Other
matters arising from the Commissioner's original investigation
19. In the course of his investigation of the original
complaint against Mr Sayeed, the Commissioner put a number of
queries to the Department of Finance and Administration about
aspects of Mrs Messervy's employment as his constituency assistant.
While preparing its response, the Department noticed in its records
some apparent discrepancies in Mr Sayeed's Additional Cost Allowance
(ACA) claims, and drew this fact to the attention of the Commissioner.
In particular, Mr Sayeed appeared to have made claims against
the ACA not only for expenses relating to his London home, but
also for some relating to his Bedfordshire home, which he had
notified to the Department as his 'main home' for ACA purposes.
20. The Commissioner agreed to the Department's proposal
that it pursue these discrepancies with Mr Sayeed, and let him
know the outcome. He has now reported to us that the Department
informed him on 10 March that Mr Sayeed had, on 28 February, repaid
the sum of £12,583[12]
in respect of ACA claimed against his main home in 2003-04 and
2004-05. The Department also reported that there are other ACA
claims in respect of the two financial years, totalling about
£9,500, which it has not yet been able to attribute with
confidence to one home or the other, and on which discussions
with Mr Sayeed are continuing. The Commissioner expects to receive
a further report from the Department shortly after the end of
this month.
21. We have asked the Commissioner to keep us
informed of developments, and expect to report further to the
House on the matter.
Conclusions
22. We have already set out our specific conclusions
on Mr Sayeed's allegations in the House on 8 February of factual
error in our Third Report; on the Commissioner's report on the
further complaints he has received concerning Mr Sayeed; and on
his apology. The allegations about our Third Report amounted in
our view to a significant and unjustified attack on our report.
It is a matter of regret that the Honourable Member felt unable
to apologise fully. The subsequent complaints relate to matters
which, viewed in isolation, would be relatively minor. In context
though, they represent clear evidence of a continuing disregard
by Mr Sayeed of the rules of the House.
23. We therefore invite Mr Sayeed, by way of a
personal statement to the House, to accept the conclusions of
this report in relation to the allegations he made in the House
on 8 February about our Third Report, and to withdraw them accordingly.
In the statement, he should also accept our conclusions in relation
to the further complaints that have been made against him. He
should apologise in terms that will enable us to conclude these
aspects of the case. However, if by Monday 4 April he has not
finalised arrangements with Mr Speaker for making a personal statement
on these matters on an early date and on terms agreed by Mr Speaker,
we recommend that the House suspend him from its service until
he does so.
1 HC 233. Back
2
Official Report, 8 February 2005, Vol 430, col 1464. Back
3
Appendix 4, WE 4, p 30. Back
4
Appendix 4, p 16. Back
5
Appendix 4, WE 4, p 27. Back
6
His speech is reproduced in full at Appendix 4, WE 5, pp 32-33. Back
7
HC 233, Appendix 3, p 89; Appendix 4, p 94; Ev 1-13. Back
8
Appendix 4, WE 4, p 30. Back
9
Appendix 3, p 15. Back
10
Appendix 4, WE 4, p 30. Back
11
Official Report, 8 February 2005, Vol 430, cols 1463-4. Back
12
The total sum repaid was £12,867, which also included reimbursement
of a double claim in respect of electricity charges at his London
home. Back