Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2005
MR JONATHAN
SAYEED MP
Q1 Chairman: Good morning, Mr Sayeed.
The Committee is deliberating on a paper which the Commissioner
has prepared, which you have seen, and before we come to a conclusion
you have indicated that you would like to give oral evidence.
What I plan to do first of all is to ask you whether you want
to make a brief opening statement. Then I propose to ask my colleagues
to put some questions, which I propose to divide into three separate
categories, and when we have done that I will then ask you if
there is anything you want to say at the end. Are you content
with that procedure?
Mr Sayeed: Yes.
Q2 Chairman: Is there anything you
want to say by way of a brief opening statement? We have the evidence
which you gave to the Commissioner and we have the two subsequent
documents which you produced for the Committee along with the
other documents that have been produced by Mrs Messervy.
Mr Sayeed: Whilst I would wish
to avail myself of an opportunity at the end of questioning to
make comments, I would like to make a brief particular point.
I have no complaints about Sir Philip's courtesy in the whole
process but I have every complaint about his recommendation to
uphold the complaint. I believe that recommendation is wrong—in
fact, I know it is wrong. I believe it is unjust. I think it is
a gross travesty if that complaint is upheld and I am found guilty
of something that I am innocent of. I would like to go through
the specific complaint as it applies directly to me because I
think it is a very grave complaint, which is why this Committee
is sitting, and I would like to almost forensically deal with
that particular part of the complaint, if that is acceptable to
the Committee.
Q3 Chairman: You said you wanted
to make a brief opening statement and then I propose to ask some
questions to you and then have a concluding statement by yourself.
Is that agreeable, because that is the way I would prefer to do
it?
Mr Sayeed: I am very happy to
make the particular points at the end if that is more convenient.
Q4 Chairman: Fine. What I want to
do is to divide the session into three. The first set of questions
will be on whether a third party, in which you have a registered
interest, attempted to gain commercially from use of the facilities
of the House of Commons. In the second series of questions I want
to find out to what extent, if that did happen, you bore any personal
responsibility, whether you were negligent or careless in what
you did or did not do. The third section is what I call the other
matters, which is the late registration of the visits, the information
given to the Department of Finance and Administration about the
terms and conditions of your employee and whether or not there
were separate compartments for the various responsibilities that
were discharged. Perhaps I could start on the first one. If we
look at your memorandum dated 17 January,[1]
part of the defence is that if there was a tour of the House of
Commons or entertainment this did not comprise any part of the
programme offered to the guests or form any part of their expectation
of their visit to the UK. Against that background I really want
to ask two questions. One is to invite you to look at The English
Manner "A Gardener's Weekend Treat" document which you
kindly supplied to the Commissioner, which has an itemised itinerary
with dates.[2]
At the beginning it says, "Arrangements for this invitation-only
event must be made by 5 April". This was for a tour that
begins on 18 May. On the third page before the end it refers to
an event at the Palace of Westminster, "a unique private
tour and champagne reception . . . ". If one looks at that
document, it does at least imply quite strongly that before they
embarked on the weekend treat they knew that there was going to
be an event at the Palace of Westminster. In other words, it was
not an incidental add-on, it was a pre-planned part of the itinerary.
Would that be a fair assumption?
Mr Sayeed: I can understand how
someone might come to that conclusion if this had been the basis
of what people had signed up to and what they were paying for.
I had never seen this until it was submitted to Sir Philip. My
understanding very clearly is that the programme was only finalised
after people had arrived in the UK. They came with no expectation
of going to the Palace of Westminster. They had paid for a series
of visits, hotels, the Chelsea Flower Show, going to Gorhambury,
going to a whole variety of places and this was done by word of
mouth by ***. As it was, she was only able to contact two people.
What I believe you have quoted from was part of a specimen programme
that was put out in the US and which I had never seen. I am not
sure whether that fully answers your question.
Q5 Chairman: Looking at the document,
it does imply that those who had signed up to "A Gardener's
Weekend Treat" knew before they started that the Palace of
Westminster was an element of the tour. The intention from the
point of view of English Manner—
Mr Sayeed: May I interrupt you?
They did not sign up to this document. Mrs Messervy does all the
arrangements. I do not have any part in it. The arrangements were
done by a Mrs *** by word of mouth. She was ringing up chums all
round the world, because these people have houses in a number
of places, asking if they would like to come. Sir Philip may be
able to tell me because he is closer to it, but I think this is
a document that was on the website. First of all, I had not seen
the tours on the website as I had not seen the website. Secondly,
they were not tours that necessarily took place or were designed
to take place. This particular document did not constitute what
was on offer. What was on offer was offered by *** to her friends
and did not include Parliament whatsoever.
Q6 Chairman: If I was looking at
The English Manner website and I came across the items that are
mentioned on page 3 of the Commissioner's report,[3]
the statement by Mrs Ford which appears under 5(i), "off
to Parliament . . . What a delightful ending to this fabulous
English Manner adventure" and if I had then seen the next
item on the website, the projected itinerary of a tour, ".
. . students will be given a private guided tour . . ." and
if I had also seen the account by the journalist which was posted
on the website, which appears on page 10 of the supplementary
paper from the Commissioner, "For this kind of traveller,
there is hope. Americans can now sign up for a three-to-eight
day program called the English Manner, which includes . . . a
tour with members of Parliament,"[4]
would I not have got the impression that access to Parliament
was a key element of what The English Manner was offering?
Mr Sayeed: Yes, you would have.
Quite clearly I have been at fault and the real fault is that
I did not check the website.
Q7 Chairman: Can we pause there because
I have tried to divide this into three separate categories and
what you have just said comes into the next one which I am about
to go on to unless any other colleagues have any questions on
the first bit, which was did English Manner offer access to Parliament?
I think in your final answer to the question I have just posed
you said yes, so I think we have made some progress on that particular
point. When you began to say where your responsibility began and
ended, I think that is now going on to the second session which
I think is the most important one.
Mr Sayeed: May I go back to your
specific question? On the website it placed, as I understand it,
almost sweeteners for tours but not necessarily actual tours.
A lot of the information that was used by the Sunday Times
was actually archived. The reason was because it was contrary
to very clear instructions that I had given.[5]
Q8 Chairman: We want to come on to
your own responsibility in a moment. What I am trying to establish
is whether one of the objectives of the company as it portrayed
itself on the website was to give those who looked at the website
the impression that access to Parliament was one of the things
that it offered and I think you said that it might have given
that impression.
Mr Sayeed: I accept that, yes.[6]
Chairman: Can we then move on to the
next session, which is to what extent responsibility rests with
you for that impression and perhaps I could ask Mrs Browning to
start the line of questioning there.
Q9 Mrs Browning: English Manner is
a commercial company. It is a company, as we have read, which
seeks to build its reputation and presumably ultimately its profitability
from providing what is a very exclusive experience in a niche
market. Would that be correct?
Mr Sayeed: That is correct.
Q10 Mrs Browning: But you are not
without competitors.
Mr Sayeed: No. That is correct.
Tours of the UK, but not Parliament are one of the areas. There
is also the training area which is a much bigger area.
Q11 Mrs Browning: In terms of your
competitors in this niche market, would it be true to say that
any company setting itself up in this marketplace could arrange
a tour of the House of Commons because as we know, certainly when
the House is in recess, anybody can go and buy tickets to organise
for a tour through the House of Commons as they could for a tour
through Buckingham Palace and that could be built in to a package
by any commercial operation wanting to organise a package of this
nature. What distinguishes some of the access of the clients of
The English Manner, as we have seen both on the website and in
a press release in Sir Philip's report, is that there is a very
clear statement that it is not just a tour but it is, additionally,
contact with a Member of Parliament or Members of Parliament and
access to the dining facilities of this place which would not
be available to any of your competitors.
Mr Sayeed: The short answer is
if you take the information on the website then you are absolutely
correct, and we are dealing separately with the responsibility
for the website as I understand it. I would make one point. If
you look at the statement of Mrs Ford,[7]
which is repeated in the document dated 17 January and it is within
the body of evidence, Mrs Ford said, "Indeed, as far back
as early 2002, he [Jonathan Sayeed MP] specifically told her [***]
and others working on TEM business that he was not permitted to
use his position as a Member of the British Parliament for personal
gain; that his name must not appear on any promotional material
and that as anyone could visit Parliament in the UK, it followed
that TEM did not have a USP (unique selling point) in relation
to Parliament and should not suggest that it had". I had
made absolutely clear two things. First of all, you cannot use
me and you cannot use Parliament. Secondly, you cannot even suggest
that coming to Parliament is something that is exclusive or that
you are getting special access. The special access that was being
offered by the company was to stately homes as guests of the owners,
to private gardens, collections and institutions. That was the
special access and that is what English Manner has been offering
to a very limited number of guests.
Q12 Mrs Browning: You gave the instruction,
as you have outlined, about not emphasising the fact that "special
access" through you as the Member of Parliament was to be
part of the company's marketing strategy. Nonetheless, once the
experience had taken place, do you believe that the endorsements
given by people who did actually undergo that experience were
beneficial to the company's position and its desire for an exclusive
reputation?
Mr Sayeed: But no person who came
to the House of Commons came because of the website or had used
the website. Quite clearly, if I took friends around the House
of Commons, which I did, and all except one individual was a friend—
Q13 Mrs Browning: Could I just ask
you to clarify that? You say they were friends. Were they also
clients of your company?
Mr Sayeed: Not for coming to the
House of Commons.
Q14 Mrs Browning: But they were clients?
Mr Sayeed: Not in all cases, no.
There were some who were clients of The English Manner who had
signed up for a programme that had nothing to do with Parliament
whatsoever.
Q15 Mrs Browning: I come back to
my original question. Having had that experience, were the endorsements
of that experience, whether by word of mouth, something which
would have been beneficial to the enhancement of your company
in this niche market?
Mr Sayeed: If they went back and
said to their friends that The English Manner offered them access
to Parliament and Jonathan Sayeed then, firstly, they would have
been wrong to do so; secondly, they would know they had been wrong
to do so; and thirdly, that was not what we would expect them
to do because what The English Manner, where it occurred, had
been paid for was actually producing a programme outside Parliament.
Did my giving them a tour or entertaining them in certain cases
add to their experience? Yes, I would like to think it did. Was
it designed to give them a better feel about all that The English
Manner had done? The answer is no. They were entertained as friends.[8]
Q16 Mrs Browning: From a businessman's
point of view and as somebody who advises his company in the area
of marketing, is not customer satisfaction, repeat business and
personal endorsements something that all companies seeking to
grow and develop would aspire to?
Mr Sayeed: Yes.
Q17 Mrs Browning: Why should that
be different in terms of the way in which the personal experiences
of your clients are promulgated once they have had that experience?
Why should that be different for your company than any other company?
Mr Sayeed: Because what they were
paying for was what they were offered by The English Manner. If
they go back and say they paid for going to Berry Bros or going
to Gorhambury or staying with this duke or this earl and it was
absolutely fantastic et cetera then that is fine because that
is what they were paying for. Customer satisfaction is based on
them being satisfied that they were well looked after for what
they paid.
Q18 Mrs Browning: Value for money?
Mr Sayeed: Value for money and
a unique experience for what they paid. They never paid a penny
for being taken round by me in the House of Commons.
Q19 Mrs Browning: We have read that
you made six visits on company business to America. Did what was
and what was not on the website form any part of your discussions
when you paid those visits?
Mr Sayeed: No.
1 Appendix 3. Back
2
Not reported. Back
3
Appendix 1, para 5(i)-(v). Back
4
Appendix 1, WE 5. Back
5
Note by witness: The quote by the journalist was a quote
that Mrs Messervy asked to be removed from the article as it suggested
something that was not on offer. Back
6
Note by witness: But no one who did come to the House
came because of the website, so though the website gave the wrong
impression it did not result in any UK visit or tour of the House
of Commons. Back
7
Appendix 1, WE 13. Back
8
Note by witness: They would have been entertained as friends
irrespective of The English Manner. Back
| 
