Annex Fv
File note by the former Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
ARCHY
KIRKWOOD
29 JANUARY
2002
MEETING
WITH
MR
KIRKWOOD
Mr Kirkwood came to see me at 3pm. We had received
by post the colour coded copy of his draft response letter that
day.
Mr Kirkwood said that he had been dealing with this
concerning matter for several weeks and he hoped he had provided
a comprehensive reply. I said to him that sometimes Members treat
their first letter to me as a draft and ask for my suggestions
as to additions, if any, before finalising their response. However,
I said some Members prefer to write two separate letters and he
should choose whether he wished the one that I had already received
to be his first response, in which case I would write to him again
with the questions that it raised to make sure that I had a complete
picture.
I also explained to Mr Kirkwood the process of handling
complaints. I said that, as he knew, I was able to dismiss a large
number of the complaints that came to me after making a preliminary
enquiry. However, I said that if I had to undertake further investigation
or if some matters were not clear, I would have to draw up a report
for the Standards and Privileges Committee. I said that in no
way implied that I only drew up reports where complaints were
upheld. In some instances I drew up reports where complaints were
not upheld where I felt the matter needed to be one of public
record or where issues had been raised where investigation was
necessary to settle them. Mr Kirkwood said he was aware of this.
I said I would be able to tell him whether I was going to make
a report on the matter as soon as I had received his response
in full.
Mr Kirkwood asked me to go through the questions
that had arisen when I had read his letter. I took him through
the questions and he immediately answered several of them. I said
I would need to ask him to provide the answers in writing and
he took a note of the questions as we proceeded. At the end of
the meeting I said that if he would find it helpful, I would send
him my list of questions as an aide memoir. Mr Kirkwood
asked me to do so.
I advised him to take each letter of complaint and
go through it carefully and answer, as best he could, all the
points made in the letters. I said even if he thought there was
nothing in a question being raised, he should set out his reasons
for thinking this. I explained that it was helpful to me and,
when I made a report to the Committee, to have the Member's own
responses in writing so that there was no possibility of his views
being misrepresented.
Mr Kirkwood said he would have to go to York to get
some of the information which I had asked for and to be able to
answer some of the questions. He would do so. He asked me to treat
the letter that I had already received as a draft and he would
consider the points I had raised before writing a fuller response.
I said that I would deal with the matter as soon
as I was able to once he had sent me his response. I said I always
hope that I would be able to dismiss complaints and this was so
in this case, but I could not make a decision as to whether that
was possible until I had a response in detail.
Mr Kirkwood asked me whether the correspondence was
confidential. I assured him that the correspondence was confidential,
that nothing was disclosed from this office until any report was
published by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I said if
the matter did not proceed to an investigation, none of it would
be published, but that he should write all his letters knowing
that they might need to be published if I needed to make a report.
29 January 2002
EF
| 
