Annex 21
Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards from the Rt Hon Dr John Reid MP
Thank you for your letter of the 13th June.
I note that you say that you may conclude there is
no case to answer at any point. I was inviting you so to conclude
now in my letter of 6th June.
The point I was trying to make was that Mr Nelson`s
complaint does not have evidential support. Despite Mr Nelson
saying that he had tapes of "many senior Labour officials
and politicians" making allegations against me, you concluded
that Mr Nelson`s informant was in fact Mr McKinney. Mr McKinney`s
words in the transcript and in his interview with you do not appear
to support Mr Nelson`s complaint. Mr McKinney alone is of course
not "many senior Labour officials and politicians".
I would invite you to conclude that if Mr Nelson has only one
informant then his reference to his many informants was false.
He would accordingly be unreliable as a complainant against me
and the complaint should be dismissed.
If on the other hand you are saying that you have
heard tape recordings of Messrs. Rafferty, Rowley and Sullivan
making allegations against me it is important for me to know what
my accusers have said about me and if they have consistently made
allegations against me. Will you confirm this position? As you
invite my views on the credibility of Messrs. Rafferty, Rowley
and Sullivan at Question 29 you will understand my need to know.
Perhaps you have notes of what they said on the tapes which you
will permit me to have.
Again on the assumption that you will not conclude
now that there is no case to answer further points arise from
your letter of the 13 June. At Paragraph 5(1) you refer to a telephone
conversation with Mr Rafferty on 6 April. I do not have any material
relative to such a conversation. Would you let me have a transcript?
Item (ii) b) of your letter of 19 May refers to 3 transcripts.
I have transcripts for 1 and 24 March and Note of 18 April, but
no transcript for 6th April.
At paragraph 5(vi) you refer to "evidence quoted
from Mr Rowley, Mr Rafferty and Mr Sullivan" relating to
Ms Hilliard. Would you please let me have the references?
Finally you invite me to offer challenges to interpretations
being placed on references. I am somewhat hampered in doing this
so far as I do not know what would have been said by other persons
who may have provided evidence. For example where Mr Rowley`s
views about Kevin`s capacity to work for me may have been contradicted
by his co-workers or managers this would be helpful in demonstrating
possible misinterpretation being placed on references. These persons`
statements may themselves have been misinterpreted. I appear to
be being denied sight of the full picture. As I take it you have
now concluded your investigation of all other persons would you
not agree I should be permitted to know the totality of what is
said about me by other persons, some of whose identities are unknown
to me? Otherwise it is difficult to see how I can make a full
response.
I would stress I am not trying to be difficult. This
complaint is a matter of considerable seriousness to me. As I
understand it your reports are normally published. I am concerned
to make the fullest response to the complaint in order that no
possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation may arise
in such a report if you wish to continue with the complaint.
15 June 2000
| 
