Response submitted by Mr John Maxton MP
The Election Campaign for the Scottish Parliament
The second allegation made against me is that during
the period of the above election campaign Mr Winslow worked such
long hours for the Labour Party that he could not have worked
Miss Filkin never defines exactly what she means
by the period of the election. Sometimes it is five weeks and
sometimes it is four or sometimes just the weeks leading up to
Clearly there appears to be more evidence to substantiate
this allegation although members should note that this is not
the allegation made by Mr Nelson but has been made by Miss Filkin
herself. However even here the evidence presented is second hand
and circumstantial. Three witnesses, Mr Rafferty, Mr Sullivan
and Mr Rowley all attest to the hours Mr Winslow worked but none
can, of course, state categorically that he was not working for
me at the same time.
Both Mr Winslow and I told the Commissioner that
Mr Winslow had 18 days holiday outstanding and as I knew he was
leaving my employment, I allowed him to take this time during
the election. If he used this holiday time to work in an election
campaign it was a matter for him not me but I would suggest it
is a matter for congratulations not condemnation.
Eighteen days is the equivalent of 3 weeks and three
days out of the four or five weeks of the election campaign. If
during the other one week and two days or two days (depending
on whether the campaign is defined as five weeks or four weeks)
of the campaign Mr Winslow did not work his full statutory hours
for me then I would have to plead guilty to not properly supervising
him during this time.
The Committee may ask why Miss Filkin has spent so
long and so much effort proving such a insignificant point.
So intent is Miss Filkin on proving my guilt that
she places considerable emphasis on the fact that neither Chris
Winslow nor myself produced any documentation to show that indeed
the holiday entitlement was given as above.
Firstly yet again she is asking me to prove my innocence
and doubting my word. Secondly if the members of the Committee
read all the correspondence between Miss Filkin, Chris Winslow
and myself they will find no request for such documentation or
any proof that I gave Mr Winslow permission to take his holidays
then. Thirdly given the evidence, as she must, the newspaper cuttings
provided by Dr Reid show that the media certainly believed that
all four left their employment in unusual circumstances. I would
suggest the Committee read these and come to there own conclusions.