APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by Dr John Reid MP
SUMMARY
From a review of the documentation we summarise
our findings as:
(1) The budgets are working documents,
which would be amended on an ongoing basis and do not ostensibly
reflect the final actual expenditure.
(2) Alex Rowley in his correspondence points
out his lack of knowledge and attempts to distance himself from
the whole situation. This does not suggest he developed the documents.
(3) Annmarie Whyte provides explanations and
information which do not in any way indicate cross subsidy indeed
she goes further isolating Mr Maxton and Dr Reid from the process
and states that the SLP did not regard itself as being subsidised.
We see no reason not to accept these explanations.
(4) In the case of Jonathan Upton there is
no indication of cross subsidy. We see no reason not to accept
this.
(5) Finally, the position of House of Commons
Director of Finance Andrew Walker is most disturbing. On three
separate occasions the Director of Finance is recruited to provide
damaging corroboration to the existence to cross subsidy and on
three occasions this is dismissed by him. In fact Andrew Walker
in all of his letters favours acceptance of "innocent explanations"
and in his last letter encourages Elizabeth Filkin to conclude
her investigation. We see no reason not to accept this.
It is our considered opinion that in the absence
of evidence or facts being presented by Elizabeth Filkin in relation
to the funding issue of cross subsidy there would appear to be
no case to answer. Elizabeth Filkin attempts to construct a case
by speculation alone but is rebuffed quite rightly on three occasions
by the Director of Finance & Administration.
12 October 2000
Atkinson Donnelly
REVIEW
OF DR
JOHN REID
ELIZABETH FILKIN
INVESTIGATION
We contain below a review of the analysis entitled
"Section IX" (of Ms Filkin`s Report, paragraphs numbered
as below) and would comment as follows:
174. Supporting Dr Reid`s explanation.
175. Dr Reid`s explanation is consistent with
the materials produced.
176. We are at a loss as to why Ms Filkin would
ignore an acceptable interpretation "taken a face value"
and rather adopt a "could be construed" approach to
explanations given.
177. The use of people currently employed by
Scottish MPs appears as an efficient way of mustering an effective
campaign.
178. It is not clear why the approach of "could
be construed" is adopted and thought to be useful. It seems
a large step from the campaign team extract of Section 177 to
a speculation of "diverting to party work parliamentary researchers
paid from the OCA".
179. We would assume that this is always the
case.
180. Elizabeth Filkin`s reluctance to accept
the timing of Kevin Reid`s full time contract in October 1998
as "coincidental" due to the Scottish Parliament Lobbygate"
case is wrong. Elizabeth Filkin is a year out with her "construed
explanation", as "Lobbygate" did not occur until
1999.
181. This should, if anything, add weight to
the case of Dr Reid as tangible evidence that he was keen for
the correct action to take place. It is not clear why the prejudicial
interpretation is put on these facts by Elizabeth Filkin.
182. Again, the "Lobbygate" question
is used as an explanation of Elizabeth Filkin`s stance, perhaps
even impacting on her judgement. This in fact took place after
the elections in 1999. Indeed, Donald Dewar addressed the issue
in the Scottish Parliament.
183. This reasoning is somewhat unclear. It is
not at all clear what has prompted the "sinister" analysis.
It seems that it would have been perverse for Dr Reid to act as
contended for. Of course the date error regarding "Lobbygate"
saga colours Ms Filkin`s reasoning.
184. Dr Reid on the other hand took action to
"regularise his son`s position". Elizabeth Filkin in
this paragraph seems to be intent on arriving at conclusions not
supported by the facts. Firstly, Dr Reid properly acted in the
case of his son. Secondly, the "lobbygate" affair did
not occur during the year in question. Thirdly, interpretation
of a misguided position would appear to be illogical. Elizabeth
Filkin seems to be taking unrelated statements, and trying to
utilise those to attack Dr Reid. Dr Reid had in actual fact taken
"decisive steps to regularise his son`s position".
185. Mr Rafferty`s evidence seems to have no
bearing in relation to Dr Reid.
186. As stipulated "there was, in any case,
nothing necessarily wrong with such an arrangement". If Mr
Rafferty "came to suspect" it is fair to ask what action
did he take as a result of his suspicions?
187. Dr Reid took the action as soon as he became
aware of "the load being undertaken" by Kevin Reid,
his son. It is important to understand what Mr Rafferty was really
doing. Could it be Mr Dewar does not recall the conversation because
it did not happen?
189. There is nothing to suggest that "part
of their total salary be paid to them through the office costs
allowance". Indeed, Andrew Walker, the Director of Finance
and Administration states that there is "no evidence of wrong
doing". There is nothing to support why Mr Rowley`s view
is correct. The bonus contributes nothing.
The Scottish Labour Party`s Budgetary Arrangements
189
190. Mr Rowley`s explanation of the budget figures
is incorrect. Budgets are precisely that, namely estimates of
expenses to be incurred and do not represent actual expenditure
or action taken at a later date. It is also a dangerous position
for Elizabeth Filken to use "Mr Rowley`s explanation"
as Mr Rowley was hesitant and cautioned Ms Filkin on the dependability
of his evidence. At the same time Ms Filkin is ignoring the evidence
of other participants and inexplicably seems to diminish the evidence
of other parties such as the House of Commons Director of Finance
and Administration as Clause 207. Elizabeth Filkin has also ignored
the effect of National Insurance Contributions which contradicts
her attack on Dr Reid and Mr Maxton.
191. This would not appear to be backed by Mr
Upton or Ms Whyte. Indeed, their written evidence is contrary
to the claim.
192. National Insurance contributions should
have been brought into the calculation.
193. Mr Rowley`s explanations have no independent
support.
194. It must be emphasised again that figures
used in the budget are estimates of expenditure. To try to use
a budget to draw conclusions as Elizabeth Filkin is attempting
to do is dangerous and inconclusive and can result in misleading
conclusions.
195. As for 194 above.
196. This is not the view shared by Andrew Walker
the Director of Finance and Administration for the House of Commons.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that from 196 onwards it is merely
the "interpretation of Elizabeth Filkin" NOT
facts of evidence. This is extremely dangerous as surely any considered
thought process must be based on evidence and facts. It is not
a view shared by us. We prefer the view of Mr Walker.
From clause 197 through to clause 206 Elizabeth Filkin
attempts to draw correlation between budget document 1 in May
1998, budget document 2 in October 1998, budget document 3 in
January 1999 to show that there has been cross-subsidy from the
OCA. This is done by attempting to illustrate through her assumptions
and suggestions that her "theory" has merit. The facts
of the matter are that this does not seem to be borne out in reality.
The original budget for Kevin Reid as per Ms Filkin`s clause 201
was £13,200. For the period May to October 1998 per clause
201, Ms Filkin shows a figure of £14,200 for Mr Reid as a
way of explanation and an attempt to show that the figures are
relatively close. In actual fact, the total salary for May to
October 1998 was £15,620 and for the period from October
onwards £19,945. This does not correlate with £13,200.
Elizabeth Filkin`s theory therefore is not based on fact.
207. In this clause whilst Ms Filkin accepts
that the House of Commons Director of Finance and Administrations
explanation is possible she rejects this. She rejects this in
favour of the evidence of Mr Rowley who by his own admission is
cautious about his interpretation. It is very difficult to understand
why the individual with the expertise, namely the Director of
Finance and Administration to the House of Commons, has his opinion
ignored. We consider the view to be sound.
208. It must be reiterated that Mr Rowley is
cautious about placing any reliance of the data. Despite this,
Elizabeth Filkin seems to support possible explanations given
by Mr Rowley and vigorously discounting all explanations and evidence
from other sources.
209. Elizabeth Filkin accepts that there is no
conclusive evidence of cross subsidisation borne from an examination
of the figures. This is an extremely important fact.
We would argue strongly that the figures are not
close enough, see 206 above, to be compatible with Mr Rowley`s
contention and would indeed conclude that they contradict the
evidence, the actual salaries paid being significantly different
from the original budget documents.
210. See below.
211. See below.
212. See below.
213. Elizabeth Filkin again seems to be only
accepting explanations and "opinions" which match her
"theory". Is there any material to suggest that Mr Rowley`s
version of events is any more credible than Mr Maxton`s, Mr Winslow`s,
or Miss Whyte`s? We find none.
214. We are of the opinion that Mr Rowley`s contentions,
are merely unsupported views which are not borne out by the documentary
evidence available. We cannot see any reason to reject the views
of the Director of Finance and Administration for the House of
Commons.
215. We are of the opinion that Mr Rowley`s contentions
are merely unsupported views which are not borne out by the documentary
evidence available. We cannot se any reason to reject the views
of the Director of Finance and Administration for the House of
Commons.
| 
