The Committee has asked me to write to you. They have now examined your submission and are minded to consider their findings and make a report.

  The Committee will need to consider whether to take further oral evidence. Would you please let this office or the Chairman know by 6 pm on Monday 4th August whether you would wish to do so-

  (a)  if the Committee took oral evidence from other witnesses (Yes or No?)
  (b)  if the Committee decided that no other oral evidence was required (Yes or No?).

31 July 1997

  Thank you for your letter of 31 July.

  I have no idea what Sir Gordon will say in answer to the many serious questions and points raised in my Response to his Report, so it is rather difficult to say what further evidence the Committee ought to seek. However, if he is not prepared to revise his Report in any substantial way, I would certainly wish to give oral evidence, after having seen his comments on my Response. This would not only be fair to me but helpful to the Committee.

  Mr Fayed's allegations have resulted in the loss of my seat and my livelihood as well as that of my wife. Sir Gordon's Report makes it effectively impossible for me now to find any suitable professional work. In fairness, as the Committee is not in any way bound by his Report, it ought to subject it to the most searching scrutiny.

  Inevitably, any revision of Sir Gordon's findings will be seen as an implicit reflection on him. I believe that the Committee is thus bound to lean against me, as it will not wish to be seen as undermining him or his office. That is why it was unfair to publish his draft Report before giving me a chance to comment on it and to influence his judgement.

  I hope the Committee will agree that, in fairness to me and the public, all the proceedings hereafter ought to be as transparent as possible. I was pleased when the Committee resolved to publish my Response to Sir Gordon as soon as possible. I would be grateful if you could give me some idea when Sir Gordon's answers and explanations will be published.

  I would also wish to give oral evidence myself if further oral evidence is sought from others. I assume that the Committee will wish to examine Mr Fayed. He has admitted attempting to bribe MPs, contrary to the Resolution of 1695. Furthermore, Tim Smith alleges in his letter to the Committee dated 17 July that Mr Fayed insisted on secrecy for his payments.

  Mr Fayed also lied to Sir Gordon when giving oral and written evidence - notably in his false allegations (a) that I was paid by Ian Greer and (b) that he gave me £8000 in Harrods gift vouchers in exchange for parliamentary services on his behalf. I strenuously denied both these allegations, which were disproved by documentary and witness evidence and dismissed by Sir Gordon.

  In my Response I gave some reasons for believing that the evidence of the Fayed employees also gives rise to strong suspicions that they were not telling the truth in all respects - Sir Gordon explicitly canvassed this also in his Report on Michael Howard.

  I believe also that the Committee should not ignore The Guardian's deliberate Contempts of Parliament in publishing partial accounts of the oral evidence to the Inquiry before the election.

  I reiterate that

(i)    I vehemently deny receiving any money from Mr Fayed directly or from anyone on his behalf;


(ii)    Sir Gordon is wrong in saying that I did and he relies entirely on evidence which is either circumstantial, inadmissible or not independent;


(iii)  Sir Gordon is duty bound, if the Committee wishes to act fairly, to provide full reasons for his conclusions and answers to the questions posed in my Response;


(iv)  the case against me would not be made out in a Court of Law;


(v)    the effect of Sir Gordon's decisions on me, my wife and our families is such that I should be entitled to be acquitted unless the charges can be proved beyond reasonable doubt and


(vi)    on the evidence adduced there must be at the very least such a reasonable doubt.

  I am ready to assist the Committee in any way.

4 August 1997

  The Committee has considered your letter of 4 August to the Clerk of the Committee and has reached the following conclusions:

1.  The Committee has received the Commissioner's report, and associated evidence, and your rebuttal. All of these have been published. It is on this material that the Committee will base its report. It will take your evidence fully into account in reaching its findings and does not intend to comment on it separately at this stage.


2.  In view of your letter, however, it has decided that you should, if you wish, have the opportunity to add to your written representations if you feel you have not made out your case in full.


3.  The Committee therefore invites you to appear before the Committee on Tuesday 14 October at 11.00 am when you will be able to deliver an oral statement, on oath and in public.

  This letter is being released to the press.

5 August 1997

  I confirm that I wish to accept the Committee's invitation to appear before them on 14 October. I am grateful to them for giving me this opportunity and I confirm also that I would like to make an introductory statement.

  Could you confirm whether the Committee intends to ask Sir Gordon Downey for a rejoinder to my Response to his Report and, if so, whether this will be made available to me?

  Sir Gordon's Report contained references to several relevant documents which had not been shown to me and various inferences from my earlier evidence which had not been put to me orally. Hence I was unable to comment upon these in advance of publication. I feel very strongly that this is a highly prejudicial method of proceeding, which has been frowned upon by the Courts in non-Parliamentary Inquiries as contrary to Natural Justice.

  Considering the catastrophic damage which I have suffered as a result of what I know to be a miscarriage of justice I hope that the Committee will agree that Sir Gordon ought to be fully accountable for his decisions and produce full explanations of how he arrived at them. I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the Committee as well as fair to me if I had sight of his explanations in time for me to take them into account on 14 October.

  In case it is relevant to you I shall be abroad from 21 September until 8 October.

9 September 1997

  Thank you for your letter of 9 September. I can confirm that the invitation to you is to make a statement, therefore what you propose in your letter corresponds very well with what the Committee have in mind. After you have concluded your statement (on oath if you wish) the Chairman may have points of clarification to raise with you. However, it is unlikely that other Members will ask you questions at this time. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, the Committee intend to deliberate after hearing your statement: it is then very possible that they will ask you to answer questions in a further public session later that day or (less likely) on a future day.

  You repeat your request to see the replies the Commissioner has given to your memorandum. I will, of course, circulate your letter to the Committee, but when they considered your earlier request they decided that it was inappropriate to comply with it. The Commissioner is not the complainant and it is consequently no part of their functions to adjudicate between you and him.

  The Commissioner has concluded his investigation and it is now the Committee's responsibility to reach its own conclusions; taking whatever further evidence they consider necessary. In briefing the Committee the Commissioner has indicated where the matters to which you have drawn attention were considered in his report and where the reasons for his findings are explained. He has produced no new evidence; otherwise I am sure that the Committee would have supplied it to you.

  I apologise that I am still not in a position to let you know the number of the room in which the Committee will meet. I will let you know as soon as I can.

18 September 1997