The Daily Telegraph has followed up ConservativeHome's story about the new company the Conservatives have appointed to run their conferences. It is called Fingerprint Conferences and was only set up in November. One of its principals is Azahar Hussein, who was also a key staff member of CCO Conferences and has effectively run the commercial exhibition at the conference for the last three years. A likeable and cheerful chap, Azahar will bring a great degree of enthusiasm to the task ahead, but one can't help wondering if this is a change of name rather than a change of personnel. Tim Montgomerie is asking questions to CCHQ about how this potentially lucrative contract was awarded, but has so far received no answers.
UPDATE: CCHQ have just made this statement... The tendering of the contract to manage Spring Forum and Annual Party Conferences has been handled by a procurement company which advertised the contract in the events industry magazine 'Event' during September. The tendering process involved face to face interviews with a number of companies, and after discussions to see which model met the Party’s conference needs best, Fingerprint Events Ltd were awarded the contract by the Party Board. Commercial Confidentiality Agreements signed with all companies restrict us from releasing further details other than contained in the original press release. Fingerprint Events were judged to have the most suitable model especially in terms of CCHQ control and the financial return to the Party.
18 comments:
Yes!-the smell is fish--but which one?
Tim on the money again!
Why are we the only party who never made a profit from party confernce??
"Tim Montgomerie is asking questions to CCHQ about how this potentially lucrative contract was awarded" Why? Does he think that there has been some sort of dodgy deal, or does he think that ConHom has the right to know about the individual workings of each contract awarded by CCHQ?
If it is the latter, then as someone who is not elected or appointed by the conservative party he is not automatically entitled to a briefing on every aspect of the daily running of CCHQ.
Perhaps someone should be asking whether sponsorship/other money paid to Fingerprints will be reported to the Electoral Commission as a donation as required by PPERA - or will there be no Fingerprints so to speak.
Lots of companies have had a policy of sponsoring events at both the Labour and Conservative conferences for years - one Party reports the donations the other didn't because it was received by CCO Conferences.
"Fingerprint Conferences"
an appropriate name if inspector Yates mantains his line of investigation?
So, chatterbox, you believe in the free and open market except when the Conservative party itself is involved?
"So, chatterbox, you believe in the free and open market except when the Conservative party itself is involved?
Err no, you obviously did not read my post correctly. I have no problem with Tim Montgomery or anyone else questioning or uncovering any "dodgy" political contracts conservative or otherwise. But I do object to ConHom thinking that it has an automatic right to access to CCHQ information because it has the word conservative in its blog title.
er no chatterbox, you were suggesting that TM was asserting rights to know about "the workings of each contract" and NOT "how this particular contract was awarded" which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
Are these just the same f---wits who left most people outside the accreditation hall for hours last year?
"er no chatterbox, you were suggesting that TM was asserting rights to know about "the workings of each contract" and NOT "how this particular contract was awarded" which is a different kettle of fish entirely."
To be fair I don't think that you have bothered to read my first post correctly, in fact I seem to have rattled your cage just by asking a couple of questions?
""Tim Montgomerie is asking questions to CCHQ about how this potentially lucrative contract was awarded" Why? Does he think that there has been some sort of dodgy deal, or does he think that ConHom has the right to know about the individual workings of each contract awarded by CCHQ?
Does it really matter all that much? A rose by any other name ...
Chatterbox, after that last posting I have decided you are John Prescott and I claim my UKP5!
Anon 3-chatter NIL
Anon-chatter is probably Hilton trying to justify his salary!
What has this got to do with the smell of fish, cruise liners or secretarial services?
Or are we not allowed to ask about the people asking the questions.
Well lets hope they do a better job than last year. I know of people still growling about it and its two months later. Or is this just another ruze to wipe the slate clean after last year's debacle?
Fingerprint-sounds like something Hilton thought up on a very bad day---or after a very short chat with Maude.
Wasn't there a Paul Simon song titled: "The Myth of Fingerprints"?
Iain tell us
One of its principals is Azahar Hussein, who was also a key staff member of CCO Conferences and has effectively run the commercial exhibition at the conference for the last three years.
NO CHANGE OF PESONNEL THERE THEN?
The Press Release which CCHQ originally posted and then pulled (WHY DID THEY PULL IT?) said,
Sharma Hussain Director said, ‘Fingerprint events is honoured to be awarded the contract’. (Note Director but as according to Companies House not a Main Board Director). The Release also reveals Sharma Hussain ‘was formally with events agency Octopus for over six years’
Octopus is a genuine events agency and its website (http://www.octocomm.com/people.htm#) has a profile on Shama
Shama Hussain is Director of Operations for Octopus Communications. Shama is responsible for the company's account and logistics team and ensures that all standards are adhered to and that events are delivered to the highest possible levels. Shama has full responsibility for managing delivery of the company's key accounts including GAM (UBS) and De Beers Trading Company.
Shama has worked at Octopus Communications for over 6 years and has more than 11 years front line experience in the event management industry. Prior to joining Octopus Shama was an integral member of the team that delivered the Millenium Dome Celebrations in January 2000. Shama has personally delivered over 75 events in 16 countries.
…..an integral member of the team that delivered the Millenium Dome Celebrations in January 2000???
WAS THIS THE SAME TEAM KNOW AS LIVE PRODUCTIONS RUN BY MIKE LOCKETT WHO HAPPENS TO RUN AND OWN CCO CONFERENCES LTD? IS THIS THE SAME TEAM AND SAME MIKE LOCKETT REFERRED TO IN THE FOLLOWING HANSARD FROM 24TH MARCH 2000?
IF SO THEN NO CHANGE OF PERSONNEL THERE THEN?! IF SO THEN FINGERPRINT ARE A REINVENTION OF CCO CONFERENCES LTD.
24th March 2000
Millennium Dome
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much Live Productions are being paid for their role in the opening ceremony of the Dome; if the penalty clause in their contract has been activated; and if he will make a statement; [104523]
(2) if he will set out the remuneration package for Michael Lockett in respect of his role as Project Director for the opening ceremony of the Dome, including details of bonus payment arrangements. [104522]
Janet Anderson [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Early on in the considerations about the Dome Opening Celebration (DOC) NMEC decided that the event should be developed and managed in-house. The main factors influencing this decision concerned security, budget and the need to work closely with many of NMEC's existing creative and technical team whose duties also included delivery of the public opening of the Dome on 1 January. Mr. Michael Lockett (Chairman, Live Communication) was consultant project director. Fixed monthly fees were negotiated for Mr. Lockett and for those of his staff who supported him. NMEC established from the outset that the agreed fixed fees compare favourably with those applying in the major event organisation market. In developing and managing the delivery of the DOC, Mr. Lockett and his team worked as an integral part of NMEC's in-house team. Bonus payments are not applicable to any of the Live Communication personnel; final payment for the DOC work they undertook is being made following the normal process of invoice approval by the client. The contract is subject to normal resolution procedures.
Post a Comment