Appendix 2: Letter to the Second Clerk
from Nadine Dorries, 18 October 2010
Re Letter to the Standards and Privileges Committee
Having read the conclusions of the report produced
by the Standards Commissioner, Mr John Lyon, I would like to make
the following comments.
1. Although the substantive complaint was not
upheld, during the course of his inquiry the Commissioner identified
in para 175 an administrative breach. He has described this breach
as not serious; however, it is a breach. At the time I was in
the midst of dealing with a number of very serious personal issues.
My prime concern at this time was the management of my case load
and maintaining my constituency and Parliamentary duties. I regret
that certain elements of paperwork did not receive due attention
and I would like to wholeheartedly and most sincerely apologise
for this breach of House rules.
2. With regard to the Commissioner's overall
conclusion I would like to raise the following points;
a) In Para 162 the Commissioner concludes with
the words 'It was (and apparently still is) …. I would like
to request that these words are removed. Where I live now has
no relevance to the inquiry and the word 'apparently' suggests
doubt. Of which there is none.
b) I would also like to take issue with para
166 and 176 in which the Commissioner states that it has taken
far too long to draw together the evidence and suggest that procrastination
on my part may be the reason. I would like to request that both
be removed. The Standard's Commissioner did not ask for information
regarding a neighbour at my main home location until a considerable
time l into the inquiry. I was incredibly frustrated at the length
the inquiry took and can only emphasise that as a member undergoing
an inquiry, fifteen months is much too long a time period to sustain
without personal ill effect. I did inform the Standards Commissioner
some three months ago that I was going to raise with the Committee
my concern that this inquiry had taken so long, however, it appears
many inquiries take this length of time.
c) I would also like to take issue with the comment
made in para 167 which is strongly worded and incorrect.
Many thanks
| 
