Cannot ignore basic rules

Sir, – Could the proposals to deal with sexual harassment in the Westminster parliament lead to a breach of the laws of natural justice?

I see that former Conservative activist Kate Maltby feels that those accused should not be granted anonymity.

She raises an important point but I think if her view was to be accepted there is a potential for reputations to be destroyed unjustly.

We need to be clear about the vital distinction between ‘anonymity’ and ‘confidentiality’.

When someone makes a complaint he or she is entitled to an assurance that the complaint will be treated in confidence.

Everyone in the organisation is not necessarily and immediately entitled to a running commentary on what is going on.

Equally the person who is accused is entitled to the same level of discretion.

The person accused is surely entitled, however, to know who exactly is making the complaint if only to avoid confusion and embarrassment to others.

If the full facts are to be established it is not practical for the person making the complaint to remain anonymous.

The fact that Westminster has brought forward serious proposals to deal with harassment is welcome.

It is a complicated environment with a very considerable degree of interaction between members, staff, researchers, advisers, journalists and broadcasters.

The proposals could easily fall into disrepute if even one false allegation is made.

Sexual harassment may be a modern scourge but it should not be dealt with while ignoring some basic legal rules.

Bob Taylor.

24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.

The person accused is surely entitled to know who exactly is making the complaint if only to avoid confusion and embarrassment to others