Conclusions
62. As I have noted in paragraph 8 above, there is
no explicit provision in the Code of Conduct for Members concerning
misuse of the facilities of the House. However, it is clear from
the Banqueting Regulations and the advice I received from the
Serjeant at Arms (see paragraphs 10-11 above) that the use of
these facilities for the financial or commercial benefit of a
Member or of a company is not permitted.
63. The Code of Conduct includes a provision requiring
Members to conduct themselves in a manner designed to strengthen
public trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and
not to do anything which would bring the House into disrepute
(paragraph 9). If a Member were to exploit the privileged access
he had to the facilities of the House for the financial or commercial
benefit of a company in which he had a registrable financial interest,
that would in my view be likely to bring the House into disrepute
and to weaken public trust and confidence in the integrity of
Parliament (paragraph 12).
64. Mr Sayeed registered his 30% shareholding in
The English Manner Limited. This shareholding has not so far benefited
him through the payment of a dividend but it does give him a stake
in the future success of the company. He also has a stake in that
success through his role as a consultant on strategic and marketing
issues. In his capacity as a consultant and shareholder, he has
paid 6 visits to the USA funded by the company, all of which he
has again registered, although the two most recent of these were
registered well after the 28 days deadline for such matters. He
has received since the company was established £1,875 in
consultancy fees and £3,487 in expenses reimbursed by the
company. Mr Sayeed's financial interest in the company is clear.
65. The key question is whether Mr Sayeed has used
or exploited his privileged access as a Member to the facilities
of the House for the financial or commercial benefit of The English
Manner Limited. Mr Sayeed, supported by Mrs Messervy, answers
that question with a clear 'no'. The company never charged a fee
when its clients were hosted by Mr Sayeed and Mrs Messervy at
the House, merely (and then only in a few cases) the cost of the
meal provided. Mr Sayeed never received a fee for hosting such
occasions. The meal and tour of the House involved were not advertised
to clients in advance nor were they part of their paid programme.
In all cases, they assert, there was an element of private relationship
or friendship with those who were being hosted.
66. Mr Sayeed concedes, however, that in view of
the conversation Mrs Duvall had with Mr Lauria—in which
Mrs Duvall indicated that Parliament was indeed one of the institutions
to which the company could provide clients with privileged access—it
was not surprising that the Sunday Times reported its story as
it did on 29 August. Nor, I would add, is it at all surprising
given the material on the company's web-site which I have summarised
in paragraphs 5-7 above. Although some of this material had been
archived prior to 2004, some if it was still on the site earlier
that year, prior to the appearance of the Sunday Times story.
67. Mr Sayeed, supported by Mrs Messervy and Mrs
Ford, says that Mrs Duvall was not authorised to make the statements
she did to Mr Lauria. Nor had he authorised or was he aware of
the material on the company's web-site. Indeed any reference to
him or to privileged access to Parliament through him was contrary
to an express instruction he had given before the company was
launched. No record of this instruction exists but Mr Sayeed explains
this by saying that the company was small and he had no reason
to think his instruction would be disobeyed. He, Mrs Messervy
and Mrs Ford point to the departure of *** in May 2003 as evidence
of the company's intention to get these matters right.
68. It is difficult to understand how, if the placing
by *** of unauthorised material on the web-site was a factor in
her dismissal in May 2003 (paragraph 22), similar material was
still posted on the web-site after her dismissal in relation to
the company's 2004 programme (paragraph 23). The web-site was,
according to Mrs Messervy, used by the company "as a marketing
tool for those who seek it out". She acknowledges that, as
chairman of the company, she must carry overall responsibility
for what appeared on it, and at my meeting with her on 5 November
did not demur when it was suggested that she had not exercised
sufficient control over it. Mr Sayeed denies any responsibility
for the web-site: as a consultant, his interest was in the development
of prospective markets for the company. His role did not imply
any responsibility for how the company currently marketed itself.
69. It appears from the instruction said to have
been given by Mr Sayeed on the lines previously mentioned that
he was clearly aware of the dangers of the company using his status
as a Member or Parliament's name to promote its activities. It
is therefore again surprising that Mr Sayeed apparently made no
effort himself subsequently to check the terms in which the company
was promoting itself. Whilst I acknowledge Mr Sayeed's argument
that this was not an obligation on him flowing from his role within
the company, it would certainly have been prudent given his obligations
as a Member. In my view, the balance of evidence indicates that
both Mrs Messervy, as chairman of the company, and Mr Sayeed,
as a Member and as a significant figure in the company, failed
to exercise effectively the responsibilities which could reasonably
have been expected of them in relation to the way the company
marketed itself, both through its web-site and through its US
agents.
70. The other ways in which, according to Mr Sayeed
and Mrs Messervy, The English Manner Limited promoted itself were
through attracting favourable media attention and by personal
recommendation. It is in this context that it is necessary, I
submit, to view the various occasions on which Mr Sayeed hosted
groups or individuals in the House, details of the most significant
of which I have given in paragraph 39. Given that personal recommendation
was one of the means by which the company sought to promote itself,
it is not surprising that an element of personal relationship
or friendship features in each of these occasions. And at least
two of the occasions on which Mr Sayeed hosted meals in the House—the
familiarisation tour (paragraph 39(ii)) and the lunch with Mr
Bob Morris (paragraph 31)—involved the giving of hospitality
to people (travel agents and a travel writer) who were in a position
directly to promote the commercial interests of the company.
71. I have seen no evidence to suggest that either
Mr Sayeed personally or The English Manner Limited benefited directly
through the receipt of fees in relation to any of these occasions.
I am in little doubt, however, that, taken as a whole, their effect
was to give credibility to the company's overall marketing claim
that it could gain access for its clients to institutions, people
and places which it would otherwise be difficult for those clients
to access. In doing this, the occasions promoted the commercial
future of the company, a future in which Mr Sayeed had a clear
beneficial interest. In this context, it would not matter that
Mr Sayeed refrained from directly promoting the company on any
such occasion. The mere fact that Mr Sayeed was hosting people
in what his guests would see as such exclusive surroundings would
be enough to establish the validity of the company's claim. When
taken together with the material on the company's web-site the
overwhelming impression left on clients, prospective clients and
contacts in the travel trade would be that the company could indeed
gain exclusive access for them, and that this could include access
to Parliament.
72. I recognise the force of Mr Sayeed's argument
that a test of reasonableness has to be applied to the way in
which the relevant rules of the House relating to commercial benefit
and a Member's financial interests should be interpreted. What,
however, distinguishes this case from the other examples relating
to Members which Mr Sayeed gives is, in my view, the fact that
The English Manner Limited's claim to provide privileged access
was central to the marketing of its services. I do not therefore
see this case as requiring revision of the House's rules or having
wider implications for the way in which those rules are currently
interpreted by Members.
73. In my view, Mr Sayeed has a duty of care under
the Code to protect the reputation of Parliament and not to bring
it into disrepute. Taken as a whole, the evidence indicates that
he has, at the least, been negligent or careless in respect of
that duty.
74. I turn now to the issues raised by Mr Henderson
in relation to Mr Sayeed's employment of Mrs Messervy. Mr Henderson
asked me to consider whether it was ethical for Mr Sayeed to employ
Mrs Messervy as his constituency assistant when she was also the
majority shareholder (and chairman) of The English Manner Limited.
Mr Henderson suggested that these dual roles may have resulted
in "an unacceptable conflict of interest".
75. As I noted in paragraph 51, Members' staff are
not prohibited from undertaking other paid work when they are
not working for the Member. They are required to register any
paid employment or occupation which might benefit from their possession
of a Parliamentary pass. Mrs Messervy had registered her role
in relation to The English Manner Limited.
76. There would have been a conflict of interest
if Mrs Messervy had used her role as Mr Sayeed's constituency
assistant to further the commercial interests of her company.
Mrs Messervy and Mr Sayeed are adamant that she did not do so.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs Messervy failed to complete
the hours she was contracted to work for Mr Sayeed on Parliamentary
duties or that she misused office or other facilities provided
to her and Mr Sayeed by the House by using them to help her conduct
the business of The English Manner Limited.
77. There is no doubt, however, that the manner in
which Mrs Messervy's company marketed itself—with its claim
to provide privileged access to Parliament—readily gave
rise to the possibility of a perception of conflict of
interest between Mrs Messervy's two roles. Mrs Messervy has acknowledged
that, as chairman of The English Manner Limited, she must accept
overall responsibility for the way the company marketed itself.
Her decision to register her interest in the company indicates
that she was alive to the possibility that her connection with
Parliament through her employment by Mr Sayeed would be seen as
potentially beneficial to the company. Yet she failed to ensure
that the company of which she was chairman and majority shareholder
and its agents avoided claiming to be able to give its clients
privileged access to Parliament, and so laid both Mr Sayeed and
herself open to the complaint which followed.
78. At his meeting with me on 3 November, Mr Sayeed
contended that "a separation of powers was in place"
between Mrs Messervy's various roles. Given the evidence set out
in this report, it is not surprising that, whilst such a separation
may have been apparent to Mr Sayeed and Mrs Messervy, it was not
so apparent to any outside observer. In this context Mrs Messervy's
decision to give up her parliamentary pass and Mr Sayeed's declaration
that in future he will not personally conduct anyone introduced
by The English Manner Limited around the Palace of Westminster
nor entertain them there, whilst welcome, resound with the loud
crash of a stable door being locked after the horse has bolted.
79. In paragraphs 44-50 of this report, I have identified
issues raised by my inquiries relating to Mrs Messervy's lack
of a job description, her full or part-time status and the nature
of her role. I comment briefly on these in turn.
80. Whilst it was not obligatory for Mrs Messervy
to be given a job description when she was appointed, it
was a presumption that she should have one and it was certainly
desirable that she should have one. Mr Sayeed has acknowledged
this as a result of my inquiries and is remedying the deficiency.
81. Mr Sayeed gave incorrect information about whether
Mrs Messervy was a full or part time employee to the Department
of Finance and Administration on four separate occasions. Mr Sayeed
says that this information was given in good faith, because of
an expected change in his office needs consequent on the pregnancy
of his PA. Nevertheless he acknowledged that he incorrectly described
Mrs Messervy's status to the Department and, during discussion
with me on 11 January of the factual sections of the memorandum,
said that he apologised for this.[81]
82. Mr Sayeed acknowledges that Mrs Messervy's role
includes liaison between himself and officers and members of his
constituency association, and, that Mrs Messervy has herself been
a prominent officer of the association during the whole period
she has been employed by him. He denies, however, that this means
she has crossed the line between Parliamentary and party political
work. I have not uncovered evidence which would contradict that
denial.
83. However, I am concerned that Mrs Messervy wore
so many different hats in relation to Mr Sayeed after his election
in 1997—as friend, officer of the association, fellow shareholder
in The English Manner Limited and employee—that there was
ample scope for her different roles to be confused, at least by
any outside observer. A proper degree of separation between these
roles, and consequently of transparency, was lacking.
84. To sum up, I have seen no evidence that Mr Sayeed
and Mrs Messervy directly received fees in return for hosting
clients of The English Manner Limited in the House. However, I
believe that in their conduct in relation to The English Manner
Limited both Mr Sayeed and Mrs Messervy have at the least been
negligent in failing to exercise sufficient care to safeguard
the reputation of Parliament and at worst have acted carelessly,
in a manner which has allowed that reputation to be injured. The
explanation for this may stem as much from a misplaced sense of
the obligations of friendship as anything, but its effect has
been to allow others to draw the conclusion that privileged access
to the House and its facilities is a commodity to be marketed
and is dependant on having the right connections, which can be
obtained at a price. More generally, whilst the explanation they
offer for each element in the complaint against them may be plausible,
taken as a whole I do not find it a convincing justification of
their position. The "separation of powers" or compartmentalisation
of activities which Mr Sayeed claimed governed his various dealings
with Mrs Messervy may have been evident to them, but in my view,
it would not have been apparent to an outside observer.
85. I therefore recommend that Mr Henderson's
complaint against Mr Sayeed in relation to his conduct concerning
The English Manner Limited should be upheld. I find that the
multiple roles Mrs Messervy fulfilled in relation to Mr Sayeed
were such as to give rise at least to a perception of a conflict
of interest, both between her role in relation to the company
and her role as his constituency assistant and between her role
as his assistant and as an officer of his constituency association.
I find that Mr Sayeed gave misleading information to the Department
of Finance and Administration on four separate occasions about
Mrs Messervy's employment status, although this does not appear
to have resulted in an overpayment of the staffing allowance.
Finally, I note that in failing to notify the Registrar of Members'
Interests until earlier this month of visits to the USA in February
and April last year paid for by The English Manner Limited, Mr
Sayeed breached the requirement on Members to notify changes in
their registrable interests within four weeks of each change occurring.
[82]
12 January 2005
Sir Philip Mawer
43 
