|
|
The Office of the 16A The Lyons,
Leader of The opposition, Hetton-le-Hole,
Mr A. Blair M.P. Tyne-Wear,
House of Commons, DH5 OHT.
London SW1A 0AA
July 24 1995
Dear Mr Blair,
Further to my letter to you of May 9 1995, I again find it necessary to write to you.
You will find enclosed a copy of a letter dated July 13 1995 recently received from the Office Of The Solicitor, written by the Head of the Litigation Branch, Mr C.G. Blake. You will also find enclosed a copy of my reply to him. I intend to pursue this matter fully as I firmly believe that the letter is an attempt at intimidation to suppress my rights as a member of the Public.
The contents of my reply summarises the situation. I am able to detail what has taken place so far in my dealings with the DSS, and keep copies of my letters to and from them.
In your reply to my letter of May 9 you point out that there is a strict rule in Parliament which prevents you from intervening in matters concerning another MP's constituent. I do understand this. However there are now circumstances in which I believe that any further approach to our constituency MP Mr Roland Boyes will be of little use. Mr Boyes expressed his reluctance early this year to pursue the complaints that I reported to him. At our last meeting, a heated argument took place between us. At that time it was apparent to me that he did possibly have a memory problem.
Since that time, as a Labour member of the local Town Council, I have learned that Mr Boyes has said that he does not intend to return to The House of Commons unless there is crucial voting to take place. An interview on local television relating to Mr Boyes medical condition has already taken place. It may well be that this medical condition was the reason why Mr Boyes expressed his reluctance to pursue matters. I was of the opinion then that Mr Boyes appeared to be very tired, and did not appear to be in good health. I understand that Mr Boyes intends to stand down as Member of Parliament at the next General Election.
I hope that you will understand that if I believed Mr Boyes was fully capable of pursuing my complaints, and was willing to do so, I would have no hesitation in requesting him to do so. Over the years, I have had cause to contact Mr Boyes on several occasions relative to my problems with members of the Freemasons. In the twenty five page enclosure that I supplied to you, along with the letter of May 9, I covered a number of problems that I have experienced, and continue to experience. I can understand Mr Boyes reluctance to become involved in such a large number of issues that I have raised with him. As he said to me earlier this year, he has many other constituents affairs to attend to. In Mr Boyes present medical condition, I believe that it would be unfair to press him with yet another subject of my concern.
There is no way that I can accept the contents of Mr Blake's letter of July 13 1995. That the DSS has involved itself, at least to the extent that I report, is undeniable. Their employee, Miss Shirley Carr, said to be a National Insurance Inspector, has been helped by her employer, and continues to be helped by her employer in what they admit is a private dispute. I was very concerned when the documentation that I supplied to the DHSS Fraud Section ended in Miss Carr's hands for use in her private action against me. Later, to have read in a written submission to the court, by a man who presently lives with Miss Carr alleging that Miss Carr's Welfare Officer had told her that I had been tapping her telephone, is of course a very serious statement to have been made. For the DSS Welfare Officer not to confirm or deny the allegation has not helped the situation.
The log I supplied to the DHSS Fraud Section Officers, at their request, on November 17 1993 did contain the times when either
Miss Carr was returning, or remaining at home, when it was reasonable to presume that she might normally, at those times, be at her employment.
Contrary to what Mr Blake seems to allege in his letter of July 13, no doubt for the benefit of Miss Carr, my concern at Miss Carr's movements began long before the damage to our property was sustained. The date of the log that was originally given to the DHSS Fraud Section will confirm this. At the time that I started to note my observations of Miss Carr returning home, or remaining at home at the times that she did, and for the most part has continued to do so, there had been other problems that we had with Miss Carr. After her purchase of fourteen acres of land adjoining the boundary of our homes, Miss Carr sited a residential type caravan next to our boundary and commenced to live with a Mr Thomas McCabe who had jointly purchased the land with her. Miss Carr did require Planning Approval to do this. It has now been confirmed that she did not apply for it. She lived in this caravan for around two years. There were no drains or approved means of refuse disposal on the site where the caravan was situated. She had built stables, pig sty's, hen houses, and barns within feet of the boundary of our garden. She told us that Planning Approval was not required to do this. As a result of the latter, and because of the livestock that she kept, we commenced to have very serious problems with rodents. Our garden and that of our other neighbour were also being destroyed by Miss Carr's free ranging hens. Miss Carr would do nothing to stem our problems that she caused. Even our vegetable garden was continually destroyed by rats digging up root crops, or chewing at the tops of them, that was if Miss Carr's hens had not been able to scratch out the seeds that we planted. We are no longer able to grow vegetables because of the problems that Miss Carr has helped introduce to the area. The burning of old bedding and hay has further added to our problems. Heaps of manure near our properties have meant that the enjoyment of our property has turned to one of hell. I have just learned that Miss Carr did require Planning Approval to erect the buildings that she has. It has been confirmed by Sunderland Planning Authority that Miss Carr made no Planning Application concerning the buildings that she had erected. As the buildings were erected in 1988, the Planning Authority say that they cannot act because the buildings have not been erected within the last four years.
The Sunderland Authority have also just confirmed that Miss Carr did require to apply for building approval to replace her property roof in November 1993. The difference in weight of its cladding and construction, part of it being a lean-to construction against a party wall between our properties. This was split in the roofing operation, and now leans in the direction of our property, threatening to collapse through our kitchen roof. The Sunderland Building Control have verified that Miss Carr made no application for this either. They say that although they acknowledge there may be a physical danger to myself and my family, they cannot act unless it constitutes a danger to the public in general.
When Miss Carr and ourselves were on good terms, it was very apparent that she appeared to be able to dictate the times that she spent at work. Her fourteen acres of land and livestock obviously require a lot of attention, and what is said to be her full time occupation as National Insurance Inspector, has meant that she has been required to be at home, as I have observed, to instruct others to carry out work for her.
My motivation to recently report Miss Carr's movements with reference to the week commencing June 19 1995 have been the first that I can remember since the DSS were in receipt of the log that I had supplied to the DHSS Fraud Section in November 1993. I have continued to log the times that Miss Carr is known to be at home, or returns home when I have reasonable reason to believe that she should not be doing so. The log that I now have, is therefore much larger than the log of which the DSS are in receipt. Though quite large now, the log certainly cannot fully detail all the times that Miss Carr is at home, or returns home, as we ourselves are often not at home when Miss Carr returns, or for other reasons have not been aware that Miss Carr is at home, or has arrived back to it.
Though I have been tempted on occasions, to supply the DSS Contributions Area Agency Manager Mr Tebay with an up to date log on Miss Carr's movements that I reasonably believe might be in breach of her employment conditions, his actions in the past lead me to believe that even if Miss Carr is doing wrong, he will not act to stop it, indeed I believe there is little doubt that all he has done is to inform Miss Carr that I have been noting her movements relative to the times that she returns home from her work. If this is all that Mr Tebay is doing, then this cannot be acting in the best public interest. It is I think a very reasonable assumption, that if Miss Carr should be at home, or returning home at the times that I have stated, then this will cause no problems for the Agency? Miss Carr is normally at home, or busy with her horses etc on weekends. Time at home during the week is not being made up for by weekend working, from what has been observed. Further, it is believed that Miss Carr's area of work is in the Newcastle Area. Travelling from Newcastle to Hetton-le-Hole, even when the traffic situation is quite good, normally takes no less than thirty minutes.
I have talked to other Civil Servants in recent months, and from what I have been told, there are indications that there may well be a very large problem of some Civil Servants being able, almost at will, to dictate the times that they are at home, yet, are still considered in full time employment. At one time I was told of senior members of staff at Sunderland Civic Centre regularly visiting the Masonic Hall which is a stones throw away from the Civic Centre, on Friday afternoons for meetings. This information was given to me by a man who is now in a senior position himself in Local Government. I am told that since Mr Chris Mullin's findings relative to the Masonic membership of staff at Sunderland Civic Centre, these meetings have now stopped.
Since I have became a Hetton Town Councillor, I have learned of the true extent of Government cutbacks. I feel sure that some of these cutbacks are resulting in possible serious threats to life in certain spheres. If the overall management of the Civil Service is lapse, so as to allow what I have reason to be taking place with reference to the actual hours that some employees apparently spend at work, yet claim to be in full time employment, and probably paid as such, there has to be a very large question mark placed over this matter. The Civil Service place a heavy burden upon the public purse.
From Mr Blake's letter of July 13 1995 to me, I can only conclude that I am not allowed to report observations that are of reasonable concern to me. I request your opinions on this matter. The times that I have recently reported Miss Carr to be at home, or returning home, have not been dreamt up. The times that I have recently given to Mr Tebay's office relative to the week commencing June 19 were correct. The times that were quoted in the log were also correct. The times that I have noted in the additional, and up to date log are also correct. I suggest that there is no great cause for concern by the Agency from what I have seen and noted. I would suggest that only a full and detailed inquiry into what I report is the only way forward.
To conclude my request for help from you, It has been publicised that The Nolan Committee are to investigate Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary. In the documentation that I enclosed with my letter to you of May 9, you will have seen that I have expressed my concerns and experiences relative to this subject. I would wish to forward on to the Nolan Committee the statements and documentation that I have at hand. These may be of no use to the enquiries that might be made, yet, I would still wish to supply the information that I have to the Committee. I would enquire from you where I might send the material that I have, so that it might arrive before the Nolan Committee for their possible consideration.
I hope that in the circumstances, you realise why I have made no further approach to Mr Roland Boyes. There surely is a way that might be found in these circumstances why the matter might be handled by someone else. I have no wish to make Mr Boyes medical condition a issue outside of the Party. I am determined that what I believe Mr Blake is attempting to do, will not be allowed under any circumstances. At present my feelings on this subject, are that I should communicate the facts of this matter to the Public media. Before I give this further consideration, I will await your reply, and possibly views on what Mr Blake has written to me, and what I have reported to you. I can only hope that the Public media might not be the way ahead at this time. My other considerations were to make an approach to Downing Street or Mr Peter Lilley, but in the past these approaches have done nothing to help.
Yours sincerely
Mr M Kellett
----------------------------------------------------------------
Any E-mail please to: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk