The Ryder report landed on Eric Varley's desk in June. The following month, Varley answered a question in Parlament on the report. He said thai it would not be published because of DTOLELEIIES against Graham This sub judice cxcuse was to dillercot Context SA months later when Sociulist Challenge received through the documents relating to the slush Tund.
We handed these documents to a newspaper agreement for joint publication. The newspaper showed the documents fo Leyland and askod chem to comment An hour belore the deadline set by the paper ran out, it and Socialist Bab Wilson of Scotland Yard The documents, said Wilson, were exhibits in Barton's trial, and there wis a strong probability of contemp they were published.
Clearly, Leyland had immedialely contacled Scotland Yard on secine thie Wilson dutifully stepped in to prevent publication The argument over whether cither the Ryder Report or the documents were contempt ol CoUrt wa resolved. Socialist Chullenge did not resources to light the case and face a possible fine.
Wecanalso now reveal that we had subsequent discussions with Craliam Barton, who asked us not to publish Al the trial Barton's defene did the relevance of the Ryder Report and the documents to interesting ls bow Judge Alan King Hamilton and the prosecution reactea Barton's counsel asked for the Ryder Report and other Leyland documents to be produced in court, prosccution resisted. In attempt to avoid the documents and surfacing, the prosecution Jawyer Henry Pownall went so far as to say that he was willing to accept lo make this and, he was conveniently able to argue that the documentary evidence to prove thai Barton honesty believed' it was not judeo also artempted to persuade Howard not to insist on the documents and On ccasion he said it did noi matier "tw hoots' if Leyland paid bribes: another he said that the slush fond was a 'side issue Defence counsel Howard resisted these pressures. Never in my many years of legal practice", he said, 'have experienced such an attitude from ENC CTOWIBut the prosccution moved only a fraction Howard a copy of the Ryder inquiry LOUL documents he had roqueated When summing up. carena ta point out tout tois retasslto comply with his request was not made ain would have been British Leyland and would have been inrolved in such a But when the Ryder Report was eventually presented to the court, the prosecution raised objection. It was, they said, highly confidential'. This meant it would not be quoted in court, only referred to when quoting its main author, Lond Ryder, Once again the arguing thar the public had no right of access to the secrets of Leyland In June 1977 Varley had argued hat the Ryder Report was sub judic relevant io the Barton trial 1 January, Literick Socialist Challenge's Leyland documents were sub judice — relevant to Barton's trial At the trial itself, the prosecution which acts with the assembling evidence and under the authority of the Attorney General, had argued against the production in court of the Ryder Report and athe documents because irrelevant to che trial.
Then, when the Ryder Report was produced, the prosocution argued it was "hughly something Eric Varley had not even suggested in June 1977.
Whichever reason was offered, a1 whichever time, the consequence was the same — to stop details of the whole sush fund story from ever seeing the light of day.
Perhaps the most flagrant of all the manoeuvres was British Leyland's bid to prevent two crucial witnesses from prearing in court at Barton's tria tine hese were Leyland sales executive Culliford and Grout.
It was they who were responsible for many of the payments detailed in Barton'steports. Towards ahe end of of thi OLOU Howard was Graham further General, remain authorities were later (in 1 Tom argued that dealers police they wen submitied confidential"
BRIBES that to do so would be contempt of The court case in question this time was the abel suite Varler and Rode had taken out against the Daily Mail.
The rerson at the BHC cold us tha in their opinion neither Varley nor on the books, CELL documents could not be made public attitude ministers to the whole process of the cover-up is illustrated by a number of things. First there was the resistance shown by Variey and Silkin to discussing any of the Lisues involved using different reasons al differen times for their salence.
Second, according to the Sunday Times of 5 March 1978, Scotlaod Yard received specific instructions Many possible illegalities which might. he involved in apart, that is, from the alleged forgerics. 1974 REPORT The inferenot in the Sanday Times story is that these instructions came from the Attorney Ceneral's office Third is the fact that a chief appointed the "forgeries The policeman in question, "Tug" Wilson, agreed at the Barton trial that it was umusual for such a high-ranking officer to head such an inquiry:
Barton has said -although Wilson denies this — that the chief superintendent told him he had been asked to get lo the bottom of the matter' by the Attorney There are many questions which manswered about Leyland alush fund and its cover-up, questions which can only be answered by a full and open inquiry. One such quesnon gust now tarpack doca te whole story go.
For instance, in 1974 Lord Ryder, in his role of industrial consultant to the Labour Goverment, conducted a wide ranging inquiry into British Leyland, ils structure and finance His subsequent report was later published with certain sections omitted because of commercial confidence'. These sections included ones on purchasing arrangements' *distribution and relationships with and distributors', and "management controls"
Just what did these sections of Ryder's 1974 Report say? One perso culd answer: the Secretary of Stat for todustry to whom the report was and get sul upon!
Socialist Challenge 10 August 1978 Supplement Page 1
----- pull-quotes -----
honestly helieved that bribery existed.
wal Alte serena the time Socialist Challenge WE'VE BEEN CENSORED! LEYLAND FER SCANDAL