62. Letter to the Commissioner from
Ms Nadine Dorries MP, 6 July 2010
In answer to your letter of 28th of June, could you
please explain why the witness statements from [constituency neighbour]
and [Cotswold neighbour] were not included in the same document
along with other documents?
1. I did admit that I spent spare weekends and
holidays away from my second home. All of my weekends are "spare"
as Parliament does not sit at weekends. Therefore the statement
concurs with the evidence I have given you which states that I
spend week nights when Parliament is sitting at my constituency
home and weekends and recess at my main home.
2. My estimates changed because you were asking
me to be specific and I could not be so. I realised it was more
accurate to provide you with my pattern than attempt to identify
individual nights and then discover that I had got one wrong.
I was an opposition backbencher, not a minister. I depended on
and was hostage to the diaries of other family members to provide
you with the specifics you required which I realised was not absolute,
or appropriate.[236]
3. I did not have a constituency home in 2006.
From recollection, I believe I rented the house in April 2007
and then moved in a few months later once I had furniture, cooker
etc as I am sure my expenses show.[237]
4. You have my statement and my pattern of nights.
You have evidence from I believe a fair number of neighbours in
addition to my own. I have nothing else to add other than on occasion,
I randomly needed to go back home for domestic reasons, however,
I cannot accurately say when or how often that was.
[Neighbour 1]
[Neighbour 1] clearly states in his letter of 22nd
of January 2010 "Further
to a recent meeting with [name of reporter]
of the Daily Telegraph"
and again in his letter of 18th February
"when approached
by the Daily Telegraph". None of
the other letters I have seen from a witness states this.
If [neighbour 1] had not been approached by the Telegraph,
would he have written to you? He clearly states that he was approached
by the Telegraph,
not the other way around. So how do we know he wasn't paid by
the Telegraph?
Therefore, I believe the evidence of [neighbour 1]
to have been interfered with and influenced. Frankly, given the
Daily Telegraph
reporting of the expenses issue, it is impossible for him not
to have been, payment, direct influence, or not.
[Neighbour 1] also states in bold letters that he
does not want to be a witness. No other witness states this. I
believe that is because [neighbour 1] is comfortable with telling
[untruths] to you in a letter, but is afraid that he may formally
have to give such evidence and be challenged.
I am not going to respond in detail to his points
raised not least because [neighbour 1] had a row of trees in front
of the window to my house in order to deliberately obstruct the
view from his property into mine. The picture showing the window
behind a six foot thick hedge indicating that he could see through
is laughable. He has actually sent you a photograph of his lie.
Or is he admitting that he is some kind of perverse peeping Tom
who regularly literally, parted the hedges to look into my window.
His hedge is about three foot thick as his wife was did not want
anyone from my property being able to see into theirs and one
would assume, likewise.
In addition to this, I never used the dining room
other than very early in the morning, long before my neighbours
were up, or late at night when most are in bed.
The window he points to on the main road and describes
as [neighbour 1's] kitchen window has a large table in front of
it, they can only see who walks past their window as they can't
stand up to it.
How on earth could he possibly know where in the
house I slept?[238]
He did buy a house in France in 2008. To replace
the house he sold in 2007.
I am strongly opposed to the evidence of someone
who states that they do not want to be a witness and admits to
having been visited and approached by the Daily
Telegraph being considered.
I am aware that it is impossible for you to reasonably
believe [neighbour 1] and disregard the consistent information
provided by others and you may think I am over reacting to the
evidence sent by [neighbour 1], however, that is not the point.
I strongly object to lies being given any consideration whatsoever.
[Material redacted to protect the privacy of third
parties]
As an MP, all I have to offer my constituents on
whose behalf I work tirelessly when they come to see me about
serious issues is my reputation. It is everything. Nothing else
is as important.
If the evidence of [neighbour 1] is to be considered
and have any influence whatsoever on the outcome of this enquiry,
then I wish to explore my rights further with regard to the provision
laid down in the standing orders and the requirement for legal
presence during the committee hearing, the ability for me to make
my own presentation and for an MP who is not a committee member
to attend.
6 July 2010
236 Ms Dorries annotated this paragraph in manuscript
as follows: "I have said this so many times already!" Back
237
Ms Dorries annotated this paragraph in manuscript as follows:
"and this!" Back
238
Ms Dorries annotated this paragraph in manuscript as follows:
"The curtains were almost always drawn as I usually left
before it was light." Back
| 
