VII. Mr Maxton`s Submission
[I have described the sections in the same way as
in Mr Maxton`s submission]
Was there sufficient evidence to warrant investigating
the complaints?
14. As will be clear from the extensive correspondence
between Mr Maxton and myself, I explained to him on several occasions
during the course of the inquiry why I was satisfied that the
test laid down in paragraph 69 of the Guide to the Rules and the
Code of Conduct for taking up a complaint had been met.
15. Mr Nelson`s complaint was not a vague allegation
submitted in a vacuum; his letter was detailed and set out the
supporting material. He had, as a result of his own investigations,
assembled information in the form of notes of conversations and
tapes which indicated that people with direct knowledge of the
events in question could provide relevant and truthful information.
Mr Maxton is correct in stating that I had not, when deciding
to take up the complaints, either heard the tapes made by Mr Nelson
or, at that stage, obtained a copy of his notes. However, Mr Nelson
had read his notes to me in full, so I was aware of their content
and in addition, he had shown me the notes (with names removed),
but without handing them over. Shortly afterwards he played the
tapes to me. Equally importantly he had also, in his letter of
26 January 2000, supplied me with the names of those he believed
were likely to provide me with accurate information.
Evidence appearing to support Mr Nelson`s allegations
16. Mr Maxton asks why I did not attach as an
Annex to my memorandum the complete transcript of Mr Nelson`s
conversations with various officials of the Scottish Labour Party
(SLP). The reason for this decision was explained in my memorandum,
but I will repeat it for the avoidance of doubt. The information
obtained by Mr Nelson through his conversations with senior SLP
staff (and his notes on them) were sufficient to persuade me that
further investigation of the complaint was necessary. During the
investigation I believe I assembled evidence from all the people
to whom Mr Nelson told me he had spoken, and that evidence was
first-hand and given directly to me. Since I did not rely on Mr
Nelson`s taped material in reaching my conclusions I did not need
to annex it to my memorandum. The sole exception was in the case
of Mr McKinney where I wished to show that what he had said on
tape to Mr Nelson was at variance with what he said to me in evidence.
Mr Nelson`s notes were attached to my memorandum as Annex 2.
17. I cannot let pass Mr Maxton`s comment about
the late Donald Dewar. In his letter to me, Mr Dewar said that
he had "no recollection" of any conversation with Mr
Rafferty about possible adverse media coverage of Mr Winslow`s
position. Mr Dewar added that he had spent much of the campaign
for the Scottish Parliament election travelling and so had had
little contact with Mr Rafferty.
18. Mr Dewar did not say, as he could have done,
that the conversation did not take place, only that he could not
recollect it. I accepted Mr Dewar`s statement without reservation.
If one witness states that a meeting took place and another cannot
remember it, it does not follow that one of them is lying. No
one reading my memorandum could have formed the impression that
I was suggesting this, nor am I.
19. Mr Maxton says that I did not ask Mr Winslow
to supply me with the names of the other special advisers who
took part in the conference call. I accept that: I did not make
such a specific request. But I repeatedly asked all the researchers
(as well as the two Members) to let me have any evidence, whether
documentary or otherwise, which would support their account. In
particular, during our interview on 7 April I asked Mr Winslow
to let me have details of any other person I might approach who
might have relevant information. Mr Winslow did not take up this
offer.
20. Turning to Mr Rowley`s evidence, Mr Maxton
says that Mr Rowley sent me the budget documents unsolicited.
I am not clear what point Mr Maxton is seeking to make in claiming
this. In any case he is wrong. In my first letter to him, dated
11 February 2000, I asked Mr Rowley whether he had any other information
which might assist me in my investigation. I repeated the request
at my first meeting with him, on 21 March (see Q21), when I referred
explicitly to budgetary documents. He told me during that meeting
that he had in his possession documentary material which supported
the complaint. He was initially reluctant to provide this to me
and I did not press him. But when it became clear that I could
not bring my investigation to a proper conclusion without seeing
the documents I asked Mr Rowley to send me copies, which he agreed
to do.
21. Mr Maxton mentions the fact that in mid April
2000 Mr Rowley was unsuccessful in his attempt to be selected
as a Parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party, the implication
being that this rejection embittered Mr Rowley and coloured his
evidence to me. I can only say that, in my numerous dealings with
him over an extended period, Mr Rowley gave no indication that
this was the case. The thrust of his evidence after 17 April was
the same as it had been before that date. As I have already said,
my first interview with Mr Rowley was on 21 March.
22. I have dealt at length in the memorandum
with the issue of how much work the researchers (in particular
Ms Hilliard and Mr Winslow) were able to do for the Members and
how far this is relevant to my conclusion that an improper arrangement
to misuse the OCA had been entered into. (See paragraphs
258 to 273).
23. I have also given my detailed analysis of
the budget documents and I have provided Mr Walker`s evidence
as to their possible interpretation. In the end I concluded that
the budget figures were, on their own, inconclusive: they
neither supported nor undermined the complaint, although I pointed
out that there were some unusual features for which I had not
seen any convincing explanation which contradicted that provided
by Mr Rowley. Chief amongst these were the notes referring to
the salaries paid to Mr Reid and Mr Winslow by Dr Reid and Mr
Maxton respectively. As I have said, in my view such information
could not have been relevant for internal Labour Party planning
purposes unless some account was intended to be taken of them
in relation to the salaries to be paid to the researchers by the
Party.
24. As regards the issue of documentary evidence
of the work claimed to have been done by Mr Winslow for Mr Maxton,
I made a number of requests, both written and over the telephone,
for Mr Maxton to let me have any material which might support
his account. He did not respond to these requests, nor did he
(other than at the very beginning of the inquiry) contact me to
explain that there were any practical difficulties in gathering
the information. Mr Maxton claims that I did not ask Mr Winslow
directly to supply such material. This is incorrect. I wrote to
him on 15 May making that request (Annex 107).
25. On the question of how strongly I pressed
him to provide me with documentary evidence supporting his account,
Mr Maxton seeks to draw a contrast with my correspondence with
Ms Hilliard`s solicitors. But this comparison is misleading. The
reason for my frequent letters in Ms Hilliard`s case was that
in response to my requests for basic information from telephone
accounts which Ms Hilliard had agreed to provide, I was either
told the information was unavailable, or I was given incomplete
information. Each of these replies had to be followed up if I
was to be sure that I had a complete picture. The Committee will
see that it was not until 22 September, almost six months after
Ms Hilliard undertook to provide details of the relevant telephone
accounts that I finally established that there had been no outgoing
calls to Dr Reid during the run-up to election day. Indeed, I
then also established that BT could have provided the accounts
for the earlier period, had they been asked by Ms Hilliard to
do so.
26. The Committee will form its own view as to
whether it was I or Mr Maxton who was the stumbling block to a
meeting between us. I would, however, point out that in successive
letters included in the annexes to my memorandum, I made clear
my willingness to see Mr Maxton and I also told him that, although
I would prefer this to be after he had provided answers to my
written questions, I would be happy, if he preferred, to go through
the questions with him during the meeting itself. Mr Maxton declined
to provide answers to my questions, or to make a formal submission
to me. He did so only after the Chairman of the Committee had
written to him.
27. I have striven throughout to maintain an
open mind about the evidence and to be as fair as possible to
the complainant, to witnesses and to the two Members. I strongly
reject Mr Maxton`s contention to the contrary.
The election campaign for the Scottish Parliament
28. I have set out in detail in the memorandum
why I believe that Mr Winslow`s increasing commitment to the Party
(evidenced, for example, by the payment to him of a bonus) made
it unlikely that he could have fulfilled his Parliamentary obligations
during the approach to the elections. This was confirmed by Mr
Winslow himself. Of course, no one has claimed that Mr Winslow
did no work for Mr Maxton—such a negative proposition
would be very difficult, if not impossible to prove. I do not
make this claim at any point.
29. In any case, as I have explained, this is
putting the cart before the horse. It was the evidence that an
improper arrangement to misuse the OCA was entered into which
had, logically, to be considered first. Once that was established
on the basis, amongst other things, of Mr Rowley`s evidence, I
then gave my view as to whether the researchers could have fulfilled
their contractual obligations to the House. But I made it absolutely
clear that my conclusions on that point did not determine my findings
about the making of the improper arrangement itself.
30. I did not, it is true, specifically ask Mr
Maxton to provide evidence of the arrangements relating to Mr
Winslow`s accumulated holiday entitlement. On the other hand,
as I indicated earlier in this note, I made a number of requests
to Mr Maxton to let me have any documentary or other evidence
which would support his original account of the volume of work
he claimed Mr Winslow did for him (as well as showing the basis
on which he argued that Mr Winslow`s leave entitlement freed him
from his Parliamentary commitments during the election campaign).
I am surprised that Mr Maxton did not volunteer this information
to me and that he still has not done so.
The objectivity of the witnesses
31. Mr Maxton, in his submission to the Committee,
has returned to the credibility of the witnesses. I have explained
why, once grounds for investigating the complaint were established,
Mr Nelson`s own reliability became irrelevant. As regards the
four main witnesses referred to by Mr Maxton (Mr Rowley, Mr Rafferty,
Mr McKinney and Mr Sullivan), I have set out in the memorandum
the reasons adduced by Dr Reid and Mr Maxton for doubting their
reliability and my own reasons for finding their evidence on this
matter credible. The Committee will no doubt reach its own judgment.
32. I must correct Mr Maxton on one point of
fact. He argues that I have been unfair in criticising him and
Dr Reid for making attacks on the reliability of the main witnesses
only after it became clear that they had given evidence in support
of the complaint, since, Mr Maxton claims, he and Dr Reid only
received the relevant evidence shortly before they completed their
formal submission to me. This is not so. On 19 May, I sent to
both Dr Reid and Mr Maxton, together with a list of written questions,
schedules of the main evidence, categorised according to whether
it was disputed or undisputed. I did not receive Dr Reid`s formal
submission until 5 July and Mr Maxton`s until 14 June. If one
of the main concerns of Dr Reid and Mr Maxton was the alleged
unreliability of those witnesses giving evidence in support of
the complaints, I should have expected to have received their
responses on that point more promptly so that I could take them
up with the witnesses concerned. Moreover, since Dr Reid was aware
from his telephone conversation with Mr Rowley on 20 March (Annex
145) that I had asked Mr Rowley to give evidence, I would have
expected Dr Reid to alert me at that point to any unreliability
he perceived in Mr Rowley as a witness.
33. On another factual point, Mr Maxton says
I made no effort "to contact the Labour Party either in Scotland
or within the UK to establish the truth or otherwise of these
allegations". This is incorrect I did, of course, have extensive
correspondence with Mr Upton at Labour Party HQ in London, and
with Ms Whyte and Ms Quinn at the Party`s Scottish offices.
My relations with Ms Filkin during the inquiry
34. It is for the Committee to judge, having
read the correspondence and notes on telephone calls between us,
where the truth lies regarding Mr Maxton`s conduct towards my
inquiry. Mr Maxton again claims that I refused to answer his question
about the level of evidence needed to mount an investigation into
a complaint under paragraph 69 of the Guide to the Rules and the
Code of Conduct. The record will show that I attempted on several
occasions to explain the position to Mr Maxton (for example, see
Annexes 37, 41, 43, 46, 47A, 49, 51, 58 and 63). He did not agree
with my explanation (partly, I believe, because he is under the
misapprehension that a journalist cannot bring a complaint if
his motives are judged to be suspect)—but that is not the
same as a refusal by me to answer his questions.
35. I do not, as Mr Maxton claims, regard myself
as "above criticism". I went out of my way to state
in my memorandum that a Member has an absolute right to make reasonable
inquiries about the mechanics or fairness of the investigation
process. It was the volume and tone of Mr Maxton`s approaches
which surprised me. Since I was receiving information from very
early in the inquiry which indicated that some witnesses might
be under pressure, I felt I must take the unusual step of making
specific comments in my memorandum on the conduct of the Member
who was the subject of the complaint.
26 October 2000
Elizabeth Filkin
