Editing Neil Hamilton (politician) (section)

===Cash-for-questions===
{{Main|Cash-for-questions affair}}
On 20 October 1994, ''The Guardian'' published an article which claimed that Hamilton and another MP, [[Tim Smith (UK politician)|Tim Smith]], had received money, in the form of cash in brown envelopes. It claimed the money was paid to the men by [[Mohamed Al-Fayed]], the owner of [[Harrods]]. In return, the men were to ask questions on behalf of Al-Fayed in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]]. Smith admitted his guilt and resigned immediately. Hamilton claimed innocence but was forced to resign five days later, on 25 October 1994.

====Libel action against ''The Guardian''====
Hamilton brought legal action for [[libel]] against ''The Guardian''. Hamilton joined [[Ian Greer]], a parliamentary lobbyist, as a co-plaintiff. In the process, the [[Bill of Rights 1689]] was amended by the [[Defamation Act 1996]] to allow statements made in Parliament to be questioned in court.<ref>Robert Shrimsley, "Guardian Case MP seeks law change", ''Financial Times'', 15 February 1996.<br />{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/1468-2230.00087 |volume=60 |issue=3 |title='Only Flattery is Safe': Political Speech and the Defamation Act 1996 |year=1997 | journal=Modern Law Review | pages=388–393 | last=Williams | first=Kevin}}</ref>

On 30 September 1996, the day before the start of the trial, Hamilton and Greer settled, citing a conflict of interest and lack of funds. ''The Guardian'' greeted the Hamilton collapse with the headline "A Liar and a Cheat". [[Alan Rusbridger]], editor of ''The Guardian'', said: "The decision by Neil Hamilton and Ian Greer must be one of the most astonishing legal cave-ins in the history of the law of libel" and called for the issues to be examined by Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the Inland Revenue.<ref>[[David Hencke]], [[David Leigh (journalist)|David Leigh]] and David [[Pallister]], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1996/oct/01/hamiltonvalfayed.davidhencke "A Liar and a Cheat"], ''The Guardian'', 1 October 1996.</ref>
They each paid £7,500 towards the paper's legal costs. All the "cash-for-questions" evidence was sent to Sir [[Gordon Downey]], the [[Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/196466.stm |title=Timeline of Hamilton Cash for Questions Case |work=BBC News |access-date=21 July 2016}}</ref> On 1 October 1996, Hamilton appeared on the evening television program, ''[[Newsnight]]'', and engaged in a live debate with Alan Rusbridger, the editor of ''The Guardian''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030iii/sp0142.htm |title=Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report |website=UK Parliament |date=20 February 2017 |access-date=5 July 2019}}</ref>

====Enquiry====
The "cash for questions" parliamentary enquiry took place in 1997, led by Downey. Hamilton vowed that if the "Downey report" found against him, he would resign.

[[Edwina Currie]], a former health minister, gave evidence. She told the inquiry that, in May 1988, Hamilton had been unmoved by a set of photographs that depicted smoking-related cancers; that is, harm to young people which might be caused by a product (tobacco) that he promoted.<ref>''The Independent'', 5 July 1997.</ref> Hamilton argued the pictures were irrelevant. Both Hamilton and [[Michael Brown (British politician)|Michael Brown]] had received a £6,000 [[honorarium]] and hospitality from [[Skoal tobacco|Skoal]] Bandits.<ref>{{cite web|author=The Committee Office, House of Commons|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp01140.htm |title=House of Commons – Standards and Privileges – First Report |website=Publications.parliament.uk |access-date=5 May 2012}}</ref> In December 1989, the sale of Skoal Bandit products was banned in the UK by the Secretary of State for Health, [[Kenneth Clarke]].<ref>[http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/safety-ban-on-skoal-bandits-1.598902 "Safety ban on Skoal Bandits"], ''The Herald'', 14 December 1989.</ref>

Downey reported that he found the evidence against Hamilton in the case of Al-Fayed "compelling". Hamilton received over £25,000 and had deliberately misled Michael Heseltine, then [[President of the Board of Trade]], in October 1994, when he said he had no financial relationship with Ian Greer. In a phone conversation, Hamilton gave an absolute assurance to Heseltine that there was no such relationship, but he had received two payments from Greer in 1988 and 1989, totalling £10,000.<ref name=IndDM>Donald McIntyre, [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-clear-response-to-the-cash-for-questions-mps-1248896.html "A clear response to the cash for questions MPs"], ''The Independent'', 4 July 1997.</ref> Hamilton had asked for payment in kind so the money would not be taxable. He also failed to register his stays at the [[Hôtel Ritz Paris]] and at Al-Fayed's castle in Scotland in 1989.<ref>"The sleaze report: Five men who fell below the standards that Parliament demands from an MP - Hamilton: cash and a stay at Ritz; Smith: accepted cash in return for lobbying; Grylls: Misled committee over dealings Bowden: Did not declare; Brown: Failed to register", ''The Independent'', 4 July 1997.</ref>

On 3 July 1997, the enquiry found Hamilton guilty of taking "cash for questions". ''[[The Independent]]'' wrote: "Sir Gordon, contrary to Hamilton's confident expectations, had no compunction about concluding that he did indeed take cash in brown envelopes" and called on the new party leader to "expel the miscreants".<ref name=IndDM/> Hamilton, Smith (also found guilty), Brown and [[Michael Grylls]] were harshly criticised. If Hamilton and Smith had remained in parliament, Downey said he might have recommended long periods of suspension for both. Hamilton rejected these findings, whereas Smith, who had stood down, accepted them, apologised for his conduct, and retired from politics altogether.

====Libel action against Al-Fayed====
Hamilton also brought a legal action for libel against Mohamed Al-Fayed. On 16 January 1997, Al-Fayed appeared in an edition of the ''[[Dispatches (TV series)|Dispatches]]'' documentary series on [[Channel 4]].<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/030ii/sp0157.htm "Appendix 33 – continued: Appendix 1 Channel 4 and Fourth Estate Press Releases"], Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report, House of Commons, January 1997.</ref> He claimed that Hamilton had demanded and had accepted cash payments of up to £110,000,<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/573630.stm "Hamilton loses libel case"], ''BBC News'', 21 December 1999.</ref> Harrods' gift vouchers and a free holiday at the [[Hôtel Ritz Paris]] in 1987, in return for asking questions in Parliament on behalf of Harrods. While Hamilton did not deny the holiday, he continued to maintain that he was innocent of improper conduct.

On 31 July 1998, Hamilton's action was approved for a court listing. Funds for the action were donated by [[Lord Harris of High Cross]], the [[Earl of Portsmouth]] and Taki, who raised £50,000.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/576284.stm "The odd couple behind the odd couple"], ''BBC News'', 23 December 1999.</ref> Other contributors to the fund included [[Simon Heffer]], [[Norris McWhirter]], Peter Clarke, [[Lord Bell]], [[Gyles Brandreth]] and Gerald Howarth (Hamilton's co-plaintiff in the BBC action). Some Conservative MPs (approximately 40 of the 165) also made contributions. In total, approximately £410,000 was raised.<ref>''The Independent'', 23 December 1999.</ref>

The jury trial commenced in November 1999. Hamilton and his wife were cross-examined by [[George Carman]] QC. Carman put to Hamilton that he had acted corruptly to demand and then take £10,000 from [[Mobil Oil]] in 1989 for tabling an amendment to a finance bill. At the time, Hamilton was a member of a Commons select committee on finance.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/575299.stm |work=BBC News | title=The undoing of Neil Hamilton | date=22 December 1999 | access-date=26 March 2010}}</ref> Al-Fayed said Hamilton had taken the money either in brown envelope cash payments or through Ian Greer. Hamilton said in his own evidence: "I have never received a penny from Mr Fayed; I have never asked."<ref>Matt Wells [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/11/hamiltonvalfayed.mattwells "'I lacked candour but I am not corrupt'"], ''The Guardian'', 11 December 1999.</ref> His counsel, in the closing comments, argued that Al-Fayed's assertions had destroyed his client's reputation.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/16/hamiltonvalfayed "Hamilton's 'tragedy' was to help Al Fayed"], ''The Guardian'', 16 December 1999.</ref>

On 21 December 1999, the jury unanimously decided in favour of Al-Fayed, declaring Hamilton corrupt.<ref name="Greedy">{{cite news |last1=Wells |first1=Matt |last2=Wilson |first2=Jamie |last3=Pallister |first3=David |title=A greedy, corrupt liar |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/22/hamiltonvalfayed.conservatives |access-date=15 December 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=22 December 1999 }}</ref><ref name="Sleaze"/> A year later, Hamilton lost his appeal against the decision,<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/21/hamiltonvalfayed "Neil Hamilton loses libel appeal"], ''The Guardian'', 21 December 2000.<br />- {{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1080920.stm |work=BBC News | title=Neil Hamilton loses libel appeal | date=21 December 2000 | access-date=26 March 2010}}</ref> and was refused leave to appeal to the [[House of Lords]] on 2 April 2001.