JACOB REES-MoGG,

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR NORTH

MP
EAST SOMERSET

HOUSE

OF COMMONS LONDON

SW1A OAA

8th June 2011 Graham Brady Esq., M.P., House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA.

Thank you for your response to my earlier ernail, Annunciata Candidates' department so I am writing again as promised. Before turning to the specific points relating concerns about the handling of the process. to Annunciata

has now seen the

I have some general

If compared to an employment issue the candidates list review was carried out in a cavalier fashion. Looking at the ACAS statutory code of practice (which covers poor performance which must be the main reason for removing those who have fought elections from the list) the procedure followed by Central Office fails. The Party did not inform candidates of 'the basis of the problems and give them an opportunity to put their case in response before any decisions are made'. It did not allow candidates 'to be accompanied at any formal disciplinary or grievance meeting'. Crucially it failed to permit any 'appeal against any formal decision made'. It is true that candidate selection is not wholly aims to be fair it ought to follow some form of own arbitrary one. The denial of standard data means candidates cannot know if inaccurate or similar to employment but as the Party 'best practice' rather than developing its protection rights is also concerning. This malicious reports have been submitted.

This leads on to the pseudo-scientific interview. The letter of rejection claims to have used the test to determine seven subjective issues objectively. These are: Energy and commitment Campaign leadership and motivation Conviction Manner and attitude Depth and intellect Communication and ability to relate to people Commitment to inclusion and diversity

TEL: 020 EMAIL:

7219

7118

FAX: 020

7219

3215 WWW.JACOBREESMOGG.CO

JACOB.REESMOGG.MP@PARLIAMENT.UK

WEBSITE:

~ ~~~

All of these are fundamentally matters of opinion and it is illogical to use them formulaically. It is worth noting that the Candidates department places little weight on the one numeric judgement of candidates, the actual vote, preferring its own prejudice to evidence is peculiar. The process equally fails to investigate fully a candidate's performance. Reports are received from two professionals from within the Party - the regional director and local agent - but only one volunteer. In an area where the Party did badly overall e.g. Somerset and Wiltshire against the Lib Dems there is an obvious motive for the professionals to exculpate themselves at the expense of candidates. Failing to receive reports from more volunteers means this will not be balanced. Once again the Candidates' department has behaved with generally poor manners. People who have spent years fighting seats were not given the courtesy of a telephone call and I heard of my sister's result in the lobby before she had been notified. Subsequently the Chairman of Candidates failed to meet my sister sending her sidekicks to the meeting instead. As we are a party of volunteers this behaviour is simply not good enough. Turning more specifically to Annunciata's case the information her debrief confirmed the failing of the process. she has received from

Annunciata was accused of being a national rather than a local candidate ignoring the fact that most of the national coverage e.g. an interview with Tatler, had been instigated by the press office and the Nancy Mogg story came directly from the then Leader of the Opposition to the Editor of the Mail on Sunday (in a three way conversation with my father). The recent coverage of Annunciata's rejection did not come from her with the exception of one article which she wrote. The initial Sunday Times piece was briefed by Central Office according to our friends in the press. The debrief particularly focused on the interview rather than evidence from the campaign. Thus, after spending nearly four years as a full time candidate Annunciata received a low score for energy and commitment. Giving up paid employment to serve the Party surely indicates a high level of commitment and canvassing twenty thousand people sounds like energy. Annunciata certainly worked harder than I did as I remained in full time employment - the only person I think worked harder was one Charles Elphicke.

Annunciata

was also accused of failing on communication

because

she had not given were concerned she

examples in the interview. However, as the Candidates' department received too much national coverage this seems contradictory.

More positively Annunciata was told that she had clearly got on very well with the local party and the Chairman seems to have sent in a very positive report. Annunciata was heavily pregnant during the interview (eight months). This ought not to be an excuse as the Party should not have relied so much on something insubstantial against the solidity of four years work. However, the attitude of Central Office is shameful. Mr Inglis [ones told Annunciata that he knows all about pregnancy as he has five children. From my own experience a man's role and knowledge of pregnancy is somewhat different from a woman's. It was also suggested that Annunciata eo Id have ticked the box for 'disability' but I feel most reasonable people would call that a contemptible suggestion. In conclusion I think my sister has been treated disgracefully by an unjust procedure that brings the Party into disrepute. Traditionally the Candidates' department was well run by an experienced MP and senior members of the voluntary party. It is now run by arrogant, discourteous apparatchiks. I am copying this letter to MPs on the Board of the Party, a number of other MPs, the Chief Whip and Edward Llewellyn. I am happy for you to show it to all members of the 1922 Executive and anyone else at your discretion. With many thanks.