Annex 69
Letter to Mr John Maxton MP from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Thank you for your letter of 4 June. I will try to
deal with the points you raise as briefly as I can. I must emphasise,
however, that I am reluctant to be drawn into lengthy exchanges
about procedural issues, the substance of which relate to ground
already covered extensively in previous correspondence and discussions
between us.
You have returned to the issue of my grounds for
beginning an investigation under paragraph 69 of the Guide to
the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. As I have explained,
both at the outset of this process (letter of 16 February) and
since then (letters of 28 February, 8 March, 4 and 19 May), I
am required under that paragraph to form a judgment as to whether
the information supplied by a complainant in support of a complaint
is sufficient to warrant my "taking the matter further".
That was all I needed to consider when examining the information
provided by Mr Nelson. My conclusion was—and I have subsequently
seen no reason to revise it, though I could have done so at any
stage—that the letter and accounts of conversations with
various individuals provided by Mr Nelson required me to conduct
an investigation and to formally describe it as such. It is the
results of that investigation which I have now put to you in the
form of my letter of 22 May, together with the accompanying written
questions. I say again that because I am conducting an investigation
in no way implies any wrong doing; it is the method by which a
complaint is looked at in order to decide whether it has any substance.
On the question of the tapes made by Mr Nelson, I
was prepared to respect his responsibilities as a journalist towards
his sources, having satisfied myself both from his account and
the letter he wrote to me (which you have seen) and from listening
to the tapes mentioned in that letter, that they ought to be followed
up through further inquiries by me. What you now have is the evidence
of witnesses whom I have interviewed myself and the tape of Mr
Nelson`s conversation with Mr McKinney.
May I take your other points in turn.
1. You questioned
my opening paragraph reminding you that you should not discuss,
or seek to discuss, with any other person your evidence to this
inquiry. This is a standard clause which I have included in letters
to witnesses whenever I have asked them to provide evidence. It
seemed, therefore, that my request to you for your detailed response
to the evidence in support of the complaint was the appropriate
point at which to draw this requirement to your attention.
The purpose of the requirement is twofold. First,
it underlines the fact that each witness should give his or her
own account of the facts rather than seek to co-ordinate or concert
his response with others. Of course, there is no objection to
your checking matters of fact with Ms Hilliard or Mr Winslow.
But there can be no justification for approaching other witnesses
who may have given evidence. You can of course raise any such
queries with me and I will consider whether I should put any further
questions to others or make further enquiries.
This brings me to the second reason for the requirement,
namely to avoid any suggestion, however unjustified, that pressure
has been brought to bear on any person in relation to their evidence
to me. In that sense it is for the protection of the Member, individual
witnesses and the integrity of my investigation. I cannot, of
course, prevent you from discussing your evidence with others—I
can only strongly advise you, in your own interest, not to do
so. You are of course free to discuss your evidence with your
adviser.
2. You asked why some material relating
only to Dr Reid has been shown to you. I should explain, by way
of background, as I have also done to Dr Reid, that although Mr
Nelson`s complaint relates to two individual Members of Parliament,
I have so far thought it right, in order to avoid unnecessary
duplication and to assess the facts, to treat the process as a
single investigation. This is not just a matter of convenience:
there are also, as you will appreciate, many common features to
the complaints against yourself and Dr Reid; they cover similar
issues, they are set against the same background of the Scottish
Parliament election campaign and some of the same personnel are
involved. Until I receive the separate accounts from you and Dr
Reid, for example about the detail of the various employment arrangements
and the meeting which Mr McKinney describes, I cannot be clear
whether I should regard the complaints as separate or intertwined.
It is for that reason that I have sent to both you and Dr Reid
the same documentation for your comments even though some of the
material may refer to one of you only. You are responsible only
for providing me with an account of matters in which you were
involved. I have also reminded Dr Reid of the necessity of keeping
these matters confidential. I can, however, reassure you that
material concerning you has not been sent to any other witness.
The fact that I have proceeded in this way so far
does not mean that I am committed to making a single, joint report
to the Standards and Privileges Committee. To be fair to both
you and Dr Reid I have always kept open the possibility of making
two quite separate reports. When I have received both responses
I shall decide whether I should make separate reports or a joint
report. If you have views on whether these matters were totally
separate I should be glad to consider them. What is not in doubt
is that each Member is responsible as an individual for upholding
the Code of Conduct and Rules and only if the facts are demonstrated
to be linked will I provide a joint report to the Committee.
3. Your third point has already been addressed
in my response to your opening comments about my decision to begin
an investigation on the basis of the information supplied by Mr
Nelson.
4. The nature of the complaint has not changed
and remains as set out in Mr Nelson`s letter of 26 January. Of
course, the evidence may differ in emphasis as between the period
up to the 3-4 weeks of the election campaign and the campaign
itself. This is reflected in the various documents sent to you.
On the assumption that your letter of 4 June does
not constitute your formal response to the list of questions sent
in my letter of 19 May, may I ask you to confirm whether you intend
to provide written answers by 12 June or, failing that, whether
you wish to arrange to see me at your convenience to discuss these
matters orally?
8 June 2000
|
