WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY
COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS
9. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Jonathan
Sayeed
Thank you for your letter of 15 October. I will address
your questions in the order that they appear in your letter.
The Complaint
You state "the principal allegation against
you is that you have abused the privileged access as a Member
of the House and its facilities by using it for the commercial
benefit of a company—The English Manner Ltd—in which
you have a financial interest …" As I made clear in
paragraph 2 of my letter of 7 September, "I have never accepted
a fee for giving tours of Parliament, or for entertaining anyone."
On page 4, paragraph 2, I informed you that The English Manner
had stated that "On no occasion did I or the English Manner
receive a fee for these visits to the Palace."
I will address the specific questions later in my
letter.
You then state that Mr Henderson has also asked you
to consider whether it is ethical for me to employ Alexandra Messervy
as my constituency Assistant. Again, I will deal with this further
on in my letter.
Issues
1. Is it a clear principle that the facilities
of the House may only be used for parliamentary and not for commercial
purposes?
You say that the answer appears to be "yes"
and have copied me the Serjeant-at-Arms statements and the banqueting
regulations provided by the Director of Catering. I confirm that
no committee, conference, meeting or interview room has been used
by me for any guests of The English Manner nor has admissions
to House facilities been made conditional on the payment of fees
by me or, I am informed, by The English Manner Ltd. However in
a few appropriate cases, the re-imbursement of entertainment costs
has been charged by The English Manner.
In your final paragraph in this section, you state
that "from the material available to me it appears to be
that The English Manner charged fees for visits which included
a meal at the House in a private dining room sponsored by you,
this would appear to be in breach of this provision of the regulations."
As I will endeavour to make clear later on in my
letter, where a payment for food or drink provided by the House
was charged by The English Manner, I am informed by them that
this was only a recovery of costs and that where clients have
paid The English Manner for services it provided, these were for
services that were outside the Palace of Westminster.
However, you will recollect that on pages 5 and 6
of my letter of 7 September, I stated that "… 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 MP's who have
a 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 MP's 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".
So whilst I agree and adhere to the general principle
outlined by the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Director of Catering,
it would be only just to invoke the test of "reasonableness"
or else I believe the majority of Members of Parliament
would be in breach. Furthermore as the record makes clear the
vast majority of the entertainment for clients of The English
Manner and their being accompanied by anyone associated with The
English Manner was away from the Palace of Westminster.
2. Do you have a financial interest in The English
Manner Ltd?
As declared I do have a 30% shareholding and I confirm
that I have received £1,875 in consultancy fees and been
re-imbursed £3,487 in expenses over a period of some 3¼
years. I have made clear that every penny of the expenses was
re-imbursed of money that I paid out on behalf of The English
Manner, and I feel sure you will agree this cannot be a matter
of complaint.
As far as the consultancy fees go, in the first paragraph
of page 2 of my letter of 7 September, I said "My task as
a part time consultant 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 considerable business experience,
have started and run more than half a dozen profitable companies
of which I was a shareholder. I also have been the divisional
chairman of a substantial plc. That is why I was asked to assist
The English Manner and it is for that and that alone that I received
consultancy fees. The reference to marketing advice is not for
day to day marketing, most of which I was neither aware of, nor
had any control over, but more for markets to approach and how
best to tackle them.
I confirm that "the company has never paid a
dividend" and indeed as the latest accounts will show has
had trading losses to the tune of £69,000 which have been
funded by shareholders. Again I confirm that I have never "ever
accepted a fee for giving tours of Parliament or entertaining
anyone there".
Whilst I do have "a clear financial interest
in the company …" that is "not only current but
prospective" as none of the limited activities within Parliament
have been charged for by The English Manner, I would suggest that
they have not accrued any value to me. However, for the avoidance
of doubt, I have made clear to The English Manner that in future
I will not personally conduct anyone introduced by them around
the Palace of Westminster nor entertain them here in future.
3. Was this financial interest properly registered
in accordance with the relevant Rules of the House?
In your last paragraph under this section, you asked
the question "if The English Manner Ltd did not pay for 2
of the 6 trips, may I ask who did?". There were 4 trips but
on 2 of the occasions I gave 2 lectures so the 6 lectures were
divided between 4 trips. I trust that with this re-assurance you
will be satisfied that my financial interest was properly registered
in accordance with the relevant rules of the House.
4. What was your role in relation to The English
Manner Ltd?
In this section, you specifically ask about the marketing
advice. I trust that my earlier explanation re-assures you about
this. You go on to say "as regards your role in the company
do you accept the copy invoices you sent me indicate that you
were involved in the reception of individuals and groups at the
House on behalf of the company (an example of this being the garden
tour group)?"
As I made clear in page 4 of my letter of 7 September,
Mr and Mrs *** did use and remunerated The English Manner for
activities that were arranged "outside the Palace of Westminster".
The 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. So in this case, I hope that you are re-assured that the
reception of these individuals is not on "behalf of the company".
In your last paragraph of section 4, you asked about
"the garden tour group". I attach a copy of their programme.[94]
You will note that on Tuesday 18 May, neither the activity nor
the dinner was at the Palace of Westminster. On 19 and 20 May,
I took no part in their numerous activities which were all outside
the Palace of Westminster. On 21 May, I accompanied them to activities
outside the Palace of Westminster, and then entertained some of
them at the Carlton Club. On Saturday 22 May, whilst it shows
that I would accompany them to Winfield House, the residence of
the US Ambassador, I did not do so. Nor did I take part in any
of the other activities that day. On Sunday 23 May, they had a
full programme of visits mainly outside London. On Monday 24 May,
they had activities mainly outside London. On Tuesday 25 May,
the group visited the Flower Market at Covent Garden and then
the RHS Chelsea Flower Show. In the evening, at the request of
the American organiser of the party, who is a personal friend,
I gave them dinner at the House of Commons for which no remuneration
was paid to me, nor, I am informed by The English Manner, was
anything but the cost recovered by the company. I should mention
that I had to be in the House of Commons that day as I was chairing
the Energy Bill.
5. Did you ever host individuals or groups at
meals in and/or on tours of the House on behalf of The English
Manner Ltd?
You have asked for a number of points of clarification
relating to the detailed material I have supplied.
a) the "few occasions" are "the
same as the three groups of paying clients of The English Manner
Ltd …" and are not additional to them.
The sponsored function on 27 March 2003 was the one
where "one client says: Off to Parliament and an evening
with an MP Jonathan Sayeed". As I made clear in the first
paragraph on page 5 of my letter of 7 September, this comment
came from a director of The English Manner. That function was
a 'Familiarisation' visit that included *** who became the Business
Development Manager of the US arm of The English Manner, *** who
became a tutor for the US arm of The English Manner, ***, who
is a photographer for the US arm of The English Manner, Genie
Ford, US director of The English Manner, ***, who writes on British
heritage, *** a journalist who writes on British issues and 4
other people who are connected to US travel agents. The English
Manner has confirmed that no payment was received by them from
these individuals or any other source and no payment was made
to me for hosting them. The only 'pitch' I can remember making
was to solicit interest in the Parliament Choir and sponsorship
for the Southbank Sinfonia.
I have dealt with your query about 25 May which leaves
that of 14 June 2004. I hosted a buffet reception in the House
of Commons for a group of US Supreme Court Judges and their families
who had asked if I could take them for a tour of the Palace as
part of their visit from the USA to discuss the proposed joint
venture celebrations between Britain and the US for the anniversary
of Jamestown 2007. I did take them on a tour of the Palace of
Westminster and indeed some of them met and talked to Black Rod
along the route. However, I can confirm that I have been advised
by The English Manner that this was not organised by The English
Manner but by Alexandra Messervy personally and that the only
payment made by the judges was the re-imbursement of the cost
of the reception and again I confirm that I was neither paid a
fee for entertaining them, nor for guiding them around the Palace
of Westminster.
I trust this is now clear.
In Section b and c you ask whether "a visit
to the House was advertised as part of overall programme to these
groups, for which arranging the overall programme the guests paid
The English Manner a fee." I am informed by The English Manner
that of the three groups detailed in my letter of 7 September,
only in the case of the garden tour group was the Palace of Westminster
mentioned, but that in the charges made by The English Manner
only the recovery of the cost of the meal was included in the
charge to the client.
In Section d referring to the invoice of 27.5.04,
you ask whether the fee was intended "to cover all of your
time in participating in the group's tour, including that part
of it which involved a visit to the House." None of the fee
was for activities in the Palace of Westminster. It was £250
for a total of 8 hours entertaining them at the Carlton Club and
for accompanying them on their visit to St Albans and the remaining
£125 for time spent on advice to The English Manner on company
marketing and planning. You ask for a copy of the programme and
this I attach.[95]
In Section (e) you refer to the lunch hosted for
Mr Bob Morris and ask if others were present. The three people
present were Mr Bob Morris, Mrs Alexandra Messervy and I. You
ask "am I correct in thinking that the object of the occasion
was in part to impress Mr Morris (and any other travel writers
who may have been present) with a service which The English Manner
Ltd could offer its clients". No other travel writer was
present, indeed my understanding of Mr Morris' position was that
he was here to write on English etiquette, the English way of
life and parliamentary heritage. At no stage was any sales pitch
made by myself or Mrs Messervy for The English Manner and I believe
the approach was made to Mrs Messervy because of her background
in the Royal Household. No payment was made by Mr Morris or anyone
else for the lunch and neither I nor Mrs Messervy had any control
over the article that he wrote. Indeed I am informed by Mrs Messervy
that she asked Mr Morris to remove certain references to his visit
to parliament and some items dealing with royalty but he declined
to do so.
In Section (f), you ask whether I "dispute the
authenticity of the extract from the company's website …"
and whether I was "aware of the terms in which these tours
were being advertised." I am not disputing the authenticity
of the extract but I confirm that neither I nor Alexandra Messervy
authorised the content or were aware of the terms and indeed I
was not even aware of its existence. As I stated on page 2 of
my letter of 7 September "I am not involved in the day to
day management of the company, nor do 1 prepare its written or
electronic advertising or marketing materials and do not manage
the liaison with the selling agent in the US." I am advised
by The English Manner that the person in the United States who
prepared the text for this extract was required to leave the employ
of The English Manner Inc over a year ago as they had not followed
specific instructions to clear all advertising or promotional
material with Alexandra Messervy prior to release.
Section g refers to a letter of 1 September 2004
from Mrs Messervy to the editor of the Sunday Times. This was
the function on 27 March 2003, previously referred to under 5a
and the questions you have detailed in section (g) are answered
therein
6. The concert by the Parliamentary Choir.
I will give my answers to your questions in the order
that your questions occur. You are correct in stating that the
concert was to have been in Westminster Hall and had to be transferred
to Westminster Abbey. The reason that I pointed out the discrepancy
was to demonstrate the sloppiness of the article in the Sunday
Times.
You are correct that there were 3 pre-concert receptions
and two post-concert receptions. No person invited by The English
Manner or by me attended any of these receptions. I am informed
by The English Manner that their two guests, the personal guests
of Alexandra Messervy and a number of my constituents arrived
by coach at the Goring Hotel for a pre-concert reception, left
by coach for the Abbey, attended the concert and returned by coach
from the Abbey to their various homes. At no stage did they enter
the Palace of Westminster, in all cases they purchased tickets
that were on offer to the public for this public concert and the
only contact I had with any of them was when they were in their
seats in the Abbey. I understand from The English Manner that
whilst the cost of the tickets and reception was re-imbursed to
The English Manner no profit was made by The English Manner and
neither I nor The English Manner was paid a fee. Further more
I am informed by The English Manner that the press release you
refer to was not seen or approved by Alexandra Messervy (see before)
and I certainly had no knowledge of it. I trust that this deals
fully with the points (a) and (d). As far as points (b), (c) and
(e) go, the answers are as follows:
7. The Employment of Mrs Alexandra Messervy
Mrs Alexandra Messervy is not paid and neither does
she act on a full time basis. She is paid £12,000 per annum,
works either from home or at the Association constituency office
and her role is to liaise between the press and others and myself
relating to my parliamentary duties and constituency work. She
also liaises between the officers and members of the constituency
association regarding general constituency and parliamentary matters
and diary. She acts as a "look out" for problems within
the constituency and the part-time nature of her duties leaves
her free to run what is a very small company. As for any suggestion
that there is a conflict this was refuted in page 3 of my letter
of 7 September. However, I can confirm that she surrendered her
Commons pass as soon as you wrote to me following the article
in the Sunday Times. Mrs Messervy has been employed by me since
1997 and I believe that you will find that at that time there
was no requirement to issue a job description and the terms of
her employment have not changed.
Should you find it necessary, Mrs Messervy has indicated
she is very happy to be interviewed but wishes to do so in the
presence of her solicitor.
I wish to make clear that I have never accepted a
fee for giving tours of Parliament or entertaining anyone in the
Palace of Westminster. The English Manner Ltd has stated that
they have never charged fees for any tour of the Palace of Westminster
or for anyone being entertained there. All they have done where
appropriate is claim the re-imbursement of the costs.
As mentioned above, the record shows that for the
year ending 31.12.03 the net costs of The English Manner have
been to the tune of £69,000 which has been funded by shareholders
and it has made no return to date. No benefit has accrued to me
as a Member of Parliament by virtue of my shareholding in the
English Manner Ltd. However, so as to make clear that is the case
and for the avoidance of any doubt I have informed The English
Manner that henceforth I will not conduct anyone introduced by
them around the Palace of Westminster or entertain them in the
Commons.
I have shown a draft of this letter to Alexandra
Messervy and she confirms my understanding of each and every point
where The English Manner Ltd is mentioned.
I trust that with all these answers, you are re-assured
that I have acted with propriety throughout.
26 October 2004
94 Not reported. Back
95
Not reported. Back
| 
