House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Fourth Report of Session 2003–04

Volume II

HC 476–II

House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Fourth Report of Session 2003–04

Volume II Written Submissions received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 26 March 2004

HC 476–II Published on 29 March 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

Committee on Standards and Privileges

The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

Current membership Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) (Chairman) Ross Cranston QC MP (Labour, Dudley North) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Rt Hon Derek Foster MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr Michael Jabez Foster MP (Labour, Hastings and Rye) Mr David Heath CBE MP (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome) Rt Hon Andrew Mackay MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Mr Kevin McNamara MP (Labour, Hull North) Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative, Croydon South) Mr Stephen Pound MP (Labour, Ealing North) Mr Simon Thomas MP (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/ standards_and_privileges.cfm.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Christopher Ward (Clerk), Ms Charlotte Littleboy (Second Clerk) and Lisa Hasell (Secretary).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 1

Contents

Page

Introduction 3

Written Submissions received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 5 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Michael Crick, 12 October 2003 5 2. Letter to Mr Iain Duncan Smith from the Commissioner, 13 October 2003 5 3. Commissioner’s note of meeting with Mr Iain Duncan Smith on 13 October 2003 7 4. Letter to Mr Iain Duncan Smith from the Commissioner, 20 October 2003 9 5. Joint written statement by Mr Iain Duncan Smith, Mrs Elizabeth Duncan Smith and Mrs Christine Watson, 13 October 2003 10 6. Written statement by Mrs Elizabeth Duncan Smith, 5 December 2003 12 7. Written statement by Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 9 December 2003 33 7a. Written statement by Mr Paul Baverstock, 15 October 2003 62 8. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Quentin Davies MP, 15 October 2003 63 9. Written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre, 13 October 2003 64 10. Written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre, 12 November 2003 65 11. Written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre, 18 November 2003 73 12. Written statement by Mr Tom Finchett, 3 November 2003 77 13. Written statement by Dr Vanessa Gearson, 16 October 2003 77 14. Letter to the Commissioner from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 5 November 2003 93 15. Written statement by Mr Jonathan Hellewell, 17 October 2003 94 16. E-mail to the Commissioner from Ms Belinda McCammon, 18 November 2003 96 17. E-mail to the Commissioner from Ms Belinda McCammon, 22 December 2003 97 18. Written statement by Mr Mark MacGregor, 18 October 2003 98 19. Written statement by Mr Owen Patterson MP, 21 October 2003 101 20. Written statement by Mr Mike Penning, 16 October 2003 106 21. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Mike Penning, 4 December 2003 107 22. Written statement by Ms Cara Walker, 21 October 2003 108 23. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr W C Walker, 5 November 2003 108 24. Written statement by Mrs Christine Watson, 17 October 2003 109 25. Written statement by Mrs Christine Watson, 19 November 2003 111 26. Letter to the Commissioner from Mrs Christine Watson, 20 January 2004 120 27. Written statement by Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins, 13 October 2003 121 28. Joint written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre and Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins, 7 January 2004 122 29. Written statement by Mr Tim Wilkinson, 4 December 2003 123

Evidence from Chingford 124 30. Transcripts of telephone conversations between Ms Louise Western and six Chingford Councillors, 29 September 2003 124 31. Transcript of telephone conversation between Mr Neal Dalgleish and Councillor John Gover, 29 September 2003 132 32. Written statement by Mrs Coralie Buckmaster, 12 October 2003 134

2 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

33. E-mail to Mr Rikki Radford from Councillor Matthew Davis, 29 September 2003 135 34. Written statement by Councillor John Gover, 13 October 2003 135 35. Letter to Mr Rikki Radford from Councillor Geoff Walker, 12 October 2003 136 36. Written statement by Mrs Lesley Finlayson, 15 October 2003 137 37. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor John Gover, 20 October 2003 137 38. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Linda Huggett, 23 October 2003 138 39. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Matthew Davis, October 2003 139 40. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Laurie Braham, 25 October 2003 140 41. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor John Fish, 27 October 2003 141 42. Transcript of telephone conversation between Mr Michael Crick and Mr Rikki Radford, 29 September 2003 141 43. Written statement by Mr Rikki Radford, 13 October 2003 143 44. Notes of contacts in Chingford 145

Other documents 150 45. E-mail to Mr Simon Gordon from the Head of IT Dept, CCO, 2 October 2003 150 46. E-mail to Mr Mark MacGregor, Mrs Theresa May MP and Mr Paul Baverstock from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 30 January 2003 151 47. Draft e-mail to Mr Paul Baverstock, Mrs Theresa May MP and Mr Mark MacGregor from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 31 January 2003, showing manuscript amendments by Mr Iain Duncan Smith 152 48. E-mail to Mr Paul Baverstock, Mrs Theresa May MP and Mr Mark MacGregor from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 31 January 2003 153 49. Memorandum to Dr Vanessa Gearson from Mrs Christine Watson, 24 October 2002 154 50. Written statement, on behalf of Mr Iain Duncan Smith, by Mr Richard Gordon QC, 4 February 2004 158 51. Letter to the Department of Finance and Administration from Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 18 December 2002 179 52. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 6 January 2004 179 53. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 4 February 2004 181

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 3

Introduction

This Volume contains all the written evidence appended to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the complaint by Mr Michael Crick against the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP.

The written evidence received has been lightly edited to remove personal details or other material irrelevant to a conclusion on the complaints. Page, paragraph and line numbers quoted by the Commissioner or witnesses are those which originally appeared in either written or oral evidence and may no longer apply where the evidence in question has been re-formatted as part of the Commissioner’s report. Stylistic inconsistencies reflect the differences in style of the various authors of the evidence. The exhibits mentioned in some of the statements have not been appended to those statements. Where the Commissioner considered an exhibit critical to his consideration of the complaint, it has been separately appended to the report.

Annex 2 of the Commissioner’s report in Volume I lists all those from whom the Commissioner received evidence in the course of his inquiry. It also indicates the relevant position(s) held by those who gave the Commissioner evidence.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 5

Written Submissions received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Michael Crick, 12 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 1]

Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP

I enclose a file of material relating to the affairs of Iain Duncan Smith MP.

This results from an investigation carried out by the BBC Newsnight programme, for which I have been working as a reporter. This investigation began last May, and concerns the fact that for the period from September 2001 to December 31 2002, Mr Duncan Smith paid his wife Betsy from his Parliamentary Staffing Allowance. We have uncovered considerable evidence that she did not, in fact, work for him during this period, which I understand is contrary to House of Commons rules.

The enclosed file includes some of the evidence we gathered, and I hope to send you more within the next few days.

I should state that I am writing to you purely in a personal capacity and not on behalf of Newsnight or the BBC. I believe that this matter should be thoroughly investigated. Indeed referring it to you is a course of action which has been suggested to the BBC by Mr Duncan Smith’s lawyers.

I will of course be happy to come and talk to you should you require.

12 October 2003

2. Letter to Mr Iain Duncan Smith from the Commissioner, 13 October 2003

Re: Complaint by Mr Michael Crick

I write to confirm the nature of the complaint against you which I have received from Mr Michael Crick.

The complaint arises from the results of an investigation for the BBC Newsnight programme, begun last May. To quote Mr Crick, the complaint “… concerns the fact that for the period from September 2001 to December 31 2002, Mr Duncan Smith paid his wife Betsy from his Parliamentary Staffing Allowance. We have uncovered considerable evidence that she did not, in fact, work for him during this period, which I understand is contrary to the House of Commons rules.”

The evidence in support of the complaint forwarded by Mr Crick consists of:

1. 3 notes of interviews with what Mr Crick describes as “top-rank anonymous Conservative sources.” I have not enclosed these for the present, as I have pointed out to Mr Crick that the anonymity of these sources makes it very difficult for me to weigh/test their evidence.

I will let you know as soon as I can what transpires in relation to these sources. Suffice it to say for now that the burden of their evidence is that Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid to December 2002 ostensibly as your diary secretary but was not in fact working as such or undertaking any other active role in your office.

6 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

2. A note of an on-the record interview with your agent (Rikki Radford) in which, in response to a question “as far as you’re aware, she [Mrs Duncan Smith] doesn’t have any professional role for him [Mr Duncan Smith] since he became leader”, Mr Radford replies “As far as I’m aware—and I can be absolute it’s not ‘as far as I’m aware’, I know for sure she doesn’t”. A copy of this note is enclosed and I have a tape-recording of the original interview.1

3. A copy of an e-mail dated 30 January 2003 from Vanessa Gearson to Mark MacGregor and others, a copy of which I also enclose (though I assume this is already available to you).2

4. Transcripts of interviews (enclosed) with 6 Conservative Chingford Councillors, who say they have seen no sign of your wife working with you since you became party leader. 3

5. A note of a telephone conversation with Councillor John Gover (enclosed) in which it is claimed that he too makes similar statements.4

6. Notes (enclosed) of contacts with 19 organisations in Chingford contacted by the BBC with whom you had dealings during 2002 (18 of which you visited), only one of which can recall having had any contact with your wife. Many remembered, however, dealings with other members of your staff whom they could name.5

I am sending this material to you immediately so that you can be aware of the nature of the allegations made against you, and can let me have any comments you may wish to offer on the material. In his letter to me covering the material, Mr Crick says that he hopes to send me further material within the next few days. I will, of course, let you know of any such material the moment I receive it, or indeed of any other relevant material I may unearth in the course of my inquiries.

In considering the complaint, I shall have in mind in particular the provision of the Code of Conduct for Members that:

“No improper use shall be made of any payment or allowance made to Members for public purposes and the administrative rules which apply to such payments and allowances must be strictly observed.”

The Green Book on Members’ Allowances, etc requires that allowable expenditure is that which is;

“wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on parliamentary duties”.

At the heart of the complaint are clearly the questions what duties Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid to undertake; whether the expenditure in question was “allowable”; and was she actually undertaking parliamentary work sufficient to justify the payments made to her from the public purse?

I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss these matters with you when we meet later today.

13 October 2003

1 See PCS Written Submission 42. 2 See PCS Written Submission 46. 3 See PCS Written Submission 30. 4 See PCS Written Submission 31. 5 See PCS Written Submission 44.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 7

3. Commissioner’s note of meeting with Mr Iain Duncan Smith on 13 October 2003

1. This record is based on notes I took at the time of my meeting in the early evening of 13 October 2003 with the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, following the submission of a complaint against him by Mr Michael Crick. The meeting took place at the request of Mr Duncan Smith. Also present were Mrs Duncan Smith, Mr Tim Montgomerie (Mr Iain Duncan Smith’s Political Secretary) and Ms Isobel Griffiths of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (Mr Iain Duncan Smith’s solicitors). Ms Griffiths took a note of the meeting of which I have been promised a copy but which, to date, I have not seen.6

2. Most of the meeting consisted of Mr Duncan Smith (who was clearly very angry about the allegations made against him) giving me his account of the circumstances relating to the complaint as he saw them.

3. Mr Duncan Smith described the complaint as a “nonsense” and “malicious”. His wife had worked for him as a member of his constituency staff since 1992–3. She had had a contract since 1997, which had been lodged with the Fees Office. Her title had been that of diary secretary but her responsibilities had gone wider than had been indicated, either in the complaint or in reports of it in the press. Mrs Duncan Smith was an experienced PA, having previously worked in that role on a free-lance basis.

4. When Mr Duncan Smith had become Leader of the Party in September 2001 he had not inherited a functioning office from his predecessor. The new role had involved a huge change. He had continued to employ his wife for reasons of continuity. There had been many staff changes and in August 2001, he and his wife had moved home from Fulham to Swanbourne in Buckinghamshire. His wife had set up a functioning office there, from which she had then worked.

5. Mr Duncan Smith said that although he had been served by a full time diary secretary in his office from September 2001, he had been concerned about gaps which he perceived in the administration of his office. The period between September 2001 and July/August 2002 had been one of huge pressure. He would speak to his wife in the evenings and at weekends, and she had functioned as a kind of progress chaser, holding the various aspects of his life together. The three other members of his staff with whom his wife had particularly worked (Annabelle Eyre (AE), Andrew Whitby-Collins (AW-C) and Christine Watson (CW)) would testify to this. His wife had also helped him go through the diary and correspondence, as well as doing some work on her own.

6. In August 2002, his Chief of Staff had left. He had asked his then Private Secretary (AE) to take on the organisation of his tours as Leader. CW had moved over to become his Private Secretary (having previously been his constituency secretary) and a successor to her had been taken on, initially on 3 months probation. A new Diary Secretary had also been employed at around the same time.

7. Mrs Duncan Smith had asked to stand down from her role some time after her husband had become Leader. Mr Duncan Smith had not welcomed this (his wife had served him well and he would have liked her to continue her role) but accepted it. They had both expected a 6 month transition but the other changes in the Leader’s office arrangements meant that this period had been prolonged. Mrs Duncan Smith had in the event stood down on 31 December 2002.

8. Mr Duncan Smith stressed that during this period, his wife’s principal dealings as a member of his staff had been with AE, AW-C and CW, in addition to himself. No one from Conservative Central Office (CCO) had expressed any concern to him about his employment of his wife before December 2002, although Owen Paterson (his PPS) had mentioned the matter to him in the autumn of that year. Dr Gearson had not spoken to him, nor had anyone approached AE, AW-C or CW.

9. Mr Duncan Smith said that it had been reported in the media that Mrs Duncan Smith had earned £18,000pa. In fact her salary had been around £15,000pa. No one in the CCO had known of her contract

6 Never supplied to the Commissioner

8 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

or her salary level and no one had asked for details of them. The rules surrounding the use of Short money in any case made it difficult, in his view, to discuss these matters easily with CCO.

10. As to the substance of Mrs Duncan Smith’s work, the dossier of evidence which he and his legal advisers had prepared included copies of e-mails exchanged with his wife and of a piece of work concerning the Royal College of Surgeons in which she had been involved.7

11. Mr Duncan Smith went on to express his concern about the circumstances and manner in which the complaint against him had emerged. Mr Crick’s interest in various aspects of his life went back a long time. For example, Mr Crick had questioned whether he was receiving rent on the house he owned in Chingford, which he should have registered. In fact, he was receiving none. Mr Crick had represented Mr Radford (Mr Duncan Smith’s agent) as confirming that Mrs Duncan Smith had had no role working for her husband since he had become Leader, whereas it was clear that Mr Radford’s remarks related to the present (rather than the historic) position.

12. When Mrs Duncan Smith had set up meetings, it had been her practice not to reveal herself as Mrs Duncan Smith but instead to describe herself as the diary secretary or Betsy. Moreover, Mrs Duncan Smith had been at the Westminster end of his office arrangements, rather than the constituency end. She had not therefore been in the habit of visiting the constituency in her employee role.

13. Mr Duncan Smith said that he had first become aware of the impending allegations when he had been contacted by Newsnight on the Tuesday prior to the Party Conference. The programme had put a number of questions and there had also been a flurry of activity in the constituency. He was happy to share with me—as background to the circumstances which had led to the complaint—a copy of letters exchanged subsequently between his legal representatives and the BBC.8 As a result of those exchanges Newsnight had not run their story on Thursday 2 October as planned but he had reason to believe that, on that day, all the papers had a copy of the material Mr Crick had gathered.

14. The Sunday Telegraph had published some information on 5 October and the story had continued to run disruptively throughout the Party Conference. However, he had not been told the precise nature of the allegations until they had been published in the Sunday Telegraph on 12 October. He intended to take action against the paper in due course.

15. It had been reported that some of the evidence against him came from anonymous sources. These sources were, in his view, tainted. (I commented that I would not expect anonymous evidence to be counted against a Member if its source(s) remained anonymous.)

16. Mr Duncan Smith said that he suspected the sources included Mr Mark McGregor (who had been removed as Party Chief Executive because he was not doing a good job); Ms Jenny Ungless, his former Chief of Staff (who had been sacked and had gone on to try to found a separate party in Scotland); Mr Dominic Cummings (who had been sacked as Director of Strategy); and Dr Vanessa Gearson.

17. Dr Gearson had written 2 e-mails referring to concerns about Mr Duncan Smith’s employment of his wife. He had seen Dr Gearson the day after she had issued the first of these and Dr Gearson had subsequently issued a second e-mail withdrawing the concerns expressed in the first. She had said she was happy then but in the last 4 days had been saying she had issued the second e-mail under duress. He did not understand why this was so, especially as in a meeting with her on 1 October attended by Mr Montgomerie, she had not expressed such concern.

18. Mr Duncan Smith concluded by saying that the allegations against him were groundless. He hoped they could be resolved as quickly as possible. He was angry about circumstances in which he found himself condemned in the media. He could not accept the way they had handled this matter or the methods Mr

7 Not appended by the Commissioner. 8 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 9

Crick and his associates had used (for example, in not telling the local Councillors to whom they had spoken that their remarks were being taped).

19. I thanked Mr Duncan Smith for his explanation and said that I understood that the circumstances in which he and his wife found themselves were distressing. As he would understand, my sole concern was with the truth or otherwise of the allegations against him, allegations which essentially focussed on the allegedly improper use of his parliamentary allowances. I would reflect carefully on what he had said and the material he had given me in response to the allegations before deciding how to proceed.

31 October 2003 Sir Philip Mawer

4. Letter to Mr Iain Duncan Smith from the Commissioner, 20 October 2003

Complaint by Michael Crick

Further to my letters of the 13th and 14th October, I am writing to let you have, as promised, as clear an indication as I can at this stage in my inquiry of the matters which have been raised with me by Mr Crick as part of his complaint. I am also enclosing a copy of the material on which Mr Crick relies in support of his complaint. I discuss below each of these matters in turn.

As regards the matters which have been raised with me by Mr Crick, the core of his complaint relates to the continued employment and payment of your wife from Parliamentary sources after your election as Leader in September 2001 until 31 December 2002. There are several related strands to this complaint which it may be helpful if I identify as follows:—

1. that during the period in question, Mrs Duncan Smith was employed under a contract with a job title of Diary Secretary, but did not obviously perform any duties in this role, or in any other staffing capacity;

2. that to the extent that she may have undertaken any tasks, they were minimal in character and such as might have been expected (for example, in terms of reconciling the domestic diary with your official commitments) to be undertaken (unpaid) by the spouse of any other prominent Member;

3. that any work undertaken did not amount to 25 hours a week and so did not justify the salary she was paid;

4. that it appears that at least some of any work which may have been undertaken (as described in your published response to Mr Crick’s initial allegations) was party political in nature (related to your position as Leader) and so did not qualify for payment from your parliamentary allowance.

There is a further strand to Mr Crick’s complaint which relates to Annabelle Eyre (AE) and Christine Watson (CW). The basis of this is statements in Christine Watson’s memorandum to Vanessa Gearson of 24 October 2002. Its essence is that both AE and CW were paid for periods out of your Parliamentary allowance when they should not have been because they were undertaking party political rather than parliamentary duties. The memorandum also appears to suggest that there were financial matters relating to your “Constituency and Members’ Allowances and Re-imbursements” which may not have been in order.

As you know, I did not receive all the material Mr Crick wished to offer me in support of his complaint on Monday of last week. However, when I saw him last Thursday afternoon, I was able to check both the nature of his complaint and whether I had by then received all the supporting material he wished to send me. The summary of his complaint which I have set out above is my own, but I believe it accurately describes the issues he has raised. As regards documentation, Mr Crick confirmed that what he had sent me was all that he was able to submit, at the time we met, in support of his complaint.

10 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

I am enclosing with this letter a set of the documentation in support of his complaint which I have had from Mr Crick. A list of this is enclosed.9 Some of the material I have already sent you with my initial letter of the 13th October.

As you know, I am currently engaged in interviewing a number of people whom I have reason to believe may be able to shed useful light on the allegations against you. As soon as I have been able to assess what they tell me, I shall be in touch with you again to put to you any relevant matters.

If in the meantime you wish to comment on any of the matters Mr Crick has raised, please feel free to do so. You may, however, prefer to await my further letter.

There is one other matter on which you may think some preliminary work helpful. At the heart of the complaint is the allegation that your wife did no or very little work during the period in question.

You have already denied this and pointed me to others who would support that denial. You have also given me some examples of e-mails and other work by your wife. Hard evidence of such work (in the form of entries in diaries, letters/e-mails written and received; telephone calls or messages logged) is clearly very relevant to the matters into which I am inquiring, and any further evidence of this sort you can give me would be most helpful. I will pick this up when I write again but it is something to which you may wish to be giving further attention meanwhile.

As requested, I am copying this letter and enclosures to Mr Hooper.

20 October 2003

5. Joint written statement by Mr Iain Duncan Smith, Mrs Elizabeth Duncan Smith and Mrs Christine Watson, 13 October 2003

A summary of the evidence that could be given by Mr Iain Duncan Smith, Mrs Betsy Duncan Smith and Mrs Christine Watson

Iain Duncan Smith (IDS), Betsy Duncan Smith (BDS) and Christine Watson (Private Secretary)

1. By profession, BDS ran a freelance secretarial service which would, provide secretarial services to Chief Executives when their PA’s were absent or away on holiday. For example, BDS worked for Lord Thomas of Swinterton when he was Chairman of the CPS from his home.

2. She has worked for IDS for over 10 years since his election in 1992. She has a signed contract dated 1 October, 1997 which describes the nature of her diary and other secretarial responsibilities and the fact that she is required to work for 25 hours a week from home or the office, in fact she worked considerably longer hours than that. BDS will also produce a letter from the Fees Office showing what she was paid no more than £15K until she ceased her job on 31 December, 2002 and in the last year received a total of £11K.

3. Up till August 2001, IDS and BDS lived in Fulham. There was a fully equipped office there and indeed the constituency work had been done from the home office when it could not be carried out at Westminster during the 1997 and 2001 election campaigns. During that period BDS was working with Annabelle Eyre (Constituency Secretary) on the diary and various secretarial tasks as required. When BDS lived in London, she was able to travel into Westminster during the hours that her children were at school and characteristically would work between about 9.30 and 3.00 but also would work late in the evenings and at weekends from home and on a number of days BDS would work from the home office. The work

9 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 11

included running IDS’s diary, and assisting when required on constituency casework, liaising with the Chingford constituency office and assisting Annabelle Eyre as and when required, for example covering for her when she was away on holiday.

4. In August 2001, IDS and BDS moved to the house in Swanboume, near Milton Keynes. As this was about an hour and half by car to Westminster, it soon became apparent that it was not realistic to travel up and down to London, with the school commitments. So her work was done from Swanbourne where an office was established at home.

5. On 13 September, 2001, IDS was elected Leader of the Opposition. Furthermore, the Leader of the Opposition’s Private Office had to be set up with new staff and in fact no member of William Hague’s staff remained behind in the new office. BDS having worked for IDS for 10 years provided continuity and has been described by those who worked with her as the “sheet anchor”. It was IDS’s and BDS’s intention for BDS to give up work once all the appointments were settled so as to concentrate on being the wife of the Leader of the Opposition.

6. After he was elected leader, the constituency office had to be packed up and moved location. During the course of that there was a great strain on correspondence which BDS assisted in clearing. This added to the pressures of those early months.

7. BDS set up an office in Swanbourne which was fully equipped with fax, computer (subsequently a second computer was added), e-mail and an ISDN line. Although BDS did initially, come up several times to Westminster, she decided it was not an efficient use of time as with the school hours it would mean that she could spend only a couple of hours in Westminster. She therefore operated mostly from Swanboume which enabled her to work for longer hours.

8. BDS liaised with Andrew Whitby-Collins, who had been appointed Diary Secretary in the Leader’s Office after the election campaign. He would on a regular basis send the long-term diary covering IDS’s appointments for 6 months which BDS would then go through with IDS and feed into it the necessary engagements and changes after discussions. AWC would also send through the short-term weekly diary. BDS would assist by way of secretarial and diary skills in sorting out what information IDS required for meetings and other engagements. She would work in support of and alongside the constituency office and leader’s office. BDS would also make sure that constituency events were arranged following discussions with Rikki Radford (Constituency Agent) and Coralie Buckmaster (Constituency Association Chairman).

9. BDS would also liaise with Christine Watson who in October 2001 became the constituency secretary. CW had previous experience in the House of Commons (until 1981) but BDS was able to assist with the detailed knowledge that BDS had acquired over 10 years of experience of working for IDS. Matters that she was involved in included Christmas card competition, Christmas card lists, visits to schools and hospitals in the constituency, bazaars and association events, and an annual concert by the Savoy Players. Much of this work would be done after the children had gone to bed and often would involve BDS working until midnight. She assisted IDS in formulating the actions necessary as a result of the work sent down with him at the weekend. These actions were followed up in liaison with CW, AWC and AE. This might typically involve dictating some instructions or amending letters which had already been typed. It was important as it enabled IDS to catch up with the previous week’s work. A considerable amount of work would be done at weekends and for example it was not unusual for BDS to do three hours work on Sunday evening. BDS and IDS spoke at length at the end of every working day. During their discussions she would raise matters outstanding and either IDS or BDS or both would make notes to take the necessary action with CW, AE or AWC.

10. There were a number of changes and re-organisations in the staff and one needs to appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition’s office was being set up from scratch. For example, in autumn 2002, Annabelle Eyre took on Tours and Planning having previously been the Private Secretary. This position was created by IDS to meet a growing requirement of the organisation and planning of tours which had increased the workload of BDS. In August 2002, CW took over as Private Secretary. Cara Walker was taken on as Constituency Secretary in Westminster in September 2002 on a three month trail basis. Her position was confirmed in November 2002. Paula Malone was taken on as the new diary secretary in October 2002 taking over from AWC, who went to work in the Candidates Department in CCO. Throughout all the

12 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

various changes and upheavals in the Leader’s office, BDS remained in an advisory and supporting capacity.

11. Additionally, BDS also liaised with Rikki Radford, the Agent in the constituency and Coralie Buckmaster, the Chairman of the Association as the occasion arose. Both of whom knew of BDS’s professional arrangements.

12. An additional reorganisational difficulty that arose was the fact that CW’s office had to be moved from 34 Smith Square to 32 Smith Square and at Westminster the constituency office moved from M1 to G1.

13. CW confirms these matters where they are within her knowledge and attests to the efficient and professional performance of her duties by BDS and that they were in regular contact. Michael Crick surprisingly has not attempted to contact her and CW has no criticism of BDS’s work. They had a good working relationship and she can confirm that BDS assisted in familiarising CW with the constituency details, liaising over constituency appointments and ensuring that IDS kept up to date with his correspondence over night and at weekends and they were in regular contact. It was only at this stage in November that the constituency office took on a research assistant.

14. All those who worked with BDS over the period 13 September 2001 to 31 December 2002 stress the importance of her involvement and professional commitment. In a period of great change at home and in the office, BDS helped CW, AE and AWC carry out their jobs which otherwise would have been made more difficult.

15. CW also confirms that although she did not see the emails which Vanessa Gearson sent to certain Conservative Party officials, but not IDS, from the two years that she has worked for IDS she has never seen him act in a confrontational manner or subjecting people to intolerable pressure.

16. It is important to note that throughout this period no one from outside the private office ever enquired into the employment of BDS with AE, AWC, CW or IDS. The first time IDS discussed this with anyone was when Owen Paterson, his Parliamentary Private Secretary, raised it in the autumn of 2002. Subsequently VG raised the matter with him following an email that she sent to others although not to IDS in January at which time she was informed that BDS had ceased work in December 2002. However, she was also informed that all these matters were correct and carried out in line with BDS’s contract.

17. CW does however recollect that this was a difficult and upsetting time for VG owing to illness in the family. IDS allowed her a great deal of time away from the office to deal with these matters.

13 October 2003

6. Written statement by Mrs Elizabeth Duncan Smith, 5 December 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 2]

Complaints by Michael Crick (13–17 October 2003) against Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP

1. This statement is made in response to the letter sent to me by Sir Philip Mawer dated 13 October 2003 and the letter together with attachments sent to my husband Iain Duncan Smith on 5 November 2003. I believe that the contents of this statement are a full and truthful account of the matters in question to the best of my knowledge and belief:

This statement is structured as follows:

Section 1: Description of the work I did for Iain.

Section 2: My working relationships.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 13

Section 3: My response to the case against me.

Section 4: Use of MP salary allowance.

Section 5: Conclusions.

Background and Professional Experience

2. I left school at 18 having obtained 3 A levels in English, History and French. I attended a one year secretarial course at Queen’s College, South Kensington. Afterwards, I started working at Harrods and obtained a place on a Trainee Management Course which lasted a year. Having completed the course I left and joined a trading company, Paterson Simons, where I worked as Personal Assistant to the Managing Director. I left there to marry Iain Duncan Smith in 1982. We have four children aged 16, 14, 12 and 10.

3. In 1983 I set up with a partner a business providing secretarial cover for Chief Executives and Managing Directors when their Personal Assistants or Secretaries were away. A critical part of my work was to be able to work with many different office and filing systems and computer programs. I was able to walk into any office and quickly familiarise myself with the computer software. I worked with a number of senior management of different businesses during this time. Amongst others I worked for Schroders (banking), Edward Erdman (property), Michael Joseph (publishing), Seascope (shipping), Burtons—Head Office (clothing retailers), Esmee Fairbairn (charitable trust) as well as architects, management consultants, advertising agencies, and many more. One of my employers was Lord Thomas of Swynnerton who was Chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies. I worked from his office at his home. After the birth of my first child in March 1987 I did more work from his office in his home taking my baby into work with me until the end of that year. I ceased this work at the end of 1988 and had my second baby in January 1989.

4. When I started my business in 1983 I charged £5 per hour, which was the upper end of the hourly rate. By 1988 I was earning £12 per hour for my work. The equivalent rate now would be about £25–£30 per hour.

Section 1

Work in Iain’s office before he was elected Leader of the Opposition

5. Iain was elected as the MP for Chingford in 1992. From the end of 1992 I was employed as an occasional support secretary for Iain. Initially I was employed on a temporary basis to help with one off tasks. In 1993 however my employment became more permanent as Iain asked me to support the office with particular focus on the diary. My salary was administered by the Fees Office of the House of Commons, although I viewed my employer as being Iain rather than the Fees Office. I entered into a formal employment contract with Iain on 1 October 1997. I divided my working week between Westminster and my home office.

6. My work involved looking after Iain’s diary; responding to invitations, organising the meetings he was to attend and the visits he was to make, including many speaking engagements. Most of my work was done on the phone, though I sometimes typed out a letter confirming arrangements or sent out a formal reply to an invitation. I also responded to invitations sent from the constituency and arranged meetings and visits in the constituency. After Iain was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet in June 1997 I also arranged visits and tours around the country. Iain was appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for Social Security in 1997 and Shadow Secretary of State for Defence in 1999.

7. Until 1997 I kept a manual copy of the diary for Iain and after I used a palm pilot to record the engagements and the relevant details for him on the computer. I would work on the palm pilot and regularly update the central copy of the diary that I kept for him on computer. At the time I ran the diary I was the only person who would make entries in it although Annabelle Eyre could access it and consult me about events that she wanted to include. I printed a daily copy of the diary for Iain to make sure he knew his agenda for the week. The diary entries were quite detailed stating not only what the appointment was and where it was taking place but, if appropriate, supplying details of telephone numbers and the names of those in charge of the event and details of what was expected of Iain whilst he

14 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

was there and his travel arrangements. Iain often suggested the places he wanted to go to in his constituency and I would make the arrangements. Alternatively, individuals and/or organisations would extend invitations requesting him to visit elsewhere in the country and I would process these.

8. The role I covered during this period was not simply Diary Secretary. Iain used me to chase issues through the office. I always had a wider role with Iain making sure that follow-up actions were processed. Often Annabelle Eyre would ask me to take some of the more complicated casework home and go through it with Iain in the evenings. Even at that time Iain had constant meetings and interruptions throughout the day and it was difficult to find enough time to go through some of the complicated cases. After reviewing the file with Iain I would feed back to Annabelle Eyre Iain’s instructions for proceeding with a case. Annabelle Eyre and I worked together and acted as a professional team in the context of his work.

9. I worked with a number of colleagues on his parliamentary work. Whilst I handled correspondence as and when necessary, it was not a large part of my role. However, I did cover for those responsible for the correspondence when they were away or on holiday. For example, in 1996 Iain’s Constituency Secretary went on maternity leave and I provided full secretarial cover until her return. A large proportion of this work was done from home, often late in the evenings. In 1997 after the General Election of that year, Annabelle Eyre took over as Iain’s Constituency Secretary. It is worth noting that Vanessa Gearson commented that Annabelle Eyre’s and my relationship was one of previous family involvement and that Annabelle ‘was a long standing family friend of Mrs Duncan Smith.’ This somewhat barbed comment is not correct. I met Annabelle Eyre for the first time when she was employed by Iain to replace his outgoing Constituency Secretary in 1997 who left work to look after her first child. It was Fiona Walker who recommended that Annabelle Eyre should replace her. Iain and I had never met either Annabelle or any members of her family before then, neither had my parents.

10. Iain has always had a good relationship with his secretaries and staff. Even now, we keep in touch with his last Constituency Secretary though we do not see each other very much as we both have busy lives. She came to help voluntarily during Iain’s leadership campaign.

11. After Annabelle Eyre was appointed as Iain’s Constituency Secretary I helped her to gain a knowledge of the Chingford and Woodford Green constituency work. Because our desks were so close we were both aware of what we were each doing and we worked together as a team. Annabelle drew upon my knowledge of the constituency when she planned visits there for Iain and I knew of various constituents with whom Annabelle corresponded. If there were particular cases that Iain was interested in I would arrange for him to meet the constituents and Annabelle and I would discuss the casework. * * *

Working for Iain as Leader of the Opposition 14 September 2001- 31 December 2002

12. As a preliminary point I understand that I have been asked to provide details of how my work changed after Iain was elected Leader. In fact, the nature of the work I did after Iain became Leader was essentially no different to that I was doing before he was Leader. The main difference is that whereas before I had been solely responsible for the diary, after Iain became Leader Andrew Whitby-Collins took over primary responsibility for this while I continued to assist him with diary arrangements.

13. Iain stood for the leadership of the Conservative Party after the General Election in 2001. That was the start of a very busy time. All through the summer Iain campaigned with only a very short break for a few days with the family. The first month after he was elected Leader the tempo increased. He began work immediately he was elected. Within an hour of the result we visited the US Embassy to pay our respects for the victims of September 11th. Iain was elected Leader of the Conservative Party two days after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Towers in New York. Within eighteen hours of being elected he had to select a Shadow Cabinet and write a response to a Statement concerning the Twin Towers. It was therefore necessary for the Leader’s office to begin running immediately.

14. The period immediately after Iain’s election as leader was not easy for him or his team. He had to construct a new private office at the same time as carrying out the duties relevant to the Leader of the Opposition and those of a normal parliamentarian as well as Leader of the Conservative Party. He also had to pick the Conservative Party up from a bad General Election defeat and bruising Leadership

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 15

Election which had lasted some three months. With the Chairman he had to re-arrange the structure of Central Office, set his priorities whilst dealing with the extra issues surrounding September 11th and its aftermath. In addition, he visited the United States and met the President in December 2001.

15. My role changed to a limited extent after Iain was elected Leader in that I was now based in the office at home in Swanbourne, though for the first months of his Leadership I tried travelling to his London Office about once or twice a week until I realised that this was not practical in terms of the work achieved (please see further below). There were more people employed in Iain’s office. Iain’s workload as Leader increased enormously from what it had been when he was Shadow Defence Secretary. However, essentially the nature of the work I was doing remained the same. As Diary Secretary I had worked for Iain in all aspects of his life: as constituency MP, as parliamentarian and as a member of the Shadow Cabinet. This continued when Iain became Leader of the Opposition, as my job involved supporting Iain in his parliamentary role.

16. It was agreed between us that I would continue to work until the office was established and until my input was no longer required. Iain felt that it would be better if I ceased working once the office arrangements were settled but that until then he required my assistance and that I would continue to play an important part in his professional life. I wanted my work to come to an end because I realised there would be more demands on my time attending official events and at the same time it was important that our family should not be neglected. I knew it would be difficult to combine these three roles, however I agreed that I would continue to work for Iain until his office was properly established.

17. I have set out below details of the particular type of work I was involved in while employed by Iain.

Progress Chasing

18. Iain wanted me to continue to work for him because he wanted me to make sure the work was done and key issues were followed up with those working in his outer office. This has been described as ‘progress chasing’. This was work that I had done with Iain and other members of staff before he became leader: it became more important when his workload increased and he had even less time to spend with his outer office. Throughout this period from September 2001 to December 2002 I made sure that work was completed and issues followed up.

19. Whilst Iain made time to speak to his inner office staff and was available for them when required, he was, as a result of his commitments, out of the office a great deal and he found it enormously helpful to use me to chase up issues and concerns with them to free up his time to deal with other matters. Particularly at the beginning of the leadership Iain had back-to-back meetings throughout his working day. For the first six months he endeavoured to have individual meetings with all of his parliamentary colleagues as well as ex MPs, present and ex Members of the House of Lords and members of the Voluntary Party, in addition to all his other commitments. Iain also had meetings with policy advisers, business leaders, voluntary groups, charitable organisations and religious and ethnic group leaders. He met ambassadors and representatives from other countries. He spent mornings, afternoons and evenings out of the office visiting London locations. For example, he went to Hackney on two separate occasions to visit firstly, the community centre and then Mildmay Hospital; he visited The Princess Royal’s Trust for Carers in Hammersmith; he visited a GP’s surgery in Camden, he visited the Bangladeshi Community Centre in Southend; he visited a food processing factory in Southall; he visited Archbishop Tennison’s School in Vauxhall; he visited Brixton to meet the community leaders; and he attended the British Asian Conservative Link Reception in Brent.

20. Checking back through Iain’s diary I can confirm that it was packed with engagements. He often started work at 6 in the morning and went on past midnight. Throughout his working day he had breakfast meetings, working or speaking lunches, receptions and dinners at which he was often required to make a speech to say nothing of the enormous number of meetings with colleagues, policy advisers, ambassadors and representatives from foreign countries.

21. He travelled extensively, within the UK:—(eg Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen (to visit a drugs rehabilitation centre, to visit the fish market and to meet representatives in the oil industry), Belfast (for the UUP Northern Ireland Conference), Cardiff (for a breakfast meeting with the Evangelical Alliance),

16 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Birmingham on three occasions (for a CBI Breakfast, an IOD Dinner, and thirdly for a visit to the Institute of Conductive Education and the Acorn Childrens’ Hospice, Reading (for the Youth Crime launch), Chesham (to visit the National Society for Epilepsy), Basingstoke (to highlight the closure of council playgrounds), Portsmouth (to visit the naval base), RAF Conigsby in Lincolnshire, Pangbourne (for the Falkland Island Memorial Service), Leeds (for the Jewish Welfare Board dinner), Manchester (for the Holocaust Memorial Day, Windsor (for the State Banquet and for a Diplomatic Reception), Bournemouth (for the local Government Association Conference), Sheffield (for a dinner in Cutlers Hall in which he gave a speech about manufacturing), Bradford (for the launch of the Local Election Campaign, Ipswich (to visit Heath Road Hospital). He undertook two day tours away from the office (eg Midlands, Kent, NW, Cumbria, NE, Teeside and Newcastle, Norfolk, Suffolk, Leicester and Northamptonshire, Dorset, Devon, Wales and Scotland. He travelled abroad to the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels to meet the MEPs, and to the USA, Spain, Portugal, France, Gibraltar, Sweden, Holland and Denmark to meet the leaders in other countries and to visit both hospitals and schools in an attempt to discover how other countries ran their healthcare and education systems more efficiently than their UK equivalent.

22. His daytime commitments meant that it was not easy for him to sit down with his closest colleagues in the private office to plan future events that he wanted to attend. Iain spoke to me every evening, and it was therefore easier for me to deal with Andrew, Annabelle and Christine about his appointments and ongoing matters of detail. Frequently I prepared lists of points that he wanted me to follow up.

Assisting with Iain’s Diary

23. Andrew Whitby-Collins was in charge of the diary, however I continued to be actively involved. I met Andrew for the first time at CCO shortly after he was appointed and spoke to him about all the outstanding engagements in Iain’s diary including those on hold and pending. As there was very little space in the office and there was no spare desk I used to lay out paperwork on the floor in order to go through it. I was in London about once, sometimes twice a week during the last months of 2001, trying to work from London and combining these diary meetings with Andrew with functions that I was attending. Belinda McCammon mentions that I was ‘kneeling’, indeed I probably was down on my knees but had I been discussing the children’s arrangements with Andrew such discussions would not have entailed a large number of documents and consequently there would have been no need to have been on the floor. Furthermore, she would never have been waiting in the Leaders’ office for the several hours that it took for Andrew and I to go through all the diary arrangements. Her time waiting in the office would have been no more than a few minutes as space was very limited and there was nowhere to wait around. I also dealt with Annabelle during those early months in the same way. By the beginning of the New Year I ceased coming up to London but I continued to have update meetings with Andrew and Annabelle regularly when I was in London for a function, coming up early afternoon, so that we could go through matters together.

24. When we weren’t having face to face meetings in the office, Andrew contacted me regularly by telephone about the existing engagements in Iain’s diary. Some events were planned up to six months in advance. I spoke to Andrew on many occasions during this period when he was assuming the role of Diary Secretary and answered many of the questions he raised. This transitional work continued as Andrew would draw upon my experience and consult me about annual events such as the Remembrance Sunday commemorations in Iain’s constituency and the Christmas activities. It was important to Iain that those organisations whose invitations he had been unable to accept on previous occasions should be considered for future events and Andrew would consult me about these.

25. My work with Andrew principally involved discussing future appointments to be made and events that Iain should attend. Andrew, Annabelle and I worked closely together discussing appointments and invitations and the travel arrangements for Iain’s diary. Andrew sent me a copy of Iain’s short term and long term diary regularly, generally by fax or by email or via the Box, and Iain and I would work through it and discuss particular items in the evenings and over the weekends. Andrew and Annabelle would send me invitations and requests for speaking engagements. I would then speak to Iain about them in concentrated periods when he was at home and he would tell me which he wanted to attend. Andrew would also speak to me about the forthcoming engagements. I would report back to Andrew on any

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 17

changes that Iain wanted to make and let him know about Iain’s requests for briefing papers if Iain wanted to be updated on a particular subject before meetings, eg. if he was going to see accountants or banking groups.

Secretarial work

26. Iain uses his secretary or myself to work on the computer. I dealt with the e-mail account and printed out material that was sent to him by e-mail to bring it to his attention. Iain preferred to do much of his detailed work at home where his work was not interrupted rather than in Westminster where he had a frenetic working day. He did a lot of this concentrated work during the weekends or during the recesses. I assisted him in the work that he did at home, occasionally re-drafting documents or altering letters for him.

Constituency casework and correspondence

27. Before Iain became Leader I used to discuss constituency correspondence with Annabelle Eyre and she would often ask me to speak to Iain in the evenings on some of the more complicated cases if she didn’t have time to meet him during the day to go through the casework. There was a backlog of just over a month’s constituency correspondence when Christine Watson was appointed as Constituency Secretary in October 2001. Annabelle Eyre, Christine Watson and I discussed several such cases. My work at that time generally consisted of advising Christine and Annabelle about steps to be taken and giving some background on the cases that Christine was taking over. * * *

Iain and I discussed these cases which were followed up by Annabelle and Christine who I spoke to at that time. These were quite complicated cases. I remember Iain had a researcher go through the *** case sometime before the 2001 General Election. He spent about two weeks reading through the file and trying to understand the case. Once Christine had got on top of the backlog of correspondence I generally spoke to her about constituency visits and not the casework files. Annabelle Eyre was still actively involved with the constituency visits.

28. Checking through the constituency diary for the later months of 2001 I see various events that Iain attended in the constituency. Annabelle, Christine and I would decide what the best places for Iain to visit were and acting on Iain’s instructions from me Annabelle and Christine would make the arrangements fitting them into Iain’s tight schedule, most usually on a Friday. Below are some of the visits he made. There were invitations extended to him and places he wanted to visit which he wasn’t able to fit into his diary and we had to prioritise the visits, refusing some and putting others on hold. There were of course innumerable Conservative Association events during this time which I do not include.

• Visit to Whipps Cross Hospital; Visit to Haven House; Surgery.

• Visit to Rushcroft School; Surgery.

• Visit to Chingford Police Station; Visit to Haven House; Visit to Heathcote School.

• Visit to Carnarvon Road re mobile phone mast; Surgery.

• Christmas Bazaar.

• Visit St Anthony’s RC Primary School; Visit St Anne’s Church Community Centre (Statis Training Garden).

• Prizegiving at Normanhurst School.

• Visit to Selwyn Infants School; Visit to Chingford C of E Infants School; Visit to Haven House.

• Visit to Chingford Delivery Office and Post Office; Visit to Hale End Post Office; Visit to Woodford Green Post Office; Surgery.

18 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

• Visit Whipps Cross Hospital; Visit Redbridge Police Station to meet Chief Superintendent Kynnersley

• Visit Chingford Bowling Club; Oakhill Junior School for school dinner;

• Visit Councillor Jim O’Shea at Broadway Music and Vision re CCTV; Surgery

• Visit Churchills Junior School; Visit SCOPE for Charities Week to help in shop as volunteer; Surgery

Rikki Radford became agent in the middle of February 2002. I will deal with his involvement in the Constituency below (in the section marked The Reorganisations of the Office).

My normal working day and working week

29. I worked more than 25 hours in a week for Iain after he was elected Leader of the Opposition. I spent from 10am to 3pm on weekdays in the office at home. However I also worked in the evenings when my youngest daughter was in bed and worked with Iain at weekends. I was constantly on call to help when needed.

30. My normal working day involved telephone calls with Annabelle and/or Andrew Whitby-Collins following up points Iain had raised with me during our conversation the evening before. Annabelle and Andrew would generally call me, or I them, during the day. Christine generally rang me in the evenings. During the day I used to do a general update with Annabelle, check arrangements with her for visits Iain was making and go through the entries that Andrew made in Iain’s diary in detail. This type of involvement with Iain’s diary went far beyond what ‘a wife’ might normally be interested in.

31. I would look after the office at home receiving faxes, answering the telephones and dealing with any queries. I received telephone calls from the Westminster offices, from some MPs, ex-MPs, Shadow Cabinet Ministers and Members of the House of Lords who knew that they could speak to me to pass important messages on to Iain. * * * Some of them preferred to send confidential and sensitive messages to Iain through me rather than speaking to people in his office in London. I also received telephone calls from Rikki Radford, the agent, and Coralie Buckmaster, the association chairman, concerning events and issues in the Constituency. I recall receiving letters from ***, on policy issues and constituency concerns. Iain often asked people to contact me at home rather than through his Westminster office. As a result I had calls and letters from journalists and people involved in broadcasting, people offering opinions, help and advice, people connected with voluntary groups, disability groups, community groups, charities, small businesses, and those campaigning on rural issues, European issues, medical professionals voicing concerns about the NHS and music groups campaigning about piracy. A large amount of time was spent reading through some of the policy documents, speech drafts and briefing packs in order to be updated and draw anything to Iain’s attention that I thought was necessary.

32. Iain used to telephone me every evening, including those days when he was on tour. We would speak about his day and he would raise various points which I would follow up and pass on to Annabelle, Andrew or Christine.

33. A certain proportion of my time was spent handling post forwarded to Swanbourne. I would discuss such correspondence with Iain and then pass it on to Annabelle or Christine with Iain’s instructions to deal with. Similarly, I dealt with the invitations myself asking Iain what he wanted to do and then passing the invitations with his instructions to Christine or Andrew. Towards the end of the week I used to receive faxes and emails for Iain to consider with policy papers and briefing documents for him to work on during the weekend to authorise.

Preparing for the weekends

34. It was necessary for me to be kept informed of those matters that Annabelle, Andrew or Christine wanted me to discuss with Iain over the weekend. Iain and I would then discuss the work prepared for him by them and I would follow up on matters for him. This work was done at weekends. I would follow up on Iain’s responses during the following week.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 19

35. Iain sometimes had to attend functions over the course of a weekend. Andrew, Annabelle and Christine would let me know Iain’s weekend timetable and would send me all the details concerning the events, (including passes, travel arrangements and directions, special requests and instructions) so that I could ensure that his weekend arrangements ran smoothly and I had up-to-date contact details of these engagements in the event that arrangements had to be altered during the course of the weekend.

36. On the weekends Iain would do a number of radio and television interviews. Nick Wood, Mike Penning and Annabel Tuck rang me during the week about the weekend press arrangements and press briefings. They would let me know about the timings, the arrangements and the people to call in case of any problems. They often came down to supervise these interviews but Iain sometimes did them without the assistance of his press officers, particularly if they were radio interviews and I would ensure that the arrangements were all in order.

37. Towards the end of the week I would receive emails and faxes for Iain to consider with policy papers and briefing documents for him to work on, and sometime authorise, during the weekend. Iain and I worked a great deal at weekends trying to keep abreast of the enormous amount of work that he was dealing with. We sometimes worked together in the afternoons but generally worked quite late at night after the younger children were in bed. Over the weekends Iain and I would work through the Box which contained material sent down by his office.

The Box

38. When Jenny Ungless arrived as Chief of Staff one of her duties was to oversee the box but Iain used to complain to me regularly that it lacked structure. Jenny, Annabelle, Andrew and Christine all added documents to the box. The documents were put into the box without any particular sense of order. At the beginning of his leadership I had to spend some time sorting out the contents for Iain, tying in additional material that I had received during the week, before we worked through its contents together. Getting the process organised around the box was down to trial and error in the first few months. Iain found that working with me over the weekend helped him focus on the priorities, as well as giving him the ‘thinking time’ that he simply didn’t have during the frenzied working week at Westminster. As the months progressed greater order was imposed over the contents of the box and Iain started to arrange it with Annabelle. The box process was finally sorted out when Christine Watson arrived as Iain’s Private Secretary. Together, Christine and I sorted out the best way for the documents to be categorised and presented, (ie. Leader, Constituency, Personal, Diary) and this cut out a lot of wasted time and improved the box management enormously.

39. Iain would open the Box and I would organise the contents before sitting down to go through it with him. Annabelle, as Iain’s Private Secretary, had the key to the Box with Iain. At that time Jenny Ungless was in overall charge but tended to focus on her own papers only. Annabelle and Andrew would alert me in advance to bring certain documents they thought to be of particular importance to Iain’s attention. We worked through the box together checking draft correspondence and if Iain had changes to make to urgent correspondence I would do them for him in our office at home.

40. As I worked from home no one was with me throughout the whole of the working day. However, Tom Finchett, the Estate Manager at Swanbourne who has been supervising work on the house, knew that he could always find me in the office at home during the day. I ensured my hours fitted Iain’s work and I was on call and available whenever needed (see letter dated 3 November from Mr Finchett)10. If I was out of the office during the week I would let Annabelle and/or Andrew know so that they could contact me on my mobile.

Establishing the Swanbourne office

41. Iain and I established an office in our Fulham home in 1992 when Iain was first elected as an MP. We had a parliamentary computer and printer, a fax machine and a photocopier. This equipment was upgraded

10 See PCS Written Submission 12.

20 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

about a year before the 2001 General Election. The equipment was professional and was bought out of the office costs allowance. The office was set up to enable Iain and myself to work from home and ensure that the Westminster Office could move and fully function from our home during the Parliamentary Elections of 1997 and 2001 when the House of Commons offices are closed and the parliamentary facilities are not available. Iain’s Constituency Secretary and I worked in this Fulham office in 1997 and Annabelle Eyre and I worked in this office during the General Election in 2001.

42. From 1997 I had been coming into the office almost every day at Westminster from our Fulham home, arriving by 10 am after having taken our children to school and leaving at 3 pm to collect them. Sometimes however I would work in the office from our Fulham home. The Fulham office was fully equipped. I did not keep a filing system at home but I had a list of ministers and contacts for constituency matters. Some files were kept at home but only on a temporary basis while Iain and I were working on them, otherwise they were kept in the Westminster Office.

43. In August 2001 Iain and I moved from our Fulham home to Swanbourne near Milton Keynes. This move had been planned the year before. During the time I had worked in Iain’s office we had observed that many MPs’ secretaries fulfilled an effective and efficient role without having to be based in a Westminster Office. Iain and I had planned that I would continue to work for him for the most part running his office from Swanbourne.

44. We brought the office equipment and office furniture that we had had in our Fulham Office with us. I found that it was difficult for me to continue working in Westminster when we moved to Swanbourne which, after dropping my daughter at school, was a two hour trip to Westminster and a two hour return trip to pick her up from school at 3.45. I did try to come into the office for the first two or three months but found that the travelling took too much time and it was more productive for me to work at home using the office facilities at Swanbourne.

45. During the week I lived in Swanbourne with my youngest daughter. In the parliamentary session Iain stayed in London coming home to Swanbourne when he could. I took my daughter to her day school and used to fit my work around her school day. My other children are currently attending boarding schools.

46. Our house in Swanbourne had an office with a separate telephone line when we moved in. This office was used on a regular basis by my brother up to the date that my family moved in. It was not the Estate Office which is at the other end of the village attached to the farm but an office used by my brother to work from Swanbourne. For ease of explanation I will call this Office 1. We had a separate telephone line in Office 1 (the telephone number ending ***) from which we ran the computer whilst using the home line (telephone number ending ***) for telephone calls and faxes. We moved our office equipment and office furniture from our Fulham house into Office 1 so that I could continue working from home. This equipment consisted of a modern computer and printer, a fax machine and a photocopier. We had brought with us a large supply of office paper and envelopes for use in the office which was topped up every few months with supplies of stationery sent down to us by Annabelle or Christine. I also moved my desk, office cupboards and filing cabinets to Office 1 in Swanbourne.

47. Iain decided very shortly after he was elected Leader of the Opposition that it would be useful to expand the existing office facilities at Swanbourne. We planned to increase the size of the layout and capacity of Office 1 by making more efficient use of room space by levelling the floor instead of having the room divided in two by two steps. For ease of reference I will refer to the expanded office as Office 3. It was Iain’s plan that the Office 3 facilities would be used by members of his staff when they came to work Swanbourne during the summer recess or during election periods. At the same time as we were making those changes to Office 1 we decided to rewire and renew the heating system in that part of the house. The building work was supervised by the Estates Manager and paid for by the Estate. I was not involved in any of the work. Mark MacGregor saw the building work at Swanbourne when he came to visit Iain in August 2002.

48. Whilst the work was being carried out on Office 3 we set up my office in another room (Office 2) in a separate part of the house. I started to work in Office 2 in November 2001. On 30 October 2001 BT installed an ISDN line to Office 2. The ISDN line had three separate telephone lines in it: one for the computer, one for the fax machine and one for the telephone (these are the telephone numbers ending

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 21

***, *** and ***). The bills for this line went straight to CCO and were paid directly by them. CCO supported the office in Swanbourne and we installed another computer, printer and fax/copier machine from CCO to upgrade the existing facilities. Dani Strydom, (an employee of CCO) came to Swanbourne on a number of occasions to support the running of this equipment. I also had the use of the home telephone line in that office (telephone number ending 546) which I often made and took work related calls on.

49. * * *

50. The facilities in Office 2 were very good. Annabelle Eyre used them when she came to Swanbourne during the summer recess 2002 to go through correspondence and diary matters with Iain and me. Annabel Tuck, Iain’s press officer also used the facilities in Office 2 when she worked at Swanbourne. Sometime during the early part of 2002 Iain got a Broadcast Unit so that he could do radio interviews from the office using the ISDN line in digital quality.

51. Iain often arranged to meet people at Swanbourne, including some members of his Shadow Cabinet, (David Davies, Michael Howard, Michael Ancram, David MacLean and Oliver Letwin), some journalists and some of his press team as well. I remember policy meetings taking place at Swanbourne between Dominic Cummings and Rick Nye. Annabelle Eyre used to come down during the recess periods to go through outstanding matters arising in the office. Nick Wood, Mike Penning and Annabel Tuck were regular visitors. Besides setting up TV interviews and dealing with media requests from Swanbourne they frequently held meetings with Iain at Swanbourne.

52. The alterations to Office 3 and that section of the house were completed by the end of December 2002. BT transferred the existing ISDN lines from Office 2 to Office 3 and installed additional new lines on 15th and 16th January 2003, using the CCO job number. We then moved the equipment from Office 2 into Office 3.

The Reorganisations of the office

53. In February 2002 Rikki Radford was employed as the Constituency Agent for Chingford. Before then *** was the Secretary based in the constituency. She set up the constituency surgeries for Iain, firstly with Annabelle Eyre prior to September 2001 and then with Christine Watson. I wasn’t involved in the Surgery bookings though I was aware of cases once the constituents had been to see Iain during a Surgery as Iain would run me through his follow up notes and we would discuss anything he thought of particular concern or interest. Prior to September 2001 I had put the Conservative Association events within the constituency into Iain’s diary, working from the Calendar that *** had drawn up listing the events for the year. Once Christine Watson became Iain’s Constituency Secretary she took over that role and we discussed which events Iain should attend. *** still works in the constituency.

54. Rikki Radford was very proactive. When he first became Iain’s agent he spoke to me a lot in order to find out as much as possible about the workings of the constituency. He was able to spend more time planning events than it had been possible to organise before when *** was on her own in the constituency office. He liaised with the local press and he got to know a lot of traders and local business men. He spoke regularly to all the councillors and got involved with many people and many issues within the Constituency. Generally, I worked with Christine and Annabelle on constituency visits but we all had dealings with Rikki Radford. He followed up many constituency issues and he wanted certain visits incorporated into the diary. Coralie Buckmaster, who became Association Chairman in March, called me from time to time, and I her, checking on the events to be organised in the constituency. Iain is a conscientious MP. Before he was elected Leader he would aim to be in his constituency every week, and often during the week. Although it got more difficult to do this when he became Leader he insisted on getting to his constituency regularly.

55. Checking through the diary I list the engagements that Iain undertook in the Constituency from shortly after Rikki Radford was appointed until December 2002. I do not include the Constituency Association engagements. I do not remember Vanessa Gearson having any involvement in organising these events.

22 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

• Visit Highams Park re Signal Box Meeting; Return to House of Commons for meeting with Laura Noel, Chief Executive of the Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority.

• Visit Chingford Foundation School; Lunch with editors of local newspapers (I wasn’t involved with this as I have never had anything to do with the Constituency Press); Visit to Chingford Police Station for opening of new cells and visit to detention wing; Surgery.

• Lunch with Woodford Rugby Club.

• Visit to St Mary’s School; Visit to Chingford Junior School; Surgery.

• Selwyn Infants School to visit House of Commons

• Visit to Albert Crescent—Iain met 40 residents from the Churchill Terrace Estate; Pub lunch at Travellers Friend in Woodford Green to meet victims of crime; Visit to Woodford and Wanstead Police Station.

• Visit to Woodford County High School; Photoshoot with Chapel End Players.

• Visit to Whipps Cross Hospital to meet Chief Executive (Peter Coles). This involved touring the SPBU (special care baby unit), the Magnolia Ward (maternity ward), the Planetree Centre (to meet the anaesthetists), the Elizabeth Ward (coronary care), Bryon Cardiac Centre.

• Chapel End Players performance of ‘The Gondoliers’.

• Surgery; Chingford Hall School (Tour and Golden Jubilee Lunch); Meeting with Local Medical Committee (GPs); Volunteer in Cancer Research UK Shop in South Woodford.

• Photo call at Tiny Tots Nursery re successful planning application; Visit Waltham Forest Magistrates Court and Witness Service; Visit Joseph Clarke School to present cheque and certificate for London Electricity School Grounds award—lunch cooked by students; Visit Churchfields Infants School re Book Week; Surgery.

• Interview with Simon Heffer of the Daily Mail at 5 Chingford Avenue; Chingford Village Festival

• Visit to Whitefield’s School; Visit to George Lane, South Woodford re CCTV

• Heathcote School to visit House of Commons

• Visit Whipps Cross Hospital to meet Paramedics and Ambulance Crew; Visit Wellington Pre-school to present award; Visit to STATIS to meet Rev Ellis; Drop in on New Road Sports Centre; Surgery.

• Visit Ilford Police Station.

• Haven House Open Day.

• Service and Reception to celebrate Centenary of Waltham Forest Hebrew Congregation.

• Battle of Britain Commemoration Service at St Peter & St Paul’ Church.

• Visit George Monoux College; Larkswood Infant School; Visit Enterprise House, Surgery; Highams Park School Prize Giving.

• Meeting with Rev. Ellis at Larkshall Road; Interview with Ilford Recorder; Meeting with Oliver Coleville of Tudor Vale Properties; Surgery.

• Address Pensioners Rally (Redbridge Forum for the Elderly).

• Remembrance Service, Woodford; Reception St Mary’s Church Hall; Christmas Bazaar.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 23

• Visit Joseph Clarke School (£5,000 donation from Abbey National); Visit Honey Lane Nursing Home; Lunch at Palm Nursing Home; Surgery.

• Surgery.

• Meet Christmas Card Winners at HoC.

• Visit Soup Kitchen for Homeless.

• Visit Chingford Post Office; Hawkswood School; Chingford Police Station, Whipps Cross Hospital; Surgery.

56. During Summer 2002 there were more organisational changes in Iain’s office. Andrew Whitby-Collins left having announced his departure in July. Iain and I discussed Andrew’s replacement. Iain wanted to employ *** who had worked for previous Chief Whips but who had stepped down from that role after the General Election to get married. She met Iain at Westminster and discussed the matter with him but declined at the beginning of September as she didn’t want to work the number of hours that would be necessary. Shortly after that Iain interviewed Paula Malone for the post of Diary Secretary and decided to employ her. Annabelle Eyre was appointed Head of Planning and Tours. Christine Watson became Private Secretary. Cara Walker was brought in to be trained up by Christine Watson to do the job of Constituency Secretary and Christine Watson appointed Tom Hooper to support Cara Walker. This was a time of great pressure for the whole of the Leader’s Office. Although initially Iain intended that these changes would result in my role being phased out he told me that in the interim he wanted me to continue to work to help until he was certain I would no longer be required, which we both felt would be soon.

57. Sebastian Coe had advised Iain that William Hague had had a full time organiser for his tours and Iain had realised that one of the reasons there was such pressure on the office was the need to organise tours more efficiently. Up until that summer these tours had been organised by a number of people within Central Office and the ACDs in the constituencies. The result had been that the organisation was patchy. This caused a lot of pressure because there were a lot of last minute changes and re-organising. This in turn put pressure on me to make sure other matters were followed up properly while these issues were resolved. As a result Iain decided to appoint Annabelle Eyre to oversee the tours and make sure the organisation of the tours improved. She left her post to take up this new role and Iain asked Christine Watson to become his Private Secretary. Annabelle Eyre’s involvement in planning and running the tours made a huge difference to the smooth running of the Leader’s Office.

58. I continued to work with Annabelle when she was appointed Head of Planning and Tours. Before Sept 2001 we had worked together to make Iain’s visits to the constituency and his tours as efficient as possible. Annabelle drew on this previous experience, setting up visits to police stations, drug rehabilitation centres, prisoner re-offending organisations, mental health charities, rural crime prevention organisations, voluntary organisations, to list but a few. The tours soon became very effective means for Iain to meet many people across the country whose ideas Iain used in formulating policy, whilst also meeting party workers in the associations. Iain would ask me to speak to Annabelle about these visits and ensure that the places she arranged for him to visit were in line with his strategy.

Last months of my employment

59. September was a busy month for Iain. It was spent doing all the normal parliamentary work but in addition he spent some time preparing for the party conference in October, particularly working on his speech and preparing for the Shadow Cabinet Away Day in Newbury. He was based at home and I assisted him throughout this period as was required—a lot of correspondence and work was sent down from the office and Iain also held a number of meetings at Swanbourne during this time.

60. Immediately after the Party Conference in October 2002 Iain embarked on a three week tour which lasted until early November. This resulted in an enormous amount of work for his office who had to continue all their normal tasks. Iain was not in Westminster very much during this period, except on Wednesdays

24 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

when he returned for PMQs, and he did most of his work during weekends and in the evenings with my assistance.

61. Mark MacGregor states that he was responsible for these tours and I had no involvement. I believe he was responsible for putting a team together but I had many discussions with Annabelle Eyre, who was part of that team, about the content and workings of the tours which were of particular interest to Iain as they involved visits to vulnerable areas and were about seeing organisations that offered real solutions to some of the problems encountered. He visited the Eden Project in Manchester which was a run down estate that had been rejuvenated by a group of Christians; he visited Small Heath School in Birmingham; he visited Barry Comprehensive School and Care for the Family in Cardiff; he visited Bishop Bell School and Hazel Court School in Birmingham and then set off for Northern Ireland for the UUP Conference. The following week he visited DARE (a drugs prevention organisation) in Nottingham; he visited a Young Offenders Institute in Warrington, and a Marie Curie Hospice and Dixons Community College in Bradford; he visited an Asian Family Network Centre in Leicester and a rural crime prevention organisation ‘Farm Watch’ in Northamptonshire; on the Saturday he went to a Pensioners Rally in his constituency. The final week of the tour he visited CFAR (a centre for adolescent rehabilitation) in Exeter; he went to Oxford and visited a Police Station embarking on a restorative Justice Programme and an organisation dealing with youth offenders in Oxford; he then went to Scotland where he met the Gallowgate Family Support Group in Glasgow and Bfriends, an organisation offering mentoring to vulnerable young children in Edinburgh. His last visit was the following Thursday when he went to Birmingham to visit the Conductive Education Centre and the Acorn Children’s Hospice.

62. In October shortly after Conference I spoke to Christine Watson about transferring my files up to Iain’s office as I was planning to cease my employment and I thought it best to keep all my correspondence in Iain’s office. I sent it to Christine with instructions for her to throw away anything that she thought was no longer necessary to keep. At the same time we spoke about how I would like to sign correspondence written on my behalf as wife of Leader of the Opposition. We agreed that this correspondence would be dealt with and filed in the House of Commons office. I also sent up the last of Iain’s papers. There was very little paperwork as most papers, etc., were forwarded straight to his office in Westminster. I sent what little there was with a note for Christine to file if it wasn’t duplicated in the office or ‘bin’ if she didn’t feel it was worth keeping. I also sent up several files that I still had in the office with miscellaneous information and letters. I don’t know if Christine Watson kept this material—I left it to her discretion. I shredded all confidential correspondence.

63. After Conference from the middle of October I was unwell with a virus for a couple of weeks. I was still running a temperature when I attended the Blue Ribbon Dinner and visited Oxford with Iain at the end of October. Annabelle, who had been away in September due to her father’s illness, spent October on Tour with Iain as well as trying to get home to support her mother through her father’s illness. During this period Christine was trying to get on top of her new role as Private Secretary while at the same time training Cara to become Constituency Secretary and re-organising the Leader’s Office according to her exacting standards. I remained in contact with Christine throughout this period.

64. Iain’s tour around the country was mainly to visit regeneration schemes, to visit and speak to people. On the whole these were not party political visits but were opportunities for Iain to listen to the representatives of voluntary groups such as the Eden Project in Manchester and CFAR in Exeter and to be shown what the organisations were doing. My work continued whilst Iain was on tour. I had not planned to tour with him but went to Oxford on 31st October and to Birmingham on 7th November to visit the Conductive Education Centre. He continued to use me to progress chase in the office. For instance Iain would tell me about the people that he met and any meetings he wanted to arrange between such individuals and his colleagues. He would also ask me to follow up the tours with letters thanking the people he had met for their time and hospitality. I would arrange the letters with Annabelle and Iain would then be sent the letters to sign and send out.

65. By the middle of November it was clear that the new office arrangements would work out and that it would no longer be necessary for me to work for Iain. By that time Christine Watson was on top of her job and it was clear that she would be able to run the office from Westminster. Cara Walker was becoming established as Constituency Secretary. Paula Malone was on top of the diary arrangements. Iain

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 25

wanted me to stay on to be available until the end of the year to help him with his work during the busy period.

66. December was always a busy period for Iain, in addition to his normal work, there were special events that he had to attend, visits that he like to make in the constituency, ie, the Post Office and the Hospital, and the Christmas Cards had to be printed, signed off and sent. In November we agreed to end my employment as we had discussed in the previous months and it came to a close at the end of December.

67. I worked on the Christmas card list in the Winter of 2002. This is just one example of the type of work which was part and parcel of the general work for the Leader’s Office and was, for the reasons explained below, considerably time consuming. The 2001 Christmas card list had been hurriedly put together as Iain had only recently been elected Leader and Christine and I wanted to make sure it was as comprehensive as possible. As Leader Iain sent out about three thousand Christmas cards. This involved a lot of work checking the accuracy of the lists, removing duplications and checking that addresses were up to date. The Christmas cards are split into separate categories: political, business, media, Conservative Central Office, voluntary groups, personal, treasurers, miscellaneous organisations, amongst others. I would check through the list manually and then the changes were incorporated onto the computer records. The Christmas cards are prepared in batches for Iain to sign and Christine and I started the process in the middle of November.

68. Iain decided that we should have a Christmas card competition to select the constituency card design in 2002. I organised this with Christine Watson. Iain sent out a letter asking each of the schools to send in entries which I helped to judge with Christine and Iain. The winning card was printed as the Constituency Christmas card and the winner and runners-up were invited to the House of Commons with their parents for a tea party with Iain.

69. My employment ended on 31 December 2002. As a result of the changes Iain was satisfied that the issues I had been covering had been sorted out, particularly by Christine Watson and her re-organising of the Box. Annabelle Eyre’s new role took a lot of pressure off the office. As the office became more established and organised it became easier for Iain’s closest staff to see him in the office as opposed to waiting for him to deal with the matters at home with me.

70. The termination of my employment had nothing to do with the publicity about Michael Trend’s use of his parliamentary allowances. Iain and I had intended for me to cease work after he was elected Leader of the Opposition. I had stayed on longer than we had originally intended simply because, as a result of Jenny Ungless’s departure and the reorganisation of Iain’s office it was necessary for the office to settle in again. Once the new arrangements were working I ceased work so that I would have more time to spend touring with him in preparation for the local elections in May 2003.

Wife of the Leader of the Opposition

71. I assumed additional commitments as wife of the Leader of the Opposition for which I was not paid. I did not however want my youngest child to miss out as a result of my being constantly away from home and as a result I restricted the number of engagements that I attended. As a general guide I usually attended about one dinner or formal occasion a week. There was increasing pressure for me to get involved in tours of the country with Iain, especially in the run up to the local elections in May 2003, which is another contributory factor to the reason I wanted to cease to be employed at the end of 2002. I did a considerable number of tours with Iain between January 2003 and 1st May 2003, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It was good for us to be together after so much separation during the previous 15 months, though I tried to get back to Swanbourne as often as possible so that my daughter had a proper home routine.

72. * * *

Family commitments

73. Finally, there have been some comments in the evidence provided by other people that my only involvement with Iain’s diary during this period involved family engagements. I have always recorded the children’s school commitments in Iain’s diary, as well as the children’s birthdays, in my role as Iain’s wife.

26 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

This was simply a matter of asking Andrew or Christine or Paula to put these entries into Iain’s diary. I make no apology for this, as they took very little time. Iain always told his staff that these dates were important and they should avoid double-bookings. It merely involved blocking off a certain amount of time for personal engagements. This was quite frequently done quite some time in advance on the basis of term cards which gave the dates of events that would probably involve the children. It was important for him and for those making arrangements for Iain to know about them in order to keep some time free for his family. It is still a function that I perform today. I do not and have never regarded myself as being paid for this work.

Section 2

Working Contacts and Relationships

74. I had direct contact with a limited number of people who were appointed in Iain’s outer office. This was connected with the nature of my work. I was not involved in advising Iain on policy decisions or dealing with other politicians, other than taking messages for Iain. I assisted Iain and those working in his office by making sure that letters were signed, questions were answered, plans made for his future visits and matters he had to attend to in his parliamentary duties were dealt with.

75. Following Iain’s election as Leader of the Opposition I worked with the people appointed in Iain’s outer office. Andrew Whitby-Collins was appointed as Iain’s Diary Secretary. Annabelle Eyre continued as Private Secretary with responsibilities for both constituency work and the additional work involved with Iain’s new role as the Leader of the Opposition. It was clear very soon after Iain’s election that he would need some extra assistance in Westminster. In October 2001 Iain appointed Christine Watson as Constituency Secretary. I did not interview Christine Watson but I did check her references and discussed her appointment with Annabelle. I worked almost exclusively with Iain, Annabelle Eyre, Andrew Whitby-Collins and increasingly with Christine Watson. We worked together as a team. Although Andrew and Annabelle were given titles to reflect their main areas of responsibility if necessary they worked interchangeably.

76. I don’t remember meeting Belinda McCammon in the Leader’s office though I did meet her at our Fulham home during the Leadership Election, when I understand she had been one of three press officers on the campaign and had been paid for her work. However, I understand that once Iain became Leader Nick Wood took over all responsibility for the Press Office and she was not required in that role any longer. She was taken on with a temporary contract to do general work as required in the outer office until a re-organisation was initiated. Jenny Ungless, in discussion with Iain, decided to end her temporary employment and she left at the end of January 2002.

77. Having worked with Iain for nearly ten years I had the longest experience working in his parliamentary office. In addition to the other tasks that I undertook those working in the outer office consulted me as they established themselves in their new roles.

Contact with people and organisations within the constituency

78. In his statement Michael Crick produces a list which indicates that the organisations he contacted had no dealings with me but before September 2001 I did indeed have direct dealings with most of those organisations—I was in contact with all the schools in the constituency, including the three special need schools, (Joseph Clarke School, Hawkswood School and Whitefield’s School—* * *), Waltham Forest College and Sir George Monoux College, Chingford Police Station, Haven House Hospice, Whipps Cross Hospital, Enterprise House Community Association (wardened housing for the elderly) and Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority as Iain endeavoured to visit all the constituency doctors’ practices. Churches together in North Chingford had an annual service and I liaised with them each year either accepting their invitation for Iain or refusing if Iain had prior commitments. The visit to the Imperial War Museum, which I mention simply because Mr Crick has raised it, was not a constituency event, but nonetheless an event I was involved in discussions with Annabelle Eyre and Andrew Whitby-Collins as they sought my advice whether Iain would be interested in attending the book launch and the arrangements concerning it.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 27

79. I never had a lot of interaction with the councillors during the time I worked with Iain. Annabelle tended to have dealings with them, due to the nature of the casework, when she sometimes had to contact them to seek their advice on constituency matters or arrange lobby groups or arrange publicity to highlight a concern. I did though deal with Geoffrey Walker, when Iain requested me to contact him to stand in for him at an event he was unable to get to. Likewise I sometimes spoke to ***, who was President of the Association and a Councillor for Chingford Green. * * * I sometimes spoke to John Gover on constituency matters and during the summer of 2001 just before the Election I arranged for his son to work in the Westminster office to get some work experience. Leslie Finlayson an active councillor sometimes contacted me about constituency matters if she wanted to get messages directly through to Iain or spoke to me when I was in the constituency. I had first got to know her before 2001 when in her capacity as Councillor for Hale End Ward she had campaigned against an unpopular housing development. If Mr Crick and his reporters had asked the Councillors they spoke to and lied to about the nature of their questions in an honest and up front way, I would have expected this to be clear.

80. Even when I was working in the Westminster office before Iain was elected Leader I never produced much correspondence myself and rarely did so under my own name. Most of the work was done over the telephone as I had an organisational role although occasionally I would write a letter confirming arrangements or type a formal reply to an invitation. When contacting organisations I generally went by the title of Diary Secretary. I thought this was a more professional arrangement. However, if I was attending an event with Iain and the children I would generally identify myself as Iain’s wife, for the purpose of arranging arrival times and reserving tickets for an event. In this context Chapel End Players, Chingford Festival and the local Scouts Organisation would probably remember my dealings with them. I attach two letters from people who have contacted the Chingford Association Office having read some of the allegations in the newspapers who can verify these arrangements.11 They have written in support as they felt Iain and I had received unfair treatment from the Press. I am grateful to them for coming forward in this manner.

81. Having set out above some details of the work I was involved in and the people I dealt with, I will now go on to deal further below with why the criticisms and allegations made concerning my work and employment by Iain are misconceived.

Enquiries about my employment in Iain’s office

82. No-one asked me about my employment in Iain’s office between September 2001 and December 2002. Iain mentioned to me at the time that it was sent that Vanessa Gearson had sent an e-mail which referred to my employment in January 2003 to a number of people in Conservative Central Office. He could not understand why she had sent it as she had not spoken to him about any concerns that she may have had. I find her version of events following the email of 30 January 2003 incredible because Iain is not someone who loses his temper or shouts when things go wrong. He rightly demands efficiency but he doesn’t believe it is productive to shout at his staff.

83. A number of comments have been made by Michael Crick and Vanessa Gearson suggesting that I should have done some of these tasks because I am Iain’s wife and it was wrong that I should be paid for them. I resent the patronising attitude concerning my ‘duties as a wife’. In my view, the usual “duties” of a wife do not extend to spending many hours sorting out a spouse’s work-related correspondence at weekends and midnight, organising his diary, generally maintaining a close working relationship with his office and assisting on work-related matters as required. This attitude also overlooks the fact that a large number of MPs on both side of the political divide do employ their spouses in connection with their work as MPs. Despite the fact I am a professionally qualified and experienced PA it is implied that I should have worked for my husband for no payment. It was nevertheless the case that as his wife, I could provide him with assistance at, what would have been regarded unsocial hours for any other employee, and I did work for as long as was necessary without regard to how many hours over those I was contracted to do. In

11 Not appended by the Commissioner.

28 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

working for Iain I was not employed elsewhere, even though other employment would probably have been better remunerated considering my experience and qualifications.

84. When referring to my employment some people have cast doubt about the extent of the work that I did in the office at home. It is however my experience that the time I spent working at home was more productive than that I spent in London as there were fewer distractions and it was much less frenzied and of course saved on the travel time. I was more able to concentrate on tasks and read documents than I had in the office in Westminster. I had previously experienced working in a home office when I worked for Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. Because someone checks into their office at a set time and leaves at a set time they are assumed to have worked throughout. Because I worked from home the opposite has been assumed by some who have made these assertions.

Section 3

Response to the statements and transcripts produced by other people

85. In the next few paragraphs I will respond to allegations made by a number of people in the evidence that they have presented to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

86. Shortly after he was elected Leader Iain appointed a new Chief of Staff in his office, Jenny Ungless. It was however clear to Iain from an early stage that she wasn’t developing into the job as she seemed unable to master the political side. As I stated above the Box was not well organised as there was no overall organisation of the material. Annabelle and Andrew didn’t find her easy to work with. I was aware relationships between her and the outer office were deteriorating which resulted in greater pressures on my role in order to pick up issues that should otherwise have been organised from Iain’s inner office.

87. Mark MacGregor was the Chief Executive of the Conservative Party. I didn’t have any dealings with him and would not have expected to do so. I do recall meeting him on 27th August 2002 however when he visited our home in Swanbourne and remember interrupting his meeting with Iain with a call from the Westminster office that needed Iain’s urgent attention. He knew I worked for Iain and had an office at Swanbourne. Iain showed him the work that we were having done on Office 3 so that we would be able to accommodate a team of people in the run up to the local elections or a General Election. Like others who were aware of our plans, I understood he thought it would be useful. He shows a huge lack of knowledge in his spoken statement when he says ‘the only comments I can ever recall being made were about whether a particular event was appropriate for Betsy to attend and or, less frequently, whether it was appropriate for her children to attend, and someone would have contacted her.’ From the start of Iain’s leadership Iain made it clear to his Leader’s office staff that the children were not going to be used to promote his image through photographs or publicity events.

88. Vanessa Gearson was appointed as Administrative Head of the Office in the Autumn of 2002. She knew I was working for Iain and she could have raised any queries she had regarding my employment with Iain, myself or any of the people I had worked or was working with.

89. I do remember saying to Iain that I thought her response to his job offer to her when he phoned her from our family holiday in Italy was extraordinary. I heard the conversation in which she basically said ‘What happens if you’re not Leader, who will I report to?’ Iain was quite taken aback. When Owen spoke to him later he said that Vanessa Gearson had spoken to him and had apologised as she realised after the conversation she had said some rather silly things. Iain was reassured but I have to say we both thought her reaction to the job offer was rather odd.

90. I had a lot of contact with Annabelle Eyre and so I was aware that Vanessa Gearson had upset Annabelle. Before Vanessa Gearson started to work in the Leader’s office she had become very friendly with Annabelle but immediately after she was appointed Vanessa Gearson’s attitude towards Annabelle changed. Annabelle was upset about this.

91. I can only remember one occasion when I spoke to Vanessa Gearson on the phone. I think it was shortly after Conservative Party Conference in October 2002. It was after Iain and I had met ***, environmentalist, who wanted to get involved with the environment debate. Iain asked me to ring

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 29

Vanessa Gearson to put *** in touch with the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. She didn’t seem particularly interested and I didn’t get the impression that she was going to follow up my request even though I told her Iain had asked me to speak to her about this. * * * He is a well-known environmentalist and had expressed an interest in contributing to the environmental debate. I didn’t chase her about this as I felt uncomfortable about doing so.

92. On 30th October Vanessa Gearson accompanied Iain and me to the Blue Ribbon Dinner. On the way to the dinner I remember running through a check list of issues and some paperwork I had in a plastic file with Iain. One of the issues I raised was a request Iain had had to visit Ashmead School with myself. I raised this with Iain and he asked Vanessa Gearson to work this visit into his diary. She said she would but she never contacted me for details or followed this up and I got the impression she was uninterested in working with me. Instead I asked Annabelle Eyre to include this visit in the tour programme as it was easier to work with her. On both these occasions Vanessa Gearson was less than forthcoming and as a result of these two conversations I dealt with Annabelle and Christine rather than Vanessa Gearson. It is worth pointing out at this stage that if Vanessa Gearson had any concerns about the nature of my work she could have spoken to Iain and myself during that car journey. It must have been obvious to her what sort of work I was doing for Iain. Instead she sat quietly in the front seat of the car.

93. The only other time Iain mentioned Vanessa Gearson in relation to me was after the Conference of October 2002 when on one of the Wednesdays when he was in London during his Post Conference Tour Programme she had gone into his office to say was unhappy with my outfits. Apparently she didn’t think the handling of my clothes for Conference was well organised and thought Annabelle Eyre was the wrong person to help me. Iain told her that I was happy with my clothing arrangements and didn’t see any need to make any changes in that area. I was surprised that she had been to see Iain on this matter of my clothes as it had nothing to do with her and I was not aware of any problems.

94. Vanessa Gearson claims that she did not overhear conversations between me and Christine and assumes that as a result I was doing no work. As I have said most of my conversations with Christine were in the evenings when, I understand, Vanessa Gearson was not in the office. Before the end of 2002 I remember going through work related correspondence with Christine in the Leader’s Office before accompanying Iain to various events. Vanessa Gearson was never in the office at that time. I understand she used to leave the office at 6pm. Considering the office moves, the move between CCO and the House of Commons on weekdays, her attendance of meetings and her absence from the office due to her father’s illness and the length of her normal working day Vanessa Gearson cannot have had much opportunity to overhear conversations I had with Christine about work before I ceased work in December 2002—part of the overlap period with Vanessa Gearson would have encompassed the Christmas recess. By 2003, of course, our conversations would have related to functions I was attending as wife of the Leader of the Opposition rather than work which I had been doing before then. Since ceasing to work for Iain I don’t recall meeting Vanessa Gearson in the Leader’s Office in the House of Commons when I have visited Iain’s office. Prior to ceasing work I do remember meeting her once in Conservative Central Office when I was in London for a daytime engagement and I remember meeting her at the Party Conference of that year when I congratulated her on becoming the PPC at Cheltenham. I do not recall meeting her on any occasion other than those I have mentioned. Our ‘hallos’ have always been civil and I had no reason to believe she bore me such ill will.

95. Vanessa Gearson states that she used to answer Christine Watson’s calls when Christine was out of the office. I never remember her answering Christine’s phone—most of my telephone conversations with Christine tended to be outside in regular working hours but whenever I did ring Christine’s phone at the office she always answered it as she rarely left her desk.

96. In her testimony Vanessa Gearson refers to Swanbourne as being dilapidated but she has never visited the house. She did not seem to realise that throughout the period that Iain was Leader a number of people came for meetings at Swanbourne and some stayed the night, that would not have been possible if the house had been in the state she claimed. The house at its heart is Elizabethan with Georgian additions. Before Iain and I moved in it was being occupied by my parents and my brother. We moved in in August 2001. We did not move out of the house to the flat until March 2003 to allow work to be done to the older section of the house. By that time I had ceased work and even during that time Office 3 was used by Iain and myself. Vanessa Gearson refers to the state of the telephones in the house. New phone lines had been

30 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

installed on 6th August 2001 before Iain became Leader. The office line was a modern line and had been established for as long as I can remember.

97. Vanessa Gearson also refers to the use of my mobile telephone. The bills on this were very small as it was only used when I was joining Iain at a function, simply as a means of contact so that the office could call me if Iain’s arrangements were altered in any way or I could contact the office if I was held up in traffic and needed to re-arrange our schedule. Iain occasionally used the phone as a back-up if he had left his mobile phone in London or if the batteries on his mobile phone were running low. As Vanessa Gearson said, the bills, as a result of this, were very low and were covered by CCO. I was not aware at the time that she questioned my use of the mobile. She says ‘ she claimed [referring to me] that the telephone was primarily used by Mr Duncan Smith.’ I never claimed anything—I was never asked or questioned about my use of this mobile phone. The only conversation I can recall having about the mobile phone was with Christine Watson around midsummer this year when Iain upgraded his mobile phone and she asked me whether I wanted to upgrade my phone as well. I explained to her that this was not necessary as I only ever used it to make arrangements to meet Iain at a function or on tour. I also said that it was occasionally used by Iain if he had forgotten his or it was low on battery. Perhaps this is the conversation which Vanessa Gearson is referring to—if so, she will be aware that it took place after my employment ceased.

98. In her memo to Stanley Kalms in March 2003 Vanessa Gearson raised queries about the invoice for the installation of 13 BT telephone lines. She states he requested this memo but I note the memo doesn’t start ‘As requested.’ In addition, I often met Stanley and he never raised the matter with me or mentioned it as a problem, neither did he raise it with Iain at their weekly meetings. It is unfortunate that Vanessa Gearson did not raise these concerns with me. Completely independently in February 2003 I became concerned that something was wrong with the billing and the number of telephone lines to Swanbourne. I passed the bills for these lines directly to Conservative Central Office, however I became aware that the bills did not appear to reflect the numbers on the sockets and sent a memo to Christine Watson to this effect. It has since transpired that BT had installed and billed us for three more lines than the 10 we requested and BT has recently refunded these extra payments. These 10 lines would have enabled three people to work from Swanbourne. I am surprised that Vanessa Gearson did not speak to Iain, myself or Christine Watson, to whom I forwarded the telephone bills for passing on to CCO for payment rather than raising it with Sir Stanley Kalms, if she had done so the fault might have been corrected earlier. Office 3 was completed in December 2002 but Office 2 had been in fully functioning order at Swanbourne over a year before.

Supporting documentary evidence

99. It has been almost a year since I stopped working for Iain and over two years since I started working for him as Leader of the Opposition and it has been difficult to piece together the work that I did for him at the time. Had I been asked at the time about my work then I would have retained more than I have now. I have constructed this account of my work from my recollection and Iain’s diary. I kept few documents: simply because it was the nature of the work that I made sure documents were sent out and approved and diary appointments checked. At the time I thought it unnecessary to keep notes to this effect. I had no idea my work would be questioned. In this sort of political work documents tend to be disposed of when they are no longer needed. The work is done when it has to be done. I do not keep records of time spent in the way a lawyer or accountant might. It never occurred to me it might be necessary to do so.

100. I will show the Parliamentary Commissioner when he visits Swanbourne sample telephone bills and will explain what telephone lines were used for what purpose.

101. When we first moved to Swanbourne I did most of my work over the telephone or by communicating with the Westminster office by fax. In November 2001 I opened an e-mail account with Yahoo. I tended to delete emails as I dealt with the issues contained in them. In May 2002 I opened an e-mail account with British Telecom and that is the account that I use today. In the middle of this year however I started to experience some difficulty using the e-mail account. I kept receiving warnings that my e-mail account was full. I therefore deleted all the e-mails on my account up to September 2002 to clear space. At that time as I had finished work I did not think that I would need to retain copies of the material. At the start of this Inquiry I had trouble printing documents off my computer. I contacted Home Technologies who discovered I had a series of viruses which they were able to eradicate talking me through the eradication

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 31

process over the phone. At that time I asked if it were possible to recover e-mails that had been deleted and was told if I had deleted them twice (ie by confirming when prompted that I wanted to delete them) I wouldn’t be able to retrieve them. Subsequently, Rikki Radford told me he knew of a man called Tim Wilkinson who had managed to recover some of his documents from the hard drive of his computer. Tim Wilkinson came to Swanbourne on 11 November to see if he could help me. Unfortunately, it appears that due to the viruses the hard drive has become corrupted so though I retrieved some very old files his search was not very successful. I attach a copy of a fax dated 4 December from Mr Wilkinson confirming that most of the e-mails and documents on the hard drive of the computer were irretrievable.12 I needed to contact Home Technologies again recently (21st November) as I again had trouble printing documents from the computer. They cleared the several viruses which had struck again, including a particularly bad one, and explained that in order to stop the computer from becoming infected by this severe virus the computer needs to be updated.

102. I will show the Parliamentary Commissioner when he visits Swanbourne samples of the type of work I did while employed by Iain and of the times at which I did it.

Section 4

Use of MP Salary Allowance

103. I was never aware of any concern having been expressed about the payment of my salary from the Salary Allowance that Iain receives as an MP. Neither Vanessa Gearson, nor Mark MacGregor raised this matter with me. Had they done so I would have been more than happy to discuss the matter with them. I find it quite extraordinary in light of the way Vanessa Gearson describes her role and her apparent anxiety about the matter that she did not do so. As I was clearly working outside the office, the obvious thing if she did have a genuine concern would have been for her to ask me about my job (as she appears to have done with Christine Watson). I believe the fact that she did not do so speaks for itself.

104. At the time I did not analyse the work that I did for Iain according to the different roles that he undertook as Leader of Opposition, Constituency MP and Leader of the Conservative Party. The lines between the three roles were blurred and I assisted Iain on those matters on which he required assistance. Looking back however I can say that the majority of my time was spent supporting Iain in his parliamentary rather than his party political role. Whilst I did attend some Conservative Association events as Iain’s wife I helped him with his parliamentary work from the office at Swanbourne. Central Office normally dealt with Conservative Association invitations for Iain, obviously, those invitations he accepted were entered into his diary but otherwise I did not have much involvement with them. I rarely attended the events and, if I did, I did not consider it to be part of my employment.

Section 5

Conclusions

105. For all the reasons I have set out above I invite the Parliamentary Commissioner to accept my account of the work I did while employed by Iain, particularly when it is supported by those who worked with me and who know the true facts. Even those who seek to assert that I did not do the work I was paid for accept that that they do not actually know what the facts of my employment were—a dubious basis on which to found such serious allegations. The fact is that the people making these allegations did not work with me and therefore did not have occasion to witness the work that I did.

106. I must state that this Inquiry has resulted in a lot of anxiety and distress not only for myself, Iain and those asked to present evidence but also for our family. * * * I feel that this might have been avoidable, as indeed would the trial by media, if more protection had been given to us by the Inquiry itself and the rules governing complaints against MP’s had been complied with by our accusers (ie prohibiting disclosure of evidence or the making of statements to the press while the Inquiry is in process). We have been subject

12 Not appended by the Commissioner.

32 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

to unwarranted intrusion without the protections usually accorded to a court of law. I believe a lot of what was written in the Press was assumption and inaccuracies taken from partial and leaked testimonies which were put by those persons in the Press to do the maximum damage.

107. I do not believe many offices could have stood up to such close scrutiny as that to which Iain’s office has been subjected especially one such as the Leader’s Office, where everyone was working under such pressures each day. The work of the office continued during the course of the Inquiry and its staff were expected to respond quickly to allegations made by witnesses who seem to have spent months plotting and taking confidential documents out of the office for use at a later date, despite the tumultuous events taking place around them, the impact on the jobs of some of them, and the fact that Iain was no longer Leader. My husband’s staff, who are decent, loyal and hard-working, feel deeply shocked at the turn of events.

108. I am by nature a private person. As a professional freelance secretary I endeavoured to be an asset to my employers by being efficient and effective and working well with the other staff. I have never made a great show of being an MP’s wife or made a big issue of working for my husband. Indeed between 1997 and 2001 many people who were in and out of Iain’s office had no idea I was his wife. I have always refused to do profiles and interviews in order to protect the children’s and our family life. Although Iain has been in the public eye we have both endeavoured to protect our children from media intrusion. I find the public nature of this Inquiry very distressing.

109. I appreciate that the motive of those who have made these false allegations is irrelevant and the issue here is what the truth is. However, in view of the fact that I have been very publicly accused of claiming public money to which I was not entitled, and that I have found myself subject through no fault of mine to massive intrusion and personalised media coverage, I feel I must make the following points.

110. The crucial point is that insofar as they relate to me and my work, the testimony and statements of Mark MacGregor and Vanessa Gearson are hugely inaccurate and misleading. I am sorry to say in addition that from my perspective Vanessa Gearson has spared no effort to be gratuitously offensive to me, as well as to Iain, Christine and Annabelle. She has sought to denigrate my husband’s character, as well as my own, and has made unfounded and offensive innuendoes about my relationship with him. A number of her comments are needlessly intrusive, totally irrelevant to this inquiry and very hurtful. I regard it as implausible that Vanessa Gearson is as she claims the victim in this matter. The real victims are those of us who have had to put up with these personal attacks and her smears on our characters, which have been paraded through the Media without any possibility of rebuttal. During this very difficult period for my husband’s staff she has made no attempt to contact those with whom she claims to have had such close working relationships to express any form of sympathy. I have been surprised that for someone who aspires to be in public life she has behaved in such an underhand fashion. She presents herself as a woman of conscience but if she had had genuine concerns it seems to me that she would have spoken out at an earlier stage and checked her facts with Iain or myself or spoken to the people I worked directly with. Surely she would have aired her concerns after sending the e-mails of January 2003 if Iain’s explanation had not satisfied her? Instead she appears to have been quite happy to continue to work in the Leader’s Office for the next six months.

111. I cannot end this statement without emphasising that the whole process of this Inquiry has been very distressing and damaging not least to those who through no fault of theirs have lost their jobs. While clearly this is not the place for discussing in any detail the politics that underlie the complainants’ actions it is clearly relevant to look at their motivation (in order to further their own personal political agenda) of changing the Leader of the Conservative Party, who was after all the first Conservative Leader elected by the membership of the Conservative Party. For the reasons I have set out above, I do not consider that all of those who have instigated these allegations have necessarily done so in good faith.

112. We have been overwhelmed by the many letters of support we have received from the public (from people of differing political persuasions) expressing their sense of injustice at the events of the last couple of months.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 33

113. I would like to finish by saying that I believe I played a vital part in helping to organise my husband’s busy life in bringing my expertise and previous experience to help in running his office and ensure a smooth transition following his election as Leader of the Conservative Party.

5 December 2003

7. Written statement by Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 9 December 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 3]

Complaint by Michael Crick (13–17 October 2003) against Iain Duncan Smith MP

I, Iain Duncan Smith, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, believe that the contents of this statement are a full and truthful account of the matters in question to the best of my knowledge and belief:

Background

1. This statement is made in response to letters received by me from Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (‘the Commissioner’) dated 13 and 20 October 2003 in relation to a series of complaints made to him by Mr Michael Crick, copies of which are exhibited to this statement,13 and arising from an investigation carried out by Mr Crick over the previous five months for the BBC Newsnight programme. I will at times have to be critical of some witnesses, not because it is in any way relevant to deciding the substance of the complaints made against me because these witnesses have made statements about me which I believe I am entitled to comment in order to put the record straight. I regret that I also have some concerns about the procedures for this investigation, some of which appear sufficiently in my narrative, and I shall be taking these up with the Commissioner in person.

2. This statement is also made in response to a letter from the Commissioner dated 5 November 2003, containing specific questions addressed to me, a copy of which exhibited to this statement.14 This letter was sent after the Commissioner had conducted extensive interviews with witnesses including my personal staff. Accompanying the Commissioner’s letter were some documents, as selected by the Commissioner, that he invited me to comment on, including written statements and part-transcripts of interviews between the Commissioner and some of the witnesses. I understand from the Commissioner’s letter that these documents contain the statements which the Commissioner regards as supporting the complaints against me.

3. I categorically deny each and every allegation that the Commissioner has notified to me in the course of his investigation of the complaint from Mr Crick.

4. In order to deal with each of the Commissioner’s requests I have structured my statement in the following manner:

Section 1—My response to the specific questions set out in the Commissioner’s letter of 5 November.

Section 2—My comments in response to the Commissioner’s letters of 13 and 20 October setting out the general allegations against me, which inevitably includes some consideration of procedural issues.

Section 3—My specific observations on selected statements by witnesses as supplied to me by the Commissioner with his letter of 5 November or subsequently. For the avoidance of doubt, I should not be

13 See PCS Written Submission 3 and 4. 14 Not appended by the Commissioner.

34 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

taken to accept any adverse allegation or suggestion in any statement because I do not comment on it in this statement. I intend to, separately, make written submissions concerning the material the Commissioner has provided.

Section 4—My understanding of the conduct and motivations of Vanessa Gearson and Mark MacGregor.15

5. I fully recognise that Section 4 is not strictly necessary to determining the allegations as set out by the Commissioner in his correspondence but it is nevertheless important that as these people have stated their own opinions and assertions concerning me on the record I should respond to them and also state what I believe to be their real conduct and motivations in doing so for the benefit of the Commissioner and the Committee.

Section 1

The following answers relate to the letter from the Commissioner dated 5 November 200316 and I have adopted his numbering system for the questions.

A1. Can you briefly run through the nature of the work your wife did for you before you became Leader and how that changed (if it did) in nature and volume after you were elected to that position?

6. I have read my wife’s statement to the Commissioner. The nature of the work my wife did for me prior to becoming Leader of the Opposition is set out in her statement [paragraphs 5–11, 27, 78–80]. Details of the nature of her work after I was elected Leader are also set out in her statement [paragraph 18–81]. I adopt my wife’s statement as my own on these matters and elsewhere where I refer to it.

A2. You say in paragraph 2 of your joint submission that your wife worked considerably longer than 25 hours a week. To what period does that relate? How do you justify that statement?

7. I confirm, as set out in my wife’s statement [paragraph 29], that my wife worked at least 25 hours a week for the whole of the relevant period, from my election as Leader in September 2001 to 31 December 2002. The evidence for that statement is set out in my wife’s statement [paragraphs 29–37].

A3. You refer in your joint submission to the move to Swanbourne “where an office was established at home” (para 4). What was the nature of the office which was established? When was it established? The e- mail from Dr Gearson of 30 January 2003 (of which you already have a copy) suggests that substantial work equipping a new office at Swanbourne was undertaken towards the end of 2002 or early in 2003. What is your explanation in respect of the timing of this work? (para 7 of your submission is also relevant).

8. The office was a dedicated suite for the use of my wife in her employment. It was in use immediately after my wife and I moved to Swanbourne to live. My wife describes the office and its contents at paragraph 46 of her statement. I adopt what my wife says about Offices 1, 2 and 3 in her statement [paragraphs 46–48, 50–52]. My wife sets out in detail the works carried out equipping and refurbishing an office for her use at [paragraphs 47–48, 52]. The e-mail from Vanessa Gearson refers to invoices which were for re-wiring. There was no new office, there had always an office, as Vanessa Gearson would have known if she had ever visited Swanbourne. I enclose a copy of the original invoice specifying those works which Vanessa refers to in her e-mail.17 No explanation is required for the timing of this refurbishment, Vanessa never visited Swanbourne and her assumptions are erroneous.

A4. In paragraph 5 of your submission, you refer to the role of your wife in providing continuity as you set up your new office as Leader. What was the substance of this role? What was the substance of your wife’s work in “an advisory and supporting capacity” during the various subsequent changes and upheavals in your office (para 10).

15 Not appended by the Commissioner—see Volume I, Appendix 1, para 152. 16 Not appended by the Commissioner. 17 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 35

9. I have set out in Section 2 the role of my wife in providing continuity and in an advisory and supporting capacity.

A5. Also in paragraph 5 of your submission, you say that it was your joint intention with your wife that she should give up work “once all the appointments were settled”. When did you conceive this intention? Did you communicate it to anyone else? If so, how and when?

10. As I explain in more detail in Section 2 [paragraph 37], my wife and I had serious discussions about her giving up work in early summer, 2002. Those discussions were mentioned to Christine Watson (to whom I gave responsibility for administering my staffing allowance) in September/October. The decision to take Betsy off the payroll was made well before the end of November 2002 after discussions earlier that month with Alistair Burt, Owen Paterson and Christine.

A6. In paragraph 6, there is a reference to BDS assisting in clearing an initial backlog of correspondence. How much assistance did she give?

11. My wife gives details of the work she carried out in this regard at paragraph 27 of her statement.

A7. Paragraphs 8–9 and 11 of your submission describe some of your wife’s key working relationships and the content of your wife’s work for you. Can you add to this description? The question of evidence in the form of records etc, about which I wrote to you on 20, 27 and 28 October is relevant here. So too is the question whether your wife’s work related to your role as a constituency MP or whether it also included your roles as Leader of the Opposition and of the Conservative Party.

12. My wife provides detailed information about her key working relationships at paragraph 75 of her statement. I have added my own observations in Section 2. My wife’s role related to my parliamentary work, both constituency and as Leader of the Opposition.

A8. When did Owen Patterson first raise the matter of Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment with you in the autumn of 2002 (paragraph 16)? Why; how did you respond; and with what result? Did your other Parliamentary Private Secretary, Alistair Burt, raise the matter with you (as he informed me he did)? When and in what terms did you inform the Fees Office that you wished to end your wife’s employment? Why did you write the letter when you did?

13. I do not recall precisely when Owen raised the matter with me but I believe it was during the conference in October. I have set out in detail in Section 2 my response [para 67], which, to summarise, was that Betsy was on a contract and I explained the work she did and asked Owen to pass that information on to Vanessa and to ask her to come to me if she still had any concern. The result was that Vanessa never once raised such a concern with me directly so I assumed she had no concern. Alistair also raised the matter with me in November 2002 but in a completely different context as he has informed the Commissioner [transcript, p10]—Christine was anxious that we settle when Betsy was coming off the payroll, part of ongoing discussions we were having, and had raised that with him as part of her concern that we should finalise the staffing allowance budget for the year. Within days, the middle of November, I instructed Christine that Betsy would cease in December and she could notify the Fees Office and we then agreed who the staff would be going forward. Christine Watson, because she administered the staffing allowance, verbally informed the Fees Office of that decision in December and drafted a letter which I signed confirming her instructions to the Fees Office. I can only presume that the means of notice and its timing was selected by Christine because it was what the Fees Office required in order to take Betsy off the payroll at the end of December 2002.

B1. What explanation can you offer for the evidence of successive administrative heads of your office and other staff that they had no knowledge of any significant work being done by your wife for you in the capacity of an employee, prior to your wife’s employment being drawn to Dr Gearson’s attention by Mrs Watson in September/October 2002?

14. I have only ever had one administrative head of my office which was Vanessa Gearson, from September 2002 when she joined until she left the job in 2003. Christine Watson informs me that she does not recall drawing the matter of my wife’s employment to Vanessa’s attention which I believe she would if it had

36 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

been a concern to her. Jenny Ungless was my former Chief of Staff. Simon Gordon was never an office manager, as he informs the Commissioner in his interview [transcript, p15 bottom of page]. I have set out in detail in Section 2 precisely how Jenny’s position was altogether different from Vanessa’s position [paragraphs 60 and 61].

15. All of the members of my staff with whom my wife dealt with in the period after I became Leader to 31 December 2002, Annabelle Eyre, Christine Watson, Andrew Whitby-Collins and Rikki Radford have all given statements that they had knowledge of the work being done by my wife, as have my wife and I. Furthermore, the Commissioner had statements to that effect from these people and my wife on 13 October 2003, prior to his decision to embark on a full investigation on 14 October. It is wholly unremarkable that other members of staff who joined the Leader’s Office after I became Leader and, therefore, after Besty had begun working from home in Swanbourne which includes in order of joining Simon Gordon, Jenny Ungless and Vanessa Gearson, and who had no professional reasons to contact or deal with her, would have seen little or no sign of her work. My wife was working with a very limited group of people, focussed on the private office.

16. Indeed, Vanessa Gearson joined the Leader’s Office in September 2002 during the recess and, allowing for the party conference in October, the 2 weeks she spent away from the office in November visiting her father in Florida, and for the Christmas to New Year recess, had only been in the office for perhaps three months before my wife finished her employment in December during which Betsy was winding down her role. That period from September to December was anything but typical, given that I was often out of the office (at conference, on tour or at home during the recess) and because of the staffing changes going on. Simon Gordon recalls from the previous year after I became Leader, in 2001, that although “I did not have an overview at all of who was doing what”18 “I recall occasional mentions that Betsy was dealing with something or other, which I would assume meant that she was working with Annabelle Eyre on some project”19. The same limiting factors must be applied to the statements of anyone who did not work in the Leader’s Office, namely Mark MacGregor, Stephen Gilbert and Theresa May. All of these people took up their various postions in CCO after my wife had begun working from Swanbourne. My wife was employed by me, not CCO, and she was employed to assist me with my parliamentary work as opposed to party-political activities, so she had no reason to come into contact with any of these people in a professional capacity. Not one single witness interviewed by the Commissioner even attempts to claim that they knew that my wife was not, or could not have been, doing the work which the Commissioner has been informed by me that she was doing. They all concede that she could have. At highest, their statements are that they saw no evidence of her work which is in no way inconsistent with what the witnesses who did work with Betsy, and who have given statements, are saying.

B2. Whether your recollection of the events of the autumn of 2002 chimes with that of Dr Gearson and Mr MacGregor, in that they assert that you only took action to end your wife’s employment after the Michael Trend story broke (on 15 December 2002)

17. The Michael Trend story first broke in The Mail on Sunday on 15 December 2002. That was the first time I learned of the allegations as the members of the Press Office at CCO can confirm. No-one in the Leader’s Office or anyone at CCO knew of the allegations against Mr Trend prior to that date. For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that Mr Trend had not privately informed me about the matter prior its publication. As the Leader of the Opposition I would have been one of the first people informed had it been known the story was about to break. My decision to end my wife’s employment as I have previously said was taken before the end of November 2002. The suggestion, therefore, that Trend was a factor is unsustainable.

18. Furthermore the Commissioner has misstated the allegation which is made by Vanessa and Mark; what they in fact allege is that the Trend allegations broke in mid November and that it was a factor in my decision to end my wife’s employment. Owen Paterson had informed Vanessa of my decision to take

18 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 11. 19 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 11.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 37

Betsy off the payroll in November and certainly no later than the beginning of December.20 He would also have notified that decision to the CCO communications group of which Mark was a member. As Vanessa and Mark knew that I had taken the decision to end Betsy’s employment in November the allegation that Trend was a factor is one that can only work if the Trend allegations were known in mid November. That is why I believe, they have deliberately claimed and maintained it was mid November when they knew about Trend—to use the Trend case to smear me. There can be no coincidence or doubt that they are both saying they knew about Trend in November because they are also saying that it did influence me to take Betsy off the payroll, a decision they know I took in November. I categorically deny knowing anything about Trend until it was published on 15 December and it had no bearing whatsoever on my decision to take Betsy off the payroll.

19. Furthermore the allegations against Michael Trend have no relevance to my employment of my wife or the decision of my wife and I that she would quit employment by the end of December. As the Commissioner is well aware the allegations which were made against Mr Trend concerned his claims against the additional costs allowance in respect of expenditure in relation to his main home (and constituency house) in Windsor. I fail to see how such an allegation could have raised any issue in my mind about whether I should be employing my wife, or in the mind of any other MP who was employing his spouse at that time. I see nothing in the statements of Vanessa Gearson or Mark MacGregor which even attempt to explain why the Trend allegations might have been thought relevant to the issue or produced a link in their minds or anyone else’s to my employment of my wife. If the Trend allegations had in fact triggered a concern in Vanessa in November as she claims (which assumes she had knowledge which neither I, the shadow cabinet, the Chairman or the CCO Press Office had), or even in December when the allegations were published why is it we see no evidence of that particular concern prior to her 30 January 2003 e-mail, a full month after my wife had ceased employment and over two months since the decision had been taken? Vanessa’s reference to the Trend allegations, and for that matter to a ‘Crick style investigation’, seem to me to have been inserted into her e-mail of 30 January to give it greater impact particularly if it was her intention to leak it to the media at a later stage.

B3. Whether you accept Dr Gearson’s account of the circumstances leading up to the dispatch of her e-mail of 31 January.

20. For the reason’s set out in Sections 2–4 of my statement I do not accept Vanessa Gearson’s account of the circumstances of the dispatch of her e-mail of 31 January. Furthermore, I do not believe that Vanessa ever sent the e-mail of 31 January in the form of the copies of the e-mails presented to the Commissioner. The copies at Appendices 3, 8 and 9 of her written statement are all drafts; there is no copy of the e-mail as sent, bearing a time and date. My recollection of the e-mail as sent, which Owen confirms is also his recollection, is that it was only three or four lines long which does not accord with the drafts that Vanessa has provided the Commissioner. If Vanessa kept all of these drafts she must also have kept a copy of the e-mail as sent and the Commissioner should insist on having sight of that to confirm its contents and that the e-mail was in fact sent. The Commissioner will observe that the copy of the 30 January e-mail which was submitted has a date and time of sending.

21. I further deny Vanessa’s allegation that she produced the draft e-mail under any implied threat that her job was at stake. Vanessa’s explanation is an utterly perverse explanation as it requires one to accept not only there was unspoken coercive conduct on my part but also inappropriate and dishonest behaviour on her part in that she produced and sent an e-mail, the contents of which she now claims she knew not to be true, to the most senior members of the Conservative Party, including the Chairman, Theresa May, with whom she had a close relationship. Vanessa was a councillor and prospective parliamentary candidate for Cheltenham at that time. Is it credible that she was prepared to jeopardise a parliamentary career because she thought that she might otherwise have to resign? Why would she so desperately want to continue to work for me if she believed I was that compromised and compromising? If fact she continued to work with me for another six months until she was transferred back to work at CCO for the

20 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 18.

38 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Chairman, where she had a position liasing between both offices—even though she informs the Commissioner she wanted to remain in the Leader’s Office working for me.

B4. Whether you accept her account of events before, during and after the Party Conference in October 2003?

22. For the reasons set out in my statement below I do not accept Vanessa’s account of events before, during or after the party conference in October 2003 [paragraphs 73–89]. I specifically question her conduct and motives in Section 4 of my statement.

Section 2

23. The Commissioner’s letter of 20 October 2003 was accompanied by a bundle of statements relied on by Mr Crick to support the complaint, which included statements from three anonymous sources, described by Mr Crick as “top-rank anonymous Conservative sources”, and transcripts of telephone conversations with Rikki Radford, my constituency agent, and seven councillors from my Chingford constituency. It is my understanding that neither Mr Radford nor the councillors were informed that their conversations were being recorded and, it is clear from the transcripts, that they were deliberately misled about the true subject of the investigation (see Crick’s document marked ‘MC7’) e.g. Louise Weston of the BBC to Geoffrey Walker: “we’re just looking at the role of MPs within their local constituency”21 and same formula is recited to Michael Fish, Linda Huggett, Laurie Braham, Matthew Davis), which was my wife’s employment. These appear to me to be serious breaches of the BBC’s Producers Guidelines. I have instructed my solicitors to ask the Director-General of the BBC for an explanation of this conduct and whether this conduct was authorised by senior management as the Guidelines require.

24. The allegations made by Mr Crick concerning my wife had, in apparent frustration, been passed to the media by him when the BBC failed to broadcast his programme as planned on 2 October, including rival broadcasters ITV and Channel 4. The media briefing must have taken place the same day, Thursday 2 October, because the Conservative Central Office (‘CCO’) Press Office was inundated with calls that day concerning the allegations. The allegations were then reported in the national press on Sunday, 5 October. Further allegations by Vanessa Gearson were published on Sunday, 12 October. Mr Crick made a complaint to the Commissioner on 13 October. Despite Mr Crick’s denials that he was responsible for briefing the press, a number of papers were indicating at the outset that the allegations came from Crick and using phrases such as “what Crick is saying is ...”. I was subsequently informed by Greg Dyke (and it has also been reported in the press) that Crick has been suspended by the BBC pending the outcome of this investigation.

25. I was first contacted by Mr Crick by telephone on 29 September 2003. Mr Crick then sent a letter to me dated 29 September, after he has now informed the Commissioner he had been investigating the matter since May, fishing to see if Betsy was still working for me in 2003 which says something about the quality of his research and information, and borne out by the fact that he had to change the nature of his complaint after the initial complaint on 13 October.

26. From the outset when we were first contacted by Newsnight it was suggested to them that if they considered they had credible material they should take it to the Commissioner. Some years ago I sat on the Nolan Committee and subsequently the Committee on Standards and Privileges which established the current role of the Commissioner and his procedures [Third Report, session 1995–95, see particularly paragraphs 66–69]. Accordingly, I thought that process would provide a confidential and rapid resolution of the matter. Particularly bearing in mind that the original allegation fell within such a very narrow compass, as set out in the letter from the Commissioner to me of 13 October. I was also aware of the strict contempt of Parliament rules of procedure which I hoped would prevent a trial by media while this matter was being investigated by the Commissioner. Instead, however, Crick chose to make his allegations to the media and they were published in his own name (and some re-published from 5

21 See PCS Written Submission 30.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 39

October) on Sunday 12 October and Crick and some of his witnesses appear throughout to have ignored these rules by leaking their evidence and briefing the media.

27. Once Crick’s allegation that my wife was being paid for doing no work (the same allegation he made to the Commissioner on 13 October) was made public I decided that I would proactively rebut it to the Commissioner and I presented him with a bundle of documents during a meeting with him on 13 October, which included a summary of the statements my wife and I could give if he considered that a full investigation was warranted. The same day, with prior notice to the Commissioner, I responded to the attack on me and my wife through the Press Office by providing details of the work my wife did and selected statements from the members of staff who had worked with Betsy. It was politically imperative that I make it clear to the media that the allegations were denied and that there was evidence supporting the denial. Following that press release, neither myself or any of my staff briefed the press concerning our statements to the Commissioner. I observe that Mr Crick’s documents passed on to me by the Commissioner includes one which is entitled ‘Analysing the Central Office press statement’22 in which he poses questions for the Commissioner to ask of the witnesses which did not support his complaints.

28. The Commissioner notified me in a letter dated 14 October, and confirmed in a letter to me dated 20 October, that he had resolved to conduct a full investigation the day after Mr Crick made his complaint (14 October). The Commissioner knew at that time that Mr Crick had not submitted all of the documents he intended to, or articulated all of his complaint. The Commissioner issued a press statement on 14 October.23 Mr Crick’s complaint was not finalised until Friday, 17 October, by which time it had expanded considerably into wholly novel areas concerning other members of my staff. The letter of 20 October from the Commissioner also informed me for the first time of the new allegations made against me by Mr Crick and that the Commissioner had already commenced interviewing people he thought were relevant to the allegations as part of his full investigation.

29. I believe Mr Crick’s attitude has been influenced as much by his need to protect his reputation and to establish his credibility in the eyes of the BBC who did not feel there was sufficient material to support his Newsnight programme and who subsequently suspended him. I do not understand, however, why Mr Crick was given further time to produce more documents and allegations when he chose following a five month investigation to make the complaint on 13 October, a complaint which had already been briefed to and reported by the press on the two previous weekends, and after I had prepared and entered documents on 13 October to rebut the complaint which was made that day by Mr Crick.

30. I subsequently requested that the Commissioner provide me with a statement setting out his assessment of the nature of the allegations and the standard of proof by which he would assess them, which I understood was the procedure followed by the Commissioner and approved by the Committee in its report on the complaint against Mr John Maxton and Dr John Reid [Second Report, 2000] (‘Reid’). By “nature” I mean, of course, whether the allegation is one of negligence or dishonesty etc. In a letter dated 23 October from the Commissioner I was informed that he had formed no view on which standard of proof might be appropriate.24 I was subsequently informed by the Commissioner by letter dated 30 October that he would consider the standard of proof question when he came to draft his report to the Committee.25 I presume he will also consider the nature of the allegations at that time as well. It appears to me, therefore, the Commissioner could not have carried out a preliminary investigation of the Crick complaint.

31. I also requested from the Commissioner an assurance that I would be provided with copies of all of the statements received by the Commissioner in the course of his investigation, so that I would have the opportunity to comment on those statements or make submissions based upon them to the Commissioner and the Committee. Again, that is the procedure which I understood was followed by the

22 Not appended by the Commissioner. 23 Not appended by the Commissioner. 24 Not appended by the Commissioner. 25 Not appended by the Commissioner.

40 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Commissioner [paragraph 112 of her Memorandum to the Committee, Appendix 1 to the 2nd Report] and approved by the Committee in the Reid decision [paragraph 11 of the 2nd Report]. However, I was informed by the Commissioner in his letter of 30 October that I will only be provided with the material which the Commissioner judges to be relevant to the preparation of his report to the Committee. I received such a bundle of material with the Commissioner’s letter 5 November. It does not seem fair to me that I should not be aware of all of the material received as I am having to defend myself against serious allegations and I may want to rely in my defence on material, or make submissions about, material which is not being provided to me.

My wife’s role and the staff changes

32. I have read my wife’s statement to the Commissioner and adopt it as my own so far as it is relevant to my statement and within my knowledge and belief.

33. My employment of my wife has always been completely transparent. Her employment and salary has been administered from the beginning to the end by the Fees Office, who have never raised any inquiry concerning her employment. The Fees Office only lays down very general rules concerning employment. I exhibit a statement from the Fees Office setting out all of the salary payments which Betsy received.26 Those payments were never more than was recommended by the Department of Finance and Administration for a senior secretary. It is common practice for MPs to employ spouses and other family members, perhaps unsurprisingly given they need to be able to trust their staff implicitly and that they have limited resources in the way of wages to offer their staff.

34. I employed my wife from 1992 to the end of 2002. Before Betsy came to work for me she was already an experienced senior secretary and personal assistant. Having worked with me for 10 years, my wife was the longest serving member of my Parliamentary staff and a person on whom I relied completely during that period. Betsy has the longest knowledge of my constituency matters and how I worked as an MP. Her work was always of the highest standard and she is one of the most efficient people I had ever met. Without her my job would have been unmanageable in those first fourteen months after I became Leader.

35. At all times my wife answered directly to me as her employer and not the Fees Office or, indeed, any other person in my constituency office or the Leader’s Office. As her employer I decided what work was to be done and it was for me to determine what work she did and for me to be satisfied that she did a satisfactory job. Her work was always satisfactory.

36. When the Fees Office in 1997 introduced the requirement for a written agreement my wife and I settled its contents together. At that time I was not the Leader and it was not prepared with that possibility in mind. However, the scope of the duties referred to in that contract is sufficient in my opinion to cover her duties in working from the office in Swanbourne, notwithstanding that she was not the ‘Diary Secretary’ after Andrew Whitby-Collins took over that job.

37. We had always agreed that Betsy would fulfil her employed role until we felt that the Leader’s Office I had yet to establish was functioning satisfactorily. From the time I became Leader Betsy was under considerable pressure to take a larger role in my public life and to accompany me on tours, which she could not do and work at the same time. Betsy and I first seriously discussed her giving up her job in early summer of 2002. By the end of July 2002, however, I realised that several staff changes had to be made in the constituency and Leader’s Office. With the increasing workload, and the re-shaping of the office I had planned, that took far longer than we anticipated. The staffing changes took place from September to late November. My wife ended up working longer than we wanted her to because my offices had not yet reached the point where the staffing moves and new staff employed in late 2002 had settled into their roles. That meant increased pressure on Betsy and me post-conference (in October) when I went on tour, and most work was done at home on weekends and while my Private Secretary, Christine Watson, was preoccupied training Cara Walker to be the Constituency Secretary and Paula Malone was learning the ‘ropes’ as the new Diary Secretary. Indeed I was out of the office for most of September and October and

26 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 41

parts of November and December. It was not until mid November that I was sufficiently confident with the running of the offices to confirm to Christine Watson that Betsy would go off the payroll in December. That decision was also notified to my Parliamentary Private Secretaries.

38. Mr Crick’s original complaint was that my wife was not working at all in the period from 14 September 2001 to 31 December 2002. The Commissioner then informed me that he has added to that complaint (1) to the extent Betsy carried out tasks they were minimal and (2) that any work undertaken did not amount to 25 hours a week and so did not justify her salary and (3) that some of that work undertaken was party- political and so did not qualify for payment from my parliamentary allowance. The 25 hour figure was originally inserted in the contract for the benefit of my wife and at a time when I was only an MP; it was an indication of the hours which we calculated at that time she would be available to work in the office (10am–3pm) because my wife also delivered and picked up our children from school. However, Betsy often worked longer hours from home. We had a fully functioning office in Tournay Road throughout. She was always on call the way no other member of staff would have been. That continued when we moved to Swanbourne in summer 2001.

39. When I also became Leader of the Opposition my workload increased dramatically and my wife ended up working more than 25 hours a week, until she finally left in December 2002, along with my other Parliamentary staff who also worked far in excess of their contractual hours. Having said that, anyone who knows anything about the business of Parliament knows that it is not a field in which MPs or their staff, let alone the Leader’s staff, can expect to work to set hours or within a fixed job description all of the time. More often it is the case in Parliament that the job you do is what needs to be done. For example, Betsy, in addition to her role as Diary Secretary, filled in for Fiona Walker my Constituency Secretary when she went on maternity leave in 1996 and would also fill in for Annabelle Eyre if Annabelle was on leave. Annabelle and Betsy worked together for five years and complemented each other very well.

40. My wife rarely used her surname in doing her work. She did not want the fact that she was my wife to interfere with the way people interacted with her. For this reason many people who had dealings with her did not know she was my wife and knew her only as “Betsy” or “IDS” diary secretary’. I enclose copies of letters sent to me from people who had read newspaper reports of this investigation, confirming this to be the case.27 It’s my experience, in any event, that people are not as good at remembering my secretaries’ names as opposed to their titles. People usually focus on me because I am the Member of Parliament.

41. With the increase in work that came with being the Leader I decided that I needed an office at home. Prior to moving to Swanbourne in August 2001, we always had an office at our house in Fulham, but it was used primarily after hours. From 14 September 2001 to 31 December 2002 my wife was effectively employed to do all that was necessary to ensure all of my offices operated effectively and together. Significantly, Betsy’s working at home allowed me to extend my working week into the evenings and weekend.

42. There were numerous staffing changes as a result of the need to establish the Leader’s Office from scratch. These are political appointments so one does not have the Civil Service the way one would if one were an incoming Prime Minister. As was usual, Mr Hague’s staff had all vacated the Leader’s Office prior to our arrival and the offices were empty. There were one or two people at CCO who had previously worked with Mr Hague, including a speechwriter but they were not on my staff. Betsy handed over to Andrew Whitby-Collins her day to day Diary role, but she continued to have daily dealings with him concerning the diary. It was a particularly important part of her job to be a progress chaser; ensuring tasks were followed up and done. She contributed to the smooth running of the offices by being a central point of contact for the key staff.

43. I had hoped that both of my offices, constituency and the Leader’s, would be working smoothly by the summer of 2002 and that Betsy would be able to quit. However, Jenny Ungless had not been a success as my chief of staff and so we agreed to wait until the further staff changes had bedded in. I was concerned

27 Not appended by the Commissioner.

42 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

that although we were getting by the structure of the office meant that we weren’t able to focus far enough ahead.

44. The next shake up took place during August to September 2002. I created the new post of ‘Tours’ because I realised that the organisation of tours was haphazard and that it had put extra pressure on the Dairy and the private office, one of the reasons why Betsy remained so involved. I also discovered that William Hague also had one person in charge of that role towards the end of his term as Leader. Having watched the early planning of the October/November tour I decided to put Annabelle into this position. I had also observed over the previous eleven months that Christine Watson was efficient and very organised. I brought her in to take over the role of Private Secretary from Annabelle. I asked her to re-order the Box and both Betsy and I explained the shortcoming of the existing system (as it was Betsy and I who went through the Box on weekends). Christine was the only other person apart from myself who had a key to the Box. Cara Walker was employed by me on Christine’s request to be the Constituency Secretary. Cara was in the early stages an unknown quantity because so much would depend upon her training with Christine. In that initial two month period I warned Betsy that if it didn’t work out she would have to step in and help for a short while until we found someone else. However, Christine felt certain it would work and she was right. Andrew Whitby-Collins left the Leader’s Office and the position he had occupied of Diary Secretary to go to the Candidates Department.

45. Vanessa Gearson was asked to become the Diary Secretary in July following some discussions she had with Annabelle. She declined. I then asked another secretary, Shana Hole who worked in the Whip’s office, to do the job and she said she would think about it but also declined. It was after that I interviewed Paula Malone and appointed her. She did not take over from Andrew until the October conference was over. Paula was not up to speed with the work required until November. Vanessa Gearson was eventually employed to oversee the administration of the London office, and to provide as much assistance to Christine as possible. As Vanessa had worked in the Chairman’s office as his secretary, she had a knowledge of its workings that I thought would be useful in the Leader’s Office as I was keen that those two offices should be closely integrated. I placed particular emphasis on her sorting out the Correspondence Unit which was not functioning as it should. Vanessa did not recruit staff other than in relation to the Correspondence Unit but I expected her to attend to the administration of staff matters such as ensuring contracts were put in place. I personally appointed or approved all staff working for me. No-one could hire or fire staff working for me except with my approval. I made it clear to Vanessa that I had already decided on the changes to the private office. Tom Hooper was the last person to be employed, in November in relation to the constituency.

46. I also explained to Vanessa that I was not going to re-create the role of Chief of Staff until I decided who would best fulfil that role. The wide remit of the political side of such a position was a key responsibility and would require someone with proven political experience which ruled out Vanessa whose prior experience was limited to working as a secretary/personal assistant. The title I agreed she could have of ‘Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office’ was one she had asked for at the time of our August discussion. I had originally envisaged her title as Administration Manager or Executive Secretary. I had no idea at the time that Mark MacGregor had suggested she should apply for the Chief of Staff vacancy. I explained to her in August before she started she would in due course report to a Chief of Staff. Vanessa to my surprise pressed very hard for the title of ‘Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office’. I was concerned that it might be misleading as it did not accurately describe her role but it was too trivial a matter to spend time on. I was surprised when I checked the files after this investigation had begun to discover that she had been using the title ‘Head of the Leader’s Office’ and ‘Chief of Staff’ in correspondence with people outside the office. I should point out in this context that I do not have or use a computer myself so I would not expect to see how Vanessa or anyone else for that matter were describing themselves in e-mails. I was away from the office when Vanessa started but I now have cause to question whether when Vanessa joined the office she introduced herself to the other staff by the formal title I had agreed.

47. In September 2002 I worked from home when not required in London for meetings or interviews or on visits or tours. I worked on the conference arrangements in October, and the speech I was to deliver at the end of the conference. This speech was to bring together the first phase of our policy development programme which I worked on through September. I brought the speech writing team to Swanbourne to

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 43

get away from the day to day pressure of CCO and we worked on the early drafts and ideas at those meetings. Betsy and I worked together throughout that period in 2001 and 2002. Betsy was the central point of contact for Andrew, Annabelle and Christine. I was away from my Commons office for an unusually long time in late 2002 because after the conference (7–10 October) I went on tour for three weeks (starting 14 October) which took me to 6 November. Annabelle joined me on that tour. While on tour, all of my other work had to be dealt with in the evenings and weekends with Betsy. At the same time, that September 2002, Annabelle Eyre took leave * * *. As it happens, I also agreed Vanessa could go also go on leave to Florida for two weeks between 6–18 November * * *, and again in early 2003 for the same reason. So Christine Watson came into the Leader’s Office when Annabelle and I were absent on tour and Andrew was leaving (he left in October after conference). She was effectively on her own alone in the Commons office, with the added strains of adjusting to her new role as Private Secretary, training Cara Walker, and negotiating her new contract with CCO which was not finalised until November. In such circumstances I can understand the frustration that prompted her to accede to Vanessa’s request to produce the 22 October memo, particularly in the context that she was being asked to justify her position to CCO and that she thought Vanessa would be able to assist her in transferring her constituency employment contract to a CCO Leader’s Office contract. However, Vanessa did not help her and Christine sent me a memorandum in November saying how disappointed she was with Vanessa. At the same time Vanessa also requested Rebecca Layton to produce a report which Vanessa has also produced to the Commissioner.28 It is worthy of note that that despite Vanessa’s claim to be concerned about Betsy, Vanessa sent no such request to Betsy to explain her role. She did not even try to arrange a meeting with her. If she wanted to know what Betsy did, that would have been the natural thing for her to do.

48. My Parliamentary duties always extended beyond my duties to my constituency. Every MP has duties beyond those owed to members of the constituency as they also serve the national interest. As the Leader of the Opposition I had numerous Parliamentary duties in addition to those of an MP including speaking in the House, Prime Minister’s questions, speeches and visits in the community, ceremonial and official functions. In the period 14 September 2001–December 2002 I had three roles: Member of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Conservative Party. Only the latter role is a party-political role which is why it is fully supported in its key functions (press, campaigns and donations) by staff paid by the Conservative Party. Conservative MPs also act, unpaid, as my Parliamentary Secretaries (‘PPSs’) supporting my functions as Leader of the Party and the Opposition. However, I would not accept that there is always a clear dividing line over what is party-political. I observe that the Committee on Standards and Privileges considered that it may be no more than a grey line [Reid Paragraph 45, 2nd Report].29 Neither would I accept that there is a clear distinction between my work as an MP and as the Leader of the Opposition, as they are both are parliamentary positions.

49. Betsy did not assist me with party-political tasks in the course of her employment which explains why she had next to no contact with Mark MacGregor, Stephen Gilbert, Theresa May or even my PPSs. The closest Betsy would have come to political work would be in typing up speeches for me or my notes for the party conference but that was only natural given I was working from home on everything at the time prior to the October conferences. The suggestion made by Crick, for example in his Rikki Radford telephone transcript, that my wife might be involved in political activities such as speech writing or with the CCO research department is ludicrous, as Rikki’s reaction confirms. In any event as an illustration of the blurred distinctions, Short Money and Parliamentary Allowances can both be used to fund research. It only demonstrates that Crick simply knew nothing whatsoever of Betsy’s actual role before she ceased to work for me in 2002.

50. All of my work needed to be entered in my diary and verified. The Diary is the central reference point so it includes all appointments whether parliamentary, party-political or personal. My wife and I would review the issues of the day and the diary each evening and she would chase up those items that I requested her to. She helped to follow up the issues of the day. For, example, if I had attended evening meetings or dinners very often these would need following up.

28 Not appended by the Commissioner. 29 Not appended by the Commissioner.

44 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

51. My wife worked in the Swanbourne office between 10am–3pm each week day and otherwise on call. Each weekday night, often quite late, my wife and I would go through what work needed to be done or to be chased up. My diary secretary, Andrew Whitby-Collins, Annabelle and Christine would also regularly call Betsy during the day and into the evenings as they often worked very late and they knew she was on call to deal with work matters. On weekends Betsy and I would go through the diary and the Box which took at least five hours. As a result I knew Betsy was working more than 25 hours a week in the period from 14 September to 31 December 2002 and she was on call 24 hours a day.

52. Overall it is unsurprising that as Betsy was working from home and liasing with a very limited group of my staff in my private office that the hours she put in and the work she was doing was not obvious to people outside the private office or with whom she was not in contact. Betsy has always reported directly to me and no-one else. Mark MacGregor joined CCO as its Chief Executive, and Jenny Ungless joined as Chief of Staff after Betsy was already working from home. In any event, these people had party political roles, and were paid by CCO, so there was no reason why they would come into contact with Betsy. Vanessa Gearson only joined the Leader’s Office in the last four months of Betsy’s employment and for a large portion of those months I was out of the office and so was Vanessa, whether for recesses, tours, conference or holidays. Again, as an example of the blurred distinctions in this field, one can say that there is an overlap in the analysis of the roles of the Chief of Staff viz party-political and parliamentary. As a result none of the people beyond the private office and my agent Rikki Radford had knowledge of what Betsy was doing, had no professional relationship with her and there was no reason why they should.

53. There has always been a dedicated office at Swanbourne in the time my wife was working there for me. Betsy provides full details in her statement of the offices and the changes in the office over the relevant period and I have already adopted her statement concerning those matters as my own. The office at Swanbourne was supported by CCO IT staff for the simple reason that we needed to be integrated with CCO which was initially where the Leader’s Office was located in 2002.

54. Various members of my shadow cabinet visited us at Swanbourne including Liam Fox, Michael Howard, Michael Ancram and David Davis. Occasionally journalists would visit us. By the end of 2002 I had decided that I would expand the facilities at Swanbourne to allow Leader’s Office staff, or campaign staff, to work from there which is why I had multiple telephone lines installed at that time. These facilities were discussed with and approved by Mark MacGregor in advance of the works and following a visit to Swanbourne by him [see paragraph 47 of Betsy’s statement].

Vanessa Gearson

55. As the risk of being repetitive I will expand on what I have already said about Vanessa above to provide a complete picture. Vanessa was hired in August 2002 and started in September at a time when I was working from Swanbourne. Prior to that Vanessa had been working as a secretary to David Davis in CCO and prior to that as an MP’s secretary in the Commons. She had been helpful to me when I had needed to contact David in Florida earlier that year. Vanessa had approached Annabelle to see what work there might be for her in the Leader’s Office. Annabelle and I discussed the possibility of her taking on in the role of Diary Secretary, as we knew Andrew was leaving, and she was offered the position that July but it was rejected. Subsequently Owen Paterson suggested to me that she might be able to assist in facilitating the changes in the office that I was contemplating, particularly the reorganisation of the Leader’s Office and the staff changes which were imminent.

56. I exhibit a copy of Vanessa’s letter of appointment from Owen Patterson dated 12 August 2002.30 I intended that she would have overall charge of administration in the Leader’s Office, excluding the constituency office which was supervised by Christine, and work closely with Christine Watson to ensure that both offices ran smoothly. Vanessa did not have any direct responsibility for the staff in the Leader’s Office, their appointments and salaries were administered by CCO but she was expected to facilitate such matters with CCO. I placed Christine in charge of my staffing allowance from which the constituency

30 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 45

office salaries were paid as I controlled that allowance directly. In the absence of a Chief of Staff I approved all appointments to my staff personally. As Vanessa’s letter of appointment states: “Christine Watson will handle the day to day detail and the exact manner in which you work with her will be finalised by Iain”.31 She was appointed with the title of “Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office”, a title on which she insisted. I had envisaged the role as one more appropriately titled office manager or executive secretary,32 as it encompassed tasks such as arranging supplies for the office and payment of invoices. Vanessa wanted to be called ‘Head of the Leader’s Office’ but I refused her that title. From the outset I made it clear to her that I intended to bring in a new chief of staff once the offices had been reorganised, and that she was not in the running for that position.

57. When Vanessa had been offered the administrative job, she rang me in Italy in August while I was on holiday to ask what would happen to her if I were no longer the Leader. That question surprised me. She called me again a couple of days later and was apologetic about the matter saying she would like to accept the job. The very fact she was able to say that to me demonstrates that she was a strong-willed person with a clear sense of what she wanted for herself. That is a matter to be borne in mind having regard to her failure to ever raise any concern over Betsy’s employment directly with me. Although she had befriended Annabelle Eyre and Andrew Whitby-Collins prior to her arrival in the Leader’s Office she soon fell out with Annabelle, who is self-evidently the subject of both of the memorandums that Vanessa solicited from Christine Watson and Rebecca Layton (24 October e-mail) in October 2002.33

58. Both Annabelle and Christine experienced active resistance from Mark MacGregor in arranging new contracts with CCO, although there should have been plenty of parliamentary funds (Short Money) for the support of the Leader’s Office. When Christine finally received a draft contract there was a clause in Christine’s contract which said she should report to Vanessa. That in itself was odd as both Christine and Vanessa already worked for me, and they both reported to me. Christine was concerned that this would effect her working with me. I reassured Christine that it would make no difference as I had full control of arrangements in the Leader’s Office and she should go ahead and sign it so she could be paid. Annabelle’s difficulties, however, were not resolved until I removed MacGregor from his position in February 2003.

59. By the time Vanessa joined the office my wife knew she was coming to the end of her employment with me. There was no reason for Betsy and Vanessa to interact. Vanessa had only an administrative role and my wife was already communicating with Christine, as she had previously through Annabelle, on administrative matters such as requesting office supplies and Commons stationery (contrary to what Vanessa informs the Commissioner).

60. Vanessa was not the ‘Head’ of the Leader’s Office, although simply to drop the ‘Administrative’ from her title at first blush may not appear to be of much significance. However, for her to describe herself as Head of the Leader’s Office implies that she was the ‘Chief of Staff’, when she was nothing of the kind. I raise the matter of Vanessa’s title and her role in my office, only because she places much significance on describing herself as, and has made much in her statements to the Commissioner about being, ‘Head of the Leader’s Office’ and ‘the replacement for Jenny Ungless’. I subsequently discovered during this investigation that, without my knowledge or permission, she had seriously inflated and misrepresented her title and role in my office by signing correspondence “Chief of Staff” and “Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition”.34 Had I known this was happening at the time I would have put a stop to it. In hindsight it is clear that I did not appreciate the extent of Vanessa’s ambitions or what she was prepared to do to achieve them.

61. The Head of the Leader’s Office, that is to say the Chief of Staff, is the closest adviser to the Leader of the Opposition. It is first and foremost a senior party-political appointment. That person would be expected to attend all of the Leader’s meetings and to have overall running of the Leader’s Office. They would have

31 Not appended by the Commissioner. 32 Not appended by the Commissioner. 33 Not appended by the Commissioner. 34 Not appended by the Commissioner.

46 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

significant political input, working on speeches and writing policy articles. Vanessa did none of these things. Jenny Unglass had been my Chief of Staff and had that key political role. Unfortunately the relationship with Jenny was not a success. After she left I was wary of having another person in that role. What I had realised by then was that you must know the person and their qualities before they can even be considered for such a role.

62. Eventually, the person I decided I did want as the Chief of Staff, after Jenny Ungless was Barry Legg. I had already resolved to remove Mark MacGregor as the Chief Executive at CCO in December 2002 because I did not think he was doing a good job, and did so on 15 February 2003. Prior to that I made a written offer to Barry Legg on 22 January 2003. The first draft offer to Barry was produced in December or beginning of January following discussions with Owen and Alistair. Other staff in the office could have known of my plans by overhearing conversations or seeing correspondence lying around. It was a small set of offices. In this context it is worth noting that Vanessa’s makes statements to the Commissioner that she knew what was going on in the Leader’s Office and that she listened in on other people’s conversations. Vanessa was very upset at the prospect of Barry’s appointment, as she made known to Andrew Whitby-Collins at the time because, as she expressed it to him, she felt that Barry was being brought in over her head. I had, however, told her at the outset that it was my intention all along to appoint a new Chief of Staff when the office was re-organised. Ultimately, however, Barry was not confirmed as Chief Executive because the CCO Board decided to abolish that position. Although I still wanted him as Chief of Staff, Barry turned the job down because he could also not be Chief Executive. With Jenny Ungless having left, and Barry Legg turning down the job, Owen Patterson continued to be a very important political adviser and helped to fill the role the Chief of Staff would have done. Alastair Burt was appointed in October 2002 as a PPS and also became another close political adviser.

63. I know that my offer to appoint Barry caused Vanessa some distress because Andrew Whitby-Collins informs me she went to him at the time in tears saying that my action had ‘undermined her’. I now understand her concern, because I know now she was describing herself in correspondence as ‘Head of the Leader’s Office’ and ‘Chief of Staff’ prior to me sending that offer to Barry Legg on 22 January 2003. I now also realise that the matter was of critical significance to Vanessa as she put in for pre-selection for the Conservative seat of Cheltenham at that time, successfully as it turned out. In the course of her selection process Vanessa gave a speech, a copy of which is exhibited to this statement,35 in which she misrepresented her position as “Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition” and falsely claimed that she was involved in “developing policy and strategy at Westminster”. These claims are simply untrue. Speech writing, policy and matters of political judgment were not matters in which she was involved. She did attend meetings with me in a secretarial capacity to take notes. Vanessa would occasionally ask Christine to cover for her. For example, I attach a copy of an e-mail dated 13 May 2003 in which Vanessa explains her role in Shadow Cabinet meetings as: “I sit at the side more or less behind Iain in case he needs or wants anything and take notes on the items on the agenda and then the points raised”.36

64. Vanessa did re-structure the Diary and she was involved in diary meetings—she did not initiate them. She also had responsibility for the Correspondence Unit. She attended meetings with me in the Commons as my secretarial support and meetings in CCO on her own or with Owen. Although it had been expected that she would work on the Box, Christine covered that task on her own because Vanessa was more often than not out of the office when it had to be done. Vanessa attended many meetings with me, including those I have referred to above to take minutes, and many more at CCO with which I had no involvement. Vanessa’s style was to communicate with people by e-mail rather than face-to-face, often with a ‘please explain’ tone, usually over invoices or the like, which got other staff offside. I did have cause to speak to Vanessa about the manner of her dealings with other staff because some members of staff complained she always assumed they were at fault. She never seemed concerned with their explanation. The example of questioning Annabelle about the cost of mobile phones during the tours in October 2002 is a good example of this. Annabelle was able to demonstrate that Vanessa simply had no idea why it was necessary to incur the costs and she had not asked Annabelle before sending the e-mail.

35 Not appended by the Commissioner. 36 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 47

65. I think as a result of such behaviour and of becoming increasingly pre-occupied with matters outside the office, at CCO, as a councillor, school governor and later in her constituency she became rather remote from the other members of the Leader’s Office. As the Conservative candidate for Cheltenham Vanessa took time off on Fridays and latterly Monday mornings. She spent a considerable amount of time at work on the telephone.

The events surrounding Vanessa’s e-mails

66. Given Vanessa’s administrative role in the office I was puzzled when I learned that Vanessa had raised the question of my wife’s salary with Owen Patterson. First, as she knew, it is common practice for MPs to employ family members, particularly spouses. Second, Vanessa had no responsibility for the staffing allowance or other financial matters concerning the constituency office nor did Owen Paterson. The staffing allowance was administered by Christine and the Short Money was administered by CCO. Vanessa did not do the Box. Neither did Vanessa have anything to do with my constituency work and so far as I was aware knew nothing about it. As a result Vanessa had no contact with my wife or any reason to come into contact with her. Nor did I discuss constituency matters with Vanessa.

67. I discussed Betsy’s employment with Owen when he raised it with me, explaining Betsy’s continuing role and I asked him to explain that to Vanessa and to ask Vanessa to see me if she still had a concern. I understood that he did then speak to her and tell her that. As Vanessa never said anything to me about it I, naturally, assumed she had no further concern. In any event, by November I had all my key staff in place and Betsy and I decided that Betsy could give up employment. I informed Owen of that decision and I understand he informed Vanessa. I was aware of Christine’s budgetary concerns about the staffing allowance for some time and they had also been raised with me on her behalf by Alistair. Indeed, Christine had asked for support earlier in the year when she was still the Constituency Secretary. I agreed with Christine’s suggestions on how the staffing allowance would be spent. I recall those discussions were in November and the decision was well before the end of the month. Betsy’s notice was given to the Fees Office verbally by Christine and confirmed in writing.

68. I cannot recall whether it was Owen Patterson or Paul Baverstock who first called me to inform me of Vanessa’s e-mail of 30 January 2003. We were taken aback, to say the least, at the contents of the e-mail particularly as Betsy’s employment had already ceased in December 2002. Neither Owen nor I were copied in on the e-mail. I emphasise that Vanessa’s office was only about 12 feet away from my Office in the Commons. Initially the Leader’s Office was dividing its time between CCO and the Commons, with the team moving to the Commons around midday—a practice inherited from William Hague’s time— but it needed to be changed because of changes in the parliamentary timetable, so we quickly established ourselves the Commons Offices full time. Although Vanessa could have raised the issues in her e-mail of 30 January directly with me at any time she never did so. As far as I was aware Owen has told her to do so if she had any continuing concern. Furthermore, Vanessa had known Andrew Whitby-Collins for some time prior to joining the office and was friendly with him. She could have discussed the matter with Andrew at any time but he informs me that she never did.

69. Having received a copy of the e-mail I wanted to meet with Vanessa. I was expected to be in the constituency the following day, Friday, 31 January, but the meeting was cancelled and I went to the Commons instead. Vanessa was late so I called her to ask if she was coming in. I did not mention the e- mail, I simply asked her to see me when she came in. In the meeting, I presented her with the e-mail and asked her to explain why it had been sent without her having first discussed the matters concerned with me. I explained about Betsy’s role and about her having a contract. I explained that the IT expenses had been for an upgrade to the home office, and had been agreed with Mark MacGregor on behalf of CCO the previous year. As to the matter of private flights, I informed her that every flight has been entered in the Members Register and the problem had been caused because Owen had to make two last minute changes. As a result he had to had request one flight at very short notice—it was essentially a diary issue. The donor’s only concern was that he had been unable to help because of such short notice. In any event, as I informed her, that particular problem had already been corrected because of the changes made to the Diary and has not been repeated from that day to this. Vanessa did not ask me any questions about these matters so I asked her whether she was satisfied with my explanation of all of the matters in her e-mail and she agreed that she was.

48 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

70. Although I was relaxed about the matters referred to in the e-mail because I knew there was no substance where Betsy was concerned, and the other two matters had by then been dealt with by then. However, the act of writing and sending the e-mail was either an act of striking political naïveté or deliberate. I made the point to Vanessa that whether or nor she had such concerns, recording them in them in an e-mail without discussing them with me would be politically damaging if it were leaked, particularly as it suggested knowledge that she didn’t in fact possess. She accepted this at once and unreservedly as she informs the Commissioner. She apologised and accepted that she should not have sent the e-mail.

71. Vanessa said she wanted to put the matter right and it was agreed she would send another e-mail to those who had received her previous one. Again, I was not copied in on that e-mail but I did receive a hard copy. I had no part in drafting her e-mail. She did show it to me and I suggested an amendment concerning the matter of the planes, because that was a matter covered by the diary changes and I wanted people at CCO to be clear about that. I did not put any pressure on Vanessa whatsoever to produce or send the e-mail. Vanessa is a strong-willed person who is able to look out and speak up for herself. She had been in political circles for some years at this time was a well-educated, constituency candidate. I do, however, find it exceedingly odd that Vanessa kept draft copies of her e-mail let alone the draft with my handwritten annotation. As I have said, I knew there was no substance to concerns expressed in the e- mail of 30 January so my state of mind was completely relaxed, so much so such that I did not keep copies of either the 30 or 31 January e-mails. Vanessa appeared so genuine in expressing regret that I was not suspicious of her and I did not reprimand her. I subsequently forgot about the matter.

72. When I appointed Vanessa I had thought that I needed an office manager but after I moved Annabelle to Tours, Andrew became far more effective on the Diary and Christine found her feet very quickly in the role of Private Secretary and managed the Box even more effectively that I had hoped. Both Paula and Cara very quickly settled into to their roles. So as the office efficiency improved Vanessa’s role became focused on liaison with the Chairman’s office. By June 2003 I had found a good candidate, Tim Montgomerie, who could do the job of Political Secretary which I wanted to encompass most of the tasks of the Chief of Staff. I thought that Vanessa would be better placed working for the Chairman, as a liaison between the Leader and Chairman’s offices and that is what happened later that summer of 2003. Both the Chairman and I felt that would give her more time for her Cheltenham constituency.

Events leading up to and after the conference in October 2003

73. In the run up to the party conference in October 2003, it became clear in the last week of September that the BBC Newsnight programme was intending to broadcast a story making allegations about my employment of Betsy. We suspected, and the BBC subsequently confirmed, that the investigation was based on Vanessa’s e-mail of 30 January 2003. Given Vanessa’s unusual turn of phrase ‘Crick style investigation’ it struck me as more than a coincidence that it and other documents were leaked to Michael Crick who was conducting the investigation. I engaged my lawyers to deal with the BBC because the BBC were refusing to put to me precise allegations or provide me with the material on which they were based, so that I would have the opportunity to respond to the allegations before they were broadcast. In particular, the BBC refused to and never did provide me with a copy of Vanessa’s e-mail of 30 January despite repeated requests for it. By that time I was unable to obtain a copy of it from any other source.

74. Once I knew the story was based on Vanessa’s e-mail of 30 January, I informed my solicitors about her January 31 e-mail and they informed the BBC. At the same time I was desperately trying to obtain a copy of it so I could provide a copy to the BBC. Although I had not kept a hard copy of either e-mail, Owen Paterson had kept copies of both. Clearly it was an important document for Owen to keep because it counteracted the first e-mail that had questioned his competence. He looked for the second e-mail in his files but discovered that it had been removed along with that of 30 January. He also discovered a number of other documents were missing.

75. On Wednesday, 1 October 2003, I had a short meeting with Vanessa in my Commons office to inform her about the Newsnight allegations because they were based on her e-mail of 30 January. The programme was expected to be broadcast on 2 or 3 October. Tim Montgomerie, also attended the meeting. In the course of the meeting we went over the events of 30 and 31 January and Vanessa confirmed my recollection that she sent the second email on 31 January and that she had no residual doubts concerning any of the matters contained in her email of 30 January. I attach a copy of a note of Tim Montgomerie’s

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 49

recollection of that meeting.37 This meeting was yet another, crucial, opportunity for Vanessa to inform me if she still had any concerns over the contents of her e-mail of 30 January. It was absolutely critical that she inform me if she was not going to stand by the contents of her e-mail of 31 January as that was what she had decided to do. She did neither. I emphasize that Vanessa was employed in CCO by then. The Chairman was, in effect, her employer. I had no control over her employment by CCO so she cannot claim that I was in a position of influence over her. Apart from that, one would expect a parliamentary candidate and fellow party official to act with candour in such a situation.

76. I could not recall the exact contents of the e-mails as I had not kept copies of them, so I asked Vanessa about them in the meeting and she had a remarkably good recollection. I asked Vanessa if she had kept copies of her e-mails and she told me she had destroyed them. As she had sent copies of the e-mail to the Chairman I asked her to check if the Chairman’s office had kept copies of the e-mails and she promised to do so. Vanessa soon after rang Tim and said the Chairman did not have copies of either e-mail. I attach a further note from Tim with an e-mail from the Chairman’s PA, Anna Hartropp, confirming these facts.38 I was, therefore, simply astonished to learn Vanessa had both e-mails all along (and even drafts of the e- mail of 31 January) when she submitted them with her written statement to the Commissioner in this investigation. That meant that she had deliberately lied to me in the meeting on 1 October and subsequently deliberately deceived Tim and me by her conduct in pretending to search for the e-mails in the Chairman’s Office when she had the e-mails at all times. Vanessa knew following her meeting with me that I did not have copies of either e-mail. As an employee of the Conservative Party she was duty bound to be frank and honest with me and to assist me by providing me with copies of those e-mails.

77. If Vanessa had given me the e-mails, particularly the second e-mail, I could have provided a copy of it to the BBC which would have put an altogether different complexion on their investigation. It would certainly have given them serious pause to reconsider. Obviously Vanessa did not want that to happen. I’m also confident that Vanessa, notwithstanding she knew Crick had the e-mail of 30 January, did not provide him with a copy of her e-mail of 31 January either. Had she done so Crick would have been duty bound to deal with that matter in his briefing to the BBC and later to other media and to supply a copy of the e-mail to the Commissioner on 13 October. Of course I too would have included copies of both e- mails in my materials to the Commissioner. By the time Vanessa did produce the second e-mail to the Commissioner the damage to my reputation had already been done through the media and this investigation was already under way.

78. Newsnight planned to broadcast Crick’s allegations on 2 October, effectively the eve of the 2003 Conference. The timing of the programme was calculated to obtain maximum exposure and cause maximum embarrassment to me. However, by the weekend prior to the conference the BBC had not broadcast the story as a result of doubts raised by my solicitors. In frustration, according to media reports, Michael Crick then gave his story to the media in order to get his allegations out to the public and to put pressure on the BBC to transmit his programme. As a result The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Times among others published Crick’s allegation concerning Betsy on Sunday, 5 October.39

79. I called Vanessa three times that Sunday. First from the car, on the way to the conference in Blackpool, to bring her up to speed on the press and to say I was sorry she had been dragged in. After thinking about the issue on the flight to Manchester, I called her again to say that a short press release from her might be the way to end this interest in her. I said that I was thinking out loud but I stressed that nothing would be done unless that was what she wanted. I said I would call Nick Wood and ask what his thoughts were.

80. Immediately after that call I rang Nick Wood my Press officer. Nick said he didn’t want us to do anything as there was no need. That morning we had launched our pension policy and anything else would draw attention away from that story. I asked him to call Vanessa and re-assure her and he agreed to do that. I then called Vanessa again to say that I agreed with Nick that there was no need for any comment at all

37 Not appended by the Commissioner. 38 Not appended by the Commissioner. 39 Not appended by the Commissioner.

50 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

and I asked her to see Nick to discuss how to handle any press interest. I understand that Nick did subsequently meet Vanessa that day and he confirmed my comments that we should let the matter blow over. I saw Nick later that Sunday evening and he advised me to let the matter fizzle out. I accepted his advice. I spoke to Theresa May later that day and brought her up to speed on these exchanges.

81. I took Vanessa aside the following day, Monday, 6 October, in the ‘Green Room’ at the Conference venue, just before the Chairman’s speech. I told her that Nick was right and that hopefully the story would die out quickly. She sat beside me during that speech and was completely relaxed—scarcely something she would have done if she had just been subjected to pressure to make a false statement. To the best of my recollection I also said to her: “If you have any issues please let me know now. I want to get you out of this if I can. This is a deliberate and planned attempt to get at me and I am sorry you have been dragged in”. She confirmed to me yet again she had no issue with any of the press allegations and said she was very sorry to have been the cause of them. That is also Tim’s recollection.40

82. There has been considerable and continuing press speculation that I presented Vanessa with a prepared statement for her to sign which is untrue. Vanessa was never presented by me or by anyone on my behalf with a statement for her to sign. Neither did I nor anyone on my behalf put pressure on or even ask Vanessa to produce a statement supporting me. As I have already stated, I had discussed with her on the Sunday that it might clear her from the story if she were to make a statement. However, I was always in two minds about this and I had accepted Nick Wood’s advice that the matter was not worth pursuing. I also mentioned during our meeting on 1 October that if any sections of the media were to publish false allegations concerning my wife I would consider issuing proceedings. My solicitors had already warned the BBC that was my position. In that context I said to Vanessa that it might be that she would want to make a statement but it was unlikely to come to that and in any event some way off. As Vanessa’s e-mail was the basis for the story I naturally thought she would have something to say about it. However, there was and is no court case and, therefore, I have never asked or had cause to ask Vanessa to make a statement.

83. I would have asked Vanessa to make a statement to the Commissioner in respect of this investigation, but for obvious reasons, it was clear following a letter sent to me from her solicitor on 10 October 2003, that she was making false allegations about the events of 31 January 2003 and again during the conference, that she was lying about the circumstances in which she sent the e-mail of 31 January and that she now resiled from its contents and was setting out in no uncertain terms to discredit it. In this context Crick’s proposition to the Commissioner that it was odd I did not produce a statement from Vanessa to this investigation, or that I did not produce statements from Mark MacGregor or Jenny Ungless given the circumstances in which they were removed from their offices, is a facile comment.

84. The next event was that an article appeared in The Independent on 7 October 2003, during the conference, identifying Vanessa as the source of e-mail and reporting (falsely) that I had sought to have Vanessa removed as a result.41 It also suggested that Vanessa had consulted lawyers who advised her that such action would constitute unfair dismissal. I have no knowledge of whether Vanessa consulted her lawyers and know of no reason why she would have had cause to. I would be interests to know if she did and, if so, why. We didn’t pay any attention to the article. Vanessa, however, accordingly to her letter from Healys (see below) seems to have been panicked by this article and thought that Owen Paterson or someone else in the Leader’s Office or CCO was briefing the press against her. As a result I believe she responded by briefing Michael Crick and leaking documents to him and other media sources. I refer to her earlier dealings with Crick in paragraph 173 below.

85. Quite understandably, the reference to “Crick style investigation” in Vanessa’s email of 30 January was picked up by The Independent article of 7 October 2003. Her comment about Crick demonstrates such a remarkable degree of foresight that it was bound to be questioned. And one might be forgiven for asking what is this ‘Crick style’ of investigation that it should merit its appearance in her e-mail of 30 January?

40 Not appended by the Commissioner. 41 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 51

Crick, through Newsnight, had a done a story on certain details in my CV which went out in Autumn 2002 but it contained nothing about financial matters.

86. I now know Vanessa went to see her solicitor at Healys on Thursday and Friday, 9–10 October. This led to the bizarre episode of the letter sent by Ms Gill Sage of Healys (solicitors) to me on Friday afternoon, 10 October, which was marked to be copied to a number of people, including Mark MacGregor notwithstanding that he had no position in CCO since February. The letter came completely ‘out of the blue’. At no stage before the letter was received was I aware that Vanessa did not stand by her e-mail of 31 January. My immediate reaction was to say to my solicitor, David Hooper, after I had read the letter, “this is destined for the Sunday papers”. I was proved right by The Sunday Times and Independent on Sunday.42 As Mr Hooper pointed out in response to Ms Sage, the letter was not only grossly offensive and defamatory it was also quite perverse in the context of the week’s events at the conference. Vanessa Gearson was CCO liaison officer between the Chairman’s Office and the Leader’s Office. She had been with me that week at the party conference and not once had she raised her concerns with me at any time or said she did not stand by her e-mail of 31 January, just the opposite. Rather, once again, she chose instead to set out insupportable allegations in a self-serving document. I had met with David Hooper during conference week to discuss the Newsnight issue. The feeling among my advisors was that the issue had died down finally and that there was nothing new that had not already been written. As a result, however, of the leaking of Vanessa’s letter dated 10 October from Healys solicitors, the allegations flared up again that Sunday, 12 October.

87. There were other peculiarities about the letter from Ms Sage and the conduct of both her and Vanessa over the weekend of 10–12 October, which Mr Hooper set out in detail in his letter to the Commissioner of 12 November.43 Chief amongst these was that Ms Sage first informed Mr Hooper that she had circulated her letter of the 10th to Owen Patterson, Theresa May, Sir Stanley Kalms, Mark MacGregor and Paul Baverstock. She subsequently informed Mr Hooper that she had intercepted the letter to Sir Stanley and Mark MacGregor. She also informed Mr Hooper at his inquiry that Mark MacGregor was a client of hers. Copies of the letter duly arrived by post at CCO on Monday morning for May, Patterson and Gilbert. They had not been faxed to those people. If what Ms Sage told me about not sending letters to Sir Stanley and Mark MacGregor was true then only Vanessa or Ms Sage could have been the source of the leak to the Sunday papers that weekend, as it was clear from their numerous inquiries to the Press Office that they were clearly briefed about the letters and their contents. Accordingly, it came as no surprise to me to subsequently learn that Vanessa’s solicitor, Gill Sage appeared on television on Monday, 13 October to further brief the media. I adopt all Mr Hooper says about the matter in his letter to the Commissioner dated 12 November 2003 as my own statement of events.44 I have not the slightest doubt that Vanessa dictated the contents of the letter sent to me by Healys on 10 October (and further exchanges that weekend),45 and that the allegations that it contained were invented to counteract the embarrassing existence of her 31 January e-mail and to maintain her credibility with Crick. Its leaking was, therefore, crucial to Vanessa’s purpose in sending it.46

88. After that episode, other matters then fell into place. Although Vanessa had told me she had destroyed both e-mails of 30 and 31 January, the 30 January email was leaked to Crick and was quoted widely in the press. The Christine Watson memo is another document that she clearly kept (as she submitted it to the Commissioner) and leaked to Crick (who also submitted it to the Commissioner, but, notably, only on 14 October)—Christine only sent her memo to Vanessa so only Vanessa could have done this. Christine plainly did not leak it and, of course, it is obvious from its contents that Christine wanted and expected her memo to remain confidential. Then there is the matter that Vanessa had her e-mail of 31 January all the time but never supplied a copy of it to either Crick or to me.

42 Not appended by the Commissioner. 43 Not appended by the Commissioner. 44 Not appended by the Commissioner. 45 Not appended by the Commissioner. 46 See PCS Written Submission 48.

52 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

89. I think it is significant that Christine’s memo was not a document which Crick submitted to the Commissioner on 13 October. The Commissioner was only provided with the memorandum the following day, 14 October, together for the first time with additional allegations based upon it (which Crick was unable to fully formulate until the Friday, 17 October), after Vanessa and Crick knew that I had submitted documents to the Commissioner including statements from Christine and Annabelle that refuted the allegations concerning Betsy. Crick would naturally have submitted the memo on 13 October with a clear list of allegations if he had had it before that date. He clearly didn’t have it when he saw the Commissioner that day. The late leaking of the memorandum to Crick was I believe a desperate attempt by Vanessa to discredit Christine and Annabelle and perhaps to drive a wedge between them. It was only deployed when it was clear that both of them were had given statements which did not support Crick’s complaint. Only Vanessa could have done this which confirms her in my mind as one of Crick’s sources.

Section 3

Materials submitted by Michael Crick to the Commissioner

90. At no time did Crick or the BBC put the allegations concerning my wife to me other than in general terms. I was not asking the BBC to betray its sources but rather making the point that if they were suggesting that points had been raised with me regarding the payment with my staff and I have ignored them I needed to know what these points were, who they were raised by and when in order to deal with them. Despite repeatedly making that point to the BBC they declined to put the allegations specifically. I contrast Crick’s demand for information from me via the Commissioner with his own refusal to provide information to me while he was pursuing his investigation. Crick and the BBC consistently refused to disclose any material to me. Indeed, I did not see any material from Mr Crick until the allegations had been reported in the press and the documents that Crick had submitted to the Commissioner were then disclosed to me in the course of this investigation.

91. Having received the Crick documents I was astonished and appalled to learn of the manner in which Crick has conducted his “investigation”. He has sought to rely on transcripts of conversations with three anonymous sources, knowing full well that anonymous material is contrary to the Commissioner’s rules and an abuse of Parliament’s process because I would be denied the opportunity test the veracity of those statements.

92. For reasons fully set out in Section 4, below, I have identified “Source C” as Vanessa Gearson, as it is relevant to assessing her subsequent testimony to the Commissioner. I also note from Crick’s document to the Commissioner entitled “Interpreting the Christine Watson memo”47 under the heading “Glossary” he states “The ‘Chief of Staff’…was Jenny Ungless, who was effectively Vanessa Gearson’s predecessor running IDS’s office, though she carried a different title”. This piece of misinformation can only have come from Vanessa and, indeed, it chimes precisely with what she tells the Commissioner in her statement48 and in interview.49 Vanessa inflates her title and role to Crick and to the Commissioner in order to bolster her credibility and add weight to her allegations.

93. The other primary material submitted by Crick includes taped telephone conversations with Chingford & Woodford Green councillors and my constituency agent, Rikki Radford, without informing them or requesting their consent and deliberately misleading them about the nature of the investigation. What the interviews do show is that Crick’s assistant was lying as a matter of course and speaking to a formula to the effect that this was a general investigation into MPs. I am still seeking an explanation of this behaviour from the Director-General of the BBC.50

94. Furthermore, putting questions to these councillors about whether they contacted me through my wife was in itself misleading. The Councillors usually contact me through the constituency association or my

47 Not appended by the Commissioner. 48 See PCS Written Submission 13. 49 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9. 50 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 53

agent, Rikki Radford. My wife was not at the time working for me and had ceased her employment for over nine months at the time these questions were being asked. However, if the councillors had previously had reasons for dealing with Betsy on constituency matters then I expect they would remember her from that time. The tenor of the questions may suggest, however, that neither Crick or the other BBC journalists attempting to find out if Betsy was still working for me. Certainly, in Mr Radford’s case, it is clear from the transcript, and he had confirmed, that he understood Crick to be asking whether my wife was currently working for me and he confirmed that in his statement of 13 October 2003.

95. The manner in which Mr Crick carried out his investigation is offensive to me because it presumes that surreptitious means were necessary to uncover details of my wife’s employment. In fact the details of her employment were transparent and available from the Parliamentary Fees Office. There was a written contract of employment. All of this information would have been provided to Mr Crick by the Press Office if he had but taken the obvious and responsible course of contacting them or myself and asking a straight question. However, Mr Crick’s conduct in this matter, and that of the BBC as his employer, fell well short of any concept of responsible journalism, or even the BBC’s own standards of journalism as set out in its Producer’s Guidelines.

Michael Crick’s Transcript (undated), pp8–32 supplied

96. [p8] Crick confirms that on 13 October 2003 when he made his complaint to the Commissioner that the sole allegation was that Betsy was doing no work for me in the period September 2001 to 31 December 2002.

97. [p9] It is the Commissioner that makes the separate allegations concerning my wife, Annabelle and Christine on this page, not Crick. Crick finds the Commissioner’s thoughts to be novel, he says: “I think the distinctions you make are interesting and important ones. I am sorry, I should have written them down.”. Crick also confirms that his investigation of my wife (from May to September 2003) is based on the mistaken premise that she was my ‘Diary Secretary’ over the period in question. In fact she was had not been the Diary Secretary for any part of that period, Andrew Whitby-Collins was the Diary Secretary followed by Paula Malone in late 2002. Crick was wrong about this as were the ‘anonymous sources’ he claims told him that Betsy was acting the Diary Secretary. Similarly, that false premise exposes the interviews with the Chingford councillors as having no probative value.

98. The Commissioner then asks whether the information comes from the anonymous sources identified as A, B and C. Crick states he is speaking only about A and B, not C. For the reasons I have set out in Section 4, I believe ‘source C’ is Vanessa Gearson and she would have known that Andrew then Paula were the diary secretary. It also confirms that sources A and B are the ones Crick refers to as being “at the early stage” and that ‘C’, Vanessa, is one of those two others who “cropped up much more recently”. The Commissioner was bound to reject anonymous statements and confirmed that to me in our meeting on 13 October and his letter of 30 October. No mention of this rule of procedure is raised with Crick during the interview. The anonymous statements could have been rejected by the Commissioner forthwith and should have been no part in the Crick interview unless they were named.

99. [p10] Crick’s allegation now changes to “It is my hunch, my strong belief that she probably was not doing any work, of a substantial nature anyway.” This ‘hunch’ is predicated on his assumption that Betsy was the Diary Secretary and was dealing with Chingford councillors in that capacity. Both of these assumptions are wrong. Andrew was the Diary Secretary and he did not make diary arrangements with Chingford councillors, these were made by my constituency agent Rikki Radford and Christine in consultation with Betsy.

100. [p11–12] On the Commissioner’s prompting Crick confirms that it is no part of his complaint that at any time was improper pressure brought to bear on anybody. He does, however, go on to say that he suspects the Commissioner will hear more about that from other people. That is, of course, a reference to Vanessa’s allegations of ‘duress’ and “improper pressure”. Both Vanessa Gearson and Mark MacGregor are among his ‘anonymous’ sources and he therefore knew the testimony they intended to, and do, give the Commissioner in an attempt to discredit the 31 January e-mail. That smear is backed up by the letter sent to me on 10 October making further false allegations about duress and pressure. Given that neither Mark or Vanessa supplied Crick with a copy of that e-mail or their explanation for it prior to making his

54 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

complaint, Crick must have belatedly suspected that they had their own agenda and he therefore decides not to adopt any further allegations made by them as part of his complaint.

101. [p15] Annabelle and Andrew were working for me in the Leader’s Office assisting me with my parliamentary work until Andrew left to take up a new job in CCO and Annabelle transferred to Tours. Crick is mistaken thinking they were doing party-political work and it leads to the mistaken assumption they primarily discussed such matters with Betsy. They did not.

102. [p16] It seems to me that Crick misunderstands the nature of the Commissioner’s investigation, it is not a question of how many witnesses I can produce to say that Betsy was working. I do not have to prove my innocence, that is presumed as the rules expressly state. The relevant question is what positive material does he have to support the allegation that she was not working and does it satisfy the standard of proof? As far as I can see he has none; not one single witness who can state from their own knowledge Betsy was not doing the work Betsy and I say she was doing.

103. [p17] Crick’s comments about getting statements from Jenny, Mark and Vanessa are self-serving, misleading and disingenuous; some or all were his sources at that time or had been prior to the complaint and Vanessa’s e-mail was leaked to him as the basis of the allegations.

104. [p19] I observe that the Commissioner is following the case against me in the press from his comment “Indeed, the papers refer to it”. Crick seeks to bolster Vanessa’s credibility by saying “she still works for the Conservative Party so still does work within (my) command”. Again, his comments are wholly disingenuous, misleading and self-serving because he does not inform the Commissioner (so far as I am aware) that Vanessa is one of his sources or indeed, raise the matter of her letter to me on 10 October.

105. [p20] In my meeting with the Commissioner on 13 October he assured me that anonymous statements would not be counted against me if the source remained anonymous [Commissioner’s file note, paragraph 15].51 Therefore, I find the conversation regarding the anonymous sources disturbing. It raises some questions I think I am entitled to have answers to given that the rules specify that the Commissioner shall not entertain anonymous material. Why was Crick not directly asked to name them? Did Crick ever identify these sources to the Commissioner? Who does the Commissioner think they are; he has clearly formed some views: “Yes, I think I may be able to divine who they are already”? Did the Commissioner subsequently ask certain witnesses to confirm they were the sources and were their Crick-transcripts then discussed ‘off the record’ with the Commissioner or as part of the material which has not been disclosed to me? It needs to be borne in mind that it is Crick (and no-one else) who is making the complaint.

106. [pp22–26] This covers discussion of the transcripts of Chingford & Woodford Green councillors. I have already set out above the reasons why these transcripts have no probative value, because they were obtained by deception and on the basis of false assumptions, and that, in any event, they were obtained by express misrepresentation to the councillors. However, the Commissioner’s dissection of their contents further demonstrates that they are equivocal, in any event. Of the Michael Fish transcript the Commissioner puts it to Crick that “It does not prove one thing or another”. Crick responds “no it does not” [p23].

107. [p27] Crick seeks to put a sinister interpretation on Christine Watson’s memo which it simply cannot bear. I had never seen this memo before it had been reported in the press during this investigation. Having read the memo is confirms to me only those concerns that she expressed to me and to Alistair Burt at that time, which were to do with the staff budget. The fact that she is also critical of Annabelle is quite irrelevant.

108. [p28] There was always a functioning office at Swanbourne when we moved there in August 2001 and thereafter from which Betsy worked. Crick’s speculation about the equipment and the office at Swanbourne is wrong. It is wrong because he is relying on Vanessa’s e-mail of 30 January and what Vanessa has subsequently told him. However, Vanessa has never been to Swanbourne.

51 See PCS Written Submission 3.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 55

109. [p30] Crick raises the suggestion that Betsy came off the payroll in December as a result of the “controversy surrounding Michael Trend in other words, as some of my sources have suggested”. The only witnesses who have made that allegation to the Commissioner in the material I have seen are Vanessa Gearson and Mark MacGregor which I believe, on Crick’s own words, confirms them as Crick’s sources.

110. [p30–31] Crick seeks to insinuate that people other than Owen Patterson discussed Betsy’s employment with me prior to Vanessa’s e-mail of 30 January. However, none of his sources, not even Vanessa Gearson who says she had concerns, or even Mark MacGregor, claim that they ever raised these concerns with me. The reason being that it was never a real concern or it would have been raised with me. The people who work in CCO are not the craven functionaries that Crick paints them to be, endlessly discussing “How are we going to present this to IDS?”. If a member of the communications committee thought there was a real issue they would have raised it with me. Crick simply has no evidence but makes the allegation regardless.

111. So what does Crick’s material amount to? Three anonymous transcripts that the Commissioner has confirmed he is bound to disregard. Transcripts of conversations with six Chingford councillors, obtained by deliberate misrepresentation, asking questions based on false assumptions resulting in answers which are at best equivocal. A conversation with Rikki Radford over which Crick again came to false conclusions, but on which Rikki put him straight in his statement of 13 October. A memorandum from Christine Watson, leaked by Vanessa Gearson at the last moment in an attempt to discredit Christine and Annabelle, which as Christine can confirm refers only to her budgetary concerns. Is it any wonder the BBC refused to broadcast Crick’s Newsnight programme?

Vanessa Gearson’s written statement

112. A striking aspect of this statement hits me straight away—on the first page under ‘KEY CONCLUSION’ in which she informs the Commissioner that “it was my conclusion that the press allegations made regarding the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith were significantly more likely to be true than not” (emphasis added). First, they were not ‘press allegations’, they were Vanessa’s allegations as set out in her e-mail of 30 January, which she maintains by her written statement to the Commissioner and in her interview with the Commissioner. She acts throughout as an advocate in her own cause. Second, the phrase I have highlighted is very significant. It is has been taken by Vanessa word for word from the Committee’s Report in Reid (at Paragraph 20) which comes under the heading “The standard of proof”.52

113. The Committee in Reid had cause to consider with some care the issue of standard of proof (Paragraphs 16–20). In rejecting the standard of proof applied by the Commissioner the Committee came up with its own novel formulation for allegations which go beyond negligence: “A case such as this has serious implications for holders of public office. Accordingly, we have concluded that we should need to be persuaded that these allegations were significantly more likely to be true than not to be true before we would uphold them”. The Committee’s formulation is not used in any other legal forum; it is not applied in any Courts in the United Kingdom which apply the widely-known formulations for criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil (balance of probabilities) proof. Accordingly, Vanessa could only have come across that formulation after careful consideration of the Reid decision. In effect, Vanessa informs the Commissioner that she has applied the Reid standard of proof to her allegations against me and found me guilty. This is not the behaviour of an independent, disinterested witness.

114. Vanessa sticks rigidly to her mantra throughout her statements. The last sentence in her statement [p17] is: “It remains my conclusion that the press allegations made regarding the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith are significantly more likely to be true than not”. And again at the very end of her interview with the Commissioner she says:53 “That is the conclusion I have come to, that the press allegations at the end of the day were significantly more likely to be true than not. I leave that with you”. Indeed she does.

52 Not appended by the Commissioner. 53 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9.

56 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

115. In addition, Vanessa makes the allegation that she sent the e-mail of 31 January under pressure.54 She claims that in no way did she agree with its contents, although she drafted it and sent it, in her own words, to “the most senior people at CCO” . She further claims that I have proved my determination “to place her under pressure in order that I support his statement on the matter”. This is nothing but another concocted allegation lifted straight from Reid, where the Committee considered the allegation “witnesses felt under considerable pressure as to what they should or should not say [to the Commissioner] and how far, if at all, they should co-operate with her inquiry” [paragraph 49]. Accordingly, Vanessa knew full-well that making that allegation to the Commissioner (and leaking it to the press) was as damaging as anything that Crick had alleged in his complaint. She highlights that to the Commissioner saying that the events are as disturbing as anything in the Commissioner’s remit concerning the complaint. I categorically deny these allegations of improper pressure. Based on Reid Vanessa has made them deliberately and maliciously, with cool calculation as to their effect. Finally, Vanessa suggests that she was in effect being asked “to perjure ourselves to protect the Leader” and “committing an act of perjury before the Court”. These allegations are monstrous and self-evidently absurd—first, there is no court case and, second, how would I be able to procure ‘perjury’ from her if there was? If I asked her to make statement she could say ‘no’. If she was called to give testimony she would be required to tell the truth or face the consequences. The only possible purpose in using the word ‘perjury’ can have been to excite press interest.

116. Vanessa states that “By mid November, the complaint against Michael Trend MP had been made public. In my mind, this heightened the need to resolve the issue….”. However, the Trend story broke on 15 December. Vanessa deliberately suggests (and Mark MacGregor also) that it was in mid-November because she knew from being told by Owen that I made the decision to end Betsy’s employment towards the end of November. Her attempt (and Mark’s attempt) to link the Trend story and my wife’s resignation is exposed for what it is, an opportunistic attempt to smear me.

117. Vanessa makes another false statement about her title and role in the Leader’s Office on: “a chance meeting with Tim Montgomerie, who had succeeded me as Political Secretary to the Leader”. Vanessa was never my ‘Political Secretary’. This further demonstrates that Vanessa will assume titles for herself which she was never given as it suits her purpose.

118. Vanessa’s conduct appears to me to be that of someone who is motivated and following a carefully considered strategy to persuade the Commissioner to a particular conclusion, namely that the complaint (and therefore her allegations) should be upheld.

Vanessa Gearson’s transcript (undated), pp6–65 supplied55

119. [p6] She refers to herself as Head of the Leader’s Office. She never was. When I asked Vanessa to take on this new role it was to help in re-organising the Leader’s Office, as she acknowledges [transcript, p6, last paragraph]. It was not a political job. She also misrepresented herself as Head of the Leader’s Office in her speech seeking at Cheltenham. She was not authorised to do so.

120. Vanessa says she approached me in July. This is not correct. She was asked if she would like to be considered as Diary Secretary to replace Andrew Whitby-Collins who was going to leave to take up a post in the Candidates Department at CCO. I did not speak to her about the administration job until August. I spoke to her about the administration job, whilst on holiday in Italy and said I would confirm details with her on my return.

121. [p19] Vanessa makes a peculiar statement about her employment with the Leader’s Office. She said that Jenny left the Leader’s Office in the summer of 2002 and that within a very short period of time it was clear to them (presumably my staff in the Leader’s Office) that she would be appointed to this role. She was never appointed to that role and I never informed anyone at that time or afterwards that she would be considered for chief of staff or as a replacement for Jenny.

54 See PCS Written Submission 13. 55 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 57

122. [p7] Cara Walker sat in the adjoining office for a very limited period after starting. By early October 2002 she had moved to an office in the House of Commons. Vanessa had next to no involvement with her. Both Cara and constituency matters were outside her brief.

123. [p10] The statement ‘Staff were appointed without consideration of the budget’ is incorrect. I approved the staff appointments and Christine was in charge of the staffing allowance. Christine carefully considered the question of budget with the Fees Office. It is simply untrue that when she joined the office there was no structure or organisation. She behaved in a officious manner. She never asked staff why things were done. She used to send off e-mails raising issues instead of speaking to staff and obtaining information from them in advance. Vanessa’s e-mail concerning the Leader’s tour in October 2002 is an example she provides to the Commissioner. However, she does not provide the Commissioner with the comprehensive response from Annabelle which put her straight on matters she clearly knew nothing about.

124. [p11] All of my Constituency claims are recorded in the Fees Office and were in accordance with the rules. The reference to my constituency office in Chingford is gratuitous, vague and unsupported. Vanessa had no involvement with my constituency work or office. Additional cost claims were arranged between Christine Watson and myself in accordance with the rules. In August and September Christine and I discussed the composition of the constituency office. In September and October 2002 Christine asked the Fees Office to produce summary projections based on the staffing allowance and staff numbers. Betsy’s departure was part of this. A final decision of the staffing changes was made in mid-November.

125. [p12] There was never any issue about a change of address, or doubt about which property I was claiming for, or lack of paperwork, as the Fees Office can confirm. The Fees Office never raised with me, or investigated, in October 2002 or at any other time Vanessa was in the Leader’s Office, concerns about allowances for my Chingford property. Accordingly, Vanessa’s statement that “I cannot confirm whether those concerns were intimately proven to be true or not at the end of the day by the Fees Office” is simply malicious and prejudicial.

126. [p13] The role of any Private Secretary is not political, it is functional. A great deal of it has to do with my activities in and around Parliament. Christine did the same work as Annabelle had before her but also co- ordinated my constituency work. This work included my claims to the Fees Office, administration of the staffing allowance and matters relating to stationery beyond the Leader’s Office.

127. Vanessa makes a series of statements about Christine’s attitude on taking up her job. The fact of the matter is that Christine was pressing CCO to put her on its Leader’s allowance and she was being blocked by Mark MacGregor who would not supply her with a contract. Christine sought Vanessa’s help in dealing with CCO but she didn’t receive any and their relationship deteriorated during October until Vanessa began to interfere in Christine’s work by attempting to restrict Christine’s access to me and to take over the Box. When I learned about this I made it clear that Christine would continue to have direct access to me. So far as I am aware Christine went to the Fees Office of her own initiative and Cara went with her, initially because the Fees Office had lost Cara’s employment paperwork.

128. [p14] Vanessa says that ‘Mrs Duncan Smith was not showing evidence of carrying out a substantial amount of work’. My wife was my employee not Vanessa’s, nor did she at any time answer to Vanessa. On what basis would she expect to see ‘evidence’? She certainly did not ask me or anyone else in the outer office for ‘evidence’? Did she expect her knowledge to be superior to mine on the matter? Also she constantly refers to the ‘Office Cost Allowance’ and Betsy being paid from it. In fact, Betsy was paid from my Staffing Allowance as she would have known if she had ever asked me or picked up the telephone and asked the Fees Office. This reference to ‘Office Costs Allowance” is carried through into Crick’s complaint and MacGregor’s statements because Vanessa is the originating source of the allegation.

129. [pp15–16] Vanessa was very regularly away from the office in meetings with me, at CCO, Hendon (where she was a councillor) or Cheltenham. Christine worked very long hours and often until 9.00pm or 10.00pm. Vanessa rarely stayed after 6.00pm. That is why Christine had to be responsible for the Box. Vanessa speaks of listening to telephone calls and watching what was going on. Yet she asks the Commissioner to accept she could do this from where she sat in the room next door to that in which Christine worked, from where it is simply not possible to see Christine. And is she suggesting she had no

58 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

tasks of her own other than to observe Christine? Then there is the fact that she spent a lot of time out of the office at meetings or CCO and spent Friday and part of Monday morning at her constituency.

130. I put Vanessa’s claims to the test by sitting in the position Vanessa sat and asking Christine to make a telephone call. Vanessa occupied an office behind a wall some 15 feet away from Christine. I could not see Christine at all from where Vanessa had sat. It is very difficult to listen to conversations on the telephone even from very close. In a busy office where there where other people working, as there were in the outer office, it is all but impossible and Christine was seated in the direction facing away from where Vanessa was seated. These are, of course, all matters that the Commissioner can verify for himself by viewing the offices himself.

131. [pp16–18] On these pages Vanessa purports to have information about the circumstances surrounding the setting up of the Leader’s Office after I became the Leader in 2001. Vanessa was not part of my election team, she did not work for me or the Leader’s Office at that time or until a year later. Nor had she worked for Mr Hague or the Leader’s office before me. She did not even work in CCO at the time. I ask rhetorically, why is she making statements about events in which she played no part and of which she has no experience? Yet she goes on for three full pages without informing the Commissioner that she was not in a position to know about these matters this or stating how she would have known this when she was not in the Leader’s Office or even at CCO. The fact is there were no staff in the Leader’s Office when I took over apart from the correspondence unit attached to the Leader’s Office in CCO and a speech writer in CCO. All of Mr Hague’s staff had left the Commons offices as per usual. I did not second staff to the office and there was no “bedrock of support” awaiting me. I didn’t even have any proper furniture in my office (see Simon Gordon’s statement). Vanessa’s account concerning the Leader’s Office in 2001 is fiction and self-evidently so. Vanessa only came to CCO to work as a Secretary/PA to the then Chairman in mid May 2002. I had never met or dealt with her before then.

132. [p19] The transition period was not August it was September to November. It could not have been ‘clear to them’ as I have never suggested to my staff or anyone else that Vanessa was to be a replacement for Jenny, she was not a replacement for Jenny and she was not the Head of the Leader’s Office or my Chief of Staff or anything of the kind. Christine was not familiar with workings of CCO and she had no reason to be either as constituency secretary or as my private secretary because she never had a political role. Christine’s experience of CCO in the first few months as Private Secretary was merely obstruction over the matter of her new employment contract.

133. [p21] Cara Walker had little or nothing to do with arranging my constituency visits. It is not surprising that Vanessa would not know this as she had no dealing with my constituency work or visits. Visits were organised by Christine and Rikki Radford in consultation with Betsy. The reference to the Diary and Betsy are simply wrong—Vanessa never spoke to Betsy, Christine did. Vanessa clearly has no idea of what was discussed or how these visits were arranged. The suggestion that Betsy did not attend diary meetings is facile. Diary meetings took place in the Commons and Betsy was not going to make a four hour round trip from Swanbourne to attend them. The Diary Secretary, Andrew, would discuss the diary with Betsy by telephone, another arrangement about which Vanessa is ignorant.

134. Betsy was always contacted about my invitations. Vanessa may say she did not contact Betsy but Christine, Annabelle and Paula Malone did. Throughout her testimony Vanessa demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge concerning the arrangements in my constituency office while claiming she was ‘intimately involved’. However, Christine, Annabelle, Andrew, Rikki, and Cara, as well as of my wife and I, confirm that she was not involved at all.

135. [p22] During Vanessa’s time in the Leader’s Office the Box was done and organised by Christine. Although when I asked Vanessa to do this job of administrative head it was envisaged that the role would include the Box, that never eventuated. Christine, because she stayed so late, took responsibility for the Box. Only Christine and I had a key to the Box. Christine would liase with me last thing in the evening and see me first thing me in the morning to deal with the Box. Contrary to what Vanessa suggests, Christine packaged up constituency work as well as other work and put it in the Box, if it would fit. Vanessa’s involvement was limited to passing on documents to Christine to be placed in the Box if required. I never discussed items in the Box with Vanessa unless I had a particular reason to do so. I went

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 59

through items from the Box with Christine each morning if that was necessary or Christine simply distributed them. Christine also liaised with Besty about the Box before and after the weekends.

136. [pp22–23] Vanessa then suggests that I wasn’t ‘assiduous’ in clearing my Box. That is nonsense. Also I was not a Minister and did not work like one; considering Vanessa didn’t ‘empty the Box’ in the morning or see that happening her comments are gratuitous as is her comment about William Hague. So far as I am aware Vanessa had no experience concerning Mr Hague’s conduct of the Box either.

137. [p23] Vanessa’s knowledge about the Box is flawed and exposed here. She says she constituency material was kept separate to the Box, it wasn’t. Nor would Vanessa have seen the constituency material, Christine handed it directly to Cara and the other members of the constituency office.

138. [p23–24] I never received any complaints from Christine or Cara relating to clearance of the Box, nor do I see anything by Christine or Cara in the materials that the Commissioner has supplied which support anything Vanessa says in this respect. Vanessa is nevertheless willing to make assertions often in personally offensive terms on matters where she must have realised that she had no knowledge of the facts.

139. [p24] Because Vanessa was not acting in the political role of Chief of Staff I would often talk to Shadow Cabinet Ministers or key CCO staff on matters of policy and strategy.

140. [p25] She keeps talking about their seeing no evidence of progress chasing but she was not part of the private office and she never asked for any from those in it. Not from me, Annabelle, Christine or Andrew. Why would anyone provide evidence if those who worked with Betsy were not asked about her?

141. [p26] Vanessa says I did not sign letters in response to Members of Parliament. This demonstrates a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the Parliamentary system. Owen Patterson would ensure that a colleague would receive an instant acknowledgment of their letter. Then he would give me a list of those who had written. For the most part, I would hand write the reply. It is considered a Parliamentary courtesy to handwrite a letter to colleagues. However, if a more complicated reply was required, it might be typed and I would always sign it. She makes a wide-sweeping statement on the basis of having seen the odd letter acknowledged by Owen and therefore assumes he did all this correspondence.

142. Vanessa also goes on to say that I signed very few letters in my own hand. Again, this is incorrect. It flatly contradicts what she says on p6 of her written statement to the Commissioner, that on Thursdays and Fridays there was a significant amount of correspondence (“more than one hundred letters”) for me to sign and that these would usually be returned the following Monday. On an ‘easy’ week I would sign around 100–200 letters. On a difficult one well in excess of that. Whilst it’s difficult to give an accurate estimate of the proportion it would roughly be two-thirds constituency, one-third non-constituency although that could be reversed in difficult weeks. Vanessa hardly ever generated any letters for me to sign.

143. [p27] Vanessa talks of being unaware of correspondence being generated by my constituency agent, Rikki. Yet she never spoke to him. He liased with Christine or Cara in the Commons office and Betsy at the home office.

144. Vanessa also says she did not see requests for envelopes or letter headed paper from Betsy. In fact Betsy was constantly supplied with stationery and franked envelopes by Annabelle and subsequently by Christine. Betsy would inform Christine of what was required and she would supply it. We kept a good stock of all stationery requirements in our office in Swanbourne.

145. [p28] Vanessa says at the outset of her written statement and confirms in her interview that she has never been to Swanbourne. Therefore I am puzzled as to what basis she claims to be able to give evidence about the state of the property and what we were doing with it. We did not have a ‘dilapidated’ home. We lived in the home from August 2001 until March 2003 when we commenced some building work.

146. [p30–31] Vanessa speaks of an unspoken understanding. Why would anyone reach an adverse conclusion on that basis of what they did not know? Vanessa also talks of “banging the drum”. Yet throughout she insisted on speaking to the same people in CCO who knew nothing about the operation

60 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

of the Leader’s Office or the constituency office. The simple question remains why didn’t Vanessa ask me, as I was her employer and Betsy’s employer, Christine who was managing the staffing allowance or Andrew who was managing the Diary? Vanessa formulates during her interview some quotes at the top of p31 which she then goes on to explain are no more than the “atmosphere I picked up as soon as I started in the office” (emphasis added). It was a rarefied atmosphere, one that of all the people in the Leader’s Office, only she seemed breathe.

147. [p32] There was nothing sensitive about the matter of Betsy’s employment except in Vanessa’s mind. That she chose to remain in that state of ignorance until I set her straight on 31 January 2003, is a matter for her to explain. Again Vanessa formulates quotes which were never actually spoken to her. This is just nonsense. When Owen mentioned the matter to me to me I explained I explained the situation to him, he was satisfied. I left it for him to go back to Vanessa and I said that if Vanessa was still unsure she should see me. She never did. Of course, if I had the least concern regarding the matter I would have spoken to Vanessa myself but of course I didn’t because I knew exactly what Betsy was doing and why I was employing her.

148. [p33] Vanessa deliberately claims a connection between Michael Trend and Betsy’s resignation. I have dealt with that fake allegation above, in her written statement.

149. [p35] Vanessa first claims that she did not know Alistair Burt was my PPS at the time. Alistair was appointed in October as both the Commissioner and Ms Barry correctly state. Then she says that he did not attend communications meetings which is beside the point. Vanessa can provide no reason why she did not raise the issue the question with Alistair if she wasn’t happy with Owen. Surely if she didn’t want to speak to me she could have spoken to him.

150. [p36] The reference to Crick in the e-mail again begs questions. What evidence is there that Crick was looking into parliamentary allowances? How would Vanessa know this? Crick’s evidence to the Commissioner is that he did not start his investigation into the employment of my wife until late May 2003 and only after the issue was raised with him by anonymous ‘Conservative’ sources [transcripts, p9; and at p26 he notes the producer came into the project on ‘May 23/24’ 2003]. His investigation was clearly after the fact of the 30 January e-mail and its leaking. In that regard the language of the e-mail was no coincidence, it was selected so that it could be released to the media with maximum impact.

151. [p37] Vanessa attempts to say that Betsy’s employment was only mentioned in passing. But why mention it at all? The fact of the matter is that the other matters in the e-mail are trivial and/or without substance in comparison with the suggestion that there was something wrong about the employment of my wife. Vanessa accepts it was the most important issue if it became public at the bottom of p. 37. As my wife’s employment had already ceased, and as Vanessa states [on p36] she knew that to be case (Owen having told her in November or early December at the latest), its appearance in the e-mail is deliberate. Vanessa had been in politics long enough to know the consequences of putting such an allegation in writing. And if this was a bona fide query then why was Owen left off the mailing list?

152. On pages 35–36 Vanessa keeps saying that she raised Betsy’s employment with Owen but received no answer. Owen knew, along with Christine that I had decided that Betsy would come off the payroll before the end of November. Yet on p36 Vanessa says that she did know that Betsy had come off the payroll. She knew because as Owen states in his interview with the Commissioner he informed her of that by the end of November or early December. Yet Vanessa claims throughout that he didn’t reassure her when he not only reassured but informed her the matter had been dealt with.

153. [p37] Vanessa does not explain how she goes from a programme about my CV to believing that “In the light of Trend….and my ongoing and continued concerns regarding his financial affairs I sensed [Crick] was not far behind us”? In fact Crick says he was not involved before May 2003. Crick only has a complaint because Vanessa sent her e-mail. Vanessa’s comments require a full explanation.

154. [p38] This account of our meeting is quite incorrect as I set out in Section 2 above.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 61

155. Everything that Vanessa says in her statement and interview about my emotional states and my behaviour as an MP and individual is wholly at odds with my reputation amongst my staff and colleagues and would, I believe, be contradicted by their statements.

Mark MacGregor

156. During his time as chief executive at CCO Mark had minimal contact with Betsy and he would not have known what she was doing when she was employed by me at Swanbourne. He never raised the issue of Betsy’s employment with me either of his own volition or following Vanessa Gearson’s e-mails in January 2003. If he thought it was an issue at the time then it would be have been remarkable for him, as Chief Executive, not to mention it to me as I spoke to him regularly and he had direct access to me at all times. He was never shy about expressing his views.

157. Mark did have cause to visit Swanbourne on one occasion in late August 2002 so I know he saw the office we had there. He also saw the facilities that were being made ready for the refurbished office and approved them. However, in addition to the office it had a conference room and beds so that people could stay over and it was considerably cheaper than having people stay at hotels for the conference facilities. There is also the matter of an alarm system which had been a security upgrade recommended by the police after I was elected Leader.

158. Rather than deal with Mark’s statement and transcript which largely replicates what Vanessa Gearson has said, I have dealt with their conduct and motivation in Section 4 below.

Other former members of staff

159. A number of individuals helped me during my leadership campaign in the summer of 2001. The majority of those who assisted me were volunteers and received no payment for their work. Upon my election as Leader of the Conservative Party I felt obliged therefore to take on all the volunteers. It was however apparent that not all the staff could be taken on permanently so initially the members of staff were employed on temporary contracts. There were a number of people who were not employed on a permanent basis: amongst others Belinda McCammon and Simon Gordon. These employees may have resented losing their positions in this way.

Simon Gordon’s transcript (undated), pp5–2056

160. When I first met Simon Gordon he was Chairman of London North East Conservative Association. He met my wife in her capacity as Diary Secretary during that time. I remember him speaking to her on a number of occasions in the course of arranging events for me to attend.

161. Simon Gordon recalls from 2001 after I became Leader that although “I did not have an overview at all who was doing what” [p16] “I recall occasional mentions that Betsy was dealing with something or other, which I would assume meant that she was working with Annabelle Eyre on some project” [p15].

162. Simon was not the office manager. As he testifies, the title “did not mean that I managed the office at all because, for a start, I would not have been allowed to have managed Annabelle Eyre, Andrew Whitby- Collins or Jonathan Hellewell. They would only have worked to Mr O’Brien. In fact, they would have only worked to the Leader … there was no way, as such, I was able to be an office manager in the truest sense of the word … So, I did not have an overview at all as to who was doing what” [pp15–16].

163. Simon goes on to record that in relation to Betsy’s employment “Nobody ever expressed any disquiet to me while I was there” [p17, last line].

164. Lastly, Simon was a member of staff when I was establishing the new Leader’s Office and he says this say about the conditions when we arrived in 2001: “when a new leader comes in, you will inevitably have

56 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 11.

62 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

chaos to a certain extent …We did literally arrive and there were no books at all. There was nothing. There was only one member of William Hague’s team who remained and he was a Central Office employee. So, it was an entirely new team that came in and you may get a mismatch of talents or abilities” [p18]. Simon’s comments are to be contrasted with Vanessa’s, who was not there, at pp16–18 of her transcript.

Belinda McCammon, e-mail dated 18 November to the Commissioner in response to e- mail from Commissioner dated 29 October 200357

165. Although Belinda McCammon represents a very minor aspect of this matter, I will deal with what she says as shortly as I can. I refer to what Mike Penning and my wife told the Commissioner. Belinda joined my leadership campaign, having previously worked at Scottish Conservative Central Office. She assisted the press spokesman, Mike Penning, and the Press Officer, Vanessa Finneran.

166. Belinda came to work for the Conservative Party at the end of campaign together with a number of other volunteers on a temporary contract. She did not have any defined role. She was not employed as a press officer.

167. Initially Belinda was based in 32 Smith Square—far away from the Leader's private office. She was not aware Betsy was employed or, therefore, of the work that Andrew and Annabelle did with Betsy. Belinda was later moved to share an office with Simon Gordon in 34 Smith Square this was a corner office some distance away from my private office. She would not have been able to judge the amount the work being undertaken by Betsy from such short visits. However, she does state that she saw Betsy come into the office on a number of occasions and that “During these times she took the opportunity to go through the diary with the diary secretary”.

168. As Belinda did not know Betsy was employed or what work she was actually doing with Annabelle and Andrew during her short time on my staff, she states that she did not think “the involvement was anything more than a politician’s spouse being kept in the loop”. That was mere speculation on her part and she does not seem to have inquired into the matter with either Annabelle or Andrew.

169. Belinda confirms Simon Gordon’s evidence that she had no concerns about Betsy’s employment; she could not have any as she did not know Betsy was employed.

170. Jenny Ungless terminated Belinda’s contract in December 2001. Belinda was suspected to have leaked material to the press. Shortly after she was dismissed Belinda gave a critical interview which was broadcast on ‘PM’ a Radio 4 news programme.

Section 458

* * *

9 December 2003

7a. Written statement by Mr Paul Baverstock, 15 October 2003

1. I took up the post of Director, Strategic Communication for the Conservative Party on January 15th 2003.

2. I accepted the post in a face-to-face meeting with Iain Duncan Smith on Sunday, 15th December 2003 at his flat in Tufton Court, Tufton Street, Westminster.

57 See PCS Written Submission 16. 58 Not appended by the Commissioner—see Volume I, Appendix 1, para 152.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 63

3. In my meeting with Mr Duncan Smith on 15th December 2003, I expressed my explicit concerns about the potential demands my accepting the post offered would place on my family. In response, Iain Duncan Smith replied that he was in great sympathy with my concerns, and that the only way to address them was to be rigorous in scheduling time together. He went on to say, however, that “it would be diffiult to achieve”. Further, “that my wife has worked for me as my Secretary since I became an MP” and “even that doesn’t allow us to spend as much time together as we would like.” While I am in no position to confirm the details of Betsy Duncan Smith’s employment, not the substance or intensity of that employment, I was left in no doubt of the fact of her employment.

4. Upon taking my post I can confirm I was a recipient of Vanessa Gearson’s e-mail of [xxx]59 in which she expressed her concerns and which I understand has been passed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

5. I can also confim that I, along with the other recipients of Vanessa Gearson’s e-mail referred to in Point 4 above—received a subsequent e-mail from Ms Gearson in which she explicitly stated that the concerns she raised had been met and satisfactorily resolved. I assumed the matter closed at that time.

6. I was at no time aware that Ms Gearson was placed under pressure to write her second e-mail of point 5 above, but rather wrote it of her own volition.

7. When Ms Gearson lost her position as Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office, and the loss of status that entailed, Iain Duncan Smith was at pains to be supportive of her both publicly and privately.

15 October 2003

8. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Quentin Davies MP, 15 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 6]

May I be allowed, in the context of the Inquiry you announced yesterday into Iain Duncan Smith’s employment of his wife, to submit a small piece of testimony of my own?

I have on several occasions during the period covered by your Inquiry (which I understand runs from September 2001 to December 2002) dealt with Mrs Duncan Smith for the purposes of leaving or receiving messages for Mr Duncan Smith, establishing his programme or making arrangements to speak on the telephone or meet with him. Mrs Duncan Smith always dealt very courteously and efficiently with these requests and I never received any sense at all that she no longer played the same role in relation to Mr Duncan Smith’s arrangements and Parliamentary duties that she had done in the period before September 2001 when I had the same type of dealings with her.

No-one has solicited me, and I have consulted no one in deciding to write this letter. Mr Duncan Smith, Mrs Duncan Smith and their staff and advisers will therefore be entirely unaware that I am sending it to you. However, I am now as a courtesy sending Mr Duncan Smith a copy of it.

15 October 2003

59 Submitted to the Commissioner without a date of the e-mail

64 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

9. Written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre, 13 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 7]

Background

1. I have worked for Iain Duncan Smith since May 1997. From May 1997 to 13 September 2001 I worked for Iain Duncan Smith as Constituency Secretary. During that time I worked for him not only for the constituency but also to support him in his role as a Shadow Cabinet Minister. I worked closely with Elizabeth Duncan Smith who was Iain Duncan Smith’s diary secretary and at that time worked from his Westminster office firstly based at 7 Millbank and then at Norman Shaw North as well as the office that Iain Duncan Smith established in his home in Fulham. In August 2001 Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith moved to their present home in Swanboume, Milton Keynes and established an office there. We worked with a number of interns who acted as researchers supporting Iain Duncan Smith’s constituency work.

2. On Iain Duncan Smith’s election to the leadership of the Conservative Party I became the Private Secretary for the Leader of the Opposition. None of William Hague’s staff remained in the Leader of the Opposition’s office after Iain Duncan Smith was elected leader so it was necessary to establish a new office very quickly. In September 2001 the constituency office that we had established in Norman Shaw North was packed up. All of its contents were moved to its present location in the Leader of the Opposition’s office in the Palace of Westminster. Christine Watson assumed my role as Constituency Secretary in October 2001. She caught up with correspondence that had accumulated in the interim and she arranged for the office to be unpacked in Westminster.

3. As Private Secretary for the Leader of the Opposition I dealt with personal correspondence that he received. The public correspondence was sent to the Leader of the Opposition’s correspondence unit, which I co-ordinated and the Parliamentary correspondence was sent to the Chief of Staff and Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. I dealt with all other correspondence. I held this role from 13 September 2001 to August 2002 when I was appointed Head of Tours and Planning.

Elizabeth Duncan Smith’s work

4. From 13 September 2001 to October 2002 I worked closely with Elizabeth Duncan Smith, Christine Watson and Andrew Whitby-Collins. I had established a close working relationship with Elizabeth Duncan Smith during the period during which I had been Constituency Secretary and we continued to work closely together when I was appointed Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition.

5. Elizabeth Duncan Smith worked during this time exclusively from the office that she and Iain Duncan Smith had established in their home Swanbourne. She had full access to normal office facilities there and during this time they had a number of fax and telephone lines to their home and had full e-mail facilities. Mainly I communicated with Elizabeth Duncan Smith on the telephone, usually using the landline to their home or the office in Swanbourne. I sent documentation and correspondence to Iain Duncan Smith at the weekends about which I often spoke to Elizabeth. I also sent her e-mails in response to her telephone enquiries or, after e-mail facilities were properly set up in the autumn of 2001, sent documents to her for Iain Duncan Smith’s attention by e-mail. I attach a sample of e-mails that I sent to Elizabeth Duncan Smith during this period.60 As you can see from the attached sample e-mails these concerned diary appointments, arranging for constituency and other correspondence to be considered by Iain Duncan Smith.

6. Elizabeth Duncan Smith was essential during the period that I was working as Private Secretary to co- ordinate the passage of information between me and Andrew Whitby-Collins and Iain Duncan Smith. Although Andrew and I had different job titles we occasionally acted interchangeably covering each other’s absences and sharing the work as necessary. During the day, especially at the beginning of his

60 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 65

leadership, Iain Duncan Smith had so many other commitments, meetings to attend and people to see, that it was hard for us speak to him about his correspondence and his diary. During this period Andrew and I found that Elizabeth was essential to be able to pass on messages between us and Iain Duncan Smith and to work through the material that we sent him to study over the weekends.

7. I found that if there was anything that I particularly wanted Iain Duncan Smith to focus his attention on during the weekend that I would speak to Elizabeth Duncan Smith about it and she would respond on his behalf on Monday and/or Tuesday. Elizabeth Duncan Smith kept a list of those matters that Iain Duncan Smith wanted me to deal with and would come back to me to make sure that I had completed the tasks. She would often ask me to pass on information concerning the constituency to Christine Watson. Since I had worked with Elizabeth Duncan Smith for a long time and knew the constituency well often she used to tell me of certain arrangements that Iain Duncan Smith wanted to make in the constituency and would ask me to make sure that Christine Watson made the arrangements for him.

8. At the time that Iain Duncan Smith was appointed as Leader of the Opposition it was discussed that it would be difficult for Elizabeth Duncan Smith to be seen to making arrangements for her husband. Andrew and I therefore made telephone calls and sent out correspondence on behalf of Iain Duncan Smith but we did so following the instructions and advice that Elizabeth Duncan Smith gave us about the arrangements that Iain Duncan Smith wanted to make. We handled the external contacts but internally Elizabeth Duncan Smith took a supervisory and advisory role in making those arrangements.

9. In August 2002 there was a considerable re-organisation in the Constituency and Leader of the Opposition offices. I moved to become Head of Planning and Tours.* * *. Christine Watson moved from the Constituency Secretary to assume the post I had previously held as Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. At the same time Andrew Whitby-Collins announced his intention to leave for another post and Jenny Ungless resigned as the Chief of Staff. During this period it was essential to draw upon Elizabeth Duncan Smith’s experience in the constituency over the transitional period.

10. At no point has anyone from outside the private office asked me about the work that Mrs Duncan Smith did during the period that he was appointed leader to December 2002.

11. I was not aware of any complaints having been made about Elizabeth Duncan Smith’s employment until the recent press coverage making reference to Vanessa Gearson’ s e-mails.

13 October 2003

10. Written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre, 12 November 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 8]

1. I make this statement in response to various letters I have received from Sir Philip Mawer regarding aspects of my employment with Iain Duncan Smith MP, and in particular having read the memorandum from Christine Watson to Vanessa Gearson of 24th October 2002.

2. I attach Addendum A, a note I have prepared setting out as completely as possible my role as private secretary to Iain Duncan Smith during 1997 to 2002. In August 2002, I was appointed as Head of Planning and Tours to the Leader of the Opposition. I attach at Addendum B, a copy of my contract of employment.61

3. I have been provided with a copy of Christine Watson’s memorandum by Sir Phillip Mawer under cover of his letter of 20 October 2003. I had not previously been aware of the existence of the memorandum

61 Not appended by the Commissioner.

66 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

before extracts of it had been published in The Times last month. Prior to commenting in detail upon the specific paragraphs within the memorandum to which Sir Philip Mawer has drawn my attention, I wish to make some general comments on the contents of the memorandum as a whole, in particular in response to the criticisms raised in it regarding my filing, the post, the keeping of Iain’s diary and the Golden Jubilee present

4. Filing:

a) In order to start work in October 2001 as Constituency Secretary, Christine had to take over the files. There was a perfectly ordinary filing system in force (see para 6 of addendum A) Until June 2001, the time of the start of the Leadership election, documents were filed regularly using the system that I had established. During the leadership campaign, Iain was understandably distracted from the day—to—day constituency work so the burden as constituency secretary increased—Iain had no time to respond to constituency correspondence or telephone calls. Consequently, there were not enough hours in the day to keep on top of all the constituency filing.

b) Iain took over as Leader on 13th September 2001. Immediately following Iain’s appointment, the constituency office was packed up in its entirety by some of the House of Commons’ staff and put in crates. To give an idea as to the sheer volume of documentation that was packed up, the crates alone took up the space of one and a half offices. This task took one intern and staff from the House of Commons a fortnight. These were not unpacked until we had taken over the offices in the Shadow Cabinet wing.

c) On the evening of 13th September, Iain’s office was set up at 34 Smith Square. The immediacy for this was his need to respond to a statement in the House of Commons on 14th September.

d) I was also appointed as his private secretary to Iain on 13th September and I was responsible for setting up the new office at Central Office. As a result of my new role as private secretary, from the day of Iain’s appointment my day was taken up with work for the Leader of the Opposition rather than dealing with day-to-day constituency matters. An intern was brought in during that period to help respond to constituency calls and opened the letters to monitor important cases.

e) The crates were delivered to the top floor of the Shadow Cabinet wing at the end of September. They were temporarily stored there until we had decided which offices we were to occupy. The crates were not unpacked until Christine’s appointment and her move into the House of Commons’ offices in October—no-one simply had the time to do it—the annual party conference took place at the beginning of October and consequently Iain was very preoccupied focusing on that which meant that we were left to deal with much of the parliamentary business without his intervention.

f) About the time of the end of the annual conference at the beginning of October 2001, Christine took over the constituency office. During this time, and while we waited for her office to be vacated, Christine shared an office with Andrew and me at 34 Smith Square. To help Christine deal with all the constituency correspondence and casework, I continued to oversee the constituency and would liaise with her regularly. I also helped with Betsy Duncan Smith to organise visits in the constituency and continued to liaise with the local press until an agent was appointed in early 2002.

g) Once the offices in the House of Commons were ready for our occupation, Christine among others moved in. As all of the crates contained documentation relating to constituency matters, Christine had the role of supervising the unpacking of the crates. Christine would call me regularly—by which I mean twice a day on average—to ask me about constituency casework particularly with regard to benefit queries and which Council offices should be contacted for particular matters. Although Christine and I discussed the volume of documents that needed to be unpacked and archived, she did not complain about this—it being a reality of moving offices. If I had been working in the same offices all day with her, I would have had the opportunity to assist her. In hindsight, with the background to the packing up of the documents, I had great sympathy for her in her task of having to set up a new filing system in the new office with all the documents in the crates.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 67

h) Once Christine had unpacked all the documents, she handed to me the documents relating to the financial allowances. I deal with this documentation in more detail below.

5. Post: As with the system under the previous Leader, the post was collected by the Leader of the Opposition’s Correspondence Unit. I then oversaw the division of the post into political, constituency, private and invitations. The constituency-post was brought over to Christine at the House by one of the members of the office. I never had any reason to think that this caused Christine any difficulty.

6. Diary: From the beginning, Christine was given twice-weekly slots in Iain’s diary. There was no question of rationing her or keeping her at a distance, it was simply the existing system. Sometimes this had to be re—scheduled, perhaps because Iain needed that time for a meeting with some particular individual. At her request, Iain decided to change the system so that she was to have a slot when she needed one. There was no reproach implied in the change, it was simply a decision to make a change in the light of circumstances.

7. Jubilee-Present: I was delegated the task of arranging the purchase of a present for HM Queen to congratulate her on her Golden Jubilee. Consequently, the Shadow Cabinet wrote cheques to me personally, or in some cases gave me cash. I was concerned that the cheques would not be banked (or the cash paid into my account) until the present, which was to be specially designed, was actually ready for collection. The gift was a gold pill box designed by Simon Benney of Walton Street. As the present required intricate detail it was not ready until December 2002. As a result I did not cash the cheques until December 2002. I started collecting money from Members of the Shadow Cabinet in July 2002. As I received a substantial number of cheques, as well as payments in cash, I asked Christine to store both the cash and the cheques in the safe until such time as the present was ready.

8. I turn now to the specific matters raised in the memorandum by Sir Philip Mawer regarding the Parliamentary Allowances. I break these into the following sub-headings: (a) my salary, (b) Betsy’s salary, (c) use of parliamentary allowances.

9. The payment of my salary:

a) I attach a copy of my employment contract which was filed with the Fees Office and Addendum A which explains the details of my role as private secretary to Iain Duncan Smith.

b) Providing secretarial support for Iain Duncan Smith’s parliamentary role has always been a job for more than one individual. This remained the case after the post of Constituency Secretary was created. There never came a moment when it was possible to classify the work of one secretary as purely constituency, and the work of another as purely other, both because of the nature of Iain’s role, and because of the way in which, for practical reasons, the secretaries and the support staff had to work.

c) It is important to re-emphasise the different roles that Iain assumed as Leader of the Opposition— Parliamentary, which included his role as Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green; Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Party. The work that I carried out as Iain’s private secretary incorporated the first two roles, and only the third as a very minor part of my duties. (para 13 of Addendum A)

d) Until August 2002 I was paid out of Iain’s staffing allowance. In the summer of 2002 I had a couple of conversations with the Former Chief Executive, Mark MacGregor, regarding the payment of my salary. At the time I was concerned that I was paid out of Iain’s parliamentary allowance and thought I should be paid from Short Money. The Short Money is paid to the Conservative Party and administered by them. Mark MacGregor never indicated to me that there was a problem and I believe he never raised the matter with Iain.

e) In August 2002 when I was appointed as Head of Tours and Planning to the Leader of the Opposition, I began to be paid out of the Short Money.

f) I am aware of the rules in the “Green Book” which state that the Parliamentary Allowances (Office Costs, Staffing Allowances and JEP) are for the use of Members of Parliament to carry out their

68 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Parliamentary duties and therefore it was quite correct that I was paid out of the Parliamentary Allowance as I was employed to and carried out Parliamentary duties.

10. Betsy’s salary:

I refer to my previous statement regarding my knowledge of Betsy’s work.

a) Betsy’s salary continued to be paid from the Staffing Allowance of the new Office Costs Allowance. This was the correct source for her to be paid from because her work had comprised of and continued to comprise of Parliamentary and Constituency work. I had no reason to have any concerns about this and at no point was it raised with me by anyone either in the private office or externally. The first time that I was aware that concerns had been raised was when Newsnight contacted the Leader’s Office.

11. Use of Parliamentary Allowances:

a) During the period in my role as constituency secretary between 1997–2001 I would deal with claims to the Office Costs’ Allowance. These would be in respect of payments for stationery—printer cartridges, paper, computer equipment, constituency newspapers—as well as mobile phone bills. They would generally be submitted on a monthly basis and copies of the submissions would be filed chronologically. I cannot recall dealing with any other types of claims.

b) During that period, Iain would maintain his own system for submitting claims for motor-mileage and the Additional Costs Allowance. I had no part in the submission of these claims other than occasionally putting them in an envelope.

c) In 2001, when Iain was appointed as Leader, I took responsibility for overseeing the claims to the Allowances. In July 2001, Iain transferred to the Office Costs Allowance to the new system of Staffing Allowance and IEP. I took control of the allowances’ paperwork when the crates were unpacked in October 2001—this meant separate files for the Office Costs Allowance and the Additional Costs Allowance. The Office Costs Allowance file comprised of copies of the monthly submission with copies of the relevant paperwork attached. The monthly submissions dated back to 1997 and were in respect of claims for stationery, constituency newspapers and mobile phone bills as above these comprised between two and four inches of paperwork. The Additional Costs Allowance files comprised of monthly submissions dating back to at least 1997.

d) Once Iain became Leader, no motor-mileage claims were filed as he had his own Government car. The only use of his Parliamentary Allowance of which I am aware during his appointment in 2001 and my change of role in 2002 was for Additional Costs Allowance. This was in respect of costs incurred for accommodation and was in line with the guidelines as set out by the Fees Office. I prepared the claim at the beginning of every month which was signed off by Iain and sent off to the Fees Office for reimbursement.

e) In respect of the IEP, during this period the sporadic claims were minimal because much of the office’s equipment was provided by Conservative Central Office and because the salaries were paid out of the Staffing Allowance automatically. These salaries were in respect of me, Betsy Duncan Smith and Christine Watson. The salary allowance was £70,000 a year gross of tax and employer national insurance.

f) Once Iain became Leader of the Opposition, almost all the office stationery for the office in Swanbourne came from Conservative Central Office. We often sent down equipment/files in the car when Iain returned home at weekends.

g) In May 2002, arrangements were made for Iain to pay 20% of the costs of the staff and office expenses from his constituency office from the IEP as approved by the Fees Office. This was an annual total of £8,000, paid quarterly. The only other office costs allowance claims were various stationery items and constituency newspapers.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 69

h) I handed over all the financial paperwork to Christine Watson in August 2002 when I moved to take up the position of Head of Tours and Planning.

12. I refer specifically to the two bullet points highlighted by Sir Philip Mawer in his letter of 20th October.62 I have dealt with the majority of what Christine Watson says in these two bullet points above. However there are two specific sentences upon which I wish to comment on. Christine says “I have spoken to VG regarding this sensitive matter”, I have no idea to what she is referring. I have no concerns about the sensitivity over the use of any of the allowances. I have still seen no indication to what she is referring to and would be more willing to address any concerns that Christine had at the time.

13. With regard to her assertion that there must be more papers, I gave Christine all the relevant paperwork in August 2002. As a rule, I would generally shred out of date documentation, this may include allowance claims, as I knew a record was kept by the Fees Office. I believe that I gave her the allowances’ paperwork for the period of my employment as the constituency secretary dating back to 1997.

12 November 2003

Addendum A:

Miss Annabelle Eyre’s role as Mr Iain Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary

Introduction:

1. I started working for Iain Duncan Smith at 7 Millbank (and subsequently at Norman Shaw North) shortly after the General Election in May 1997, having previously worked as political researcher and then as a secretary for 2 other Members of Parliament.

2. My job-description was Private Secretary, but it was a matter only of terminology: in all essential respects I was acting as a constituency-secretary. My role was to:

• Deal with constituency correspondence and casework

• Respond to telephone-calls from constituents, party workers, journalists etc.

• Issue press-releases and columns for local papers

3. However, his office was extremely busy, and also needed a diary and support secretary. This role had been taken since 1992 by Betsy Duncan Smith, and consisted at that stage of:

• Dealing with invitations

• Arranging visits in the constituency and (once he was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet) around the country

4. There was also a researcher whose role was to assist on social security matters, subsequently with defence, and occasionally with detailed constituency casework.

Private Secretary

5. On a typical day, I did the following:

62 Not appended by the Commissioner.

70 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

• Opened all the post, which was then split into private, brief-related (social security or defence), constituency and invitations

• Deal with telephone-messages and make calls

• Respond to letters

• Deal with casework

• Follow up any issues that Iain had raised.

• Liaise with BDS with regard to meetings, invitations, arrangements for visits and tours etc.

6. I was responsible for the main filing-system. There was nothing original about it, it was completely conventional:

• Constituency post was copied and filed alphabetically.

• Other matters—defence, Europe, &c., were filed under subject-headings.

• Paperwork for the Office Costs Allowance was kept and filed (Iain maintained the papers for his motor-mileage and ACA claims).

• Diary paperwork was filed separately.

7. Iain was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet in June 1997 and from then on my role also included:

• Liaising with the Leader’s office with regard to Shadow Cabinet matters

• Organising meetings and briefings for his team

• Dealing with correspondence related to his brief and assisting in organising visits relating to his brief

8. After the General Election in 2001, Iain stood for the leadership of the party. I continued as his Private Secretary during that period, but with my main role, just as before, continuing in reality to be helping with the constituency-work. BDS remained in post and continued to provide secretarial and diary support during that period.

9. In September 2001, after Iain Duncan Smith was elected as Leader of the Conservative Party, I continued as his Private Secretary. His private office was to be situated at 34 Smith Square (his constituency office was to be based in the Shadow Cabinet wing of the House), but we moved over to House at lunch-time on a daily basis when Parliament was sitting. (This was a practice that was inherited from William Hague’s time as Leader.) It was very unsettling to have to move office twice a day—once at lunchtime and back again in the evening to prepare for the following morning. In addition, it meant that Christine was alone in the House of Commons’ office for much of the day. This set-up was continued until Iain decided that it would be better to remain in one office.

10. The day after Iain’s election as Leader, he had to respond to a statement in the House by the Prime Minister, so it was necessary to establish our office immediately. This was done “from scratch”—there was no staff left behind from the previous regime or handover notes. I think it’s important to recognise that Iain’s office had to be transformed from the office of a front bench parliamentarian to that of the alternative Prime Minister and that it took sometime for the arrangements to settle down. Many of those who worked on Iain’s leadership campaign were brought in to work in the office, mostly on temporary contracts so that we could see how the office could be organised. Betsy remained to provide diary and secretarial support for the newly appointed diary secretary, Andrew Whitby-Collins, and for me. She continued to progress-chase as she had done previously.

11. My role as Private Secretary changed little from what I had done previously except of course as Private Secretary to Leader of the Opposition I was dealing with new issues and different personalities.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 71

12. The office was incredibly busy, particularly after Iain’s election as Leader. His days were full of meetings with colleagues and others who wanted to advise him, as well as policy and strategy meetings to decide the future direction of the party.

13. As my contract with Iain stated, I was employed to work 44.5 hours a week (09:30–18:00).While Iain was in the Shadow Cabinet, I estimate that I would have worked those hours, possibly coming in earlier or on occasion leaving after 18:00. However once he became Leader of the Opposition, my hours changed dramatically. Most mornings I would be in the office before 08:00 and it was quite normal to still be at work at 20:00 and often much later. I certainly worked 60 hours a week and often worked at weekends. I was always “on call”. I would estimate that over 90% of the work that I carried out in my position as Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition was of a parliamentary nature in support of Iain as a parliamentarian.

Constituency Secretary:

14. By October 2001, it was apparent that it would be necessary to have an additional secretary: there were now to be many more meetings, Prime Minister’s questions, speeches to prepare, &c. The decision was taken to appoint a separate Constituency Secretary. I was instrumental in choosing Christine Watson. She appeared to have the following qualifications:

• She had worked in the House of Commons previously and had a knowledge and experience of how to run a Member’s office.

• Her references were excellent.

15. Her role was to deal with:

• Constituency correspondence

• Casework

• Telephone calls.

16. This of course changed my role, precisely as was intended. My role with respect to constituency-work was:

• To oversee the constituency-office, with Betsy giving help and advice to Christine as required.

• To assist in arranging visits to the constituency.

17. Betsy’s role also changed, though perhaps not so much because of the re-organisation as because of the change in Iain’s role:

• The Leader’s diary was co-ordinated by Andrew Whitby-Collins in the private office, with Betsy working with him with regard to Iain’s appointments and invitations.

• She continued to ‘progress-chase’—ensuring that we contacted people for meetings, to arrange lunches or dinners, to pass on messages to other members of staff.

• I continued to liaise on a daily basis with her. She assisted as a support for Andrew and me. She was used by Iain as a means of passing information to us and by us to raise matters with him. Much of the work she did was with Iain each evening, and at weekends the office would send down documents, papers and correspondence for him to review, sign or comment on. At the beginning of the following week, she would contact Andrew, me or often both to direct us as to what Iain’s response was.

72 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Moving Office:

18. In July 2002, a start had already been made on moving Iain’s office from 34 Smith Square to be based permanently in the Leader’s Office in the House of Commons. That meant moving the files. In order to do that, I placed the files into carrier-bags, and brought them across in my car. This was simply a practical method of transporting the files, it was not some kind of symptom of indifference.

19. It was never disputed that improvements to the filing-system were long overdue, and at Iain’s suggestion Christine and I worked together to establish a parliamentary political filing-system.

20. The system established was:

• All political members (MPs, Peers, MSPs, Ams, MEPs) had separate files in relation to Parliamentary matters.

• Other papers were separated according to subject/country

• Separate filing for private/domestic correspondence

• Financial Allowances

• Speeches

• Minutes from meetings

• Miscellaneous

21. Christine went on holiday in August 2002, and while she was away I separated the paperwork into the relevant sections and continued doing what was needed.

Replacement by Christine

22. Christine replaced me as Private Secretary in August 2002, and I was appointed Head of Tours and Planning to co-ordinate Iain’s visits and events around the country and abroad.

23. I left to go on holiday the day after Christine had returned from her summer holiday. The intention was for her to settle in to her new role during the late summer which was generally a quiet period and that I would advise or discuss any problems with her on my return. I was always available on my telephone during my holiday and I recall speaking to the office on a number of occasions. Andrew Whitby-Collins remained in the office once I left, and he helped assist Christine during the first couple of months in her new role.

24. Just after I left for my holiday towards the end of August * * *, returning shortly before the party conference at the beginning of October. My father remained bed-ridden until his death in early January 2003. During that time I had to spend a considerable amount of time supporting my mother as a result some of the work that I otherwise would have been doing at that time fell on Christine, and of course I was not there to help her in any way. AWC, Betsy and I had worked closely together before this, so he continued to help Christine as he had helped me.

25. After the party conference, Iain embarked on a 3-week national tour. He was out of the office every day except Wednesdays when he was required to be in Westminster to attend Prime Minister’s Question Time. It was clearly a difficult time for those trying to co-ordinate matters in the private office, particularly as Iain and the tour-team were very much out and about and did not often have access to office facilities. Betsy assumed much of the role of supporting Iain with his work Parliamentary work as most of it had to be dealt with at the weekends. The task of writing the necessary letters fell on Christine, exactly as it had done on me when I was Private Secretary before her.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 73

26. Meanwhile, though, I was less involved in the day-to-day running of the constituency work, I continued to liaise with BDS in her role of giving secretarial and diary support for the office, and I oversaw the constituency office. I continued to liaise with Iain’s office based in Chingford.

13 November 2003

11. Written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre, 18 November 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 8]

I make this statement in response to the transcripts of interviews from Vanessa Gearson, Mark MacGregor and Jenny Ungless.

Vanessa Gearson’s testimony

1. Appointment to the office

Vanessa Gearson was originally approached by Iain in July 2002 to join the office after she had discussed with me the possibility of her replacing AWC as the diary secretary. I suggested to Iain that he might speak to her about the diary secretary position, when Iain spoke to her, she made it clear to him that she wanted to run his office. I was concerned to learn from her testimony that she believed it was “clear to them that I was going to be appointed to this role” i.e. Chief of Staff to replace Jenny Ungless (I was not aware that Mark MacGregor had suggested that she should do the job). In August, Iain decided to appoint her as the Administrative Head of the Office. I understood this role to incorporate overseeing the correspondence in and out of the office, dealing with administration of the office including overseeing the diary and liaising with the Shadow Cabinet, and the in the interim having responsibility for the staff in the Leader’s Office until such time as a Chief of Staff was appointed.

Vanessa Gearson remained in the Chairman’s Office in 32 Smith Square until after the conference in October 2002 when Andrew Whitby-Collins left to join the Candidates Department. From that time, she shared the Leader’s outer office with Christine Watson at 32 Smith Square. The Leader’s Office continued to follow the practice of staying in Smith Square in the morning and going to the House of Commons in the afternoon. The office in the House was such that whilst Christine’s desk was situated directly outside Iain’s office, Vanessa Gearson’s was behind a dividing door

2. Financial issues

Vanessa Gearson raised a number of issues regarding finances in the Leader’s Office in her transcript. She refers to the attitude of those in the Leader’s Office and suggests that we believed we were exempt from rules or regulations. I disagree that this was the case. In fact, if anything we were very aware of what we could and could not do, particularly as we had experienced the campaign for the leadership in which we were very careful about declaring expenditure with the Electoral Commission.

She mentions in particular the costs of the three week national tour that the Leader undertook after the Party Conference in 2002. As you will see from the attached note from Robert Ashman, who was responsible for overseeing the organisation of the tour, Vanessa Gearson had little understanding of the organisation involved.

She also raised concerns about mobile phone bills without any understanding of the work involved for those that travel with the Leader. In particular we needed to liaise with the office, the press, journalists, check arrangements for the tour and often make calls to Shadow Cabinet members or MPs on behalf of Iain. We did not have any other office facilities, hence why our bills were often greater than those based in the office.

Vanessa Gearson raises matters with regard to the office set up at Swanbourne. As she acknowledges, she never visited Swanbourne and would therefore have had no understanding of the set up. Iain and Betsy

74 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

moved their equipment from Fulham to Swanbourne. CCO then helped install equipment so that they had a fully functioning office from the autumn 2001—computer with e-mail facilities, fax, phone lines. However, further changes were made to enlarge it so that he could accommodate other staff (speechwriters and advisers) to work at Swanbourne on speeches, campaigns etc.

3.Office Costs Allowance (Staffing Allowance and TEP) and Additional Costs Allowance

As I have stated in my previous statements, I had responsibility from 1997–2002 for overseeing the Office Costs Allowance and subsequently the Staffing Allowance and IEP. I maintained the files for the allowances and the claims were submitted in accordance to the rules and were approved by the Fees Office. I never had any reason to discuss these allowances with Vanessa Gearson as this remained the responsibility of the Private Secretary.

She raises concerns about my work as private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (2001–2002), however as I have stated elsewhere my work was almost entirely of a parliamentary nature. My involvement in party political work was minimal.

Vanessa Gearson also mentions claims to the Additional Costs Allowance or the Accommodation Costs Allowance. As I have stated elsewhere, I never had any concerns about these claims, and I never had reason to discuss them with the Fees Office. As far as I was aware there was never a problem with these claims.

Vanessa Gearson refers to Crick’s investigation into allowances (page 36).63 Whilst we were aware of Crick’s investigation into Iain with regards to his CV (Newsnight, December 19th)—he had done a similar investigations with other politicians—I was never aware of any suggestion that he was looking into other aspects of Iain’s life.

4. Knowledge of constituency work

Vanessa Gearson makes reference to my work as a constituency secretary (1997–2001) and claims that “Annabelle Eyre and clearly been having a number of very significant problems with her workload when she had worked as Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency secretary”. I never had a problem dealing with the constituency correspondence and casework. As I had no communication with Vanessa Gearson until she came to work at CCO in 2002, I find it hard to understand how she could form any opinion about the work that I did at that time.

She refers to establishing “procedures that brought our two offices together and therefore I had overall responsibility for those” and “by necessity I was absolutely, totally and utterly involved in what was going on”. However, in fact she has no involvement in the constituency office and the operations were kept quite separate. Although Christine Watson continued to oversee the constituency office once she was appointed as Private Secretary, Cara Walker dealt with the constituency correspondence solely and was situated on the floor below the main office. BDS remained involved as a support, and I was contacted with regard to constituency issues. Vanessa Gearson would have had no knowledge as to how constituency events were organised or have dealt with constituency material.

5. Annabelle Eyre’s role

In her written statement, Vanessa Gearson describes me as “the daughter of Lady Monica Eyre, a long- standing family friend of Mrs Duncan Smith”. While this is inaccurate and in any case irrelevant, I take great offence at Vanessa Gearson’s inference that I was employed because my mother might have been a friend of Mrs Duncan Smith’s. In actual fact I was employed by Iain in May 1997 at which time I had never met Mrs Duncan Smith and my mother did not meet her until the following year. There has also been reference in press reports that my late father, Major General Sir James Eyre, was a friend of Betsy’s parents—that too is entirely inaccurate.

63 See PCS Written Submission 13.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 75

In her oral evidence, Vanessa Gearson raises concerns about my “performance” as I have stated in previous statements, I was appointed to my new role as Head of Tours and Planning at the end of August prior to my departure on holiday. I was abroad for two weeks, although I had to return early on 6th September because of my father’s illness. I remained at home for a further two weeks whilst my father was seriously ill returning to work on Tuesday 23rd September 2001. My father remained in hospital until his death in January. On 5th October, I left the office to go to the Party Conference in Bournemouth. On Sunday 13 October, Iain started on his three week national tour which continued until Friday 1st November. I was therefore actually in the office for under two weeks. I fail to see how Vanessa Gearson could have assessed my work in my role in such a short time.

It was clear that she did not want me to remain in the office (as Mark MacGregor made clear in his oral evidence) and I believe that is why she suggested that Rebecca Layton and Christine Watson write their memos. I have no recollection of having a meeting with her to discuss any concerns.

6. Arrival at Smith Square (September 2001)

Vanessa Gearson makes reference to the situation on 13 September 2001. As she was not employed in CCO until the summer of 2002, I fail to understand how she would have had any knowledge of what the situation we inherited was. As I have attested, there was no staff in the office, no handover, and no furniture in the Leader’s Office. There was not a functioning system.

She also makes reference to the transition from the campaign set up to establishing the Leader’s Office. Vanessa Gearson had no involvement in Iain’s campaign and would not have been aware of the people involved or of the way in which the campaign was run. A number of people were brought into the Leader’s Office from the campaign, including Simon Gordon, but most had been volunteers and only AE, AWC and JH had direct experience of how Iain worked. Simon’s work during the campaign had been with the voluntary side of the party, and he was never involved in the workings of Iain’s private office.

The Correspondence Unit deal with correspondence from members of the public and members of the party. It was not appropriate for them to deal with other correspondence of a personal nature or from colleagues, either of congratulation, which may have needed a more personal response, or with regard to policy, which would have been dealt with, at that stage, by Owen Paterson, Iain’s PPS.

Jenny Ungless began working for the Leader on 15th October. Her appointment was announced to the press on 12 October. Iain had been Leader of the Opposition for a month.

7. Mr Duncan Smith

Vanessa Gearson describes Iain as “quite a demanding gentlemen. He is not particularly personable as an individual ...” Having worked for Iain for over six years, I do not recognise this description of him. I agree that he is demanding as anyone in such a position should be, but as far as I was concerned he was extremely personable. Obviously as his private secretary from 1997–2001, I got to know him well. He was a caring and interested employer. Whilst he expected his employees to be hard-working, productive, and polite, he was always approachable and accessible and insisted that employees to come to him directly with problems or concerns to discuss.

8. Betsy Duncan Smith

Vanessa Gearson raises concerns about Betsy’s role and states that it did not go beyond “the absolutely reasonable role as a spouse”. As she acknowledges however when she worked for two other members who employed their wives, there were defined issues which they would occupy themselves with through communication with members of staff. That is exactly what the nature of BDS’ s employment was: progress— chasing, particularly in relation to the diary, correspondence, and liaising with AE and AWC and more recently CW. As I have stated elsewhere, often her work was as a result of discussions with Iain regarding people he met, people he wanted to meet, arrangements that he wanted made, things he needed followed up etc.

76 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

She infers that nobody discussed Betsy’s role because she did not actually have a role to play. Vanessa never discussed Betsy’s position with me, had she done so I would have been happy to have told her about Betsy’s involvement and work in the office.

Mark MacGregor’s statement and transcript

1. Leader’s Office and BDS

In his statement he refers to meetings with the members of the Leader’s office. As far as I recall all his meetings would have been with Jenny Ungless and/or the Leader. He never had reason to meet other members of the Leader’s office, he hardly had any dealings with the private office except to make arrangements for meetings with IDS. As a result, I disagree that he was “extremely aware” of the work undertaken in the Leader’s office and the sort of work that was undertaken by BDS was not something that would have involved Mark MacGregor. Cara and Christine, when she was constituency secretary, for example, never had any dealings with him. BDS would have had no reason to correspond or communicate with Mark MacGregor, AWC and I would have done that.

Mark MacGregor says that there was no suggestion of involving BDS with the Leader’s Tour—perhaps because at that time AB, who was the only representative of the Leader’s Office on the tour team, was away. Once I returned to work in late September, I continued to liaise with BDS with regard to the arrangements for the Leader’s tour.

He suggests that there are rules about the employment of spouses—I do not believe that is correct. There are no rules set by the Fees Office regarding the employment of spouses in the House of Commons. In fact a number of Members employ spouses, children and even mothers to assist them in the Parliamentary duties.

2. Annabelle Eyre’s role

Mark MacGregor is completely wrong about the nature of my employment, which only goes to emphasise how little he knew about the workings of the office. I was Iain’s private secretary until August 2002. The work that I did was reclaimable under the Staffing Allowance. My salary was paid from CCO (Short Money) from August–December 2002 when I was promoted to become Head of Tours and Planning to the Leader of the Opposition. In December 2002, Iain was forced to find a donor to pay my salary rather than the Short Money apparently due to the pressures on the Leader’s Office budget.

Jenny Ungless’s testimony

1. BDS’s role in the office and the allowances

Jenny Ungless mentions that there was “no handover” from BDS. As BDS was assisting AE and AWC in the workings of the private office, it would be absurd to expect her to handover anything to Jenny. In any event Iain had been leader for just a month and most of that time had been spent in preparations for the Party Conference and dealing with the situation post- 9/11 and the Afghanistan war.

Jenny Ungless recognises that her office was not close to AWC and AE. She would not have been aware of what our discussions were about, as she said: “it was her impression”. JU admits (p 15)64 that she may not have been in a position to see it.

Jenny Ungless claims that she never raised the issue of Betsy’s pay with Mark MacGregor. In addition, she emphasises that she had no knowledge or responsibility for the Parliamentary Allowances as this was something that AB dealt with.

64 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 77

2. The box

It is important to note that Jenny Ungless did not have a key to Iain’s box. IDS and AE were the only key- holders at that time. Whilst Jenny Ungless’s job was to oversee the box, I would regularly put things in for BDS and remove paperwork that was specifically for me from IDS or BDS or for Andrew, which Jenny Ungless would not necessarily need to be aware of.

18 November 2003

12. Written statement by Mr Tom Finchett, 3 November 2003

Betsy Duncan Smith

I am Thomas Edward Harry Finchett and am 35 years old. I hold a BSc (Hons) in Rural Land Management and am a Professional Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

I have 13 years experience of property, estate and business management. I am Estate Manager of the Swanbourne Estate, and have been since 1999. The Old House, Mursley Road forms part of the Swanbourne Estate, and is owned by the Trustees of the Old House Settlement. Betsy Duncan Smith occupies the property with her family.

Since Lord and Lady Cottesloe moved out of the house, the property has undergone improvements and modernisation including the installation of gas central heating and re-wiring. This commenced in the early part of 2001.With overall responsibility for the work, it has been necessary for me to visit the property on a regular basis, and most days when contractors are on site. I have also met Mrs Duncan Smith frequently to discuss other issues relating to her occupation of the property, in my capacity as agent for the owners.

During my visits to the property, I noticed that Mrs Duncan Smith worked in the office in the house on a very regular basis. It seemed to me that when at the property she was in the office most times during “normal” office hours and quite often in the evenings

3 November 2003

13. Written statement by Dr Vanessa Gearson, 16 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9]

In the matter of the investigation into the employment of Betsy Duncan Smith

Introduction

It is with great reluctance that I find myself having to set out the following facts, as I understand them, after what has been an extraordinarily difficult period in my professional life. I set out in this document everything I can recall to be relevant to the remit of your investigation in the interests of openness and transparency.

From the time I assumed the role of Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in August 2002 my primary concern was to impose an effective, professional and transparent organisation and structure on the Leader’s Private Office that would serve his needs, while meeting the rules set out by the House of Commons Fees Office and the internal audit requirements set by Conservative Central Office (CCO). In an attempt to promote greater vigilance and respect for budgetary procedures, financial control and the requirements for financial record keeping within the Leader’s Office, I repeatedly sought to raise these and other matters with the Leader through his Parliamentary Private Secretary and subsequently, the Chairman of the Conservative

78 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Party, the Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive and the Treasurer of the Conservative Party. My job was to protect the Leader.

Relevance of Submission

The relevance of my submission is based on the following facts:

• I was Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition from August 2002 to September 2003.

• The political and parliamentary offices of Mr Duncan Smith were, by necessity, entirely integrated. As Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition I was in a unique and pivotal position in overseeing the work carried out in both offices.

• I worked in very close physical proximity to those working directly for Mr Duncan Smith in a parliamentary capacity and was therefore able to observe at very close quarter exactly what work was carried out on behalf of Mr Duncan Smith as the MP for Chingford and Woodford Green on a day to day basis.

• My experience over five years of running both MPs’ constituency/parliamentary offices and the political offices of the Chairman and Leader of the Conservative Party gives me a very unique insight and understanding of the requirements of these offices.

• I am well informed on the regulations stipulated by the House of Commons Fees Office regarding Members’ allowances.

• My statement, insofar as it relates to Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment, is centred on the period of August 2002 to the end of December 2002.

• I have not visited Swanboume, the home of Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith. I was not responsible for submissions to the House of Commons Fees Office relating to Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment.

Key Conclusion

In the context of this background and the information I submit below, it was my conclusion that the press allegations made regarding the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith were significantly more likely to be true than not. It was on that basis that I reluctantly had to express myself unwilling to support Mr Duncan Smith’s contention that his wife had worked for him in a significant capacity during the time I spent as head of his office. If she had, I would certainly expect to have witnessed evidence of this work and for there to have been practical implications associated with it. I would also have expected to have had direct contact with her myself.

I do not contend that Mrs Duncan Smith could not have worked for Mr Duncan Smith during this period but rather that I saw absolutely no evidence of the work carried out by Mrs Duncan Smith and cannot establish, by analysing the distribution of tasks and responsibilities within the two offices, what work she was effectively carrying out.

The four key tasks as I see them are as follows:

• The Diary—I saw no evidence of Mrs Duncan Smith performing a professional role regarding the diary.

• Correspondence—I saw no evidence that Mrs Duncan Smith wrote any letters on Mr Duncan Smith’s behalf

• Financial Arrangements—I saw no evidence that Mrs Duncan Smith took any responsibility in this regard.

• Practical Considerations—I saw no evidence of Mrs Duncan Smith requesting office supplies that she would have reasonably needed in order to have carried out such a role.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 79

I shall discuss each of these issues below.

In conclusion, Mrs Duncan Smith was simply not a part of the integrated day to day organisation of Mr Duncan Smith’s offices other than in her capacity as the wife of the Leader. She had no specific authority and no defined area of work or responsibility within what was a structured office organisation. Her contact with the office was irregular and usually limited to the matter of diary dates in which she or her sons and daughters were affected She would pass on messages regarding Mr Duncan Smith’s personal arrangements and would if anything, generate work for Mrs Watson, Mr Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary, in particular who dealt with her personal correspondence, invitations, liaison with the constituency and dress requirements.

The Office to the Leader of the Opposition

I was appointed to the post of Head of the Leader’s Office by The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP on the 12th August 2002, having previously worked as Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Conservative Party at Conservative Central Office (CCO) since 7 May 2002. Prior to my employment at CCO, I had worked at the House of Commons for three years and eight months as a Private Secretary to James Gray MP from 8th May 2000 until May 3rd 2002 and previously for the late Michael Colvin MP and his trustees from 1st September 1998 until 5th May 2000. I commenced working in my present post as Deputy Director (Organisation) of CCO on 1st September 2003.

My recent experience of running the parliamentary offices of two Members of Parliament makes me particularly aware of the requirements for the successful organisation and maintenance of an MP’s office. I had also made regular submissions to the Fees Office on behalf of the Members for whom I worked and was therefore very familiar with the regulations stipulated by the House of Commons Fees Office regarding the employment of staff, and the allowances afforded to Members of Parliament for the payment of staff and other incidental expenses.

Before commencing my role as Head of the Leader’s Office I had already established very close relations with the Leader’s Office and its staff with whom I had daily contact, not least because our offices were actually situated along the same corridor of the 1st floor of CCO, alongside the office of the then Chief Executive, Mark MacGregor, and Deputy Chief Executive, Stephen Gilbert, who shared a small office. As Private Secretary to the Chairman the function of our respective offices overlapped in a number of areas. I took up my post as Head of the Leader’s Office in the summer of 2002 well briefed on the issues affecting the Leader’s Office. Indeed, I was sufficiently briefed to submit a paper to Mr Duncan Smith in July 2002 proposing a series of changes to the office structure to deal with the problems it was facing.

In my post, I succeeded Mr Duncan Smith’s Chief of Staff, Ms Jenny Ungless and received my instructions directly from Mr Duncan Smith. I assumed responsibility for nine members of staff who occupied the following roles: Deputy Head of the Leader’s Office (Miss Rebecca Layton), Private Secretary (Mrs Christine Watson), Diary Secretary (Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins until October 2002 and succeeded by Miss Paula Malone), Aide de Camp (Mr Jonathan Hellewell), two Administration and Correspondence Secretaries (Mr Adrian Muldrew and Miss Emily Cavendish) and three members of the Leader’s Correspondence Unit (including Mr Ian Philps, Mr Anthony Wells and Miss Eleanor Hudson). We also had a number of interns who came to the office for a period of weeks or months, usually unpaid for work experience. Mr Duncan Smith also had a personal press officer who reported to Mr Nick Wood, Head of Media. The purpose of this wide range of staff was to ensure that every possible aspect of his work as Leader of the Opposition was dealt with as appropriately and as efficiently as possible.

Mrs Christine Watson, who had worked as Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency private secretary based at Westminster since he became Leader, was appointed Mr Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary as Leader of the Opposition at the end of August 2002. Mr Duncan Smith had chosen to move his previous Private Secretary, Miss Annabelle Eyre, the daughter of Lady Monica Eyre, a long standing family friend of Mrs Duncan Smith, to become Head of Planning and Tours. Miss Eyre had previously worked as Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency private secretary prior to his becoming Leader. The Leader’s Diary Secretary at the time, Mr Andrew Whitby- Collins, had already been offered a post as Head of the Candidates Department and was keen to move to his new job as soon as possible. I therefore appointed Miss Paula Malone to replace him as Diary Secretary and she commenced her new role immediately after the Conservative Party Conference (w/c 14th October 2002).

80 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

In the weeks prior to my appointment I had had a number of discussions with Mr Duncan Smith, regarding the nature and scope of my proposed role and the plans he had set in place for restructuring the arrangements in both of his offices. At no time was the role of Mrs Duncan Smith mentioned her duties were not explained or set in the context of his revised arrangements. Indeed, even when I started my new job Mrs Duncan Smith was not mentioned outside the context that she was Mr Duncan Smith wife.

Mr Duncan Smith’s Constituency Office Arrangements

As a result of the cascade of staff changes described above, Mrs Watson was given responsibility for finding a replacement private secretary for Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency office and Miss Cara Walker, a graduate who had left university that summer (2002) and is a friend of Mrs Watson’s daughter who is of a similar age, was immediately appointed.

The working day was evenly split between two locations. We spent the mornings at the Leader’s Office and Outer Office at CCO, where Mr Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary, Christine Watson, was seated directly opposite me within six feet from me, sitting opposite. We were so close that we would often take each other’s telephone calls if one or the other were otherwise occupied. Miss Walker sat in an adjacent room to our office while she was trained and supervised by Mrs Watson during the first weeks of her appointment and frequently came to ask for advice or guidance from either one of us.

In the afternoons we would move to the Leader’s Office at the House of Commons where I sat at a separate desk to Mrs Watson some twelve feet apart, within sight and earshot of everything she and the Diary Secretary, seated six feet away, were doing. Miss Walker and subsequently Mr Duncan Smith’s researcher, Mr Tom Hooper, were seated in Room G1, on the ground floor of the Shadow Cabinet Block, immediately below the offices of the Leader of the Opposition. Miss Walker and Mr Hooper would frequently visit the Leader’s Office during the day for regular meetings with Mrs Watson, to seek advice or to use the kitchen.

It would be fair to say that on the basis of sheer proximity alone, I was intimately familiar with the workings of the constituency office, what work was being carried out and by whom, the key individuals associated with Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency including his agent and chairman of his association—even the issues that particularly affected Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency and the details regarding the arrangement of his constituency visits. I would certainly have been aware Mrs Watson had been receiving the number of telephone calls from Mrs Duncan Smith that might reasonably have been expected were she working 25 hours a week.

Mrs Duncan Smith’s involvement with the offices

Besides a number of political responsibilities, the primary function of my role was to ensure the efficient and effective running of Mr Duncan Smith’s office in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition. In order to achieve this objective, it was imperative that Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary and political offices worked alongside one another in as integrated a fashion as possible. This meant that administrative structures and procedures were often set in tandem to ensure a cohesive operation. Particular care and emphasis was placed on Mr Duncan Smith’s diary, correspondence and financial affairs.

In none of these areas was I ever made aware of the role of Mrs Duncan Smith. The only contact that took place was what would be considered reasonable communication with the spouse of a Member of Parliament, in this case the Leader of the Opposition. I can confirm that in the four months of my appointment during which Mrs Duncan Smith was paid by her husband she only made contact with me once in a telephone call to inform me of a potential supporter that she had met a dinner party.

It might be helpful if I describe the functions of two specific areas of work which occupied a great deal of our professional activity:

• The Diary:

The organisation of Mr Duncan Smith’s diary was my responsibility although it was managed by the diary secretary. Invitations for Mr Duncan Smith and occasionally Mrs Duncan Smith were received, considered and responded to within the Leader’s Office with decisions being made by me in consultation with Owen Paterson MP, Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, and occasionally by Mr Duncan Smith himself. Mrs Duncan Smith was never involved in this decision making process although she would naturally

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 81

be consulted or advised if an invitation occurred over a weekend or clashed with a family engagement. This was appropriate and courteous behaviour towards Mrs Duncan Smith as the Leader’s wife but, to my knowledge, Mrs Duncan Smith did not play a role in the organisation or management of the diary.

As the diary was planned months in advance, a series of days would be set aside for Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency visits and regular surgeries. These usually occurred on Fridays. The days were carefully planned by Miss Walker and Mrs Watson. On the occasion that Mrs Duncan Smith chose to accompany Mr Duncan Smith to a specific constituency event she would of course be contacted and given the appropriate details. Her understanding of Mr Duncan Smith’s role as Member of Parliament and that of Leader often appeared blurred.

Mrs Duncan Smith would advise the Diary Secretary of the details of their children’s school engagements. Three of the children were at boarding school while one attended a day school. Details of exeats, school concerts and other associated school activities were regularly passed to the Diary Secretary for inclusion into the diary. The diary would then be sent to Mrs Duncan Smith on a regular basis for her information only. Amendments from Mrs Duncan Smith referred solely to personal and family matters Mrs Duncan Smith was very protective of what she considered to be family time (weekends and parliamentary recesses) and would contact the office to object when circumstances beyond the control of the office meant that this time was interfered with i.e. last minute media bids. She appeared to have an unrealistic appreciation of the huge pressures Mr Duncan Smith faced in his role as Leader of the Opposition or the extent to which this made his life public.

There were naturally occasions when Mrs Duncan Smith received invitations in her own right as the wife of the Leader. These would be sent to Mrs Duncan Smith by Mrs Watson and Mrs Duncan Smith would communicate her response either by telephone or by email. Such activities do not, however, constitute work authorised for Fees Office reimbursement in my understanding of the regulations.

In my judgement, these objections to diary dates could not reasonably be described as co-ordination of the diary. Indeed, Mrs Duncan Smith did not receive or open the invitations. She did not attend a single diary meeting where invitations were explained and discussed. She did not interest herself in, nor was she advised of the outcome of these meetings. Between meetings if there were doubts regarding Mr Duncan Smith’s willingness to accept an invitation, a note would be prepared for Mr Duncan Smith and put into his box. He would respond by writing his decision on the note, in his own handwriting. Nor am I aware of a single letter of acceptance or refusal having been written by her during the period concerned.

• Correspondence:

All correspondence addressed to Mr Duncan Smith was delivered to the House of Commons where it was collected by a member of staff from the Correspondence Unit. It was taken to CCO, opened and filtered into separate files to the appropriate member of staff either in the parliamentary office or in the Leader’s Office. Mrs Duncan Smith was not regarded as a member of staff in this capacity and did not have her own correspondence file. It is my view that were she to have been writing letters (connected with the diary say) under her own name, she would have received letters in return.

Correspondence was divided into a range of categories: letters to Mr Duncan Smith as MP for Chingford and Woodford Green were passed to Mrs Watson and then to Miss Walker; letters from Members of Parliament were given to Mr Jonathan Hellewell to draft replies to be signed by Mr Paterson; invitations and confirmation details for events in the diary would be passed to the Diary Secretary; personal letters would be passed to Mrs Watson; letters relating to tours past or present were passed to Miss Eyre; requests for messages for support for Conservative association handbooks, newsletters, fund-raisers and conferences as well as messages for charities and other organisations were passed to one of the Correspondence Secretaries. All other correspondence, from members of the public on other matters, were dealt with by the Correspondence Unit. The letters received totalled an average of between 800 and 1,000 per week, depending on the time of year and current issues. None of the above correspondence was, to my certain knowledge, handled by Mrs Duncan Smith.

82 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

I was not aware that Mrs Duncan Smith requested office supplies that would have enabled her to be involved in matters of correspondence. She did not appear to request House of Commons letter headed paper or envelopes at any time in the period from August to December 2002.

At the end of every working day, Mr Duncan Smith’s box would be prepared either for him to take with him personally or to be given to his Government Car Service Driver. There were often a substantial number of documents and correspondence which needed to be collated and great care was taken to ensure that each and every document was placed in its own plastic folder with a covering note identifying what the folder contained and what action was required from Mr Duncan Smith. These documents were placed in the box in order of their immediate priority. Separately, Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary correspondence was collated and placed in its own or several House of Commons plastic mailers again clearly identifying what each envelope contained. Although Mr Duncan Smith held regular meetings with Miss Walker and his researcher to discuss constituency matters, he also had regular time set aside in the diary for the signing of his parliamentary letters. On Thursdays and Fridays, there was often a significant amount of correspondence totalling more than one hundred letters for Mr Duncan Smith to sign. These would usually be returned on the following Monday or later in the week if the House had risen and Mr Duncan Smith was at home. The letters were then put into envelopes by Miss Walker or an intern and posted from the House of Commons.

From the start of the process of correspondence, upon receipt of the letter, to the end when a reply was posted, Mrs Duncan Smith did not appear to play apart. Unless the correspondence was specifically relevant to her i.e. it required her to attend an event or for her to give her support to a particular organisation, she was not involved or consulted in the process. At no time did I hear her name mentioned as a key individual in this capacity.

It may also be helpful to point out the very limited personal involvement Mrs Duncan Smith had in Mr Duncan Smith’s life at Westminster. Matters including the limited furnishing of his flat, the issue and collection of his laundry, the cleaning of his flat and the purchase of food were all arranged and often supplied by Mrs Watson on a weekly basis. Occasionally, evening meetings over dinner were arranged at his flat and Mrs Watson would invariably purchase the food herself and organise the dinner. Mr Duncan Smith relied heavily on Owen Paterson who owned a flat in the same block and Mr Paterson would very often call on Mr Duncan Smith first thing in the morning or sometimes invite him to dinner at his flat, prepared by Mr Paterson’s wife, if he was alone.

Mrs Watson’s involvement at every level of Mr Duncan Smith’s life is described extensively in her memo to me dated 24th October 2002. This details the extensive work that she was undertaking in managing his parliamentary diary, correspondence and other co-ordinating functions. However, what is most significant about her memo is that in detailing all of the tasks she undertakes, it is difficult to understand what other tasks might have remained for Mrs Duncan Smith to carry out and the only reference to Mrs Duncan Smith relates to additional work that she created for Mrs Watson.

Mrs Duncan Smith’s office arrangements

Mrs Duncan Smith states she set up a functional office in Swanbourne ‘which was fully equipped’. It is my understanding that the office Mrs Duncan Smith describes was in fact set up in the last months of her employment as demonstrated by the information set out below.

Mrs Duncan Smith did have a computer at home but I understand this was supplied by CCO. I believe this to be the case because I was asked to enquire by Mrs Watson, on behalf of Mrs Duncan Smith, what insurance cover CCO provided for the machine. The constituency laptop, which might have reasonably been used by Mrs Duncan Smith in working from home, remained at the House of Commons principally used at the time of Mrs Duncan Smith’s final months of employment by Miss Eyre.

Mrs Duncan Smith had a mobile telephone which was paid for by CCO but the payment of these bills had been the subject of much discussion as it was felt widely by many staff that as no professional role could be attributed to Mrs Duncan Smith the payment of the bill by CCO was questionable. There was never any suggestion that Mrs Duncan Smith carried out parliamentary work on this telephone. Indeed the monthly bills were small and she claimed that the telephone was primarily used by Mr Duncan Smith. Their landline telephone bills were also submitted to CCO for payment but, to my knowledge, no discount was made from those bills for parliamentary work which would have been entirely legitimate. Furthermore, when Mrs

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 83

Duncan Smith chose to communicate with the office, she tended to do so via a private email address rather than a parliamentary email address.

Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith had embarked on a major programme of refurbishment at their Swanbourne home earlier in 2002. The works were extensive as I understand the house to have been in a serious state of dilapidation. Mr Duncan Smith often commented amusedly of the anti-diluvian telephone connections and electrical work. The refurbishment was so extensive that the family were required to move into a one bedroom flat on their estate. In late 2002, Mr Duncan Smith began to create an office for himself out of the former Estate Office at Swanbourne. In this context, I would ask you to refer to Appendix One (email dated 30th January 2003),65 the first paragraph of which questions the expenses incurred by the Leader at his home. At no time had the matter regarding the development of an office for Mr Duncan Smith been raised with me or the Chief Executive. No proposal for the works had been submitted, no explanation given, no approval had been sought for the payment for the works with either myself of the Chief Executive. No purchase order had been raised and there was no budget allocation for such expenditure. The issue was not that Mr Duncan Smith should not have these works paid for but that it was clearly very important that financial procedures be carried out appropriately. It was also politically sensitive that, in the midst of a major programme of works at his home, Mr Duncan Smith be perceived to have a very clearly documented paper trail explaining why the works were required. This was the context of my email of 30th January.

These details regarding the installation of an office at his home are further corroborated in the final paragraphs of Appendix 2 (Memo of March 2003 to Sir Stanley Kalms, Treasurer of the Conservative Party, requested by him in order to clarify the unauthorised expenditure which had been brought to his attention).66 Furthermore, Appendix 2 documents that in January 2003 Mr Duncan Smith arranged for the installation of a series of telephone lines at Swanbourne in the continuing work he was carrying out in the establishment of his office. It should be noted that at the time the memo was written not one of the thirteen telephone lines had been actually been used as no call charges had been incurred.

In fact Mr Duncan Smith goes as far as to say, in his own words, in Appendix 3 (email dated 31st January dictated by Mr Duncan Smith),67 that he had ‘recently converted a room at his home into a fully functional office including an ISDN line.., and additional telephone and fax lines for use when he is working away from Westminster or Central Office... The new office will afford a much more efficient means of communicating with the Leader and it will be able to accommodate a number of people from Central Office if they should need to work with the Leader on site’. It is worth noting that at no time does Mr Duncan Smith refer to the office being used in a parliamentary capacity by him or Mrs Duncan Smith although he is quite specific regarding communication with CCO and how its staff might be deployed. However, all of this work to prepare the office took place at the end of 2002 and after Mrs Duncan Smith had ceased to be employed.

It should also be noted that Mr Duncan Smith’s assertion that ‘these arrangements and the procedure for the costs incurred had in fact been agreed with Central Office last year, prior to my appointment’ is, to my certain knowledge, not the case and can be verified, if required, by the then Chief Executive, Mr Mark MacGregor, and his then Deputy, Mr Stephen Gilbert. This is central to this issue not least because, if the office was to be used for parliamentary work, a range of costs could legitimately have been attributed to Mr Duncan Smith’s incidental expense allowance as a Member of Parliament.

Although I have not visited Swanbourne, it is my considered view in light of the above evidence that it is difficult to accept Mr Duncan Smith’s assertion that Mrs Duncan Smith was working for him in a parliamentary capacity from a fully functional office at their home.

Issues relating to Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary Office Costs Allowance

Another key factor in my consideration of the matter of the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith was Mr Duncan Smith’s use of his parliamentary Office Costs Allowance.

65 See PCS Written Submission 46. 66 Not appended by the Commissioner. 67 Not appended by the Commissioner.

84 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

I was made aware of a number of issues regarding Mr Duncan Smith’s Office Costs Allowance within days of taking up my post as Head of the Leader’s Office in August 2002. The issues can be summarised as follows:

• Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid a salary from the Office Costs Allowance for work that was widely perceived amongst CCO staff not to have been carried out. This carried issues of propriety and political sensitivity with it.

• Miss Eyre had as of August 2002 ceased to be paid from Mr Duncan Smith’s Office Costs Allowance although she had ceased to work as his parliamentary private secretary in September 2001 and was actually working on non-constituency related work from then on.

• Mrs Watson continued to be paid out of Mr Duncan Smith’s Office Costs Allowance until November 2002 although she ceased working for Mr Duncan Smith as his parliamentary private secretary at the end of August 2002.

• It appeared that potentially mis-leading submissions had been made to the House of Commons Fees Office—a recognition of very poor record keeping with regard to Mr Duncan Smith’s Allowances.

Given my understanding of the regulations stipulated by the House of Commons Fees Office regarding Members’ allowances and the employment of staff, as well as the Members’ Code of Conduct, I regarded these breaches as of critical importance and sought to address them as a matter of urgency.

• The payment of Mrs Duncan Smith

The matter was first brought to my attention by Mrs Watson in early September 2002 as she sought to appoint a researcher to support Miss Walker in her new role as Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary private secretary. Mrs Watson advised me that there was simply no money available to employ a researcher because the funds available were fully used. She explained that this was because Mrs Duncan Smith was continuing to be paid a salary. It was evident from the conversation we had that Mrs Watson understood entirely the difficulties we faced with this issue—both in terms of its propriety and political sensitivity. She advised me then that Mrs Duncan Smith was earning £18,000 per annum. It was this figure that was discussed with other senior members of CCO staff and at no time was that figure ever disputed by her, Owen Paterson or any member of Mr Duncan Smith’s closest staff

• The payment of Miss Eyre’s salary

In the same conversation, Mrs Watson expressed her concern that Miss Eyre had continued to be paid out of Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary Office Costs Allowance for some eleven months after she ceased to carry out her role as Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary private secretary. Mrs Watson recognised that there was simply no manner in which Miss Eyre’s salary could be attributed to constituency work, given that Mrs Watson herself had been employed to replace her as Mr Duncan Smith’s private secretary. In the best case, it might be possible to argue that Miss Eyre had carried out a very limited role within the Leader’s Office. The worst case would be that we did not acknowledge the error and found that Mr Duncan Smith could be reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for breaching these rules. These facts are recorded in Appendix 4 (memo from Christine Watson to myself dated 24 October 2002).68

• The payment of Mrs Watson’s salary

Mrs Watson, by her own admission, had failed to negotiate in full the terms and conditions of her new post before taking it up. She had been advised by Miss Eyre that Mr Duncan Smith had given her a substantial pay rise to £36,000 per annum and was anxious to seek a larger salary because she believed that the work she was carrying out, including the personal tasks she was performing for Mr Duncan Smith, and the hours she was working merited a greater increase. She asked for a salary of £40,000 per annum.

68 See PCS Written Submission 49.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 85

Given the constraints on the Leader’s Office staffing budget at CCO these arrangements were critically important. Miss Eyre had finally been placed onto the Leader’s Office Staff by Mr Duncan Smith at an annual salary of £36,000 per annum. However, when Mrs Watson was seeking to raise her salary we were in effect obtaining a second and unexpected member of staff—which we simply did not have the funds to pay for and this resulted in protracted negotiations over the sum. Mrs Watson was very keen to move from the Office Costs Allowance to the CCO budget in order to free up funds from the Allowance to employ both Miss Walker and a researcher. This is again recorded in Appendix 4. The negotiations resulted in Mrs Watson joining the Leader’s Office staff in November and Miss Walker, who had by that time, to my knowledge worked for some two months without being paid. The dispute over Mrs Watson’s salary was eventually resolved when an agreement was reached to match the £36,000 being paid to Miss Eyre and Mr Duncan Smith agreed to supplement her salary with £4,000 from his Office Costs Allowance—an entirely legitimate payment to reflect the work she was carrying out in a supervisory capacity.

• Submissions to the House of Commons Fees Office and poor financial record keeping

It also transpired during the month of September that Mrs Watson’s predecessor, Miss Eyre, had apparently not paid due diligence to the submissions made to the House of Commons Fees Office on Mr Duncan Smith’s behalf. Mrs Watson advised me of her concern that inappropriate submissions may have been made regarding the Accommodation Costs Allowance although I am not in a position to verify whether those concerns were ever justified.

Furthermore, as detailed in Appendix 4, Mrs Watson records that papers were received ‘(not in any order) from AE’ and that she had spoken to me previously about ‘this sensitive matter’. She also comments that ‘I obviously need to put everything in order on behalf of Iain’s representation as Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green and I intend to do so that everything is in proper financial order—keeping the records in good order, and in financial year order and not in a mess’ (sic). Mrs Watson had told me separately that she had been handed the Office Costs Allowance papers in a carrier bag.

In conclusion, I advised Mrs Watson, who had been given responsibility for the handling and administration of Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary Office Costs Allowance, that she should as a matter of urgency raise the matters regarding her and Miss Eyre’s salaries as well as the possible errors in the Accommodation Costs submissions in person with the House of Commons Fees Office in order to seek a mutually agreed way forward. She took that advice and embarked on a series of weekly meetings with staff in the Fees Office, usually on Fridays at lunchtime in an attempt to unscramble these issues. In the meantime, I agreed to raise the matter regarding Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment separately. The acceptance of these matters and their sensitivity is acknowledged in Appendix 5 (email from my then Deputy, Miss Rebecca Layton, regarding a number of issues concerning Miss Eyre’s performance) when it is commented ‘there are also the very sensitive points about the OCA...’.69

How the matter regarding Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment was dealt with

The chronology of events following my discovery that Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid from Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary Office Costs Allowance is documented for the record in Appendix 6 (letter from my solicitor, Ms Gill Sage, to The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, dated 10th October 2003).70

In summary:

• I raised my concerns about Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment within one hour of it being drawn to my attention. I immediately asked to speak to Mr Paterson privately in his office and expressed my concerns—that Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid a salary from Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary Office Costs Allowance when there did not appear to be a position of office being carried out. I advised him that this was against the regulations of the House and that the matter was also very politically sensitive. Mr Paterson agreed with me immediately and confirmed he would take the

69 Not appended by theCommissioner. 70 Not appended by the Commissioner.

86 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

matter up with Mr Duncan Smith. It was clear that raising this matter with Mr Duncan Smith would require great sensitivity and it was my professional judgement that Mr Paterson, as his closet and most trusted confidante would be best placed to raise this subject with him. I recommended that he deal with this matter as a matter of priority, preferably before the Conservative Party Conference which commenced on the 7th October 2002. It should be noted that at no time did Mr Paterson indicate that he understood Mrs Duncan Smith to be carrying out an actual role in Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary office. He did not correct me or, having raised the matter with Mr Duncan Smith, come back to clarify for the record what may have been my mistake.

• Upon our return from the Party Conference, Mr Paterson had not been able to resolve the matter and I therefore raised the matter with him once again during the week commencing 14th October 2002. He acknowledged once again the need to deal with the matter urgently and I left the matter to him.

• By early November, no action had been taken so I took the opportunity to raise the matter once again with Mr Paterson, this time in the presence of Mr MacGregor at a meeting to discuss staff salaries. It should be noted that my general concerns regarding the lack of action over the salaries issue is confirmed in Appendix 7 (email dated 4th November 2002).71 This meeting was held in Mr MacGregor’s office which he shared with Mr Gilbert who was also present in the room.

• By mid November, the complaint against Michael Trend MP had been made public. In my mind, this heightened the need to resolve this issue as a matter of the utmost urgency. I therefore raised the matter again at more than one of the weekly communications meetings chaired by the Chairman, Mrs Theresa May. These meetings were attended by the Chairman, the Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive, the Treasurer, Mr Paterson and myself it was agreed that Mr Paterson would again raise the matter with Mr Duncan Smith as a matter of urgency.

• It should be noted that, at that meeting, no one questioned my assertion that we were paying Mrs Duncan Smith without her doing any work in return. Indeed, on every occasion that I raised this matter with Mr Paterson, Mrs May and senior members of staff, the only discussion was about how to persuade Mr Duncan Smith to cease the payment rather than what work she might have been doing.

• In light of the Michael Trend complaint and the subsequent embarrassment this caused the Conservative Party, Mr Duncan Smith finally ceased to pay his wife on the 31st December 2002.

It is very surprising that at no time during the four months in question did the man closest to Mr Duncan Smith, his Parliamentary Private Secretary Owen Paterson, ever reveal an understanding or explanation of the role of Mrs Duncan Smith.

The context of the emails I sent on the 30th and 31st January 2003

The fact that Mrs Duncan Smith had ceased to be paid out of the Office Costs Allowance at the end of 2002 did not alleviate entirely my concerns about the financial arrangements surrounding Mr Duncan Smith’s affairs (see the first paragraphs of Appendix 1). It was my firm view that the Leader’s Office should have an impeccable record of financial management, controls and records and that transparency in these matters was imperative.

I had been very concerned about the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith and a possible breach of House of Commons regulations. That matter had indeed been resolved but Michael Crick was a well known investigative journalist who had looked very closely into the matter of Mr Duncan Smith’s biographical details. I believed instinctively that, in light of Michael Trend’s recent difficulties, this was an area which Crick could easily have been led to and an examination of the facts which would not be helpful under any

71 Not appended bythe Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 87

circumstances. In that regard, I was also very concerned about the propriety of the expenses being incurred in Mr Duncan Smith’s name and the manner in which they were being presented and dealt with internally.

It was with these considerations in mind that I sent an email, which has been the subject of much selective quotation by the press, on the 30th January 2003 to the Chairman, the Chief Executive and the then newly appointed Director of Communications, Mr Paul Baverstock. I also blind-copied the email to my Deputy, Miss Layton, for her information. What I sought to achieve was clarification of the correct procedures and a meeting had been arranged for the Chairman and the Chief Executive to meet Mr Paterson to discuss these highly sensitive matters.

Not documented in this email but particularly pertinent to this scheduled meeting was the widespread concern that Mr Duncan Smith was not paying for his own personal expenses—which included his lunches, haircuts, food for his own home, a mirror for his flat, his laundry and the purchase of underwear. In November 2002, I had been obliged to present Mr Duncan Smith with a list of expenses which had been incurred on his behalf and paid for, in the first instance, by his staff who were then reimbursed by CCO. I recollect that sum to have been in excess of £400. He always took considerable time to present a cheque—a fact which caused me great concern as I was determined to ensure that we improved financial controls in his office. All of these facts had also already been discussed privately with the Chief Executive and Mr Paterson as well as within the context of the weekly communications meetings.

The other item I raised for discussion with Mr Paterson was an apparently cavalier attitude with which we appeared to be treating our most regular donors—those with private planes who frequently lent them to Mr Duncan Smith if requested. These issues were considered once again to be so sensitive that Mr Paterson was delegated to raise them with the Leader. It was against this background and these on-going concerns that I felt obliged to send my email at all.

With hindsight, the response was perhaps predictable. Although the email had been marked ‘high importance and sent to the most senior people at CCO, it was passed to Mr Duncan Smith first thing the next morning. I received a telephone call before leaving for work from Mr Duncan Smith who was extremely agitated and requested that I go to see him. I consulted Mr MacGregor by telephone and placed a call to Mr Baverstock who did not return my call. It transpired that it was Mr Baverstock who had raised the email with Mr Paterson who subsequently passed a copy of the email to Mr Duncan Smith. I eventually saw Mr Duncan Smith at approximately midday on Friday 31st January. After inviting me to sit down he became very angry and expressed his irritation at my raising the subjects in writing in the email. I accepted unreservedly his rebuke for committing the matter to written form but he advised me that he had already instructed the IT Department at CCO to expunge the email from the central server.

Mr Duncan Smith did not ask me for an explanation. He did not ask why I was concerned. Indeed, besides my own apology for having formalised the matter in the form of an email I did not utter another word as Mr Duncan Smith spoke without break. I was so distressed by his manner and conduct that I was reduced to tears in the meeting. He advised me in the strongest terms that I was to send out an immediate response and asked me to bring my own copy of the email into his office for his attention. He then in effect dictated exactly what the email was to say. I did not and could not agree with what he had asked me to write but it was absolutely apparent within the context of the meeting that I had one of two alternatives—I either wrote the email as he had instructed or I could draft my own letter of resignation. I returned immediately to my desk and drafted the response he had instructed. He amended my draft in his own hand to perfect it to his own requirements and instructed me to send it out. See Appendix 8 (copy of draft email including Mr Duncan Smith’s own amendments to the text) for reference and Appendix 9 (the final version of the email as instructed by Mr Duncan Smith).72

I very much regret not having had the courage to speak out at that time. No alternative arrangements had been established for the management of the Leader’s diary in November and, as far as I was aware, no apparent alternatives had been implemented in the Leader’s constituency office to cover the functions Betsy Duncan Smith had been carrying out ‘on a daily basis’. With respect, the improvement to the diary had

72 See PCS Written Submission 47 and 48.

88 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

occurred because of the strong working relationship I had established with both Andrew Whitby-Collins (whom I had known for two years) and the diary secretary I had appointed—Paula Malone. Under no circumstances, in the context of my email and my previously repeated concerns, could I accept that I was ‘entirely satisfied that these issues have been dealt with correctly and in full’.

Mr MacGregor can testify to the immediate concerns I raised about the second email and indeed Mr Gilbert may be in a position to support these facts. Mrs Watson and Miss Layton can also attest to the distressed state I was in at the end of my meeting with Mr Duncan Smith.

The events leading up the presentation of the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by Mr Michael Crick and the presentation of the dossier by Mr Duncan Smith

I feel it is important to include a section on the events leading up to the start of this inquiry for two reasons:

• They will indicate why I have been obliged to take a principled and what has now regretfully become a public stand on this matter

• The facts regarding the handling of this case will reveal a catalogue of misinformation on the part of Mr Duncan Smith which may have a bearing on the approach taken in regard to the evidence he has submitted, as well as proving his determination to place me under pressure in order that I support his statement on this matter.

Rumours began to circulate at CCO that Michael Crick was investigating the matter of the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith the week prior to the Conservative Party Conference (w/c 29th September) and that questions had been presented to Mr Duncan Smith regarding the employment of his wife. Mr Duncan Smith was, by all accounts, very agitated by the prospect of this broadcast. I had been telephoned at home by Mr Crick on the evening of Monday 29th September and I reported the call to the CCO media office first thing on the morning of Tuesday 30th September.

Later that morning, I had a telephone conversation with the Director of Communications, Paul Baverstock, and a chance meeting with Tim Montgomerie, who had succeeded me as Political Secretary to the Leader, who were both very preoccupied with the matter. Both were very anxious about my emails, particularly as they did not have a copy of the second email.

• The first conversation with Mr Duncan Smith regarding a statement by me in support of his position

I was telephoned again on the morning of the 1st October by Paul Baverstock regarding this matter and then by Tim Montgomerie who asked me to attend a meeting with Mr Duncan Smith in his office at 1.00pm. I naturally agreed and met with Mr Duncan Smith. Mr Montgomene was in attendance. Mr Duncan Smith was formal but not aggressive in his manner and explained what was happening. He confirmed that he had placed the matter in the hands of a renowned libel lawyer, Mr David Hooper, of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain and indicated that he had given instruction for the strongest response to be issued—that he would sue any organisation that repeated the allegations in public. Mr Duncan Smith advised me at that meeting that he would certainly take legal action under those circumstances and that, if that were the case, I would be required to give a statement under oath. He advised me that the content of the statement would be to verify I had raised the question of the employment of his wife with him and that I was ‘entirely satisfied’ that the arrangements and circumstances surrounding his wife’s employment had been correct. I immediately knew that I would not be in a position to support his version of events and that, in the event that the matter were to go to court, I would not be able to testify to those facts. However, I hoped that the matter might not end in this way and chose to remain silent.

• The second conversation with Mr Duncan Smith regarding a statement by me in support of his position

I was telephoned by Mrs Watson at 4.30pm on the afternoon of Friday 3rd October and advised that Mr Duncan Smith wished to speak to me. This call was to my mobile telephone for which a record can be obtained. In the moments before Mr Duncan Smith was able to come to the telephone, I had a brief conversation with Mrs Watson and she advised me that Mr Duncan Smith’s lawyers were about to arrive to

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 89

speak to her. I asked her if, under the circumstances, she had taken legal advice. Mr Duncan Smith then came to the telephone and asked me where I was. I replied that I was, by arrangement in Cheltenham. He appeared disappointed that I was not in London because his lawyer was visiting the office but said it could wait. He then asked me a number of questions appertaining to my emails and appeared very concerned by the prospect that Mr Crick might have a copy of one or both of them. He then repeated his threat to take legal action in the event that the allegations were published and that, in those circumstances, I would be required to give a statement under oath. I became increasingly uncomfortable with his stance and neither agreed nor disagreed. He then said he had just spoken to Mr Paterson who had confirmed to him that the first thing he knew of these concerns was when my email of 30th January had originally been sent. I interrupted Mr Duncan Smith mid-sentence and told him I felt duty-bound to advise him that Mr Paterson was mistaken in his version of events and that I had raised the matter with Mr Paterson on a number of occasions in the preceding months. He did not disagree.

• Third and fourth conversations with Mr Duncan Smith regarding a statement by me in support of my position

I travelled to Blackpool on Saturday 4th October. I watched Mr Duncan Smith on the ‘Frost’ Programme on Sunday 5th October and was deeply concerned to hear him describe the allegations as ‘false lies’ and repeat his threat to sue any organisation that published or broadcast these allegations. However, it was already the case that the Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and particularly the Independent on Sunday had run perilously close to revealing exactly what those allegations were. My concerns were further compounded when I received a visit from the Private Secretary to the Chairman in my room at the Imperial Hotel at 11.30am indicating that the Chairman had asked me to make myself available to speak to Mr Duncan Smith on the telephone between 1.00 and 2.00pm. He had previously asked if it would be possible for me to be driven to meet him at Manchester Airport so that he could speak to me in private on the way back to Blackpool but that had proved to be impossible. I telephoned the Chairman because I was concerned about what Mr Duncan Smith was going to ask for. She indicated that it was to discuss the media handling of the story and advised me that I was to be ‘pulled’ from a previously arranged appearance on the live broadcast of the BBC ‘Politics Show’ the following day, Monday 6th October, because of the controversy surrounding my role in writing the email of the 30th January.

I spoke to Mr Duncan Smith twice that afternoon, the first time at 1.20pm when Mr Duncan Smith did indeed discuss media handling and told me not to worry. I felt heartened at his response. However, that relief was dispelled as, at around 2.00pm, I received a second telephone call from Mr Duncan Smith in which he enthusiastically told me that he wanted me to issue a statement through the press along the lines he had indicated I should give under oath. I neither agreed or refused his request in order to give myself some time to think. To move away from the subject, I therefore told him I would consult the Head of Media, Mr Nick Wood, to discuss the matter further. Mr Duncan Smith said he would speak to Mr Wood immediately and ask him to prepare a form of statement.

Subsequent events

I rang Mr Wood immediately myself and told him that under no circumstances could any statement or form of words be issued in my name without consultation with me and my direct approval. I advised him I was returning to the Hotel and would meet him there at 3.00pm. I was now extremely concerned and immediately consulted my line manager Stephen Gilbert. We had spoken often about our concerns over the line that Mr Duncan Smith had chosen to adopt. His statements revealed that we both appeared to be of the same view that the substance of the allegations were more likely than not to be true. We had also both heard that Mr Duncan Smith’s lawyers had made some inaccurate statements regarding Mr Duncan Smith’s role in the matter, which we knew categorically to be untrue—namely that Mr Duncan Smith had not been advised of the concerns prior to the correspondence from the BBC at the end of September 2003.

We were increasingly of the view that Mr Duncan Smith’s approach would in effect do nothing more than to fuel the interest of journalists and that the allegations would eventually be printed or broadcast. If Mr Duncan Smith stood by his word to take legal action, we would be placed in a very difficult position. We agreed that neither of us would be prepared to perjure ourselves to protect the Leader for the Conservative Party—a position also agreed by Paul Baverstock who expressed some bewilderment at the line adopted by Mr Duncan Smith.

90 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

As soon as I advised him of Mr Duncan Smith’s attempt to make me issue a statement; he immediately offered to have an off-the-cuff conversation with Mr Wood to ascertain where he thought the matter might be heading. He did so and was able to reassure me that it was Mr Wood’s view that my issuing a statement that day might provoke a greater interest in the story and that we would leave the matter of the statement in abeyance for the moment. He said he would return to it if he thought it expedient to Mr Duncan Smith’s position. He advised me not to attend functions in the presence of the media.

At the end of that conversation, Stephen Gilbert and I both agreed it was now imperative that we have a private meeting with the Chairman to air our concerns and to request that we be given permission to seek independent legal advice. It was scheduled for approximately 10.00pm. The first editions of the newspapers came out and brought very bad headlines for Mr Duncan Smith. Although the Chairman was now running late it became apparent that the request for the meeting was now more urgent than ever as the more comments Mr Duncan Smith made to the newspapers, the more I became clear in my own mind that I would not be able to support his position. In the event, the meeting between the Chairman, Stephen Gilbert and I was held at 2.00am on Monday 6th October in the presence of Mr Philip May, Mrs May’s husband, in their suite at the Imperial Hotel.

At that meeting, I expressed my concerns and said I felt I was being pressurised to make a statement supporting Mr Duncan Smith. I recognised I was in a pivotal position because I was the author of the original email which had been leaked but I simply could not support Mr Duncan Smith’s version of events regarding the employment of his wife. I said I was advising Mrs May of my position privately in the hope that some way might be found of making Mr Duncan Smith understand that his stand was potentially dangerous as he would not be able to rely on my statements to support him in the way he was hoping. To do anything else could result in my in effect committing an act of perjury before the Court as far as I was concerned. Stephen Gilbert agreed that this account of the facts was indeed correct and added that he too felt very uncomfortable about Mr Duncan Smith’s chosen stance because he believed the substance of the allegations to be true. He then raised the question of independent legal advice. The Chairman agreed that we could both seek such advice and commented that no-one should do or say anything which forced them to compromise their integrity or that was not the truth. The meeting then concluded at approximately 2.25am. From a conversation between the Chairman and I held at 6.30pm on Friday 10 October, I now know that the Chairman reported our concerns back to Mr Duncan Smith.

On Tuesday 7th October an unauthorised article about me appeared in The Independent newspaper which had clearly been briefed. The article indicated that Mr Duncan Smith had sought to dismiss me from my post earlier in the summer and that I had sought legal advice at that time. I telephoned the Head of Media, Mr Wood, to report my concerns about the publication of this story but he advised me he had much more important issues to deal with. As a result of the story I was contacted by the Gloucestershire Echo which had picked up the story so I sought advice from the Deputy Director of Communications, Mr Richard Chalk, as to what line I should take. He promised to come back to me with a response but never did. No one from the Leader’s Office bothered to contact me to reassure me that there was no substance to the story or that it had not been briefed by them.

That evening, James Gray MP approached me to advise me that Owen Paterson had been briefing other MPs against me, questioning my integrity and loyalty to the Leader. I was extremely upset by these revelations. This information was brought back to me by other sources, and I was told that Mr Wood and the Leader’s Press Officer had been raising questions about my loyalty amongst delegates at the Conference. I was very concerned by what I had heard and called Tim Montgomerie first thing on Wednesday morning to express my concern and to request an urgent meeting with him and Mr Paterson to discuss the matter. Mr Montgomerie eventually came back to me at approximately 7.30pm that evening to say that Mr Paterson had denied briefing against me and that a meeting would not be possible until Monday 13th October. He did however sound sympathetic. I had also repeatedly sought an appointment with the Chairman to discuss my growing concerns but from Tuesday through to the end of the Conference she was unavailable to meet with me. It was when the Chairman, who had previously always found time for me when I asked for it, was unable to see me that I realised that matters were rapidly deteriorating. My concern was that my decision to state openly that I was feeling pressurised by Mr Duncan Smith’s desire for a statement and my disagreement with his version of events were placing my position within CCO and potentially my candidacy at risk. I returned to London on Thursday afternoon and, as had been agreed in my meeting with the Chairman and Stephen

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 91

Gilbert, I immediately made an appointment to meet with my lawyer, Gill Sage of Healy’s Solicitors, London at 10.30am on Friday morning.

• Legal advice and Mr Duncan Smith

Having recounted the facts and discussed the matter in full, I accepted my lawyer’s advice that it was critically important that I state to Mr Duncan Smith for the record the concerns I had raised with the Chairman, setting out the chronology of events in relation to the employment of his wife, and letting him know that I could not support his request for a statement along the lines that he had indicated, for to do so could in effect be perjury before the Court. The purpose of the letter was to formally indicate my position to Mr Duncan Smith in the hope that the matter might be resolved internally while protecting my position as an employee and prospective parliamentary candidate in the event that further moves were being made against me. The letter was sent to Mr Duncan Smith by my lawyer at 3.00pm. She received a response from Mr Hooper by telephone at 5.25pm.

At 6.30pm, I received a telephone call from the Chairman who was extremely agitated that I had sent the letter although she advised me she had not actually seen the text. She had been asked to ask me to retract the letter prior to a meeting with Mr Duncan Smith the following week. I made a verbatim note of the conversation in which she told she I should ‘bite my tongue’ and that she felt ‘personally let down’ by the action I had taken. She advised me I might ‘end up without a job’ and that my action ‘might threaten my candidacy’. She said that ‘the whole pack of cards might come tumbling down’. She added that, although she had agreed to my taking legal advice, she had not expected me ‘to act upon it’. I advised her that I did not believe a meeting with Mr Duncan Smith would resolve my concerns as they stood and asked her why telling the truth should result in my potentially losing my job and my political career. She followed this with a second telephone conversation some fifteen minutes later and asked me again to retract the letter. I said I would consult my lawyer and would consider her request.

My lawyer received an initial substantive reply from Mr Hooper (see Appendix 10) by email at 00.12 that evening.73 The threats to sue me, my lawyer and her firm if I did not retract my lawyer’s letters are self-evident as is the menacing tone to the letter.

I decided I would not retract the letter as I believed it to be truthful in all respects and because it now afforded me great security under increasing pressure from Mr Duncan Smith’s threats. As a gesture of goodwill I offered to retract the clause as indicated in the square brackets of Appendix 6 This was subsequently refused by Mr Hooper and my lawyer was advised at 1.00pm that only a full retraction would suffice or alternatively legal action would be taken against me, my lawyer and her firm.

In the light of these threats of legal action being brought against me I sought advice from a barrister specialising in libel law and explained the details of the case and read out my letter to her. Her advice was that there would be no libel case to answer in a court of law. It was this advice that determined my position not to withdraw my letter. My lawyer communicated my instruction by telephone. The pressure increased as it became evident that the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph were intending to publish details of the allegations against Mr Duncan Smith’s wife. Two other telephone conversations followed between the lawyers but I did not retract my letter. It is important to note that during this very busy day, I received five telephone calls from the Chairman, which I refused to take, and four from Stephen Gilbert. In the meantime, the Sunday Telegraph had planted a reporter outside my home and I received in the region of some 15 telephone calls from current and former colleagues who had been telephoned by the Sunday Telegraph asking questions about my performance as a politician and my integrity. This particular development only served to compound my concern that certain people within CCO had developed a specific strategy to undermine me in the run up to the publication of the allegations and as a potential witness.

On Sunday 12th October, after the newspapers had run their stories, I was telephoned by Stephen Gilbert at approximately 2.35pm and invited to attend a meeting with the Chairman the following day, Monday 13th October. I asked if I should bring my lawyer and whether the meeting in any shape constituted a disciplinary

73 Not appended by the Commissioner.

92 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

hearing. I was advised that it did not and that it would not be necessary to bring my lawyer although I could do so if I wished. He suggested that the meeting was to engage in constructive dialogue about how we could move forward. However, I received a telephone call from my lawyer some fifteen minutes later to be advised that the Chairman had issued a statement stating that I was being summoned to a meeting to give a full account of my actions. Given the conversation I had had a matter of minutes before, the tone of the statement upset me greatly. I telephoned Stephen Gilbert who seemed genuinely surprised and spoke to the Chairman who claimed that these were ‘not her words’. Nonetheless, this statement generated enormous press interest for 24 hours and resulted in television cameras and reporters being stationed outside my office, following my movements on a continuing basis since Monday morning.

It was therefore with great concern that I heard Mr Duncan Smith make statements that I believe were less than accurate on the evening of Tuesday 14th October. First, during his interview with Adam Boulton on SKY television he stated that he ‘did not ask me to give a statement’. (See Appendix 11 for a transcript).74 Second, on Channel 4 with Elinor Goodman he stated that he had ‘thanked me for raising’ this issue and then went on to say ‘I have not asked her to support me in regard to the submissions to Sir Philip and I am still not asking her’ (see Appendix 12 for a transcript).75 Third, when asked by ITN reporters on the evening news whether any member of staff had been threatened with legal action, he replied ‘That’s rubbish’. As you will appreciate from the information above, it is my contention that none of these statements were factually accurate.

Based on the facts available to me and despite all the pressure that has been applied to me in the past week I am still unable to support Mr Duncan Smith’s position over the employment of his wife.

Conclusion

This document has aimed to provide as detailed an account as I am able to give on the matters relevant to your inquiry. I have explained the structure of both offices and the roles performed by the individuals within them. I have described my role as Head of the Leader’s Office and the integration of the two offices including their necessarily close working practices. I have also explained the extent to which pressure has been applied over the past weeks in an attempt to get me to support publicly Mr Duncan Smith’s position.

Based on my previous experience of having run two parliamentary constituency offices over nearly four years, it is my view that it would have been virtually impossible for Mrs Duncan Smith to have undertaken significant amounts of work without having had regular contact with me, particularly given my overall responsibility for the management of the diary.

I do not contend that Mrs Duncan Smith could not have performed certain tasks for Mr Duncan Smith but rather that I saw absolutely no evidence of the work carried out by her.

Given my responsibilities as Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the close working proximity of the parliamentary and Leader’s Offices, and the regular and continuous contact between the staff members concerned (as detailed above), it is difficult to see, by analysing the distribution of tasks and responsibilities within the two offices, what work Mrs Duncan Smith effectively carried out. Furthermore, if Mrs Duncan Smith had been working in excess of 25 hours a week I cannot see how that, given my role, I would not have seen repeated and significant evidence of her work in the form of emails, telephone calls and letters either directly or indirectly. There was no evidence, that I saw, indicating that she had any significant involvement in the diary, correspondence or financial management in the constituency office.

Moreover, from August to December 2002, whenever I raised the issue of Mrs Duncan Smith, not one person ever questioned or contradicted my assertion that she was being paid without appearing to do any work. Critically, these people included Owen Paterson and Christine Watson, both of whom would, had Mrs Duncan Smith worked for over 25 hours a week, certainly have been aware of the extent of her work and would surely have indicated to me that my concerns were unfounded. The memo to me from Christine Watson (see Appendix 4) is important in that it shows the extent of the work being carried out by her and

74 Not appended by the Commissioner. 75 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 93

leaves little if any role for Mrs Duncan Smith. Indeed, the first time I ever heard that Mrs Duncan Smith worked in excess of 25 hours a week was in the statement issued by Mr Duncan Smith on Monday 13th October 2003.

The information as detailed above reveals the facts as I understand them and demonstrates why I felt unable to publicly state that I was entirely satisfied with the arrangements regarding Mr Duncan Smith’s assertion that his wife, Betsy, carried out a position of significant parliamentary work. All the subsequent actions of Mr Duncan Smith and those around him in applying pressure to me have merely confirmed my view.

It remains my conclusion that the press allegations made regarding the employment of Mrs Duncan Smith are significantly more likely to be true than not.

16 October 2003

14. Letter to the Commissioner from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 5 November 2003

Thank you for your letter of 27 October 2003 which, as a result of the postal strike, I only received today. I do apologise for any inconvenience the delay in my response may have caused.

With regard to the two questions you raise regarding my email of 30 January 2002, I can confirm that:

1. I did not discuss whether or not to send the email with Mr MacGregor or anyone else. Indeed, I did not discuss the email in any context with anyone at all in advance of it being sent.

Explanatory note:

As I explained on p.11 of my written submission to you dated l6 October 2003,76 I wrote the email in preparation for a planned meeting between the Chairman, Mrs May, the Chief Executive, Mr MacGregor, and Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, Mr Paterson. This meeting is detailed on the first line of Appendix 1—the email of 30 January 2003.77 The email was intended to advise them of issues which needed to be discussed and resolved.

2. The idea to send the email was mine alone. The circulation was also my sole decision.

Explanatory note:

My objective in sending the email was to protect Mr Duncan Smith by ensuring that action was taken to resolve these outstanding issues as quickly as possible. I had previously and repeatedly raised the question of Mr Duncan Smith’s financial arrangements in weekly communications meetings and, as such, all of the addressees of the email were aware of and involved in these issues. However, the matters had still not been resolved.

The email circulation list included the most senior members of Conservative Central Office at that time— the Chairman and Chief Executive (whose responsibilities required their direct involvement in the resolution of these matters) and the newly appointed Director of Communications, Mr Baverstock. As I noted on p.11 of my submission. I also blind-copied the email to my deputy, Miss Layton, as a matter of regular office procedure, in the event she might need to substitute for me in my absence.

76 See PCS Written Submission 13. 77 See PCS Written Submission 46.

94 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

As I said during our meeting (Transcript. pp. 37&38),78 I did not know at that time that Mr Duncan Smith was planning to remove Mr MacGregor, or anyone else, from Conservative Central Office and therefore all correspondence was sent in absolute good faith.

I do hope my answers help to clarify these matters related to the email but, as ever, please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

5 November 2003

15. Written statement by Mr Jonathan Hellewell, 17 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 12]

1. I have worked in the Private Office of the Leader of the Opposition as Mr Duncan Smith’s Senior Aide since l3th September, 2001 when Mr Duncan Smith became the Leader of the Conservative Party. I also worked for Mr Duncan Smith as his campaign aide during the Conservative Party Leadership Election in the summer of 2001. Apart from Annabelle Eyre, I am the only member of the Private Office who has worked for Mr Duncan Smith since he became Party Leader and who continues to work for him today.

2. My work in the Private Office has been almost wholly on the political and parliamentary, not administrative, side of the office; in doing this I have worked primarily with Owen Paterson and Alistair Burt (Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries) in a separate part of the Leader’s Office from the administrative team, either in Conservative Central Office, or in the House of Commons after the office was moved back there. The only exception to this was the period of a month or so immediately following the Leadership election in September 2001 in which I literally worked alongside Annabelle Eyre, Mr Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary, and Andrew Whitby-Collins, Mr Duncan Smith’s Diary Secretary, in the Leader’s outer office in Conservative Central Office.

3. In working for Mr Duncan Smith during the leadership election in the summer of 2001, I quickly became aware of how his office in the House of Commons, then situated in the Norman Shaw building, worked before he became the Party Leader.

4. I was aware that Mrs Duncan Smith was an active part of the office. I occasionally sat at Mrs Duncan Smith’s desk in his Norman Shaw office when the other desks in the office were in use. On the first occasion on which this happened, Annabelle Eyre told me to be careful not to disturb the work either on the desk or on the computer, which was Mrs Duncan Smith’s files containing diary invitations, replies, constituency correspondence and so forth were stored on or next to the desk and she had a telephone and a computer which clearly had on it files used by her for her work. If I was working at the desk I sometimes took calls for Mrs Duncan Smith about work-related matters. This office was given up some time—not later than a couple of months—after Mr Duncan Smith became Leader of the Conservative Party and Mrs Duncan Smith thenceforth worked from home full-time. I knew there was an office in Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith’s house in Fulham and in Swanbourne I was aware of this because I visited both houses in 2001/2 and saw these offices and because Annabelle Eyre and Mrs Duncan Smith told me during the summer of 2001 that Annabelle Eyre had spent the General Election of 2001 typing constituency letters with Mrs Duncan Smith in the Fulham house whilst Mr Duncan Smith was sent around the country with an aide. I was thus aware that it was normal for Mrs Duncan Smith to be based in part in a fully- functioning office at home.

5. In addition, during the period in which I worked alongside Annabelle Eyre and Andrew Whitby-Collins in the autumn of 2001, after Mr Duncan Smith had become Party Leader, I was conscious that they were in regular telephone contact with Mrs Duncan Smith. I saw large amounts of work being faxed to and

78 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 95

from Mrs Duncan Smith’s home office as well as packages of work being sent to and fro in the post. I frequently heard Annabelle Eyre discussing with Mrs Duncan Smith the history of specific constituents’ cases which Mr Duncan Smith had taken up; I also heard Andrew Whitby-Collins discussing diary matters and contacts with Mrs Duncan Smith, who was evidently knowledgeable both about the history of constituents’ cases but also about Mr Duncan Smith’s political engagements and contacts.

6. After this period, that is after the autumn of 2001, when I was no longer physically seated alongside Annabelle Eyre, Andrew Whitby-Collins (and—later—Christine Watson) in the Leader’s office, I was aware in a general, but not specific sense that they continued to be in regular touch with Mrs Duncan Smith because my office was adjacent to theirs. By this, I mean that I would hear them speaking to her on the telephone discussing work matters if I was passing through their part of the office; but obviously I was not aware of which specific constituents’ cases or diary engagements they were discussing.

7. In summary, I was aware that Mrs Duncan Smith undertook work for Mr Duncan Smith which related to his role as Member of Parliament for Chingford & Woodford Green, both before and after his election to the Leadership of the Conservative Party. I have been surprised to read in the press of Vanessa Gearson’s apparent allegations about Mrs Duncan Smith, not least because she was not well placed to know whether or not such work was being undertaken.

8. Vanessa Gearson worked in the office from September 2002 as “Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office”. I do not believe that, due to the nature of her work she would have had any detailed knowledge of any contact with Mrs Duncan Smith, though obviously she should have had a general knowledge that Mrs Duncan Smith did undertake some work from the office at home.

9. Vanessa Gearson’s work was wholly unrelated to constituency matters, which were managed in Westminster successively by Annabelle Eyre and Christine Watson (latterly with some additional help from Cara Walker and David Haselhurst), from home by Mrs Duncan Smith and in Chingford by the Agent, Rikki Radford.

10. Vanessa Gearson’s job was to liaise administratively with the Shadow Cabinet (for example, to inform them of the times of meetings); to sit in on all the regular meetings such as the Morning Meeting; and additionally to attend almost all other ad hoc meetings during the day with Mr Duncan Smith in his office within the series of rooms in the Leader’s office.

11. In summary, I do not believe that Vanessa Gearson would be well placed to know whether or not Mrs Duncan Smith was undertaking work for Mr Duncan Smith in his role as Member of Parliament for Chingford & Woodford Green.

12. I was at no time aware of the arrangements related to Mrs Duncan Smith’s salary apart from the information contained in the two e-mails sent by Vanessa Gearson, copies of which I saw at the time.

E-mails:

13. With regard to the e-mails sent by Vanessa Gearson, of which I understand you now have a copy, I remember that in late January 2003, Vanessa Gearson sent an e-mail to Mark MacGregor (Chief Executive), Theresa May (Party Chairman) and to Paul Baverstock (Director of Communications). From memory, I was first made aware of this e-mail when I was having a conversation with Owen Paterson in the House of Commons. Paul Baverstock approached us and showed us a printed copy of the e-mail.

14. Both Owen Paterson and I were astonished at the e-mail due to the extraordinary nature of the claims made within it and the very odd style in which the e-mail was written. Its formal style was so different to the relatively informal e-mails normally written within the Party (including by Vanessa Gearson) that I was particularly struck by it. I remember that my immediate reaction, which I voiced to Owen Paterson, was that the e-mail “looked as if it had been written to be leaked”.

15. I was aware that Vanessa Gearson subsequently sent another e-mail to the recipients of the first e-mail, in which she made clear that her original concerns were groundless. I know this because I saw a printed copy of it at the time.

96 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

16. To the best of my knowledge, Vanessa Gearson never repeated the concerns raised in the first e-mail nor complained about the way in which they were handled.

17. I was additionally aware that when Christine Watson became Mr Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary and thus took on an additional workload, both she and Annabelle Eyre (who had taken on the job of arranging Mr Duncan Smith’s visits around the country as well as in the constituency) were keen that some of their salary should be paid by Conservative Central Office funds in order to reflect the fact that some of their work was done for Mr Duncan Smith in his role as Leader of the Opposition as well as in his role as a constituency MP.

18. I was aware on numerous occasions (based on conversations with Christine Watson and Annabelle Eyre) that Mark MacGregor, then Chief Executive of the Party, tried over a considerable period of time to block any such new arrangement being made by refusing to authorise the finance and personnel departments at Conservative Central Office to make the arrangements for these two additional Party salaries. I believed that Mark MacGregor did not want either Annabelle Eyre or Christine Watson to continue working for Mr Duncan Smith. Eventually, such an arrangement was made for Christine Watson but Annabelle Eyre had to be paid separately by a Party donor, (which was publicly declared in Annabelle Eyre’s House of Commons Register of Interests). After Mark MacGregor’s departure, she started to be paid directly from Conservative Central Office funds.

17 October 2003

16. E-mail to the Commissioner from Ms Belinda McCammon, 18 November 2003

Subject: Re: Complaint against Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP

My apologies for the delay in responding to you.

• the position you held whilst you were working for Mr Duncan Smith and your duties in that position;

I was a press secretary for the duration of the leadership campaign and then went into the Leaders Office in the same capacity.

• the dates in question;

From the moment he became Leader (September 13th 2001 from recollection) until end of Jan 2002.

• what opportunity you had from that position to observe any activity by Mrs Duncan Smith;

I was in the corner office occupied by all the Leaders Office staff and as a result of needing to work with his private secretary (Annabelle Eyre) and his diary secretary (Andrew Whitby-Collins) along with the majority of staff at the time, were in and out of the office that they occupied.

• whether you observed any such activity, and if so what it was;

On several occasions during the course of my employment I observed Mrs Duncan Smith come into the office. These were when she was required to come into London to attend a function. During these times she took the opportunity to go through the diary with the diary secretary. As there were only three desks (all occupied) in a small office space she would often kneel on the floor to go through any additions or changes with Andrew. I knew, from hearing conversations between Andrew (with Mrs Duncan Smith on the other end) that he would call her to check on whether she was available for certain functions or if any dates clashed with family/school activities. I was not aware that she was working from home on anything than co- ordinating the diary for the benefit of the family and for when Iain Duncan Smith was at home, to ensure it was up to date.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 97

• whether you were aware of any concerns that might have been held about Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment and if so the nature of those concerns, by whom they were held, when they came to your attention and what, if anything, you know was done about them;

I had no concerns because I was not aware that Mrs Duncan Smith was employed as a diary secretary. From my understanding the diary secretary would check with her on a regular basis if Iain Duncan Smith was not contactable or if he needed to keep her informed of the Leaders future plans. I did not think the involvement was anything more than a politician’s spouse being kept in the loop. I was only made aware of the concerns when I read them through Sky News on the internet, from New Zealand. The months that I was in the leaders office was a chaotic and disorganised time so I certainly had not reason to think that there were any concerns in this particular area.

• whether there is any other relevant matter relating to any of the different strands of the complaint against Mr Duncan Smith which I have described that you would wish to bring to my attention.

I have nothing else that I would consider to be relevant.

Please don’t hesitate to email or call me for clarification of any of these points.

18 November 2003

17. E-mail to the Commissioner from Ms Belinda McCammon, 22 December 2003

Subject: Re: Complaint against Iain Duncan Smith

My comments are in relation to the second paragraph only.

During my time in the Leaders office I undertook a number of press duties, including accompanying the Leader to interviews (ie Breakfast with Frost), a media trip to Portsmouth and advance recce work for future visits, which involved reporting to Nick Wood.

I am confused as to why Mr Penning does not consider this to be press work or thinks that in order to be a press secretary for the Leader you had to be seated with the other press secretaries when my role, with whatever job title was to be in the Leaders Office However it is of no surprise to me, rather a source of disappointment, that Mr Penning’s lack of knowledge of what specifically my role was in the Leaders office But his comments are indicative of the state of affairs in the office at the time I can honestly say that most of us didn’t know what our specific roles were during our time in the Leaders office, such was the chaos after the election.

The small team that occupied the leaders office lacked management and leadership. As a result there was much discussion within the team as to what work needed to be completed and who would be doing it, including conversations with those working directly on the diary as to what was happening. Consequently conversations about the diary and the work load did take place, albeit motivated through frustration and exasperation as to what was happening in the office and the wider roles we were all to play.

I would have thought that as the salary range that Mrs Duncan Smith is alleged to have drawn is not a lot less than the majority of those working at CCO (an average of 20,000 pds) her work as a paid staff member would have been mentioned or acknowledged beyond the role of her support as wife of the Leader.

On three occasions the structure of the office was discussed with me officially. (There were of course other occasions that informal conversations took place). I can not recall at any time Mrs Duncan Smith being described as an employee of the Leaders Office. The first meeting was a group meeting (all campaign staff) with David Maclean only days before the announcement of the leaders result. The second was with Stephen O'Brien, the MP assigned to run the Leaders office until a Chief of Staff was appointed. This conversation

98 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

about the office structure and roles did not include Mrs Duncan Smith's involvement, other than that of general spousal support to the Leader.

The third occasion was when the Chief of Staff was appointed. Again no mention of Mrs Duncan Smiths role despite talking through the entire structure of the office.

I would also mention that during the campaign I fielded many calls from the media requesting interviews, information and photo opportunities with both Mrs Duncan Smith and the children. It was made very clear to me that Mrs Duncan Smith would not be available for any media opportunities at any time nor would she be actively involved other than the bare minimum of duties that the position of the wife of the Leader was obliged to fulfil.

22 December 2003

18. Written statement by Mr Mark MacGregor, 18 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 14]

1. Background

Having been asked to give evidence to Sir Phillip Mawer, I am writing in my capacity as former Chief Executive of the Conservative Party, a position I held from January 2002 to 14th February 2003. In that role, I had overall responsibility for the day to day management of Conservative Central Office (CCO), all staffing matters as well as the financial management of the organisation. This included, for example, the approval of all staffing appointments and redundancies, signing of any expenditure of more than £1,000, negotiating with the party’s bankers in respect of the over-draft and all major political or fundraising initiatives. At that time, the organisation had an annual turnover of £13 million with approximately 190 staff including around 10 who worked in the Leader’s Office under Jenny Ungless. As such, any payment to Betsy Duncan Smith was a comparatively minor matter. In fact, as this payment came out of the Leader’s Office Cost Allowance, it was not part of my budget at all and therefore, at one level, was not my responsibility as Chief Executive of Conservative Central Office.

Prior to my employment starting on 1st January, I spent much of the previous month meeting the various Directors and Heads of Departments and discussing the operation of their departments, staffing matters, potential problems etc so that I had a proper understanding of how the organisation functioned and who performed what task. In the context of this enquiry, these discussions included the then head of the Leader’s Office, Jenny Ungless.

To gain a full understanding of what was happening on a day to day basis with the organisation, I instituted a weekly catch up meeting with all Directors and the Heads of the Leader’s and Chairman’s Offices. I held regular meetings with Jenny Ungless as Head of the Leader’s Office. Once I had gained a better understanding of the operation, I cancelled the weekly meeting and held, instead bi-monthly half day Directors’ meeting which included Jenny Ungless and Vanessa Gearson.

2. The period from January 2002–September 2002

The financial position of the organisation was extremely precarious at the beginning of 2002, as we had not re- negated our overdraft agreement with the bank and there was a shortfall in income over expenditure of approximately £2–300k per month. My first action therefore was to agree a series of financial expenditure reductions together with a programme of income generation. This was aimed at reducing the annual net “trading” deficit of the organisation by around £1 million, to be achieved mostly by staff redundancies.

In this capacity, I went through every member of staff with their responsible Director, carefully identifying potential candidates for redundancy. This led to two rounds of redundancies, the first at the end of January 2002 and the second in May 2002 with approximately 30 members of staff being made redundant. One of the departments where staff were made redundant was the Leader’s Office. In this case, I agreed with Jenny

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 99

Ungless that to achieve the redundancies would require a restructuring of the roles within the office. Although it is true that members of the Leader’s Constituency Office staff were not on the Conservative Central Office (CCO) payroll—and therefore in theory not part of my responsibility—whenever I discussed staffing matters with Jenny Ungless, we naturally covered the roles performed by the individuals who worked on constituency-related matters. This was in part because the Leader had asked for a Constituency Agent, Rikki Radford, to be directly employed by CCO and we had a responsibility to ensure that he was playing an effective role in organising the Leader’s constituency and party related activities in his Parliamentary seat.

From all my discussions in the early months at CCO, it was clear to me what roles were being performed by the different members of the team in the Leader’s Office. Indeed, as the Leader’s Office was located for the mornings on the same floor of CCO as me, about 30 feet away from my own office, and I was a regular visitor to the Leader’s Office, both to meet the Leader or to see other members of his team, I was extremely aware of the work that was being undertaken. I was involved in regular discussions with Jenny about some of the pressures she faced in attempting to manage the office as well as looking at the diary. Although I have no knowledge of whether Betsy Duncan Smith was constantly telephoning any of the Diary or Correspondence Secretaries or in regular email or written contact with the office, I find it surprising that at no time did anyone ever mention that Betsy Duncan Smith was performing a key role in the running of the office. Indeed the only conversations I ever had related to her in this period with members of staff who worked in the Leader’s Office were in relation to persuading her or her children to attend events with Iain.

I also find it surprising, in the light of subsequent claims that Betsy Duncan Smith was doing 25 hours work each week that I never once spoke to her on the telephone, received an email or letter from her about any aspect of that work during my entire time at Conservative Central Office despite the fact that I had regular contact with evey other member of the Leader’s staff. In fact, I was not even aware that Betsy Duncan Smith was being paid at all until the summer of 2002, though I did know that Iain was spending up to the limit of the Office Cost Allowance. If I had been aware that Betsy Duncan Smith was being paid any amount during the period when we were making staff redundant, I would have certainly have raised the issue with Jenny Ungless to see if we could use that money to fund other members of staff who could legitimately have been paid out of that allowance. For example, it was certainly the case that part of Rikki Radford’s role was assisting the Leader in constituency-related activity which could have been reclaimed from the Office Cost Allowance, had there been any spare funds to pay for that part of his time.

I cannot recall precisely when I did learn that Betsy Duncan Smith was receiving a payment from the Office Cost Allowance but I believe I had a conversation with Jenny Ungless in the early summer of 2002 when the issue was raised in passing. At the time, I did not think any more about the issue in part because, having never worked in the House of Commons, I was not aware of the rules over employment of spouses though I knew that there had been concern in the papers about MPs abusing the payments in the past. I thought no more about the matter until it was raised again in early September by the new Head of Iain’s office, Vanessa Gearson.

Throughout this whole period, at no point did any other Director or other member of staff refer to work undertaken by Betsy or her role either in the constituency or within CCO, except in arranging when she or the children would attend functions either in the constituency or elsewhere. I should also add that I had frequent meetings with Iain and others about his Diary, particularly in the run up to Conservative Party Conference in October 2002 where I was responsible for ensuring that actions were taken to put events into his diary. Again, at no time did either Iain or any other member of staff suggest that I should liaise with Betsy Duncan Smith either about constituency or party related activity.

3. The Employment Position of Annabelle Eyre

The only other issue relating to staffing matters within the Leader’s Office that I have not already covered, concerned the status of Annabelle Eyre. In the Spring of 2002, I was told by Jenny Ungless that there was a problem over the employment of Annabelle Eyre. The problem, in essence, was that, although she was still at that stage undertaking some work for the Leader that could be legitimately claimed back from the Office Cost Allowance, the majority of her work was now assisting with work in the Leader’s Office on tours and events outside his constituency. As such, Jenny Ungless explained that we would have to move her across from being paid by the Fees Office to the Leader’s Office budget. I explained to her that, while I was willing to consider

100 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

such a move, budgets had now been set for the year and we would have to find savings elsewhere before she could be taken on to the Central Office payroll.

We did not resolve the matter immediately though it was raised again both by Iain and Jenny in meetings with me. It was not seen as an especially urgent issue to resolve and therefore, as I had many other far more pressing matters to deal with, the matter simply was left. Annabelle Eyre herself raised the matter with me on one occasion in the corridor by saying that she would have to move across to the CCO payroll but there seemed to be no deadline for the action to be taken. If I had been informed that she was coming off the OCA on a specific date then clearly she would have to have been taken onto the Leader’s Office budget as Iain saw her as a key member of his staff. Because of the sensitivities of my getting involved in the running of the Leader’s office, which Iain clearly saw as his domain, I also saw this primarily as a matter for the Leader to resolve with Jenny Ungless directly.

In all of the 3–4 conversations I had about this issue, it was always absolutely clear that all those involved were aware that the majority of the work that Annabelle Eyre was undertaking was not reclaimable under the OCA.

When Vanessa Gearson took over in September 2002, the issue was resolved, after considerable argument, when a donor agreed to fund Annabelle Eyre directly. She was then employed, initially, as part of a small team to organise events for Iain around the country in the aftermath of the Party Conference which was merely an extension of the work she had been previously performing.

4. The period from September 2002–January 2003

It was not until Vanessa Gearson was taken on as the Head of the Leader’s Office in September 2002 that I became aware that there might be a problem with the employment of Betsy Duncan Smith. Because Vanessa Gearson and I had worked together while she was working for the Chairman of the Party, we already had a good professional relationship. I briefed her on the budget and some of the other personnel issues within the office and, with her background in the House of Commons, I believed that she could get a proper grip on the management of the Office which had been left in a void since the departure of Jenny Ungless in July 2002.

The issue of the employment of Betsy Duncan Smith was first raised with me by Vanessa Gearson in mid or early September at a meeting in my office. The subject was raised with me, in part because it was related to the matter of taking on another member of staff, Cara Walker, to replace Christine Watson who was supposed to come on to the CCO payroll and in part because Vanessa wished to ask for my advice about how the matter should be handled. She simply explained, in very clear terms, that Iain was paying Betsy Duncan Smith out of the OCA and, in her view, no work seemed to be being undertaken in return. I stated that we needed, as a matter of urgency, to protect the reputation of the Leader and suggested that she raise the matter initially with Owen Paterson, his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

The employment of Betsy Duncan Smith was raised on a number of subsequent occasions by Vanessa Gearson, and on at least one such occasion, Stephen Gilbert, with whom I shared an office, was also present. At no point in the discussion of the matter did Vanessa ever indicate that anyone had said to her that the payments to Betsy were legitimate as she was undertaking constituency work for the Leader. We decided that it was best to continue to press Owen Paterson to raise the matter directly with Iain for two reasons. First, because he was Iain’s closest Parliamentary colleague and it was an extremely sensitive topic that needed to be handled carefully, especially as Iain had a tendency to react badly to discussions of a personal nature unless they were handled with great skill. Second, as a Member of Parliament himself, Owen had a full understanding of the rules and regulations of the House and would appreciate the potential political sensitivities of the issue.

I am unable to say how often this issue was raised directly with Iain by Owen but, obviously, as this period coincided with the 2002 Conservative Party Conference and the post Conference Leader’s Tour, it was a very busy time. However, in subsequent discussions with Owen both by myself and with others, he confirmed that the matter had been discussed with Iain.

It was during this period that I also instituted a weekly Chairman’s Communications meeting where the key players at CCO would discuss the forthcoming week and any major issues that needed to be tackled. One of the key items on the agenda was the Leader’s Diary for the month ahead. We were never asked to contact

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 101

Betsy Duncan Smith about any of the arrangements or changes being made to the diary nor to discuss any other issue except, intermittently, about her own personal attendance at events. However, the issue of how to persuade the Leader to take his wife off the OCA payroll was raised on at least two occasions at which Theresa May, Sir Stanley Kalms, Owen Paterson, Stephen Gilbert and Vanessa Gearson were present.

Throughout this period, although the matter was seen as sensitive, it was only ever seen as fairly straightforward and simply required Iain to take his wife off the OCA payroll. There were no long debates or discussions. To illustrate how difficult it was for us to believe that Betsy Duncan Smith was undertaking work for the Leader in his constituency, I would mention the example of the Leader’s Tour in November 2002. As I stated above, I created a special team in September 2002 to organise a 3–4 week tour for the Leader immediately after Conservative Party Conference. As part of the tour, Iain would still have to maintain a limited programme of constituency events, usually on a Friday. I pulled together a team of people from around the organisation to manage this tour and held an initial brainstorming meeting to define what needed to be done as well as other regular planning meetings with the team. We naturally discussed how the constituency activity would be fitted in around the rest of the tour and how the team would liaise with Christine Watson. But, at no time did anyone mention that another person for us to talk to or pass papers to was Betsy Duncan Smith, except in respect of the very limited number of meetings where she would be expected to attend in her capacity as the Leader’s wife.

No progress had been made to resolve the issue of Betsy’s employment by November 2002. At this point, the story broke in the newspapers about the abuse of payments by Michael Trend MP. Both at private one-on-one meetings with Vanessa Gearson and Owen Paterson and at the regular weekly Chairman’s Communications meeting, I raised my growing concern about the political sensitivities of the employment status of Betsy. Everyone understood the ramifications of possible revelations that the Leader of the Conservative Party was making payments to his wife without her undertaking any work. I raised privately with Owen that I thought we might have to look at whether some proportion of the money should be repaid to the Fees Office.

At no time, during discussion of this matter, did anyone present at any of the Chairman’s communications Meetings or any other bilateral meetings, including those who were in possession of the facts, such as Owen Paterson and Vanessa Gearson, say that Betsy Duncan Smith was or had undertaken any work in return for the payment. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case: the only discussion was how to persuade Iain that the payment should be stopped, not whether the payments could in any way be justified.

Some weeks later, in December, I was assured by both Owen and Vanessa that Iain had agreed to take Betsy Duncan Smith off the OCA and to end her employment. That this had in fact been done was confirmed to me in early January.

Although I remained of the view that the money that had been improperly paid to Betsy Duncan Smith should have been repaid, I was so relieved that the problem had been dealt with and had so many pressing matters to handle that I decided to keep my opinion to myself.

18 October 2003

19. Written statement by Mr Owen Patterson MP, 21 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 18]

Background

1. I am the Member of Parliament for North Shropshire and was first elected in 1997. I had very few dealings with Iain Duncan Smith in my first term in Parliament. However, when William Hague stood down as Leader of the Opposition, I joined Iain’s campaign team and I was responsible for keeping the book logging MPs’’ voting intentions.

102 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

2. The complaint against Mr Duncan-Smith involves an allegation that his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, was improperly paid by Mr Duncan Smith from his Parliamentary staffing allowance after he had become Leader of the Opposition in September 2001 until December 2002. I am asked to shed light from my own experience on the truth or otherwise of these allegations. In order to do so I need to include my recollection of the period which pre-dates the specific dates which are the subject of the investigation.

3. I have made this statement in the short time I have had since receiving a fax from the Parliamentary Commissioner in the afternoon of Friday 17th October 2003. I have tried to recollect events as best as I can, but I have not had sight of documents that may have been produced at the time in order to refresh my memory. If there are specific documents, comments or issues which I am asked to explain, I will need to do so when I have had a proper opportunity to consider them further.

Relevant arrangements prior to September 2001

4. To the best of my knowledge, prior to being appointed Leader of the Opposition, Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency office was located in the Parliamentary offices for MPs at Norman Shaw North, where Mr Duncan Smith had a suite of two rooms. The first time I recall meeting Betsy Duncan Smith was when I visited Mr Duncan Smith’s offices there. This was in June 2001. When, at the beginning of the campaign for the Leadership, I visited Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency offices, the lady to whom I subsequently introduced myself was on the telephone sitting at a workstation when I arrived. From the tone of the call it sounded as though she was dealing with a constituency matter. When the call ended, we went through brief introductions and I established that she was Betsy Duncan Smith. To the best of my knowledge, she was sitting at her own desk. There were lots of papers on her desk and she carried on working whilst I made some telephone calls from another desk. She continued with her work, which seemed to be related to political issues.

5. The other desk in the outer room of these offices was occupied by Annabelle Eyre. She was also seated at a workstation with papers and appeared to be fielding calls. So far as I was aware there were therefore two people busy dealing with Mr Duncan Smith’s work as an MP at the time. Iain was not only MP for Chingford and Woodford Green but also Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

6. I do not recall having more than a passing conversation with either Betsy Duncan Smith or Annabelle Eyre on this occasion. Both seemed to be involved in their work and, as I had urgent matters to attend to, we only exchanged pleasantries. I was there for only about an hour and during that time both Betsy Duncan Smith and Annabelle Eyre continued with their work. This is now a couple of years ago and so my recollections are not particularly detailed. I mention the matter only because this was the first time that I met Betsy Duncan Smith.

7. I went to the Norman Shaw North offices only a few times. I tended to meet Iain Duncan Smith there mainly to interview other MPs to discover their voting intentions. This was a place in which we would have a degree of privacy. So far as I am aware, only people with authorised access were allowed to be in the offices.

8. I saw no change in the arrangements which I have described above whenever I went to Norman Shaw North again. My recollection is that the offices looked the same on each occasion with desks occupied by Betsy Duncan Smith and Annabelle Eyre respectively and a spare desk, all in the office adjoining the office in which Iain Duncan Smith had his desk.

9. When Iain Duncan Smith entered the Party Leadership contest in June 2001, we set up a campaign office at 11, Lord North Street. This was solely for the purpose of conducting the Leadership campaign for Iain. As Iain had asked me to assist him in the Leadership campaign, my focus from that point onwards was upon Lord North Street, although obviously I had to continue to deal with constituency matters of my own.

10. My constituency is rural and it differs from Iain’s in many respects. Nevertheless my experience of dealing with constituency work is that solving individual problems can take a lot of time. They are a central and vital part of any MP’s work. They are a priority as, if they are not attended to efficiently and effectively, constituents, quite rightly, complain vigorously. Problems can continue over a considerable

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 103

period of time and take time to resolve. Continuity in the process of fielding these matters and being on top of them is therefore very important. I assume that Iain had to deal with the same sort of issues through his constituency office, but I do not know, as I was not involved in his constituency. I can only speak from my own experiences of being an MP. I can say that he has a reputation for being a good local MP.

11. Those involved in conducting the campaign (including myself) used to meet at 11, Lord North Street to work on the Leadership campaign daily. I do not recall Betsy Duncan Smith coming to work at the Lord North Street office but I had no expectation that she would, as the office was dedicated entirely to campaign matters, whereas she was only involved in constituency issues. We had many volunteers helping with the campaign itself.

12. The Leadership election campaign lasted for about 3 months. The first month involved the Parliamentary stage and then there were two months in which the candidates went to the country to develop support among Party members. I was not the campaign manager but played a central role.

Relevant arrangements from September 2001 onwards

13. At around the time of Iain Duncan Smith’s victory in the Leadership election, he telephoned me and invited me to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS). I accepted the invitation and shortly afterwards visited his home in Swanbourne, Buckinghamshire. This is a country house which had recently been vacated by Iain’s parents-in-law and was in need of some modernisation. Iain and his family had moved in only recently. I met Betsy Duncan Smith but my conversations on this occasion were almost exclusively with Iain. We discussed party issues and I would not have expected Betsy to have been involved.

14. In the very early days when I telephoned Swanbourne, it often proved rather difficult to get through due to the lack of facilities. The telephone was often engaged. Betsy Duncan Smith would invariably answer my calls. I have not visited Swanbourne since that visit, but soon after Iain took over the Leadership, modern office facilities were installed and communications improved markedly.

15. Once the Leadership campaign had been won, the 11, Lord North Street operations were closed down. From September 2001 to late summer 2002, the Leader’s Office was based in the mornings at offices at 32/34 Smith Square, the Conservative Party Central Office. The Office was in a building connected by a corridor to the main Party headquarters in 32 Smith Square.

16. I was not responsible for setting up the Leader’s Office at Smith Square. However, as PPS I was involved in Iain Duncan Smith’s daily routine. My understanding of my duties as PPS to Iain Duncan Smith was initially drawn from discussions which I had with William Hague’s last PPS, John Whittingdale.

17. He said that the main role of the PPS was to keep in touch with MPs. He advised that the PPS should accompany the Leader on all Parliamentary occasions but should strike a balance between sticking with the Leader at meetings inside and outside Parliament and keeping in touch with colleagues on behalf of the Leader. His view also was that the PPS should act as a sounding board for the Leader and that he should liaise closely with the Shadow Cabinet. Iain went further and created a half-hourly slot in his diary each day so that MPs could discuss with him any issues which might arise. John Whittingdale also said that it was vital for the PPS to attend all Shadow Cabinet meetings, meetings of the 1922 Committee, other parliamentary meetings, appointments meetings and to liaise closely with the Chief Whip. Another extremely time consuming part of the role was to handle all correspondence to the Leader from MPs, peers, MEPs, Scottish MSPs, Welsh AMs, the Board of the Party, Constituency Chairman and Councillors. It was on this advice that I modelled my role as PPS.

18. My role as PPS did not involve Iain’s constituency and so I have no direct knowledge of how he handled them apart from what I have already said. Looking back, if I had applied my mind to it, I would have assumed that Iain’s constituency matters were dealt with in the same way as before he became Leader. I, for example, continued to deal with my own constituency and handled the PPS role separately.

104 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

19. John Whittingdale told me that in his view Iain should employ a Chief of Staff based permanently in the Leader’s office. This should not be an MP. He told me that William Hague had had a highly efficient manager called Tina Stowell.

20. It may be obvious to say this but an MP’s day usually continues into the evening and it is often only after the Westminster day that he has time to catch up with constituency and other political matters matters which have arisen during the day. This is why many MPs employ their wives as secretaries, as they can be a point of contact during the day and after work can discuss or chase up issues, whether by telephone or otherwise. The MP’s wife builds up a substantial fund of local knowledge and political contacts. It is also important to preserve the personal relationship between an MP and his constituency. If this arrangement is changed for any reason, it has to be done gradually and delicately so as to provide continuity.

21. This is my experience of what is after all a unique job involving the relationship with the constituency and the work in the House of Commons itself. Because so much of the work happens after Westminster hours I would not have any direct knowledge of personal arrangements involving Iain Duncan Smith.

22. The arrangements which operated at 34 Smith Square were that Annabelle Eyre, who had previously worked in Iain Duncan Smith’s office at Norman Shaw North, moved to become his Private Secretary at the Leader’s Office. She sat immediately outside Iain Duncan Smith’s own office, sharing an office with Andrew Whitby-Collins whose role was to organise Iain’s diary, with the help of input on Iain’s constituency commitments. Jonathan Hellewell also worked in the office adjoining Iain’s for the first few weeks, before he joined me in my office. I was based in a separate office down the corridor from Iain. I confirm that whenever passing through the outer office on the way to see Iain, I frequently heard Annabelle Eyre or Andrew Whitby-Collins on the telephone to Betsy Duncan Smith.

23. In the afternoons each day, when Parliament was sitting, the Leader’s team would move to his office in the House of Commons, following the pattern that William Hague’s office had established. My office at the House was at the furthest end of a series of rooms that comprised the Leader’s Office in the House of Commons.

24. With Annabelle Eyre becoming Private Secretary, Christine Watson was taken on by Iain Duncan Smith to handle constituency matters. She did so until the late Summer of 2002. She worked in a completely separate office in the House of Commons. I did not ever visit her office and had no particular reason to do so, because as I have said, I was not involved in Iain’s constituency matters. I have never visited Iain Duncan Smith’s constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green. Due to the fact that I represent a rural seat in Shropshire, Iain and I have very few constituency issues in common.

25. Some of the staff inherited from the Leadership campaign had insufficient experience for the Leader’s Office, once the Leadership campaign had concluded and left in the winter of 2001/2002. The volume of work in the Leader’s Office increased, as John Whittingdale had predicted. Jenny Ungless had done a very effective job in organising the Parliamentary Research Unit from scratch in the previous Parliament, and was appointed Chief of Staff some time in Autumn 2001 until standing down in the late summer of 2002. Her role as Chief of Staff was to run the Leader’s Office. She was based in an office in Conservative Central Office. In the afternoons in Parliament she shared my office. She appointed Rebecca Layton in early 2002 to assist her with administrative matters.

26. This period of transition for the Leader’s Office administratively coincided with changes made at a more senior level in Central Office.

27. In early 2002, David Davis, then Party Chairman, appointed Mark MacGregor as Chief Executive of the Party. Mark MacGregor was based in an office in Central Office, adjacent to the Chairman’s office in 32 Smith Square, some distance from the Leader’s Office. He never had an office in the House of Commons. I know of no contact which Mark MacGregor would have had with Iain Duncan Smith’s constituency office. Mark never reported any constituency concerns or concerns about Betsy’s role to me for discussion with Iain until a much later date and I deal with this below.

28. When Jenny Ungless left in the Summer of 2002, it was clear that the Leader’s Office was still not running as well as it might. The lease on 34 Smith Square was running out and a small new office was established

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 105

in 32 Smith Square so that Iain had a base in Central Office. Later in 2002, the Leader’s Office was moved entirely to the House of Commons.

29. In the late Summer of 2002, Christine Watson became Iain’s Private Secretary. She helped to supervise his move from 34 to 32 Smith Square and sat outside Iain’s new office in Central office with Andrew Whitby- Collins. In the House of Commons, she sat outside Iain’s door. Annabelle Eyre took over organisation of Iain’s tours.

30. In about September 2002, Vanessa Gearson, who had been working for Theresa May, was appointed Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office. My recollection is that she was recommended to Iain by Mark MacGregor. As her title would suggest, Vanessa was in charge of administration in the Leader’s Office. Although I have seen documents in which she has referred to herself as being Chief of Staff this was never her position. In fact Barry Legg was appointed to this role of Chief of Staff for a short period in early 2003.

31. Vanessa Gearson was already a school governor and a busy Councillor in Barnet. Soon after joining the Leader’s Office, she was selected as prospective parliamentary candidate for Cheltenham. Living in North London, she normally arrived for the 9am meetings and, because of her other commitments, she tended to leave the office at about 6pm each day. Much of the office work was in fact done in the evenings.

32. When she first joined, Iain was in the small office at 32 Smith Square, which I have mentioned above. She remained at her desk in the Chairman’s office until after the Conference, which would have been in October 2002. After the Conference, Andrew Whitby-Collins, who had had an office next door to Iain’s office (sharing with Christine Watson) went to work for the Candidate’s Department and Vanessa moved to his desk in the office next to Iain. This was for a very short time—a matter of weeks. The Leader’s Office then moved to the House of Commons.

33. Cara Walker, a young inexperienced graduate, was brought in to help with Iain Duncan Smith’s constituency work. She worked out of a separate office away from the Leader’s Offices. My recollection is that from time to time Cara would come down to the floor I worked on to ask questions of Christine.

34. From the moment of the election of Iain Duncan Smith to the position of Leader, there followed a period of ongoing change and adaptation to the developing circumstances related to Leadership matters. I had no reason to enquire into arrangements relating to his constituency affairs. Just as Iain Duncan Smith would deal with those matters separately, so would I through my own office. As a result, I had virtually no contact with Betsy Duncan Smith. I now assume that she continued to work on political matters from home. I am not aware that any additional staff were recruited to deal with Iain’s constituency, other than through the replacement of Annabelle Eyre and then subsequently Christine Watson.

35. In the Autumn of 2002, Vanessa Gearson raised with me the issue of Betsy’s employment. She did so informally. Vanessa expressed concern that Betsy Duncan Smith was employed by Iain and questioned whether she really did any work. So far as I am aware, Vanessa had no involvement in constituency issues but, regardless of this, I raised the matter with Iain along with a list of routine matters. I believe this to have been in the course of one of our evening meetings at which I ran through issues which had arisen in the course of the day. This was an informal although regular process. Vanessa Gearson raised this matter with me on one or two further occasions in late 2002. This was done in the same informal way. I raised the matter with Iain again and he confirmed, as he had before, that the arrangements were completely regular. My concern was that Betsy’s working for him could be misinterpreted and hence could be politically damaging. Even though Iain had reassured me, I continued to worry that this was potentially politically damaging.

36. There was a Communication Meeting at Central Office once a week. It took place in Theresa May’s office and was attended by Theresa May, Stanley Kalms, Mark MacGregor, Stephen Gilbert, Vanessa Gearson and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to ensure that the actions of the various branches of the Party were co-ordinated. The meetings were relatively informal. I do not recall any minutes being prepared. I am fairly sure that the issue of Betsy’s employment was raised at one of these meetings. I cannot recall it being discussed at more than one meeting but it is possible that it was. It was one of many matters raised. I cannot remember the detail of what happened or what was said. I have not seen any paperwork that

106 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

may have been produced and retained. It is a year ago and it was one of a number of matters that came up at the time.

37. I had agreed at the Communication Meeting to raise the issue of Betsy’s employment with Iain, as far as I can remember the matter. It was either as a result of that or my discussions with Vanessa that in a later discussion with Iain, he said that it was his intention to end Betsy’s role. I note that the development of administrative arrangements was more or less in place by then. Cara had gained knowledge and experience and now had Tom Hooper working with her. Annabelle Eyre had taken on responsibility for organising tours which meant that Paula Malone, the new diary secretary, had more time than Andrew Whitby-Collins in this role.

38. As far as I know, neither Mark MacGregor nor Vanessa Gearson raised the matter directly with Iain. Also, as I did not know what the arrangements involved first hand, I would not have expected them to have known either.

39. I was therefore very suspicious of an e-mail sent in early 2003 by Vanessa Gearson reportedly sent to Mark MacGregor and copied to other people in Conservative Central Office but not to me or to anyone else in the Leader’s office (including Iain). I see from the leaked copy referred to in newspapers that it was in fact sent on Thursday 30th January 2003. As I remember, Paul Baverstock (the newly-employed Director of Communications who had just started work at Conservative Central Office) showed me a copy of this e-mail.

40. I thought it strange that Vanessa had not raised this issue with me as a continuing concern as she had in the past, or, if she felt so strongly why she had not raised the issue directly with Iain Duncan Smith, to whom she had constant access. Also, e-mails sent at Central Office are usually written in an informal fashion. However, Vanessa’s email was formal, and appeared to have been drafted very carefully. I spoke to Iain about the contents of the e-mail and he told me that Betsy had already ceased to be employed at the end of December 2002, as he had indicated would happen. Iain then met Vanessa, almost certainly on Friday 31st January. I have checked my diary which shows that I had a dinner engagement in Shrewsbury on the night of Thursday 30th January and a whole series of constituency engagements on Friday 31st January. From memory, Iain rang me at some stage after his meeting with Vanessa to say that he had had a perfectly sensible conversation with her. She had agreed to send a second e-mail confirming that Iain had reassured her that her concerns were unfounded. I do not have copies of either of these e-mails.

41. Around the time that the e-mails were sent, major further changes to Central Office staffing were being discussed and Mark MacGregor was removed as Chief Executive in February 2003.It was well known that he has a very different view from Iain Duncan Smith as to how the Conservative Party should proceed.

42. In the Summer of 2003, Vanessa Gearson then moved to a new role as liaison between the Chairman and Leader’s Office. It may be that she saw this as a demotion.

43. The issue of Betsy Duncan Smith’s employment was not raised again between January 2003 and the attempt by the BBC’s Newsnight programme in the Autumn of 2003 to broadcast what were clearly intended to be extremely damaging allegations in the week prior to the Conservative Party Conference. If those who are accusing Iain Duncan Smith believed that there was any substance in this matter, I feel that they should have produced their evidence months before the Conference. It seemed that this issue was being raised simply as part of a political campaign against Iain.

21 October 2003

20. Written statement by Mr Mike Penning, 16 October 2003

1. I have known IDS since 1995 but only became involved on a professional basis when he was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Social Security under William Hague in 1997.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 107

2. I was then a media adviser to Iain and several other members of the Shadow Cabinet but was mostly based at a desk in Iain’s parliamentary office in the House of Commons, where I had a desk very close to his wife Betsy.

3. I saw at first hand the professional and dedicated way that Betsy fulfilled her duties as Iain’s diary secretary and also witnessed the closeness and dependence in a professional capacity as Iain relied on Betsy as a key aide in his office.

4. I was also aware that on a regular basis Betsy took work home and that the two of them often worked late into the evening, as that was the only time they could be together to get through the diary work without the interruption that there will always be in a busy parliamentary office.

5. I have to say that Betsy often got the short straw in the office, because people like me were always demanding time with Iain that had been pencilled in for Betsy’s diary work, but they regularly let me have that time slot and the work was done much later when Iain came home from the Commons.

6. The personal and professional trust that was self evident between IDS and Betsy was obvious to anyone that had worked closely with them.

7. In 2000 I was appointed to Central Office as deputy head of Media but kept in close contact with IDS’s office and in the leadership election of 2001 I left Central Office to run the media of the IDS campaign. During the campaign and after I returned to CCO, Betsy was clearly working for Iain as I had to speak to her on a regular basis and later I was aware that Betsy had set up office in his house in Swanbourne and that she was still key to the constituency side of Iain’s duties. I confirm that there is a fully-equipped working office at Swanbourne which I have used myself on the many occasions when I have visited the house since Iain became Party Leader.

8. Many times in the past when in my role as senior press officer to the party I have asked for details of Iain’s constituency events or visits, I always felt that in many cases, it was best to go direct to Betsy. I have always thought that Betsy was in charge of that side of Iain’s commitments, and even now that she doesn’t officially work for Iain I still find her my best point of contact.

16 October 2003

21. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Mike Penning, 4 December 2003

Following alleged newspaper comments by Belinda McCammon in the New Zealand press I thought it important that I should set out (1) Belinda’s role in Iain Duncan Smith’s leadership campaign office of 2001 and (2) the short period that she was in the Leader’s office following Iain’s victory.

(1) Belinda’s role in Iain Duncan Smith’s leadership campaign office of 2001

Belinda joined the campaign team as a paid employee in a three person press team and was directly answerable to me as Head of Media in the campaign. Two weeks before the end of the leadership contest my deputy left to take up employment elsewhere. For the last two weeks of the campaign the media operation was run by Belinda and myself.

(2) The short period that she was in the Leader’s office following Iain’s victory

Following Iain’s victory Belinda was employed in the Leader’s office which was then based in Conservative Central Office.

I do not know what Belinda’s job status was in the Leader’s office but she was clearly not employed as a press office. All press officers were based on the second floor of CCO under the jurisdiction of Nick Wood, the Director of Media. To my knowledge Belinda would not have had access to—or involvement in—any

108 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

constituency business or correspondence. She would not have been present at any meetings of a privileged nature. Her alleged critical comments of Iain Duncan Smith’s employment of Mrs Duncan Smith could not have been based in any knowledge of Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency affairs.

4 December 2003

22. Written statement by Ms Cara Walker, 21 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 21]

Ms Cara Walker, Constituency Secretary to Mr Iain Duncan Smith

I started working in September 2002, as Constituency Secretary to the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP. During this time I was being trained by Christine Watson, with whom I worked very closely and reported to.

How much contact did I have with Mrs Duncan Smith?

I would often overhear Christine liaise with Betsy over the phone about diary matters and constituency visits that Iain was to attend. I met her on a couple of occasions and would sometimes take messages for Christine to call her, if Christine was unable to answer the phone.

The main work that I undertook during the period of September 2002 to December 2002 was as follows:

• Constituency Casework and all political correspondence from Iain’s constituents-this work was overseen by Christine Watson.

• Booking of tours around the House of Lords and House of Commons.

• Booking of tickets for constituents to go and see Prime Ministers Questions.

• Replying to invitations having checked with Christine whether Iain could attend or not.

• Kept up the press Cuttings Books.

I had no direct involvement with the organisation of Iain’s constituency diary—I would however reply to some of the invitations, as instructed by Christine.

Am I aware of any disquiet having been expressed at any point about whether or not it was appropriate for Mrs Duncan Smith to continue to be remunerated after September 2001 from Parliamentary funds?

I was unaware of any disquiet being expressed; however I was aware that Mrs Duncan Smith was being taken off the payroll.

21 October 2003

23. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr W C Walker, 5 November 2003

Betsy Duncan Smith

As a former Conservative MP and senior elected officer and member of the Board of the party, I had access to the lines of communication within the party. I used all lines and can confirm that Mrs Duncan Smith kept her husbands diary. I detail below some facts.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 109

Before Iain Duncan Smith was elected Leader, I arranged meetings for him in his parliamentary capacity as Shadow Defence Secretary. The meetings were with retired senior military officers.

After his election as Leader, I continued to arrange for meetings and for his attendance at functions involving retired top rank Royal Air Force Officers and at military exhibitions. I also arranged meetings and functions involving UK and overseas cadets at UK and Scottish venues.

Before agreeing dates, I had to contact Betsy Duncan Smith. Firstly, to ensure Iain Duncan Smith was available on given dates. Secondly, to confirm the venue, date and time. I frequently had to make a number of telephone calls before final details were confirmed. All of my telephone calls were made to her at home, often in the evenings and at weekends.

As a ex-MP and the holder of an MoD Hon. Appointment I was in the unique position to organise such activities and can confirm Mrs Betsy Duncan Smith was engaged in maintaining her husbands parliamentary diary.

5 November 2003

24. Written statement by Mrs Christine Watson, 17 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 22]

Background

1. I first began working with IDS on 15th October 2001. I was appointed as IDS’s Constituency Secretary, a role that had previously been undertaken by Annabelle Eyre.

2. When IDS was elected leader of the Conservative Party there was a considerable change in the personnel of the offices. No one from William Hague’s office of leader of the opposition continued in place when IDS took over the leadership. He therefore asked Annabelle Eyre (AE) to set up a new office for him as the Leader of the Opposition. Andrew Whitby-Collins (AWC) was appointed as Iain Duncan Smith’s Diary Secretary in the Leader of the Opposition’s office.

Work with BDS

3. The Constituency offices were not ready immediately so for the first few weeks I worked from Central Office with AWC and AE. It was then necessary for me to arrange to move to the new offices in M2 in Parliament. The office materials were not moved until late October and it took a lot of work to arrange for all the boxes to be unpacked and casework placed in order. In the first months that I was employed, I spent a considerable amount of time unpacking and putting IDS’s office in order.

4. There was a period of about a month from September 2001 to October 2001 when no one was appointed exclusively as Iain Duncan-Smith’s Constituency Secretary although work was being done by a number of people. Some correspondence had accumulated during that period and during the leadership election, as a result, when I was appointed, I had to deal with a backlog of correspondence. I had to become familiar with the current cases and obtain information about the filing systems in the office very quickly.

5. Initially Betsy continued with her previous practice of dealing with AE and I only had indirect contact with her as I worked closely with AE familiarising myself with the constituency matters. Initially BDS worked with AE and they referred constituency matters to me that BDS had raised with them. BDS was employed in IDS’s office before Annabelle Eyre was recruited and therefore has got the longest experience of any of the members of staff working for him. BDS provided me with invaluable information about constituents. I was able to draw upon Betsy’s expert knowledge of Iain Duncan-Smith’s Constituency office during this time.

110 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

6. I was aware of—but not very involved with—BDS’ close management of the diary. This work was largely carried out in liaison with AE and AWC who were making and implementing day-to-day diary decisions.

7. I was responsible for constituency correspondence which I would send to Iain to deal with in the evenings but particularly at weekends. BDS would make sure that he considered the papers and would feed back any issues he would raise, this was particularly the case over the weekends. She was progress checking to make sure that the constituency work was covered. Whenever IDS went to the constituency he would raise the issues with BDS that he wanted to deal with and she would pass them on to AE who would speak to me. BDS would make sure that the work I sent down was done and she would respond to me in her conversations with AE.

8. Perhaps the most important work undertaken by BDS was at weekends. In a way that no-one else could, BDS would go through constituency correspondence with IDS on Saturdays and Sundays—ensuring that it was processed and returned to me and that any queries that I had were answered. This was a major task as little time could be found during the working week for constituency work to be processed. IDS spent most of the week working on issues connected with his leadership of the Conservative Party.

9. BDS was not in the office at Parliament but she worked from the office at their home in Swanbourne. BDS was an important source of advice on constituency issues. I particularly remember her helpfulness with understanding the difficulties faced by Rose Addis. Mrs Addis was a constituency case that became a national story when IDS raised her story at Prime Minister’s Question Time. BDS provided intensive help for special projects. I remember her constant help with Iain’s Christmas card competition and in the drawing up of his Christmas card list.

10. It took me almost a year to establish the Constituency Office. In July 2002, I moved from Iain Duncan Smith’s Constituency Office to become Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. When I became Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition I became responsible for preparing the box of work for IDS’s consideration in the evenings and at weekends. This included constituency correspondence prepared by Cara Walker who was appointed as Constituency Secretary in September 2002. I relied upon BDS to draw matters that I considered to be particularly important to IDS’s attention.

11. Cara Walker, the new Constituency Secretary was a recent university graduate. Before Cara was able to take over the constituency casework it was necessary for me to train her. I realised that it was necessary to get a research assistant to support Cara in her role. In November 2002 Tom Hooper was appointed to work with Cara in the constituency office, he stayed until June 2003. During their time working in the office Tom and Cara reported almost exclusively to me and have not had much contact with Betsy. Until the Constituency office was re-established I ran it and drew upon BDS’s assistance to bring certain matters to IDS’s attention and to make sure that outstanding matters were followed up.

12. Finally, I would like to attest to the quality of the working relationship I had with Betsy. She was always available. When I phoned her she was either waiting at the end of the line or she returned my call quickly. I have found her to be very reliable, competent and efficient.

The memorandum to Vanessa Gearson79

13. At the time that I wrote the memorandum to Vanessa Gearson I was trying to negotiate my new contract having been promoted from Constituency Secretary to the Private Secretary of the Leader of the Opposition. In this context Vanessa asked me to explain my current role and give details of what I had done as Constituency Secretary. She was new to the department, having only been appointed as Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office in September 2002, and did not know of all the work that I had undertaken.

14. This memo, which was marked ‘Strictly Private and Confidential’, expressed my concerns about the workload that I was dealing with at that particular time in the office in Parliament. It was written at

79 See PCS Written Submission 49.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 111

Vanessa’s request at a time of maximum stress within the office. I wrote it a time when I was tired and overworked. I think my frame of mind is evident in the style of the memo which was never intended to be a permanent record or a full record. It does not give a full account of the way that all of the offices were being run. It does not refer to the work that Betsy was doing in the office in Swanbourne and it does not refer to the work that Rikki Radford was doing in the constituency because the memo dealt only with the position in Parliament. My concern was to make sure that I received recognition and appropriate remuneration from the Conservative Party for the work that I was doing and had done in IDS’s offices.

15. I cannot remember Vanessa Gearson commenting to me about the work that BDS did for IDS following the submission of the memorandum. She said very little about it after I gave it to her. Had she regarded BDS’s employment as an issue arising out of the memo I would have thought that she would have spoken to me about it.

16. Although I am distressed at the memo’s publication it does not undermine my submission of 13th October or my known belief that BDS did undertake regular constituency work for IDS. BDS’s constituency work is not discussed in my memo but neither is the work of IDS’ full-time Agent, Rikki Radford.

17. The memo focuses on the particular problems at the time working with the Houses of Parliament and Conservative Central Office team. Problems which have since been resolved.

17 October 2003

25. Written statement by Mrs Christine Watson, 19 November 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 23]

1. This statement has been prepared in response to the questions raised in letters sent to me by Sir Philip Mawer dated 20 October 2003 and 27 October 2003. I have also been shown copies of the transcripts and statements produced by Mark MacGregor, Michael Crick, Stephen Gilbert and Vanessa Gearson with the permission of Sir Philip and I also include comments on them.

Administration of Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary allowances and expenses

2. I did not assume any responsibility for the administration of the allowances that Mr Duncan Smith is given as an MP until I became Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in August 2002. Before I assumed that role the allowances and expenses were administered by Annabelle Eyre.

3. When I assumed the role of looking after the allowances and expenses I read the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions “green” handbook produced by the Fees Office. When I arrived there were a number of papers relating to the financial administration of the office which Annabelle created, she knew her way around these papers but they were not yet filed. I assumed responsibility for handling the finances and put the financial papers in order.

Work as Private Secretary

4. As Private Secretary I was employed to assist Mr Duncan Smith in his role as Leader of the Opposition which is, of course, a parliamentary position with attendant parliamentary duties that are in addition to Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency duties as an MP. I have always worked more than my contracted hours as Private Secretary. I would say on average 70–75 hours per week.

5. Whilst, for ease of reference, Mr Duncan Smith’s staff referred to the ‘constituency office’ and the ‘Leader’s office’ the work is not so easily divided between the two and both offices assist Mr Duncan Smith with his parliamentary duties. That was especially the case for me. In the first few months of my employment as Private Secretary I was doing quite a lot of constituency work whilst training Cara Walker

112 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

to take over as Constituency Secretary. In the first few months of Cara’s employment 1 helped her draft letters, correcting those she drafted and at the same time teaching her how to do case work. During those first few months we also moved the Constituency Office from M2 to G1 in the Commons. I still supervise Cara and the Researcher, David Haselhurst. As she has become more experienced she has gradually assumed more responsibility for the case work however 1 still check letters that she produces, I check the progress of cases that she and David Haselhurst are working on and they still consult me.

6. The Private Secretary needs to have knowledge of how the constituency office is run in order to be able to co-ordinate that work with that of the Leader of the Opposition. My role as Private Secretary involves co- coordinating all aspects of Mr Duncan Smith’s life; as MP, as the Parliamentary Leader of the Opposition in addition to his family life and political role as leader of the Conservative Party. Whilst the vast majority of my time is and has been spent assisting him as an MP and in his parliamentary role as Leader of the Opposition nevertheless as his assistant it is inevitable that occasionally I assist him with some personal tasks given the extensive hours that he works and because he is away from his home during the week.

7. I do not, however, assist Mr Duncan Smith in his party political role as the leader of the Conservative Party. Conservative party employees unconnected to the Leader’s Office assist him on party matters. I think that the only strictly party political task I can remember doing for him was sending out letters of congratulations on his behalf to Conservative councillors who had been elected in local by-elections and was additional to my usual duties. I also attended the Conservative Party conferences in my capacity as Private Secretary.

8. In the Memorandum that I wrote of 24 October 2002 I referred to setting up a political filing system for Mr Duncan Smith. This is a structure of four filing cabinets containing correspondence that he has with MPs or members of the House of Lords about parliamentary business, correspondence with the Crown and with the Prime Minister and with ambassadors, religious leaders or the leaders of other countries together with press correspondence. It is not a party political filing system as such but a reference system for him to use in his parliamentary work. I had established many filing systems in the course of my work both as Constituency Secretary and as Private Secretary. I started this system in July 2002 and completed it in the autumn of 2002. This was an additional task that I assumed to assist Mr Duncan Smith and I largely did it over the weekends in my own time.

9. During the course of my work I also had to supervise a number of interns who came to find out how the Leader of the Opposition’s office ran, We have a number of students who work with us for limited periods to find out about the Leader of the Opposition’s office and to learn mere about the parliamentary process. I have taken responsibility for looking after them whilst they are with us giving them guidance and advice.

10. When I started my work as Private Secretary it was necessary for me to find someone who could take over my previous role as Constituency Secretary. I favoured appointing someone quite young who could be trained and continue to run the office as I had done. Cara applied for the position to Mr Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson replied on his behalf to inform her he had passed the letter to Vanessa to deal with. Vanessa did not follow it up. By chance Cara met my daughter at a party and my daughter suggested that I might be able to help. I subsequently appointed and trained her. I attach the correspondence from Cara and Owen.

11. I understand that Vanessa Gearson has referred to me doing personal tasks for Mr Duncan Smith. I am disappointed that she has referred to me, as I am an experienced professional PA and trained secretary, in this way. I was not a cleaner for Mr Duncan Smith but his Private Secretary. It is completely incidental that in supporting Mr Duncan Smith’s role as Leader of the Opposition I made sure that his dry cleaning was done for him. In June 2002 Mr Duncan Smith started to rent a flat in London occupied during the week because the return journey to Swanbourne was impractical. Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith used the London flat like hotel accommodation when they were in London and it has very few personal items in it. I have a key to the flat just as Annabelle had the key before me. This proved to be very useful if, for instance, Iain was away but wanted to get hold of an item left in the flat. Some business meetings took place there and deliveries needed to be organised. I also had contact with the resident caretaker, who also has a key.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 113

Funds for new staff

12. At the tune that I was appointed Private Secretary until Cara Walker took over the role of Constituency Secretary, I was still performing two roles. From September to November 2002 I was paid from the staffing allowance on the same salary that I received as Constituency Secretary. On 1 December 2002 my salary was reduced to reflect the decline in the amount of constituency work that I had to do. I still receive a small salary from Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary staffing allowance reflecting my work in connection with Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency duties. The majority of my salary is however now paid by funds allocated to the Leader’’s Office via the Conservative Central Office. I believe those funds are ‘Short Money’.

Background to the comments in the memorandum80

13. The circumstances in which I wrote the confidential memorandum of 24 October 2002 to Vanessa Gearson are set out in my previous submissions. My comments on the pressure that I was under when I wrote the memorandum are repeated here as is my description of the personal and confidential nature of that memorandum.

14. After I became private Secretary Cara Walker started training as my replacement as Constituency Secretary. I realised, because of the quantity of work I had done as Constituency Secretary and the increasing workload in the Westminster office, that my replacement as Constituency Secretary needed an assistant. I explored therefore the possibility of appointing a researcher. In the long term I thought it would also be helpful to subscribe to the Parliamentary Research Unit. Shortly after I became responsible for looking after the allowances and expenses of Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency office I tried to work out how it might be possible to employ two extra people to support constituency work from the staffing allowance that Mr Duncan Smith is given as an MP.

15. In the autumn of 2002 I became increasingly concerned about being able to pay all the necessary salaries from the staffing allowance. When I refer in the Memorandum to my ‘concerns’ about the payments which had been made to Annabelle Eyre from the staffing allowance it is because her salary was fairly large and consequently reduced the fund then available to employ other people. Cara Walker had by that time been working in the office since September and, although she undertook that role with a lot of assistance from me, I was satisfied that she was capable of assuming the role on a permanent basis.

16. Cara Walker was employed originally on a provisional basis without salary. I wanted to confirm her employment and see she was paid a reasonable salary. Cara was anxious about her financial position at the time and one day came to see me concerning salary. She needed to have a salary as she had just moved in to a new flat which she was renting. Papers were submitted to the Fees Office in the middle of October 2002 to place Cara Walker on the payroll. However, the Fees Office lost Cara’s paperwork and, as a result, she did not receive her first payment of salary until the end of November 2002. The payment was however backdated to the beginning of September 2002 to take into account the whole period of her probationary employment in the constituency office.

17. When making plans for the employment of extra staff in the constituency office at Westminster I considered the budget for the financial year April2002 to March 2003. The fees office produced at my request a number of projections in autumn 2002 based on different scenarios of how the staffing allowance could be used in that financial year.

18. I was new to my role as Private Secretary and, although I had got to know Mr Duncan Smith as his Constituency Secretary, I was still not sure when to approach him about these administrative matters or when I would be able to do so. Mr Duncan Smith was very busy at the time. He was out of the office for most of September through to early November and at various times in November and December. I found it difficult to arrange to see him on this matter and since it involved how staff were employed and

80 See PCS Written Submission 49.

114 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

determining the salaries I also considered it to be a rather sensitive matter. It was for this reason that I approached Mr Duncan Smith’s PPSs Owen Paterson and Alastair Burt.

Negotiating my contract

19. When I wrote the highly confidential memorandum of 24 October 2002 1 referred to resolving my budgetary concerns about Mr Duncan Smith’s staffing allowance and whether it could pay all of his staff. I knew that if my salary was taken out of Short Money it would free up money to employ other people to work in the constituency from the staffing allowance Mr Duncan Smith could claim as an MP. I also thought I was entitled to an increase in salary to reflect my long working hours.

20. When I wrote the memorandum there was also a considerable amount of’ pressure on me about my own salary negotiations I was negotiating a new employment contract with Conservative Central Office at the time because Short Money given to support the Leader’s Office is sent to Conservative Central Office to be administered by them. I was very concerned that I found myself having to justify my employment to Conservative Central Office although I regarded Mr Duncan Smith as my employer and the person I reported to. There had also been a delay in their production of my employment contract.

21. I therefore provided Vanessa Gearson, who was then newly appointed as Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office with details of all the work I had done for Mr Duncan Smith and the responsibilities I had held and still held in Mr Duncan Smith’s office. At the time I thought that she would help me.

22. Although the staffing allowance is given to Mr Duncan Smith for his parliamentary duties, of which his Leadership of the Opposition formed an additional component. I thought, at the time, that since the Conservative Party received Short Money specifically allocated to support the Leader of the Opposition’s office that I should have a new contract with the Conservative Central Office for my new role as Private Secretary. At the time I wrote the memorandum I was worried about it. This is what I referred to when I stated in the memorandum that there were ‘questions to be asked’.

23. As I now understand the matter, however, both the Short Money and the staffing allowance are given to assist Mr Duncan Smith in his ‘parliamentary duties’ and that since I was and continue to assist him in his parliamentary duties as Private Secretary that I can be paid out of his staffing allowance or Short Money.

24. Conservative Central Office were slow to act: I now understand they had financial problems of their own and were reducing their own staffing levels. They finally provided me with a draft contract of employment in November 2002. The contract contemplated that my salary would be increased to reflect my increasing responsibilities as Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. I was however concerned by the terms of the contract that were drawn up by Conservative Central Office. Although I was working directly for Mr Duncan Smith my contract said that I was required to report to Vanessa Gearson. I questioned whether this clause was appropriate and raised the matter with Vanessa Gearson, Mr Duncan Smith and others. I know that the party administers the Short Money but the reality is that the Leader chooses his own staff for the Leader’s Office, not Conservative Central Office. I felt I had no option but to accept the terms of the contract as drafted. Although I had misgivings I signed the contract on 11 December 2002. I was not given any additional salary until after I signed the contract and then my pay increase was backdated to the day I started as Private Secretary in one lump sum which was paid at the end of December 2002. I attach copies of my employment contracts.

Mrs Duncan Smith’s resignation

25. In August 2002 Vanessa Gearson was appointed as Administrative Head of the Leader’s office. I did not know her before she was appointed and we did not have much conversation with her until she moved into an office to join me in Conservative Central Office. I had shared the office with Andrew Whitby- Collins until he left it after the Conservative Party Conference in October 2002 and Vanessa Gearson moved in. I think that Vanessa moved in on Tuesday 15 October 2002.

26. I had a number of conversations in the autumn 2002 about sorting out the staffing allowance budget to allow the recruitment of additional staff I was however very busy at the time and it only formed one of a vast number of important matters that I was dealing with at the time.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 115

27. I see from Vanessa Gearson’s testimony she claims that I spoke to her about my budgetary concerns in September 2002. 1 do not specifically remember doing so and I doubt that I spoke to her about it in September before we started to share the office in Conservative Central Office. It is possible however that I might have spoken to her about it then but I don’t remember a specific meeting being arranged as would have been necessary at that time.

28. I am surprised that she claims she was involved in a number of discussions about the staff employed by Iain out of the MP’s allowances in the Communications Committee. I was not aware of any of these discussions as no one informed me about them. I was and am in charge of handling Mr Duncan Smith’s MPs allowances and expenses and Vanessa was never involved in dealing with them. The Office Costs Allowance was phased out and had ceased to be used by Iain by the time that I took over as his Private Secretary: the salaries of his staff during from September 2001 to December 2002 were paid from the MP’s staffing allowance.

29. I first started to consult the Fees Office in October 2002, after they lost Cara Walker’s papers and I therefore had to arrange for two months of her salary to be paid at the end of November 2002. 1 did so under my own initiative and not because Vanessa Gearson instructed me or even suggested to me that I do so. It was a natural step for me to take to gain advice concerning my financial duties and budgetary concerns at the time. I found that it was more effective to go to visit the Fees Office in person rather than speak to them over the telephone. I used to visit the Fees Office regularly (and Cara accompanied me), but not every week, to obtain accurate up to date information about the sums left in that financial year’s staffing allowance and to speak to them about the staffing arrangements. I found the best day to go to the Fees Office was a Friday when normally Westminster was relatively quiet and therefore the Fees Office were not as busy. I also had more time on a Friday. I spoke to a number of people there including Dan Gorman and Neville Jordan.

30. Some time after the Conservative Party Conference in 2002 I spoke to Alastair Burt MP about the employment of more staff in the Constituency office. Alastair Burt had recently been employed as a second Parliamentary Private Secretary (the other being Owen Paterson) to Mr Duncan Smith. He agreed to speak to Iain about it for me. I recall that in late November Alastair spoke to Iain about Tom Hooper’s employment as a constituency researcher and Tom Hooper’s employment contract was subsequently signed. At the time that Tom Hooper’s contract was entered into it had been settled as to who would be paid from the staffing allowance. A copy of Torn Hooper’s employment contract is enclosed.81 The use of the staffing allowance was resolved by me, Iain and Alastair. Vanessa had no part in that.

31. I do not keep a personal diary so I do not know exactly when I became aware of Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith’s decision that Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment would come to an end. At the time of this discussion in November, however, it was clear that Mrs Duncan Smith would come off the staffing allowance. I believe it was also agreed then that the proportion of my salary that came from the staffing allowance should be reduced and that the rest of my salary should be paid by the Conservative Party from the Short Money. Annabelle Eyre had come off the staffing allowance in August 2002 and was then employed by Conservative Central Office.

32. Tom Hooper started to work in the office in November. Tom was taken on to assist Cara as a researcher. The Fees Office had told me that in order to arrange for Tom Hooper to be placed on the payroll for December the paperwork had to be sent by no later than the middle of December. Tom’s salary was backdated to 20 November 2002.

33. I had informed the Fees Office verbally by the middle of December 2002 that Mrs Duncan Smith was to be taken off the pay roll at the end of December 2002.

34. I first heard about the Michael Trend allegations when they appeared in the press. I never connected that newspaper story with Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment and to my knowledge it did not play any part in the decision of when she would give up working for her husband. The Trend story was published in the

81 Not appended by the Commissioner.

116 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

middle of December by which time the decision about those to be employed by Mr Duncan Smith from the staffing allowance had already been made.

Additional comments on evidence disclosed to Mr Duncan Smith

35. In addition to general points and factual inaccuracies in their statements and transcripts some of which are set out above I have commented below on specific issues raised in the evidence given by Michael Crick, Stephen Gilbert, Mark MacGregor and Vanessa Gearson.

Michael Crick

36. Mr Crick refers to the work that Andrew Whitby-Collins and Annabelle were doing as being party political which is the reason that he claims they were paid, or claims they should have been by the Conservative Party. As the Conservative Patty administers the Short Money for the Leader’s Office and as Annabelle, Andrew and I were all at various times employed during the period in question working for Mr Duncan Smith doing parliamentary rather than party political work for the Leader’s Office we were necessarily paid through the CCO. Similarly the work that Mrs Duncan Smith did with us was parliamentary rather than party political but she was not employed to work in the Leader’s Office as such and continued to be paid from the staffing allowance.

37. I have already provided evidence about why Mrs Duncan Smith’s work is not referred to in my memorandum of 24 October 2002. That memorandum was not a survey of the work done by other people in Mr Duncan Smith’s office but was my note of work that I had undertaken and was doing.

38. I have seen a copy of Mr Crick’s note: Interpreting Christine Watson’s memorandum and he is completely inaccurate in the way that he reads that memorandum.82 I did not like criticising Annabelle Eyre in the memorandum which is the reason I referred to ‘having no intention to tell tales’ however in order to describe my workload I had to refer to additional tasks which were passed on to mc by Annabelle.

General comments applicable to Stephen Gilbert, Mark MacGregor and Vanessa

39. I am surprised that Mark MacGregor, Stephen Gilbert and Vanessa Gearson discussed the use of the parliamentary staffing allowance at the Chairman’s Communication Committee meetings at Conservative Central Office. I administered Mr Duncan Smith’s staffing allowance at the relevant time not Vanessa Gearson. They never approached me about their meetings or discussed the use of Iain’s Parliamentary staffing allowance with me and before I read these transcripts I was not aware that they discussed it. Mark MacGregor, Mr Gilbert and Vanessa Gearson refer to the Office Costs Allowance which Iain ceased to use before I started to handle the finances: at this time Iain’s office staff were paid out of his staffing allowance.

40. Mark MacGregor and Vanessa Gearson are wrong in attributing the reorganisation of Mr Duncan Smith’s parliamentary allowances and the termination of Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment with the publication of the Michael Trend case. All the budgetary matters had been resolved by the end of November 2002 with the changes effected by the Fees Office by the end of December 2002.

Vanessa Gearson

41. Vanessa was appointed in August 2002 as Administrative Head of the Leader’s office. I see from p 19 of Vanessa Gearson’s transcript83 that she claims that in the summer of 2002 it was clear to rue and other members of the Leader’s Office that she would replace Jenny Ungless in the role of Chief of Staff. I was not aware that Vanessa Gearson was going to be appointed to any position in the Leader’s Office that summer before I went on holiday on August 2002. She was appointed in August and started in September. As I understand it, she was never appointed as Chief of Staff of the Leader’s Office—she was

82 Not appended by the Commissioner. 83 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 117

the Administrative Head of the Leader’s Office. I never once attended a staff meeting with Vanessa Gearson.

42. I do not know how Vanessa can have formed a view about how busy we were in August 2002. I returned from holiday in August and started in my post as “Private Secretary” on Thursday, 22 August 2002. When I returned on 22 August in addition to all of my normal duties I spent a lot of time packing and unpacking the Leader’s office at Smith Square when we moved from 34 Smith Square to 32 Smith Square.

43. Vanessa Gearson started work in September 2002 but she did not start sharing an office with me until after Andrew Whitby-Collins left in the middle of October 2002. I estimate this to be approximately 15th October 2002 after the Bournemouth Conference. I found Vanessa’s involvement in the office disconcerting: it seemed that she was trying to squeeze my role and restrict my access to Iain. This was one of the reasons that I was uncertain about having to report to her under my Conservative Central Office contract. Now that I have seen her claims about being the Head of the Office and Chief of Staff some of her behaviour becomes understandable. But her claims are simply untrue.

44. As Private secretary I reported directly to Iain although Vanessa claimed to exercise authority over me. As 1 have said, the contractual term was imposed because Conservative Central Office administers the Short Money but it did not accord with the reality of the situation.

45. In the autumn 2002, shortly after Vanessa joined the Leader’s office, her father became unwell. He lived with her mother in Miami. Vanessa went to visit them on several occasions whilst she was in the Leader’s Office. She was away visiting her parents, for over 2 weeks from 6 November to 18 November 2002. I know that she was very distressed about her father’s illness during this period. She was with her parents again between Christmas 2002 and the New Year period of 2003 and did not return to work until early January 2003 whereas I was in the office between Christmas and the New Year.

46. I did not get the impression that Vanessa worked as many hours as I did. Vanessa had a number of demands on her time including her obligations as chairman of school governors and as a councillor in Barnet. In addition on some Fridays Vanessa went to visit Cheltenham which is where she has been selected as Parliamentary candidate. I worked in the office most nights until 9.00pm and sometimes later.

47. I prepared the box of work for Mr Duncan Smith each evening and over the weekends. I had one of the keys to the box and Mr Duncan Smith had the other. The box was closed at night when Mr Duncan Smith left the office and either he took the box or his driver carried it to the government car for him.

48. I started to organise the material in the box by placing it in plastic envelopes with notes on the front of them. The constituency material was sometimes placed in the box if it fitted in, otherwise it was placed in a plastic envelope marked “constituency letters for signature”. The constituency letters tended to be added to the box at the end of the week so that Mr Duncan Smith could consider and sign them over the weekend, Urgent letters regarding the constituency were occasionally dealt with during the week and placed in the box if and when necessary. If there was a large amount of constituency correspondence I would keep the package separate. Vanessa Gearson, like other members of staff in the Leader’s Office, would give me anything that she wanted to place in the box before she left in the evenings.

49. In the morning I would open the box or Iain would keep it in his room and open it himself. I do not recall any problem arising over work that Mr Duncan Smith had not dealt with that was placed in the box. If he had not dealt with urgent letters or matters, I would speak to him and he would deal with them in the office. Mr Duncan Smith would also give me those documents from the box to be passed to other people in the office. The constituency material from the box was initially handed to me. After having gone through them, I then handed them to Cara or Tom Hooper: Vanessa would not have seen the constituency documents.

50. I am surprised that Vanessa claims to have an intimate knowledge of the constituency work. To my knowledge she had no involvement in constituency matters. The constituency work was not completely

118 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

integrated with the Leader’s office: there were many people working in the Leader’s office in Westminster who did no constituency work for Iain. Vanessa describes me in her written submission (p8)84 as ceasing to work for Iain as his parliamentary private secretary at the end of August 2002. I was appointed as his Private Secretary on 22 August 2002.

51. I shared an office with Vanessa at CCO in 32 Smith Square in the mornings after the Bournemouth Conference 2002 but when we came over to Parliament in the afternoon we worked in different offices. Vanessa could not see and I doubt that she could hear what I was doing. There was always a busy atmosphere in the Leader’s office in Parliament with numbers of people coming in and out all throughout the day. Although I would occasionally shout through to Paula in the office that she shared with Vanessa, next door, I reject Vanessa’s claim to have heard most of my telephone conversations from her office. I could not hear her conversations and certainly did not ever attempt to. When the office was very quiet I could just hear her from her desk in the other office and as I was occupied with other important matters in relation to my working day I did not pay much attention to them.

52. Cara reported to me and always asked my advice rather than speaking to Vanessa Gearson. Cara used to bring paperwork to me to check and used to speak to me about it. Vanessa Gearson may have listened in to my conversations with Cara for the brief period that Cara was working in Conservative Central Office when Cara used to visit me in the office that that I was sharing with Vanessa. During October 2002 however Cara moved to the Commons on a permanent basis and she used to come to see me when 1 moved over to the Leader’s office in the afternoons. I would be surprised it Vanessa Gearson could have heard our conversations there because my office was in an adjoining room separated by a door. I am not aware of Cara ever asking Vanessa for advice.

53. Cara was not involved in organising constituency events with me during this period as they were organised by me and Rikki Radford, the Agent. I used to give the list of constituency dates to Paula and Vanessa was not involved with any aspect of this procedure.

54. Vanessa was wrong when she said that Mrs Duncan Smith did not do any work for Mr Duncan Smith and that her basis for concluding this was that Mrs Duncan Smith was not in touch with her on a regular basis. Mrs Duncan Smith was in touch with me, Annabelle and Rikki Radford on a regular basis. I have already described in my previous statement the extent of Mrs Duncan Smith’s work.

55. Mrs Duncan Smith did request office supplies from me. I attach to this statement one of the requests that I received from her. I received this note requesting copies of House of Commons prepaid envelopes from Mrs Duncan Smith on 11 October 2002 attached to a copy of a BT telephone bill for the Swanbourne office fax line.

56. Vanessa Gearson refers in her statement to evening meals that were arranged at Mr Duncan Smith’s flat. I only recall one occasion when I purchased food for a meal that Iain was having with a number of colleagues and that took place in Owen Paterson’s flat. Owen Paterson, one of Mr Duncan Smith’s PPSs, lived in the same block of flats as Iain. I purchased pre-prepared food from Marks & Spencer and heated it up. If Mr Duncan Smith asked me to buy any food supplies, then I would. I looked after the catering arrangements in the Leader’s Office. I also bought all the supplies for the Leader’s Office.

57. In her statement and transcript Vanessa Gearson refers to the memorandum that I sent her. She did not speak to me about Mrs Duncan Smith’s work at the time that I gave her the memorandum. The memorandum refers to work that I received from Mrs Duncan Smith in her role as wife of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not describe in the memorandum the work that Mrs Duncan Smith did at that time because, as I have explained in my previous statement and testimony, that was not the purpose of the memorandum, She asked me to put in writing the work I had been doing in the office to the date of writing the memorandum.

84 See PCS Written Submission 13.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 119

58. At page 12–13 of Vanessa Gearsons transcript85 she suggests that we had a conversation in which she said that when Annabelle Eyre was Iain Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary she was acting in a party political capacity rather than a parliamentary one and therefore should not have been paid from the office costs allowance. She also claims that it was clear to me that when I became the Private Secretary that I needed to stop being paid from the Office Costs Allowance. I was not paid out of the Office Costs Allowance I was being paid from the staffing allowance. Furthermore I have never discussed the distinction between party political and parliamentary roles, if I had I would have been able to tell her that both Annabelle and I were performing parliamentary roles. If she had understood the nature of the work that Annabelle and I had done and were doing as Private Secretary she would have realised that we were performing parliamentary roles.

59. In pages 31–32 of Vanessa Gearson’s transcript,86 Vanessa suggests that I brought to her attention a concern that Mrs Duncan Smith was being paid a sum of money from the office costs allowance when she did not actually have a role to play. That is not the case. I never had that concern and I never had such a conversation. If indeed we had had that conversation then Vanessa would have known that Mrs Duncan Smith was not paid £18,000 per year, when I knew her actual salary, and she would also have known that Mrs Duncan Smith was not paid out of the Office Costs Allowance but the staffing allowance.

60. I am not aware of misleading submissions having been made to the House of Commons Fees Office. Tom Hooper was appointed as a researcher in November 2002 and not September 2002.

61. I did not cease being paid from Mr Duncan Smith’s staffing allowance: I continue to be paid some money from it to the current day to reflect my work administering his parliamentary allowances and expenses together with planning his constituency visits with Rikki Radford, his agent. I was paid by Conservative Central Office from September 2002 and my salary was back-dated in December 2002 to reflect this. I never discussed Mr Duncan Smith’s allowance with Rebecca Layton.

62. Vanessa Gearson mentions in her statement and pages 11–12 of the transcript87 a problem that she vaguely thought had arisen over the use of the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA). I cannot remember speaking to her about the Additional Costs Allowance. I think she is referring to discussions that 1 had with Annabelle Eyre about the administration of the ACA. When I took over the financial papers from Annabelle Eyre they were not in any particular order however the papers had been completed properly. In accordance with the rules Iain claimed his mortgage interest on his Chingford house from the Additional Costs Allowance. When I assumed responsibility for administering the allowances Annabelle told me that I should continue to fill in the ACA claim forms. I had some questions about whether supporting documents were required she told me that these were not necessary and this was confirmed to me by the Fees Office. There was however never an issue with the actual claim from the ACA for mortgage interest on the Chingford house only some questions I had about what documentation was necessary.

Transcript of Stephen Gilbert

63. In reference to p7 Stephen Gilbert never spoke to me about the nature of my role in the office and my duties. This is clear from the reference that he makes at p30 of his transcript where he has difficulty giving an account of my duties.88

64. In contrast in his transcript Stephen Gilbert does not seem to recollect the discussion of the terms of my contract with Conservative Central Office. I am surprised that he does not recollect the difficulties I experienced renegotiating my contract. He shared an office with Mark MacGregor at the time.

85 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9. 86 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9. 87 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9. 88 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence10.

120 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

65. I hardly spoke to Mark MacGregor about anything. We had a formal working relationship. I started as Mr Duncan Smith’s Private Secretary on 22 August and not September 2002 as Mr MacGregor recalls.

66. After Mr Duncan Smith was elected leader of the Conservative Party he was unable to spend as much time in the constituency as he had done before. From 15 September to 20 December 2002 I estimate he only spent seven days in the constituency.

19 November 2003

26. Letter to the Commissioner from Mrs Christine Watson, 20 January 2004

The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP

Thank you for your letter of 18 December and the letter from Andrew Walker. As Isobel has already explained, I did not receive your letter until 17 January 2004 when Isobel sent a copy to me.

In this letter Mr Walker confirms my evidence that I had a number of contacts with the Fees Office in autumn of 2002. I did not keep a record of the specific meetings. I have however checked in a notebook that I kept then which refers to the names of Andy Gibson, Tara West and Jordan Neville: all of whom I spoke to during my visits to the Fees Office. In addition I spoke to Dan Gorman. I have no recollection and no reference in my notebook to conversations with Caroline Stockton. It is however possible that I could have spoken to her at the time. The Fees Office is a large open plan room in which many people work. During the relevant period I would often see more than one person at a visit and so it is possible that I met Caroline Stockton without keeping a note of her name.

By the time that I first visited the Fees Office I knew that a significant portion of my salary would be paid by CCO out of the Short Money. I have no recollection of anyone from the Fees Office suggesting to me that I could not be paid out of Mr Duncan Smith’s Staffing Allowance in my position as Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. I was only responsible for administering the Parliamentary Allowance for Mr Duncan Smith; I did not have any responsibility for the administration of Short Money. During one of my conversations with employees of the Fees Office it is possible that I might have referred to the payment of my salary from the two sources of money: the MP’s Staffing Allowance and CCO’s Short Money. I think I would remember if I had been advised by Fees Office staff that my salary had to be paid out of Short Money. I think that if such a conversation had taken place before I sent the memorandum to Vanessa Gearson I would probably have referred to it in my memorandum. I would certainly have told Mr Duncan Smith about such a conversation and would probably have asked the Fees Office to set out their advice in writing.

As I told you previously I used to go to the Fees Office for them to advise me in the administration of Mr Duncan Smith’s MP’s allowances and to obtain information from them about the funds available. I found the people working there were very helpful. I cannot however remember receiving any general guidance about the use of Mr Duncan Smith’s MP’s Staffing Allowance as opposed to Short Money. As I explained at our last meeting I had to do my best by myself to interpret the rules on the basis of the information provided in the Green Book. At the time of sending the memorandum to Vanessa I thought that I should be paid out of Short Money but that was prompted by the fact that I was concerned there might not otherwise be enough money in the Staffing Allowance to pay salaries for Cara Walker and the researcher. I have read the rules in the Green Book again since and realise that because I was helping Mr Duncan Smith in the performance of his parliamentary duties I could be paid out of Short Money or from the Staffing Allowance.

Accordingly I have nothing to add or vary concerning my recollection of these matters from what I have already informed you in my testimony.

20 January 2004

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 121

27. Written statement by Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins, 13 October 2003

[See alsoPCS Oral Evidence 24, Volume III]

Background

1. I started to work for Iain Duncan Smith in the middle of the campaign for his election as leader of the Conservative Party in the summer of 2001. When he was elected as the Leader of the Opposition I continued to work for him. My official title was Diary Secretary. I worked for him until October 2002 when I left to assume my current job as Head of the Candidates Department for Conservative Central Office.

2. From 13 September 2001 to October 2002 I worked very closely with Elizabeth Duncan Smith and Annabelle Eyre, who was then Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition.

Elizabeth Duncan Smith’s work

3. When Iain Duncan Smith was appointed Leader of the Opposition it was essential to get his office running as quickly as possible. The events of 11 September 2001 had just occurred and as a result Parliament was recalled. There was therefore no period in which we could establish the new offices but it was necessary in the immediate period merely to rely upon the existing staff working for Iain to handle the additional duties that resulted from his appointment as Leader of the Opposition.

4. Elizabeth Duncan Smith was essential to enable me to do my job as Diary Secretary for the Leader of the Opposition. Due to Iain Duncan Smith’s commitments during the day it was difficult for me to have the opportunity to speak to him about these matters. Elizabeth discussed the arrangements with Iain Duncan Smith and would report back to me on his wishes both in respect of the plans I was making and the arrangements that he would like me to make in the future. Elizabeth would speak to Iain Duncan Smith about the diary arrangements in the evenings or over the weekends and would let us know the following day. She would download documents that I e-mailed to Iain ready for his consideration over the weekends and she would e-mail back his responses.

5. Every Friday I used to send her e-mails with the diary for the following six months and the detailed diary for the week ahead. Elizabeth used to work through it with Iain Duncan Smith over the weekend and would speak to me about them on Monday. She would let me know what information Iain Duncan Smith required for his meetings and engagements. She kept a list of the points outstanding and would contact me to make sure that certain appointments had been made or to report any changes that Iain Duncan Smith wanted to make. We did not work normal office hours. I remember that on one occasion Elizabeth Duncan Smith telephoned me after 12.10 am over the weekend with responses to my queries assuming that she would leave a message for me on my answer-phone. She had just finished working through the points with Iain and was responding so that I could follow them up on Monday morning.

6. Following my departure my role was assumed and extended by Annabelle Eyre who assumed my responsibilities for planning and tours and Paula Malone who took over the management of all other aspects of Iain Duncan Smith’s diary.

7. I have not been approached by any journalists asking me about the work that Elizabeth Duncan Smith did with me during this period.

8. I was not aware of any complaints having been made about Elizabeth Duncan Smith’s work during her employment until I read the recent press coverage about it. I consider her to have been an essential part of the team working for Iain Duncan Smith and it would have been hard for me to have done my work without her assistance.

13 October 2003

122 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

28. Joint written statement by Miss Annabelle Eyre and Mr Andrew Whitby-Collins, 7 January 2004

Comments and response to testimony from Mr Adrian Muldrew

As has been discussed previously, whilst the set up envisaged by David Maclean for the office had a number of merits to it, ultimately it was let down by some of the people involved.

Annabelle Eyre made it clear to David Maclean that she did not think that the volunteers who had worked on the leadership campaign would successfully transfer to working in the Leader’s Office, however it was decided that they ought to be given the opportunity.

Annabelle Eyre’s role was defined, but the remainder of the staff had very little direction as to what their roles would be. For practical reasons Andrew Whitby-Collins had to assume the duties of the diary secretary quickly.

Jonathan Caine was a support speech writer for William Hague. He carried out this task when he was not fulfilling his main role as research support to the spokesman for Northern Ireland in the Shadow Cabinet. He was not involved in the running of the Leader’s Office either before Iain became Leader or after.

Andrew Whitby-Collins concerned by the observations of Adrian Muldrew particularly in regard to the planning of the tours during the campaign which Andrew Whitby-Collins planned almost entirely on his own. It is also not correct that Andrew Whitby-Collins assumed any official title for himself.

With reference to Adrian Muldrew’s belief that a “barrier” went up between the inner core of the Leader’s office and the rest of the staff, we would point out that those described as the core were the staff of the Private Office and there was a natural division both physically and for the sake of confidentiality, between them and other staff of the Leader’s Office. However at no time were we aware that there was any feeling of resentment as a result of this arrangement.

If there was a meeting (pg 12), its occurrence and conclusions were not communicated to the rest of the office, we were not aware that Adrian Muldrew had been given lead responsibility for briefing for events and visits. On her arrival, this responsibility was given to Rebecca Layton, who liaised with Andrew Whitby-Collins directly.

We dispute the reference to “relative anarchy” in the office. The Private Office was functioning perfectly satisfactorily. However, the problem with the remainder of the staff was because they had no specific job titles, or specific duties. Unfortunately, despite being proposed for the role as Chief of Staff by David Maclean, Jenny Ungless was unable or unwilling to take a grip on the situation and sort out the workings of the office.

We disagree with assertions about the arrangements in the Leader’s Office. Letters to supporters were dealt with by Christopher Montgomery and Bunny Smedley, and any delay arose here; Iain replied individually to the donors who had funded his campaign. We also disagree with his comments about the way correspondence from various people in the party and diary requests were dealt with.

The comments about the phone system are incorrect. Annabelle and Andrew’s calls were only answered in the private office, unless our phones were specifically diverted to another member of staff. When we were on the phone, calls would go through to voice mail automatically, it would not have been possible for another member of staff to have intercepted the call. When we were out of the office, more often than not we would divert our phones to our mobile phones, and when we the House was sitting and during the afternoon we moved over to the Commons, we would divert our phones to the office there. There were occasions when we would ask Adrian to pick up our calls, but this was generally at lunchtime on a Friday when the volume of calls was lighter and was certainly not at all a regular occurrence.

As Adrian states, he was unlikely to be aware of Betsy’s involvement because there were a number of areas that he was not involved in. His position was such that he wouldn’t have been involved in the constituency, or diary related matters—such things would have been dealt with in the private office.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 123

With regard to his queries about the Christmas Cards, Annabelle Eyre totally refutes that she discussed the Christmas Card list with Christopher Montgomery. Betsy was consulted about its compilation in 2001. The difference between 2001 and previous years is that it was a much bigger and more complex list.

7 January 2004

29. Written statement by Mr Tim Wilkinson, 4 December 2003

My name is Tim Wilkinson, my business is TWS Design and I am a computer consultant.

On Tuesday 11 November I visited the office of Betsy Duncan Smith at her home in Swanbourne in my professional capacity as a computer consultant. I spent three hours using a professional data recovery tool to try and restore files that had been previously deleted or damaged in someway.

I had limited success in recovering readable data, even though there was a massive amount of information including e-mails and word documents on the hard drive. Most where beyond repair and although there are a multitude of possible reasons for this, I would suggest that the files were in such bad condition due to corruption from viruses and having been deleted for over a period of time. In a lot of cases however the titles and information on the types of files were still readable. The vast majority of files were either outlook e-mails or Microsoft Word documents relating to correspondence between Betsy Duncan Smith and Annabelle Eyre and Annabel Tuck.

Files I did recover were left for Betsy Duncan Smith to sort through at her leisure, and on two separate occasions after my visit I attempted to clean some damaged files recovered whilst at the office.

4 Decemer 2003

124 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Evidence from Chingford

30. Transcripts of telephone conversations between Ms Louise Western and six Chingford Councillors, 29 September 2003

Councillor Geoff Walker

GW: Hello

LW: Hi, is that Geoffrey Walker

GW: Speaking

LW: Hi, my name’s Louise I’m calling from BBC Newsnight. Just wondered if you had a couple of minutes to spare.

GW: It’s difficult, I’m actually at work at the moment. .erm . .what’s it about

LW: It’ll literally take 2 minutes or I can call you some other time—at a more convenient time which ever is easier

GW: Can you tell me what it’s about

LW: Yes certainly, we’re just looking at the role of MPs within their local constituency and how someone like you would go about making an arrangement with Iain Duncan Smith …who you would talk to

GW: Well it’s not a problem I just either phone him up or make an appointment to see him at the surgery

LW: Nice and easy ….who do you normally talk to

GW: Iain. I normally talk to Iain direct

LW: Oh right do you never go through either his diary secretary or his agent

GW: Oh well sometimes I get Rikki his agent or sometimes his secretary

LW: What’s the name of his secretary

GW: Oh Christine erm

LW: Christine Walton?

GW: No no he’s got 2.....erm…..his parliamentary secretary is Christine Watson I think

LW: oh Christine Watson yeah

GW: I normally just phone a number—I don’t normally call her by a name

LW: oh right, have you ever had any dealings with his wife … because I know she’s…

GW: Betsy yes

LW: You have. …on a professional level

GW: When she was working ... before he became leader then she would sometimes call me up and ask me to stand in for him if there was a function that he couldn’t get to

LW: so this was before September 01 … when he became leader didn’t he

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 125

GW: Yes yes

LW: so you’ve had no dealings with her since

GW: Well yes I see her from time to time

LW: you see her rather than have the same kind of dealings with her you had before or prior to him becoming leader.

GW: Yes

LW: Right I know she was a very important part of the role he played so it’s quite usual for I suppose for her

GW: One would expect so

LW: Yeah so the main people are Christine Watson and Rikki Radford

GW: Yes

LW: Oh right

GW: Or Iain himself would sometimes speak directly when it’s an important matter which saves going to people in between

LW: Is it quite easy for you to go straight to him then?

GW: I don’t have a problem

LW: oh right, ok that’s over the phone rather or is it

GW: usually, well both I see him quite regularly here anyway but

LW: yeah he’s quite active

GW: Oh yes he’s very good

LW: yeah absolutely well OK. Just out of interest what kind of dealings did you have with Betsy what kind of events did she help to arrange.

GW: not so much arrange, people who would ask Iain to attend like a scouts parade something like that that he couldn’t get to she would phone me up and ask me to stand in for him.

LW: ok I see what you mean, do you know if she did that for quite a while

GW: well yes for several years

LW: ok well that’s great, thank you very much for your time, sorry to disturb you at work

GW: No problem

LW: Bye

Councillor Michael Fish

LW: Hi, it’s Louise at BBC’s Newsnight, I’m just wondering if you had some time to talk

ME: yes ok

LW: We’re just looking at the role of MPs in their constituency and your particular constituency is Iain Duncan Smith is the main MP who plays a pretty huge role he gets very involved in local activities we’re just wondering how you would go about contacting him

126 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

ME: Oh through his office or his agent

LW: sorry

ME: through his office or his local agent

LW: Who do you normally talk to in the office

ME: Well his agent

LW: Who is Rikki Radford. Is he the person you’d normally talk to organize anything like that

ME: yes I think so

LW: we know his wife is very involved plays a very important part in his business affairs she was a diary secretary I think .... Have you ever had any dealings with her

MF: I don’t think so, no

LW: So it is mainly Rikki, what about Christine Watson I think who is the other person in his office

ME: Well she maybe the London office I wouldn’t know

LW: Oh right ok but there have been no dealing with Betsy as far as you know

MF: Not that I know of

LW: right ok so is it generally very easy to get hold of him one way or another

MF: Erm…. I should have thought it was fairly easy but as you say there is a difference in actual fact where we were historically part of the Epping division and we had Churchill during the war and Norman Tebbit as he became further up the poll he also was a very good local MP....it became more difficult for him as he went further up so it is a problem when MPs have more than one job

LW: From what I can gather Iain Duncan Smith does a very good job

MF: yes I think he does.... he throws himself especially into I know trying to protect special schools

LW: yes he does St Joseph’s and Hawkswood

ME: Hawkswood yes

LW: the work he’s doing is great, have you had any dealings with him over those

MF: Well I’m Chairman of Hawkswood Governors

LW: oh right ok so does all that correspondence go through Rikki Radford or

MF: No I think that all goes direct to him but I know Rikki Radford actually co-ordinates the local work and local visits and things like that and attends the appropriate council meetings to listen to what’s going on

LW: oh right, a big part of the community

MF: yes

LW: That’s very helpful, thank you for your time, is this a home number I’ve got you on

MF: yes I’ve retired

LW: well thank you very much for taking some time to talk to us.

MF: Right thank you

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 127

LW: Bye

ME : Bye

Councillor Eric Williams

LW: Hi, just wondering if you have a couple of minutes to talk

EW: I think I know what you’re talking about and I’ve been asked to refer you to the press office at conservative central office and that’s really all I have to say

LW: How do you …

EW: Thank you very much goodbye

Councillor Linda Huggett

LH: depends on what it’s about Louise

LW: We’re looking at the role of MPs in their local constituency

LH: oh right

LW: and one of the people who is really active in their constituency is Iain Duncan Smith. We’re just wondering how you would go about contacting him in relation to any of the events he attends

LH: Right, well I’m actually one of his councillors

LW: yes we realize that

LH: he’s very contactable

LW: who would you normally go through

LH: I would normally go through his secretary

LW: who’s that

LH: erm he’s got 2 secretaries one’s for constituency business and one for his ordinary business so it would be Christine

LW: Is that Christine Walton Watson

LH: yes Watson that’s right

LW: there are some Annabelles as well

LH: yes that his other secretary Annabelle

LW: oh right so it’s either Christine or Annabelle

LH: he’s very contactable if you got an urgent issue he’s always there he’s very supportive

LW: yeah no he seems to be—he seems to be amazing. Have you ever had any dealing with his wife

LH: Yes

LW: because I know she has a very important role

LH: yes and his family

128 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

LW: oh right is that through a professional way or rather than personal

LH: no it’s personal—they attend a lot of the functions that we hold

LW: she comes with him

LH: yes

LW: has she ever taken part in organzing any of the diary events or have you ever spoken to her in that relation

LH: I have actually spoken to her when one of the secretaries hasn’t been well when I haven’t been able to contact one of the secretaries—I’ve got Iain’s pager you see

LW: oh right

LH: if I wanted to get hold of him very urgently I could

LW: oh right

LH: but I wouldn’t abuse that I’d normally go through the secretaries

LW: right when would have been the last time you would have spoken to Betsy say for professional reasons for organizing some sort of event

LH: Well normally I would go through the secretary and the secretary would contact Betsy

LW: right so you haven’t had any direct dealings with her in the last year or 2

LH: yes I have I’ve seen her at the functions.

LW: oh right right yeah but other than seeing her at the functions maybe contacting her to organize

LH: No hasn’t been necessary

LW: right so it is normally Christine. What’s Annabelle’s surname I understand there are 2 of them I just want to differentiate between them

LH: I haven’t go my diary on me at the moment, it’s written down in my diary

LW: oh right ok is it worth calling you back

LH: well you can phone Annabelle direct she’s at the House of Commons

LW: Ok that’s fantastic thank you so much for your time

LH: That’s ok

LW: sorry for interrupting you at work

LH: That’s alright—any reason you’re asking the questions

LW: yeah we’re looking at local MPs work within their constituency we’re asking several councillors

LH: Iain in particular or a whole range of them

LW: at the moment Iain but it’s pure research purposes at the moment

LH: all I can say is that he’s very actively involved at local level and if you’ve got a problem he’s almost immediately contactable

LW: that seems to be

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 129

LH: he’s very supportive

LW: yes absolutely alright

LH: unlike a lot of others

LW: Yes it’s funny you say that, …. I’m picking on him as being one of the better ones at the moment so absolutely even in within the Walthamstow area he’s....

LH: yes he is very active and if you’ve got a problem he’s very supportive

LW: hmmm ok well that’s good to know. Thank you

LH: ok

LW : Thank you very much

LH: thank you good bye

Councillor Laurie Braham

LW: We’re just looking at various MPs work within their constituency and one of the people who’s very active is Iain Duncan Smith

LB: Of course

LW: and we’re just wondering erm the kind of role that you would have to take if you needed to say get in touch with him who you’d contact that kind of thing

LB: Well.... ha ha... erm a direct line number

LW: is that direct to him or

LB: Well I’d ring his secretary

LW: his secretary now is that—are we talking Christine or

LB: yep

LW: There’s an Annabelle as well isn’t there

LB: Yeah that’s right

LW: would you go to either of them or

LB: or I could email them whichever

LW: right but they’re generally the people you’d go through

LB: well no actually—I don’t know what the purpose of the questions are but of course we have a common agent

LW: Now is that Rikki

LB: Rikki Radford yeah—normally I’d ring Rikki on his mobile which gets me through to Iain if I need him swiftly I get him swiftly

LW: right—he seems to be very good very approachable

LB: He is

130 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

LW: yeah

LB: Extremely

LW: just wondering there’s a guy in his office Adrian Muldrew is that right

LB: Adrian

LW: Muldrew

LB: I’m not aware of him I may have met him but I’m not aware of him

LW: oh right

LB: I don’t have dealings with him

LW: oh ok... would you have ever dealt with his wife because I know she plays a very important role in his.

LB: Betsy yes

LW: have you had dealings with her

LB: oh yes well he’s a family man..we … well (a poster???) it’s a friendly clique if you like you know we meet fairly regularly...meet the children and Betsy so does my wife of course... we’re all sort of included.

LW: Does Betsy ever get involved in kind of organizing diary events within the area

LB: not as far as I know—I mean I’ve never discussed politics or political things with her but diary events., when you say diary events so comes to all bazzars and coffee mornings and

LW So she turns up at the events but doesn’t get involved in organizing them or anything

LB: oh no no no he leaves that to his ... he’s leader of the party for Gods sake (laughs)

LW: yes no we know he plays an important role and family is important to him

LB: oh absolutely

LW: we have seen her with him whenever the local paper is down at a fair or something—she’s always there

LB: yeah absolutely

LW: well thank you for your time

LB: not at all

LW: sorry to disturb you at home.

LB: not at all—a pleasure

LW: thanks bye

Councillor Matthew Davis

MD: Hello

LW: Is Matthew Davies there please

MD: You’re speaking to him

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 131

LW: Oh hi my name’s Louise, I’m calling from BBC Newsnight, can I just check you’re still a councillor in the hale end and highams park area

MD: I am

LW: Oh great, do you have a few minutes to spare

MD: Go on

LW: We’re just looking at the role of MPs in their constituency, the kind of activities they get up to and how they’re set up, that kind of thing and we’re wondering whether how you go about such commitments and in terms of Iain Duncan Smith the kind of contact you’d have with him because I know he’s incredibly busy within the constituency and whether you have much er many dealings with him.

MD: errm there’s 2 things I should say about this. The first one is yes certainly I do and secondly I’m not going to talk about Iain unless I’ve spoken to his office first. He is leader of the party and I don’t think it’s right for me to speak to the BBC about him without checking.... with his office first to be honest.

LW: Oh sure, I mean all we’re asking are general questions about the kind of constituency events and how they’re set up that kind of thing that’s all

MD: Erm

LW: nothing specific just in terms... if there are constituency events happening in a couple of weeks who would be the people you would deal with at his office whether it’s er I think a couple of names have come up as in Diary Secretary or anyone like that

MD: er well yes erm as a general rule you would either call one of the Annabelles or speak to Iain’s agent constituency agent

LW: Is that Rikki Radford

MD: Yes

LW: oh right

MD: Personally I would always speak to Rikki because obviously he’s in hourly contact with Iain more or less. If you want to let Iain know about something I found normally calling Rikki is the best.

LW: O right, I know his wife gets very involved in these events as well I think she was his diary secretary

MD: What Iain’s wife

LW: Yes

MD: I don’t know about that

LW: So you’ve never had any contact with her

MD: No I have I’ve met Betsy a number of times and she’s a very nice person

LW: I’m sure she is. Is that a professional level or a personal level

MD: What do you mean

LW: When you say you’ve met her...

MD: She comes with him to events

LW: Right ok so you’ve never actually organized any events through her

132 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

MD: no he has staff to do that

LW: Right ok that’s lovely thank you so much for your time. Have I called you at work

MD: No

LW: at home

MD: I’m self employed I work from home you can normally get me on this number but if you call me late at night I won’t answer it

LW: Well that’s fair enough, thank you good bye

MD : Bye

29 September 2003

31. Transcript of telephone conversation between Mr Neal Dalgleish and Councillor John Gover, 29 September 2003

Top 10” of the telephone conversation is missing. Recording begins:

ND: I just wondered, do you know whether Mrs Duncan Smith was also working for him at that time . . . in his constituency (first answer refers to the missing earlier question to Mr Gover about when he stopped being Mr DS’s agent.)

JG: Honestly, well I think you should speak to his present agent. I don’t … what I did ... I’m a councillor for the London borough of Waltham Forest … that’s how I spend most of my time. She certainly appeared with some frequency during the election campaign. Campaigning is a slightly different thing from routine constituency work.

ND: Of course, yes. What I was wondering was ...because what I thought was that she used to be, if not now his constituency secretary. I mean she worked arranging visits and so on when, before he was leader of the opposition.

JG: I wouldn’t know that, I wasn’t … the only in depth involvement I had was in running the campaign. What, how he organises his life as a Member of Parliament, who worked for him I just don’t know. It would be fairly common place for Members wives to have a role in their job as a constituency MP. But the extent to which she did or didn’t I just don’t know.

ND: And presumably he is still your constituency MP for the ward that you represent on the local authority?

JG: Oh yeh.

ND: So if you want to arrange a meeting or something with him. Or get him to come along and help out on something which affects your ward who do you deal with. Who do you deal with, who arranges it?

JG: Well I would deal now with his...the last time I had to speak to him his constituency secretary ..although I think she might have had a job title since ..his constituency secretary was a lady called ..Christine Watson ..or it might be Maureen ..I think it’s Christine ..you know her do you?

ND: the name is familiar yes ..she works for him in his parliamentary office.

JG: yeh well the last time I needed him with some help on a constituency matter she was the lady I dealt I went through

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 133

ND: She did his diary as far as you know?..at least if you wanted to try to make a diary date for him to come to the constituency and help out with something it would be her you would deal with would it?

JG: Well on the basis of past experience that’s where I would start. Whether I would get the same person on a future occasion I don’t know. But I know how to access his office.

ND: ..well that’s what I’m saying ..it’s not usually his wife who deals with that sort of thing?

JG: No in my experience ..but my experience is quite limited because I don’t …Well what people don’t appreciate is that ...the, a Member of Parliament has very limited powers to assist constituents in matters which are within the portfolio of the local authority …the best thing he can do is write to the Chief Executive and perhaps pull some weight or something but a very large number of all constituency MPs can obviously this applies to constituents contains something to the effect that this is a matter that is within the authority of your local council. And of course those things are pursued by councillors.

ND: Of course

JG: I haven’t …I’m trying to think ..I really can’t remember the last time I thought it would be useful to say to Iain I want you to exercise some muscle on this or that particular matter because if you know what you’re doing as a councillor you can normally make things happen yourself.

ND: Yeh ..l suppose what often happens is you want the MP to appear, to come along and support an event .. you know?

JG: Well yeh that sort of thing .. if it was in the constituency then the first port of call would be his constituency agent .. that’s a man called Rikki Radford. Who you may have heard of..

ND: Yeh..

JG: If it was me I would say that .. we tend to do these things in a way which tend to keep them happy ..you would arrange it fairly well in advance and if you had an event which you didn’t have to fix the time and date of straight away you’d speak to Rikki and ask him what’s a good chance ..of a date. He would give you some ideas you’d then fix the date ..go back to him and he’s probably ..in conjunction with Iain’s office would come up with an answer. Which if there was sufficient notice ..then if there were no obstacles then in my experience the answer would usually be yes.

ND: Yes ..he seems to do a lot of work in the constituency even as party leader..

JG: Oh yeh…I’m sitting in my car in the main street of (Milton Keynes ??) at the moment ..if it was a Friday I would expect to see him walking down the Street sometime. Because the constituency office is just off the main street ..A number of the traders have his photograph up in their shop because, just to commemorate an occasion when he just walked in to say hello. I don’t know what the substance of your enquiry is ..but I can tell you that DS is an extremely conscientious constituency MP..

ND: oh no ..people have said absolutely that...and even as leader of the opposition which means he has lots of other things to do ..he’s still there

JG: In a sense I suppose he’s lucky because the constituency is pretty close to London. He maintains a house in the constituency ..as you probably know.

ND: He doesn’t live in the constituency normally though does he ..?

JG: He’s maintained a home in the constituency since he was adopted as parliamentary candidate about 15 years ago and has kept it all the way through. My recent experience since ..I think he’s now moved out of the house he used to occupy in Fulham and moved out to Buckinghamshire ..he doesn’t, I understand spend a lot of time overnight in Chingford because it’s close to London.

ND: Of course it’s a long trip from Chingford to Buckinghamshire on a Friday night.

134 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

JG: ..This house ..the main reason he hasn’t moved to Chingford from London on a permanent basis is that he has young children in local schools in Fulham.

ND: I see

JG: ..But even in those days he did quite frequently during the election campaign for example ..when we’d get finished at night ..he’d go back to Chingford and put his head down.

ND: ..and just back to my original point ..have you had him visit you or do any events for you in the last couple of years?

JG: Yes ..I had an issue on an estate which is in my ward which I picked up and ran with, to do with security. The estate was constructed in the 1950s when the need for the sort of security precautions which are now necessary was not so evident and the estate was falling behind in that regard. I made a fuss with the local authority and while this was going on and I was in the process of getting the matter sufficient priority he visited the estate. Spoke to all the residents, the ones that wanted to talk to him and made a speech supporting the initiative

ND: Was the recently?

JG: That would have been this time last year

ND: Last autumn or whatever?

JG: No last summer

ND: That’s summer 2002? That was all arranged through Rikki Radford was it?

JG: Yeh

ND: And not Mrs Duncan Smith?

JG: Correct.... What is the significance of your question?

ND: I’m just trying to find out whether she’s worked in the constituency or not.

JG: Why don’t you ask her?

ND: You’re absolutely right ..I’m sure at some point I will.

ND: I’m very grateful ..thanks very much.

JG: What’s your name again?

ND: It’s Neal Dalgleish

JG: Ok thanks bye.

29 September 2003

32. Written statement by Mrs Coralie Buckmaster, 12 October 2003

I can confirm that I contacted Betsy Duncan Smith on various constituency matters before and during the period when the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP first became leader of the opposition. During the period September 2001 to December 2002 there was a re-organisation at the IDS office and during this process I had occasion to contact Betsy Duncan Smith as stated.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 135

I was also in contact with other and previous office staff, namely Christine Watson and Annabelle Eyre. I have dealt directly with the office on many constituency matters, also those concerning Chingford & Woodford Green Councillors.

12 October 2003

33. E-mail to Mr Rikki Radford from Councillor Matthew Davis, 29 September 2003

Subject: Newsnight

As promised an account of my call from Newsnight.

I was phoned earlier today by a woman who gave her name as Louise and who told me that she was a researcher for BBC Newsnight doing a story on how active MPs are in their constituencies.

She told me that she had “heard” that Iain was very active locally and wondered how local Councillors would alert him to events happening locally that they wished to invite him to. She went on to ask, in three different ways, how involved Betsy was in planning Iain’s diary and whether she was the person to whom requests for Iain to attend things should be made.

I was frankly, suspicious from the start of this conversation, since I did not feel that she was being honest with me and it did seem all too peculiar that the MP she was supposedly investigating, regarding an essentially local story, just happens to be the leader of the Conservative Party. I therefore referred her to you and did not answer any of her questions except to say that, personally, I would normally seek to contact Iain via yourself as I was suggesting she should do.

It would seem apparent that Louise actively lied to me about both the reason for her enquiry, and the topic of the Newsnight item that she was researching, and I would love to make a complaint to the BBC Governors about that, but won’t unless it is cleared higher up first.

If I can assist in any further way then do please let me know.

29 September 2003

34. Written statement by Councillor John Gover, 13 October 2003

Preamble

I joined the then Conservative & Unionist Party in about 1962 in 1964. I entered the Party’s professional service as a trainee. In 1966, having in the meantime achieved lesser qualifications I was awarded, by examination, the Certificate to Practice as a political agent in the service of the Conservative & Unionist Party. I followed that profession in four separate constituencies until 1970, when of my own volition I left the Party’s employ to pursue a career in industry.

Statement of Substance

Knowing I had the requisite skills and in the absence of an alternative qualified resource, Chingford Conservative Association asked me to act as election agent to Mr Iain Duncan Smith at the General Elections of 1997 and 2001. I willingly did so and for only nominal remuneration.

136 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

In that role I obviously became personally acquainted with Mr Duncan Smith and his wife Elizabeth, usually known as Betsy. It is my clear recollection that during the approach to the 2001 general election campaign and during it, Betsy had a significant administrative role in Mr Duncan Smith’s day-to-day work.

Later in 2001, Mr Duncan Smith was elected Leader of the Conservative Party. After that, during 2002, I spoke with Betsy on several occasions about constituency matters particularly concerning Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency presence and related overnight accommodation. Those discussions could not have happened unless she, Betsy, had a role in her husband’s political life, and was aware of his movements as Party Leader. I suppose Betsy spoke to me in addition to others because of the acquaintance formed during the general elections.

During the general elections I was aware that Betsy worked from an office at home. She would have had to because parliamentary offices are not available to MPs whilst Parliament is dissolved. I believe that in any event it was her practice to divide her working time between the parliamentary office and home-based facilities. I had landline telephone numbers for both locations.

It may however be relevant to state that most of the conversations in 2002 took place by mobile telephone. Whilst it has not been used during 2003, what I believe to be Betsy’s mobile telephone number is still, at this moment, stored in my device, as it was at the relevant time(s). I do not know whether the number has changed.

Being aware of the reason why I have been asked to make this statement, I would say that I do not have and never have had any knowledge of how Mr Duncan Smith deploys or has deployed the annual financial allowance available to him as an MP for secretarial/administrative assistance, so far as Betsy or anyone else is concerned.

13 October 2003

35. Letter to Mr Rikki Radford from Councillor Geoff Walker, 12 October 2003

Further to current reports in the press, a couple of weeks ago I received a telephone call from a Newsnight research assistant, whose name escapes me, claiming to be researching into Iain’s constituency work. They were enquiring as to the ease of contact I had with Iain and I confirmed that I had fairly frequent communication with him, both when he is in the constituency and by telephone when the occasion demands. I made the point that Iain still spends a considerable amount of time looking after his constituency and worked very hard to maintain local contacts.

She went on to ask if I had any contact with Betsy. I confirmed that most contacts were during visits here in the constituency when she accompanied Iain. On being pressed for more information, I also confirmed that on several occasions Betsy had contacted me by phone to ask if I would attend a function as Iain’s representative as he was unavoidably prevented from attending due to prior commitments. These were usually events such as annual St. Georges Day Parades for the Scouts, and similar functions. (These requests were made to me as Leader of the Group, hence similar approaches to other members would have been unlikely.)

On being pressed further for more details, I explained that this was a little while ago and that lately, contacts with Iain had been either direct by telephone to Iain, or through yourself or Christine Watson at the House of Commons.

I trust this information will clarify the contacts made.

12 October 2003

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 137

36. Written statement by Mrs Lesley Finlayson, 15 October 2003

My name is Mrs Lesley Anne Finlayson. I am a Conservative Party member and a local Councillor for Hale End and Highams Park Ward in the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

I have known Iain and Betsy Duncan Smith since Iain was selected to fight the 1992 general election.

Due to Iain and myself representing the same constituents we occasionally had reason to work together. One such occasion was prior to the local elections in 2002. I was dealing with a nasty case of bullying at a local school.

My constituent had made an appointment to see Iain at his Friday surgery and wanted me to be with her. I rang his office to speak to Annabelle Eyre who used to run his office to update Iain on the latest events. Betsy answered the phone. We chatted about our two daughters who are the same age. When Iain and Betsy are in the constituency, the two girls play together. We chatted about Betsy running Iain’s appointments, we laughed about Betsy being able to tie and slow Iain down.

On another occasion, Betsy rang me on a Thursday and apologised for the late notice but Iain was going to be in the constituency the next day on a walk about and could I be there to support him.

As far as I was aware Betsy was working for her husband organising his appointments.

15 October 2003

37. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor John Gover, 20 October 2003

Complaint against Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP (IDS)

Thank you for your letter of 20th October 2003 which enclosed a transcript of an alleged telephone conversation between one N Daigleish and me.

I have carefully read both your letter and the transcript and firstly refer to that.

Daigleish contacted me on my mobile telephone whilst I was in my car in Station Road Chingford during the middle part of the day in question and said he was a BBC researcher. He went on to say he understood I was IDS’s constituency agent and that he was doing research on how nationally known politicians juggle their constituency responsibilities with their high profile ones as party leaders etc, or words to that effect.

I told him I was not IDS’s constituency agent and he seemed surprised. To assist him, I explained that as one who many years ago qualified to do so, I had acted as election agent for IDS in 1997 and 2001 because he did not at those times have a constituency agent. I made it clear that on both occasions my role ceased immediately after the post campaign administrative matters had been completed.

The forgoing is my recollection of the part of the telephone conversation described as missing from the transcript. It is my supposition that it is missing because subsequent developments clearly show that Dalgleish gave a false reason for contacting me. I take the strongest possible exception to that and am considering available remedies.

With regard to the remainder of the transcript, the generality of which is familiar to me, I would comment that it is disjointed and does not make sense in certain paragraphs. The third, eighth and ninth items on page two are good examples, as are the fifth and seventh ones on page three.

In the fourth line on the last page, Dalgleish says he was trying to find out whether Mrs Duncan Smith worked in the constituency or not. That is obviously untrue. So far as I know the allegations concern her role in IDS’s parliamentary office and contain nothing about her activities in the constituency.

138 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Whilst I repeat that the generality of the transcript is familiar to me I do not believe it has any evidential worth. My recollection is insufficiently clear for me to be sure there are no material omissions other than the one identified above. The conversation took place at zero notice and Dalgleish told me he was undertaking routine research.

In answer to whether I can further assist you, my 2002 contacts with Mrs Duncan Smith were as described in my substantive statement, are not documented and took place by mobile telephone. So far as date frames are concerned, to the best of my recollection the contacts were around the 2002 local elections that took place in May.

It may however be relevant to mention Christine Watson who is referred to in item 8 of the first page of the transcript. This, with the first three items of page two, attempts to imply that I believe(d) Christine Watson managed IDS’s diary. I have never believed that. The incident referred to, and there was only ever one in which I had dealings with Christine Watson, concerned a dispute between a local residents forum and the railway company that serves Chingford. It had attracted significant local press coverage. After being contacted by a well-known local resident who is also a former councillor, I discussed it with Christine Watson, as a constituency issue, against the background of IDS’s possible role in it. IDS did, I believe at very short notice, subsequently attend a decisive meeting on the matter but its implications for his diary never featured in my discussions with Christine Watson.

In item three of page one Dalgleish says he thought Mrs Duncan Smith was IDS’s constituency secretary and arranged visits and so on. That exhibits a limited understanding of how a high profile MP's parliamentary office works. The two things are virtually mutually exclusive. In my experience a constituency secretary provides administrative support to her MP in his constituency role. This involves correspondence, analysing issues, making enquiries and maintaining telephone contact with others involved, in addition no doubt to much else. The role of a diary secretary is quite different. She ensures that the MP always knows where he should be, how to get there, at what time and is never double booked. With a high profile MP, with constantly changing appointments nation-wide and internationally, it is a major task. The two roles are quite separate and in my view could be combined only in a superhuman. I am aware that Christine Watson has held the job of constituency secretary and that Betsy Duncan Smith has worked as diary secretary. What I do not know is when either of them began or ended those roles. I am aware only of the assertion in your letter, I have no more knowledge of IDS’s past or present parliamentary office arrangements than mentioned in my statement or in this letter. There is no reason why I or any other local Conservative activist should. The parliamentary office and the constituency are quite separate dimensions of an MPs life and in my experience their paths hardly ever cross. It is my opinion that your complainant should focus on what people know about the issues that concern him. I am anecdotally aware of “evidence” that the complainant has gathered from people in IDS's constituency. This suggests to me that those questioned know little or nothing of his parliamentary office. I cannot see how that assists your investigation which I understand to be into aspects of personnel and employment matters at that office.

20 October 2003

38. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Linda Huggett, 23 October 2003

Complaint against Mr lain Duncan Smith MP

I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20th October 2003.

I have read through the “purported” transcript of the telephone conversation that took place between myself and Louise Weston of BBC Newsnight in September this year. I do recall having a conversation with her although she did not disclose her surname and I cannot remember the exact date.

I would like to place on record that at no time during that conversation did she advise me that the conversation was being taped and if she had done so I would not have spoken to her. I am a fully qualified

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 139

solicitor and it is my understanding that obtaining so called “evidence” in this manner is quite clearly in breach of the guidelines contained in the Data Protection Act 1998 which state that the consent of the person making the statement must be given first. It is therefore my opinion that any “evidence” obtained in this way is inadmissible.

Turning now to the transcript itself it appears to have been “chopped and changed around” so much it is almost totally unrecognisable from what I originally said. I am not a Chingford Councillor and to my recollection of what was said the written transcript has been typed in the wrong order. It has been altered in such a way that it is completely inaccurate. It has taken any comments I made completely out of context and in some parts the wording does not appear to make any sense whatsoever.

Although I am a Monkhams Ward Councillor for the London Borough of Redbridge I have never had any actual knowledge of how Mr Iain Duncan Smith runs his office or what his working or secretarial arrangements are. There has never been any reason why I should need this information as if I want to contact him now I do so through his Constituency Office at Chingford or through his Parliamentary Agent Mr R Radford.

It is extremely difficult to remember when I last spoke to Mrs Duncan Smith at the House of Commons. During the last two year period since Mr Duncan Smith was elected as Conservative Leader I remember having spoken to her once at his office at the House of Commons. I believe that this was sometime after he had been elected as Leader between September and October 2001. Although I cannot recall the exact date I remember that I was on holiday with my family in Cyprus when the Twin Towers at New York were destroyed and Mr Duncan Smith was elected as Leader.

I returned from holiday on September 16th 2001 and I needed to contact Mr Duncan Smith fairly urgently to ask him to support the local campaign to save the “Sir James Hawkey Hall” from closure and inform him about various important local issues that had arisen in the Monkhams Ward before our local “Common Sense” leaflet was prepared (of which I was a co-author) and sent out to local residents. I therefore telephoned the office and spoke to Mrs Duncan Smith at the House of Commons who said that she would relay the information on to her husband and I also offered her my congratulations on Mr Duncan Smith being elected as Leader. I enclose a copy of the Common Sense leaflet setting out the various local matters which I hope is of assistance as it will help in establishing the time.

I do not feel there is anything more that I can factually remember but I have no objection to your telephoning me either on my direct line at my office on *** or at my home on ***.

23 October 2003

39. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Matthew Davis, October 2003

Thank you for your letter of 20th October regarding your investigation into a complaint made against Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP.

I have carefully reviewed the transcript, which you have supplied to me and I would like to make the following comments about it:

1) A telephone conversation did take place between Louise from Newsnight and myself. However the transcript is by no means at all a complete or accurate record of that conversation, indeed I feel it to be highly mendacious. It is also worth stating that at no time did Louise give any indication that she was either recording or taking verbatim notes of our conversation. I would point out that it is the law of the land that no telephone call may be recorded, by one party to it, without them informing the other party that such a recording is taking place.

140 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

2) There are a number of parts of our conversation, parts that I recall vividly, which are totally absent from the transcript. These would be:

a) The introduction, which Louise gave to me, is not accurately reflected in the transcript. Specifically she stated that she was researching an item on how active MPs are in their constituencies and claimed that she had "heard" that Mr Duncan Smith was very active locally and that she wished to explore that particular issue. I then queried why they had chosen to pick the Leader of the Conservative Party for such an item and was unequivocally told that they were making the same enquiries regarding a number of MPs from all parties. This was, it is now obvious, patently untrue. None of this part of the conversation is in the transcript.

b) I also stated that as a relatively newly elected Councillor I had never had the need to invite Mr Duncan Smith to any local event and as such I would only be able to speculate as to how I might go about doing this. This statement does not appear in the transcript. I feel that this is an especially important point since, having said that, I had made it plain that I had had no contact with anyone, ever, regarding Mr Duncan Smith's diary.

c) Despite this Louise continued to push me towards making some kind of statement as to Mrs Duncan Smith's involvement in the scheduling of her husband's diary, and asked that same question several more times and in several more ways than is stated in the transcript.

d) There is a gross distortion of my words regarding Mr Duncan Smith’s office in the transcript. The transcript states that I said that Mr Duncan Smith “has staff to do that” in relation to the organisation of events. What I actually said was that Iain has an office, staffed by various people, including quite possibly his wife, to organise his schedule and that I did not know who worked in that office, although I was familiar with “the Annabelle’s” (Annabelle Eyre, Annabelle Tuck) and our constituency agent Rikki Radford. That remains the case.

e) My statement regarding the hypothetical question of “letting Iain know something” was in relation to informing him of issues within the constituency, and the Council, and not in relation to inviting him to anything. The transcript does not reflect this. Matters of this nature would naturally be handled by the Constituency Agent and not by a diary secretary.

In summation I would say again that I do not regard the transcript as an accurate or complete record of the conversation that took place, it has been deliberately skewed to make it appear that I had made a statement regarding Mrs Duncan Smith, which I most certainly had not.

Having only been elected in May 2002 I have not had the need to make contact with Mr Duncan Smith's office at any time, nor have I ever invited him to any event at all. As such I am unable to comment upon the position held by Mrs Duncan Smith since I have no direct knowledge of that, nor of who has at any point been responsible for Mr Duncan Smith's diary. However I do know that Mrs Duncan Smith has, on a number of occasions, herself contacted Cllr Geoff Walker, the Leader of the Conservative Councillors group on Waltham Forest Council, to ask him to stand in for Mr Duncan Smith at certain local events. This most definitely is the work of a diary secretary.

I hope that this will assist you in clarifying matters, should you wish any further information from me then please let me know.

Received 24 October 2003

40. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Laurie Braham, 25 October 2003

Thank you for your letter of the 20th October 2003, the contents of which I have carefully perused and given much consideration.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 141

While being extremely surprised, and not a little annoyed, that a telephone conversation between myself and a BBC reporter should have been electronically recorded, and no advisement given, I feel, that as I had absolutely nothing to fear, emanating from my replies, I should take the matter no further.

Apart from the fact that the reporter appears to have had a different agenda from that of the main thrust of her questioning, which later became apparent, I can find no fault in the accuracy of the typed transcript of the conversation between myself and the reporter. However, I must protest that with her agenda in mind, how could I possibly be expected to know what goes on in IDS’s office or what his arrangements of staffing are? Had she come right out and told me what she was after, I would have told her of an occasion when I, IDS and Betsy were at a local, social function, I asked Iain about the possibility of meeting him at an imminent political event. It was Betsy who reminded him that he would be elsewhere on that date. I was also aware (colleagues having in the past told me) that Betsy had answered the phone when they had telephoned Iain’s Office.

I trust that the foregoing has been both informative and helpful, but as you say in your letter, the period about which you are seeking information, is some time ago. The occasion which I mentioned earlier, that is, when I enquired about meeting Iain at a local political gathering, took place at the Christmas Bazaar, which would have been early in December 2002.

25 October 2003

41. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor John Fish, 27 October 2003

Complaint against Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP

I remember my views being canvassed by a Newsnight researcher. The main point I was trying to make was that as a MP moves from the back benches to the front national duties increase and some routine constituency work is delegated. My knowledge of this before 1945 is hearsay (Churchill). I was a councillor whilst Norman Tebbit was an MP. His contacts in the constituency became more formal when he became a Cabinet Minister. At Iain Duncan Smith’s rank I would only expect an occasional contact.

My points of contact would be Chingford and Woodford Green Conservative Association 20 A Stations Road Chingford, London E4 7BE, which is Rikki Radford’s local office, and the House of Commons SW1A 0AA. The London Borough of Waltham Forest recommend this address to councillors.

I do not remember any contacts with Christine Watson. Nor do I remember any official contact with Mrs Duncan Smith between mid September 2001 and 31 December 2002, and I never heard that she was working at the Chingford Office. All contacts with the Parliamentary office were in writing and so any contact with Iain would not be recorded.

27 October 2003

42. Transcript of telephone conversation between Mr Michael Crick and Mr Rikki Radford, 29 September 2003

Sec: Conservative office, good afternoon.

MC: Hello, it’s Michael Crick from Newsnight.

Sec: Hi there.

MC: Is Rikki free now.

142 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Sec: I’ll just see if he’s off the phone, just a moment (crackle), just hold on.

RR: Hello.

MC: Hello, Mr Radford.

RR: Yes it is, call me Rikki.

MC: Hello Rikki, I’m from Newsnight at the BBC. I’m doing—we’re doing some work on Iain Duncan Smith and his wife Betsy and particularly her role in his career and I was wondering—I know she used to work as his diary secretary—I was wondering I understand you being the agent in Chingford since he became leader or shortly after that.

RR: Yup.

MC: And does she still do that role as diary secretary.

RR: No.

MC: She doesn’t.

RR: No.

MC: Right, not at all.

RR: No but have you tried running any of these questions through the CCO press office.

MC: erm, I think—

RR: I know your researchers have been ringing around.

MC: Right, I think one of my colleagues has done yes—as far you’re aware she doesn’t have any professional role for him since he became leader.

RR: As far as I’m aware—and I can be absolute it’s not ‘as far as I’m aware’, I know for sure she doesn’t.

MC: Right, erm so she doesn’t write speeches for him or do research.

RR: Come on (sarcastically).

MC: Sorry.

RR: Come on.

MC: (laughs) Right, OK, so. Thanks very much indeed.

RR: Well the bottom line is that she’s his wife and she gets on with looking after the kids.

MC: Right.

RR: OK.

MC: Right ok, Well thanks very much.

29 September 2003

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 143

43. Written statement by Mr Rikki Radford, 13 October 2003

[See also Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 19]

1. I am employed by the Conservative Party Central Office as the agent for the Right Honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP. I have held that position since February 2002. I was appointed to this position by the conservative party association for Chingford and Woodford Green, which is Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency.

2. From my first week working for Mr Duncan Smith I have had dealings with his wife Elizabeth Duncan Smith (‘Betsy’). I was told at the outset by Annabelle Eyre that ‘Betsy was on call’ if I needed a hand with anything.

3. I did not know at that time that Betsy was employed by her husband as, inter alia., a diary secretary but I subsequently became aware that that was the case. I know that many MPs who employ their wives so I did not consider the matter of any note. As far as I was concerned Betsy was an on-call resource of information because of her contacts within the constituency.

4. I had regular dealings with Betsy concerning constituency matters. I spoke to her at least 4 or 5 times a month by telephone or more depending on the state of activity in the constituency. For example, in the run up to the local elections in May 2002 I had to speak to her often about her contacts. Similarly, Betsy was familiar with Mr Duncan Smith’s charitable activities in his constituency and those in which he wanted to become involved.

5. I was aware that Betsy had far more extensive dealings with other members of Mr Duncan Smith’s staff, including Annabelle Eyre and Andrew Whitby-Collins who would be able to give further and better details of her duties.

6. I know first hand that Betsy was active in her employed role up to December 2002. I recall, for example, that she coordinated the Christmas Card mailings for the constituency that year, which benefited from her knowledge of the very many persons on our mailing list.

7. I know first hand that efforts were being made in late 2002 to find and employ a person to take over Betsy’s duties for her husband. I met some of the potential replacements, as would have to work with them in their constituency role.

8. After a replacement for Betsy was found, and Betsy had resigned from her employed role, I still continued to deal with her concerning matters such as diary clashes but with far less frequency. I now deal primarily with Christine Watson, Mr Duncan Smith’s private secretary, concerning constituency matters.

9. I am aware that certain allegations have been made concerning Betsy’s employment by her husband following an investigation by Mr Michael Crick, a freelance journalist, originally intended for broadcast on BBC’s Newsnight programme, but which have subsequently been published in the national press.

10. I have been aware for some time that Mr Crick has been interested in investigating stories which seek to disparage Mr Duncan Smith.

i) After the May elections in 2003, Mr Crick called several of the schools in our constituency to find out how active Mr Duncan Smith was as their MP. I understand that he interviewed on camera the head teacher of Hawkswood School, a school for special needs children, which Mr Duncan Smith has actively campaigned to keep open.

ii) Mr Crick pursued a story, the details of which I do not recall, concerning which university Mr Duncan Smith attended.

iii) In the summer of 2003 Mr Crick made inquiries of the occupant of Mr Duncan Smith’s house in our constituency (which I understand is occupied by Mr Duncan Smith’s sister) in order to determine whether rent was being paid and Mr Duncan Smith had declared that income.

144 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

11. I was first contacted by Mr Crick, in relation to his present allegations against Mr and Mrs Duncan Smith, on Monday 29 September. He called me to ask questions about Betsy. It was short conversation. As I recall, he asked three questions about Betsy: (1) Is she the diary secretary? (2) Is she working for Mr Duncan Smith? (3) Is she a speechwriter? I answered ‘no’ or negatively to all of these. It was clear to me from the way in which the questions were put in the present tense that we were discussing Betsy’s present role and not any role she may have had in the past. If the questions had been framed as “did she” or “was she”, then I would have answered differently based for the reasons I have set out above.

12. I am appalled to learn that Mr Crick has now caused my responses to published in a manner which I regard as false and misleading.

13. The Sunday Telegraph (12 October 2003, p5, column 2) published that:

“In a tape recorded conversation Mr Radford appeared to tell Crick that Mrs Duncan Smith had not worked for her husband since he became leader.

When asked whether she had fulfilled a professional role for her husband after he became leader, Mr Radford said: I can be absolute...I know for sure she doesn’t...”

14. It is self evident that my answer is concerned with the present. I understood Mr Crick to be asking me about Betsy’s current employ. If I had been asked about her past employment I would have given the appropriate, very different answer, based on the my knowledge as set out above in this statement.

15. On page 6 (column 4) of the same edition of The Sunday Telegraph there is published in a linked story in which appears:

“When I put the idea of Mrs Duncan Smith being a researcher or speech writer to Rikki Radford, Mr Duncan Smith’s constituency agent, he seemed incredulous, ‘Come on!’ he remarked derisively.”

16. All I would note about this quote is that it is put in, and answered in, the present tense. I believe my response is quoted accurately and was prompted by the absurdity of suggesting Betsy being Mr Duncan Smith’s speechwriter, when it is well known that is not the case.

17. On 13 October 2003 (p4) The Daily Telegraph reported:

“Crick also contacted Rikki Radford... and, in a recorded interview, asked him if Mrs Duncan Smith had fulfilled a professional role for her husband since he became party leader.

Mr Radford replied: “I know for sure she doesn’t...”

18. Once again, my reply which relates to the present status of Mrs Duncan Smith, is again, more emphatically and falsely stated as a response to a question relating to whether she “had” and “since he became party leader”. I cannot recall that the question was put to me in that context or I would have answered it appropriately.

19. At no stage did Mr Crick inform me he was recording our conversation of 29 September. If, as is reported, he did so then the recording is evidence of the true context of our conversation, which, as I reiterate, was the present not the past.

20. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

13 October 2003

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 145

44. Notes of contacts in Chingford

MS action 2002/03 Jean Atkins [telephone number]

Didn’t make any appearances in 2002. Patron since Jan 03—all correspondence or calles made to Ricky Radford.

Neal Dalgleish

Brian Elton 2002/03 [telephone number]

(contacted IDS re Porton Down) and now saving a local cinema. Has know him for some time and he’s helped on a number of issues over the last few years. Never dealt with BDS. Contact over several years and currently in touch.

Neal Dalgleish

Haven House Hospice 2002/03 (Woodford Green)

Lots of contact with IDS over the past two years. Never with BDS.

He came to last years summer fete and is coming again this year. All arrangements made with Christine in his London office. He attended fund raiser 20 June 2003. Last year’s summer fete visit in July 2002 was not arranged with BDS.

Neal Dalgleigh

*** Chingford Festival June 02

Irene Bull [telephone numbers]

Visited 29 of June 02—telephone conversations were with Betsy

Original letters written to IDS’s office at the House of Commons. Irene received a phone call from Betsy but the letters references are IDS/CLW and IDS/ACE so not clear that these actually came from her. IDS visited the festival in 2001 and 2002, but he’s not going this year.

Louise Western

Honey Lane House 2002 Nursing Home Waltham Abbey

Owner Seamus Holton [telephone number]

Had lots of contact last year over proposed changes to the home. IDS visit end of last year (2002) and lots of correspondence leading up to the visit. None of it with BDS.

Neal Dalgleish

Waltham Forest College, 2002/03

IDS has made a number of visits to the college. The press officer there, Karen has been involved in organising a number of them. She doesn’t recall she had any contact with BDS.

Neal Dalgleish

146 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Oak Hill Jnr School Jan 2002 Barbara Cook (Sec) [telephone number and working hours]

She is the only person left in the school office from last year (there is a new head and deputy). He initiated visit via his HofC office. Visit was in 25 Jan 2002—wife didn’t come along—doesn’t remember the name but thinks it was his agent.

Louise Western

Highams park signal box Feb 2002

Jenny—Network Rail [telephone number]

(Met Roger Torode and Robin Gisby) *Roger Torode—[telephone number]

Set up via the Residents association—names above

Roger Torode says all correspondence came from IDS PA—Christine Watson—Roger says that she was very involved with all of his constituency business (as per email)

Louise Western

Chingford Police Station custody suite March 02

Sgt Wren made the initial contact [telephone number] by letter to the local constituency address. All contact with IDS is via Christine Watson and Ricky Radford—Sgt Wren doesn’t ever remember speaking to BDS.

Louise Western

Imperial War Museum visit April 2002

IDS visits Imperial Museum to launch book by Gordon Mitchell called ‘Schooldays to Spirtfire’.

None of the arrangements for this visit to the Imperial War Museum were made with BDS according to the press officer at the Imperial War Museum. She checked the file from the time.

Neal Dalgleish

St Mary School April 2002, Chingford School. Same contact via the council.

Christine Cornell [telephone number]

IDS always recognises school meals week and visited both schools 18 April 2002 spending an hour at both. The council contacted his office in writing until a few weeks before the visit when they spoke to his office. She can’t remember who she dealt with but said she thinks it was his agent. He came along with the agent and PA [doesn’t think either were his wife from memory)

Louise Western

Churchill Terrace Association April 2002

IDS visits Churchill Terrace Estate on 25 April. Spokeswoman for the Churchill Terrace Residents’ Association: Leslie Tlusty [telephone number].

23/5/03 Leslie Tlusty says IDS has come twice, she thinks. Meetings were set up by their local Cons councillor, John Gover, and also Rikki Radford, and other councillors Alan Ziggers and Davide Divine also involved. She’s not seen BDS or had any dealings with her. These notes written up immediately afterwards with aid of notebook notes.

Michael Crick

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 147

Whipps Cross Hospital May 2002

IDS visits Whipps Cross Hospital—Plane Tree centre and special baby care unit

Chief Exec: Peter Coles; Sec: Shelley Clark, [telephone numbers]

PRO Dan [telephone number]

23/5/03 Shelley Clarke said she was now in her third year working there, and did not recall ever setting anything up with BDS. She looked in her files and said Christine Watson was the name on the card. IDS comes 2–3 times a year. Last time was at end of 2002 or start of 2003. Comes with his press secretary, or once on his own. His secretary normally rings me about two weeks in advance. No had any dealings with his wife, and he doesn’t bring her. These notes written up immediately afterwards with aid of notebook notes.

Michael Crick

Enterprise House Community Housing Association June 2002 (Walthamstow Guardian 25 June)

IDS visits Enterprise House Community Housing Association in Kings Head Hill

HA sec: Marian Rogers, [address and telephone details]

23/5/03 Had no dealings with BDS. He came a couple of times last year, including once to have a fish and chip supper. I fixed it up with him. Rang his office to go to the surgery and asked him directly to come to see us. Dealt with Rikki Radford. Came last summer and also a few months before that. These notes written up immediately afterwards with aid of notebook notes. MC.

Michael Crick

Joseph Clarke School July 2002 (Waltham Forest Guardian)

IDS visits Joseph Clarke school. Head: Frank Smith [telephone number]

25/5/03 I have been head 19 years, so known IDS during all time as an MP.

Had “no dealings with her at all—not knowingly”. I normally deal with his agent Rikki Radford or with his secretary. (Couldn’t remember her name.) Normally comes with Rikki Radford. These notes written up immediately afterwards with aid of notebook notes MC.

Michael Crick

Tiny Tots nursery, Higham Station Avenue

IDS visits on 4 July 2002 (4 July Walthamstow Guardian)

Manager: Debbie Philips [telephone number]

23/5/2003 Visit resulted from Debbie Philips going to see IDS at his surgery about a planning application to extend the nursery. She arranged the visit to the nursery through a secretary in IDS office, though she can’t remember the name of the secretary. Doesn’t think it was BDS, and doesn’t recall having any dealings with BDS. These notes written up immediately afterwards and aid of notebook notes.

Michael Crick

***Whitefield School July 2002 (Walthamstow Guardian)

IDS visits Whitefield School, MacDonald Road Walthamstow.

Head teacher: Neils Chapman [telephone number] Sec: Leslie

148 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

23/5/03 NC: Sometimes he comes once a year and sometimes a bit more often. I deal with a couple of Annabelles. Years ago it used to be his wife, when I first knew him. But I have not dealt with her recently and certainly not since he’s been leader. I first met him before he took over from Norman Tebbit. These notes written up an hour later with the aid of notebook notes.

Michael Crick

Sir George Monoux College 26 September 2002 (26 Sept Walthamstow Guardian)

IDS visits Sir George Monoux College, Chingford Road

Principal: Richard Chambers [telephone number]

23/5/03 RC: It was the chairman of governors, Peter Leighton, a barrister, who wrote to him. There was a young woman organising his visit who came with him, I guess a party worker. It was not his wife. No dealings with his wife. These notes written up immediately afterwards with aid of notebook notes.

Michael Crick

Larkswood Infant School, New Road, Chingford September 2002 [telephone number]

Chair of Govs: Kevin Harmsworth. 23/5/03 Samantha Fennell said she spoke to Ricky Radford about the visit. But that it was really organised by the parents—Mrs Ceri Stones. No dealings with BDS “not that I am aware of. The person I had most contact with was Ricky Radford”. These notes written up immediately afterwards with aid of notebook notes.

23/5/03 Parent organiser Ceri Stones who wrote to IDS, says she arranged the visit though Rikki Radford and only through him. No dealings with BDS and didn’t see her.

Michael Crick

St Antony’s primary school Nov 2002 (27 Nov) St Anthony’s primary school Woodford Fells.

IDS visited but no contact with BDS at all.

Neal Dalgleish

Joseph Clarke School April 2003 [telephone number] Head: Mr Frank Smith

School for the blind April 10 2003—demo for special needs (protest at Town Hall).

Some visits initiated by the school and some by IDS. Ricky and Christine are the 2 people Frank has dealt with—he has never met or spoken to BDS.

Louise Western

Hawkeswood School May 2003 [telephone number] End of May 2003

Head: Katy Khan Margaret Boyce—Business Manager

School for the deaf—letter written to IDS about closure threatened last November 02 will get a final answer in September 2003 (we have copies). IDS’s Secretary has also phoned them—can’t remember her name—never met BDS.

Initially contacted Ricky Radcliff via a local councillor Margaret met in the street—IDS wrote a letter back— still have copies. Spoke again to Margaret Boyce 26/06. She again said she had never spoken to or met BDS.

Louise Western

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 149

Churches together in North Chingford May 2003

They wrote to him to support their work on the Trade Justice Movement campaign. Contact was with Cara Walker his secretary saying he couldn’t attend an event they’d asked him to. Also letter from Cara Walker saying sorry he couldn’t come.

Spoke to Sonia Merritt [telephone number]. Written up straight after conversation 24/06/03

Neal Dalgleish

Waltham Forest Primary Care Associatin June 2003

Concern about planned sacking of a sole practitioner. A number of people wrote to IDS about the planned sacking of a local GP. All contact was with his office staff, non with BDS. We have a letter from IDS’s office to the Chair of the group Nigel Pollit.

Neal Dalgleish

Total to there 26 groups/organisations.

150 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Other documents

45. E-mail to Mr Simon Gordon from the Head of IT Dept, CCO, 2 October 2003

Subject: Leader’s Computers

Further to our discussions. We have purchased the relevant thin screens, mice and keyboards for the Leaders home computers, these are now at CCO. It would suit the IT Department to install these items following Party Conference.

I am making a dangerous assumption and that is that *** has ordered BT lines following conversations with yourselves. If this is not the case then we need to chase this up.

Finally we need to decide which email system and Internet Access system the Leaders home office would like to use—this may require a brief discussion.

2 October 2001

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 151

46. E-mail to Mr Mark MacGregor, Mrs Theresa May MP and Mr Paul Baverstock from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 30 January 2003

152 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

47. Draft e-mail to Mr Paul Baverstock, Mrs Theresa May MP and Mr Mark MacGregor from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 31 January 2003, showing manuscript amendments by Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 153

48. E-mail to Mr Paul Baverstock, Mrs Theresa May MP and Mr Mark MacGregor from Dr Vanessa Gearson, 31 January 2003

154 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

49. Memorandum to Dr Vanessa Gearson from Mrs Christine Watson, 24 October 2002

Re: Responsibilities undertaken during my employment to date, both in my role as ‘Constituency Secretary’ to IDS and as ‘Private Secretary’ to IDS in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition

Further to our discussion this morning. I list below bullet points relating to the work I have undertaken to date, some of which I believe should have been the responsibilities of AE. This is a difficult task for me, especially as I reflect back on all the hard work I have put in over the last year and especially when AE was quite happy for someone else to do her work for her, i.e. me. As you know, I was solely running Iain’s very busy constituency office without assistance but also making sure the Leader’s office was in order, being a point of contact for the ‘Office Keepers’ at the House etc.

As you know, I just got on with the job/tasks in hand as I have a responsible attitude to my job, to Iain’s position both as Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green and as Leader of the Opposition, to the Conservative Party and to the end goal of achieving a Conservative Government at the next General Election.

Having said all that and also the events of the administration last year, I firmly believe that you are a ‘breath of fresh air’ and it is a relief to have you heading our new administration. I am sure that I can speak for all of us when I say that, and I certainly want you to succeed in your new post and you know that you have all my support to have the Leader’s office running smoothly and efficiently from now on.

October 01–October 02 Position held: Constituency Secretary to the Leader

• Started with backlog of constituency correspondence of at least 6–8 weeks due to the Leadership campaign—no extra help given

• Un-packed all Iain’s office contents and divided it all up into categories, constituency, Defence and European matters etc. etc.

• Re-structured Iain’s constituency papers, new filing system and undid the ‘chaos’ whilst still keeping up with the correspondence

• Liaised with the local Chingford office, organised the Surgery appointments together with planning his constituency itineraries.

• Prepared briefing notes for Iain and making sure his Agent had a duplicate set the day before so that he was well briefed.

• Dealt with numerous day-to-day telephone calls from constituents, the Leader’s office calls together with members of the public.

• Organised constituent’s visits to the House of Commons—meeting them and making sure they were given tickets etc.

• Organised schools from the constituency to visit, booking a theatre room at Millbank for Iain to address them with a ‘question and answer’ session. Thereafter looking after them on his behalf, making sure they had tea/coffee and that the students had somewhere to eat their packed lunches.

• Liaised with Mark Fullbrook and assisted him with the ‘newspaper’ for the constituency. Having set up an efficient structure, I was therefore able to find specific cases to highlight etc.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 155

• As there had been no ‘Press Cutting’ books set up. I immediately put this into action, and every week-end would take the newspapers home to keep a record, hence we now have an up-to-date record of what the constituency Press covered on IDS for 2001 to the current time.

• Carried out numerous tasks for AE and AWC—opening the Leader’s office when necessary to access papers, signed bottles, look for miscellaneous things etc.

• Organised to receive the constituency mail from CCO as there as a reluctance to deliver it to me personally from AE, AWC and JH for no apparent reasons other than laziness (in my mind). As I had a good relationship with the Correspondence Unit at CCO, they assisted me towards the end and we had a daily system.

• I was kept out of the Diary to see IDS—for a long time I managed to do my job through sending notes with the constituency mail. On the odd date when I was given a diary time, I would go down to the Leader’s office—no problem if Iain was on urgent parliamentary changes to the diary. I would then go back to my office to continue working. I do know that at times he was told I had gone home when in truth I was upstairs working!

• I eventually decided to see Iain and reported to him I was not having diary time, and told him that when I asked to see him, I had to justify why. My opinion: I would not have worried or wasted his time requesting diary time if it was not important! He immediately called in AE and told her that in future, when I asked to see Iain on constituency matters, I was to be given an appropriate appointment. I have since approached AWC before he left the Leader’s office about this and was told that I had not made enough fuss about my diary time. This comment made me feel angry and disappointed with the type of attitude that I had been experiencing all last year, and which I endured quietly, not wanting to bother Iain but on reflection towards the end, I felt I could no longer endure this behaviour and decided to voice my concerns as there had and there were too many problems that had gone un-reported.

• I looked after the many Interns, especially when they assisted setting up the Shadow Cabinet Room on Wednesdays. They needed guidance and I made sure they received it.

• Towards the Summer Recess, it became clear and apparent that there was no political filing system in operation. I was concerned, and told Iain. He in turn asked me to liaise with AE and set one up. I immediately gave him a plan and worked for many weeks setting one up, with the help of the Intern at the time.

• Obviously, I had to approach AE and discovered that no filing had been done all year (nor had AWC until one of the Interns did it for him on my advice). I immediately took hold of the situation, organised that we would come in at the week-end, and in effect telling her that she had to otherwise I could not file the papers. I also wanted her input as I decided to archive all Iain’s papers since he was an MP as they were in no order. There was an enormous amount of work to do. I ALSO HAD TO CONTINUE WITH MY WORK FOR THE CONSTITUENCY.

• At the last minute, AE informed me she was too tired to come in on the Saturday. I explained that I had gone to a lot of trouble to organise this operation and that I would be letting other people down on the Monday. (I had organised the office keeper to remove the boxes up to where I now have Iain’s papers—2 huge cupboards in the Opposition wing, one used by John Prescott while in opposition!). I felt upset and let down but told her that I was going to come in and my feeling was I would have to do it all by myself.

• On the Saturday, AE rang me to apologise and that if I went to meet her to carry all the filing to G1, she had changed her mind. Without any fuss, I agreed and was shocked to find numerous carrier bags of filing brought in her car. I managed to secure a Post Office trolley and we brought it all to the office. I made her go through it all and I let her go later in the day, while I labelled all the boxes for archive.

156 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

• The political filing was done on another Saturday, I asked her to go through all the papers, categorising as she went along. I was busy setting up the cabinets in readiness for the political structure to be in place. I also cleared the Leader’s office of mess, as there was clearly no order.

• As an onlooker—there were clearly a lot of problems in the administration last year. I did what I could in my capacity as being a very small part of the Leader’s office as Iain’s constituency secretary and being based full-time in the House of Commons. The attitude of various people was not correct, if their roles were defined—the individuals were certainly not carrying them out efficiently. Staff relations were low. On many occasions I stepped in to encourage people in their roles, and advising them to be professional at all times and encouraging them.

• A matter that concerns me is the ‘cheques given to AE’ by the Shadow Cabinet for the Her Majesty the Queen’s Golden Jubilee present. When these cheques started to come in, AE asked me to keep them and keep an up-dated list and to count them as we received them. I was aware that they should have been paid in to an account and kept reminding her of this but she was happy to have them kept in my drawer in my office at the House under lock and key. I was to understand that she gave her mother, Lady Eyre the task of finding a suitable gift, and to date I have been reminding her of this and the fact that the cheques are still not paid in and the Shadow Cabinet should be courteously informed of what the gift might be, at this later stage bearing in mind that they have each donated £50.00. Due to my concern, I made AWC put them in the Safe at CCO and that is where they remain to this day—3 months down the line!

• Throughout my first year, and all the work I undertook, it was impossible for me to have a break as I felt that on my return, working on my own, my workload would have further increased. I worked without a holiday but felt justified in having 2 weeks off in August this year. Before leaving, Iain asked me to think about becoming his Private Secretary.

Private Secretary Position August 2002–to present day

• I was e-mailed by AE while on holiday, to tell me that I would be starting in my new position as soon as I returned.

• I returned on Thursday, 22nd August and reported to CCO.

• I explained to AE that Iain had not spoken to me regarding my new position and had not discussed my salary and coming off the Parliamentary payroll in my capacity as working for Iain as Leader of the Opposition. I felt that she had re-negotiated her own position and was not forthcoming about assisting me. I am therefore still being paid out of the constituency allowance through Parliament and I am still on the same salary as when I started on the 15th October 2001.

• AE handed me a bunch of keys and told me to get on with my new role and to ‘juggle’ both jobs (constituency & new position). I was told to get Rebecca Layton and Jonathan Hellewell to help me, and she left to go on holiday.

• I was left with no handing over instructions, notes, guidance—by this time, I was used to her behaviour, manner, dis-organisation, dis-regard for me ‘picking up her workload and responsibilities’!

• I got on with the job in hand, packed up Iain’s office, kitchen and my new office. Arranged for boxes, labelled everything, came in over the week-end to do the move with the help of an intern from Bernard Jenkin’s office. This is how my new role commenced …………….

• I set up the new offices, un-packed all the boxes, arranged and put Iain’s office in order ready for his return after his Summer break.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 157

• AWC was helpful at this stage. It was difficult for him not to be as he could see that I had been left with no guidance from AE. I then realized he had been assisting AE during the past year in her role as Private Secretary as well as the Diary.

• I organised the packing up of the temporary office at Conference and packed my car with all the boxes, and did the reverse at the end of Conference. Whilst at Conference, I was told by both AE and AWC that it was my job to write all the letters re: the Tour after Conference and the visits at Conference, even though I had nothing to do with their planning or being in attendance. I disputed this role and reported the whole incident to VG with paper evidence of AE’s scribbled instructions to me. It was totally unacceptable behaviour and I felt they totally undermined my position as Iain’s Private Secretary and a total disregard to all my workload and commitment.

• I have had discussions with VG concerning Conference—certain people did not put enough work and effort, but the people that did, we felt that we had worked as a team and the end result was successful in terms of the Leader’s office despite the problems that became apparent.

• Since coming back from Conference, I have together with Rebecca had to cover AE in terms of writing letters re: the Tour and sort out various queries.

• The right people are not being kept informed well enough. One small example:—

I was asked to buy Iain a suit carrier, make sure Iain had clean laundry and get this delivered to Eastbourne by the time they all arrived there from Cardiff. I went out to buy one, and completed the instructions, also organised for the Intern to have a train ticket to deliver the items, he then arrived late home (past midnight). He completed the task efficiently, even ringing me at home to tell me he had left the case with the Concierge at the HYDRO hotel. Not one person rang to confirm Iain had received it, a phone call the next day would have sufficed. It wasn’t until I spoke to Bert, the driver that I had to ask whether Iain had received it.

• Betsy has asked me to do what work she may have, keep her papers in order, invitations and draft letters when necessary. Also it is important to keep her informed at all times of changes in the Diary.

• Financial matters, both Constituency and Member’s Allowances and Re-imbursements:—

I have received papers (not in any order) from AE. I have spoken to VG regarding this sensitive matter. There must be more papers covering a longer period. I will have to put the papers in order but again I am used to picking up the pieces of what AE should have already done.

• I was concerned to learn that AE had been paid for nearly one whole year out of the Constituency allowance, when really I should have had some form of assistance myself. This now leaves a big question mark on the budget for 2001/02 and to date, although there is enough in the Constituency allowance, I am still being paid though Parliament even though I am working for Iain as ‘Leader of the Opposition’. There are obviously questions to be asked?

• I obviously need to put everything in order on behalf of Iain’s representation as Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green, and I intend to do that so that everything is in proper financial order—keeping the records in good order, and in financial year order and not in a mess.

Conclusion

I feel it has been a good exercise for me to put all the above in writing. It is something I have carried with me the past year. I bear no grudges and my intention is not to ‘tell tales’ otherwise I could and would have done this earlier.

What has been difficult, certain people knew to what extent I was working and trying to keep things together and were happy to see me continue. It was disrespectful and hurtful to me when I was trying to do a difficult

158 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

job without much support from the main people in the Leader’s office (AE, AWC, JH and of course the ‘Chief of Staff’).

Many people observed but nobody was prepared to put things right. I found this situation very surprising and totally not normal. Hence, my comment to you Vanessa that you are ‘a breath of fresh air’. Not only have you observed for yourself since joining the Leader’s office how badly things were run, but you have been prepared to listen and take action, something which nobody did the past year. You have been prepared to create systems, structure and most of all, you have taken the time to listen to people’s comments and problems—this is the way forward.

I hope that you will find this report helpful at the beginning of your administration. It has been difficult for me to put it all in writing as it should not have been necessary, but like you I am a responsible and caring person and we have the right aims, and it is important to help other people to carry out their jobs in the same efficient way.

24 October 2002

50. Written statement, on behalf of Mr Iain Duncan Smith, by Mr Richard Gordon QC, 4 February 2004

Submitted by Richard Gordon QC

Re: Complaint against Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP

Part 1—Introduction

1. The purpose of these submissions is twofold, namely to

i) enable the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards(‘PCS’) to understand fully the concerns of Mr Iain Duncan Smith (‘IDS’) in respect of the complaints made against him by Mr Michael Crick (‘Crick’) and,

ii) analyse the evidence with the suggested approach that should be taken to it by the PCS.

2. In essence, and foreshadowing the points developed below, three main propositions are advanced:

i) The several complaints put forward by Crick are without foundation and there should be a recommendation that they be dismissed.

ii) Where credibility is in issue the PCS should reach a clear conclusion as to whether the truth is being told in fairness to IDS in order to vindicate his public reputation.

iii) The inquiry process89 has operated unfairly to IDS. That has two consequences. The first is that the systemic defects in the process should be recorded and emphasised in the PCS’ Report to the Committee on Standards (CS).Secondly, however, there should be a separate recommendation for dismissal of the complaints on the basis of that unfairness alone.

3. Our submissions are structured as follows:

i) Part 2 summarises the relevant background and analysis by reference to certain subject headings, namely: (a) the complaints and the shifting nature of those complaints, (b) the media disclosure

89 Note by author: It is emphasised that we consider the defects to be systemic in nature in a case such as the present. Thus, we fully recognise the pressures and obligations imposed on the PCS as well as those placed upon IDS.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 159

aspects and their significance to the inquiry process, (c) the difficulties of addressing the complaints as they evolved, (d) the PCS’ full inquiry, (e) Vanessa Gearson (‘VG’), (f) Mark MacGregor (‘MM’), (g) why the complaints should, in any event, be dismissed on due process grounds.

ii) Part 3 addresses those aspects of Crick’s complaint that relate to work performed by IDS’ wife.

iii) Part 4 addresses issues relating to the basis upon which Christine Watson (‘CW’), Annabelle Eyre (‘AE’) and IDS’ wife were paid.

iv) Part 5 sets out our Conclusions.

Part 2—Relevant Background and Analysis

Crick’s complaints and their shifting nature

4. The original, and sole, complaint filed by Crick was that, between September 2001 and December 31 2002, IDS had paid his wife out of Parliamentary funds when she had done no work (‘the first complaint’). Although the merits of the first complaint will, of course, be addressed since it has never formally been abandoned it is now clear that it is, and was, wholly without merit.

5. That is why, we suggest, it has been elided with the quite separate complaint (‘the second complaint’) that whilst Mrs Duncan Smith (‘BDS’) may have done some work that work did not justify the payment that was made to her. Even the second complaint must (as revised by Crick) be sub-divided into an alternative complaint that either: (a) the tasks performed by BDS were minimal in character and so should not have been paid for at all or that (b) such tasks did not amount to 25 hours a week (see PCS’ letter dated October 20 2003 to IDS).90

6. In fact, the logic that gives the lie to the first complaint also erodes the second. The reason why the first complaint cannot be sustained is that all that Crick and his witnesses can say is that, at most, they did not see the fruits of BDS’ work. However, none of them goes so far as positively to assert that she did no work. But if that is right it follows that the only positive evidence is that BDS did work and is that of BDS herself and the witnesses that support her evidence. If that is right and in the absence of a finding by the PCS that each and every one of them is lying, it must also follow that the quantum of work about which BDS and those witnesses give evidence is also to be accepted. So, the second complaint by Crick (and its sub- divisions as earlier set out) is as ill-founded as the first.

7. Nonetheless, at the time of making his complaint Crick did not, of course, know the evidence that was to come. His first complaint was based on conjecture and surmise and when, on the same day that he made the first complaint, rebuttal evidence began to emerge then—for all practical purposes—he abandoned it.

8. What happened then was that Crick developed an entirely new series of allegations. Not only did he expand upon, and diversify, his ‘no work’ allegations against BDS (see above) he also suggested that any work that she did was party political in nature and so did not qualify for payment from IDS’ Parliamentary allowance (‘the third complaint’). Such allegation, to stand independently, presupposes that BDS did do the work that she and her witnesses say that she did but that it was paid from an inappropriate source. Again, however, this allegation falls away logically once it is appreciated that neither Crick nor his witnesses can say what work BDS was doing. Only BDS and her witnesses can do so. And if (the same premise as above) her evidence and her supporting evidence is truthful then the nature of her work did qualify for a Parliamentary allowance.

9. Finally, Crick complained of the source of payments in respect of the work performed by CW and AE (‘the fourth complaint’).This was, as Crick himself recognised, a very different type of complaint from the first three involving, as it did, clarification of the relevant Parliamentary guidance. Whilst recommendations from the PCS lead to valuable guidance for the future it is submitted that there is no

90 See PCS Written Submission 4.

160 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

factual foundation for a finding of culpability in relation to payments made by IDS in respect of CW and AE (or BDS).

Media disclosure and effect on inquiry process91

10. It is an unhappy feature of these complaints, and one that we understand to be fully appreciated by the PCS, that it is clear that the complaints as they evolved and the material detail of the case alleged against IDS were quite deliberately ‘leaked’ by Crick and others supportive of his position to the media prior to, and throughout, the inquiry. In particular, IDS identifies MM and VG as among Crick’s primary sources and neither MM or VG deny that is the case (paragraphs 15, 26–28 IDS’ 2ndWS).92

11. Appendix 193 to these submissions contains over 30 articles that have appeared in national newspapers from about the time of the complaint to the present day. This disclosure has continued to the time of drafting these submissions the latest example being an article published in the Sunday Telegraph on 25 January 2004. Crick has himself written an article in the Sunday Telegraph about the complaint and has during the course of these proceedings appeared on the BBC’s ‘This Week’ programme to discuss the inquiry. These leaks have continued despite the fact that each witness has been told by the PCS not to discuss their evidence. Further material can be produced should the PCS wish to see it.

12. As can be seen from this exemplary material, at the very start of the process Crick gave details of the dossier collected by him and the evidence that he was about to submit to the PCS in an article written in the Telegraph on October l2 2003.Subsequently, he gave further details of evidence being given to the PCS by others to the press.

13. CW’s memorandum to VG is described in an article in the Daily Telegraph of October 15 2003 as being ‘a leaked memo prepared by the secretary who claimed she was “solely” responsible for running his office’. The content of this memorandum is extensively cited in an article published in The Times on the same day. In an article on the following day (October 16 2003) in the Daily Telegraph references are made to the content of emails and memos that it is said VG intends to hand over to the PCS.

14. In the light of this, and other, material the public was made intimately aware of the nature and detail of the case being launched against IDS as it unfolded and progressed. The fact of such disclosure is and was, of course, entirely contrary to the published procedures of the CS and PCS. It constituted a contempt of the House. That elementary fact must have been known to Crick and others (as, for example, VG) who were—on the face of the articles themselves—at least ostensibly responsible for disclosure of various matters referred to therein.

15. The significance of that type of disclosure in the present context cannot be emphasised enough. The context of complaints made to the PCS will necessarily differ. Publicity will always be strictly forbidden but its damaging effects will by no means be the same in each case.

16. In the present case the effect of the disclosures deliberately orchestrated by Crick and others was so obviously damaging as not to require detailing. However, it had at least three consequences:

i) It has proved highly damaging to IDS’ public reputation. This is a consequence anticipated in the PCS published Procedure Notes. In the instant case the material was used as ballast for, and as part of, a concerted campaign to remove IDS from his position as Leader of the Opposition. This was, of course, a consequence of which Crick and others must have been fully aware. Indeed, Crick states his belief that it was the very object towards which some of his primary sources were colluding (Sunday Telegraph 12 October 2003; see also letter from Reynolds Porter Chamberlain to PCS dated 13 January 2004).

91 Note by author: We do not address media disclosure other than by example and have, for the e sake of brevity only, ignored broadcasting disclosure and other plain breaches of the relevant broadcasting Codes. 92 See PCS Written Submission 11. 93 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 161

ii) It has placed IDS at an incalculable disadvantage in defending himself in this inquiry. This is particularly the case because despite the actions of others he and his witnesses did comply with the procedural rules and therefore could not respond to disclosures publicly. Putting one’s case before the PCS alone is one thing. It is quite another to have to defend oneself against public opinion. The calm and rational disputation of evidence which would have been available to IDS and his wife had the inquiry really been conducted in private was not available to him. In reality, much of the inquiry was not conducted in private. It was conducted in the glare of public debate. That is not in any way the fault of the PCS but it is an inequality built into the process. The strain affected many witnesses and they may not always have been able to present their evidence as effectively as they might otherwise have done.

iii) Finally, the effect of the inquiry being conducted under the public spotlight has put unfair pressure on the PCS himself. He will, undoubtedly, have felt under additional strain to carry out the fullest possible inquiry. However, there is the very real danger that—in order to fulfil public expectations— the inquiry has now become impossibly wide-ranging. This aspect has particular resonance in respect of VG’s evidence. This has, regrettably, become a trial within a trial. Whilst (see below) VG says very little in substance that has any bearing whatever on the true issues she has made highly damaging allegations about the conduct of IDS which have been publicly aired whilst still forming part of the inquiry process and to which IDS has (mindful of public opinion) had to respond in testimony.

17. So, properly analysed, media disclosure in itself has made it impossible for IDS to have a hearing that conforms to the legal notion of natural justice. Elementarily, a hearing must not only be fair, it must also be seen to be fair.

18. This appears to be an issue for the CS. In terms of process there seems to be no mechanism for preventing media disclosure in an inquiry of the present kind. It is noted, and accepted, that the PCS has deprecated the disclosure that has occurred and intends to raise it before the CS. However, the mechanism that the PCS proposed at the time (see his letter to Reynolds Porter Chamberlain dated October 23 2003: “…if your client believes that the behaviour of anyone involved constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House, he may raise the matter by way of a privilege application to Mr Speaker” is, we suggest, inadequate in terms of procedural protection available to IDS from the person responsible for the conduct of the inquiry.

19. Further, the lack of systemic protection for IDS from the media leaks that have been engineered by the complainant, Crick et al, also means that he has had an inquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. That is why, we suggest, the PCS should—aside from commenting on this important aspect of the current inquiry process—make a specific recommendation to the CS that the complaints should be dismissed on this ground alone.

Difficulties of addressing complaints as they evolved

20. Crick’s first complaint was made by letter to the PCS dated October 12th 2003.It contained the positive assertion (as opposed to what is now, at best, suggested inference) that ‘[w]e have uncovered considerable evidence that she [BDS] did not, in fact, work for him during this period, which I understand is contrary to House of Commons rules.’ The letter was accompanied by a number of enclosures including material from three anonymous sources.

21. The PCS notified IDS of the first complaint by letter dated October 13th 2003. Enclosed with the letter were many of the enclosures that Crick had submitted with his complaint. The PCS did not enclose the anonymous material at that time.94 It was only received with the PCS’s letter of 20 October. Importantly, in his letter to IDS the PCS cited the passage set out above, thus making it clear that there was but a single

94 Note by author: The PCS’ letter to IDS dated October 13th 2003 stated, materially, that: ‘… the anonymity of these sources makes it difficult for me to weigh/test their evidence.’

162 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

complaint laid against IDS which was that BDS had done no work during the relevant period (September 2001 to December 31 2002).

22. When IDS met the PCS later that day (October 13th 2003) the PCS’ record of that meeting (in fact made on October 31 2003 but based on notes taken at the time) discloses that he rightly considered the essence of Crick’s complaint to be one of improper use of Parliamentary allowances. Indeed, had BDS done no work it would have been grossly improper for IDS to have paid her out of his Parliamentary allowance.

23. Unsurprisingly, the record shows that IDS was extremely angry about the first complaint which he said was ‘groundless’ He expressed anger about being ‘condemned in the media.’

24. From IDS’ perspective, though, he was still then only facing a single (and misconceived) complaint. At that stage he had not yet received the material sent to him by the PCS since that letter had not yet reached him. He addressed the complaint as best he could but, necessarily, in general terms.

25. The PCS had to make a decision as to whether to embark upon a full inquiry. He made the decision to do so on October 14th 2003. The Press Statement issued by the PCS reads, materially, thus:

‘I have studied carefully both the complaint I have received from Mr Michael Crick and Mr Iain Duncan Smith # response to that complaint. The nature of the information given to me—some of which is from anonymous sources—makes it necessary that I should undertake further inquiries before reaching a conclusion on the complaint.

…

In view of the public interest in Mr Crick’s complaint, I expect to report the result of my inquiries to the Committee on Standards and Privileges ...’.95

26. It clearly appears from the above extract that part of the information received from Crick that had persuaded the PCS to proceed to a full inquiry, rather than simply dismiss the first complaint as he could then have done, was the material from anonymous sources. Of course, IDS had not at that date been shown any of that material and was, therefore, unable to comment on it at all. Subsequently, after IDS received those materials with the PCS’ letter of 20 October, IDS had no difficulty identifying ‘source A’ as MM and ‘source C’ as VG.

27. Further, it seems also that Crick had supplied additional material to the PCS on the morning of the day (14 October) that the Press Statement was issued (see the PCS’ letters to IDS’ solicitors dated, respectively, October 23rd and October 30th 2003).This material included a memorandum of CW dated October 24th 2002 to VG and a submission from Crick commenting on the memorandum and a further note from Crick commenting on IDS’ public defence that he had been compelled to issue.

28. So, much of the material that was instrumental in persuading the PCS to embark on a full inquiry on October 14th 2003 was material of which IDS had never seen and had no opportunity of addressing.

29. Importantly, too, this additional material raised entirely new allegations. The PCS elicited from Crick that this new material did raise new allegations in an interview with Crick that took place on October 16th 2003.The question and answer session with Crick on that day demonstrates that Crick was changing his position. For example: the PCS drew out of the material that had been submitted five separate possible allegations and this exchange then followed:

PCS: ‘... I want to be as clear as I can from your lips what you think are the issues about which you are registering a complaint. I am sorry to have gone on at such length but you can see what I am getting at.’

95 Note by author: The PCS then made it quite clear that, as is required, the fact that he was making further inquiries and expected to report to the CS did not imply that he regarded the allegations against IDS as substantiated.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 163

MC: ‘I understand exactly the point you are making and I think the distinctions you make are interesting and important ones. I am sorry, I should have written them down....’.

30. There then followed a discussion about material supplied to the PCS from the anonymous sources (not disclosed to IDS at that stage: see above) and, during the course of the meeting, the remainder of the complaints as summarised earlier were articulated.96

31. We are unable to say whether—in terms of his procedural remit—the PCS was compelled to take the course that he did. However, we so submit that if it was a necessary part of the inquiry process it put IDS in an impossible position at the very start of the inquiry.

32. In essence, IDS was subjected to the rigours of a full investigation that would, inevitably, only damage his public reputation at a time when his position as Leader of the Opposition was under challenge. He was subjected to that process without sight of highly relevant material including entirely new complaints which were never put to him in advance and comments by his accuser that were never put to him in advance.

33. It seems that in deciding to embark on a full investigation the PCS was influenced by the fact that the matter was one of public interest. It was, of course, largely a matter of public interest because of the media disclosure by the complainant and his sources that had occurred and was deliberately being orchestrated as the PCS was reaching his crucial decisions. However, it is a matter of great concern that the PCS procedure should expose a person in the position of IDS to a full inquiry merely because the matter had become public in that way. Indeed, it is a matter of great concern—if it be so—that the PCS procedure has to result in a full investigation even in a matter of major public interest without the opportunity being given to the person being complained of to see all relevant material in advance and to be able to respond to it. That opportunity was denied to IDS.

34. The unfairness to IDS is obvious. In terms of natural justice it is a truism that information known only to a decision-maker must be disclosed to an affected party if such information is instrumental to a decision about to be made: see, of the many cases, Mahon v. Air New Zealand [1984] A. C. 808; R v. Mental Health Review Tribunal, ex p. Clatworthy [1985] 3 All ER. 699; R v. Kensington and Chelsea RLBC, exp. Campbell (1996) 28 HL.R. 160.

The PCS full inquiry

35. The process involved in the PCS full inquiry contained two significant systemic defects. First, there is no clarification of the standard of proof. It appears to be a matter of judgment for the PCS from case to case rather than, as it is submitted it ought to be, a standard known in advance to the person against whom a complaint is made. So it was that having embarked on his full inquiry the PCS stated in his letter to Reynolds Porter Chamberlain dated October 23 2003 (in response to their raising the point):

‘At this stage in my inquiry, I have formed no view on which standard of proof may be appropriate ... I agree with your observation that “different thresholds of proof may be relevant to different complaints” (or, I would add, different aspects of the same complaint).’

36. There is, in our respectful submission, certainly warrant for a higher standard of proof in relation to serious charges. But if—as here—the complaints relating to BDS clearly raise an ‘implication of dishonesty’ (that is, here, the criminal offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception) the correct standard of proof should be the criminal standard. So, too, a complaint that does not raise questions of impropriety may be assessed in accordance with a lower standard of proof.

37. On any view, it is submitted that IDS and his advisers should have been informed of the standard of proof that was going to be applied by the PCS in advance. At the time of drafting these submissions we still do

96 Note by author: It was made clear that the allegation of pressure being put by IDS on VG to retract her email of 30th January 2003 was not being made the subject of a complaint by Crick.

164 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

not know the relevant threshold of proof that the PCS proposes to apply to each and every complaint (or, indeed, to any of the complaints).

38. This absence of information strikes at the integrity of the inquiry process. To begin with, it makes it impossible for IDS to know how much (if any) information/evidence to adduce in his defence. Further, the PCS cannot properly evaluate the evidence as it emerges unless he knows the relevant legal touchstone against which it is to be tested. As interviews are conducted by him he knows not what questions it is necessary to ask because many questions will be entirely irrelevant if the standard of proof is to be the criminal standard.

39. Some of these difficulties were alluded to in the Reid inquiry. Had the correct standard of proof been applied by the PCS in that case it would not have been necessary for the persons against whom various complaints were made to deal with much of the evidence. Those observations have a particular application, it may be thought, to the present inquiry where over 36 witnesses (as we understand it) have given evidence to the Commissioner both nationally and internationally (including evidence from New Zealand).

40. We do not accept that such an extensive inquiry would have been warranted had the applicable standard of proof been known to all in advance. It is also back—to—front to investigate the various complaints prior to determining the applicable standard of proof

41. The PCS was, we recognise, in a difficult position as was the PCS in Reid since no clear principles appear to have been distilled towards defining the relevant standard of proof. Had we known, for example, that the PCS proposed to apply a criminal standard the presentation of our defence would have been very different. It has been necessary to embark on a detailed response to allegations not forming the subject of any complaint (the VG evidence) in case the PCS thought that VG’s evidence was (on the standard of proof that he would decide to apply) remotely relevant. If the correct standard had been known in advance it is questionable whether the PCS would have entertained her evidence or investigated the detail of it in the way that he has.

42. The second systemic defect in the full inquiry process is, and was, that the PCS has refused to give IDS and his legal advisers sight of all the evidence presented to him. The PCS has, rather, agreed only to disclose the evidence that, in his judgment, forms part of the case against IDS. In this, the PCS appears to have applied a more restrictive approach than the Committee approved in the Reid case.

43. Again, we submit that there should be, and have been, clearly defined disclosure rules in the PCS inquiry process to address this problem. The difficulty with part disclosure, namely only disclosure of that which the PCS believes is the case adverse to IDS is that real unfairness has been caused to IDS.

44. The point is this. The PCS does not know what IDS knows. IDS does not know what the PCS knows. Had IDS had sight of all the material available to the PCS he might have been able to point out internal inconsistencies in the evidence or to have relied on positive statements in his favour to rebut other evidence. He might even have been able to point the PCS to further helpful lines of inquiry.

45. Take, for example, an entirely hypothetical example. The PCS has evidence (say) from witness ‘A’ who says that another unidentified witness who had attended a meeting with IDS could give definitive evidence in support of DS. The PCS, seeing this as merely supporting evidence, does not disclose it to IDS. But if IDS had known of that evidence he could (from the description of the meeting) have identified the unidentified person and so provided additional positive evidence.

46. This example should not be taken literally. It is merely illustrative of the proposition that part disclosure may have created very real unfairness in this inquiry through no fault of the PCS but merely because the PCS does not know what IDS knows.

47. The systemic defects identified above have placed both the PCS and IDS in a very difficult position. From IDS’ perspective he has seen only edited material; edited, we accept, in good faith and even that against an unknown standard of proof. These should be matters of the gravest concern to CS.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 165

Gearson

48. A great many pages of unnecessary evidence have been taken up with this evidence. On analysis (see below) the Gearson allegations should be firmly rejected.

49. It is, perhaps, tempting to put VG’s evidence to one side and simply to dismiss the complaints without reference to it. Certainly—as will be shown—that evidence takes Crick’s complaints nowhere.

50. However, the public damage done to IDS as a consequence of what we submit to be, at times, unfounded and malicious allegations is considerable. The PCS is, therefore, invited to make clear his view of VG’s credibility as a witness at least in general terms where it conflicts with that of other witnesses (most notably Mr Tim Montgomerie: see below).

51. Without rehearsing the detail of her evidence now it is, we submit, simply unbelievable that the email of January 30th 2003 came to be distributed in the way that it was without ulterior motive.

52. The circumstances of how that email came to be drafted, let alone leaked, are themselves strange. IDS was not made aware of it even though on her testimony VG was trying to protect him. VG accepts, as she must, that it was wholly unjustified to put the information that she did on an email and that IDS was right to rebuke her for it. Why, then, did she do it? She is anything but politically naive—yet it was an act of striking naivety if she is to be believed. Why was the issue of BDS being raised at that time when it was no longer a live issue?

53. And there is the CW memo and its leak to the media. How did that come into Crick’s possession so that it was submitted to the PCS on October l4th? It was a memo addressed to VG and marked “Strictly Private and Confidential”. We know that the memo was leaked to the Daily Telegraph (see above) and was published in an article in that newspaper the following day. It was, therefore, likely to have been leaked by VG the previous day—that is, the same day that it reached the PCS and formed part of the information leading him to embark on a full inquiry (see above).

54. Further, VG’s interview with the PCS (and written Statement) leaves him with the words of the Reid standard of proof as her parting shot. VG says that she is as entitled as any member of the public to read public reports of inquiries. So she is. But the insinuation of those words into her evidence is, we suggest, all of a piece and of a type with the leaks to the media of the CW memo (and email).

55. IDS has—we submit unsurprisingly—reacted strongly to the allegations of VG and to the way in which her evidence has been leaked in advance and presented. It might be said that he could have afforded to disregard it so peripheral is it, in fact, to the central issues raised by the complaints. But we have taken the view that VG has calculated the content of her evidence, its manner of presentation and, in all probability, some of the leaks to the media in a deliberate attempt to cause maximum damage to IDS including possible collaboration with his accuser. For the sake of the public record—which VG has herself deliberately invoked—we submit that her lack of credibility should, in the public interest, be exposed on issues where she seeks to impugn IDS’ character.

56. That is we suggest the true, and only, relevance of VG’s evidence to this inquiry. Her allegations, having been made, should be examined and rejected. But her allegations, at best, do nothing to advance the complaints against IDS.

MacGregor

57. Although Mark MacGregor was not a complainant he enthusiastically adopts Cricks complaints (and, of course, IDS identifies him as one of Crick’s sources). In particular he seeks to support the allegation that IDS applied improper pressure upon VG and he also supports the allegation that BDS ceased work because of the publication of the allegations against Michael Trend. The press coverage of his testimony

166 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

also raises questions of whether he colluded in the leaking of his evidence to the media.97 Most recently this is raised by the contents of the article in the Sunday Telegraph 25 January 2004 which refers to both his evidence and that of VG. In this context it is equally important to reach a finding on his evidence. MM’s evidence is commented on in detail in both of IDS’ witness statements. By way of example MM gives conflicting accounts of when he first heard about BDS’ employment. It is significant that VG is also ignorant of the details of BDS’ employment (e.g. the salary was not £18,000) at 30 January 2003 when she sent the e-mail. If she had heard about them from CW then she would likely have had the correct information. It is far more likely that she learned of BDS’ employment from MM who knew of it from the early summer (from Jenny Ungless, on his testimony)—after all it is MM’s testimony that he suggested to VG that she apply for a position in the Leader’s Office and they must have had discussions about that.

58. IDS has further raised in his witness statements the possibility that there was collusion between MM and VG prior to and during this inquiry which, if true, would have a bearing on their testimony. Key indicators suggestive of collusion are (1) they have the same solicitor (Healys) and MM was on the circulation list for the letter (as indicated on the face of the letter) sent to IDS on 10 October 2003 by that solicitor on behalf of VG (at a time when MM had no position in CCO) (2) their original (false) testimony regarding the timing and effect of the Trend revelations (3) how their testimony on the Trend revelations has developed, in tandem, in response to IDS’ testimony according to their most recent letters to the PCS (4) the leaking of elements of their latest testimony to the PCS in the same article appearing in The Sunday Telegraph (25 January 2004) (5) that they are both among Crick’s original ‘anonymous’ sources—a matter which neither of them deny in their most recent testimony to the PCS. Again, for the sake of the public record—given the conflict of evidence between them and IDS on the Trend issue—we submit that their lack of credibility should, in the public interest, be exposed on issues where they seek to impugn IDS’ character. We would accept, however, that it is unnecessary to reach a firm finding of collusion in order to find that VG’s and MM’s allegations concerning Trend are without foundation.

Why the complaints should be rejected on due process grounds alone

59. In summary:

i) A decision was held to embark on a full inquiry without IDS being shown and asked to respond to highly relevant material that influenced the PCS in arriving at that decision.

ii) It was decided to embark on a full inquiry into allegations that had not been put to IDS and of which he was ignorant at the time of that decision.

iii) A decision was made to embark on a full inquiry taking into account anonymous material that had not been disclosed to IDS precisely because it was said, at that stage, to be irrelevant.

iv) Prior to the inquiry, at its inception, at the start of the full inquiry and throughout its course media disclosure has infected the whole proceedings. IDS has been told that his only remedy is to take the matter up with the Speaker.

v) The full inquiry has been conducted without IDS being informed of what standard of proof the PCS proposed to apply to any of the complaints. This has necessarily affected the preparation of his evidence and the manner in which evidence has been received by the PCS. Finally,

vi) The full inquiry has been conducted with IDS being given only a partial sight of the evidence on the footing that the PCS was disclosing only that which he considered to be relevant to the case against IDS. This has necessarily affected IDS’ ability properly to advance his defence and, in turn, deprived the PSC of obtaining a full evidential picture.

60. We say that for these reasons alone the complaints should be dismissed.

97 Not appended by the Commissioner.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 167

61. However, we propose to analyse the evidence briefly so as to suggest that the complaints have not been made out. As we are in ignorance of the standard of proof proposed to be applied we are—for practical purposes—adopting the Reid standard in respect of the dishonesty complaints and a balance of probability standard in respect of those complaints which appear—on their face—not to raise the implication of dishonesty.

62. This is without prejudice to our submission that in a case where there is, as here, a plain allegation of criminal misconduct, the appropriate standard of proof should be the criminal standard—that is, beyond reasonable doubt. If and to the extent that—contrary to our case and contrary to our understanding of the complaint—it is suggested that by paying CW and AE (or BDS) from an incorrect source IDS acted improperly in the sense of acting dishonestly then we submit that the same criminal standard of proof should be applied.

Part 3—The BDS Complaints

The first complaint

63. This can be addressed shortly. Crick started by asserting positive evidence that during the period September 2001 to December 31 2002 BDS had done no work but had, nonetheless, been paid by IDS out of his Parliamentary allowance (see above).That complaint, if established, constitutes the offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception under the Theft Act 1968.

64. The simple answer to the complaint is that there is no positive evidence in support of this allegation. On the contrary, no witness (so far as we are aware) has asserted other than that he or she did not see the fruits of any work performed by BDS. If there is no positive evidence (leave alone the ‘considerable evidence’ asserted by Crick) then the first complaint—as formulated—must fail.

65. The evidence in respect of BDS’ employment (let alone any of the relevant complaints) by those other than BDS and the witnesses who assert positively that she was working to a substantial degree is exemplified by the following:

i) “While l am in no position to confirm the details of Betsy Duncan Smith’s employment, o[r] the substance or intensity of that employment, I was left in no doubt of the fact of her employment” (Baverstock Statement of October 15 2003).

ii) “I have never had any sense from lain, never had the slightest shred of concern demonstrated by him in relation to what Betsy had been doing for him, nor a concern, for some reason, this situation had gone on because it was somehow financially advantageous to lain and that was all he was concerned about. I have absolutely no sense of that whatever” (Burt transcript).

iii) “it is my hunch, it is my strong belief that [BDS] probably was not doing any work, of any substantial nature anyway” (Crick transcript 4 days after indicating his ‘considerable positive’ evidence that BDS had done no work whatever during the relevant period).

iv) “All I am saying about these councillors is that overall what they are saying is that they do not recall any dealings with her during that period I don’t know how long he has been a councillor, perhaps I should go away and check” (Crick, same interview, same point).

v) “... I never received any sense at all that [BDS] no longer played the same role in relation to Mr Duncan Smith’s arrangements and Parliamentary duties that she had done in the period before September 2001 when I had the same type of dealings with her” (Quentin Davies MP unsolicited letter dated October 15th 2003 and not known by IDS or his staff or advisers to have been sent to the PCS).

vi) “As far as I was aware Betsy was working for her husband organising his appointments” (Finlayson, local Councillor, Statement October 15th 2003).

vii) “I do not contend, as I say in my submission, that [BDS] did nothing. I never visited Swanbourne and it would be unreasonable of me to say that she did nothing at all” (Gearson, transcript).

168 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

66. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to continue to proceed through an alphabetical litany of the various witnesses since VG is the high water mark of Crick’s complaints. The first complaint is, plainly, without any merit whatever since no one asserts any positive evidence to the effect that BDS did no work or even that an inference should be drawn to that effect.

The second complaint(s)

67. There is a further important reason why the first complaint must be rejected. It is that, for it to be accepted, it compels the conclusion that BDS, AB, Andrew Whitby-Collins (‘AWC’), Rikki Radford (‘RR’) and CW (to say the least) are lying. Such suggestion would: (a) be an odd one, (b) (paraphrasing Reid) be much less likely to be true than likely to be false, and (materially) (c) at least have to be made for it to be required to be considered: however, no suggestion of this kind has—at least as far as we are aware—ever been made openly by anyone: not even by VG.

68. But once it is accepted that BDS et al are not lying but are, rather, telling the truth then the second complaint(s) must also be rejected. This is because once it is accepted that the second complaint(s) against BDS rely solely upon inference then any inference that needed to be rebutted by positive evidence has been rebutted by positive evidence.

69. This is an important point that needs to be addressed explicitly. It is one thing to examine the strength of an inference by reference to the absence of rebutting evidence. It is quite another to continue to treat the same evidence as constituting a legitimate inference when it has been rebutted by positive evidence. There is no longer any inference to examine.

70. It is, of course, legitimate to test the credibility of a witness by reference to the evidence (even indirect evidence) of another witness or witnesses. But unless the suggested inference is, for all practical purposes, irrebuttable or unless there is some independent reason to suppose that a particular witness or witnesses is or are obviously lying it is difficult to see how the strong and positive testimony of four prima facie truthful people (AB, AWC, RR and CW) that the suggested inference is wrong can amount to anything other than a rebuttal of the inference. A fortiori when there is no suggestion that those witnesses are lying.

71. As already noted, VG does not assert a positive case that BDS was not working at Swanbourne. VG never visited Swanbourne so, obviously, she cannot say. Once it is appreciated that no one mounts a positive case that BDS did not work at Swanbourne then the sole questions can only be: (a) is there positive evidence to the effect that BDS did work at Swanbourne?, (b) is there positive evidence that her work there was more than minimal?, (c) is there positive evidence that her work there justified the salary she was paid?, (d) is the evidence in relation to the last two questions to be believed?

72. If the answers to those questions are “yes” then the second complaint(s) necessarily fall away. They must be dismissed. It is not proposed to recite the positive evidence in detail but, rather, to seek to summarise its essential features with references where needed.

73. BDS has explained, both in her Statement and in her interview with the PCS, that in the period before IDS became Leader she was more in the ‘front line’ than she became afterwards. She was—in the pre Leader phase—more involved in face—to—face contact with members of the public or, indeed, with significant figures in the Chingford constituency.

74. After IDS became Leader, however, BDS played a more supportive role But that role was still immensely important. In order to understand her role in the Leader phase it is necessary to understand what was really (as opposed to syntactically) involved in assisting with IDS’ diary.

75. The point will not be laboured here because, in his questioning of BDS, the PCS has demonstrated that he understands the pressures on the diary in a private Governmental office (see, e.g., BDS transcript at p. 10 and the reference by the PCS himself to the need for ‘thinking/breathing space’).It is, though, emphasised that those pressures were (as one would, perhaps, expect) at their most extreme in the case of the Leader of the Opposition. This aspect is developed at some length in the evidence of IDS himself.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 169

76. The gist of BDS’ evidence is outlined below. We emphasise that during her long questioning by the PCS she was entirely consistent in the account that she gave in her main Statement dated December 5th 2003. At the meeting she produced (though she was under no obligation to do so and has requested privacy in relation to the material) sample telephone bills, emails and other documentation for the PCS to inspect. We rely on that sample material as providing further support for her evidence and simply make the point that she was not asked to keep records and obviously had no idea that these complaints would be made.

77. BDS explains, in some detail, the nature of her work in her main Statement from paragraph 12.From that account it is apparent that the processes involved included progress chasing which became increasingly important as IDS’ workload as Leader increased, assisting with IDS’ diary (see also above) including regular up-dating meetings with AWC and AE, secretarial work and constituency case work and correspondence. Her working day was not neatly compartmentalised but was certainly considerably in excess of 25 hours a week in the period under scrutiny. She spent from 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. on week days in the office at Swanbourne. She gives a clear and detailed account of her day to day activities including notably her work in the evenings, late at night and at the weekend in her Statement at paragraphs 29-40.

78. Given that BDS was working from home, it was inevitable that there was a relatively limited number of people she worked with at the Westminster office. She explains this in her Statement at paragraphs 74- 81.Her evidence is supported by those she worked with. For example, BDS worked closely with, amongst others, AWC until October 2002.This is, indeed, confirmed by AWC (see his Statement generally).In particular, he testifies positively that ‘Elizabeth Duncan Smith was essential to enable me to do my job as Diary Secretary for the Leader of the Opposition’ (ibid at paragraph 4).According to his evidence, BDS discussed IDS’ arrangements for the day and reported back to AWC. She downloaded documents emailed to her by AWC. Every week she received, by email, the detailed diary for the 6 months ahead as well as the diary for the following week. She would work through it with IDS over the weekend and report back to AWC on the Monday (see ibid at paragraphs 4-5).She was, he says, an essential part 0/the team working with Iain Duncan Smith and it would have been hard for me to have done my work without her assistance’ (ibid at paragraph 8).

79. A similar picture is given by AE. When IDS became Leader, AE—who had been his Constituency Secretary—took over as his Private Secretary. In her Statement she explains that she worked closely with BDS, AWC and CW from September 13 2001 to October 2002.She also gives positive testimony as to the work undertaken by BDS from Swanbourne.

80. AE points out in her Statement (see paragraph 5) that BDS had access to full office facilities at Swanbourne. This should now—following the PCS’ visit to Swanbourne—be uncontroversial (see, e.g., BDS’ main Statement at paragraphs 41–52) though, for a time, it was suggested that because extensive work in the form of additional office provision was carried out at Swanbourne after BDS ceased to work for IDS that meant that there were no relevant office facilities at Swanbourne to which she could have had access when she was working for him. This is simply a non sequitur and is another example of an inference sought to be raised by VG but, in fact, fully rebutted by the evidence.

81. Materially, AE says this: ‘Elizabeth Duncan Smith was essential during the period that I was working as Private Secretary to co—ordinate the passage of information between me and Andrew Whitby-Collins and lain Duncan Smith’ (see her Statement at paragraph 6).As to the content of the work performed by BDS, AE gives similar evidence in her Statement at paragraphs 6-8 to that of AWC. When questioned by the PCS AE indicated (see pp. 27–28 of the transcript)98 that in her judgment BDS did work the equivalent of 25 hours a week. She based this judgment on her own interaction with BDS, the frequency of that interaction and the results of what she saw as BDS’ effect on the work she had done for IDS, the results in

98 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 7.

170 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

terms of the answers that came to points that AE had asked BDS to chase up, the emails that were sent by BDS to AE and related observations of this type .99

82. This judgment is significant. The fact that AE was not present at Swanbourne means, of course, that she did not see everything first-hand. But she was ‘the principal point of contact’ (see transcript at p. 24)100 with BDS.AE is, therefore, in a good position to give positive testimony.

83. It must also be borne in mind that a precise estimation of the hours worked by BDS is very difficult. As is referred to below, the Leader’s office was not run on clearly defined, managerial lines. Its effective operation depended on the personalities involved, the ‘chemistry’ between them and the fact that the new Leader had virtually to start afresh. BDS worked in a way that fully justified her salary. That is the evidence of AE. It is important evidence.

84. Further, as already emphasised, AE’s positive and corroborative evidence does not stand alone. It is supported by AWC (see above). It is also supported by RR and by CW.

85. In his interview with the PCS RR explains that he had fairly frequent contact with BDS up to the time of the local government elections. It was not social contact but involved questions of organisation (“shall you do this?”, “shall I do this?”). It was not the kind of thing that any spouse would be ringing up about. Because of the conversations that he had, RR said that he knew that BDS was chasing things up with AWC and AE.RR said, in his Statement at paragraph 6, that he knew first hand that BDS was active in her employed role until December 2002.

86. CW began working with IDS on October 15th 2001.In July 2002 she became IDS’ Private Secretary, taking over this duty from AL. Her Statement makes it clear that CW was aware of what she terms BDS’ ‘close management’ of IDS’ diary (see Statement at paragraph 6) even though she could not speak as authoritatively as AE on the subject. In order to find out what TDS was doing at any particular time she (CW) would telephone BDS because (see interview transcript at p. 25)101 ‘she was doing diary support and she would be one of the obvious people, other than [AE] with the knowledge’ (see, also, 2nd transcript of CW interview at pp. 17—18).102

87. Finally, at paragraph 54 of her second Statement CW says this: ‘Vanessa [Gearson] was wrong when she said that Mrs Duncan Smith did not do any regular work/or Mr Duncan Smith and that her basis for concluding this was that Mrs Duncan Smith was not in touch with her on a regular basis. Mrs Duncan Smith was in touch with me, Annabelle and Ricki Radford on a regular basis.’.103

88. IDS entirely supports BDS’ evidence and the evidence of those who corroborate her evidence. In his interview with the PCS he also makes a number of highly relevant points. See, for example, his observations about home working and the attitude towards those who do not work rigid office hours (Interview at pp. 20–21),104 the fact that because BDS worked from home she was ‘less visible’ (ibid p 21), the close but limited working relationships that subsist in a private office and the sense of exclusion that others might feel (ibid pp. 21–22).

89. Not only were the pressures on the Leader of the Opposition diary (to use BDS’ word) ‘enormous’ in general terms they were, in the particular case, intensified or maximised further because of the prevailing difficulties in the office when—and for a considerable time after—IDS took over as Leader. Additional support of the kind provided by BDS was self-evidently necessary.

99 Note by author: Note, too IDS Interview with the PCS at p 19 (“… I have absolutely no doubt at all that my wife worked more than 25 hours [a week] and the reason I have no doubt is that she was working regularly at night, late into the evenings, a number of hours every day, two or three hours most evenings …”). 100 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 7. 101 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 22. 102 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 23. 103 Note by author: We do not propose to interpret the CW memo further since CW—its author—has now given evidence as to what was in her mind when she wrote it. 104 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 3.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 171

90. This is made clear by a variety of evidence. Note, simply by way of example, the following:

i) “... My only recollection was that in talking to [C W], observing what I observed, I thought, ‘Here is a structural problem. No wonder this guy is working under a mountain’, because you have six months trying to find your feet. in any job that is the crucial six months, you need to hit the ground running in a big job ...” (Burt Statement at p. 14).105

ii) “There were a number of changes and re-organisations in the staff and one needs to appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition’s office was being set up from scratch”.106

iii) “it is the nature 0/the concept 0/Leader of the Opposition—that you have to discover who works best with who while you are doing it; there is not a system that sits there and comes in around you. That is what causes that transitional problem I was re/erring to, and the need to use Betsy through that because I could rely on her completely to help get those things done in a way that perhaps I could not with a lot of others” (IDS Interview with the PCS at p. 17).107

iv) “... It was not a smooth running operation. There had been quite a rapid turnover. As inevitably happens, when Mr Duncan Smith became Leader he brought in a team 0/people who did an interim job for him while he established his new office ... the roles were very ill-defined and people did not really know what their job was, and this resulted in some particular operational difficulties ... we felt that the Leader’s diary was a mess; he was doing far too many things. There was no reason why he was accepting certain invitations and not others, so we felt there were issues there” (Gilbert Interview transcript at pp. 5–6).108

91. We respectfully submit that the positive case for BDS performing work that was of a substantial nature and that fully entitled her to payment for 25 hours work a week is overwhelming. Unless the former Leader of the Opposition, his wife and all the witnesses referred to above are deliberately lying the second and third complaints are entirely without foundation.

Gearson

92. It is against that background that the negative inferences sought to be drawn (most notably by VG) fall to be assessed. The point has already been made—and it is absolutely fundamental—that if the evidence set out in the previous Section is believed then VG’s assertions are evidentially irrelevant. They are irrelevant because they raise no more than (at best) an inference that BDS was not working. Once the inference is rebutted that is the end of the relevant complaints. VG’s evidence cannot, logically, lead to the inference that the various witnesses who give positive testimony are all lying. As she is driven to concede—she has never visited Swanbourne.

93. VG’s evidence is founded on innuendo and, it may be thought, some of it rather nasty innuendo at that. In terms of underlying impression she suggests that IDS was seeking to pressurise her into lying. Why (so, presumably, her argument runs) would he do that if there was not truth in the suggestion that BDS was doing little—if any—work? It is, crudely, a “no smoke without fire” approach. But it is misconceived. It is misconceived because there is a raft of supporting and positive evidence (summarised above) to the effect that BDS was certainly working to a substantial degree. Conversely VG’s testimony demonstrates that she is not a material witness on the issue of BDS’ work

94. The issues raised by VG are either: (a) demonstrably factually incorrect (as, e.g., her allegations relating to the provision of office facilities at Swanbourne), (b) analytically irrelevant and deliberate lies (as, e.g., the suggestion that she was pressurised by IDS to retract her email of January 30th 2003) or (c) rebutted by positive evidence.

105 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 5. 106 See PCS Written Submission 5. 107 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 3. 108 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 10.

172 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

95. It is a matter of surprise that VG should be at such ostensible pains to drive home the present complaints. After all, she is not the complainant.109 .Nor has she made a complaint to the PCS, requiring resolution, about being put under improper pressure by IDS. She has responded in great detail to the evidence presented on behalf of IDS. But what is her stance? Is she asserting that BDS and the witnesses who support her case are deliberately lying to the PCS? If she is not advancing that suggestion then why does she not accept that although (albeit very surprising to her) she did not see the fruits of BDS’ work there is no further factual foundation to the relevant complaints?

96. Other questions arise (and have earlier been foreshadowed).Why write an email after the event that could only expose IDS to political embarrassment? How did it come about that this document and another document that were plainly intended to embarrass (the CW memo) were leaked to the media thus exposing IDS to maximum political embarrassment? And what a time to choose …

97. The PCS will, perhaps, understand why IDS has attempted to grapple with at least some of these issues in his evidence. There are three possibilities, we suggest, so far as the above materials are concerned. They are that: (a) VG’s email and all the leaked material personal to her were drafted and/or leaked entirely innocently by her and that the ostensibly intended damage to IDS was not intended at all but was (rather) a misguided attempt to protect him or (b) such leaks as there were did not come from VG and her email of January 30th 2003 was sent for no obvious reason or that (c) there has, at least in part, been orchestrated leaks of some information or material by VG (as well as by Crick and MM). We submit that the latter is (to paraphrase VG’s paraphrase of Reid) significantly more likely to be true than it is to be false. And if the latter is true then it raises the question of whether VG has told the truth to the PCS in all respects. If she has not then this should be determined as a matter of public record in the interests of justice.

98. It may be relevant for the PCS to separate out those parts of VG’s evidence which are (as the philosophers might say) true but uninteresting from other parts which are either untrue, inaccurate or malicious. For example, it appears to be the case that VG made comment, sometimes emphatic comment, about whether BDS was performing a substantial employment role. On the other hand (see below) the value of that evidence towards establishing the complaints is nil. Other evidence (though similarly irrelevant) is fabrication (as, e.g., IDS forcing her to write the email of January 31st 2003 or putting improper pressure on her to make a statement).VG’s exact motive for sending the 30th January email may be obscure110 but the motive (whoever did it) in distributing that email and the CW memo to the media for public consumption is both obvious and malicious. It is emphasised that both the email and the CW memo have the common element that VG is either the sender or recipient in each case.

99. We propose to address the VG issues by outlining the gist of what she says with a brief response immediately below. Our summary is based on what we believe to be the main points raised by VG. It should not be thought by the PCS that the fact that we omit large parts of VG’s evidence means that we accept it. That is far from the case but we cannot cover everything:

i) I do not contend that Mrs Duncan Smith could not have worked/or Mr Duncan Smith during this period but rather that I saw absolutely no evidence of the work carried out by Mrs Duncan Smith and cannot establish by analysing the distribution of tasks and responsibilities within the two offices, what work she was effectively carrying out”.111

109 Note by author: Despite the fact that she is not the complainant (and has made no complaint) VG appears to be following the progress of Crick’s complaint with keen interest. Even though the only complaint put before the PCS by October 16th 2003 was that BDS had done no work during the relevant period, VG devotes a large portion of her first statement to ‘issues relating to Mr Duncan Smith’s Parliamentary Office Costs’ (WS 13). How had these issues come to her attention? We surmise that VG must, at this time have been hand-in-glove with Crick. Yet this was, according to her evidence, a lady seeking only to protect the interests of IDS. 110 Note by author: A political motive is suggested by IDS and VG was questioned about it in her interview with the PCS: see Interview transcript at p 42. [See PCS Oral Evidence 9, Volume III.] 111 See PCS Written Submission 13.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 173

VG does not say that BDS did not work for IDS but, rather, that she ‘saw no evidence’ of this. We submit, therefore, that VG simply is not in a position to dispute the evidence of the witnesses who give positive evidence as to the substantial work that BDS was doing. It is to be remembered that VG was only appointed in the autumn of 2002 and herself had, we accept, minimal direct contact with BDS. We also consider that VG would have had little opportunity to overhear conversations between BDS and CW. It also seems clear from at least some of the materials seen by the PCS and Ms Barry that BDS would—if she had to deal with matters relevant to VG—contact CW rather than VG herself (see BDS Interview transcript at p. 50).112Further, even the circumstantial evidence suggests that VG may not have been in a particularly good position to observe what was going on (see, e.g., letter dated December 1st 2003 from Tim Montgomerie to the PCS who suggests that VG’s chair and desk ‘were not well suited for an adequate understanding of what else was taking place in the office’). It may also be that VG has failed to place in relevant context the occasions on which BDS’ name is likely to have come up in conversation (see IDS Interview at pp. 60-62 where this possibility is discussed)113. Since she has never suggested that the witnesses supporting BDS’ case as to the work done (and BDS herself) are lying it is not easy to see how VG’s evidence in this respect advances the relevant complaints.

ii) “Mrs Duncan Smith states she set up a functional office in Swanbourne ‘which was fully equipped’. It is my understanding that the office Mrs Duncan Smith describes was in fact set up in the last months of her employment as demonstrated by the information set out below” (ibid p. 6)114

The PCS has now seen the premises at Swanbourne and will appreciate that VG’s evidence is founded here on a misunderstanding. True it is that work was undertaken at Swanbourne at the end of BDS’ employment but there were fully functioning office facilities there throughout the relevant period of the complaints from which BDS worked.

iii) Having set out the ‘information ... below’ VG says this: ‘Although I have not visited Swanbourne, it is my considered view in light of the above evidence that it is difficult to accept Mr Duncan Smith’s assertion that Mrs Duncan Smith was working/or him in a parliamentary capacity from a fully functional office at their home’.115

Whether ‘considered’ or not, VG’ s ‘view’ is wrong. Whilst purporting to be more than Crick’s ‘hunch’ it is—as the PCS now knows—based upon the entirely incorrect assertion that there were no office facilities in situ at Swanbourne during throughout the relevant period.

iv) How the Matter regarding Mrs Duncan Smith’s employment was dealt with (ibid pp 9–10).116 Here, VG makes three points, namely that: (a) she raised concerns about BDS’ employment being paid out of a Office Costs Allowance (‘OCA’) within one hour of its being drawn to her attention, (b) Mr Owen Paterson (‘OP’) said that he would take the matter up immediately with IDS, and (c) by mid November 2003 the Trend allegations had been made public and this strengthened VG’s resolve: VG raised the issue again at an un—minuted meeting at that time—no one questioned VG’s assertion that BDS was not doing any work in return for her salary.

VG’s evidence itself is, with respect, potentially confused. She says117 that the concerns that she raised were over BDS’ salary being paid out of the OCA. She does not say that she was expressing concern over (an assertion) the fact that BDS was—on VG’s version—doing no work. The only reference to VG mentioning this in her Statement was at a meeting, the content of which is not recorded, in November 2003.Whilst we do not contest the fact that she may have expressed concerns to certain people (e.g. Gilbert and MacGregor) we simply note that there is no written contemporaneous

112 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 2. 113 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 3. 114 See PCS Written Submission 13. 115 See PCS Written Submission 13. 116 See PCS Written Submission 13. 117 See PCS Written Submission 13.

174 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

evidence of her concerns and so the manner of their expression to different persons is not known. In addition, she does not give any plausible explanation of why she did not raise it with AWC, AL, CW or indeed with BDS herself as she could easily have done. Both these points are important to an understanding of why there was not an immediate assertion that BDS did have a positive and very definite employment role as set out above. Further—and this is a matter of public record—the Trend allegations were only made public in mid December rather than in mid November.

OP in his Statement accepts that, in the autumn of 2002, VG queried whether BDS was really doing work and he said that he would take the matter up with IDS. It is clear from paragraph 35 of his Statement that OP raised this with IDS as a ‘routine issue’ but that he was not overly concerned. It is accepted that VG raised a query with OP but we do say that she was not, at that time, on her Statement evidence pursuing the issue as one of potential impropriety on IDS’ part at least to OP. Similarly, OP accepts that the query may also have surfaced at a later meeting along with many other issues (see OP Statement at paragraph 36).118When the matter was raised with IDS by OP it was made clear that BDS’ employment was intended to end (OP Statement paragraph 37). It is, perhaps, unsurprising that a four month period went by without concerns being expressed by OP over VG’s considered views over BDS’ alleged lack of work. There is a subtle but important difference between a factual and considered assertion on the one hand and a question (see immediately below) on the other. However VG put matters to Mr MacGregor or Mr Gilbert the evidence appears to be that her concerns were not expressed as forcefully to OP.

The analysis suggested in the previous paragraph is strengthened by the fact that VG never raised the issue directly with IDS himself (see IDS’ main Statement at paragraph 67).There was, therefore, nothing to alert IDS to the fact that this was a query (that he had answered directly to OP) and that had not been answered to VG’s satisfaction.119 Nor is there evidence that OP was pressed by VG or anyone else for a further response. Rather, VG’s testimony (letter of 12 January 2004) is that OP told her, well before the Trend allegations became public in mid December, that “the matter was being dealt with”.

We do not suggest that VG had not expressed concerns over BDS’ role to certain people or at certain meetings. It seems that she had to Mr Gilbert and Mr MacGregor (see above and fn 10).120However, the answer that BDS was performing a positive role could reasonably be expected to be answered by the Leader himself. Had he appreciated that there was a real concern on VG’s part he could and clearly would have answered it as he has done by evidence in the present inquiry.

Importantly, and finally on this aspect, it is emphasised that VG’s concerns are, so far as relates to the issues raised before the PCS, historic. They have been answered by the evidence of several witnesses as outlined above.

v) The context of the emails (ibid. pp. 10–12).Here, VG says that: (a) the fact that BDS’ employment had ceased did not entirely alleviate her concerns, so (b) she sent the email dated January 30th 2003, (c) IDS was very angry about VG raising such sensitive subjects in an email, (d) he advised VG in the strongest terms to send out an immediate response, (e) believing that the only alternative was resignation VG drafted a retraction (the January 31 email) that was—in effect—dictated by IDS, (f) her evidence as to this is corroborated by Mr MacGregor (and possibly by Mr Gilbert) and her state of distress following the meeting with IDS can be attested to by CW and Miss Layton.

118 See PCS Written Submission 19. 119 Note by author: We do not ignore the evidence of Mr Gilbert who states, in interview with the PCS, that VG raised the issue at some of the unrecorded communications meetings and that VG also raised the issue with him and MacGregor on one occasion when they were together (Gilbert Interview transcript at pp 9–11). However, the urgency or otherwise with which VG raised the matter with persons other than OP—who (we assume everyone knew) was going to raise the matter with IDS or IDS himself is beside the point. OP rarely attended communications meetings (see Gilbert Interview p 11). There would be little point in a response to VG’s concerns ad interim. Similar observations apply to the evidence of Mr MacGregor. 120 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 10.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 175

It is surprising, and it has not been explained, how it came about that at the time when she would (on her story) have been most concerned about BDS’ role there is no written trace of VG’s concern. The concern only emerges en passant and after the ‘crisis’ has (so to speak) passed. Further, there is no reference whatever referring back to VG’s earlier concerns not having been addressed. Nor is there any explanation of why a matter of obvious political sensitivity that VG had, apparently, never put to IDS himself was sent out by email or why OP (with whom she had raised a query in the past) was not copied in to the January 30th email. All that we can really say about the/act of the January 30 email is that we are highly suspicious of VG’s motive. Its subsequent leaking to the press (with the CW memo) is, we suggest, undeniably malevolent and done with motive. For all we know it is the same motive as that which promoted the publication of the email in the first place.

IDS’ evidence as to what happened when that email was sent is in his main Statement at paragraphs 69–71. It was obviously the case—as IDS suggests and VG impliedly accepts—that sending the email of 30th January was, to say the least (if it was not deliberately manipulative) ‘an act of striking political naiveté. ‘Whatever VG’s precise motives it is, we suggest, entirely believable that she should have apologised to IDS as he says that she did121 and to have wanted to put the matter right.122It was, we suggest, in those circumstances that VG came to write her email of January 31 retracting the earlier email.

It may well be that VG was distressed following the meeting with IDS on January 31 2003. This would be entirely understandable given that she realised that she rightly deserved rebuke for what she had done. There is, however, no suggestion from either Mr MacGregor or Mr Gilbert (who have given evidence as to the second email) that IDS dictated a new email for VG to sign. Further, it may be thought that on her own evidence VG would not—at least consistently with the approach she apparently takes to related matters—have lied in order to keep her job or to protect the Leader.

Finally, of course, there is no complaint before the PCS as to IDS putting improper pressure on VG to retract her earlier email. The existence, or removal, of VG’s concerns over BDS’ role are in terms of analysis of the facts completely irrelevant to the complaints that have been made against IDS.

vi) Events leading up, to the presentation of the complaint (ibid pp. 12–17)

In essence, VG says that: (a) IDS made four improper approaches to her when the Crick storm was breaking in September-October 2003 to give a statement under oath stating that she was ‘entirely satisfied’ as to the arrangements over BDS’ employment, (b) VG expressed concerns to senior figures that she was being pressurised to make a statement but indicated that she simply could not support IDS’ position because this would constitute the offence of perjury.

Tellingly, VG says nothing in her description of the allegedly relevant events leading to the presentation of her complaint in her Statement of her relationship with Crick or of the leak to the media of highly sensitive documents.123

The suggestion that IDS put pressure on her to lie is simply untrue. If (see above) he had not put pressure on her to retract the 30th January email it is clear that the email sent the following day is a truthful document and that, by that date at least, VG was satisfied over the arrangements relating to BDS 124

121 See PCS Written Statement 13. 122 See PCS Written Statement 13. 123 Note by author: VG suggests by implication when questioned by the PCS about other matters that the leaking of the email did not come from her: see Interview transcript at p 49. See, also, her letter dated January 12th 2004 at pp 10– 11. [See PCS Oral Evidence 9, Volume III.] 124 Note by author: In IDS’s statement it is pointed out that allegations of pressure also featured in the Reid case. Such allegations of pressure may have been necessary for VG to explain her concealment of the e-mail of 31st January from Crick.

176 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

It is not easy to reconstruct the swift passage of events at this time. However, VG seems to have told Mrs May (‘TM’) the then Chairman of the Party on October 6th 2003 that IDS had asked her to make a statement to say that she was happy with the second email expressing satisfaction with the BDS arrangements but that she had refused though VG told TM that she had—in an earlier meeting with TM and Tim Montgomerie—said that she was happy with the second email. According to TM’s evidence VG told TM that her earlier willingness to say she was happy with the second email might have been a mistake. TM’s impression, when she spoke to IDS by telephone on the last day of the Party Conference was that up to the point at which IDS received a letter from VG’s lawyers he at least was unaware that she (VG) was not willing to make a statement. It must be clear that IDS was unaware that there was any issue over sending the e-mail of 31st January or VG’s willingness to make a statement. IDS took VG’s comments to him, and subsequently to Tim Montgomerie, that she was happy to send the second e-mail in order to put things right, at face value. At no point did VG express any concern to IDS or Tim Montgomerie about sending the second e-mail. Indeed, the first time VG raised this issue with IDS was in the letter dated 10 October 2003 from her solicitors to IDS. Accordingly, he could have had no reason to place any pressure on VG, and indeed never did so (see above).

Overall, TM’ s evidence suggests that the conversations that she had had did not suggest that VG was being required to make any statement. Further, the Statement of Tim Montgomerie supports this. Mr Montgomerie states that the meeting which he attended on October 1 2003 with IDS and VG was ‘very relaxed’. He states positively that at no time did VG contradict IDS’ recollection of events or subject VG to any pressure. Over the days following that meeting VG apparently told Mr Montgomerie that she regretted that her email had caused difficulties for IDS and that she had, indeed, been persuaded that the concerns in her email had been answered. IDS is also adamant that he did not put any pressure on VG at any time.

So, properly analysed, there is independent evidence that IDS did not put any improper pressure on VG to make a Statement. Had he done so it is inevitable, on VG’s account, that Tim Montgomerie’s evidence is untrue. Indeed, that is what VG says in her oral evidence to the PCS (see Interview transcript at 60–62).125This is not a matter on which Mr Montgomerie can be mistaken. He is either telling the truth or he is lying.

We suggest that there is absolutely no possible motive on Mr Montgomerie’s part to lie. Not only is VG’s evidence materially untrue on this aspect of matters but it is designed as a direct smear on IDS’ character. We invite the PCS to make an express finding rejecting her evidence on this important issue as untruthful. If her evidence on this aspect is untruthful her reliability as a witness on other matters should also be treated with great caution.

100. That is really the sum total of VG’s evidence in relation to the complaints under analysis here. Following the interview process IDS has filed a second Statement and VG has put in a further long letter dated January 12th 2004 with myriad appendices. It is not proposed to analyse that material in depth here since it adds little to the overall weight of the evidence and is largely argumentative .

101. For the reasons set out above we respectfully invite the PCS to dismiss the first three complaints on the evidence and to make a specific finding that VG is lying when she accuses IDS of putting improper pressure on her at any time.

Part 4—The Source of Payments Issues

102. The complaints here (the third and fourth complaints) relate to whether or not IDS paid CW, AL and/or BDS out of the correct source. Put shortly, should he have paid them out of his Parliamentary allowance or ought they to have been paid from Party funds or Short Money?

125 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 9.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 177

103. By the time one reaches this stage of the analysis one has travelled, at least as far as BDS is concerned, a long way from allegations of impropriety. So far as we can tell it has not been suggested that IDS was deliberately misusing his Parliamentary allowance. If such a suggestion were to be made we would most certainly wish to have the further opportunity of addressing it in Written Submissions prior to the PCS submitting a draft Report to the CS because such an allegation has never been put to IDS or any of his witnesses.

104. For that reason we address these issues very briefly. Some time, in the early stages of the PCS’ inquiry, was devoted by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain to persuading the PCS to deal with these matters separately because they are, in truth, very different in nature from the first and second complaints.

105. It is understood that IDS has written to the PCS very recently about these issues in the light of the recently received material from Mr A Walker of the Department of Finance and Administration. Our submissions here, therefore, simply focus on the main points of principle so far as the third and fourth complaints are concerned. In other words, our submissions are directed towards the central proposition that, absent clearly defined rules, IDS (and others in a similar position) has acted perfectly properly in paying CW, AL and BDS as he did.

106. IDS’ clear understanding is that both his Parliamentary Allowance and Short Money may only be paid for the performance of Parliamentary duties (including, it seems, research) but cannot be paid in relation to party political work. The difficulty lies in defining the distinction between the two. We understand this much to be uncontroversial.

107. On that footing IDS addresses some of these issues in his main Statement at paragraphs 48–49.126 In essence he says this:

i) His Parliamentary duties always extended beyond his political duties to his constituency. As Leader of the Opposition he had numerous Parliamentary duties beyond those owed to the constituency because they also served the national interest. These duties included—in addition to those of an MP—speaking in the House, Prime Minister’s Questions, speeches and visits in the community as well as ceremonial and official functions (Statement at paragraph 48).

ii) As the Reid Report evidences, there is not always a clear dividing line between what is or is not party political (see Reid Report at paragraph 45, 2nd Report and Statement at paragraph 48).127

iii) BDS did not assist IDS with his party political tasks (Statement at paragraph 49). That is, in part, why her contacts were limited and why (for example) she had next to no contact with many of the witnesses who have given evidence to the PCS (ibid).

108. IDS amplified this before the PCS in oral interview (see Interview transcript at pp. 29–36). The main points that emerged from the discussion are these:

i) According to IDS’ understanding from the Green Book, Short Money and the Parliamentary Allowance were, essentially, similar in nature in that both are directed towards the undertaking of Parliamentary functions (p. 30).

ii) IDS had three roles being: (a) a constituency MP and a Parliamentarian,(b) Leader of the Opposition—essentially a Parliamentary role and (c) the leader of a political party. There are grey areas as to what is Parliamentary and what is party political and the CS may wish to make more precise judgments. It would, however, be wrong to apply such a judgment retrospectively (pp. 31– 33).

126 See PCS Written Submission 7. 127 Not appended by the Commissioner.

178 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

iii) The PCS accepted that there might be an “issue” as to the proper use of Short Money and said he was waiting to hear from the Finance and Administration Department (which he has recently done: see above). However, IDS emphasised that whatever that Department were to say the guidance as to the use of Short Money had not been clear. The PCS said that there was a “potential debate” around the definition of “Parliamentary” and that a different definition has been given in respect of Short Money from the definition in the Green Book in respect of ordinary members’ allowances. The PCS further then said that: “... that wider definition in respect of Short money stands, as it were, as the only definition on offer. It has not, I think, formally been before the House/or consideration.” Ms Barry referred to it as ‘a long running discussion” (Interview transcript at pp. 33-35).128Indeed, the recent correspondence between IDS, Mr A Walker and the PCS has established that there is no definition of “parliamentary business” for the purposes of Short Money nor any guidance on the parliamentary duties of the Leader of the Opposition.

109. In the light of that exchange it is, we suggest, quite impossible to castigate IDS by way of complaint for payments made out of his Parliamentary Allowance whether to BDS, AL or CW. It is obviously an area of current fluidity where, it would appear, insufficient clarification has been provided to date. We would certainly welcome further guidance and/or recommendations from the PCS and from the CS to rectify this situation.

110. We suggest, too, that in analysing these particular complaints the PCS revisits the evidence of CW. In her Second Statement CW makes it clear that she did not do party political work of any kind (see paragraph 7). It was certainly CW’ s view that she was, on proper consideration, paid out of the correct source of funds: note, especially, her question and answer interview with the PCS at Interview transcript pp. 5–17129 and her Second Statement at paragraph 23.130 As can be seen, CW’s understanding of the relevant payment rules is substantially the same as that of IDS. To similar effect see AE 2nd interview transcript especially at p.8:131

‘As far as I can see the rules as they stand. I thought I was appropriately paid out of the appropriate pot of money. If it is ruled that I was not appropriately paid, then the rules need to be clarified. I do not think it is clear at all as to who can be paid and who cannot be paid. It just says “to help a Member of Parliament perform his parliamentary duties “, and that is exactly what I was doing.’

111. That is, perhaps, an appropriate place to end since that is—on these complaints—our case.

Part 5—Conclusions

112. We are conscious that these Written Submissions can only add to the burden on the PCS of determining these sensitive complaints. We apologise, in advance, for that.

113. In concluding, therefore, we wish merely to make the following short bullet points and to thank the PCS for addressing matters so conscientiously:

i) The PCS procedure is challenged on a systemic basis. We understand the very great difficulty that a series of complaints such as the present pose for the PCS. We submit, however, that a procedure that lacks clear rules as to crucial matters such as burden of proof, disclosure and separation of the necessary stages of an inquiry operates, and has operated, unfairly to a person such as IDS in (then at least) the most prominent of public positions.

ii) If one strips the complaints bare there is nothing in any of them. Unless highly reputable persons— such as IDS, BDS, AE, AWC, AL, RR, and Mr Montgomerie—are lying there is simply no basis for any assertion of impropriety on the part of IDS.

128 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 3. 129 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 23. 130 See PCS Written Submission 25. 131 See Volume III, PCS Oral Evidence 8.

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 179

iii) Crick, VG and MM (singly and together) have caused considerable embarrassment and maximum political damage to IDS as well as greatly extending the time and costs of this inquiry. In the interests of justice any lies that are clearly shown to be lies should be exposed. In the case of VG she has certainly lied in her allegation of improper pressure being put on her by IDS. VG and MM’s allegations that the Trend allegations were known to IDS before they became public and that they were material to IDS’ decision that BDS would cease employment are similarly false.

iv) The leaks that have occurred are iniquitous. These, too, should be highlighted in the PCS’ Report to the CS. Finally,

v) When everyone laboured under the belief that payments were being paid from the appropriate source it would be wrong—whatever the final clarification—for any blame to be laid at the door of TDS. These complaints were added as a make-weight. They are the last straw.

114. We respectfully ask the PCS to recommend dismissal of each and every one of the complaints laid against IDS.

4 February 2004

51. Letter to the Department of Finance and Administration from Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 18 December 2002

Due to a change of staffing arrangements in relation to my constituency office, I hereby instruct you to cancel the salary arrangements in respect of Mrs E W Duncan Smith as from 31 December 2002.

Thanking you for your assistance in this matter

18 December 2002

52. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 6 January 2004

Complaint by Michael Crick

I refer to your letter of 16 December and our subsequent meeting on Thursday, 18 December, to discuss its contents and the letter dated 10 December from Mr Walker of the Fees Office.

It was agreed during our meeting that I would confirm my position on the various matters you raised in writing, which I now set out briefly.

Concerns expressed by Vanessa Gearson about my ACA claims

I referred you to page 12 of Vanessa Gearson’s transcript of interview in which she alleged there was in respect of my house in Chingford a “concern that centred on the lack of paperwork that had been given to indicate which of the houses Mr Duncan Smith was claiming the allowance for, and the paperwork that had been given had not been changed to reflect this new address.” She went on to allege, “I cannot confirm whether these concerns were ultimately proven either to be true or not at the end of the day by the Fees Office. I again make the point that if Vanessa Gearson was, as an official in my office, raising these matters in good faith she would have previously raised them in a transparent way with me.

There is no truth in any of these allegations. Vanessa Gearson had no reason to suggest that this was looked into at any stage by the Fees Office.

180 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

I claimed ACA for my Chingford house throughout the period you are investigating. The Fees Office have never questioned these claims let alone investigated them. I regard Vanessa’s suggestion that she cannot confirm whether these concerns were ultimately proven by the Fees Office as pure mischief-making on her part as she had and has no facts on which to base such a statement. Quite the contrary, Mr Walker’s letter of 10 December confirms that “I have no reason to doubt the validity of the claim.”

I believe that all of the claims I have made on the ACA in relation my Chingford House were allowable and correctly made. I stay in my Chingford house as the need arises, usually in connection with my regular visits to my constituency and did so throughout the period you are investigating although in this context, I do refer back to my general observations as to how the investigation has expanded beyond the original complaint concerning my wife as to the proper procedural safeguards for those subjected to such enquiries. The frequency of visits, and therefore my stays at the house, reduced after I became Leader of the Opposition but remained regular nonetheless. I expect now that I no longer hold the position of Leader my visits to the constituency will increase again, although this will have no bearing on my current ACA claims because I ceased to claim for the Chingford house in early 2003. when I paid off the mortgage.

As I informed you, I had and still have a nephew living in my Chingford house who is there to help me and, of course himself as the occupant. My nephew does not pay me rent for staying in the property, nor has he ever paid me rent for staying there. I confirm that I have never received rental income relating to my Chingford house. At no time have I received rent for my house in Chingford as has been suggested to a large number of people by Mr Crick. He was told this clearly months ago but has continued to suggest this to other journalists whenever he can.

Short Money and guidance from the Fees Office

Perhaps I could now refer to the section of your letter covering the Short Money.

When I asked Christine Watson to become my private secretary 1 was clear her new salary would be transferred to Central Office. This was made clear to Vanessa Gearson as well as to Mark MacGregor. However after further discussions with Christine Watson I became fully aware that she would spend a large proportion of her time involved in the organisation of my constituency correspondence as it was her intention to train up and bring in someone who had never done this before. In the early autumn I spoke to Vanessa Gearson when I discovered that Mark MacGregor was still dragging his heels about Christine Watson’s salary and told her that a proportion would be paid out of my staffing allowance. If as the Fees Office maintain now this may also have been their advice at the time then we would anyway have been complying with such advice. However, I was not aware of any such advice nor did I discuss the matter with them. I will return later in this letter to the nature of this advice.

At no time from the moment that Vanessa Gearson started work in the Leader’s Office did she raise any issues over the use of Short Money even though we had a number of discussions about settling Christine Watson’s contract. At no stage did Mark MacGregor over the period that he was Chief Executive raise these issues with me.

That is why when I read your letter enclosing Mr Walker’s response from the Fees Office I was concerned about the reference to the Fees Office Guidance on Short Money to my staff in the autumn of 2002. A re- reading of Mr Walker’s letter will show conclusively that the conversations referred to are with Christine Watson.

Furthermore, for the reasons I outlined to you I have concerns about the interpretation that Mr Walker has sought to place on the contacts in 2002 (which undoubtedly did occur) between Christine and the Fees Office. First, Christine has informed me after having read Mr Walker’s letter that although she had a number of conversations with various people in the Fees Office she does not recall any conversations in the context that Mr Walker suggests i.e. to advise on her the use of Short Money. Instead, she confirms that her statements to you regarding her dealings with the Fees Office remain her best recollection of what happened and what was discussed. The file note seems to confirm Christine Watson’s recollections.

You will recall I explained to you that neither in connection with Ms Stockton or with Mr Gorman do the words ‘Short Money’ appear, not even in the verbatim quote from Ms Stockton’s note. That note of Ms

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 181

Stockton is said to relate to a conversation with Ms Stockton on 20 October 2002 and subsequent to the advice from Mr Gorman but no mention of any such advice on Short Money appears in Christine’s memorandum four days later dated 24 October to Vanessa Gearson. Christine is a very precise and thorough secretary—I cannot believe that if she had received such a clear statement, or indeed any guidance on Short Money from the Fees Office, she would have failed to mention it to me, or at least in her memo when it was so critical to her budgetary concerns at that time.

The Fees Office records show that Christine was informing the Fees Office that (following discussions with me and on my instructions) she would be reducing her income from the staffing allowance because she was (or was to about to be) being paid through CCO. As you know from Christine’s statement and my own, Christine wanted a raise when she became Private Secretary which would not be fully met by CCO I arranged to make up the difference from my staffing allowance. No-one so far as I am aware ever thought that paying Christine from the staffing allowance was wrong or ever raised it with me. I decided that she should be paid from both funds and from what I can see, Ms Stockton’s note merely records that Christine was relaying that instruction, as discussed.

Also, I regard it as unlikely that the Fees Office would be giving advice to Christine in relation to Short Money, but not to me or the Conservative Party. After all the Fees Office would know that Christine did not administer any Short Money. No-one in the Leader’s Office administers Short Money, it is done by CCO. Any official guidance on Short Money would have to be given to the political parties which receive it and have to administer and ultimately to account for it.

Then there is the fact that the Fees Office was no more in a position to give categorical guidance on the use of Short Money in autumn 2002 than they are now. I have referred you to The Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Public Administration (HC293; 28 February 2001) entitled “Special advisers: Boon or Bane” at paragraphs 40–53. The Committee found that there is no attempt in any Resolution of the Parliament to define what constitutes “parliamentary business” for the purposes of Short Money (paragraph 45) and it urged the Leader of the House to arrange for a resolution (paragraph 43 and 51). However, there is no such resolution and therefore, presently, no such guidance for Members. The Fees Office were criticised in the same report for having come up with a definition which did not have the approval of Parliament (paragraph 50). No-where is there even a suggestion that there is official guidance of what constitutes the activities associated with being the Leader of the Opposition. This expression of opinion by Mr Walker is a reflection of his personal views to be assessed in the light of the fact that there is no definition or guidance which the Select Committee have called for to avoid precisely these sort of proceedings. What the Committee acknowledges as grey areas remain grey areas until Parliament chooses to deal with the matter.

The Trend Allegation

I remind you that I showed you Christine Watson’s notebook from 2002, and her ‘to do’ list for Monday 18 November 2002 there appeared this entry: “3. Salary letter—Betsy”. That is independent corroboration of my decision to take Betsy off the staffing allowance in November 2002. This is supported by the testimonies of Alastair Burt, Owen Paterson, Theresa May, Mark MacGregor and Vanessa Gearson as well as those of myself and my wife.

6 January 2004

53. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Iain Duncan Smith, 4 February 2004

Thank you for your letter.

Your letter incorporating Mr Walker’s new comments confirms every key issue in my letter of 6 January, including:

182 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

1. Mr Walker’s letter confirms, for the second time, that he is satisfied with the claims on my house in Chingford. He also confirms that there is no guidance on what ‘regular usage’ entails. However, Mr Walker has chosen to introduce in this letter, surprisingly, a new term, that of ‘reasonable use’. I cannot see how it is appropriate in the context of this enquiry to suggest that it would have been helpful if I had provided information about frequency—such information is neither required nor meaningful.

As you will recall, I said at our meeting that there is not and never was any basis for Dr Gearson to question my ACA claims let alone to suggest that the Fees Office had investigated them. This has now been confirmed twice by the Fees Office.

It is clear from the Fees Office notes and records that there is no mention of the words “Short Money” in connection with any inquiries/visits by Christine Watson. Accordingly there is no document contradicting anything that Christine has said in her testimony (and of course Mr Walker was not party to any of the relevant conversations between Christine Watson and the Fees Office).

The specific file note (Caroline Stockton, 20 October 2002)132 confirms Christine’s testimony that she went to the Fees Office to discuss the “staffing allowance” and she was informing the Office that only part of her salary would in future be paid from the staffing allowance, which in fact happened.

2. I also note that Mr Walker has changed his position; he now seeks to suggest that this is “not so much whether Short Money was used appropriately, but whether the Parliamentary Staffing Allowance was used on party political work.” That is surely incorrect, whether it was Short Money or staffing allowance the member of staff paid from either fund must be employed on parliamentary business (as distinct from party political work). My position continues to be that there was no misuse of my staffing allowance—my staff were engaged on parliamentary business. In his original letter of 10 December 2003 Mr Walker’s suggestion was that my “staff’ were advised about Short Money, which now proves groundless and that statement is now dropped. As he now recognises, his records demonstrate only (a) conversations with Christine and (b) there is no mention of Short Money in any of them.

3. Furthermore, although Mr Walker does not expressly deal with the matter, he must be taken to accept what I said in my letter about there being no definition of “parliamentary business” nor any guidance on the parliamentary duties of the “Leader of the Opposition”. That places a considerable limitation on the quality of any advice which the Fees Office is capable of providing on these issues.

4. I see nothing in anything Mr Walker has said (or document he quotes) which contradicts the testimony of either myself or Christine Watson, I believe it now confirms our testimony in every material aspect.

4 February 2004

132 Not appended by the Commissioner—see Volume I, Appendix 1, para 169.