Wray is 'welcome to her. ' Two men in the life of Labour MPs' lover launch damaging portrayal of 'high-spending manipulator'

They are her ex-husband, Mr Drew Walker, speaking for the first time about the couple's acrimonious divorce - and her only brother, Mr John Stewart, who has now gone public on a bitter family feud.

Mr Stewart is subject of an interim interdict which to all intents blocks access to his father, James, the figurehead of the law firm where his daughter manages day-to-day business.

That interdict has not prevented Mr Stewart from launching a damaging portrayal of his sister as an alleged high spen-der and manipulator of men.

It is a view shared by Mr Walker, who declared: ''She hurt me beyond belief . . . thank God I am no longer involved with her.''

Their comments will provoke concern within the Labour Party, rocked by two separate sets of sleaze allegations which question its stance on family values.

First, there was Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's affair, in which he left his wife for his secretary, Gaynor Regan.

Then Ms Walker hit the headlines when her lover, Glasgow Baillieston MP Jimmy Wray, was ordered by an industrial tribunal last month to pay more than #6000 to his estranged wife, Catherine, for unfair dismissal as his constituency secretary.

Following that hearing, Mr Wray and Ms Walker, who is pregnant, have been involved in public slanging matches with her.

Now Ms Walker's former husband and her brother have joined the fray - portraying the high-profile lawyer as someone who always gets her way - ''and her man''.

Both men insisted they had at heart the interests of the law firm where Mr Walker worked until sacked when the marriage broke up and where Mr Stewart's father now leaves day-to-day running to his daughter.

Mr Walker said he wanted the world to know his wife had accepted that the divorce grounds in 1996 were her adultery with another Labour stalwart, Edinburgh advocate Gordon Jackson, a married man, who last year tried to become the party's candidate in the Paisley South by-election. He also stressed her allegations of unreasonable behaviour, which he denied, were never tested - and the same thing happened over his claim for unfair dismissal, also settled outwith a tribunal hearing.

Mr Stewart said he only wanted the truth to come out concerning the Scottish legal establishment which appeared ''dead set against helping the man in the street''. His father has been granted an interim interdict against him on grounds which included harassment, defamation, and claims that his son threatened to push him down stairs or have him placed in an institution.

Mr Stewart claimed he cannot try to lift the interim interdict because of the cost and because he had lost faith in the legal system.

A complaint that his lawyer failed to advise him adequately in relation to lodging answers to his father's petition has been upheld by the Law Society but it did not consider any sanction should be made in respect of that failure.

Mr Stewart now faces threats from his sister that legal action for the recovery of a disputed #18,000 could follow his approach to The Herald.

Ms Walker has rejected every one of their allegations, putting them down to the actions of embittered men.

Although Ms Walker and Mr Wray very much want to be left in peace to get on with their new life together, their wish shows few signs of being granted in the forseeable future.

On Tuesday, Mr Wray announced he was demanding damages from a Sunday newspaper after it published claims by Mrs Wray that he beat her during their 12-year marriage.

In his washing of dirty linen in public, he told a nightmare tale of a loveless marriage and produced three affidavits to support his denials of violence.

His new partner sat in silence in the background, intent on every emotional word. She matched perfectly the recent descriptions as blonde, beautiful, accomplished, successful - a real nineties woman.

In addition, the attacks by Mr Walker and Mr Stewart are unlikely to allow the dust to settle on the acrimonious affair.

Mr Walker claimed ''history was repeating itself,'' pointing out that Mr Wray had left his wife for Ms Walker - who had originally left Mr Walker for another man with strong Labour Party connections.

Meanwhile, Mr Stewart, who is to all intents banned from seeing his father, suggested his sister was as ''power and money mad'' as she has portrayed Mrs Wray since the affair hit the headlines.

Ms Walker, 36, was equally scathing in turn - dismissing their remarks as those of ''two people who are simply angry with me, and would like to do me down in any way they see fit.''

She even volunteered a letter to her brother, dated December 30, which underlines just how low their relationship has sunk.

''Dear John,'' it opens . . . before declaring she wishes nothing further to do with him, and evoking memories of their mother, Sheila, who died in January 1995.

The letter continues: ''Given the sort of person you are, it is very easy for me to belittle you but I have tried to avoid this in previous correspondence out of respect for the memory of my mother. Mummy was well aware of your shortcomings but I would never have believed you capable of such wickedness and, were she still alive I am sure, like the rest of your family, she would have no further time for you.''

Her brother is currently embroiled in a series of complex legal wrangles covering the bitter family feud and the law firm L&L Lawrence, which is run by his sister with their father as figurehead. So is her ex-husband, with many complaints embracing the divorce proceedings and its aftermath.

Both are furious Ms Walker has emerged ''squeaky clean'' since the pay-out to Mr Wray's wife was ordered last month. Since that hearing, Mrs Wray has vilified her husband, alleging years of mental and physical abuse. Mr Wray denies such accusations, in turn portraying her as a woman embittered by the marriage break up.

Mr Stewart argues that his opinions of his sister had ''nothing to do with her love affairs, past or present, or the interim interdict against me''. Her ex-husband also stressed that any insights into his former wife must not be dismissed as those of a man seeking revenge for being abandoned.

They alleged her high-profile reputation as a caring person, in part based on supporting people with tobacco-related illnesses, did not appear to square with her treatment of the two men.

The men also produced an accountant's letter to Ms Walker which warned in 1995 that her private drawings could exceed profits.

The letter urged her to ''seriously consider severely curtailing your private expenditure in order that we are not faced with the situation where your drawings exceed the profit for the year - this is something I am sure your bankers would be very unhappy with.''

Ms Walker's response to The Herald was blunt: the letter was a legitimate document, to be lodged in court in a bid to reduce aliment she had to pay Mr Walker.

It was strong evidence the firm was unlikely to trade as well that year following the vagaries of business, including the loss of a major client. She stressed the firm's bankers continued to be happy with its performance.

Ms Walker said: ''They see that Jimmy makes me happy; see I am expecting a baby; see it as an opportunity to upset me and have a go. They must be rubbing their hands in glee over the way Jimmy has been painted. But Jimmy's name will be cleared.''

The lover . . .

AN unrepentant Laura Walker dismissed her ex-husband and her brother as ''two people who are simply angry with me, and would like to do me down in any way they see fit.''

She acknowledged the divorce was on grounds of her adultery, but argued that was merely to bring matters to a speedy end after she had cited unreasonable behaviour.

''His pet name for me was Little Shit,'' she claimed, adding that she had fallen out of love with Mr Walker in 1994 but had held on for the sake of her dying mother.

She claimed that her husband's salary had doubled on joining her law firm, and he had subsequently ''wanted blood - damages - for being let down by me.''

Ms Walker said her settlement terms were ''generous'' but legal fees had swallowed up much of the money he received.

She added her brother had constantly portrayed their father, wrongly, as mentally ill, and continued: ''We just want to run our lives without John.''

Ms Walker described the company's financial position in 1995 as ''a blip'', caused by the vagaries of business and the loss of some big clients.

In addition, she had been ''at wits' end'' over the death of her mother and the marriage break-up, while her father had reacted badly to the loss of his wife after a long illness.

Of the accountants' letter in 1995, urging her to reduce private expenditure, she said: ''My brother tries to use it as if it means I am trying to run father's practice into the ground.

''If it is not as successful as he would like it to be, then tough. We run things as appropriate - and we want to run our lives without John.''

She said her brother was unhappy and seemed to allege everyone was corrupt and trying to do him down regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Ms Walker said legal action to recover a disputed #18,000 had not been taken because her father was a wealthy man and did not want to drag the family name through the courts.

Nevertheless, she warned: ''If push came to shove, John could end up in court.''

The father . . .

WEALTHY James Stewart, 66, describes his only son as ''a very angry young man'' who became very upset on the death of his mother in January 1995.

In a precognition, he said his son blamed him for her death, despite the cause being lung cancer - and also revealed his own depression and upset.

Mr Stewart, now living with his daughter and MP Jimmy Wray, said the death of his mother in February 1994, followed by his wife less than a year later, had led him to seek ''solace in alcohol''.

Mr Stewart ridiculed his son's fears ''that I had lost my mind and could not handle my financial affairs''.

Although no longer actively involved in the law firm, that was a matter of his own choice ''as my daughter Laura is perfectly capable of running the day-to-day affairs of the practice . . . ''

In the precognition, drawn up on seeking interim interdict against his son, he produced a psychiatric report, and declared he scored higher in the tests than the doctor.

Last month, he told his son: ''I have no wish to see or hear from you.''

The ex-husband . . .

insurance claims adjuster Drew Walker returned from a holiday in Barbados in February 1995, with his wife of almost seven years, Glasgow lawyer Laura Walker . . . and began a fruitless battle to save the marriage.

Repercussions from their subsequent acrimonious divorce are still ongoing.

Grounds for the divorce were settled only at the eleventh hour out of court, when Ms Walker accepted they would cover her adultery with Edinburgh advocate Gordon Jackson, a married man with children.

Until then, says Mr Walker, he had fought accusations of unreasonable behaviour and says that ''needless battle'' has cost him tens of thousands of pounds.

He claims the might of the legal establishment was heaped on his shoulders during the run-up to settlement and stresses any allegations against him were never tested in court.

Mr Walker also lost his job with the law firm, where he had worked for about four years after being asked to join by his wife.

His claim for unfair dismissal was also settled out of court, again without allegations being tested at an industrial tribunal.

Mr Walker said any attempts by his ex-wife to ''muddy the waters'' were irrelevant: ''I was granted the divorce on grounds of her adultery, which was proved, and my application for unfair dismissal was never contested at a hearing.''

He continued: ''I am not bitter or twisted but when I see how she has been portrayed in recent weeks it is very upsetting. The stress I have been under since her affair with Gordon Jackson and then Jimmy Wray has been unbelievable. She caused it. She hurt me beyond belief.''

In particular, Mr Walker is furious that a business analysis - drawn up by chartered accountants to assist his counsel during divorce proceedings - had suggested her annual personal drawings amounted to about #200,000.

That coincided with advice to her from other accountants to ''seriously consider severely curtailing'' private expenditure.

The brother . . .

in a never-ending family feud, John Stewart has been banned from contacting his father.

The interim interdict was granted last year to Mr James Stewart, whose grounds included harassment and defamation.

The petition also alleged general threats had placed him in a state of alarm, including a threat to push him down stairs.

It was also claimed his son had tried to isolate him and minimise contact with his daughter; that his son demanded he make out a new will; and that his son had tried to appoint a curator to attend to his affairs regardless of him being of sound mind and not incapacitated.

Further allegations in the petition included forcing his father to undergo a medical examination against his will.

Mr Stewart, a 34-year-old self-employed actor, said he was not trying to get the interim interdict lifted because of his financial position and because he had lost faith in the legal system.

He has lodged a series of complaints with his legal representatives or the Law Society of Scotland but no grounds to pursue the issues he raised have been found.

He did have one success, in connection with the interim interdict. The Law Society's Complaints Committee agreed with his view a lawyer had failed to report and advise him adequately in relation to lodging answers to his father's petition.

It found that amounted ''to the provision of an inadequate professional service'' but the committee did not consider any sanction should be made.

Mr Stewart claimed he had been concerned only with his father's best interests.