I have, meanwhile, and only within the past two days, learned that Mr Hamilton is to appear before the Select Committee. I also understand that his appearance is to be televised. This gives rise to a number of serious issues and concerns which I would ask you to consider, and comment on, as a matter of extreme urgency. Briefly, these are:

1.  Mr Hamilton has protested vigorously that Sir Gordon Downey's Report, and the investigative process leading up to it, is seriously flawed. He claims that the evidence was not properly investigated and considered, and that Sir Gordon Downey's findings are wrong. He has not produced any new evidence of material importance but, nevertheless, he is being given opportunity to appear before the Committee in an endeavour to persuade it that his own view of events is correct. This further opportunity being afforded to Mr Hamilton is in very marked contrast to that afforded to Mr Al Fayed. The Report by Sir Gordon Downey regarding Mr Michael Howard's activities, including in particular his conclusions, was immediately accepted by the Committee and published as being final and conclusive. Despite the fact that the Report was critical of Mr Al Fayed and his behaviour, he was afforded no opportunity to appear before the Committee either to support or expand on his evidence to Sir Gordon, or to seek to persuade it that Sir Gordon was wrong in his findings. Please may I have explanation for this wholly dissimilar treatment?

2.  When allegations that he had received payments from Mr Al Fayed which he had failed to declare were first made, Mr Hamilton insisted that such allegations were defamatory and that he would clear his name through the Courts. He had the law changed to enable him to do so. As you are well aware, at the very last moment, and faced with overwhelming evidence against him, he discontinued those proceedings and in consequence paid costs. He then vowed that he would be cleared by Sir Gordon Downey's enquiry. The reverse has occurred. He now, it would appear, is to be given yet further opportunity to deny the allegations against him and, in the process, attack all of those who have made or supported those allegations. Moreover, he is being given the opportunity to do so on television. How many more opportunities is he to be given? Are you also able to confirm that Mr Al Fayed will be allowed similar opportunities, both in relation to Mr Howard and Mr Hamilton, as have been and may in future be granted to Mr Hamilton?

3.  Mr Hamilton accuses Mr Al Fayed of lying. Additionally, he accuses anyone who has given evidence supportive of Mr Al Fayed's position of lying. Sir Gordon has found those accused by Mr Hamilton to be wholly credible witnesses. The truth of what they have said has been borne out by independent forensic tests on relevant diaries and message books. Nevertheless, Mr Hamilton persists in his accusations, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the potentially damaging consequences of his very public and highly personal attacks upon those who have given evidence. The opportunity you are giving to Mr Hamilton to attack yet further, and again in highly public fashion, those who are unable to protect themselves, or have legal representation, at the hearing is unfair and inequitable. What steps do you propose taking in this respect, and are you willing to give a televised right of reply to all or any of those who are so attacked?

4.  Although they differ on most issues, both Mr Hamilton and Mr Al Fayed are agreed that Sir Gordon Downey's processes and procedures are flawed and have not, in consequence, always enabled the truth to emerge. It would seem that relatively similar processes and procedures were adopted in both enquiries. What distinctions are there, in the eyes of the Committee, which have enabled it in one case (that of Mr Howard) to say that the findings are conclusive and deserving of no further hearing or investigation, whilst in the other case (that of Mr Hamilton), it feels unable to come to that conclusion and in consequence is proceeding with its own hearing and enquiries?

5.  Mr Hamilton is no longer a Member of Parliament. He was not a Member at the time the Report was published. He is therefore in no different position to that of any other member of the British public. Does the Committee nevertheless take the view that Mr Hamilton has rights additional to those of any other member of the public and/or that it retains a jurisdiction over Mr Hamilton?

6.  As mentioned earlier in this letter, Mr Hamilton has adduced no new evidence of material importance since the conclusion of Sir Gordon's enquiry, nor has he adduced any new arguments or point of law. He is, however, to be given the further opportunity, which he has been pressing for, to appear before the Committee, and re-present to it largely the same facts and arguments as were presented to Sir Gordon. Does the Committee consider itself to be principally an appeal forum to which anyone dissatisfied by the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner can turn for a re-hearing? If not, what principally is the Committee's role in this respect and on what basis and criteria can someone dissatisfied by a finding of the Parliamentary Commissioner apply to it for assistance or relief?

  Given that all these issues are not only of importance to Mr Al Fayed but are of much larger constitutional significance, I should be grateful for a reply which deals fully with each individual question. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible, particularly in relation to paragraph 3 above which is of immediate importance not only to Mr Al Fayed but to other witnesses.

14 October 1997