IT IS UNTRUE

Neil Hamilton denies the latest claim that he

took banknotes in brown envelopes from Mohamed Al Fayed

LAST Sunday, Middle England met the Middle East. The Mail on Sunday pub- lished an `exclusive interview' with Mohamed Al Fayed's former `personal assistant', who claimed she stuffed brown envelopes with Fayed's cash to give to me. The story is utter tripe.

Although named as Alison Foster in the Mail, she gave evidence to Sir Gordon Downey on 22 January as Alison Bozek — too Middle European a name for Middle England perhaps. In October 1994, Alison left Al Fayed to become a trainee solicitor with the top City firm Allen and Overy. The partners must be delighted with the publicity.

The Mail on Sunday has joined the Labour party in trying `to drown all elec- tion debate with effluent supplied by Mr Fayed' (in the words of Saturday's Tele- graph). Why did it uncritically publish this rubbish? It did not warn me in advance. I thought the editor, Jonathan Holborow, was a personal friend. In October 1994 he supported me in an editorial, and again in July 1995.

Last week, Max Clifford (now Fayed's effluent-spreader) tried to place in the Mail on Sunday a new 'sleaze' non-story about my wife and me staying free at hotels. The Mail on Sunday rang us about this on Saturday morning. I rang Hol- borow's office. His secretary rang back to say 'not to worry. We're not printing that story.' She didn't say that Holborow was hard at work setting up the Bozek story. I had to learn about that from an indepen- dent source.

I persistently telephoned Holborow all day. He was unavailable — despite plan- ning to devote his front-page editorial and two inside pages to an extremely damaging untrue story about me. So much for courage, balance and commitment to truth.

Who offered this `exclusive' story? Its own star columnist, Stewart Steven? He just happens to be the head of Fayed's media empire — fresh from a long appren- ticeship writing fawning pro-Fayed articles as editor of the Evening Standard (which just happens to be part of the same stable as the Mail on Sunday). Did Holborow check Fayed's former personal assistant's credibility? Did he consider Downey's conclusion three weeks ago, dismissing Fayed's absurd claim that Michael Howard took a bribe of £1.5 mil- lion, that

evidence .. . from [Fayed's and Rowland's] employees is conflicting. They cannot all be telling the truth and this has underlined the crucial importance of seeking independent corroboration for the allegations.

There is no independent corroboration of Fayed's allegations against me. Did Holborow know that Bozek and the other Fayed employees did not appear until 27 September 1996 — two years after I issued my libel writ? Did he ask why they remained in hiding for two years? Did he wonder why the Guardian's lawyers failed to discover them, despite their working cheek by jowl with Fayed on a daily basis?

It is hard to understand how the armies of Fayed/Guardian lawyers failed to dis- cover them in preparing the libel case. They all worked for Fayed for more than 13 years in his inner sanctum as his most trusted accomplices.

There are other good reasons for doubt- ing Bozek. Her evidence contradicts that of Fayed himself. In June 1995, Fayed said: `No one else would have seen the money being given to Hamilton.' But Bozek says that she watched him stuffing envelopes for me and stuffed them with money herself.

He also said: 'I can therefore, confirm that cash payments were made to Mr Hamilton in two ways: firstly, in face-to- face meetings and secondly, through Ian Greer.' But Bozek says there was a third method — brown envelopes left for collec- tion at the reception desk.

Fayed's security guard corroborates Bozek's claims. He has a convenient mem- ory. On the one hand he remembers hand- ing me two envelopes eight to ten years ago, without knowing what was in them. On the other hand, as his evidence to Downey makes clear, he can remember virtually nobody else in 14 years.

All Fayed's faithful acolytes are blessed with total recall of even trivial details of alleged transactions involving me many years ago — but total amnesia as regards others.

The credibility of witnesses is central to this case. Fayed is not a credible witness. The DTI inspectors said that Fayed was a man on whose word it would be unsafe to rely on any issue of any importance unless his evi- dence was confirmed by some dependable independent source.

Downey said the same about his employ- ees. There is no other evidence.

Bozek has appeared as a trainee solicitor to give a spurious credibility otherwise completely lacking. She is condemned out of her own mouth. On Sunday, speaking of my appointment as Corporate Affairs Min- ister in 1992, she said: We thought he would be tremendously useful to us. We were very disappointed that he wasn't prepared to help. When he obtained a position that could have really been useful be opted out. He never even replied to Mr Al Fayed's letter of congratulations.

Fayed attacks me not because I was cor- nipt but because I was not. I did not reply to his letter because he was suing the DTI in the Court of Human Rights and a reply could have compromised us in the litiga- tion.

I stood aside from Fayed-related deci- sions because of my support for him. There was no legal need for me to do so but, on presentational grounds, I thought it wise. Bozek admits that Fayed wanted me to abuse my ministerial position to review the DTI report which condemned him as a liar and a fraud and also to help him in his human rights case. As a budding officer of the Supreme Court it is amazing that Bozek thinks it would have been proper for me to be `tremendously useful' to Fayed against the interests of my own depart- ment. Is this the sort of thinking of which the senior partner of Allen and OverY would approve? rt Stephen Glover commented two weeks ago on the strange media silence over Downey's dismissal of Fayed's allegations about Michael Howard. Much more worrying is the raucous repetition of every wild Fayed lie about me and the complete lack of interest in the truth. Never was it more true that an editor's job is to sift the wheat from the chaff and then report the chaff.

The Guardian has distorted the truth in its partial publication of Downey tran- scripts. The full transcripts of the evidence of Fayed and his witnesses will show the truth.

The Guardian said last Friday, `• . • the British electoral system cannot work if vot- ers are denied essential information about those who aspire to represent them.' True, but the Guardian and Mail on Sunday have denied them the essential facts of my case and polluted the wells of public informa- tion with Fayed effluent.