr Hamilton's credibility has been seriously undermined ... " and is followed by examples.

  The fact that Mr Hamilton was wrong in claiming that he was introduced to Al Fayed by Sir Peter Hordern is not disputed: he was introduced by Mr Greer. Para 803 (i) does not characterise this as a "lie" and I attach very little importance to it.

  Mr Hamilton or his solicitor saw The Guardian's submissions up to the point at which I felt they ceased to add anything to evidence already adduced. I disregarded any implication of collusion with Sir Peter Hordern.

  Response: paras 54-56

  I preferred the evidence of Mr Hencke and Mr Mullin (backed up by near-contemporaneous interview notes) to Mr Hamilton's. I see no inconsistency in concluding that, by accusing Mr Hencke of a "direct lie" and challenging the reliability of the documents, Mr Hamilton damaged his own credibility.

  Response: paras 57-59

  Mr Hamilton says he never denied using a normal public room at the Ritz in 1987. He gave a different impression in his letter to Peter Preston of 1 October 1993 and in the account he gave to the Cabinet Secretary in 1994 (para. 548).

  Response: paras 60-67

  Mr Hamilton may, as he says, have forgotten that he signed a bill at the Ritz. That is why this, and a number of other factual inaccuracies, are bracketed together as "comparatively small points" (para. 803(ii)), and not given any particular weight (para. 805).

  Response: paras 68-72

  I accept that, with the exception of one PQ, Mr Hamilton dissociated himself from House of Fraser decisions as a DTI Minister.

  On the above minor points Mr Hamilton insists that I have classified each as a "lie". Personally, I think the language of the report is much more restrained than that: and the importance attached to each point was very small.

  Response: paras 73-86

  At no point did I refuse to answer Mr Hamilton's question as to whether Mr Heseltine had given evidence. Indeed, Mr Hamilton was clearly aware that he had and his submission to the inquiry dealt with the matter in some detail. I cannot say with certainty that he saw Mr Heseltine's second letter of 27 February, (Vol II Appendix 92 page 485) but he was certainly apprised by me of its contents.

  Mr Hamilton takes the view that receiving introduction payments from Mr Greer could create no obligation. This was not the view of the Select Committee on Members' Interests who decided that such payments should have been registered.

  Mr Hamilton says he never claimed that he misunderstood Mr Heseltine's question. Para 514 (second indent) explains Mr Hamilton's understanding at the time. Since this does not coincide with Mr Heseltine's, I inferred that a misunderstanding had been acknowledged. Indeed, the claimed understanding, or misunderstanding, reappears in para 80 of Mr Hamilton's response to the Report.

  Mr Hamilton also says I was wrong to suggest that he understood the question to refer only to subsisting financial relationships. This is not what I said (para 803 (iii)). The Committee may also wish to remind themselves of para. 514, third and fourth indents, which cast some light on Mr Hamilton's intentions.

  There is nothing in the correspondence to suggest that Mr Heseltine was asking about money from Al Fayed: he referred only to Mr Greer.

  Response: paras 87-88

  I preferred the evidence of Preston, Hencke and Mullin (with supporting documentation) to Mr Hamilton's claim that, since he did not refer to "cash for questions" in his letter October 1993, he must have been unaware of that allegation.

  Response: para 89

  Mr Hamilton quotes Question 2109. But at Question 2107 he was asked to confirm (which he did) that his last contact with Al Fayed was in 1989. Yet he sought to arrange a further stay at the Ritz in 1990.

  Response: paras 90-100

  I found it unnecessary (para 804) to form a view on the tax points advanced by The Guardian (para 803 (vii) and (viii)). They did, however, provide prima facie cause for concern in three respects:

-  the unusual way in which payments in kind were received in the belief that this reduced the tax liability


-  there was no declaration of commission payments to the Revenue at the time, despite advice from Mr Hamilton's accountant indicating that there was an arguable case for the non-taxability of the payments (which would imply the need to inform the Revenue). A further exchange I have had with the accountant is attached but the matter remains unresolved.


-  Mr Hamilton claims to have said explicitly that one purpose of the New Orleans trip was to try to develop contacts in his political consultancy business. I find this difficult to read into Questions 2151-2155 where he says "The business expense was allowable because it was a visit to the Republican Party Convention." Q. "What has that got to do with your consultancy fees?" "Nothing whatsoever".

  Response: para 101-102

  The Members' Interests Committee examined a complaint of non-registration concerning the stay at the Ritz. I took the view that, as a possible reward for lobbying services, this stay had much wider significance as part of the present inquiry. Moreover, considerably more evidence has come to light as a result of the libel action about the circumstances surrounding the visit. This evidence was not available to the previous Committee and I could not ignore it.

  Response: paras 103-106

  The requirement is to register hospitality which in any way relates to membership of the House. Given Mr Hamilton's lobbying activities, the stay in a holiday cottage in the grounds of Balnagown Castle was, I believe, clearly registrable. The registration guidance has never provided exemption for "private" hospitality in such circumstances. In any event, it remains my view that such hospitality could not properly be described as "private".

  Response: paras 107-109

  My reasons for treating his consultancy as registrable are at para 813 (vii). The fact that Mr Hamilton did nothing either inside or outside Parliament in the three weeks involved does not, in my view, alter the need to register. It is the receipt of a benefit which matters, not the provision of services. The advice given by the Registrar in 1994 was hardly a conclusive encouragement to non-registration.

  Response: para 113

  Q. 569 relates to allegations that the cheques for £12,000 and £6,000 were intended to pay Mr Smith and Mr Hamilton. As Mr Pleming said, the documents supported Mr Greer, and I found accordingly.

  Response: para 114

  There is no inconsistency of the sort alleged by Mr Hamilton between the treatment of Mr Hamilton's case and that of Sir Andrew Bowden. The Bowden cash allegation was not upheld because there was, unlike in Mr Hamilton's case, no corroborative or supporting circumstantial evidence. The Report makes clear that Mr Al Fayed probably confused the supposed cash payments to Sir Andrew with the £5,320 election donation.

  Response: para 115

  This is going over old ground. The Report goes out of its way to say that Mr Al Fayed's evidence, on its own, could not be relied on.

  Response: para 116

  The question of hampers did not appear in any of the subsequent formulations of the allegations against Mr Hamilton, so - to that extent - it was not pursued consistently by Mr Al Fayed. But it was still true.

  Response: paras 117 to 129

  Webb disputes the interpretation placed by Hamilton on his conversation with Greer in October 1994 (see paras 440-442 of the Report). The charge against Nigel Pleming (para 120) that he failed to cross-examine Webb on this issue is unfounded - the transcript of the telephone conversation was received from Mr Hamilton's solicitors only on the morning of the hearing with Mr Webb, who would therefore not have had a chance to read it. Instead, he was asked for his written comments (see above).

  At para 127, Mr Hamilton again repeats his claim that the brown paper envelopes aspect of the allegations did not surface until the autumn of 1996. As the Report makes clear (para 518), this charge was put to Mr Hamilton by The Guardian journalists in the summer of 1993 (a fact evidenced by their contemporaneous notes, whose authenticity Mr Hamilton - in my view unjustifiably - disputed).

  Mr Hamilton says I concluded that Webb "gave his evidence in an apparently straightforward manner". My actual words were "Although[17] Mr Webb gave his evidence in an apparently straightforward manner, I found it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on this matter since he was not sufficiently close to the alleged events to affect my judgement one way or the other" (para 802).

  Response: paras 130 and 131

  There is nothing new in these paragraphs. I took Mr Hamilton's detailed analysis of the evidence from Bozek, Bond and Bromfield fully into account, but this had to be set against the favourable impression I formed of all three witnesses' veracity and reliability when they appeared before me. I am satisfied that this outweighed any apparent inconsistencies in their versions of events which, in any case, were not of major evidential significance.

  Mr Hamilton repeats his concern in para 131 (ii) and (iii) about the letter from Mr Al Fayed's solicitor relating to the question of cash payments to other people. As is clear from para 472 of the Report, there was no denial that such payments took place (and thus no dishonesty of the sort alleged by Mr Hamilton), but merely a refusal to confirm the practice or to give names. It was not necessary for me to pursue this further since it was not germane to the allegations I was investigating.

  Response: paras 132-153

  The burden of proof was not placed on Mr Hamilton . The telephone message pads were prima facie circumstantial evidence of the soliciting of, and preparations for, payments to Mr Hamilton. Mr Hamilton conceded that these could be damaging documents for his "defence", which may explain why his initial response was to imply that they were forgeries (Q 1955 and 1956). Mr Hamilton's complaint would have been stronger had these documents not been put to him for explanation and comment.

a) The meeting on 2 June 1987

  I made no such assumptions as those attributed to me in para 133.

  Mr Hamilton argues (para 140 and 141) that it would have been irrational to travel to London on 2 June unless he already had reason to believe that a payment would be offered to him. But, as a counter-hypothesis, the arrangement between him and Mr Al Fayed could already have been agreed in principle and the telephone call on 27/28 May would then have been to confirm that 2 June was a convenient day for collecting a payment. As to why Mr Hamilton did not arrange for the money to be couriered to him, it might be assumed that this method of payment had not been agreed at that stage (the first reference to this possibility is in the telephone message of 28 September 1988). Para 142 of Mr Hamilton's submission was dealt with in the Report (para 789 (vii)): the finding against Mr Hamilton does not involve a crude "cash for questions" relationship between each payment and specific actions taken in Parliament. Mr Hamilton's claim (para 145) that part of the relevant entry in the message book was added "at a later date" is disingenuous. The forensic science report (Vol II, p. 488) says that, although some words may have been inserted subsequent to the taking down of the main message, this might mean only "at the end of the message in order to clarify from whom it came".

  I believe that Mr Hamilton's para 148 is fully answered in paragraphs 789 (v) and (vi); 794; and 806 of the Report.

b) The message of 28 September 1988

  Mr Hamilton claims (para 150 (i)) that there is no evidence of any telephone call from him relating to the possibility of an envelope being couriered to him. But the message book entry clearly says "Neil Hamilton", implying that the call from Iris Bond to Alison Bozek was to relay some communication from Mr Hamilton (see Q 145 to 150). Paras 150 (3) and (4) and 151 return once more to the false argument that, in order for the allegation to be substantiated, evidence must be provided of dates and times of every payment and the precise parliamentary activity for which they are claimed to be a reward. Again, it is clear from the Report (paras 806 and 807) that the finding is a general one, concerning an overall pattern of payments for lobbying services and that it is based on an accumulation of evidence, some of it acknowledged to be circumstantial.

  Of course the explanation advanced by Mr Hamilton in para (151)[18] is possible, but on balance I did not find this a convincing reason for the despatch of a courier.

c) The telephone message of 14/15 December 1988

  Since the inquiry concluded, Mr Hamilton has discovered his diary, previously thought to be lost, for 1988. He attaches great weight to an entry for 20 December which, he says, confirms that on that day he was in Southsea visiting his parents. This is important, in his view, since if he did not attend the meeting with Mr Al Fayed that day this would render more plausible his claim that the purpose of the meeting at Harrods on 15 December was to hand over Christmas presents, rather than to receive a payment. Clearly, it would have been helpful if this diary had been available to me during the inquiry - although, had it been, I should have wished to examine it in detail.

  Although the diary entry for 20 December would have been relevant evidence, it is far from conclusive. First, there is no indication of the timing of the visit to Southsea, so that the possibility of Mr Hamilton's having attended a meeting at Harrods either earlier or later the same day cannot be excluded. Second, it is not apparent when the visit to Southsea was originally arranged and whether, when he attended the meeting with Mr Al Fayed on 15 December, Mr Hamilton was then expecting to see him again on 20 December or not.

  Response: para 154

  I accept that there is an inconsistency. In para 400 of the Report Mr Hamilton is recorded (on the basis of the documentation produced for the libel action) as attending a briefing meeting on 29 March 1988. However, in the detailed chronology of the lobbying group's activities (para 155 of the Report) reference is made only to invitations having been issued to attend this meeting. The documentation for the libel action was clearly inaccurate in this respect.

  Response: paras 156 to 160

  Whether evidence of the similarities between Mr Smith's case and Mr Hamilton's would be inadmissible in a court is (as I have explained both in this note and in the Report) irrelevant - though I personally think Mr Hamilton's assumption on this point (para 157) is questionable. All para 158 establishes is the fact - repeatedly stated in the Report - that Mr Al Fayed is not a reliable witness on matters of detail (though on the broader picture he has often tended to be proved right). Otherwise, the comparison between Smith and Hamilton is fully dealt with in the Report (paras 431, 473, 789 (vii), and 792). Para 160 repeats the false comparison between the treatment of the allegations against Mr Hamilton and Sir Andrew Bowden. I have already addressed this point in connection with para 114 of Mr Hamilton's submission.

  Response: paras 161 to 167

  As indicated earlier, Mr Hamilton claims (paras 162 and 163) that the Code of Conduct for Members implicitly gives approval to the kind of financial relationship entered into by Mr Hamilton with a company in his constituency (NNC). Although the Code does not go into detail on this point, I find it difficult to imagine that the House intended to endorse the taking by Members of commission fees for introducing constituents to lobbying firms, or the entering into consultancy agreements to advise or otherwise represent the interests of a constituent (whether a company or an individual). I recognise that this is not an easy area for the Committee to seek to regulate, not least because of the position of Members who, for example, hold a directorship in a local company. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee, in addressing Mr Hamilton's response to paras 838 to 890 and finding (x) on page 130 of the Report, were to consider producing more detailed guidance for Members on this point. I do not, however, accept the comments made by Mr Hamilton in para 164. It seems to me that a Member's duty to his constituency is paramount and that accordingly a conflict of interest in his relations with different constituents is much more undesirable than an equivalent conflict involving a constituent and a non-constituent. Mr Hamilton's comments in para 167 misinterpret my views and are irrelevant.

  Response: paras 168 to 170

  No new points are raised here. I believe that Mr Hamilton's description of the status of his representations to Ministers was, at the very least, disingenuous.

  Response: paras 171 to 181

  No new points are raised in Mr Hamilton's conclusions. I note, however, that in para 173 Mr Hamilton for the first time concedes that his stay at the Ritz could be seen as a reward (although indirect) for his lobbying on behalf of Mr Al Fayed.

24 July 1997

17  Emphasis added. Back

18  the second paragraph with this number (the numbers 150 and 151 have been used twice) Back