Lady Archer defends her husband's charity work
Here is a full transcript of her interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on 16 August:
Question (Q): Lady Archer was asked about a figure of £57m, reported to be the total raised by the fund.
Lady Archer (A): I agree with the Red Cross that from the records that I have managed to uncover in our own office that it is an accurate figure.
Q: You say an accurate figure but Patrick Healey - the former head of international aid at the Red Cross - says that £57m was a global figure. Only a tiny, tiny portion of it was raised as a direct result of the concert - the Simple Truth concert.
A: I don't think anyone has ever suggested it was other than a global figure. The Simple Truth concert was designed to be a catalyst to raise consciousness.
Q: The overwhelming proportion of that £57m came from governments - as the UNHCR have said - it came from governments and not from individual donors - not from any charity appeal.
A: That is quite correct though I have a letter on file from the ODA - the Overseas Development Administration - which states the UN were able to confirm that they had received all the money raised as a result of the Simple Truth appeal - a little over £38m and had indeed spent substantially more than this on their projects in Iraq.
I think the thing is of course that the plight of the Kurds, as you will well remember, was desperate. There was a lot of international relief work - both by governments and by charitable agencies, notably the Red Cross. The Simple Truth campaign was designed to raise the profile of relief work for the Kurds and was very successful in that regard.
Q: But the accounts of the UNHCR show that only £1m was attributed to the Simple Truth appeal.
A: How they tend to post figures, I suppose, is a matter for them. I have just quoted to you a letter from the ODA confirming the UN's receipt of £38m.
But my understanding is that that £31.5 - £31.7m comes, as the UN confirmed, comes a result of the Simple Truth appeal.
Q: But isn't the reality here that your husband allowed - indeed encouraged the notion that he himself had raised £57m? I remember interviewing him myself soon after this had all happened back in 1991 and that was the impression that he encouraged.
He didn't raise £57m and what I am suggesting to you is that to that extent he was - is - the architect of his own misfortune.
A: Well would you kindly quote me what he said that you think is misleading and makes him the architect of his own misfortunes?
Q: The impression that he had raised £57m.
A: But the Simple Truth campaign did - of which he was the spearhead. I think publicity is very valuable.
Look at the difficulty people are having in raising money for the Taleban - for the Afghan people - because of the information clampdown in Afghanistan.
I think that we are very proud of what Jeffrey did in spearheading this charitable effort. It was a huge effort - he put a huge amount of his own time and indeed resources into it. And the figures, which I believe Sir Nicholas Young has just given you, and which I have just broken down in part, do indeed total to £57m as announced at that time.
Q: What's puzzling about this is that on the face of it, as you say Sir Nicholas Young quoted those figures, let's put aside for the moment whether all of that money was raised as a direct result of the appeal - we will never know that in truth will we?
Because you will never know whether a government that gave £6m gave it because of the publicity or whether it had intended to give it in the first place and would have given it anyway with or without your husband's involvement. We shan't ever know that shall we in truth?
A: Well you may not ever know it but I have documentary evidence.
We cannot ever be absolutely certain about this. But what I was going to suggest to you is this: isn't it puzzling that the Fraud Squad is persisting with this investigation when these figures are there - when the records are there, when the records are at the Red Cross.
They were available to us - we went along, we asked to see them and they said yes you may see them. But the Fraud Squad, the police, have not been to see them.
A: It is not for me to comment on the way the police operate only to say that we are very happy to give them all the documentation that we have available and I very much hope that they will speedily conclude that there is absolutely no substance to the allegations made by Lady Nicholson.
Q: But it has been going on for a little while now. Have they been to see you to ask you for the documents - the evidence that you have?
A: No we have written them a letter.
Q: You have written to them?
A: Yes.
Q: Not they to you? Not coming to see you?
A: No they haven't been to see us.
Q: Does that surprise you?
A: Very little surprises me I have to say now.
Q: How do you mean?
A: I mean just that I think I would wish that this matter would be speedily concluded. It is not right that Jeffrey should have been reclassified as the result of an unsubstantiated and baseless allegation by Lady Nicholson and I hope this will speedily be resolved.
Q: Does it surprise you that the police have not been to the offices of the Red Cross?
A: I really cannot comment on the methods that the police use. I hope that they will conduct their investigations speedily.
A: They are very serious allegations. They are entirely without foundation. They have resulted in real harm to Jeffrey and now she seems to have smeared the Red Cross into the bargain and I think she is misled and misleading.
Q: And there is no doubt in your mind that he is in this particular prison - the prison that he is in at the moment - because of the continuing investigation?
A: There can be no doubt - that was the announcement.
Q: It hasn't been announced - I think it had been allowed to be known. I think there is a slight difference there isn't there? But that is your clear understanding?
A: That is my clear understanding yes.
Q: How is he getting on? It would be a very silly question to say is he coping with it because I don't know how people cope in prison. How are his spirits and all that?
A: Well, thank you for asking. He's bearing up well but anxious to be reclassified.
Q: Do you know what he is doing - how he is spending his time?
A: I do indeed.
Q: And?
A: Private matter. But I will say that the prison regime is rather a good one for a writer.
Q: In what sense?
A: Well you have plenty of time to write.
Q: What about you, because there were questions raised as to whether there might be charges laid against you as a result of what you said in court? Have you been told officially that that is not going to happen?
A: No I haven't but I would be amazed, astounded and outraged if it were and I understand again - in your phrase - that it has been made known that that will not happen.
Q: But nobody has actually said to you - this is not going to happen?
A: Well I haven't actually asked anyone to tell me.
Q: Haven't you? Why?
A: Why should I? Why should I?
Q: Well, when questions are raised of that sort don't you want it to be publicly made known that you are not now going to be questioned?
A: I think it is publicly known. As I say, I would be amazed and astounded if I were to be. I stand by every word I said.
A: I certainly haven't said that. I do think it has been open season on me and my family and I am glad now to be able to move on back to my own work.
Q: Open season - but if somebody commits a criminal offence, then you would expect proceedings to be taken against them and you would expect them, if found guilty, to be sent to jail wouldn't you? I mean that is the way the system works.
A: I said I thought it had been open season by which I mean the press comment after the trial.
Q: But as far as the trial is concerned, you have launched an appeal - rather Lord Archer - his lawyers have said they are going to appeal. Can you tell me anything about the basis of that appeal?
A: No of course I can't. But I can confirm that it was lodged last week.
A: I believe that's the first hurdle - you have to be given permission, I think in the High Court but I am not very clear on the details.
Q: Do you expect him to get that permission? Are you expecting that to happen quite soon?
A: I don't know the timescale but yes I do expect him to get that permission.
Q: What about you? Did you find it yourself difficult to stand by your husband during that trial?
A: It was a very difficult period. But I don't find it difficult to stand by him - no.
Q: And will not. You will continue to stand by him?
A: Indeed.
Q: There has been a story that you want to sell your story for £250,000 - you have been offered vast amounts of money for your story as it is described. Is that true?
A: No, I am not in the business of writing my story. Widely unremarked in recent events, I brought out volume one of my long work on solar energy and I am very pleased now to be able to get to work on volume two.
Q: So you are not planning to peddle your life story?
A: I am not.
Q: My life with Jeffery - that's not going to happen?
A: That is not going to happen.
The interview ended.