Dear Mr. Williams. 23rd September, 1966.
I note with ¢yrprise that the Report of the NEC to Conference does not appear to contain any reference at all to the disciplinary exertions of the Organisation sub-committee in Nottingham. Since these are highly controversial having resulted in the unconstitutional deprivation of rights of three members of the Party, and in the upholding, in flat defiance of the constitution, of my own expulsion, numbrous affiliated bodies of the party have assured me that they wish to secure a full discussion upon them at Conference. Can you kindly advise me as to the reasons for the failure of the Report to mention matters of such importance, and as to whether some supplimentary document may be submitted for the information of Conference at a later date? I should be grateful if you would also assist me by forwarding my formal request to Conference that I should be given a hearing on these matters. The rights of membership in the Party are gravely threatened by the implications of the treatment I have received at the hands of the Organisation Sub-Committee, and I wish to appeal to Conference to hear my version of events before it finally decides whether or not to sanction the N EC's decision to uphold my expulsion. I shall be in attendance throughout Conference, and respectfully place myself at the disposal of delegates.
Ken Coates. Dear Mr. Coates 27th September, 1966.
The General Secretary has referred your letter of 23rd September, 1966 to me as the officer responsible for dealing with correspondence relating to disciplinary matters. In regard to your own expulsion I have to point out that you were expelled by the General Committee of the Nottingham West Constituency Labour Party on 9th November, 1965, under Clause XV section (3) of its rules, and you exercised your right of appeal under this rule which reads as follows: 'Tt shall be the duty of the General Committee of this Party on the advice of the Executive Committee of this Party to take all the necessary steps to safeguard the Constitution, programme, principles, and policy of the Labour Party within the Constituency. Where action is taken under this Clause involving the punishment or expulsion of any organisation or individual or the exclusion of any organisation of individual from membership, such organisation or individual shall have the right of appeal against the punishment, expulsion or exclusion ® the National Executive Committee which Committee shall have power to confirm, vary, or reverse the action taken by the General Committee.' You will note that this rule gives the National Executive Committee power to make a decision on an appeal of this kind and that it is not required by the rules or Constitution of the Party to report its decision to the Annual Party Conference. Your letter will, however, be placed before the National Executive Committee when it meets on Friday next, 30th September, 1966.
sarah Barker, Dear Mr. Williams. 28th September, 1966.
To-day I reéeived from Miss Barker a reply to my letter of 23rd September which I addressed to you. Her repby raises a number of important matters, and I would be grateful if you would draw these to the attention of the NEC. It would be contrary to the principles of natural justice to rule that the NEC's decision to uphold my expulsion is not a matter for which it is accountable to Conference. Once the NEC upheld the West Nottingham action, it became an action of the N.E.C. This action should be reported to Conference, like any other disciplinary decision. More important, I should be allowed to contest it before
Conference, in exactly the same way as any other punished. person should have the right to appeal against his punishment. It does not make the slightest difference who initiated the action which was taken against me: once the NEC stepped in to uphold it, the force of that body was placed behind the decision. To argue otherwise would be to say that I had the right to join any other Constituency Labour Party than the West Nottingham one. Is that what you are saying? If you are, then I will avail myself of the opportunity, since a number of Party organisations have indicated to me that they are willing to accept me into memb~ ership. But I think you do not argue from this position. If your decision means anything, it means that you endorse the decision of West Nottingham to exclude me, which in turn extends that exclusion to cover the whole territory over which you hold sway. I _wish to_add_ that even if you rule that I can join another CLP, I still wish tc to: 9 Conference against your decision to up-
rlslohy because that expulsion was wrongful, unconstitutional and naiging to my reputation. A cardinal principle of democratic justice anywhere is thet the judiciary should be separate from the executive. I have constantly maintained this principle throughout this case: -and I only submitted to a hearing by an executive functionary because I understood that in the event of biased judgrest being given I should have the right of Appeal to Conference. This is certainly the impression given to all delegates to last years! conference, when instead of discussing the motion of an Appeals Tribuanl, Conference was guided by its chairman into an elaborate dissection of the Dow case. If I have no right to appeal to Conference, then I will never have been judged by persons indepen-~ ‘ dent of the executive. This is a crucial matter and its implications go far beyond my own involvement in it.
‘
~ *%
I consider that it is extremely unlikely that the NEC would have upheld my expulsion if it had received an objective account of the case. Since according to the very rule which Miss Barker's letter of the 27th September quotes, the expulsion was completely unconstitutional, the NEC has become involved in the sanctioning of unconstitutional behavious. My expulsion was never discussed, according clause XV section 3, by the constituency executive. This fact can be confirmed by reference to the minutes of that body, as can the fact that for all other purposes the executive worked normally. Where, if not at Conference, can this matter be adjudicated impartially? I submit that it is in the interest of the NEC, no less than that of the Party as a whole, that theaffair be properly ventilated there. I would point out that if you agree to allow me to appear before Conference, I would appreciate sight of two documents, in accordance with the promise made by the NEC and passed to me by Miss Barker in her letter of 3lst January, 1966. (The NEC have agreed that you shall have sight of any document which is submitted concerning your expulsion.....) In flat breach of this promise I have never béen shown the complaint sheet of the Nottingham Aldermen against me, or Miss Barker's own Report on the investigation. Naturally If I am to conduct an effective defence before Conference, I need these papers.
eo 2 © @
It is also necessary to point out that there was, conjoined with and to the disadvantage of my appeal to the NEC, an investigation into the affairs of the Nottingham City Party. This investigation met all one weekend, and used as a pretext to confine my own hearing to the evening of the preceding Friday from 6.30 pm until 2.30 a.m. As a result many of my witnesses were prevented from testifying As the constitutionally elected President of the Nottingham Party, I was present at this enquiry. The outcome was that the NEC took novel disciplinary sanctions against three members, at the same time as it upheld my expulsion, None of these matters figure in your Report, All of them, it seems to me, should become the property of Conference, Although I raised this problem in my letter of the 23rd September, Miss Barker's reply ignores it,