Appendix 5:
Note of the Commissioner's meeting with Mr Clive Betts
Meeting on 21 May 2003
| Present: | Sir Philip Mawer, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
|
| Ms Alda Barry, Registrar of Members' Interests
|
| Mr Clive Betts MP |
| Mr Michael Napier, Mr Betts' solicitor.
|
The Commissioner explained that the purpose of the meeting was
to enable him to put questions to Mr Betts on the basis of his
account of events, in order to arrive at as true an understanding
of what had happened as possible. It was also to give Mr Betts
an opportunity to reflect on his draft response to the Commissioner's
letter of 19 March before formally submitting it.
It was necessary that the meeting be recorded; he and Ms Barry
would produce a note and send it to Mr Betts and Mr Napier for
comment. It would be possible to tape-record the meeting in order
to verify the accuracy of the note if Mr Betts were willing.
Mr Betts said that he would rather no tape recording was made.
The Commissioner's questions would be directed mainly towards
the two areas covered in Mr Betts's draft, but he might need,
for context, to go beyond them. Mr Betts should answer in his
own words, but Mr Napier might advise him, and add any comments
of his own. Anything either said would be noted and might be used
in producing the Commissioner's memorandum to the Committee on
Standards and Privileges. Mr Betts would be sent a draft of the
factual elements of that memorandum before it was finalised.
The Commissioner would need a signed copy of Mr Vincent's statement
and the address and other bona fides of the United International
College, whose tutor had provided the reference for Mr Gasparo
in respect of his employment in the House. (Mr Betts here clarified
that although the reference had been physically delivered to him
by Mr Gasparo because of e-mail problems, he had spoken to the
tutor on the phone and had confirmed the contents.)
The Commissioner said that in his letter of 19 March he had asked
Mr Betts when and where he had met Mr Gasparo and the nature of
their relationship. Mr Betts had not replied to this point. This
might be an area which would not need to feature in his report
but he would still like a reply as the information could help
him understand the context of and, perhaps, the motivation for
some of Mr Betts' actions.
Mr Betts said that in his draft reply, he had addressed the issue
that Mr Gasparo was a friend when he had employed him. At his
previous meeting, the Commissioner had said that he was interested
in the relationship between Mr Betts and Mr Gasparo as far only
as it impacted on Mr Betts' actions in his public capacity. The
Commissioner said that he needed fully to understand Mr Betts's
motives for the employment, and the context. He had understood
that the two had met at the club Villa Gianni and that they were
lovers. Mr Betts said that when he began to employ Mr Gasparo
they had a close friendship. He did not think the public interest
needed to know more. The money paid Mr Gasparo was a salary for
work done.
Mr Betts said that the Sun newspaper stories about him were contrary
to the public interest. The excuse that national security was
involved was spurious. He might wish to take action against the
Sun through the Press Complaints Commission. Mr Betts said it
would be unacceptable to argue that discussion of his private
life in the press was not in the public interest and outside the
PCC Code of Conduct, and yet by discussing these issues as part
of the Parliamentary investigation, the report of the investigation
could, if made public, appear in the press without contradicting
the Code. The public did not seem interested in the matter; he
had not, for example, been 'bombarded' with e-mails or letters
about it, and he had received many expressions of support.
The Commissioner said that Mr Betts had clearly explained the
situation in his office at the time of the offer of employment.
Mr Betts said it was even worse than he had suggested, as Ms McGovern
was new and even before the internship fell through the need for
more permanent help had been considered.
The Commissioner said that it appeared that, when the internship
fell through, Mr Betts had told Mr Gasparo. Who had suggested
that Mr Gasparo work for Mr Betts? Mr Betts said that he had mentioned
the failure of the internship to Mr Gasparo who had suggested
he could do the work and would be interested in the role. He had
believed that Mr Gasparo might be interested in the role. When
Mr Gasparo had suggested that he work for Mr Betts, Mr Betts had
said that there must be a proper interview, and made clear that
Mr Gasparo would neither get nor keep the job if he were not capable
of doing it properly.
The decision to employ Mr Gasparo had been based on the needs
of the office; Mr Betts was satisfied that Mr Gasparo was able
to do the job and that he had done it properly.
The Commissioner commented that paragraph 6 of Mr Betts's document
referred to Mr Gasparo's appointment ending on 14 February, while
paragraph 11 stated that Mr Gasparo had informed Mr Betts on 22
February that he did not wish to continue in the employment. Mr
Betts explained that Mr Gasparo had indeed phoned on 22; the Fees
Office were not informed immediately because Mr Betts was pre-occupied
with other issues surrounding his 'coming out', speaking to his
constituency party, agent, family and so on. As a consequence,
the Fees Office had paid Mr Gasparo on the assumption that he
would continue to work for Mr Betts throughout the month. (The
original agreement, to employ him for two weeks, had been extended
to end of March as indicated in paragraph 11 of the draft submission.)
On realising that there had been an overpayment, Mr Betts decided
to repay the Fees Office. He decided that the appropriate date
on which to end payment was Friday 14 February, the last day on
which Mr Gasparo had actually worked before the two went on holiday
together to Venice.
In answer to the Commissioner, Mr Betts said that the initiative
to end the employment had come from Mr Gasparo, in a telephone
conversation. The Commissioner commented that that accorded with
his impression that as the holiday unfolded there had been no
suggestion that the employment would cease. Mr Betts agreed that
that had only happened because of the events of the last afternoon
in Venice.
The Commissioner understood the practical reasons why Mr Betts
had applied for a pass for Mr Gasparo. In paragraph 6 of his submission,
Mr Betts said that originally the application form had been returned
because Mr Gasparo was not immediately able to provide all the
detailed information required, and the Commissioner asked if Mr
Betts could explain further. Mr Betts explained that the problem
was a technical one caused by Mr Gasparo's parents having a physical
address and also a post box one, living as they did in the country.
PM noted that Mr Betts had commented in paragraph 7 of his draft
response on the alleged threat to national security adduced by
the Sun, stating that there had been none since neither he nor
his office had access to any matters with national security implications.
He asked whether Mr Betts had had any reservations about applying
for a pass for Mr Gasparo in the light of his knowledge of his
personal history. Mr Betts said that he had had no reservations
on national security grounds.
The Commissioner asked if Mr Betts had known that Mr Gasparo was
still working as a male escort. Mr Betts said that from what he
knew he did not believe Mr Gasparo's employment to be a threat
to national security. The Commissioner suggested that the Sun
newspaper might counter that a potential security issue arose,
not because Mr Betts' office handled sensitive information but
because Mr Gasparo had a certain track record and could exploit
his position as a pass-holder, for instance to gain information
about or to embarrass others. Therefore the decision to employ
him exposed people in the Palace of Westminster to risk, because
of the access he enjoyed. Mr Betts said that he did not believe
this to be the case because if there was any such risk that side
would be dealt with by the security check. He did not know about
other people's private life.
The Commissioner said that nonetheless Mr Betts did know at least
that Mr Gasparo had been an escort. Mr Betts said that he did
not at the time, and still did not believe that there was a security
risk.
The Commissioner asked if Mr Betts had known when employing Mr
Gasparo that he was still working as an escort. Mr Betts said
that Mr Gasparo was his friend. He did not know anything about
the rest of his life or about his other friends. He pointed out
that Mr Gasparo had been paid enough for his story by the Sun
to buy a house (where, he did not know). He did not know where
Mr Gasparo currently was; there was a possibility he was in the
UK. Mr Gasparo had tried to contact Mr Betts a few times—once
by telephone, once through e-mail and once through a friend—and
in the telephone call he had indicated that he was out of the
country. Mr Betts was not responding to these approaches.
The visa application
The Commissioner indicated that he understood that Mr Gasparo
was a Brazilian national; that he was entitled to apply for a
visa on entry; that he had held a student visa; that he was therefore
allowed to work for 20 hours a week; and that the visa had been
due to run out on 19 February. He asked if it was the case that
Mr Betts had made inquiries about the documentation necessary
for Mr Gasparo to acquire a new visa. Mr Betts said that he had
asked Stephen Vincent to enquire about the issue of paying the
registration fee rather than the full tuition fee, as Mr Gasparo
had asked him for information on this point a couple of days before
they went on holiday. He had not held any detailed discussions
with Mr Gasparo about the visa; Mr Gasparo had been dealing with
that while he organised the holiday.
Mr Betts had looked at courses with Mr Gasparo. Mr Gasparo had
asked about the payment of fees up-front and Mr Betts had agreed
to ask Stephen Vincent about the matter. Mr Vincent had made some
inquiries of a non-specific nature. Mr Vincent had then asked
him if Mr Gasparo had the necessary bank statements etc and he
had said he did not know. Mr Vincent had told him to tell Mr Gasparo
that he would need a bank statement and other supporting documents.
In the end Mr Gasparo had not been in possession of these so that
from the point at which his visa ran out he was not going to be
given a new one until he obtained them. Mr Betts had lately discovered
that the rules were different between first-time applicants and
people applying for a new visa, as the latter were regarded as
being in a position to have opened a British bank account and
therefore to be able to produce statements.
The Commissioner said that he understood that Mr Betts had paid
money into Mr Gasparo's bank account. Was this so that the bank
statement would show funds? Mr Betts said that it was not, and
in any case would have been too late to do so; The bank statements
required would also need to show funds over a three month period.
He had paid £4,000 as a loan to cover the course fees (enough
to cover the cost of a more expensive course which had been a
possibility). He had not seen that money again and would not do
so, though a friend who had overseen the transfer of personal
possessions between the two men had said that Mr Gasparo admitted
the debt and would pay it. The Commissioner said that he had asked
about the money because the Sun had described a bank statement
showing another payment of £1,000. Mr Betts said that it
had not been from him.
The Commissioner noted that a fax was expected at the hotel in
Venice and asked who had requested it. Mr Betts said that Mr Gasparo
had done so, telephoning from the hotel; he had had to wait until
that point because he did not know earlier which hotel they would
be in. It was a fax copy from the college of a document which
had been sent by them to Mr Gasparo's home.
Mr Betts explained that, after a most enjoyable holiday, the two
had returned to the hotel on the last afternoon to find press
photographers waiting. That was the first intimation he had of
press interest, though some people in a bar had previously shown
some interest in the pair and might, with hindsight, have been
journalists.
Once in the hotel, it had proved necessary to contact the college
again (there had been problems receiving the fax). Mr Gasparo
had become very excited, and had rushed off to an internet shop
to try to expedite matters when the fax arrived at the hotel.
It had contained the sentence at the end saying that it was necessary
to have a certificate of enrolment, which would be issued following
payment of the full course fee, before a visa would be issued.
This had seriously upset Mr Gasparo. Mr Betts had told him that
the words made no difference and the entry clearance officer would
make up their own mind on the basis of the facts not on the college's
opinion. In the end he thought he had persuaded Mr Gasparo of
his point of view. He did not tell him that he thought the fax
would not help anyway because it was not an original document,
as he thought it would make the situation worse.
At the time, Mr Betts—who was simultaneously trying to contact
his whips, his agent and Mr Napier and was worried about whether
the two men would manage to catch their return flight—regarded
the fax as a minor problem. The situation had been very tense.
Mr Gasparo had rushed out after the photographers. Mr Betts suffered
from a post-viral medical condition, exacerbated by stress, and
by this time felt an attack coming on. Walking to the ferry which
would take them to the airport, Mr Gasparo had stopped at a stationer
to buy some Tippex, with which he amended the document to remove
the offending sentence. He then tried to go to a copying shop
to have a photocopy made, but Mr Betts, increasingly worried about
the flight, was afraid that if Mr Gasparo went off he would get
lost and so had made a copy himself.
The reason he had made the copy himself was that he trusted himself
more than Mr Gasparo, and wished to get a grip of the situation.
He had returned the altered original to Mr Gasparo, since it was
his document, and retained the copy. Mr Betts could have walked
away from Mr Gasparo in Venice but he had felt that this would
not be the action of a friend. He added, in parentheses, that
in the last few weeks he had learned the value of friendship.
At the airport Mr Betts thought that he had persuaded Mr Gasparo
not to use the altered document and to rely instead on the fact
that his current course did not finish until March 7 and he had
a letter with him to that effect, to regain entry into the UK.
Somehow Mr Gasparo had got hold of a photocopy of the altered
letter, (either by taking it from Mr Betts' bag without his permission
or by obtaining another copy at the airport business centre) which
he had produced to the immigration officer when they had arrived
back at Stansted.
At this point Mr Betts said that he had deliberately tried not
to be too graphic in his memorandum because he was aware that
it might be published and he could not take a battering from the
press again about the circumstances of that final day in Venice,
which had been traumatic.
The Commissioner summed up. The fax had arrived on the final day
of the holiday and in a situation where there were press photographers
outside the hotel. Mr Gasparo was already distraught, and became
more so on seeing that the fax contained a particular sentence
which Mr Betts thought was in any case inaccurate and irrelevant.
Mr Betts was pre-occupied, ill and under strain. On the way to
the ferry, Mr Gasparo had bought Tippex and removed the final
sentence of the document. He was about to go and get a copy of
the letter, but in desperation Mr Betts did so himself, keeping
the copy and returning the original to Mr Gasparo, and telling
him not to rely on it but to use the letter from the college that
he was already attending. At the airport they had had a conversation
about not relying on the document. Nonetheless, at Stansted Mr
Gasparo had produced a copy of the amended letter contrary to
Mr Betts specific request not to do so. Mr Betts confirmed that
this was an accurate summary of what had happened.
Mr Betts said that he had been worried about what Mr Gasparo might
do at immigration control, so he had gone through the non-EU passport
lane behind Mr Gasparo.
The Commissioner asked if Mr Betts had participated in the conversation
with the immigration officer. Mr Betts replied that he had done
so. It had been accepted that Mr Gasparo needed a new visa and
the immigration officer had asked some standard questions, asking
him if he had a bank statement and a letter from his parents saying
that they would support him. Mr Gasparo had then produced a copy
of the altered letter. The immigration officer had then said either
'Is this the original?' or 'This is not the original is it?' Mr
Betts had said that it was not, it was a copy of a fax (this was
to explain that an alteration had been made). He had explained
that the original, which had gone to Mr Gasparo's home, had contained
the comment about paying the full fee. Either in the course, or
at the end, of Mr Betts's explanation the immigration officer
had said 'This is all irrelevant' and that Mr Gasparo would not
be given a new visa in the absence of the necessary documentation.
She had given Mr Gasparo an extension of his existing visa on
the basis of his existing course until the new course began, and
had also given him a list of documents to produce at Stansted
or London when pursuing the matter of a new visa.
Mr Betts had never told the immigration officer that he was an
MP, but had represented himself throughout as a friend of Mr Gasparo's.
The Commissioner asked why Mr Betts thought the sentence in the
letter was at odds with Mr Vincent's advice. Mr Betts said Mr
Vincent's advice had been that it was possible to get a visa on
the basis of the registration fee alone, and other documents.
He added that not all colleges demanded a registration fee. He
thought that the documents could be read as not being incompatible.
Mr Betts said that he and Mr Gasparo thought that the college's
document was both irrelevant and inaccurate. Mr Gasparo had been
concerned that a decision on the visa would be made on the basis
of it. Mr Betts believed that the entry clearance officer would
make a judgements on the facts, not on opinions and that because
Mr Gasparo had no bank statements and no original letter he would
not be issued with a new visa related to this course anyway.
The Commissioner asked how the relationship had ended, and Mr
Betts said that it had been ended by the article in the Sun.
The Commissioner asked if Mr Betts knew Mr Gasparo's current address,
but Mr Betts did not know it.
The Commissioner asked if there was anything else Mr Betts wanted
to say.
Mr Betts said that he was sure that he had acted properly in respect
of the employment of Mr Gasparo, and had broken no rules of the
House and caused no security risk. The matter of the visa was
more personal, but he had acted throughout as a friend, and in
Venice he had been in an impossible position. He had tried to
stop Mr Gasparo acting as he did and felt he had potentially prevented
him from attempting to mislead the immigration officer, as a friend
should. The Sun had been concerned with 'outing' him; the 'national
security' argument had merely been used to justify their doing
so. He believed that many people realised this and he had received
a lot of support.
Mr Napier said that he had no difficulty with any of the interview.
Mr Betts had told his story in his own words.
The Commissioner explained what would happen next. He had been
waiting for Mr Betts' document, of which he now had a draft. He
might need to cross-check some points in Mr Betts' account of
events. He would, as he had said, like a signed statement from
Mr Vincent and some documentation about UIC, and Mr Betts's comments
on the note of the meeting of 3 March.[6]
He needed an agreed record of that conversation, though he was
unclear if it would be necessary to use it or any part of it.
He would then prepare a memorandum for the Committee; the story
had received much public attention and it was necessary to set
matters out clearly, and fairly to Mr Betts. Mr Betts would be
sent the factual parts of the report in draft to comment on, and
to say if he disagreed on any matters of fact. After receiving
the draft, Mr Betts might come and see him again, or let him have
comments in writing. Thereafter, the Commissioner would complete
and submit his report, and matters would be in the hands of the
Committee.
Mr Napier asked about the status of the meeting of 3 March. The
Commissioner had said that his role at that meeting was advisory
because he had received no complaint at the time. The arrival
of the complaint seemed to have turned the note of the meeting
into something which might be used when the Commissioner reported
on the complaint to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Was
this correct?
The Commissioner said that when a complaint was received, any
documentation relating to the matter in question might be relevant.
He could not at present exclude all possible need to use the note
of that conversation, and did not want the record to contain any
inaccuracies as a result of him having a recollection of the meeting
that Mr Betts disputed.
Mr Napier wondered whether the Commissioner would be open to discussion
about whether he should or should not rely on anything in the
document.
The Commissioner said that he was always willing to hear argument
and always shared drafts of his factual statement with the Member
concerned.
Mr Napier raised the possibility that the draft would contain
references to matters touched on in the Commissioner's first two
questions to Mr Betts, which he and Mr Betts felt were not relevant
to the Commissioner's remit because they related to Mr Bett's
'purely private life', such as where Mr Betts and Mr Gasparo had
first met. He might need to advise Mr Betts not only as to inaccuracies
in the document but as to whether any matter was not relevant
to the Code of Conduct.
The Commissioner said that he was inviting Mr Betts and Mr Napier
to let him know of any inaccuracy in the 3 March record. The other
questions could be confronted when there was a draft memorandum.
The question of whether there was anything inappropriate or outside
the Commissioner's remit could be raised at that stage. He had
no wish to step outside his brief. It was left that Mr Betts and
Mr Napier would provide their comments as to the accuracy of the
note of the 3 March meeting. Any other questions could be addressed
if this proved necessary in the context of the preparation of
the Commissioner's memorandum to the Committee.
The Commissioner concluded the meeting by thanking Mr Betts for
his willingness to address again issues which all concerned recognised
must be difficult, not to say painful for him.
This note was agreed by the Commissioner with Mr Betts on 27
May 2003
6 Not appended to the Commissioner's memorandum. Back
| 
