Abbreviations used in this note: PM—Sir Philip Mawer; AM—Mr Sabah Al-Mukhtar; GG—Mr George Galloway; FZ—Mr Fawaz Zureikat; AZ—Dr Abu Zayyad; SH—Mr Stuart Halford.

1. What PM sought from AM was an insight into the operation of the Mariam Appeal, though he understood AM to have said that his knowledge was limited to its early stages. PM was interested in the financing of the Appeal, the roles played by different individuals and the sources of finance.

2. Theories about the implications of the documents[56] found by the Telegraph's reporter in Baghdad included:

• That, Mr Galloway had personally received support through the Oil for Food programme. Mr Galloway, supported by a statement from his former wife Dr Abu Zayyad, denied this.
• That money from the programme was routed through third parties to the Mariam Appeal to support the campaign against sanctions against Iraq. Mr Galloway had denied any knowledge of this.
• That Mr Galloway was the victim of a conspiracy either by his political opponents or to exploit his name for personal gain.

3. PM said he had no 'axe to grind' about GG's political activities. He needed to know:

• If GG had received money which he had not entered in the Register of Members' Interests, or
• If GG had received political donations through the Appeal, or
• If GG was the victim of a conspiracy involving the use of his name either to advance the cause of his political opponents or to line the pockets of others.

4. GG had suggested that the documents were forgeries or fabrications intended to bring him down. It was PM's task to try to reach the truth. Some material had come to light indicating that supporters of the Appeal, Dr Al Chalabi and particularly Mr Fawaz Zureikat, had contracts under the Oil for Food programme and had subsequently given money from this source to the Appeal.

5. AM said that he was aware of the role of the Standards and Privileges Committee, of the nature of parliamentary privilege and of what had been said about GG. As a citizen he would like to assist PM. He did, however, wear two hats. He was present in a personal capacity, but as a lawyer he had a professional relationship with his clients. GG was not a client. Dr Abu Zayyad was a client and Dr Al Chalabi might be.

6. PM said that he understood that. If the conversation touched on sensitive matters, AM should say so.

7. AM was not sure exactly when he first had met GG. It had been in about 1993 or 1994, at the time when it had become apparent that sanctions were killing Iraqi children. AM had become aware that even the British government had restrictive rules, preventing, for instance, the supply of copies of the British Medical Journal to Iraq. AM himself had been told that he needed a licence to 'export' an Agatha Christie novel. Following this experience, someone had suggested he write to his MP. Subsequently he had attended a meeting at the House. There he had met Tam Dalyell and other MPs. Hence he had met GG.

8. AM explained how his involvement in the Mariam Campaign had come about.

9. While a number of people had been making representations against the sanctions, GG had been one of the most active, one of the few MPs prepared to say aloud that children were dying. The idea had arisen that it would be helpful if some MPs went to Iraq, and indeed a number had gone (this was public knowledge, not his personal experience). The problem of children with cancer had become evident. GG had found Mariam Hamza in Iraq and, because treatment was not available for her there had decided to bring her to the UK. This was the origin of the idea of the Mariam Appeal, and so a bank account had to be opened.

10. There had been a meeting in a committee room in the House. It had been an informal meeting, not one of a recognised group. The suggestion had been made that the matter should be handled as a campaign—both to raise funds for Mariam's treatment and to highlight the suffering of Iraqi children. Some had suggested that the appeal should be a charity, but as a lawyer AM had been confident that it would not qualify. AM had therefore suggested that it should be an unincorporated body, like a neighbourhood watch scheme, and had drafted a constitution, based on precedents, which he had sent to Stuart Halford or GG. He did not immediately recognise the document[57] that PM showed him as the Appeal's constitution, though he thought it was based on the document he had produced. He had sent a copy of his original constitution to the Charity Commission in the course of their inquiries, and thought they would be able to supply PM with a copy. He did not know what had happened to the draft after he had sent it to SH or GG. He thought that it might be that the Charity Commission had been approached about his original draft; PM said that the Commission's report suggested that it had not.

11. PM showed AM a document [58]which appeared to be the minutes of a meeting of the Committee of the Appeal on 14 April 1999 at which AM was noted as being present. The sole agenda item was 'Finances', and it was minuted:-

'It was resolved that upon securing approval for the project from the authorities in the United Arab Emirates that Dr Abu Zayyad, Mr Al-Mukhtar and Mr Halford would be authorised to open an account called the MARIAM APPEAL with the National Bank of Abu Dhabi to reflect our gratitude to the His [sic] Excellency the Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Sultan Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan.

It was also resolved by those present that the National Bank of Abu Dhabi would be authorised to act on the instructions of any two of the following three signatories. Those selected as signatories are Dr Abu-Zayyad, Mr Al-Mukhtar and Mr Halford. All three agreed to be signatories for the account.'

12. PM also showed AM another document [59]which appeared to be the minute of a meeting of the committee of the Appeal on 15 April 1999, listing AM as present, at which the officers were elected, Mr Al-Mukhtar to be treasurer. AM said that he was aware of the contents of the minute but could not remember if he was present or not. If a meeting had taken place, it would have been a very informal one, not the formal type suggested by the minutes.

13. PM summarised that AM was saying that while AM could not be sure he had been present at either meeting, he had been aware of the proposals recorded in the minutes, including that he would be a signatory to cheques. AM agreed. He was aware that the bank had wanted to know the officers of the Appeal. He had personally been to the bank to fill in the necessary forms. He thought that the opening of the account and his nomination as a signatory was the last time he had personally had anything to do with the account at the Bank of Abu Dhabi.

14. PM showed AM a copy of a mandate[60] to the Bank of Abu Dhabi dated 18th August 1999 authorising them to honour all cheques signed by any two of the five signatories, of whom AM was one. AM thought that the necessity for such a mandate explained the need for the minutes of the meetings.

15. While AM had been appointed a signatory and had been involved in opening the account with the Bank of Abu Dhabi, he had had no further involvement with it. AM said that he recalled hearing about delays in incoming payments and other problems but he had never thereafter seen the chequebooks or any statements.

16. AM could not remember the chronology, but he was aware that as the Appeal had needed a high street bank account it had opened one with Lloyds. A couple of times Stuart Halford had asked him to sign cheques; he might have signed three, of which one, he recalled, was to pay a BT phone bill.

17. PM asked AM what was his impression, from his limited contact with them, of how the finances of the Appeal were controlled and run.

18. AM said the role of Treasurer had been nominal, which was why he took issue with the Charity Commission report. Obviously he had been an officer of the unincorporated entity but it had not been a company or a business but a political campaign. Those elected as its officers had been 'actors on the same stage but not in the same troupe.' He had no idea how it was run, managed or controlled. The first time SH had brought him a cheque to sign he had done so, but the next time he had said he couldn't without sight of the relevant (BT) papers. These had been forthcoming, but beyond that he had had no involvement. The campaign had been the means of achieving the aim of alleviating suffering in Iraq, not a formal body.

19. PM asked if AM had not thought that in becoming Treasurer he was taking on responsibility for financial probity? AM said no. If the body had been a registered company or charity he would have behaved differently. As it was, the campaign was like a neighbourhood watch; he had no legal liability. Though the Charity Commission chose to be involved, he still did not think he had any liability.

20. PM said that the impression he had formed from what AM had said was that the campaign had been a loose organisation and though AM had on paper carried some responsibility as Treasurer, in practice it had not been like that. AM assented.

21. AM said that the campaign had been run by GG with SH and AZ assisting; he had not been involved.

22. AM explained how he saw the management and operation of the Appeal. If one watched any of GG's activities it was clear that GG would come up with ideas. If he has someone to work with him he would get them to do bits and pieces. SH had not carried the same weight, so it had been GG who had made the speeches and given the orders. There had been another young man around but AM forgot his name. The only names he recalled were AZ and SH.

23. SH had been Vice-Chairman of the Appeal and its day-to-day manager. He had been an employee of GG's and in the office all the time, though there were sometimes others. The way the Appeal was run, was typical of the way such campaigns were run.

24. PM said the picture presented was that GG had been the driving force but that he had been assisted in the day to day work by SH and AZ. AM agreed in respect of SH.

25. PM said that he would like to speak with AZ, in the expectation that AM would also be present as her legal adviser.

26. AM said that he had no knowledge of the sources of the funds available to the Appeal, whether they were GG's or from others. His knowledge was confined to the circumstances surrounding the opening of the Abu Dhabi bank account.

27. PM said that he had the impression that GG valued the opportunity to use AM, as a sympathetic professional person, to assist with the formalities of the appeal. AM agreed, saying that as one of the few Iraqi lawyers in London he had some status.

28. AM had been on a couple of the North African legs of the London-Baghdad bus trip, including Egypt. He had met Fawaz Zureikat in Jordan and a few times thereafter (including, he thought, at a conference in Beirut), but there had not been recent contact. There had been no specific reason for this and there had not been any problems but 'the chemistry did not work' between them. They had not spoken for years. He knew FZ to be a supporter of the campaign and that he had worked in Iraq in the oil sector. FZ knew a lot of people in Iraq—more than did AM. FZ was prominent and well-connected there. Until the invasion of Kuwait AM had not been to the country for 17 years; only after the destruction of the country did he feel it necessary to return to see things first hand. AM had heard a rumour that FZ was now flourishing with the 'liberators' in Iraq.

29. PM asked if AM had heard more of FZ after he had last seen him. AM said that he had received a few e-mails, for instance about the 'Baghdad Library Project', asking for money or books. It had seemed a noble idea but there were more pressing issues.

30. AM said that Dr Al-Chalabi had come on the scene much later, maybe after Mariam Hamza was brought to the UK and went back, and after the time of the bus trip (which brought in many new people). It was strange how much there was a blockade on information about the bus trip in the West; it had been big in the Arab media, which had used it to show how immoral many Arab rulers were. At any rate he could not recall hearing about any involvement by Dr Al-Chalabi until after the bus trip.

31. PM said that the impression he had gained was that AM had been involved in the original setting up of the Appeal and then from time to time in particular events like the bus trip. AM demurred. At the time of the Appeal's creation it had not been fashionable to say that sanctions were an evil. For an MP to stand up in the House and say so took courage. AM was one of the few other people who could come out against sanctions. He had consistently supported the Appeal, but his only formal involvement was in terms of the constitution and the bank account. Because he was involved only in name, he did not know when the Appeal itself had terminated.

32. PM said that it had been alleged that Dr Al-Chalabi and FZ were in receipt of oil contracts and had subsequently given money from their earnings on these to the Appeal. AM said that he had no knowledge of any such involvement.

33. Lastly, PM repeated that he was keen to talk to AZ on the same basis as AM. He was not primarily interested in her activities but in those of GG; he needed her help in resolving the complaint before him. He understood that in his professional capacity, AM was sometimes in touch with AZ and he hoped that there might be an opportunity for AM to pass on PM's interest. AM said that he would pass on the request but that AZ was not in the UK at present.

57   Volume II, WE 34. Back

58   Not printed. Back

59   Volume II, WE 35. Back

60   Not printed. Back