WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY
COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS
12. Note of meeting with Mrs Alexandra Messervy
on 5 November 2004
Meeting in the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards, 5 November, 11.30 am.
Present Sir Philip Mawer (PM), Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards, Mrs Alexandra Messervy (AM), Constituency Assistant
to Jonathan Sayeed (JS), Ms Alda Barry (AB), Registrar of Members'
Interests, Mr Aidan Mills-Thomas (AMT) (Solicitor to AM).
1. PM had a number of specific questions which
he wished to address: what was the nature of the business of TEML
and how it charged for its services; what was JS's role, especially
as regards marketing; who was present at the meeting where JS
had said his name was not to be used in promoting the company
and how this principle was enforced; when *** was sacked; how
TEML promoted its business; whether AM knew what was on the website.
He also had specific questions about the occasions when JS had
entertained TEML clients on the House, and about AM's role as
JS's constituency assistant.
2. * * *
3. * * *
4. PM said that he and the Committee would try
to respect the privacy of individuals but he could give no absolute
guarantees that any information provided would not eventually
be published.
5. PM said the kernel of the complaint was that
JS had used his privileged access to the House to further the
interests of TEML, a company in which he had a clear financial
interest; it was not that he had received fees for allowing access
(a suggestion he and AM had denied). The question had also been
raised as to whether it was ethical for JS to employ AM, as had
the related question of whether she herself was misusing parliamentary
facilities.
6. PM understood that TEML was not a travel company
but a company which offered tailored packages with an instructional
focus, working together with a travel company. Its major selling
point was that it could provide access to a range of people, institutions
and places to which access was not normally available. AM said
she would describe it as a training company and suggested that
the most important access provided was access to the tutors—for
instance Penelope Hobhouse, who was one of the most famous current
gardeners, had spent time with the Garden Group. Further, the
instructional element of the packages did not always involve travel;
one of the most important elements of the access was access to
AM herself, and she herself went abroad to give instruction on
etiquette. Accommodation could be provided in such places as Belvoir
Castle, which were not generally available. The company did not
claim to give access to Parliament or to JS.
7. The company did not earn its money by putting
together packages for which it charged the cost plus a commission.
It was more complicated than that. The reason the company had
been set up using McCabe-Bremer as administrators was that she
had been incorrectly advised that if the company wanted to offer
travel within the UK she would be bound by EU rules and the ABTA
rules would have come into force whereby she would have had to
put up a bond if she wished to offer more than one component (for
instance a coach journey and a night in a hotel). The directors
had therefore decided it would be better to link to a body which
would carry the insurance, flights and general administration.
Genie Ford (GF), the US director, had known McCabe-Bremer. McCabe-Bremer
were the middlemen and carried the administrative burden. AM put
together an itinerary but the company was not paid a percentage
of what the group paid. McCabe were paid a set fee but AM was
paid a percentage of the charge made for each element of the itinerary
which she had effected.
8. AM said that some people who came to the UK
under the auspices of the company had visited the House of Commons,
but not as part of a package, but because they were friends of
AM/JS. On the few occasions where JS had entertained clients in
the House they had been charged the bare cost of the meal without
any element of commission, if they had been charged at all.
9. PM said he understood that the business did
not advertise itself. It had a website and proceeded by personal
recommendation. It was apparent that the website had carried references
to the House of Commons. He asked how they had got there and who
controlled the website.
10. AM said that the website was controlled by
GF, who, unlike AM, understood technical matters. *** had been
employed from the outset and had had responsibility under GF for
the content. Once the directors realised there was material on
the website which should not be there, action was taken to remove
it. In this context it was relevant that most of the material
PM had been given from the website was archived, rather than active,
material, retrieved from the Smithsonian Institute. It was also
piecemeal, taken from a series of articles over which the directors
had no editorial control. Other material submitted was a diary
piece written following a familiarisation trip. AM readily conceded
that the material should not have been on the website. Once it
had been realised that it was there and in press releases, oral
and written instructions were issued forbidding its use and in
the end *** had been sacked.
11. AM remembered JS telling every member of
the staff in the US (GF had another company called Print Management
whose staff TEML used) very clearly that his name and that of
Parliament were not to be used in any of TEML's material and that
the company could not offer access to Parliament. This instruction
had been reiterated at the time of the company's launch in February
2002. *** had put in a press release that JS was an MP but AM
would not have thought at the time that that was wrong; the British
Embassy had helped with the launch, as it had been shortly after
9/11 (which had caused it to be delayed) at a time when initiatives
showing US-UK solidarity and aimed at reviving the travel trade
were particularly welcome.
12. From then on, *** had been repeatedly told
that she must not suggest that the company would arrange access
to Parliament. AM took responsibility as Chairman for the content
of the website, but she had a co-director in the US who employed
*** and she had assumed that her instructions were being adhered
to. A quick trawl of the website every now and then suggested
that this was generally the case, and where it was not, some of
the material had been archived as a result.
13. JS's first instruction that his name was
not to be used was issued before February 2002 in the presence
of GF, *** and another member of GF's staff. As the company grew,
other staff were told. There was no written record of the instruction
being given, unless there might be an e-mail from a long time
ago. The company was a small enterprise based on friendship. If
JS had come in as a stranger more might have been written down,
but in the circumstances it was assumed that his word was law.
There was never any question that TEML would benefit from and
hence would advertise or promote access to Parliament, partly
because, in the market The English Manner Limited was aiming at,
Parliament would have been a minor 'draw' compared to meeting
Penelope Hobhouse or having dinner next to a Duke.
14. AM had asked GF to look for any recorded
warnings; there had been oral warnings and finally a letter but
AM did not think this last contained references to the failure
to adhere to instructions- there had been other failings as well.
*** had been GF's employee and had worked from her own home.
15. AMT suggested the question of access to Parliament
was not a big issue simply because TEML was not offering it.
16. PM commented that the payment of fees would
have been only one of the ways in which access to Parliament could
have benefited the company. The raison d'etre of the company was
access to people and places not normally available. The website
material he had seen suggested that Parliament was among the places
of privileged access available. It could be argued that the way
it was posted on the website furthered the commercial interest
of the company in attracting clients.
17. AM said that PM would no doubt say she was
responsible as Chairman but she would suggest that the company
was a partnership and GF was responsible for the website.
18. PM asked whether AM had not been concerned
at how the company was portrayed. AM said that when she had taken
an overall view of the website it had looked alright; where she
had seen something incorrect she had asked for it to be removed
and generally it was. She readily admitted that the Morris article
should have been taken out in hindsight.
19. PM asked when objectionable material had
been removed from the website. AM said sometimes visit programmes
appeared that had never happened and had not been authorised by
her for the web-site. Apparently the main culprits were the programmes
of actual visits. These were generated by AM e-mailing a programme
which would be translated into American print and GF or *** would
edit it. She would not always see the finished article; sometimes
she would ask to see it and it would still go out without her
seeing it. She had repeatedly asked for items to be removed, and
sometimes they were not. The website was refreshed regularly and
some items would be removed as a matter of course; nonetheless
the familiarisation trip diary was still on in the early summer
of 2004.
20. AMT suggested that if AM was guilty of anything,
it was that, for understandable reasons, she had not exercised
sufficient control over the web-site.
21. *** had been sacked in mid or late May 2003.
22. PM asked whether GF would be able to corroborate
what AM has said. AM said she would ask GF for a statement.[101]
23. At PM's request, AM described JS's role.
He had been very clear that he should not be a director, but had
agreed to be a consultant. He had helped to draw up the articles
of association and in a strategic role. From the marketing point
of view he had suggested possible new markets to look at, like
Russia. He had had no input into the day-to-day marketing and
had probably never seen the material on the website. He had fronted
the approach to Virgin Atlantic when the company had tried to
develop a relationship with the airline.
24. PM referred to the occasions when JS was
involved in receiving people involved with TEML in the House,
and asked AM for clarification.
25. AM reminded PM that some of these occasions
had involved paying clients of TEML while others did not. The
paying clients had been the *** on 6 December 2002 and the Garden
Group on 25th May 2004. Neither of these had Parliament in their
programmes. The Maymount Foundation on 26 May 2004 was a charitable
event. Thereafter there had been a group of US judges which, though
invoiced to TEML was, AM said, entirely organised by her and nothing
to do with JS.
26. In addition a number of other occasions had
been invoiced to TEML In total, there were:
i. 11 June 2002—The Bob Morris lunch
ii. The American Women's Club for London. These
were not clients (the invoice was marked 'no fee paid'), though
the lunch was paid for by TEML. As one of the guests was a personal
friend, JS had offered to host lunch in the House (he was a shadow
Minister at the time, so it was difficult for him to leave the
premises). There were 2 guests ***. AM had performed a number
of services for the AWCL, for none of which she had been paid.
There was no knock-on effect in terms of TEML. AB suggested that
they might return to the US and spread the word about TEML but
AM said they would not- it was not that kind of organisation and
besides, they were in London not the US, and all they had wanted
was her to teach their children how to behave at table.
iii. 6 December 2002—The *** dinner. The
*** were TEML's first paying clients as well as personal friends
of both AM and JS. They had paid £1600 for facilities in
London, but no fee had been paid in respect of dinner in the House.
Nor was the dinner part of the *** paid itinerary. They were friends
of AM/JS. No profit had been made, though a consultancy fee had
been paid to JS. AM thought the consultancy fee might have been
unrelated to the trip; in the early days of the company JS had
submitted invoices sporadically as and when money was available.
As far as JS's role in the *** visit was concerned he had suggested
a reception at Dunhill, which was one of the organisations that
were open to approaches for private clients, for their own commercial
reasons.
iv. January 2003—lunch with ***. Before
returning to Parliament in 1997, JS had been Chairman of Corporate
Services Group which owned LCC and had asked AM to revitalise
the college. Thereafter LCC had become purely a business skills
college but JK and AM had continued to talk and would indeed probably
shortly be carrying out a joint venture.
v. 1 July 2003—lunch with the *** family.
*** had approached AM via Pulbrook and Goldin, probably, late
2000, well before TEML had been set up, as someone who might able
to orchestrate the sort of visit she had in mind for her garden
club. Mrs *** had come to lunch as a friend.
vi. 5 November 2003—lunch with the ***
and ***. Mrs *** and her daughter had come back to the UK with
*** in November 2003. Mrs *** rang AM and said she would like
to meet JS again and that they had EG with them. Out of friendship
and because of the dove-tailing with the Parliament Choir interest
of JS, the meeting had been arranged. In fairness the Garden Club
trip was probably discussed over lunch.
vii. 26 June 2004—the Maymount Foundation.
The Maymount Foundation visit came about because JS and AM had
both been to Richmond VA and had met a travel agent whom they
had approached through McCabe Bremer. McCabe-Bremer was a member
of the Virtuoso network (a travel group which worked with the
cream of the clients and with which, therefore, TEML would wish
to be connected). When TEML approached other agents, it was usually
other Virtuoso agents. The Virtuoso agent in Richmond happened
to be the Chairman of the Maymount Foundation: American stately
homes are usually funded by charitable foundations of which this
was one. These foundations have charitable auctions and the Chairman
asked if TEML would provide 'a very English day' as an auction
lot. It had been intended to end the day with supper in a hotel
but JS (who had originally said he would donate dinner and a tour
of the House) had said 'Genie [Ford] is with you so why do you
not stay for dinner?' The dining room eventually used for the
Garden Group had originally been booked for the Maymount Group
for the 25th but dates kept changing. Eventually, the numbers
having dropped and the buyers of the lot having decided they would
prefer 26th to 25th May, the Garden Club was given the original
dining room booking and the Maymount group was entertained the
next night in the Strangers' Dining Room. The event was not intended
to be profit-making, though in the event exchange rate fluctuations
had resulted in a surplus of about £88. McCabe had paid most
of the expenses except for lunch at the Savoy. Another Maymount
event was in prospect.
viii. 14 June 2004—group of US judges.
This had been instigated by the same lady who had initiated the
Maymount visit (who was bringing a group of US Supreme Court judges
and their families to London). *** was mainly studying legal matters
but was also talking about Jamestown 2007, an event with which
AM had been asked to help and on which discussions, were at the
date of this interview, continuing. JS had previously met the
***, and he and AM were asked to help with the visit. A guide
was booked, but in the event JS was free and took the party round
himself; they had met Black Rod. The group had asked if they could
have lunch in the House, so a dining room was booked. No profit
had been made.
27. PM returned to the matter of the Garden Group.
As he had read their programme, the visit to the House looked
like an integral part of it; the absence of asterisks suggested
that it was not an elective element. As he understood JS's evidence,
the programme had not been advertised to the participants as including
a visit to the House and the first they had known about it was
when AM met them. AM confirmed that, and added that most of the
group did not know much about the programme at all in advance.
It had been discussed intensively between AM and the instigator
and had always hinged on Penelope Hobhouse, the Chelsea Flower
Show and the Lady Pulbrook Flower School (she subsequently corrected
herself to say that originally it had been intended to do country
gardens and that the emphasis on Chelsea and London had come later,
partly in the light of September 11th 2001). The programme had
been constantly changing as the length of the proposed visit altered.
The tour of the House had probably been suggested by Mrs *** over
the meal in late 2003. The dinner in the House was added when
the Maymount dates changed, freeing the booking in the private
dining room on 25th May.
28. PM asked about the Parliament Choir concert.
He understood that it had been advertised in a press release dated
2003 as part of a programme due to take place in June 2003. AM
said that *** had used her own, unauthorised, language. No clients
had come over for any programme involving the Parliament Choir
in June 2003. Two American friends (***), one of whom organised
etiquette courses at the Smithsonian twice a year, had been in
London and had said they would like to attend, and been included
in JS's group. AM had arranged a champagne reception at the Goring
(which AMT and his wife had attended) because of the length of
time visitors needed to spend in Westminster Abbey. Some constituents
and some friends had attended the reception and concert. In the
event the *** had arrived on Sunday (the concert being on Wednesday)
and AM had organised visits to Windsor Castle and Kensington Palace
and had had lunch with them. No profit was made. The press release
had been misleading and the language unauthorised.
29. The meeting then addressed the question of
AM's employment by JS. AM had started working for JS in 1997 and
was his constituency assistant; she thought no job description
had been necessary at the time (which PM would check). JS had
approached her after his selection as candidate to fight the seat
of Mid-Bedfordshire in 1995, asking her if she would assist him
in the constituency (no job title had originally been suggested),
liaising between the constituency association and his parliamentary
and constituency activities. She was a leading light in the association
and had, at the time, been its deputy chairman. Her PR background
was an advantage, as was her location. At the time neither party
had any idea how much time would be needed. AM was then an ad
hoc consultant for Lucie Clayton and doing some event planning
and charitable work but was not otherwise employed; she had thought
she would give the job however many hours it took, but it had
been agreed that she would work, perhaps, half a day a week. The
role had evolved as JS had become more ensconced as an MP, and
now she would sometimes attend meetings with him or accompany
him on engagements; there was more liaison between the association
and the diary secretary and herself. The work normally now averaged
out at about three or four hours a day. She was paid on a per
annum basis, on the basis of that amount of time. She thought
her salary had increased from £8000 to £12000. PM said
that according to the DFA she had been engaged in 1997 at £4000
a year for 13 hours a week, and was now paid £12,000 for
full time employment. PM would check with the DFA why they thought
she was employed full time.
30. AM said that she worked from home, or sometimes
from the constituency office, and worked some part of every day
to get everything done. The hours were very variable but not full
time (AMT commented that four hours a day seven days a week might
be regarded as almost full time. PM said that thirty-five hours
a week was normal full-time for public servants). AM suggested
that working from home made her very productive.
31. Despite being very efficient and working
long hours, and despite TEML being a very small company, AM is
finding it increasingly difficult to fulfil all her commitments,
including those to TEML, which was why she had taken on an assistant
in the UK to help with the company in order to be able to devote
as much time as necessary to her various roles in the Conservative
Party and in the constituency.
32. Most of AM's constituency work was done from
home, although she had an office in the constituency office. Her
work for TEML was done from home.
33. While AM had had a House of Commons pass,
she did not come to London very often, certainly not for parliamentary
purposes. She had not used it in the context of TEML.
34. PM summed up that, averaged out, AM worked
less than full time for JS, perhaps up to 28 hours a week. He
would check the discrepancy in the understanding about her hours
with the DFA. AM suggested that she regarded her payment as pro
rata by reference to the £40,000 or £50,000 that she
would command in the City if she were still the PA she had been.
As well as the constituency and TEML work she also did voluntary
work.
35. PM noted that AM had written to him that
she worked for JS during election campaigns, for instance drawing
up schedules and routes. She explained that she took paid leave
during election campaigns in order to do this.
36. In conclusion, and before PM explained the
next steps and the procedures he would now follow, ATM underlined
a number of points. The privileged access was mainly to AM herself,
as an expert on etiquette. There was an element of 'spin' in the
concept of the 'privileged access' offered by TEML because in
many cases companies such as Dunhill were happy to allow such
access as it helped them sell their products. One reason some
material on Parliament had slipped on to the website was that
Parliament was of such slight importance in terms of the kind
of thing the company could provide; access to it would have been
much less to its clients than access to, for instance, Belvoir
Castle. The marketing was done mainly in the US, mainly because
AM was so heavily committed to the constituency work. The company
was 'almost' a hobby; it did not incur large losses but it had
not built up as much business as had been hoped because AM wished
to continue to devote as much time as she did to the constituency.
Because of this, and because GF was a personal friend, AM had
been guilty of not exercising proper control over the company's
marketing. The company's clients tended to be, or certainly to
become, personal friends.
37. AM said that there was no doubt that the
Sunday Times could not have printed the story it did if it had
taken note of what Bambi Duvall had said when she rang the journalist
back to say that TEML could not offer access to Parliament. The
company had taken immediate steps on the publication of that story
to issue a statement to staff saying that what Ms Duvall had said
was incorrect. The company had not promoted itself as being able
to provide access to Parliament and had not even thought of doing
so. If it appeared that JS had attended a lot of events in connection
with the company, that was because he carried out a support role
for it. JS was a person of total integrity.
38. PM asked if it would be possible for him
to have Bambi Duvall's contact details so that he could ask her
to confirm what AM had said, and AM agreed.
39. PM outlined the procedure which would now
be followed. He would check with the DFA to find out why they
believed AM was working full time. He and AB would prepare a draft
note of the conversation which would be sent to AM and AMT for
checking. In due course he would send JS a draft of the factual
sections of the report for comment and, in view of her relationship
to JS, he imagined AM would see these fairly shortly thereafter.
The report, revised if necessary, would then be sent, together
with his views on the issues, to the Committee on Standards and
Privileges, who would then make their decision. Once the report
had gone to the Committee, the timescale was out of his hands.
In her capacity as a witness, AM would not see the report until
the time of publication.
40. AM stressed that when the Commissioner drew
the attention of AM and JS to the complaint and also when the
story broke, the company had taken immediate steps with Ms Duvall
to draw her attention to the fact that her remarks were inaccurate,
and also to ensure that all offending material was removed from
the website in order to ensure that no-one could draw the inference—and
it could only be an inference—that the company was offering
access to Parliament in return payment.
41. AMT said that without doubt AM had been lax
in allowing the US side of the company to 'do their own thing'
to a greater extent than she should, but reiterated that the suggestion
that the company could offer access to Parliament in return for
a fee was not a big issue for it because it was not an issue at
all: the company had never seen itself as doing so.
42. It was agreed that AM would include a schedule
of TEML-related visits to Parliament with the other material she
would submit following the meeting.
101 WE 13 Back
| 
