Fingerprint Events wins Party Conferences contract

The annual Tory conference has been a major drain on the party's finances for a number of years.  The party has been repeatedly advised that, if run in a different way, the spring and autumn conferences could become reasonably healthy profit centres.  It is to the credit of Francis Maude and his team that they have ended the previous arrangement that the party had with CCO Conferences.  CCO Conferences was an independent company that had run the conferences for a number of years but whose contract was terminated after 2006's Bournemouth Conference.  Anyone who ever booked a fringe event or hotel venue through CCO Conferences will know that it often charged hefty fees but the money went to the conference company rather than to party funds as part of the deal it enjoyed with CCHQ.

Last week the party announced that Fingerprint Events had been given the contract to run the conferences from now on.  It's a flat fee-based arrangement where all surpluses accrue to the party.  The press release has been removed from conservatives.com but the text is here as a pdf.  ConservativeHome immediately emailed CCHQ to establish the exact nature of the "discussions" held with a "number of events agencies" and whether those discussions matched the tendering standards that Tory governments imposed on local authorities in the 1980s and 1990s.  This is CCHQ's reply:

"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."

Unfortunately this response adds little to the original press release and leads me to believe that the tendering process did fall short of the competitive tendering standards that Tory governments expected of local authorities.  Those processes were introduced in order to ensure that insiders did not unfairly win contracts from local authorities and that local taxpayers and the Treasury received value for money.  It would have been better if Fingerprint Events - which appears to be run by people with a long-standing connection to the party - had won the contract after a more formal and less secretive process.  There has been a long history of well-connected individuals winning big contracts from the Conservative Party.  Fingerprint Events was only registered as a company on 6th November 2006 and it is unclear who its real owners and directors might be.

In conclusion: The party's contract with Fingerprint Events is undoubtedly an improvement on the previous arrangement but has the party's possible return been maximised?  I fear not.  The conference attendees who suffered from last year's security nightmares might be content with any new arrangement, however, as long as they can get into the conference hall!

Comments

[Paul Kennedy]

Here is the Companies House link to the company:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/f514fe186538fbb9d50b828a32ea468c/compdetails

Hopefully it will work.

Scary name for a company, guess it's a sign of the times and the obsession with keeping a track of people.;)

With regards to the detail of their appointment, not sure I'd be too concerned subject to them doing a good job and within budget.

[Valedictoryan]

"Fingerprint Events was only registered as a company on 6th November 2006 and it is unclear who its real owners and directors might be."

Talk about ignoring the facts to spice-up a story! The pdf you link to clearly says that Fingerprint Events has been set up by three siblings... Shama, Azahar and Farzana Hussain. What's unclear about that?

[Umbrella Man]

That is a complacent view Mr Kennedy. A competitive tendering process could have forced the bidders to think more inventively about what they could supply and how costs could be saved. Winning the Tory conference could have been a big prize for a major events company. Compulsory competitive tendering had its faults but it eliminated much of the fat within local government budgets. This has to be a missed opportunity.

[Valedictoryan]

"Compulsory competitive tendering had its faults"

Yes, and one of them is that you had to ignore personal knowledge of the people involved - when that is one of the most pertinent and potentially valuable bits of information you might possess.

[Watchingwithinterest]

Thank goodness that, for a change, CCHQ are using people who actually know about the party, how it works and especially its foibles - rather than bringing in 'outside business' who come in like stormtroopers without having a clue what they're going to be dealing with.

[Andy Mercer]

I suspect that most attendees will not care who runs the conference, as long as they actually let us in!

[Old Hack]

Did Steve Hilton have to tender for his services?

Who's being paid more?

[Annabel Herriott]

So who to and when, do we apply for our passes for the spring conference then? I do like to do this in good time. Is it still that Steven - forgot name! at central office??

[George Hinton]

One hopes that they will do a better job of processing delegates on arrival and actually get them into the event on time and with the minimum of hassle and delay.
One also hopes that these people do have the ability to organise the proverbial in a brewery.

[Who are the nominees?]

Valedictoryan: "Talk about ignoring the facts to spice-up a story! The pdf you link to clearly says that Fingerprint Events has been set up by three siblings... Shama, Azahar and Farzana Hussain. What's unclear about that?"

If you look at Fingerprints registration at Companies House you can see that directors are only nominees.

We do not know the full ownership story.

[michael mcgough]

"Fingerprint Events was only registered as a company on 6th November 2006 and it is unclear who its real owners and directors might be."

Says it all.More akin to a finger tip than arm's length transaction.
I would expect ElecComm to have a close look at this.There is a waft akin to Loanations in the air .

[Tory Loyalist]

What a great name "Fingerprint Events"! Reminds me of other felicitously named undertakings such as "SS Security Services" and Dynarod-style operatives "Drainbusters"

I always assumed that CCO Conferences was an in-house operation. Dealing with them on the phone I thought they had some very helpful staff, but they certainly screwed up in Bournemouth last year.

[sjm]

I wish someone would tell me why we need to have conferences at all nowadays. There's no voting on motions (not that they had much influence anyway), they're not newsworthy except for cock-ups and embarrassments, so their only real value is for networking and pressing the flesh (in the nicest possible way, of course).

[Valedictoryan]

"If you look at Fingerprints registration at Companies House you can see that directors are only nominees."

The director and Secretary are the company formation agents. This is bog standard for an off-the-shelf company registered only two months ago - there's nothing even slightly whiffy about this. Nor is there anything whiffy about the registered address being their accountant's.

[Tory Loyalist]

Well I have had a number of experiences of dealing (not through choice) with recently-formed companies who have put in low tenders against well-established rivals and been awarded contracts.

In many cases the company barely exists beyond two guys and a kitchen table when they get the contract. Panic follows and in some cases they never do get their act together.

Let's hope that's not going to happen here.

[Valedictoryan]

"Panic follows and in some cases they never do get their act together."

I have had a number of experiences of large and apparently competent organisations that turn out to be a total let down.

Both large and small organisations have their failings, which is why the personal knowledge of the people involved is so important and such an advantage.

[torysandman]

The registered company address of Fingerprint Events is 117 Lea Street, Kidderminster. This happens to be the office of a Chartered Accountant and Conservative activist called Roy Lote who stood for the Brinton Park ward of Kidderminster in 2001. Roy is a decent family man but to the best of my knowledge has no history in the events business.

Valedictoryan says
The director and Secretary are the company formation agents. This is bog standard for an off-the-shelf company registered only two months ago - there's nothing even slightly whiffy about this.

Nonsense! The purpose of setting up a company is to make money. The people who do this are the directors of the company who own shares in it and receive dividends. Companies House reveals no share capital has been issued to the Hussains. This is unheard of.

WHO OWNS THE SHARE CAPITAL OF FINGERPRINT EVENTS?

Valedictoryan says
Nor is there anything whiffy about the registered address being their accountant's.

The Hussains live in London. The accountant’s address is in Kidderminster which is 130 miles and nearly 3 hours drive from London. Roy Lote is an accountant registered at this address. Coincidentally he has connections to the Tory Party.

CAN THE PARTY COME CLEAN? IS ROY LOTE MOVING INTO THE CONFERENCE TRADE? IF NOT WHY HAS HIS BUSINESS ADDRESS AGREED TO FRONT THE COMPANY?

[michael mcgough]

Follow the dosh.

[Valedictoryan]

"Companies House reveals no share capital has been issued to the Hussains."

No it doesn't. It reveals that the relevant forms haven't yet been returned to Companies House and processed. Hardly unusual or surprising given the time of year. Wait a few weeks and all will come clear.

Companies regularly use their accountant's address as the registered address.

Michael, I admire your search for conspiracies, but I don't see any evidence of one here.

[Paul Kennedy]

"That is a complacent view Mr Kennedy." Umbrella Man 11:17

Oh I don't know, think it is rather pragmatic actually given "the deed has been done".

What now becomes important is that Fingerprints performace is dispassionately monitored and if they fail to meet their objectives, which I trust have been properly set in a professional business like manner rather than on the back of the proverbial "fag packet", then they are sacked. Seems fairly simple and straight forward to me.

But one thing is of course certain, I have the courage of my own convictions to post in my own name......Umbrella Man ;)

[michael mcgough]

"I admire your search for conspiracies, but I don't see any evidence of one here."
Nor do I.What I do see is a sensible case of shielding the party from costs/expenses whilst benefiting from any surplus.Much as other parties have done for call centres.But who is financing it and will this money come from onshore.
The use of a Midlands firm of CAs might indicate a geographical ie Midlands slant to this ---an area whose businessmen have provided generous funds to the party .If as is likely donations are capped 'investment'in joint ventures such as events companies might provide a road map for routing dosh to the party.

[torysandman]

From Iain Dale’s blog,

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.

NO CHANGE OF PESONNEL THERE THEN?

The Press Release which CCHQ originally posted and then pulled 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.

[David Harrington]

Something not right with any of this…ten key questions

1. Why did CCHQ pull the press release?
2. Why is Fingerprint Events Ltd registered in Kidderminster at the office of a Tory activist and accountant Roy Lote?
3. What is the connection with Roy Lote and CCHQ? What is the connection between Roy Lote and Fingerprint Events?
4. What is the connection between the Hussains and CCO Conferences Ltd?
5. As they appear to be related then what promises have been undertaken not to repeat last year’s disastrous accreditation?
6. Is there a connection between Mike Lockett who owned and ran CCO Conferences Ltd?
7. As CCO Conferences has apparently been dismissed then is the company being wound up?
8. If the Hussains left their previous jobs to form their own company then why not put themselves up as Company Directors instead of using nominees? I assume they have not been disqualified? Therefore why the secrecy?
9. Who is funding the start up capital of Fingerprint Events and paying the team’s salaries? Is it CCHQ and therefore my money ie activists / donors? If so then who will receive the profits / dividends the company expects to make?
10. Who is the Sales Director of Fingerprint Events Ltd and what other clients are they prospecting for? Maybe the Labour Party are interested in the team’s expertise?

[journeyman]

I have "professionally" (!) known Mike Lockett, Shama Hussein and others invloved in this 'intrigue'... I wouldnt think that Shama Hussein would be so daft as to get involved with Lockett again - who is on a final year earn-out from LIVE - now owned by Omnicom.. Lockett will be looking for a new project soon - but he's got his sights on 2012, and already got another agency running... Others on Lockett's (current) Live staff cocked-up the delegate registration fiasco at the Dome. Lockett sponges off good people.. I hope no one is being fooled around here - by the way Octopus' directors were original start up staff for Live...

[faraway]

Do you know anything about Lockett and his connections with current London 2012 Olympics bid including Seb Coe?

[Joanne Harvey]

Could you please state if you have a contactable Phone number - as I applied for Accreditation at the beginning of July for the Tory Conference & my payment has been banked - but I now receive an e.mail stating you have not received my form /photo etc - and will incur an additional charge if not received by the end of July.
Could you please deal with this immediately as I spent half of the last Conference in a hall with many other disgruntled people not able to get Accreditation due to poor admin. I DO NOT WANT THAT TO OCCUR AGAIN. As it was not only a waste of time - but also Hotel costs!
Joanne Harvey.
01792-404233 or
07947-105-626.

[jim]

Oh dear. Just got off the phone to them. Very much a case of "computer says no". quite hopeless.