House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report

Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Conduct of Mr Jonathan Sayeed:
Further Report

1. In its Fifth Report of Session 2004-05 about the conduct of Mr Jonathan Sayeed (then the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire), the previous Committee noted that, as a result of inquiries I had made of the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) in connection with a complaint against Mr Sayeed, discrepancies had been revealed in some of his claims in respect of the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA). Mr Sayeed, it appeared, had 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, and which were therefore ineligible.

2. The DFA had pursued the discrepancies with Mr Sayeed who, as a result, had already repaid certain sums to the Department. Discussion about other claims was continuing. After stating the position, the Committee commented in its report:

"We have asked the Commissioner to keep us informed of developments, and expect to report further to the House on the matter."

3. In the course of the Committee's discussion prior to its report, the question was raised as to whether the circumstances of the discrepancies in Mr Sayeed's ACA claims were such as to warrant the referral of the matter to the police. I was asked to advise the Committee on this when updating it on developments, but it was not possible for me to do so before Parliament was dissolved.

The current position in relation to Mr Sayeed's ACA claims

4. The previous Committee reported[5] that, on 28 February, Mr Sayeed had repaid the sum of £12,583 in respect of ACA he had incorrectly claimed against his main residence in 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Director of Finance and Administration, Mr Andrew Walker, has now advised me that, following subsequent discussion with the Department, further repayment has been made and that, in all, Mr Sayeed has now repaid a total of £16,613.67 in respect of the last two financial years, broken down as follows:

2003/04 £8,377.52

2004/05 £8,236.15

5. Mr Walker has also informed me that the repayment in respect of 2004-05 created headroom within Mr Sayeed's ACA limit for the year, and he has now submitted additional claims for the Department's consideration. All of these have been scrutinised; some have been paid and some rejected.

Was Mr Sayeed in breach of the Code?

6. The facts make abundantly clear in my view that, in making ACA claims in respect of an ineligible property, Mr Sayeed did not properly observe the administrative rules relating to the allowance, and therefore breached the Code of Conduct in this respect.

Possible reference to the police

7. Mr Walker indicated to the previous Committee that his Department had taken informal legal soundings on the question of whether Mr Sayeed's actions in claiming expenses relating to his Bedfordshire home against the ACA ought to be referred to the police. The advice had been that such reference was probably not appropriate in the circumstances. He undertook, however, to take fuller legal advice and to reconsider the matter in the light of that advice.

8. The fuller advice, which I have seen, concludes that the evidence in Mr Sayeed's case would not justify a reference to the police.

9. The relevant offences are those of theft under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 or of obtaining property by deception under section 15 of the same Act. In order to prove either offence, the prosecution must prove that the accused acted dishonestly. The advice states that two tests must be met by the prosecution to establish this: that, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, what was done was dishonest; and also that the person concerned must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

10. The legal advice concludes that the facts which have come to light do not reveal evidence of such dishonesty. There is therefore no sufficient basis to justify referring the matter to the police.

11. In the light of the legal advice summarised above, the DFA do not intend to refer the matter to the police. Nor can I see any grounds for doing so.

A further report to the House?

12. The previous Committee said in its Fifth Report that it expected to report further to the House on this matter, but was not in a position to do so before Parliament was dissolved. The Committee may therefore wish to pick this issue up.

13. The Committee may wish to consider in any further report whether it agrees with my conclusion that Mr Sayeed was in breach of the Code in claiming expenses incurred in respect of his main residence against the ACA.

14. If the Committee, too, accepts my analysis of the wider position as set out above, there is no reason why it should not dispose of the matter now.