13. Written statement by Dr Vanessa
Gearson, 16 October 2003
[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9]
In the matter of the investigation into the employment
of Betsy Duncan Smith
Introduction
It is with great reluctance that I find myself having
to set out the following facts, as I understand them, after what
has been an extraordinarily difficult period in my professional
life. I set out in this document everything I can recall to be
relevant to the remit of your investigation in the interests of
openness and transparency.
From the time I assumed the role of Head of the Office
of the Leader of the Opposition in August 2002 my primary concern
was to impose an effective, professional and transparent organisation
and structure on the Leader's Private Office that would serve
his needs, while meeting the rules set out by the House of Commons
Fees Office and the internal audit requirements set by Conservative
Central Office (CCO). In an attempt to promote greater vigilance
and respect for budgetary procedures, financial control and the
requirements for financial record keeping within the Leader's
Office, I repeatedly sought to raise these and other matters with
the Leader through his Parliamentary Private Secretary and subsequently,
the Chairman of the Conservative Party, the Chief Executive, the
Deputy Chief Executive and the Treasurer of the Conservative Party.
My job was to protect the Leader.
Relevance of Submission
The relevance of my submission is based on the following
facts:
· I
was Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition from August
2002 to September 2003.
· The
political and parliamentary offices of Mr Duncan Smith were, by
necessity, entirely integrated. As Head of the Office of the Leader
of the Opposition I was in a unique and pivotal position in overseeing
the work carried out in both offices.
· I worked
in very close physical proximity to those working directly for
Mr Duncan Smith in a parliamentary capacity and was therefore
able to observe at very close quarter exactly what work was carried
out on behalf of Mr Duncan Smith as the MP for Chingford and Woodford
Green on a day to day basis.
· My experience
over five years of running both MPs' constituency/parliamentary
offices and the political offices of the Chairman and Leader of
the Conservative Party gives me a very unique insight and understanding
of the requirements of these offices.
· I am
well informed on the regulations stipulated by the House of Commons
Fees Office regarding Members' allowances.
· My statement,
insofar as it relates to Mrs Duncan Smith's employment, is centred
on the period of August 2002 to the end of December 2002.
· I have
not visited Swanboume, the home of Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith.I was
not responsible for submissions to the House of Commons Fees Office
relating to Mrs Duncan Smith's employment.
Key Conclusion
In the context of this background and the information
I submit below, it was my conclusion that the press allegations
made regarding the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith were significantly
more likely to be true than not. It was on that basis that I reluctantly
had to express myself unwilling to support Mr Duncan Smith's contention
that his wife had worked for him in a significant capacity during
the time I spent as head of his office. If she had, I would certainly
expect to have witnessed evidence of this work and for there to
have been practical implications associated with it. I would also
have expected to have had direct contact with her myself.
I do not contend that Mrs Duncan Smith could not
have worked for Mr Duncan Smith during this period but rather
that I saw absolutely no evidence of the work carried out by Mrs
Duncan Smith and cannot establish, by analysing the distribution
of tasks and responsibilities within the two offices, what work
she was effectively carrying out.
The four key tasks as I see them are as follows:
· The
Diary—I saw no evidence of Mrs Duncan Smith performing a
professional role regarding the diary.
· Correspondence—I
saw no evidence that Mrs Duncan Smith wrote any letters on Mr
Duncan Smith's behalf
· Financial
Arrangements—I saw no evidence that Mrs Duncan Smith took
any responsibility in this regard.
· Practical
Considerations—I saw no evidence of Mrs Duncan Smith requesting
office supplies that she would have reasonably needed in order
to have carried out such a role.
I shall discuss each of these issues below.
In conclusion, Mrs Duncan Smith was simply not
a part of the integrated day to day organisation of Mr Duncan
Smith's offices other than in her capacity as the wife of the
Leader. She had no specific authority and no defined area of work
or responsibility within what was a structured office organisation.
Her contact with the office was irregular and usually limited
to the matter of diary dates in which she or her sons and daughters
were affected She would pass on messages regarding Mr Duncan Smith's
personal arrangements and would if anything, generate work for
Mrs Watson, Mr Duncan Smith's Private Secretary, in particular
who dealt with her personal correspondence, invitations, liaison
with the constituency and dress requirements.
The Office to the Leader of the Opposition
I was appointed to the post of Head of the Leader's
Office by The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP on the 12th
August 2002, having previously worked as Private Secretary to
the Chairman of the Conservative Party at Conservative Central
Office (CCO) since 7 May 2002. Prior to my employment at CCO,
I had worked at the House of Commons for three years and eight
months as a Private Secretary to James Gray MP from 8th
May 2000 until May 3rd 2002 and previously for the
late Michael Colvin MP and his trustees from 1st September
1998 until 5th May 2000. I commenced working in my
present post as Deputy Director (Organisation) of CCO on 1st
September 2003.
My recent experience of running the parliamentary
offices of two Members of Parliament makes me particularly aware
of the requirements for the successful organisation and maintenance
of an MP's office. I had also made regular submissions to the
Fees Office on behalf of the Members for whom I worked and was
therefore very familiar with the regulations stipulated by the
House of Commons Fees Office regarding the employment of staff,
and the allowances afforded to Members of Parliament for the payment
of staff and other incidental expenses.
Before commencing my role as Head of the Leader's
Office I had already established very close relations with the
Leader's Office and its staff with whom I had daily contact, not
least because our offices were actually situated along the same
corridor of the 1st floor of CCO, alongside the office of the
then Chief Executive, Mark MacGregor, and Deputy Chief Executive,
Stephen Gilbert, who shared a small office. As Private Secretary
to the Chairman the function of our respective offices overlapped
in a number of areas. I took up my post as Head of the Leader's
Office in the summer of 2002 well briefed on the issues affecting
the Leader's Office. Indeed, I was sufficiently briefed to submit
a paper to Mr Duncan Smith in July 2002 proposing a series of
changes to the office structure to deal with the problems it was
facing.
In my post, I succeeded Mr Duncan Smith's Chief of
Staff, Ms Jenny Ungless and received my instructions directly
from Mr Duncan Smith. I assumed responsibility for nine members
of staff who occupied the following roles: Deputy Head of the
Leader's Office (Miss Rebecca Layton), Private Secretary (Mrs
Christine Watson), Diary Secretary (Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins until
October 2002 and succeeded by Miss Paula Malone), Aide de Camp
(Mr Jonathan Hellewell), two Administration and Correspondence
Secretaries (Mr Adrian Muldrew and Miss Emily Cavendish) and three
members of the Leader's Correspondence Unit (including Mr Ian
Philps, Mr Anthony Wells and Miss Eleanor Hudson). We also had
a number of interns who came to the office for a period of weeks
or months, usually unpaid for work experience. Mr Duncan Smith
also had a personal press officer who reported to Mr Nick Wood,
Head of Media. The purpose of this wide range of staff was to
ensure that every possible aspect of his work as Leader of the
Opposition was dealt with as appropriately and as efficiently
as possible.
Mrs Christine Watson, who had worked as Mr Duncan
Smith's constituency private secretary based at Westminster since
he became Leader, was appointed Mr Duncan Smith's Private Secretary
as Leader of the Opposition at the end of August 2002. Mr Duncan
Smith had chosen to move his previous Private Secretary, Miss
Annabelle Eyre, the daughter of Lady Monica Eyre, a long standing
family friend of Mrs Duncan Smith, to become Head of Planning
and Tours. Miss Eyre had previously worked as Mr Duncan Smith's
constituency private secretary prior to his becoming Leader. The
Leader's Diary Secretary at the time, Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins,
had already been offered a post as Head of the Candidates Department
and was keen to move to his new job as soon as possible. I therefore
appointed Miss Paula Malone to replace him as Diary Secretary
and she commenced her new role immediately after the Conservative
Party Conference (w/c 14th October 2002).
In the weeks prior to my appointment I had had a
number of discussions with Mr Duncan Smith, regarding the nature
and scope of my proposed role and the plans he had set in place
for restructuring the arrangements in both of his offices. At
no time was the role of Mrs Duncan Smith mentioned her duties
were not explained or set in the context of his revised arrangements.
Indeed, even when I started my new job Mrs Duncan Smith was not
mentioned outside the context that she was Mr Duncan Smith wife.
Mr Duncan Smith's Constituency Office Arrangements
As a result of the cascade of staff changes described
above, Mrs Watson was given responsibility for finding a replacement
private secretary for Mr Duncan Smith's constituency office and
Miss Cara Walker, a graduate who had left university that summer
(2002) and is a friend of Mrs Watson's daughter who is of a similar
age, was immediately appointed.
The working day was evenly split between two locations.
We spent the mornings at the Leader's Office and Outer Office
at CCO, where Mr Duncan Smith's Private Secretary, Christine Watson,
was seated directly opposite me within six feet from me, sitting
opposite. We were so close that we would often take each other's
telephone calls if one or the other were otherwise occupied. Miss
Walker sat in an adjacent room to our office while she was trained
and supervised by Mrs Watson during the first weeks of her appointment
and frequently came to ask for advice or guidance from either
one of us.
In the afternoons we would move to the Leader's Office
at the House of Commons where I sat at a separate desk to Mrs
Watson some twelve feet apart, within sight and earshot of everything
she and the Diary Secretary, seated six feet away, were doing.
Miss Walker and subsequently Mr Duncan Smith's researcher, Mr
Tom Hooper, were seated in Room G1, on the ground floor of the
Shadow Cabinet Block, immediately below the offices of the Leader
of the Opposition. Miss Walker and Mr Hooper would frequently
visit the Leader's Office during the day for regular meetings
with Mrs Watson, to seek advice or to use the kitchen.
It would be fair to say that on the basis of sheer
proximity alone, I was intimately familiar with the workings of
the constituency office, what work was being carried out and by
whom, the key individuals associated with Mr Duncan Smith's constituency
including his agent and chairman of his association—even
the issues that particularly affected Mr Duncan Smith's constituency
and the details regarding the arrangement of his constituency
visits. I would certainly have been aware Mrs Watson had been
receiving the number of telephone calls from Mrs Duncan Smith
that might reasonably have been expected were she working 25 hours
a week.
Mrs Duncan Smith's involvement with the offices
Besides a number of political responsibilities, the
primary function of my role was to ensure the efficient and effective
running of Mr Duncan Smith's office in his capacity as Leader
of the Opposition. In order to achieve this objective, it was
imperative that Mr Duncan Smith's parliamentary and political
offices worked alongside one another in as integrated a fashion
as possible. This meant that administrative structures and procedures
were often set in tandem to ensure a cohesive operation. Particular
care and emphasis was placed on Mr Duncan Smith's diary, correspondence
and financial affairs.
In none of these areas was I ever made aware of the
role of Mrs Duncan Smith. The only contact that took place was
what would be considered reasonable communication with the spouse
of a Member of Parliament, in this case the Leader of the Opposition.
I can confirm that in the four months of my appointment during
which Mrs Duncan Smith was paid by her husband she only made contact
with me once in a telephone call to inform me of a potential supporter
that she had met a dinner party.
It might be helpful if I describe the functions of
two specific areas of work which occupied a great deal of our
professional activity:
· The
Diary:
The organisation of Mr Duncan Smith's diary was my
responsibility although it was managed by the diary secretary.
Invitations for Mr Duncan Smith and occasionally Mrs Duncan Smith
were received, considered and responded to within the Leader's
Office with decisions being made by me in consultation with Owen
Paterson MP, Mr Duncan Smith's Parliamentary Private Secretary,
and occasionally by Mr Duncan Smith himself. Mrs Duncan Smith
was never involved in this decision making process although she
would naturally be consulted or advised if an invitation occurred
over a weekend or clashed with a family engagement. This was appropriate
and courteous behaviour towards Mrs Duncan Smith as the Leader's
wife but, to my knowledge, Mrs Duncan Smith did not play a role
in the organisation or management of the diary.
As the diary was planned months in advance, a series
of days would be set aside for Mr Duncan Smith's constituency
visits and regular surgeries. These usually occurred on Fridays.
The days were carefully planned by Miss Walker and Mrs Watson.
On the occasion that Mrs Duncan Smith chose to accompany Mr Duncan
Smith to a specific constituency event she would of course be
contacted and given the appropriate details. Her understanding
of Mr Duncan Smith's role as Member of Parliament and that of
Leader often appeared blurred.
Mrs Duncan Smith would advise the Diary Secretary
of the details of their children's school engagements. Three of
the children were at boarding school while one attended a day
school. Details of exeats, school concerts and other associated
school activities were regularly passed to the Diary Secretary
for inclusion into the diary. The diary would then be sent to
Mrs Duncan Smith on a regular basis for her information only.
Amendments from Mrs Duncan Smith referred solely to personal and
family matters Mrs Duncan Smith was very protective of what she
considered to be family time (weekends and parliamentary recesses)
and would contact the office to object when circumstances beyond
the control of the office meant that this time was interfered
with i.e. last minute media bids. She appeared to have an unrealistic
appreciation of the huge pressures Mr Duncan Smith faced in his
role as Leader of the Opposition or the extent to which this made
his life public.
There were naturally occasions when Mrs Duncan Smith
received invitations in her own right as the wife of the Leader.
These would be sent to Mrs Duncan Smith by Mrs Watson and Mrs
Duncan Smith would communicate her response either by telephone
or by email. Such activities do not, however, constitute work
authorised for Fees Office reimbursement in my understanding of
the regulations.
In my judgement, these objections to diary dates
could not reasonably be described as co-ordination of the diary.
Indeed, Mrs Duncan Smith did not receive or open the invitations.
She did not attend a single diary meeting where invitations were
explained and discussed. She did not interest herself in, nor
was she advised of the outcome of these meetings. Between meetings
if there were doubts regarding Mr Duncan Smith's willingness to
accept an invitation, a note would be prepared for Mr Duncan Smith
and put into his box. He would respond by writing his decision
on the note, in his own handwriting. Nor am I aware of a single
letter of acceptance or refusal having been written by her during
the period concerned.
· Correspondence:
All correspondence addressed to Mr Duncan Smith was
delivered to the House of Commons where it was collected by a
member of staff from the Correspondence Unit. It was taken to
CCO, opened and filtered into separate files to the appropriate
member of staff either in the parliamentary office or in the Leader's
Office. Mrs Duncan Smith was not regarded as a member of staff
in this capacity and did not have her own correspondence file.
It is my view that were she to have been writing letters (connected
with the diary say) under her own name, she would have received
letters in return.
Correspondence was divided into a range of categories:
letters to Mr Duncan Smith as MP for Chingford and Woodford Green
were passed to Mrs Watson and then to Miss Walker; letters from
Members of Parliament were given to Mr Jonathan Hellewell to draft
replies to be signed by Mr Paterson; invitations and confirmation
details for events in the diary would be passed to the Diary Secretary;
personal letters would be passed to Mrs Watson; letters relating
to tours past or present were passed to Miss Eyre; requests for
messages for support for Conservative association handbooks, newsletters,
fund-raisers and conferences as well as messages for charities
and other organisations were passed to one of the Correspondence
Secretaries. All other correspondence, from members of the public
on other matters, were dealt with by the Correspondence Unit.
The letters received totalled an average of between 800 and 1,000
per week, depending on the time of year and current issues. None
of the above correspondence was, to my certain knowledge, handled
by Mrs Duncan Smith.
I was not aware that Mrs Duncan Smith requested office
supplies that would have enabled her to be involved in matters
of correspondence. She did not appear to request House of Commons
letter headed paper or envelopes at any time in the period from
August to December 2002.
At the end of every working day, Mr Duncan Smith's
box would be prepared either for him to take with him personally
or to be given to his Government Car Service Driver. There were
often a substantial number of documents and correspondence which
needed to be collated and great care was taken to ensure that
each and every document was placed in its own plastic folder with
a covering note identifying what the folder contained and what
action was required from Mr Duncan Smith. These documents were
placed in the box in order of their immediate priority. Separately,
Mr Duncan Smith's parliamentary correspondence was collated and
placed in its own or several House of Commons plastic mailers
again clearly identifying what each envelope contained. Although
Mr Duncan Smith held regular meetings with Miss Walker and his
researcher to discuss constituency matters, he also had regular
time set aside in the diary for the signing of his parliamentary
letters. On Thursdays and Fridays, there was often a significant
amount of correspondence totalling more than one hundred letters
for Mr Duncan Smith to sign. These would usually be returned on
the following Monday or later in the week if the House had risen
and Mr Duncan Smith was at home. The letters were then put into
envelopes by Miss Walker or an intern and posted from the House
of Commons.
From the start of the process of correspondence,
upon receipt of the letter, to the end when a reply was posted,
Mrs Duncan Smith did not appear to play apart. Unless the correspondence
was specifically relevant to her i.e. it required her to attend
an event or for her to give her support to a particular organisation,
she was not involved or consulted in the process. At no time did
I hear her name mentioned as a key individual in this capacity.
It may also be helpful to point out the very limited
personal involvement Mrs Duncan Smith had in Mr Duncan Smith's
life at Westminster. Matters including the limited furnishing
of his flat, the issue and collection of his laundry, the cleaning
of his flat and the purchase of food were all arranged and often
supplied by Mrs Watson on a weekly basis. Occasionally, evening
meetings over dinner were arranged at his flat and Mrs Watson
would invariably purchase the food herself and organise the dinner.
Mr Duncan Smith relied heavily on Owen Paterson who owned a flat
in the same block and Mr Paterson would very often call on Mr
Duncan Smith first thing in the morning or sometimes invite him
to dinner at his flat, prepared by Mr Paterson's wife, if he was
alone.
Mrs Watson's involvement at every level of Mr Duncan
Smith's life is described extensively in her memo to me dated
24th October 2002. This details the extensive work that she was
undertaking in managing his parliamentary diary, correspondence
and other co-ordinating functions. However, what is most significant
about her memo is that in detailing all of the tasks she undertakes,
it is difficult to understand what other tasks might have remained
for Mrs Duncan Smith to carry out and the only reference to Mrs
Duncan Smith relates to additional work that she created for Mrs
Watson.
Mrs Duncan Smith's office arrangements
Mrs Duncan Smith states she set up a functional
office in Swanbourne 'which was fully equipped'. It is my understanding
that the office Mrs Duncan Smith describes was in fact set up
in the last months of her employment as demonstrated by the information
set out below.
Mrs Duncan Smith did have a computer at home but
I understand this was supplied by CCO. I believe this to be the
case because I was asked to enquire by Mrs Watson, on behalf of
Mrs Duncan Smith, what insurance cover CCO provided for the machine.
The constituency laptop, which might have reasonably been used
by Mrs Duncan Smith in working from home, remained at the House
of Commons principally used at the time of Mrs Duncan Smith's
final months of employment by Miss Eyre.
Mrs Duncan Smith had a mobile telephone which was
paid for by CCO but the payment of these bills had been the subject
of much discussion as it was felt widely by many staff that as
no professional role could be attributed to Mrs Duncan Smith the
payment of the bill by CCO was questionable. There was never any
suggestion that Mrs Duncan Smith carried out parliamentary work
on this telephone. Indeed the monthly bills were small and she
claimed that the telephone was primarily used by Mr Duncan Smith.
Their landline telephone bills were also submitted to CCO for
payment but, to my knowledge, no discount was made from those
bills for parliamentary work which would have been entirely legitimate.
Furthermore, when Mrs Duncan Smith chose to communicate with the
office, she tended to do so via a private email address rather
than a parliamentary email address.
Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith had embarked on a major programme
of refurbishment at their Swanbourne home earlier in 2002. The
works were extensive as I understand the house to have been in
a serious state of dilapidation. Mr Duncan Smith often commented
amusedly of the anti-diluvian telephone connections and electrical
work. The refurbishment was so extensive that the family were
required to move into a one bedroom flat on their estate. In late
2002, Mr Duncan Smith began to create an office for himself out
of the former Estate Office at Swanbourne. In this context, I
would ask you to refer to Appendix One (email dated 30th January
2003),[65]
the first paragraph of which questions the expenses incurred by
the Leader at his home. At no time had the matter regarding the
development of an office for Mr Duncan Smith been raised with
me or the Chief Executive. No proposal for the works had been
submitted, no explanation given, no approval had been sought for
the payment for the works with either myself of the Chief Executive.
No purchase order had been raised and there was no budget allocation
for such expenditure. The issue was not that Mr Duncan Smith should
not have these works paid for but that it was clearly very important
that financial procedures be carried out appropriately. It was
also politically sensitive that, in the midst of a major programme
of works at his home, Mr Duncan Smith be perceived to have a very
clearly documented paper trail explaining why the works were required.
This was the context of my email of 30th January.
These details regarding the installation of an office
at his home are further corroborated in the final paragraphs of
Appendix 2 (Memo of March 2003 to Sir Stanley Kalms, Treasurer
of the Conservative Party, requested by him in order to clarify
the unauthorised expenditure which had been brought to his attention).[66]
Furthermore, Appendix 2 documents that in January 2003 Mr Duncan
Smith arranged for the installation of a series of telephone lines
at Swanbourne in the continuing work he was carrying out in the
establishment of his office. It should be noted that at the time
the memo was written not one of the thirteen telephone lines had
been actually been used as no call charges had been incurred.
In fact Mr Duncan Smith goes as far as to say, in
his own words, in Appendix 3 (email dated 31st January dictated
by Mr Duncan Smith),[67]
that he had 'recently converted a room at his home into a fully
functional office including an ISDN line.., and additional telephone
and fax lines for use when he is working away from Westminster
or Central Office... The new office will afford a much more efficient
means of communicating with the Leader and it will be able to
accommodate a number of people from Central Office if they should
need to work with the Leader on site'. It is worth noting that
at no time does Mr Duncan Smith refer to the office being used
in a parliamentary capacity by him or Mrs Duncan Smith although
he is quite specific regarding communication with CCO and how
its staff might be deployed. However, all of this work to prepare
the office took place at the end of 2002 and after Mrs Duncan
Smith had ceased to be employed.
It should also be noted that Mr Duncan Smith's assertion
that 'these arrangements and the procedure for the costs incurred
had in fact been agreed with Central Office last year, prior to
my appointment' is, to my certain knowledge, not the case and
can be verified, if required, by the then Chief Executive, Mr
Mark MacGregor, and his then Deputy, Mr Stephen Gilbert. This
is central to this issue not least because, if the office was
to be used for parliamentary work, a range of costs could legitimately
have been attributed to Mr Duncan Smith's incidental expense allowance
as a Member of Parliament.
Although I have not visited Swanbourne, it is
my considered view in light of the above evidence that it is difficult
to accept Mr Duncan Smith's assertion that Mrs Duncan Smith was
working for him in a parliamentary capacity from a fully functional
office at their home.
Issues relating to Mr Duncan Smith's Parliamentary
Office Costs Allowance
Another key factor in my consideration of the matter
of the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith was Mr Duncan Smith's use
of his parliamentary Office Costs Allowance.
I was made aware of a number of issues regarding
Mr Duncan Smith's Office Costs Allowance within days of taking
up my post as Head of the Leader's Office in August 2002. The
issues can be summarised as follows:
· Mrs
Duncan Smith was being paid a salary from the Office Costs Allowance
for work that was widely perceived amongst CCO staff not to have
been carried out. This carried issues of propriety and political
sensitivity with it.
· Miss
Eyre had as of August 2002 ceased to be paid from Mr Duncan Smith's
Office Costs Allowance although she had ceased to work as his
parliamentary private secretary in September 2001 and was actually
working on non-constituency related work from then on.
· Mrs
Watson continued to be paid out of Mr Duncan Smith's Office Costs
Allowance until November 2002 although she ceased working for
Mr Duncan Smith as his parliamentary private secretary at the
end of August 2002.
· It appeared
that potentially mis-leading submissions had been made to the
House of Commons Fees Office—a recognition of very poor
record keeping with regard to Mr Duncan Smith's Allowances.
Given my understanding of the regulations stipulated
by the House of Commons Fees Office regarding Members' allowances
and the employment of staff, as well as the Members' Code of Conduct,
I regarded these breaches as of critical importance and sought
to address them as a matter of urgency.
· The
payment of Mrs Duncan Smith
The matter was first brought to my attention by Mrs
Watson in early September 2002 as she sought to appoint a researcher
to support Miss Walker in her new role as Mr Duncan Smith's parliamentary
private secretary. Mrs Watson advised me that there was simply
no money available to employ a researcher because the funds available
were fully used. She explained that this was because Mrs Duncan
Smith was continuing to be paid a salary. It was evident from
the conversation we had that Mrs Watson understood entirely the
difficulties we faced with this issue—both in terms of its
propriety and political sensitivity. She advised me then that
Mrs Duncan Smith was earning £18,000 per annum. It was this
figure that was discussed with other senior members of CCO staff
and at no time was that figure ever disputed by her, Owen Paterson
or any member of Mr Duncan Smith's closest staff
· The
payment of Miss Eyre's salary
In the same conversation, Mrs Watson expressed her
concern that Miss Eyre had continued to be paid out of Mr Duncan
Smith's parliamentary Office Costs Allowance for some eleven months
after she ceased to carry out her role as Mr Duncan Smith's parliamentary
private secretary. Mrs Watson recognised that there was simply
no manner in which Miss Eyre's salary could be attributed to constituency
work, given that Mrs Watson herself had been employed to replace
her as Mr Duncan Smith's private secretary. In the best case,
it might be possible to argue that Miss Eyre had carried out a
very limited role within the Leader's Office. The worst case would
be that we did not acknowledge the error and found that Mr Duncan
Smith could be reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Standards for breaching these rules. These facts are recorded
in Appendix 4 (memo from Christine Watson to myself dated 24 October
2002).[68]
· The
payment of Mrs Watson's salary
Mrs Watson, by her own admission, had failed to negotiate
in full the terms and conditions of her new post before taking
it up. She had been advised by Miss Eyre that Mr Duncan Smith
had given her a substantial pay rise to £36,000 per annum
and was anxious to seek a larger salary because she believed that
the work she was carrying out, including the personal tasks she
was performing for Mr Duncan Smith, and the hours she was working
merited a greater increase. She asked for a salary of £40,000
per annum.
Given the constraints on the Leader's Office staffing
budget at CCO these arrangements were critically important. Miss
Eyre had finally been placed onto the Leader's Office Staff by
Mr Duncan Smith at an annual salary of £36,000 per annum.
However, when Mrs Watson was seeking to raise her salary we were
in effect obtaining a second and unexpected member of staff—which
we simply did not have the funds to pay for and this resulted
in protracted negotiations over the sum. Mrs Watson was very keen
to move from the Office Costs Allowance to the CCO budget in order
to free up funds from the Allowance to employ both Miss Walker
and a researcher. This is again recorded in Appendix 4. The negotiations
resulted in Mrs Watson joining the Leader's Office staff in November
and Miss Walker, who had by that time, to my knowledge worked
for some two months without being paid. The dispute over Mrs Watson's
salary was eventually resolved when an agreement was reached to
match the £36,000 being paid to Miss Eyre and Mr Duncan Smith
agreed to supplement her salary with £4,000 from his Office
Costs Allowance—an entirely legitimate payment to reflect
the work she was carrying out in a supervisory capacity.
· Submissions
to the House of Commons Fees Office and poor financial record
keeping
It also transpired during the month of September
that Mrs Watson's predecessor, Miss Eyre, had apparently not paid
due diligence to the submissions made to the House of Commons
Fees Office on Mr Duncan Smith's behalf. Mrs Watson advised me
of her concern that inappropriate submissions may have been made
regarding the Accommodation Costs Allowance although I am not
in a position to verify whether those concerns were ever justified.
Furthermore, as detailed in Appendix 4, Mrs Watson
records that papers were received '(not in any order) from AE'
and that she had spoken to me previously about 'this sensitive
matter'. She also comments that 'I obviously need to put everything
in order on behalf of Iain's representation as Member of Parliament
for Chingford and Woodford Green and I intend to do so that everything
is in proper financial order—keeping the records in good
order, and in financial year order and not in a mess' (sic). Mrs
Watson had told me separately that she had been handed the Office
Costs Allowance papers in a carrier bag.
In conclusion, I advised Mrs Watson, who had been
given responsibility for the handling and administration of Mr
Duncan Smith's parliamentary Office Costs Allowance, that she
should as a matter of urgency raise the matters regarding her
and Miss Eyre's salaries as well as the possible errors in the
Accommodation Costs submissions in person with the House of Commons
Fees Office in order to seek a mutually agreed way forward. She
took that advice and embarked on a series of weekly meetings with
staff in the Fees Office, usually on Fridays at lunchtime in an
attempt to unscramble these issues. In the meantime, I agreed
to raise the matter regarding Mrs Duncan Smith's employment separately.
The acceptance of these matters and their sensitivity is acknowledged
in Appendix 5 (email from my then Deputy, Miss Rebecca Layton,
regarding a number of issues concerning Miss Eyre's performance)
when it is commented 'there are also the very sensitive points
about the OCA...'.[69]
How the matter regarding Mrs Duncan Smith's employment
was dealt with
The chronology of events following my discovery that
Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid from Mr Duncan Smith's parliamentary
Office Costs Allowance is documented for the record in Appendix
6 (letter from my solicitor, Ms Gill Sage, to The Rt Hon Iain
Duncan Smith MP, dated 10th October 2003).[70]
In summary:
· I
raised my concerns about Mrs Duncan Smith's employment within
one hour of it being drawn to my attention. I immediately asked
to speak to Mr Paterson privately in his office and expressed
my concerns—that Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid a salary
from Mr Duncan Smith's parliamentary Office Costs Allowance when
there did not appear to be a position of office being carried
out. I advised him that this was against the regulations of the
House and that the matter was also very politically sensitive.
Mr Paterson agreed with me immediately and confirmed he would
take the matter up with Mr Duncan Smith. It was clear that raising
this matter with Mr Duncan Smith would require great sensitivity
and it was my professional judgement that Mr Paterson, as his
closet and most trusted confidante would be best placed to raise
this subject with him. I recommended that he deal with this matter
as a matter of priority, preferably before the Conservative Party
Conference which commenced on the 7th October 2002. It should
be noted that at no time did Mr Paterson indicate that he understood
Mrs Duncan Smith to be carrying out an actual role in Mr Duncan
Smith's parliamentary office. He did not correct me or, having
raised the matter with Mr Duncan Smith, come back to clarify for
the record what may have been my mistake.
· Upon
our return from the Party Conference, Mr Paterson had not been
able to resolve the matter and I therefore raised the matter with
him once again during the week commencing 14th October 2002. He
acknowledged once again the need to deal with the matter urgently
and I left the matter to him.
· By early
November, no action had been taken so I took the opportunity to
raise the matter once again with Mr Paterson, this time in the
presence of Mr MacGregor at a meeting to discuss staff salaries.
It should be noted that my general concerns regarding the lack
of action over the salaries issue is confirmed in Appendix 7 (email
dated 4th November 2002).[71]
This meeting was held in Mr MacGregor's office which he shared
with Mr Gilbert who was also present in the room.
· By mid
November, the complaint against Michael Trend MP had been made
public. In my mind, this heightened the need to resolve this issue
as a matter of the utmost urgency. I therefore raised the matter
again at more than one of the weekly communications meetings chaired
by the Chairman, Mrs Theresa May. These meetings were attended
by the Chairman, the Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive,
the Treasurer, Mr Paterson and myself it was agreed that Mr Paterson
would again raise the matter with Mr Duncan Smith as a matter
of urgency.
· It should
be noted that, at that meeting, no one questioned my assertion
that we were paying Mrs Duncan Smith without her doing any work
in return. Indeed, on every occasion that I raised this matter
with Mr Paterson, Mrs May and senior members of staff, the only
discussion was about how to persuade Mr Duncan Smith to cease
the payment rather than what work she might have been doing.
· In light
of the Michael Trend complaint and the subsequent embarrassment
this caused the Conservative Party, Mr Duncan Smith finally ceased
to pay his wife on the 31st December 2002.
It is very surprising that at no time during the
four months in question did the man closest to Mr Duncan Smith,
his Parliamentary Private Secretary Owen Paterson, ever reveal
an understanding or explanation of the role of Mrs Duncan Smith.
The context of the emails I sent on the 30th and
31st January 2003
The fact that Mrs Duncan Smith had ceased to be paid
out of the Office Costs Allowance at the end of 2002 did not alleviate
entirely my concerns about the financial arrangements surrounding
Mr Duncan Smith's affairs (see the first paragraphs of Appendix
1). It was my firm view that the Leader's Office should have
an impeccable record of financial management, controls and records
and that transparency in these matters was imperative.
I had been very concerned about the employment of
Mrs Duncan Smith and a possible breach of House of Commons regulations.
That matter had indeed been resolved but Michael Crick was a well
known investigative journalist who had looked very closely into
the matter of Mr Duncan Smith's biographical details. I believed
instinctively that, in light of Michael Trend's recent difficulties,
this was an area which Crick could easily have been led to and
an examination of the facts which would not be helpful under any
circumstances. In that regard, I was also very concerned about
the propriety of the expenses being incurred in Mr Duncan Smith's
name and the manner in which they were being presented and dealt
with internally.
It was with these considerations in mind that I sent
an email, which has been the subject of much selective quotation
by the press, on the 30th January 2003 to the Chairman, the Chief
Executive and the then newly appointed Director of Communications,
Mr Paul Baverstock. I also blind-copied the email to my Deputy,
Miss Layton, for her information. What I sought to achieve was
clarification of the correct procedures and a meeting had been
arranged for the Chairman and the Chief Executive to meet Mr Paterson
to discuss these highly sensitive matters.
Not documented in this email but particularly pertinent
to this scheduled meeting was the widespread concern that Mr Duncan
Smith was not paying for his own personal expenses—which
included his lunches, haircuts, food for his own home, a mirror
for his flat, his laundry and the purchase of underwear. In November
2002, I had been obliged to present Mr Duncan Smith with a list
of expenses which had been incurred on his behalf and paid for,
in the first instance, by his staff who were then reimbursed by
CCO. I recollect that sum to have been in excess of £400.
He always took considerable time to present a cheque—a fact
which caused me great concern as I was determined to ensure that
we improved financial controls in his office. All of these facts
had also already been discussed privately with the Chief Executive
and Mr Paterson as well as within the context of the weekly communications
meetings.
The other item I raised for discussion with Mr Paterson
was an apparently cavalier attitude with which we appeared to
be treating our most regular donors—those with private planes
who frequently lent them to Mr Duncan Smith if requested. These
issues were considered once again to be so sensitive that Mr Paterson
was delegated to raise them with the Leader. It was against this
background and these on-going concerns that I felt obliged to
send my email at all.
With hindsight, the response was perhaps predictable.
Although the email had been marked 'high importance and sent to
the most senior people at CCO, it was passed to Mr Duncan Smith
first thing the next morning. I received a telephone call before
leaving for work from Mr Duncan Smith who was extremely agitated
and requested that I go to see him. I consulted Mr MacGregor by
telephone and placed a call to Mr Baverstock who did not return
my call. It transpired that it was Mr Baverstock who had raised
the email with Mr Paterson who subsequently passed a copy of the
email to Mr Duncan Smith. I eventually saw Mr Duncan Smith at
approximately midday on Friday 31st January. After
inviting me to sit down he became very angry and expressed his
irritation at my raising the subjects in writing in the email.
I accepted unreservedly his rebuke for committing the matter to
written form but he advised me that he had already instructed
the IT Department at CCO to expunge the email from the central
server.
Mr Duncan Smith did not ask me for an explanation.
He did not ask why I was concerned. Indeed, besides my own apology
for having formalised the matter in the form of an email I did
not utter another word as Mr Duncan Smith spoke without break.
I was so distressed by his manner and conduct that I was reduced
to tears in the meeting. He advised me in the strongest terms
that I was to send out an immediate response and asked me to bring
my own copy of the email into his office for his attention. He
then in effect dictated exactly what the email was to say. I did
not and could not agree with what he had asked me to write but
it was absolutely apparent within the context of the meeting that
I had one of two alternatives—I either wrote the email as
he had instructed or I could draft my own letter of resignation.
I returned immediately to my desk and drafted the response he
had instructed. He amended my draft in his own hand to perfect
it to his own requirements and instructed me to send it out. See
Appendix 8 (copy of draft email including Mr Duncan Smith's own
amendments to the text) for reference and Appendix 9 (the final
version of the email as instructed by Mr Duncan Smith).[72]
I very much regret not having had the courage to
speak out at that time. No alternative arrangements had been established
for the management of the Leader's diary in November and, as far
as I was aware, no apparent alternatives had been implemented
in the Leader's constituency office to cover the functions Betsy
Duncan Smith had been carrying out 'on a daily basis'. With respect,
the improvement to the diary had occurred because of the strong
working relationship I had established with both Andrew Whitby-Collins
(whom I had known for two years) and the diary secretary I had
appointed—Paula Malone. Under no circumstances, in the context
of my email and my previously repeated concerns, could I accept
that I was 'entirely satisfied that these issues have been dealt
with correctly and in full'.
Mr MacGregor can testify to the immediate concerns
I raised about the second email and indeed Mr Gilbert may be in
a position to support these facts. Mrs Watson and Miss Layton
can also attest to the distressed state I was in at the end of
my meeting with Mr Duncan Smith.
The events leading up the presentation of the
complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by Mr
Michael Crick and the presentation of the dossier by Mr Duncan
Smith
I feel it is important to include a section on the
events leading up to the start of this inquiry for two reasons:
· They
will indicate why I have been obliged to take a principled and
what has now regretfully become a public stand on this matter
· The
facts regarding the handling of this case will reveal a catalogue
of misinformation on the part of Mr Duncan Smith which may have
a bearing on the approach taken in regard to the evidence he has
submitted, as well as proving his determination to place me under
pressure in order that I support his statement on this matter.
Rumours began to circulate at CCO that Michael Crick
was investigating the matter of the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith
the week prior to the Conservative Party Conference (w/c 29th
September) and that questions had been presented to Mr Duncan
Smith regarding the employment of his wife. Mr Duncan Smith was,
by all accounts, very agitated by the prospect of this broadcast.
I had been telephoned at home by Mr Crick on the evening of Monday
29th September and I reported the call to the CCO media
office first thing on the morning of Tuesday 30th September.
Later that morning, I had a telephone conversation
with the Director of Communications, Paul Baverstock, and a chance
meeting with Tim Montgomerie, who had succeeded me as Political
Secretary to the Leader, who were both very preoccupied with the
matter. Both were very anxious about my emails, particularly as
they did not have a copy of the second email.
· The
first conversation with Mr Duncan Smith regarding a statement
by me in support of his position
I was telephoned again on the morning of the 1st
October by Paul Baverstock regarding this matter and then by Tim
Montgomerie who asked me to attend a meeting with Mr Duncan Smith
in his office at 1.00pm. I naturally agreed and met with Mr Duncan
Smith. Mr Montgomene was in attendance. Mr Duncan Smith was formal
but not aggressive in his manner and explained what was happening.
He confirmed that he had placed the matter in the hands of a renowned
libel lawyer, Mr David Hooper, of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain
and indicated that he had given instruction for the strongest
response to be issued—that he would sue any organisation
that repeated the allegations in public. Mr Duncan Smith advised
me at that meeting that he would certainly take legal action under
those circumstances and that, if that were the case, I would be
required to give a statement under oath. He advised me that the
content of the statement would be to verify I had raised the question
of the employment of his wife with him and that I was 'entirely
satisfied' that the arrangements and circumstances surrounding
his wife's employment had been correct. I immediately knew that
I would not be in a position to support his version of events
and that, in the event that the matter were to go to court, I
would not be able to testify to those facts. However, I hoped
that the matter might not end in this way and chose to remain
silent.
· The
second conversation with Mr Duncan Smith regarding a statement
by me in support of his position
I was telephoned by Mrs Watson at 4.30pm on the afternoon
of Friday 3rd October and advised that Mr Duncan Smith
wished to speak to me. This call was to my mobile telephone for
which a record can be obtained. In the moments before Mr Duncan
Smith was able to come to the telephone, I had a brief conversation
with Mrs Watson and she advised me that Mr Duncan Smith's lawyers
were about to arrive to speak to her. I asked her if, under the
circumstances, she had taken legal advice. Mr Duncan Smith then
came to the telephone and asked me where I was. I replied that
I was, by arrangement in Cheltenham. He appeared disappointed
that I was not in London because his lawyer was visiting the office
but said it could wait. He then asked me a number of questions
appertaining to my emails and appeared very concerned by the prospect
that Mr Crick might have a copy of one or both of them. He then
repeated his threat to take legal action in the event that the
allegations were published and that, in those circumstances, I
would be required to give a statement under oath. I became increasingly
uncomfortable with his stance and neither agreed nor disagreed.
He then said he had just spoken to Mr Paterson who had confirmed
to him that the first thing he knew of these concerns was when
my email of 30th January had originally been sent. I interrupted
Mr Duncan Smith mid-sentence and told him I felt duty-bound to
advise him that Mr Paterson was mistaken in his version of events
and that I had raised the matter with Mr Paterson on a number
of occasions in the preceding months. He did not disagree.
· Third
and fourth conversations with Mr Duncan Smith regarding a statement
by me in support of my position
I travelled to Blackpool on Saturday 4th October.
I watched Mr Duncan Smith on the 'Frost' Programme on Sunday 5th
October and was deeply concerned to hear him describe the allegations
as 'false lies' and repeat his threat to sue any organisation
that published or broadcast these allegations. However, it was
already the case that the Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and particularly
the Independent on Sunday had run perilously close to revealing
exactly what those allegations were. My concerns were further
compounded when I received a visit from the Private Secretary
to the Chairman in my room at the Imperial Hotel at 11.30am indicating
that the Chairman had asked me to make myself available to speak
to Mr Duncan Smith on the telephone between 1.00 and 2.00pm. He
had previously asked if it would be possible for me to be driven
to meet him at Manchester Airport so that he could speak to me
in private on the way back to Blackpool but that had proved to
be impossible. I telephoned the Chairman because I was concerned
about what Mr Duncan Smith was going to ask for. She indicated
that it was to discuss the media handling of the story and advised
me that I was to be 'pulled' from a previously arranged appearance
on the live broadcast of the BBC 'Politics Show' the following
day, Monday 6th October, because of the controversy surrounding
my role in writing the email of the 30th January.
I spoke to Mr Duncan Smith twice that afternoon,
the first time at 1.20pm when Mr Duncan Smith did indeed discuss
media handling and told me not to worry. I felt heartened at his
response. However, that relief was dispelled as, at around 2.00pm,
I received a second telephone call from Mr Duncan Smith in which
he enthusiastically told me that he wanted me to issue a statement
through the press along the lines he had indicated I should give
under oath. I neither agreed or refused his request in order to
give myself some time to think. To move away from the subject,
I therefore told him I would consult the Head of Media, Mr Nick
Wood, to discuss the matter further. Mr Duncan Smith said he would
speak to Mr Wood immediately and ask him to prepare a form of
statement.
Subsequent events
I rang Mr Wood immediately myself and told him that
under no circumstances could any statement or form of words be
issued in my name without consultation with me and my direct approval.
I advised him I was returning to the Hotel and would meet him
there at 3.00pm. I was now extremely concerned and immediately
consulted my line manager Stephen Gilbert. We had spoken often
about our concerns over the line that Mr Duncan Smith had chosen
to adopt. His statements revealed that we both appeared to be
of the same view that the substance of the allegations were more
likely than not to be true. We had also both heard that Mr Duncan
Smith's lawyers had made some inaccurate statements regarding
Mr Duncan Smith's role in the matter, which we knew categorically
to be untrue—namely that Mr Duncan Smith had not been advised
of the concerns prior to the correspondence from the BBC at the
end of September 2003.
We were increasingly of the view that Mr Duncan Smith's
approach would in effect do nothing more than to fuel the interest
of journalists and that the allegations would eventually be printed
or broadcast. If Mr Duncan Smith stood by his word to take legal
action, we would be placed in a very difficult position. We agreed
that neither of us would be prepared to perjure ourselves to protect
the Leader for the Conservative Party—a position also agreed
by Paul Baverstock who expressed some bewilderment at the line
adopted by Mr Duncan Smith.
As soon as I advised him of Mr Duncan Smith's attempt
to make me issue a statement; he immediately offered to have an
off-the-cuff conversation with Mr Wood to ascertain where he thought
the matter might be heading. He did so and was able to reassure
me that it was Mr Wood's view that my issuing a statement that
day might provoke a greater interest in the story and that we
would leave the matter of the statement in abeyance for the moment.
He said he would return to it if he thought it expedient to Mr
Duncan Smith's position. He advised me not to attend functions
in the presence of the media.
At the end of that conversation, Stephen Gilbert
and I both agreed it was now imperative that we have a private
meeting with the Chairman to air our concerns and to request that
we be given permission to seek independent legal advice. It was
scheduled for approximately 10.00pm. The first editions of the
newspapers came out and brought very bad headlines for Mr Duncan
Smith. Although the Chairman was now running late it became apparent
that the request for the meeting was now more urgent than ever
as the more comments Mr Duncan Smith made to the newspapers, the
more I became clear in my own mind that I would not be able to
support his position. In the event, the meeting between the Chairman,
Stephen Gilbert and I was held at 2.00am on Monday 6th October
in the presence of Mr Philip May, Mrs May's husband, in their
suite at the Imperial Hotel.
At that meeting, I expressed my concerns and said
I felt I was being pressurised to make a statement supporting
Mr Duncan Smith. I recognised I was in a pivotal position because
I was the author of the original email which had been leaked but
I simply could not support Mr Duncan Smith's version of events
regarding the employment of his wife. I said I was advising Mrs
May of my position privately in the hope that some way might be
found of making Mr Duncan Smith understand that his stand was
potentially dangerous as he would not be able to rely on my statements
to support him in the way he was hoping. To do anything else could
result in my in effect committing an act of perjury before the
Court as far as I was concerned. Stephen Gilbert agreed that this
account of the facts was indeed correct and added that he too
felt very uncomfortable about Mr Duncan Smith's chosen stance
because he believed the substance of the allegations to be true.
He then raised the question of independent legal advice. The Chairman
agreed that we could both seek such advice and commented that
no-one should do or say anything which forced them to compromise
their integrity or that was not the truth. The meeting then concluded
at approximately 2.25am. From a conversation between the Chairman
and I held at 6.30pm on Friday 10 October, I now know that the
Chairman reported our concerns back to Mr Duncan Smith.
On Tuesday 7th October an unauthorised
article about me appeared in The Independent newspaper which had
clearly been briefed. The article indicated that Mr Duncan Smith
had sought to dismiss me from my post earlier in the summer and
that I had sought legal advice at that time. I telephoned the
Head of Media, Mr Wood, to report my concerns about the publication
of this story but he advised me he had much more important issues
to deal with. As a result of the story I was contacted by the
Gloucestershire Echo which had picked up the story so I sought
advice from the Deputy Director of Communications, Mr Richard
Chalk, as to what line I should take. He promised to come back
to me with a response but never did. No one from the Leader's
Office bothered to contact me to reassure me that there was no
substance to the story or that it had not been briefed by them.
That evening, James Gray MP approached me to advise
me that Owen Paterson had been briefing other MPs against me,
questioning my integrity and loyalty to the Leader. I was extremely
upset by these revelations. This information was brought back
to me by other sources, and I was told that Mr Wood and the Leader's
Press Officer had been raising questions about my loyalty amongst
delegates at the Conference. I was very concerned by what I had
heard and called Tim Montgomerie first thing on Wednesday morning
to express my concern and to request an urgent meeting with him
and Mr Paterson to discuss the matter. Mr Montgomerie eventually
came back to me at approximately 7.30pm that evening to say that
Mr Paterson had denied briefing against me and that a meeting
would not be possible until Monday 13th October. He did however
sound sympathetic. I had also repeatedly sought an appointment
with the Chairman to discuss my growing concerns but from Tuesday
through to the end of the Conference she was unavailable to meet
with me. It was when the Chairman, who had previously always found
time for me when I asked for it, was unable to see me that I realised
that matters were rapidly deteriorating. My concern was that my
decision to state openly that I was feeling pressurised by Mr
Duncan Smith's desire for a statement and my disagreement with
his version of events were placing my position within CCO and
potentially my candidacy at risk. I returned to London on Thursday
afternoon and, as had been agreed in my meeting with the Chairman
and Stephen Gilbert, I immediately made an appointment to meet
with my lawyer, Gill Sage of Healy's Solicitors, London at 10.30am
on Friday morning.
· Legal
advice and Mr Duncan Smith
Having recounted the facts and discussed the matter
in full, I accepted my lawyer's advice that it was critically
important that I state to Mr Duncan Smith for the record the concerns
I had raised with the Chairman, setting out the chronology of
events in relation to the employment of his wife, and letting
him know that I could not support his request for a statement
along the lines that he had indicated, for to do so could in effect
be perjury before the Court. The purpose of the letter was to
formally indicate my position to Mr Duncan Smith in the hope that
the matter might be resolved internally while protecting my position
as an employee and prospective parliamentary candidate in the
event that further moves were being made against me. The letter
was sent to Mr Duncan Smith by my lawyer at 3.00pm. She received
a response from Mr Hooper by telephone at 5.25pm.
At 6.30pm, I received a telephone call from the Chairman
who was extremely agitated that I had sent the letter although
she advised me she had not actually seen the text. She had been
asked to ask me to retract the letter prior to a meeting with
Mr Duncan Smith the following week. I made a verbatim note of
the conversation in which she told she I should 'bite my tongue'
and that she felt 'personally let down' by the action I had taken.
She advised me I might 'end up without a job' and that my action
'might threaten my candidacy'. She said that 'the whole pack of
cards might come tumbling down'. She added that, although she
had agreed to my taking legal advice, she had not expected me
'to act upon it'. I advised her that I did not believe a meeting
with Mr Duncan Smith would resolve my concerns as they stood and
asked her why telling the truth should result in my potentially
losing my job and my political career. She followed this with
a second telephone conversation some fifteen minutes later and
asked me again to retract the letter. I said I would consult my
lawyer and would consider her request.
My lawyer received an initial substantive reply from
Mr Hooper (see Appendix 10) by email at 00.12 that evening.[73]
The threats to sue me, my lawyer and her firm if I did not retract
my lawyer's letters are self-evident as is the menacing tone to
the letter.
I decided I would not retract the letter as I believed
it to be truthful in all respects and because it now afforded
me great security under increasing pressure from Mr Duncan Smith's
threats. As a gesture of goodwill I offered to retract the clause
as indicated in the square brackets of Appendix 6 This was subsequently
refused by Mr Hooper and my lawyer was advised at 1.00pm that
only a full retraction would suffice or alternatively legal action
would be taken against me, my lawyer and her firm.
In the light of these threats of legal action being
brought against me I sought advice from a barrister specialising
in libel law and explained the details of the case and read out
my letter to her. Her advice was that there would be no libel
case to answer in a court of law. It was this advice that determined
my position not to withdraw my letter. My lawyer communicated
my instruction by telephone. The pressure increased as it became
evident that the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph were intending
to publish details of the allegations against Mr Duncan Smith's
wife. Two other telephone conversations followed between the lawyers
but I did not retract my letter. It is important to note that
during this very busy day, I received five telephone calls from
the Chairman, which I refused to take, and four from Stephen Gilbert.
In the meantime, the Sunday Telegraph had planted a reporter outside
my home and I received in the region of some 15 telephone calls
from current and former colleagues who had been telephoned by
the Sunday Telegraph asking questions about my performance as
a politician and my integrity. This particular development only
served to compound my concern that certain people within CCO had
developed a specific strategy to undermine me in the run up to
the publication of the allegations and as a potential witness.
On Sunday 12th October, after the newspapers had
run their stories, I was telephoned by Stephen Gilbert at approximately
2.35pm and invited to attend a meeting with the Chairman the following
day, Monday 13th October. I asked if I should bring my lawyer
and whether the meeting in any shape constituted a disciplinary
hearing. I was advised that it did not and that it would not be
necessary to bring my lawyer although I could do so if I wished.
He suggested that the meeting was to engage in constructive dialogue
about how we could move forward. However, I received a telephone
call from my lawyer some fifteen minutes later to be advised that
the Chairman had issued a statement stating that I was being summoned
to a meeting to give a full account of my actions. Given the conversation
I had had a matter of minutes before, the tone of the statement
upset me greatly. I telephoned Stephen Gilbert who seemed genuinely
surprised and spoke to the Chairman who claimed that these were
'not her words'. Nonetheless, this statement generated enormous
press interest for 24 hours and resulted in television cameras
and reporters being stationed outside my office, following my
movements on a continuing basis since Monday morning.
It was therefore with great concern that I heard
Mr Duncan Smith make statements that I believe were less than
accurate on the evening of Tuesday 14th October. First, during
his interview with Adam Boulton on SKY television he stated that
he 'did not ask me to give a statement'. (See Appendix 11 for
a transcript).[74]
Second, on Channel 4 with Elinor Goodman he stated that he had
'thanked me for raising' this issue and then went on to say 'I
have not asked her to support me in regard to the submissions
to Sir Philip and I am still not asking her' (see Appendix 12
for a transcript).[75]
Third, when asked by ITN reporters on the evening news whether
any member of staff had been threatened with legal action, he
replied 'That's rubbish'. As you will appreciate from the information
above, it is my contention that none of these statements were
factually accurate.
Based on the facts available to me and despite
all the pressure that has been applied to me in the past week
I am still unable to support Mr Duncan Smith's position over the
employment of his wife.
Conclusion
This document has aimed to provide as detailed an
account as I am able to give on the matters relevant to your inquiry.
I have explained the structure of both offices and the roles performed
by the individuals within them. I have described my role as Head
of the Leader's Office and the integration of the two offices
including their necessarily close working practices. I have also
explained the extent to which pressure has been applied over the
past weeks in an attempt to get me to support publicly Mr Duncan
Smith's position.
Based on my previous experience of having run two
parliamentary constituency offices over nearly four years, it
is my view that it would have been virtually impossible for Mrs
Duncan Smith to have undertaken significant amounts of work without
having had regular contact with me, particularly given my overall
responsibility for the management of the diary.
I do not contend that Mrs Duncan Smith could not
have performed certain tasks for Mr Duncan Smith but rather that
I saw absolutely no evidence of the work carried out by her.
Given my responsibilities as Head of the Office of
the Leader of the Opposition, the close working proximity of the
parliamentary and Leader's Offices, and the regular and continuous
contact between the staff members concerned (as detailed above),
it is difficult to see, by analysing the distribution of tasks
and responsibilities within the two offices, what work Mrs Duncan
Smith effectively carried out. Furthermore, if Mrs Duncan Smith
had been working in excess of 25 hours a week I cannot see how
that, given my role, I would not have seen repeated and significant
evidence of her work in the form of emails, telephone calls and
letters either directly or indirectly. There was no evidence,
that I saw, indicating that she had any significant involvement
in the diary, correspondence or financial management in the constituency
office.
Moreover, from August to December 2002, whenever
I raised the issue of Mrs Duncan Smith, not one person ever questioned
or contradicted my assertion that she was being paid without appearing
to do any work. Critically, these people included Owen Paterson
and Christine Watson, both of whom would, had Mrs Duncan Smith
worked for over 25 hours a week, certainly have been aware of
the extent of her work and would surely have indicated to me that
my concerns were unfounded. The memo to me from Christine Watson
(see Appendix 4) is important in that it shows the extent of the
work being carried out by her and leaves little if any role for
Mrs Duncan Smith. Indeed, the first time I ever heard that Mrs
Duncan Smith worked in excess of 25 hours a week was in the statement
issued by Mr Duncan Smith on Monday 13th October 2003.
The information as detailed above reveals the facts
as I understand them and demonstrates why I felt unable to publicly
state that I was entirely satisfied with the arrangements regarding
Mr Duncan Smith's assertion that his wife, Betsy, carried out
a position of significant parliamentary work. All the subsequent
actions of Mr Duncan Smith and those around him in applying pressure
to me have merely confirmed my view.
It remains my conclusion that the press allegations
made regarding the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith are significantly
more likely to be true than not.
16 October 2003
65 See PCS Written Submission 46. Back
66
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
67
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
68
See PCS Written Submission 49. Back
69
Not appended by theCommissioner. Back
70
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
71
Not appended bythe Commissioner. Back
72
See PCS Written Submission 47 and 48. Back
73
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
74
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
75
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
| 
