APPENDIX 28
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee on
Standards and Privileges from Thompsons, Solicitors
COUNCILLOR PIARA
SINGH CLAIR
Thank you for your assistance yesterday in taking
us to meet with the Chairman of the Committee.
I was rather surprised to receive your subsequent
letter last night. Both my and Mr Bennett's understanding from
our meeting with the Chairman was that the information received
from the Leicester East Constituency Labour Party was acceptable
and nothing further was required. We understand that matters must
have moved on since our meeting with the Chairman. We would be
very grateful if you could confirm how the Chairman's thinking
has changed on his issue.
We also referred in our letter of 12th February to
the relevant powers of the Committee and its procedures for requiring
the production of documents by a third party. We fully accept
your comments, as set out in your letter of yesterday's date,
but will be very grateful if you could let us know what the appropriate
procedures are.
You appear, essentially, to be repeating your request
for information as set out in your letter of 23rd January addressed
to Councillor Singh Clair concerning the payment from B S Attwall
& Co in January 1993. In your letter of 23rd January you asked
for confirmation from the Constituency Labour Party's bank that
the donation was paid into their account. We have already provided
a copy of the letter from the bank indicating that they do not
keep records going back that far. At the same time, Councillor
Singh Clair was not the Treasurer of the Constituency Labour Party
in 1993. We are informed that there is no reason why he would
have any information whatsoever about this donation.
Indeed, Councillor Singh Clair, in his recent response
to journalists, indicated that he had researched the Constituency
Labour Party's accounts going back to 1995. We understand that
this is indeed correct and that he would have been unable to go
back further because such accounts are not retained.
In the fourth paragraph of your letter you indicated
that if it could be established that the payment was received
by the Constituency Labour Party, then the complaint that the
money was received by Mr Vaz could be shown to be unfounded. We
respectfully put to you that the converse is equally true: unless
it can be established that the payment was not received
by the Constituency Labour Party, then the complaint that the
money was received by Mr Vaz must also be unfounded. We have seen
no evidence whatsoever that the payment was made to anyone other
than the Constituency Labour Party. If such evidence does exist,
we will be very grateful if you would provide it to us. Our clients
will then respond to it.
Furthermore, we would like to know exactly what the
nature of the complaint is and the identity of the complainant
as Mr Attwall, the Leicester East Constituency Labour Party and
Mr Vaz all clearly state that the payment was made to the Constituency
Labour Party's account.
Our client has, however, made enquiries if its secretary
in 1993, Mr John Thomas. We are instructed that he has indicated
that he took delivery of the cheque from B S Attwall and then
arranged for it to be paid into the Constituency Labour Party's
account. It may be that our clients would be prepared to follow
a similar procedure in relation to yesterday's meeting with the
Chairman in relation to an affidavit from Mr Thomas.
We would, however, be grateful if you would confirm,
first of all, whether or not the Chairman requires this course
of action, and secondly, whether or not it is acceptable.
16 February 2001
| 
