Leyland Trial Sinks Further into Slush

Scan page 4

The smell of rotting fish hanging over the Leyland slushfund case at the Old Bailey has reached such a pitch it is surprising leading prosecution witnesses have given evidence without choking.

Officially Graham Barton and his wife Fatma are facing charges of forgery and deception-charges they have denied. In reality it is British Leyland itself that is in the dock-with the judge and prosecution straining every nerve to clear its leading executives of corruption.

No corruption When Lord Ryder-former head of the National Enterprise Board-was first called to give evidence in the first half of July he was adamant that no corruption whatsoever had been uncovered at Leyland.

'I can only say that no company with which I have ever been connected in the public or private sector has ever been engaged in such practices nor would I countenance it for one moment. I think the whole idea is deplorable.

"Our investigations revealed that no corrupt payments have been paid to anyone whatever"

But one of the worms turned. Mr. William Howard, defending, said that he had to recall both Lord Ryder and the former British Leyland chief executive, Alex Park, because he had been putting the interests of Leyland before those of his client.

Changed story

From then on things got steadily worse for Leyland. Lord Ryder now changed his story. There were "four or five' payments that had not actually been cleared of corruption. On closer examination ha agreed that one of these had been a £700,000 payment to a foreign national who was brother in law to the commander of the national guard of the unnamed country.

A letter written manager of British Leyland, to Lord Stokes and Alex Park, was read out. It was headed "strictly confidential": Commissions and retentions"

The memo described how payments were made to distributors' bank accounts after bills had been artificially inflated.

It described special payments as "ex gratia payments made to persons who have been particularly helpful in obtaining particular contracts"

The memo stressed the need to keep the payments quiet, the embarassment that could be caused if the truth came out and the risk of financial loss if the governments of the countries involved found out what was going on.

It also said that there was a threat of blackmail from people who knew about the payments and that some of the accounts might actually belong to its own employees, who were cashing in on the gravy train.

Strong language

Clive Strowger, former finance director of Leyland International, who had asked Barton to prepare his report on 'non-routine' arrangements said he had read Barton's reports in good faith and assumed they were true, but had been surprised at some of the 'strong language'.

Strowger refused to comment on whether it had been known at a high level in the company that irregular pay. ments were being paid.

He squirmed to avoid having to admit that 'ex gratia"' payments and corrupt payments were one and the same thing, and complained about the assumption of "partially informed" people.

Pressed again on Barton's report Strowger was forced to admit:

"If you see the report in terms of details it is accurate", but refused to accept that it was enough to substantiate Barton's conclusions..

When Mr. Howard, defending, suggested that £16 millions were spent on special payments in Leyland Bus and Truck division in 1977, Strowger said he thought the £16 mil lion figure was more likely the amount for the whole of Leyland.

Barton gave evidence not under oath, so that he could not be cross examined, and so that he would not further lift the lid on the "pandora's box" he had opened.

The case is due to end this week. The Crown will be more relieved than Barton and Leyland will continue to keep the lid screwed down on the truth about their 'special payments'. Ryder