WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY
COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS
7. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Jonathan
Sayeed
You are aware that allegations have been made against
me in the Sunday Times on 29 August 2004[83]
with 'follow-up' articles in the Times on 2 September and the
Sunday Times on 5 September. Copies of these articles are attached.
[84]
I understand that Ivan Henderson MP has asked you to investigate
these allegations and I have received your letter of 2 September
2004.
I have never accepted a fee for giving tours of Parliament
or entertaining anyone. I attach a copy of a statement I issued
in response to the implied allegations.[85]
I have always been meticulous in declaring my modest
outside interests. You will be aware that in December 2001 I contacted
your office as to the form of the declaration I should make regarding
my 30% shareholding in The English Manner Ltd and I followed that
advice. I have also declared the marketing/lecturing trips to
the USA where my expenses have been paid by the company.
As you know from my declaration I have held shares
in The English Manner since its inception in 2001. In the three
and a quarter years since the company's formation I have received
£1,875 in consultancy fees. Copies of the invoices are attached.[86]
In addition, I have been reimbursed £3,487 in expenses incurred
on behalf of The English Manner. Copies of the invoices are attached.[87]
In order to make the reading of the invoices more
understandable I have written on some of them and so as to avoid
confusion (eg in one example it looks as if I had two lunches
in one day!) I should mention that I tended to "bunch"
my invoices so they often covered more than one topic, event,
disbursement or time period. The dates on the invoices are the
dates they were raised, not the sometimes very disparate dates
on which the topic, disbursement or whatever arose.
The English Manner has never paid a dividend and
the only payments I have received from the company are the consultancy
fees and repayment of expenses referred to. My task as a part
time consultant to the company was to advise on the formation
of the company, its Articles of Association etc, provide continuing
advice on company management, accountancy etc and to give strategic
and marketing advice. I have made trips to the United States in
that connection. Where required this has been declared in the
Register of Members' Interests.
The English Manner creates travel experiences for
well off and influential overseas clients and teaches social skills
to a worldwide audience. The company was set up in June 2001 and
I have owned 30% of the shares since its inception for which I
paid £1,000. I am not involved in the day to day management
of the company, nor do I prepare its written or electronic advertising
or marketing materials and do not manage the liaison with the
selling agents in the US. You will understand how astonished I
was to read the transcript of the conversation between Ms Duvall
and Joe Lauria.
From the transcript one can clearly see how Ms Duvall
is trying to talk generalities and say that really Mr Lauria should
discuss his requirements with The English Manner and specifically
with Mrs Messervy but that Mr Lauria is constantly trying to push
her back to Parliament and his preconceived agenda. She, like
any sales agent, can be seen to pander to her prospect's wishes
and make all the noises that he wants to hear.
Nevertheless, and irrespective of the fact that Ms
Duvall is quite wrong in what she says and had no right to say
it, I can now see why the Sunday Times wrote as it did on 29 August.
Previously it had been a mystery to me as to why they should have
written an article which I know to be nonsense. Now I know why
and can have sympathy with the journalists concerned. I am only
sorry that I was away on holiday prior to the article appearing
and was therefore unable to demonstrate that they had been given
a false impression.
I have given immediate instructions to The English
Manner that my name must never be misrepresented by them in this
way or anybody acting for them, or, as in this case, somebody
associated with the entity which they had appointed. They are
as surprised and horrified as am I and have agreed to immediately
issue the appropriate corrective instructions.
Implicit in the article in the Sunday Times of 29
August is the suggestion that there is something irregular
and improper in the role of Mrs Messervy as the chairman of The
English Manner and as my constituency assistant. The position
is as follows:
Prior to becoming the Member of Parliament for Mid
Bedfordshire I was the chairman of the training division of a
plc that owned a number of subsidiary companies. Alexandra Messervy
was employed to advise on reinvigorating one of them, Lucie Clayton,
a secretarial college and 'finishing school'. In 1997 I resigned
as chairman when I was elected to Parliament as the MP for Mid
Bedfordshire. In June 1997 I employed Alexandra Messervy as a
constituency assistant; she has remained in that post since and
is currently paid £12,000 pa from my parliamentary staffing
allowance. A copy of her contract of employment is attached.[88]
When she decided to use her experience and talents to start up
The English Manner I agreed to help in a modest way.
There has never been a conflict between her paid
employment as a constituency assistant and her majority shareholding
in The English Manner. She has never used her employment to further
her client base with The English Manner nor has she ever taken
any guests for tours in the House of Commons. She did hold a full
security pass, but used it rarely and then only to meet my personal
assistant or me in the House of Commons. In view of the current
situation she has offered to surrender her Commons pass. The English
Manner has issued a press statement in relation to the article
in the Sunday Times and written to the newspaper. Copies of these
are attached.[89]
I believe our heritage and history of Parliament
is of great interest to overseas guests and one that I am proud
of and keen to share with those who may consequently be better
disposed to the UK. I have often been invited by such influential
guests of The English Manner and others to address them and their
organisations both here and in the US in order to share my experiences
and discuss the similarities and differences between the UK/US
constitution and governance. Over the past two years I have addressed
at least six such gatherings in the United States. Despite the
assertion in the Sunday Times, at no time have I sought or received
any remuneration for such an activity, which I see as part of
the duty of a Westminster MP.
Clients of The English Manner have included members
of foreign legislatures, judges, senior business people, heads
of charitable foundations and journalists. On a few occasions,
when parliamentary duties have made it likely that I would be
unable to leave the confines of the Palace of Westminster and
to enhance their experience, I have hosted lunches or dinners
in the Palace of Westminster and in these circumstances would
normally take those particular guests around the House for a tour.
However most of the entertaining of these individuals or groups
has been outside the House.
I have asked The English Manner to research their
records and they tell me that they have had no more than a total
of 3 groups of paying clients in London since 2001 who have at
some stage during their tour of the UK visited me in the Palace
of Westminster. On no occasion did I or The English Manner receive
a fee for these visits to the Palace.
I list below the three groups referred to:
Invoice dated 06.12.02: Mr
& Mrs ***. Friends of mine ***. They paid The English Manner
to arrange a crowded series of activities outside the Palace of
Westminster. Their invitation to see me at the House was because
they and their daughter are personal friends and I hoped to interest
them in sponsoring the Southbank Sinfonia, the orchestra used
by The Parliament Choir.
Invoice dated 27.05.04:
Garden Tour Group to Chelsea Flower Show, Gorhambury and other
gardening locations. Conducted some of them around the House of
Commons and sponsored a dinner in a private dining room and another
at the Carlton Club for them.
Invoice dated 26.05.04:
Maymount Foundation Auction visit. Two couples. Non profit making
charitable donation made by The English Manner, so strictly perhaps
the list should be two groups rather than three.
The Sunday Times article of 29 August suggested that
I entertained guests of The English Manner to a champagne reception
in the Commons after a concert in Westminster Hall. The concert
was in Westminster Abbey. There was a champagne reception but
it was at the Goring Hotel prior to the concert and I did not
attend. The English Manner purchased tickets for its guests that
were on sale to the general public and those guests paid The English
Manner for their tickets and the reception. The majority of those
guests were my constituents. Though I greeted them when they took
their seats I did not take them into Parliament, entertain them
or receive a fee.
The article in the Sunday Times of 29 August quotes
Bob Morris, who, dining with me, was indeed taken around the House,
as part of his visit to London to write about 'English Class'.
I hosted a lunch for Mr Morris so I could tell him about being
an MP and about Parliament, and at no point was I or the company
paid for this.
On further checking with The English Manner they
confirm that in the Sunday Times article of 29th a
trip in 'June of this year' was mentioned. No such trip took place.
The Sunday Times article goes on to say that 'one client says:
"Off to Parliament and an evening with the House of Commons
MP! Jonathan Sayeed …".' This lady was not a client
but a director of The English Manner.
I was surprised to note in the editorial in The Sunday
Times of 29 August that they posed the question "Are Tory
memories so short that they have forgotten the cash for questions
scandal …".
Had their research for this article been a higher
quality they would have reminded themselves that prior to the
row about 'Cash for Questions' I was approached by the Sunday
Times and as parliamentary records show, I rejected their advances
and their suggestions as improper. For this, I was commended by
members of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Yet the Sunday
Times when writing the 'Cash for Questions exposé' that
included my name, deliberately neglected to state that I had refused
their overtures and only the persistence of the Parliamentary
committee uncovered this deceit by the Sunday Times.
The Sunday Times articles are based on partial or
out of context quotes and innuendo and the thrust of their charge
(ie that either or both of The English Manner and myself charge
fees for giving tours of the Palace of Westminster) is quite simply
wrong.
In paragraph 2 of your letter, you state that 'The
allegation against you is, in brief, that you have abused the
privileged access you have as a Member to the House and its facilities
by exploiting it for the commercial benefit of a company in which
you have a financial interest'. You will see from the above that
this is not so.
Whilst the majority of the meetings I have had for
The English Manner have been outside Parliament, parliamentary
hours, votes, committees etc can make it difficult for Members
to meet or entertain others away from the confines of the Palace
of Westminster, particularly when the meeting has to be arranged
some time in advance. This is no doubt why Labour MPs who have
Trade Union sponsorship entertain those who influence that sponsorship
in the House. Similarly it is why so many colleagues who have
remunerated and properly declared outside interests meet and entertain
those commercial interests in the Palace of Westminster. I do
not believe that such behaviour by MPs is regarded as being an
abuse of the privilege of being an MP.
Because of the constraints imposed by the parliamentary
timetable it is not possible for Members to conduct only parliamentary
business in the confines of the House and always transact any
private business away from the Palace of Westminster. That has
never happened and it would be unjust and impracticable to impose
such a prohibition.
Being an MP is a privilege and not one I have ever
or would ever use for personal financial gain. I am meticulous
in registering my outside interests and would not misuse or abuse
my access to Parliament or my position as an MP. I hope that this
clarifies the situation for you. However, if there are any further
questions to which you would like me to respond, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
7 September 2004
83 See WE1-2. Back
84
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
85
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
86
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
87
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
88
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
89
Not appended by the Commissioner. Back
| 
