Socialist Challenge No. 58, Leyland Conspiracy Supplement, 10 August 1978
The scan: sc-n58-aug-10-leyland-conspiracy-supplement-1978.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive)
Uncorrected machine reading of the whole issue. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from the scan and has not been corrected or cut into articles. Each page gives the headlines first, then the columns in order, so one article runs on into the next. Expect misread words. Use it to find things; quote from the scan.
Page 1 scan of this page
Socialist Challenge We break silence on the slush fund LEYLAND print CONSPIRACY REVEALED
What role did these men play?
Why we
not see any of these documents from British Leyland."
were the
cient, Critam Barton, at th in behalf of b
ad Ryder Teller forgery t
lich ended at the Oid Ba this weck.
Howard's observation was, if anything, an understatement. For the past 15 months, and possibly a lot longer, leaders of
establishments in this country have rushed from Parliament to Leyland House. from polioe stations to the High Court, in an effort to stop the truth about the Leyland shush
"How the cover up fund beconting public know
lodge.
THREATS
Because lega tarcats
worked against this newspaper, Social
Be Castenge has occa part ol the silence. With the end of Barton's trial some, not all, of these Jegal threats
"The documents they bave boen removed.
During OuT investigations there have been man and this includes Labour MPs an Leyland shop stewards — who have sugpested it is better to suppressed forget the whole thing: that after all, bribery wins jobs.
But slushing cannot create Jobs because it does not generate production. Bribery
*The names they tried may lubricate the transactions
and point trade in a particular business.
Those who think that these payments create jobs use the
to hide same reasoning as those who
argue for import controls -basically a way of exporting unemployment. Bribery is thus Justified as a way of helping British industry against its foreign competitors.
ACCOUNTANTS
"Ah", comes the reply, everyone does it.* That's true, but it still does not create jobs. There i a world crisis. overproduction (particularly In the motor industry). More than затем расклапость is ассаси то get rid of that.
The only jobs creatod through the Northrop, Bocing SHE LIKEN OCOLE SCATORI put together were for accountants (and possibly lawyers).
Leyland, remember Bationaised emi. The Lanau Government could have won coormous prestige for itself and socialism by pledging cradicate bribery, that wasteful and сотгире practice HING AERACTENSIL
It did nothing of the sorr Instead those Ministers responATTORNEY-GENERAL SILKIN INDUSTRY SECRETARY VARLEY EX-INDUSTRY SECRETARY BENN sible conspired witlt others to hush up the whole affair; to hide from workins people the corruption and dirty dealings of the capitalist world. In so doing they became part of those dealings.
Tu say they are doing this to save jobs a1 Leyland is a further INSIDE: Geoff Bell investigates bypocrisy The
'SOMEONE Is desperately anxious that you should
fords of through' the loss of thousands of Jobs at Leyland in the last year — including the ciosure of the Spoke plant.
We accept no preaching on saving jobs from a Government whose policies have created the largest dolo queue since the war.
Those in the labour movement who turn a blind cyc to hribery claim there is no alternalive. They are wrong.
The fiest thing is to establish the principle of the abolition of business secrets, making Leyand's books open the workforoe. We are convinced thar that will reveal a borrible picture of incomperence vindictiveness and corruption
Contrary to what the capitalist press says, this is not because Leyland is nation alised. Quite the reverse; it's because it in a nationalised company run along capitalist lines
VETO
We don't think that Leyland or any other single company. can be transformed into an island of socialism. But it is possible to fight for a workers velo over management deci sions, to establish that we will decide who is paid what.
This would be in marked contrast to the 'participation" set up. Already. over South Africa, Leyland management has pointed out that Leyland international is not covered by the Participalion Agreement
Under the present system management could carry out any action — however criminal - withou: reference to the workers. The union leaderships in Leyland bave happily gone along with, and even encour aged, this state of affairs.
One further objection need: to be answered. Unlike others who have the documents we now print, Socialist Challenge has no qualms aboul naming those who received Leyland's
'special commissions MORALISTS
But, say the self-proclaimod moralists of Flect Street, the gentlemen concerned may face
punishment if their cames are publicised
Somebow it is all right to cound capers or sirikes. le print the addresses anti-fascists, to 'expose gays and drive them from employment, but noc to madne poopl who have benefitod from payments of up to 1:00,00085 3 consequence of knowing the night people.
If these gentlemen chose to rod Les and workers and the citizens of their own country of SETTLES pounds. then the labour movement sbould offer them no protection
It is their rules of their jungie they chose to operate by. Let Government itself has nodded tbem suffer the consequences.
Socialist Challenge 10 August 1978 Supplement Page 1
Page 2 scan of this page
ON 30 OCTOBER 1977, the Observer carried an article entitled, 'Leyland: An executive speaks his mind'. The article was sub-titled, 'A middle manager at British Leyland explodes some of the popular myths and points an accusing finger at top a frontal assault on the top bosses at Leyland, blaming them for
diversion
Details of the Leyland slush fund first became public knowledge on 19 May 1977, It was then that the Daily Mail published the first of three articles based on three reports drawn Upshin Barton and on accompany- by Leyland financial director ing documents.
The story was sensational and Leyland reacted with horror. But by the following day admissions that bribery was part and parcel Leyland's international business operations were starting to flow.
Leyland sales director Lester Suffield was quoted as saying. "Inducements are necessary in the form of repayment for services rendered, which enable you to do business that you would not otherwise have done'
CLOUD-CUCKOO
Another former Leyland executive told The Times: "In the ideal business
orld dropsy, slush money calli
hat you wil - would not exist. But Leyland does not opcrate in that sort of cloud-cuckoo land."
By 21 May, Leyland had confirmed the autbenticity of the Barton reperts, and Sur Fred person of the British Overseas Trade Board, had confirmed the wide use by British industry of slushing. He said. - In one third of our markets. bribery is a way of life'.
It seemed that all the sordid details of Leyland's slush fund would soon follow, but then Lesland had extraordinary piece of luck. Graham
"confessed' that documents were forged.
One was a letter from the Bank of
Socialist Challenge 10 August 1978 Supplement Page 2
THE
COVER
UP
Stage one:
of
RYDER: "didn't prove anything"
England, the atlser important was a letter purporting to come from Lord Ryder, head of the National Enterprise owns 95 per cent of Leyland's shares.
This letter was said to be addressed Alex Park, Leyland's executive; and the Secretary of State for Industry, Eric Varley, Teatured prominently in the letter's content.
The forgery confession Barton was to retract at his trial chair- allowed Leyland to avoid the issues in the Mail Mory. only tom of the 60 pages of documents which the Mail had were questioned, Leyland and then Varley though Be cature story had been discredited, Thus Sir Richard Dobson, then chairperson of Leyland, said on 25 *lus not and has not heen the policy EWD of this company to secure busitiess by corrupt means. Although certain key
management.
A couple of days after the story was printed, a jourialist at the Ohserver who had associations received a phone call. It was trom a detective sergeant ar Soocland Yard. Who, the journalist was asked, was the ELLIOT of the journalist didn't know.
Could the name he supplied, asked the detective. If it could, there would be 'something in it' for the journalist. documents on which based have proved company's name has *So far we have suggest that any paymerts bave bee made other than to the company's accredited agents or representatives. and we confidently cleared of the charges and inneendoe which have been levelled against us.. vidence of bribery or corruption
were absent in Dobson's less publi ENDLINE for reference to the "perfectly respectable faer thar Leyland was acibing woes
set by Dobson's 25 May statement Eric Varley echoed him the following day when he said, I cannot condemn too strongly the rosent attempts to undermine and more ompany's managemeni
Thus emitted the authenticit Barton reports, which spoke freely of Board, which slushing. Dobson and Varley put over
the impression that all the allegations in the Mail scory were based on a lie Socialist Challenge - which
wider Although
acted us
LEYLAND F BRIBES SCANDAL
We report Dobson's speech.
the company's problems.
The bribe was declined
with event The THE
Tbe between Leyland this charge was be tale the been Lamaged evidence to
expect to be
we have found nc
Such protestations of innocenoc
example, his
Bat the pastern of the cover-up was
the confidence of th although Leyland ha
WE'VE BEEN
CENSORED!
The article was unsigned — not surprisingly, considering it was
In a sense this episode is incidental to the story of the Leyland slush fund
cover-up which followed What it does illustrate is the extraordinary co-operation which exists
the police and British
In the case of the Leyland slush fund, this cooperation had the purpose of preventing at all costs the
ramalachs VARLEY: Ryder report is 'sub judice
emergence of the truth ahout low Leyland conducted its internationa COUSIS
And the intrigue and dirty dealin he boses at Leyland Tol leading personalities on the state
Government ministers. It is a story of
Page 3 scan of this page
try the
accused
PARK: investigate themselves"
Before Graham Barton 'confessed" to the forgeries, Leyland had heen forced to agree to an inquir Into the Mail allegations potential embarrassment of inquiry remained.
What wouldit say about the mass of evidence on the slush fund? Would it indict Leyland or National Enterprise Hoard executives of bribery?
simply. First, the inquiry was not to was appointed by Varley; third, the
As Graham Barton's lawyer William Howard put it in a rather incredulous tone at Barton's trial, The minister appoints you to investigate allegations which include allegations against you?'
To which Ryder replied: Yes, and allegations against
Al the Barton trial details of how this inquiry, was conducted were arised from Ryder and Alex Park by William Howard. It was described as a joint NEB-Leyland investigation', and in addition to Ryder the inquir was conducica Dy a from the NEB and one from Leyland.
The three set their reference. They ruled DUT investigation into the issues raised by the alleged forgeries, and they ruled out any investigation of the payment of bribes to those other than public officials
The serious work of the team began on 23 May when five executives were interviewed. These WeTE Park, Clive Strowger David Andres and Fred Virgh: David Andrews. and Fred
In the witness box al the Roder claimed that through interviens we were uncarth every single thing we could' and that the witnesses were subject to 'intensive cross-examination fetened ar the Barton trilla HAIT Park of 23 May was given. It was describet much les dramatically hy Park as quite simply a meeting
Park alvo revealed that throughout the entire day (he live ailmesses questioned together;
Stage two:
the accused
remarkable way of cliciting the truth, considering that all five witnesses
said and not contradict them
questions :
Inquiry
executives
investigations
In other
how their company had
the Tive executives.
On this point, William Howard this Barton's lawyer
investigation,
condoning
interviewed
inthe Barton reports:
defence
Howard SIso esplain the 'contradiction
minister, with story view that Barton
Ryder shared
senior official
asked the question
did you, Lond Ryder?
Dobson, who had
trial, the determined to
• were mOst
could thereby know what cach other
According to Ryder, at the end of this meeting the five executives were acco-to go awiy and par cerein things in writing. We gave them a
Again Alex Park was somewhat more precise about this aspect of the
in the witness box. Park testified that what in fact was asked of
that they themseives should carry our further
and then submit
words, top management at Leyland was meant to examine objectively allegations abour
reports found no evidence of bribery Barton and netber did Kyder s Imal 1coort. which was based on the 'evidence" of
- concluded al the trial: What it boils down to, Lord Ryder, is that you accepted their (the national executives ) word without further
Ryder objected to this interpretation, bat he agreed that hie had not resporsible for the payments detailed
Challenge "Tus"
Howard asked
Ryder if he did not think it was 'vital"' to interview such witnesses to discover what the marients were or. Kyue of court replied: "That is calling on hindsight"
asked Ryder between the first statement by Clive Strowger, that Barton's reports were conducted
thoroughness discretion", and his later, post-Mail
could nor reports have the
Kader was unable to explain the "contradiction". Did he ask Strawger to explain it, quizzed Howurd. Ryder admitted that he had not, und agreed *I think with hindsight we should have indoed
which droue Howard le the trial. remark, "You didn't prove anyihing.
the report
He concessichi
liccessary.
SILKIN: SC documents "sub judice
call in the
law
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
What 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
honestly helieved that bribery existed.
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
BENN: saw 1974 report
Stage three:
Defence counsel Howard resisted these pressures. Never in my many years of legal practice", he said, 'have experienced such an attitude from ENC CTOWI-
But 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
while they
for two years The
of thi OLOU
Howard was
Graham
further General,
remain
authorities were
later (in 1 Tom
argued that
dealers police
they wen submitied
confidential"
BRIBES
the trial the defence summoned these
could be ascertained.
Leyland reacted with something akin to panic. They took out a counter summons to be heard at the High Court to prevent the wilmesses from heing questioned in court.
The matter was resolved: Barton's defence decided that if tbis was Leyland'sattitude then even if tbe exocutives did appear in court they were bet likely to be cooperative. TELEVISION
And the authurities may not yet have rum out of excuses for silence. When the Barton trial began, Sociulist Challenge was approsched by BBC television news. They were thinking of finshing the documents in our possession on the TV screen
A couple of days later we received a phone call from the BBC. They bad changed their mind about televising the documents. They had been told 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
wal Alte serena the time
Socialist Challenge
WE'VE BEEN
CENSORED!
LEYLAND FER
SCANDAL
and get sul upon!
Socialist Challenge 10 August 1978 Supplement Page 1
Page 4 scan of this page
documents*, said Barton during his trial.
Whatever else can be said about the | former Levand financial executive. Graham Barton can talk with authority about Leyland's 'market factor a term he defined as covering all non-standard billing arrangements or special commis
For it was Barton, under company Instructions, who drew up the three reports, which provide the major evidence of the nature and extent of the 'market factor': reports refer to widespread bribery and other illegalities.
The reports were commissioned by Barton's superior, Clive Strowger, in September 1976. At the being conducted with thoroughness and discretion
Thar is a phrase British Leyland may yet live to regret, for their only defence to the wealth of statistics and information contained in the Barton reports was that they 'unsubstantiated" and unreliable.
EXPOSURE
That is the first myth which needs to be exposed in the Leyland slush fund affair; an exposure which is not particulary anguous.
ts, Bartend appeared to have reports, Leyland appeared few doubts about his ability
First he was commissioned to write Leyland's cars division. Then he was report of the market factor" for asked to compile one which covered Leyland's bus and truck division; finally he was commissioned to write one on the company's Scammell division.
It seems odd that, if Barton was as 001 02 110001809 00 bosses have said he was, he should have been asked to compile three "private and confidential'
It also seems strange that if, as Levland claimed to Challenge in January "market factor" consists of ordinary business payments, the documents relating to the 'market factor" should have been circulated only at the very highest levels of Leyland's executive structure.
SHREDDER
Oddest of all, perhaps, is the present whereabouts Barton's working papers report, I Leyland has nothing to hide, why are these deposited in the safe of the company's secretary: or as Barton's lawyer put it.
The real case
TWENTY MILLION pounds. That is what Graham Barton says that British Leyland spent last year on its "market factor'. These figures can be confirmed by reference to Leyland
available
Issuc
EXCLUENC John admitted is authentic.
ILLEGALITY
main illegality
Board,
being exposed. were accordingly trial was the reference
in the financial year 1975/6. reports,
Socialis 1977, the question was N Festok.
LEY BENC head
contract. but had
Whether or Graham on his legitimate was
papers now
Preven from Socialist Challenge 10 August 1978 Sapplement Page 4
for prosecution
"if not there, in Leyland's shredder'?
Socialist Challenge
circulated within Leytand in August 1975, a document which Leyland LITTSOES
Champion crampic
That document warned that, "there should the details of transactions be exposed'. It also testified that the
problems are caused by the of these specified. transactions in the territory con
But If Leyland and their principal sharcholders, the National Enterprise
10551 CONTENTE HAYC nothing to hide, then they will not mund the delails of the transactions'
One mysterious highlight of the
in one of Barton's reports to the payment of E700,000 to a single individuai made
The recipient of this tidy sum was not named at the trial; all that was
purely made public was that the gentleman in question was the brotber-in-law of the commander of the National Guard in the country concerned. We can now reveal that the country was in faci Saudi Arabia, and the individual in
Ar the trial Lord Ryder, former
38U38.
Board, argued that the 700,000 had nothing to do with the award of the
ensured that i lunch an in naxatu SION stop the contract once it had been
not Ryder was suggesting that this made the payment
unclear trom But the executive respon still is sible for this payment was one of those whom Deyland went to court to
appearing.
Fustok's moncy was lodged in the Chase Manhattan Bank in Geneva, which suggests the contrary.
A compatriot of Fustok, a certain G Shaker, is another beneficiary recorded in Barton's cars division report. He received a mere E525,000, paidintothe United Overseas Bank in Geneva, account number E18502 V.
Both these payments came from the cars division at Leyland, but the other
are also Involved.
Barton's report on the Scammell division recorded Anne money rectved Egregun ory sat with the Egyptian Evenine account at the Union Bank Anny of Switzerland.
What services Alexane provided for this half a million pounds is mot
other tabulated by Barton offer obvious conclusions.
ASSISTANCE
For instance, Mustafa Issa reocived £30,000 for his part in a Land Rover contract with the Iraqi Government That Issa was an official of the ruling Haath party in Iraq suggests the type bl assistance he provided in securing the contract for Leyland
Most of the payments referred to in Barton's reports went to beneficiaries in the Third World HELTERE himself made this point at his trial:
sald arrangements that such practices stem
the population of a country is innately corrupt, that when in Rome..
*But there are many cases in the schedules where the people benetiting have direct links with the interests
the ElK.. und their activities are well known and approved of by the authorities of this country. They are involved in an official capacity in representing this country,"
Individual who fits this description is 67-yean-okd Beberman. According to one section of Barton's report, Heherman's. special commission' during 1975/6 totalled nearly 1200,000.
This was in connection with two contracts, one to the Belgian Army
ind one to the Luxembourg Armis This paymeet was ETECTEUL Barton a number of times during bi trial, and be left bttle doubt of opinion of its dubious nature.
Yet Beherman has on a number of occasions officially represented Britain as diplomatic functions, was also awarded an honorary CRE in
Most of Bcherman, at the time he received the
and as far as we know moncy, was head of one of Leyland's Belgian subsidiaries.
There are suggestions And | Beherman is not the only individual
sorenduri For
Shar
with direct associations with leyland who benefited from the company's "special commissions. executive Cave Sha fe add heard Barton trial that these rumours that 'company
were getting themselves the through intermediaries by numbered
bank accounts'; Similarly, there is the reference in the memo reproduced in last week's Socialist Challenge numbered bank accounts means that on occasions the corporation makes payments to unknown persons who may inchcle its own employees acing irrepularly.
Just what was all this money for? In one of the reports he Joseph Graham USELLE
words. phrase he uses. In other words, paying ruling party officials, brothers-in-law of the head of the National Guard, or woever, to secure contracts for the company.
CONTRAVENTIONS
But Barton himself stressed at his trial thar this was cot all the market
'conscious contraventions He commercial law', and in a section of
one of his reports he all, Leyland "assisting
breach local regulations with their commission accounts".
By this, what is implied is that the beneficiary that payment into a bank acoount outside
the country of his residence, usually in Switzerland. This avoided the need to pay tax on the money concerned. Not only did this deprive the country of residence of tlie tax money, it al50 deprived the country of foreign exchange.
As Such countries need for foreign exchange and underdeseloped as they usually are -they impose strict currency and commercial regulations for payments madero their residents. It ischese laws which Barton said Leyland breaking beneficiaries' payments into Swiss bank accounts.
AUTHENTIC There is little doubt chat both these illegalities forward slushing knowledee in the top circles of British Leyland. Indeed.
Barton's trial that the 'evidence" Alex Park subtitted to the Ryder inquiry' into the Mail allegations admitted the breakine of such company regula tions.
Further evidence is supplied in a letter from Leyland treasury manager
2105
Leyland duced Challenge,
personnel reads:
Field of "Ise retentions. "Internal
Treasurer drew up. arrangentents, mince subsequently Large scale slushing" is the
arrangements.
should be
prohibil
have your views?
slushing referred distributors to
memo. explained that, concerned roceived his
valuable Apart
have a great
The
source,
loged their documents
"illegalities"
as well as the straight-
Leyland,
John Champion — the letter which accompanies the document
last week's Socialist and has beer confirmed as authentic. The letter
RETENTIONS
"The attached memo from Bob
BL. Cars Taises again the • 135510
Audit prepared discussion paper in 1974, a copy of which is also attached. At the time the line divisions were asked to inform the
of all proposed but Alen agreed that could authorise such
*This is a subject on which there
La Corporate cuideline Although it would be impracticable to
arrangements involvins possible illegalities, -I believe suc arrangements should he centraily known and recorded. Can 1 please
of British Leyland management on the whole question of
and breaking cortency regulations are perhaps best summed epin a phrase Graham Barton savs he saw in yet another internal Leyland
phrase. sand Barton, The time has tor come to pay off our friends".
The evidence of has Leyland paid its friends' and who these friends were is quite literally overwhelming Of course, Graham Barton has at times confused matters RI TO KNOW
altogether from the authenticity of the alleged 'Kyder letter, he has voluntarily stated that
"adulterated" humber documents he submitted to the Duily
He did this, he said, to protect his
Needs Lesland even those which has reluctantly admitted are genuine are evidense enough of a wide range of
Twenty million pounds may be chickenfeed to some people. It is not chickenfeed to the workers of British Lesland, who have faced widespread redundancies over the last year.
They ahove all others have a right to know the fill facts of how their bosses conduct the affairs of Beitish
La right demand the opening of all Leyland's books
The ending of the Graham Harton trial should not be the end of the slush fund slory, rather the start of its more desailed and more honest retelling.
← Socialist Challenge No. 58, 10 August 1978Socialist Challenge No. 59, 17 August 1978 →