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
| 
