Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60 - 79)

TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2005

MR JONATHAN SAYEED MP

  Q60  Mr Pound: I beg your pardon.

  Mr Sayeed: The only time I ever met him was in the House of Commons. The quote would have come from when we were wandering round or at lunch when he was asking me about etiquette, which, if I may say, Mr Pound, actually gives some force to the argument that that is what he was here to discuss.

  Q61  Mr Pound: The point that does concern me is that one of the key sentences in Mr Morris' article is the three word sentence "it's the access" in which he clearly states that the key thing about this experience is the privileged access. Had you seen that statement "it's the access" before it was published?

  Mr Sayeed: No.[19]

  Q62  Mr Pound: For those of us who do not have knowledge of the commercial world, what is a "boutique" company?

  Mr Sayeed: A "boutique" company is one that is almost run for fun. It is a small company that is almost run for fun.

  Q63  Mr Thomas: I have just a couple of questions on the website because it does concern me that you do not seem to have concerned yourself to even look at this website at all. Could you just say why you did not do that if you were actually consulting this company about strategic marketing and the website is the main way that people got to know about this company if it was not through friends and family?

  Mr Sayeed: Clearly I should have done so. Why did I not do so? Because I thought I knew roughly what was on it, as I have just gone through. Like all of us, I am extremely busy. I do not have that much time. I admit that it does not take that long to go and check up on the website; we can all do that on our computers. In some ways I wanted to divorce myself from most of the commercial aspects of the company which is why I refused to be director. The critical thing was I had given a set of instructions. I expected them to be adhered to.[20]

  Q64  Mr Thomas: But you did not think to check up whether they had been adhered to or not?

  Mr Sayeed: It was extremely naive. I did not recognise the website was being used in the way that it has been or had been. The webmaster at times took some notice.[21]

  Q65  Mr Thomas: Who was the webmaster? It was somebody called ***, was it not?

  Mr Sayeed: You may be right.

  Q66  Mr Thomas: Is the webmaster related to ***?

  Mr Sayeed: If it was ***, he is her brother.

  Q67  Mr Thomas: You got rid of *** for putting things wrongly on the website. You then used the brother of that person to continue to manage and maintain that website. That is very naive, is it not?

  Mr Sayeed: You are telling me that *** was in charge of the website. I was not aware of that.[22]

  Q68  Mr Thomas: If you looked at the website you would see that he was.

  Mr Sayeed: I am not disagreeing.[23] I am just saying I did not know that was the case. I did not look at the website and that is the problem. Clearly I should have done. This would not have occurred had I done so. I had given very clear instructions. I had a very limited set of responsibilities for advising the company. I did not want to get heavily involved in the company because I did not have time. The reason I said I would not be a director of the company was specifically because of that. This all occurred because stuff was put on the website that should not have been there. What I would almost adduce is that from time to time whoever was running the website did take some notice of what I was saying because offending articles were taken off. Most of the information that was used by the Sunday Times was actually archive material, it was not accessible to the public. Did I have a responsibility commercially for the website? No, I did not. Should I as a Member of Parliament have not been so naive and not relied upon the reassurances that I was offered by others? I have to accept the answer is yes.

  Q69  Mr Thomas: It seems from the evidence you had one run-in with the company who English Manner had a relationship with in America and a run-in with *** for doing the wrong thing and she had to leave the company, but you continued to use a very close family relation of that person who has left the company to maintain the website. Did you not think that that would continue to lead to problems?

  Mr Sayeed: I was not aware who was running the website. I knew it was a separate entity. I was not able to make that particular connection.

  Q70  Mr Thomas: Do you have your own website as a Member of Parliament?

  Mr Sayeed: Yes, I do. Epolitix runs my website.

  Q71  Mr Thomas: In the evidence that we have had we were told that *** was dismissed in May 2003 for this and other reasons and it relates to putting material on the website, which mentions yourself and access to Parliament, although it was obvious in the evidence from Ms Messervy that she did not think the letter terminating employment contained references to a failure to adhere to instructions. I went on The English Manner website myself this morning and I picked up a press release dated 15 June 2003, that is a whole month after *** was dismissed, where it says, "For more information contact ***" and she is given as the person to contact at The English Manner with a phone number, e-mail and so forth. Did *** continue to have a relationship with English Manner after May 2003 because the evidence we have had is that she was dismissed then?

  Mr Sayeed: After that date she had no relationship with The English Manner that I am aware of.

  Q72  Mr Thomas: So you cannot explain why she was still mentioned after that date?

  Mr Sayeed: I cannot explain why. What is quite clear is that whoever was running the website, firstly, only now and again adhered to instructions and, secondly, even when they acknowledged instructions, clearly did not carry them out expeditiously.

  Q73  Mr David: Can I just ask you one question and that is with regard to the individuals who came to the House to be taken on tours and entertained. How long had you known these individuals prior to their visit to the United Kingdom?

  Mr Sayeed: Let us go through them in order:[24] a couple and their daughter, I think about three years; the second one, which is the "fam" visit really, one of them I had known eight years. The third one I had known for two years. The fourth one I had known two months.

  Q74  Mr David: You have referred to a relatively small number of individuals there and my understanding is that you entertained a far larger number of people than the numbers that you have referred to.

  Mr Sayeed: Which one are we talking about? Are you talking about the gardens visit or are you talking about the "fam" visit?

  Q75  Mr David: My question was fairly general in terms of people who you have entertained here. The point I am making is that earlier you stated that everyone you had entertained were "all friends". I am putting to you that some of them might have been friends, but it is very difficult to believe that all of them had been friends.

  Mr Sayeed: I did not say that. If you go through the transcript you will see that I said that on each of the visits at least one of them was a good friend apart from Mr Morris. I have made absolutely clear in the evidence right the way through that, for instance with the garden trip, only one of them was a friend, the organiser.

  Q76  Mr David: That is an important distinction you are making compared to what you said previously. Thank you for the clarification.

  Mr Sayeed: Sorry, I am sure I made that clear all the way through and certainly in the evidence.

  Q77  Chairman: Are there any other questions colleagues want to put on this section? Mrs Messervy has told us that she repeatedly warned *** of her oversights. Did she ever mention to you that she was having difficulty removing inappropriate website material?

  Mr Sayeed: No. What she did do was say that she was having difficulty with individuals in the US office sending documents to her to deal with cash flow, to deal with visits, to deal with press releases, all things like that, but she did not mention the website at all.

  Chairman: Two quick footnotes, one from Mr Dismore and one from Mr Thomas.

  Q78  Mr Dismore: Obviously you recognise the importance of all this stuff and getting the website straight and everything. Why did you not issue any of these instructions in writing?

  Mr Sayeed: It is a small company. I have run companies where there have only been six employees and companies where there have been 2,200 employees. You deal with things differently. In a large company you issue written directives that go into various parts of the company and are archived in a certain way. In a small company you sit round the table and you discuss things. Quite crudely, if I was trying to wriggle my way out of this it would have been easier for me just to have produced some written note after the event. I did not do so and I would not do so. I am expecting to be cleared on the basis of what happened. What happened was I gave a clear instruction. That clear instruction has been confirmed by other parties. It can also be inferred from what happened in the archiving from time to time, although not expeditiously enough, on the website. I would suggest, Mr Dismore, there is no doubt that I gave the instruction and whether it was in writing or verbally I would suggest is not the most critical thing, it was whether I gave the instruction in the first place.

  Q79  Mr Thomas: The dinner on 26 May 2004, I think I am correct in saying that, in response to Mr David, you said that you had known those guests for two months. Is that correct?

  Mr Sayeed: No, no. The 25 May?


19   Note by witness: As has been made clear, Mrs Messervy tried to have references to Parliament removed, though to no avail. Back

20   Note by witness: The principal methods of marketing were the use of agents, the Virtuoso network, private clubs (such as gardening clubs) and the Junior League. The website was only ever intended as an auxiliary marketing tool. Back

21   Note by witness: The webmaster took some notice of my instructions but not with any degree of consistency. Back

22   Note by witness: I did not get rid of ***. She was not an employee of The English Manner so it was not for them to dismiss her nor had I any control or responsibility for staff. Back

23   Note by witness: If you look very closely. Back

24   Appendix 1, para 39(i)-(v). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 3 February 2005