Annex: Mr Sayeed's allegations of factual
errors in the Committee's Third Report
Mr Sayeed made four specific allegations in the House
concerning the factual accuracy of statements in the Committee's
Third Report. He expanded in these in his letter to the Clerk
of 24 February, reproduced at Appendix 2.
Paragraph 11
In the House Mr Sayeed stated:
"Paragraph 11 states that the programme
was circulated in advance to the group leader. That is wrong.
The programme was not circulated in advance to anyone".
A copy of the programme concerned had been submitted
to the Commissioner by Mr Sayeed on 26 October 2004.[13]
This is reproduced at Appendix 5.
On 24 January, responding to a specific question
from us[14] about the
inclusion in the programme of an elective event for which arrangements
had to be made over a month before the visit began, Mr Sayeed
told us that the group leader had been given the programme with
electives as she had agreed to take on the task of contacting
fellow travellers by telephone to ascertain if they would like
to attend certain events. He continued "other elective ideas
were put forward at the beginning of May to no avail as [the
group leader] could not get in touch with any more than two
fellow travellers".
This statement, the specific references in the programme
to optional events "for those early arrivals with us"
and inclusion of a contact through which to make arrangements
for private transfers from the airport on arrival, led the Committee
to conclude, on the balance of the evidence, that the programme
had indeed been made available to the group leader in advance,
as these various elements do not otherwise make sense.
Mr Sayeed's assertion in his letter of 24 February
that the Committee had quoted from an item circulated with a Christmas
card after the visit had taken place is incorrect. The Committee
was quoting from the programme for the visit submitted to the
Commissioner by Mr Sayeed.
Paragraph 12
In the House, Mr Sayeed stated in the House that
paragraph 12 of the report was "materially inaccurate".
From his letter of 24 February, his disagreement appears to be
with the sentence, "However, the visitors apparently met
the cost [of the buffet lunch at the House] through an
advance payment to The English Manner's American bank account;
it would therefore have been entirely understandable if they had
assumed that The English Manner was responsible for the arrangements".
There is no dispute that payment was made in advance
to The English Manner's American bank account; Mr Sayeed told
us so on 24 January.[15]
The difficulty appears to relate to the conclusion the Committee
drew that it would have been "entirely understandable"
if the visitor had assumed that The English Manner was responsible
for the arrangements.
Refreshment Department records show that the dining
room was booked by Mr Sayeed on behalf of The English Manner.
He also submitted a Sponsorship Agreement Form to enable the responsibilities
of coordinating the function to be delegated to the company, which
was also specified as the recipient of the final account.
Mr Sayeed's disagreement is a matter of opinion,
not a matter of fact. Against the backdrop set out above for the
arrangements, it was reasonable to assume that The English Manner
was responsible for them.
Paragraph 13
Mr Sayeed claimed in the House that "the concluding
line of paragraph 13 is wrong".[16]
This paragraph relates to the 'familiarisation visit'
dinner of 27 March 2003. Again, the dining room was booked on
behalf of The English Manner Limited, with Mrs Messervy named
as the organiser on the accompanying Sponsorship Agreement Form.
It is a matter of judgement rather than a matter
of fact as to whether in all the circumstances the guests would
have made the distinction that the visit to the House was not
just another element in their familiarisation visit. However,
it is clear from the website account of the visit quoted by the
Commissioner at paragraph 5 of his original report,[17]
the author of which was a director of The English Manner Limited,[18]
that she certainly saw the visit to the House as an English Manner
function.
Paragraph 14
Mr Sayeed stated in the House that "In paragraph
14 it is clear that there has been a misunderstanding between
the Committee and myself".
The "misunderstanding" appears to relate
to two points: Mr Sayeed's evidence that there had been no discussion
with guests that might help them to appreciate the distinctive
status of their visit to the House;[19]
and his evidence that on the one occasion when Mr Sayeed invited
another Member to join him at one of these events, he did not
make clear to the Member the relationship between himself and
The English Manner Limited.[20]
On the first point, Mrs Messervy now asserts[21]
that "though Mr Sayeed may not remember making it clear that
these visitors were his personal guests, I remember him doing
so …". On the second, Mr Sayeed comments that, in the
end, the other Member did not join him for the meal.
Paragraph 14 in our view accurately reflects the
evidence given by Mr Sayeed. In this context, it should be noted
that all three visits highlighted by the Committee involved dining
rooms booked on behalf of The English Manner Limited. It is also
immaterial whether the other Member actually attended the function.
The Code requires that "in any activities with, or on behalf
of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship,
including activities which may not be a matter of public record
such as … functions, he or she must always bear in mind the
need to be open and frank with … Members …". Mr
Sayeed admitted that he did not disclose the financial link when
the invitation was extended.
13 HC 233, WE 9, page 58. See also WE 11, page 64,
paragraph 1. Back
14
HC 233, Appendix 4, p 94. Back
15
HC 233, Appendix 4, p 99. See also Appendix 2, pp 12-13. Back
16
The relevant sentence reads, "It would in our view have
been a subtle distinction for the guests to have made, that all
the visits, except the visit to the Palace of Westminster were
for the promotion of the commercial interests of The English Manner
Limited". Back
17
HC 233, p 14. Back
18
HC 233, WE 7, p 50; WE 9, p 58. Back
19
HC 233, Ev Q 30. Back
20
HC 233, Ev QQ 49-50. Back
21
Appendix 2, p 13. Back
| 
