Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 106)
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2005
MR JONATHAN
SAYEED MP
Q100 Mr Dismore: Secondly, in your
memo of 17 January,[30]
you say this at the beginning: "I recognise that Mr Henderson's
complaint has occurred because I did not exercise sufficient personal
control over a company in which I have an interest". Is that
effectively accepting that it was a personal mistake and you got
it wrong?
Mr Sayeed: It is accepting that
I should have vetted the website because that is where the real
problem has occurred, but the complaint, if I may say, and I want
in my closing remarks actually to go into the complaint, is very
specific and that complaint I utterly repudiate. I would not be
here if I had vetted the website and it had been cleaned, and
had the instructions that were given been expeditiously and consistently
implemented.
Q101 Chairman: You have indicated
that you want to make a closing statement. Just so we can pace
ourselves because the House is going to sit at 11.30, can you
give us some indication of how long this closing statement might
be?
Mr Sayeed: In some ways it is
actually bits and pieces, because I wish to make reference to
excerpts in various documents, but I would think no more than
10 minutes.
Q102 Chairman: We do not want in
any way to curtail what you want to say, but obviously it would
be convenient, in view of the House sitting at 11.30, if we were
able to discharge that by 11.30. I suggest you start and if you
want more time, of course you are entitled to it.
Mr Sayeed: As I started off saying,
I have no complaint with the courtesy with which I have been treated
by Sir Philip or the very thorough way he has undertaken his five-month
investigation, but I take great exception to his recommendation
which I believe is wrong, it is unjust and I think it would be
a gross travesty if this Committee upheld the complaint and I
was found guilty of something that I am entirely innocent of.
I would like actually to go through that complaint in some forensic
detail. The first part says essentially that, "English Manner
Limited charges clients up to £500 per day for access to
the Palace of Westminster through Jonathan Sayeed". Now,
that is split, if I may suggest, in two bits. The first one is
that The English Manner charges and the second is, by inference,
that Jonathan Sayeed has been paid in some way for that. The answer
to that, Sir George, is this, and these are not sort of suppositions
or anything else like that or inferences, but they are actual
fact: that The English Manner has never charged anyone any amount
at any time for coming to the Palace of Westminster, and the only
charge that has been made of any client at any time to do with
the Palace of Westminster has been the bare collection of a cost
for any form of entertainment on a few of them. Secondly, I have
been a Member of Parliament since 1983 on and off and at no time
have I solicited or accepted anything at any time from anyone
for showing them around the House of Commons, the Palace of Westminster
or for entertaining them in this place, so the first part, which
is a matter of fact, it is not a matter of inference or anything
else like that, it is a matter of fact, the first part of that
allegation is entirely untrue, and I would refer the Committee,
if I may, to the Parliamentary Standards: Guidance For Members
Who Are Subject To A Complaint, paragraph 23, under `Standard
of Proof'.[31]
It says, "In weighing the evidence, the Commissioner and
the Committee apply, as a minimum, the test whether a matter is
established on the balance of probabilities, although in cases
where the alleged offence is more serious, a higher standard of
proof is required". Now, this is quite clearly a serious
case and I say that because I think it is a complaint which is
almost as serious as can be because it actually goes to the heart
of why I am a Member of Parliament. I am a Member of Parliament
not to enrich myself, but to offer service. This complaint, I
believe, is serious because it goes to the heart of that. I have
never received any money and it has to be said that Sir Philip
has accepted that that is the case.
Now, we then come to the second part of that
complaint: "MPs should not use their access to the House
or its facilities for commercial gain. The principle also extends
to third parties attempting to gain commercially from the use
of facilities of the House", and it is Sir Philip's contention,
paragraph 65, "The key question is whether Mr Sayeed has
used or exploited his privileged access". Now, again I think
that splits down into two bits, if I may suggest, Sir George:
the actual; and the potential. The actual is this: that no one
came and not one of the visits, to the House of Commons was because
of the website. The only reason they came was because of a personal
invitation, a personal invitation that was offered after they
had arrived in most cases, a personal invitation that, in terms
of the Garden Group and others, they were not even aware of when
they arrived. It certainly was not part of the contract for which
they paid and it certainly was not part in any case of their expectation
of what they were going to receive. Therefore, because no one
came to the House of Commons on the basis of what was on the website
or was pre-advised to them, though I accept that the Maymount
auction was different and Bob Morris is a separate thing, because
all the others did not come, or, on their arrival into this country,
they were not expecting to come, to the House of Commons, and
because they did not come because of the website, but only because
of a personal invitation, there was no actual exploitation of
my position as a Member of Parliament. Now, the question is: was
there the potential, and that leads us to the last bit that could
be inferred, was there the potential that someone could be attracted
because of the website and believe that they had access to the
House of Commons because of that website? I have to concede that
the answer is yes, as I have done[32].
Quite clearly I kick myself for not having checked, but there
were reasons why I did not see the need to check. I had given
clear instructions, very clear instructions, very clear instructions
that have been conceded by them. I had very limited responsibilities
as a consultant and had refused to be a director because I did
not want greater responsibilities or greater involvement and I
had relied on the assurances of people I had grown to trust that
everything was being done properly and, until the sacking of ***,
I had no reason to believe it was not. Then afterwards I was very
specific in asking for assurances because the assurances were
not just about what was there at the time of the sacking of ***,
but they were also what would happen in the future and I was given
very specific assurances about that, so I thought, possibly naively,
that I had cleared any possibility of my even appearing to do
anything that was wrong. The other point I would make on this
specific section is that in Sir Philip's conclusions he said,
and I cannot remember exactly where it was, that at least I had
been, and perhaps I can find the specific bit—
Q103 Chairman: It is in paragraph
84.
Mr Sayeed: Yes, thank you very
much, that I had "at least been negligent . . .", or,
"at worst have acted carelessly". I would suggest to
the Committee that there is a vast difference between negligence
or carelessness and actually acting in an improper manner and
this complaint alleges that I have acted in an improper manner
and I have not.
Now, I would like to make a few other brief
points. The Sunday Times article, most of the stuff for
that was from archives. The fact that it was archived would seem
to demonstrate that now and again the webmaster was taking notice
of my instructions because he was archiving material that was
contrary to my instructions, but he did not do it obviously consistently.
I would also make the point, as is in the evidence, that this
is not the first time that the Sunday Times has tried to
stitch me up.[33]
The second thing is to do with the undercover journalist, Joe
Lauria, that the transcript, as is shown by evidence from Mrs
Duvall, is actually only a partial transcript and in the statement
of Mrs Duvall, if I can find the particular place, yes, I refer
you to page 40 of the written evidence volume, it says, "When
asked if Mr Sayeed accepted money, I said no". At the bottom
of that page, it says, "This was a rambling conversation,
but at no time did I ever say that Jonathan Sayeed was paid for
tours of Parliament". Then finally she says, "When I
realized, on reflection, that I had been led to say things which
were quite simply wrong and that The English Manner does not arrange
access to Parliament in the way that he asked, and that no fee
is payable, I telephoned . . .", et cetera, et cetera.
Then, "I telephoned Joe Lauria and left a message to say
that I could not reach Alexandra and that we could not accede
to his request as we do not offer tours of Parliament for payment
by Jonathan Sayeed or anyone else".[34]
Now, as she makes quite clear in the evidence that Sir Philip
has got from Mrs Duvall, there was one other point that she did
actually make. She says on page 8 of that same document, "I'm
just totally separate from the English Manner", and her job
she described as, "Making sure that transfers are alright.
Booking the air fare. Booking the . . . Hotel. The actual crux
of the tours are conducted by Alexandra and her relationships
over there in England".[35]
Now, much of this is in the transcript but was ignored by the
Sunday Times. The point I make essentially is this: that
Mrs Duvall was an independent operator, she was there to do the
administration and she clearly was pushed by the undercover journalist
into saying things which she had not only no authority to say,
but she actually had no proper knowledge of, that Mr Lauria then
quoted highly selectively, and that had he wished to find out
the truth, he would have waited the three to four days to contact
Mrs Messervy who would have put him right. The article that was
written was not time sensitive. That seems to me to demonstrate,
first of all, that the Sunday Times had used archive material
that was taken off the website because it was contrary to instructions
and, secondly, that the very partial use of the information that
Mrs Duvall gave him would seem to demonstrate that the whole thrust
of the Sunday Times article was fairly deliberate, to put
the worst complexion on events as possible, and I think Sir Philip
has privately discussed with you where I think the genesis of
this particular article was.
There are some further short items I wish to
deal with, the Serjeant at Arms and banqueting, if you wish me
to do so, but I am aware of the time. I will, I think, mention
those because quite clearly they are two specific points.
On page 16 of the written evidence volume, it
says that it would be "wrong . . . for any outside organisation
to make admission to House facilities . . . conditional on the
payment of fees".[36]
The English Manner has never, ever done so, never, ever, and all
the evidence demonstrates that that is the case.
Secondly, in the banqueting section on page
17 at the top, it says that, "private dining rooms are not
to be used for direct financial or material gain by a Sponsor
. . .".[37]
Again that has never, ever happened. We have complied with those
regulations.
Finally, Sir George, I recognise that this would
not have occurred had I looked at the website on a regular basis
and clearly, it is fairly obvious, I wish I had done so, but I
did not. The crux of the complaint is actually untrue, not just
the crux, but the whole thing; the whole complaint is not true.
I did not use the Palace of Westminster for commercial purposes.
The English Manner has never charged up to £500 a day or
any other amount. Had Sir Philip's recommendation been that I
had not exercised adequate control over a company in which I had
an interest and that I should have checked more carefully its
activities in the United States, then I would have understood
that conclusion. Whilst, as I have made clear, I had a limited
consultancy status, I had given clear instructions and I had received
reassurances on more than one occasion, he might have felt, and
I accept I feel, that I should have done more. His conclusion,
and he has come to two conclusions, that I have, at the least,
been negligent or, at the worst, have acted carelessly, does not
sit at all well with the conclusion to find for the complaint.
The complaint is not true. That is it.
Q104 Chairman: Well, thank you very
much, Mr Sayeed. You are free to leave us at this stage.
Mr Sayeed: May I just ask a favour
of the Committee, or two. First of all, when the report is written
and, therefore, published, could I ask that, with reference to
individuals, only initials are used in order to protect them?
Q105 Chairman: Which individuals?
Mr Sayeed: Well, particularly
the guests who came.
Q106 Chairman: I think they are mostly
asterisked at the moment, but we will look at that . Some of the
key players are of course already in the public domain.
Mr Sayeed: Well, clearly myself,
Mrs Messervy and Mrs Ford, I understand. The other point is that
whilst I quite accept that I have only an hour to look at the
conclusions of the Committee under an embargo, I would ask that
I might be given by the Clerk some advance notice of when that
is likely to take place in order just to protect my family, if
necessary.
Chairman: Yes, we will observe normal
practice and you will get good warning. Thank you very much, Mr
Sayeed.
30 Appendix 3. Back
31
Procedural Note 3. Back
32
Note by witness: But no such visit to the Palace of Westminster
ever took place. Back
33
Note by witness: I refer the Committee to Appendix 1,
WE 7. Back
34
Appendix 1, WE 14. Back
35
Appendix 1, WE 4. Back
36
Appendix 1, WE 8. Back
37
Appendix 1, WE 8. Back
|
