WHEN I WAS FURIOUS WITH MR HESELTINE
Neil Hamilton explains why he did not publish the DTI inspectors' report on
Lord Archer's share dealings
I AM not a supporter of Jeffrey Archer's candidature for mayor of London. Like all sensible Conservatives I support Ken Liv- ingstone. The Tories have no chance of winning this election and Red Ken would be a thorn in more painful parts of Blair's anatomy than his side. So Jeffrey would not get my vote.
Nevertheless, I could not help sympa- thising with Archer last week as a multi- tude of well-aimed arrows pierced his body. The Tory establishment fired so many at him that by Sunday he was look- ing like a latter-day St Sebastian. Loyalty is traditionally 'the Tory party's secret weapon'. In my experience (which I may reveal one day), it is one of their best-kept secrets. Where the establishment is con- cerned, of course, loyalty is something expected of, not owed to, others.
McKinsey Man has decreed that Jeffrey has acquired rather too many cupboards bulging with skeletons in the course of a life which would have to be written up as fiction on the grounds that publishers would find it too incredible to publish as autobiography.
It has to be said that there have been embarrassments and mysteries. One in particular resurfaced last week. I refer to the question of Jeffrey's alleged insider dealing in Anglia TV shares. You remem- ber the basic facts. In 1993 he recommend- ed a Kurdish friend to buy some Anglia TV shares, which duly rose as though fuelled by Viagra when news of MAI's proposed takeover hit the streets a few days later, producing a quick profit of more than £50,000.
Jeffrey's Midas touch again. How does he do it? Some unkind folk suggested that, as Mary Archer was a director of Anglia at the time, it was all too obvious how he did it. They assumed Jeffrey had been caught `in fragrante' — passing on inside informa- tion obtained from his wife.
Thus it was that our paths crossed pro- fessionally. In 1994 I was corporate affairs minister at the DTI. As such I was the prosecuting authority in insider dealing cases (Michael Heseltine had delegated day-to-day responsibility for such technical jobs to me). Well, there's a turn-up for the books! Hamilton responsible for prosecuting criminal infractions of business probity! The fox in charge of the hen-house and no mistake. No wonder Archer got away with it and was never prosecuted! So runs the mind of the Guardian conspiracy theorist.
When insider dealing is suspected, the DTI appoints inspectors (usually profes- sionals from its investigations division) to report on the facts. They have draconian powers to compel the production of docu- ments and the appearance of witnesses.
I received their exhaustive report in due course and decided to take no further action. Jeffrey has apparently been going around saying it exonerated him. The Guardian and other humble seekers after dirt have been calling for its publication.
Such reports are not just confidential. It is actually a criminal offence to communi- cate their contents to unauthorised per- sons. I would, myself, be criminally culpable if I spilled the beans here. As I am in enough trouble already my lips are sealed. But I can say this: such reports do not exonerate anybody, any more than they convict them. Their sole purpose is to see whether ther e is enough evidence to justify a prosecution. In this case there wasn't.
Insider dealing is a 'victimless crime' notoriously difficult to prove. Only a minute number of suspects has ever been prosecuted and there have been even fewer convictions. If somebody passes on a `hot tip' it is most unlikely that the insiders will write down a record of their nefarious dealings. Investigators need a window into men's souls to detect who said what to whom and when. Because of the regrettable human ten- dency to assume no smoke without fire, insider dealing investigations are not pub- licly announced. This avoids unfairness to those who have done nothing wrong. Hence, normally, the DTI will neither con- firm nor deny rumours of an investigation. Unfortunately, because Jeffrey is news and because he has enemies (even among his friends), word leaked out, scuppering any chance of his becoming minister of sport in John Major's 1994 reshuffle. I steadfastly refused to confirm or deny the rumours, but Michael Heseltine took a different view. Ever sensitive to charges of `cover-up' (shades of Westland and, later, Scott), Michael decided, without consulting me, to confirm that an investigation was taking place. I was furious and minuted rilY strong disapproval as, although I had little time for Jeffrey, I did not see why he should be disadvantaged (with no effective means of reply) while he was under suspi- cion just because he was a bumptious and ambitious Tory celebrity. However, recognising the inevitability of accusations of favouritism if no charges were eventually brought, I felt it essential to have an independent QC's opinion 00 the merits of the case against Jeffrey. He advised that it was not strong enough to justify a prosecution. But, because the investigation was already public knowledge, Jeffrey's detrac- tors had already convicted him. So why not publish the DTI report and clear the mat: ter up? There are good reasons for not doing so. Such reports may contain evi' dente which would be inadmissible in court or information from individuals unwilling to appear. There may be subjective assess' ments of the credibility of informants and much other prejudicial material. To publish all this could deprive accused persons of rights which liberal reformers have devel- oped over hundreds of years to avoid mis- carriages of justice. Furthermore, there could be no justifica- tion for singling out Jeffrey for this treat" ment just to help Steve Norris secure the Tory candidature in the election for Lori" don's mayor. If we publish in one case we should publish in all. But, clearly, there would be no logic in restricting publication only to reports in insider dealing cases. The police and CPS would have to publish all confidential reports on every kind of alleged offence. The proposition has onlY to be made to reveal its absurdity. The out- come would, of course, be to substitute media witch-hunt for due process of law. I hold no brief for Jeffrey Archer, whose shepherd's pie and Krug I have never tact' ed, but I am repelled by his treatment, largely at the hands of his own party, in the last week. Naturally, a man is innocent until proven guilty — unless he's a promi- nent Tory. My own conclusion is that Archer was a chump but not a crook — bit like that other dodgy fellow, Nen Hamilton.
Previous page
