I am writing to express my grave concern at the procedure being adopted by the Standards and Privileges Committee in investigating the case of Neil Hamilton.

  As you are aware, The Guardian's original articles about Mr Hamilton were the subject of a libel action which we were prepared to defend in a court of law. Mr Hamilton dropped that action and announced that he would take his case to Sir Gordon Downey. In doing so he expressed every confidence in him saying: "He used to be the Comptroller and Auditor General [and] is perfectly capable of assessing this evidence."

  We were impressed by the care, fairness and seriousness with which Sir Gordon and Mr Pleming approached their task. This was a case of great complexity, and we think your committee was well-served by the Commissioner. He, in turn, was generous enough to acknowledge the role this newspaper played in bringing serious abuses to the attention of parliament. At paragraph 33 he wrote:

"I also wish to acknowledge that, but for the Guardian's persistence in pursuing its original investigations, many of these serious allegations would never have been brought into the open."

So that was the situation at the beginning of July. Mr Hamilton had chosen this tribunal. The tribunal had ruled. That, we imagined, would be that.

  It was with some astonishment, then, that we learned that Mr Hamilton was to be allowed the opportunity to present his case all over again for the best part of two and a half hours - entirely unchallenged and on live television.

  Mr Hamilton, who had waived parliamentary privilege when it suited him, was granted the shield of parliamentary privilege to make the gravest possible accusations against virtually everyone else connected with the affair. In particular, he was allowed to make the accusation that two senior reporters on this paper had entered into a conspiracy with its former editor and myself to lie and to doctor evidence to the inquiry.

  It appeared to us that, with two exceptions, Mr Hamilton did not produce any evidence which was not available to Sir Gordon and Mr Pleming. The points he made were the same points he had repeatedly made in oral and written submissions to the inquiry. His complaint was that they were not given sufficient weight. We ourselves could make similar arguments about different aspects of the case.

  The two new pieces of evidence were an alleged new entry in a previously "lost" diary, upon which little turned, and the allegations about the safe deposit box, which had no direct relevance to the case, which have been denied and which appear to have originated from a source whose own motives could well be questioned.

  By introducing the allegations about the safe deposit box Mr Hamilton attempted to expand the scope of the inquiry to include material relevant only to the long-standing feud between Mr Tiny Rowland and Mr Al Fayed. We understand that Mr Hamilton has, indeed, been in touch with Mr Rowland over this material. It is surprising to us that the Standards and Privileges Committee should allow its proceedings to be used for Mr Rowland to attack Mr Al Fayed by proxy - all unchallenged and under the cloak of privilege. Can it really be the Committee's intention to re-open the entire Rowland-Al Fayed saga?

  I cannot be sure how your Committee intends to proceed. But it seems only fair that The Guardian should now be allowed the same facility as Mr Hamilton. That is, we should be given up to two and a half hours in which to address the Committee unchallenged in public, on live television and under the cloak of parliamentary privilege.

  We will, of course, wish to defend the reputation of the journalists whose reputation has been attacked by Mr Hamilton. But we will also seek, as Mr Hamilton did, to introduce extraneous material which reflects upon his trustworthiness as a witness. We believe that the material we shall seek to bring before the public will demonstrate that Mr Hamilton cannot be relied upon to give truthful evidence. In particular, we shall ask the Committee to investigate whether Mr Hamilton was a truthful litigant in his libel action against the BBC.

  It is, of course, entirely right that a complaint about an MP should be subjected to rigorous examination. We have never objected to that. We believe that Sir Gordon and Mr Pleming tested our evidence as sternly as anyone could reasonably expect. But it is difficult to imagine a greater deterrent to anyone contemplating making a complaint against an MP in future than that the MP should be given carte blanche to destroy their reputations on live television, with complete immunity and free from any form of challenge.

  I look forward to hearing from you.

17 October 1997