I INTRODUCTION
1. Since the Standards and Privileges Committee
published its Report[60]
on complaints relating to Mr Keith Vaz, Member for Leicester East,
on 9 March 2001 I have received a number of further complaints
against him. Some of these related to the same matters as I investigated
and on which I reported to the Committee in the last Session of
the last Parliament. Others raised fresh allegations not connected
with, or arising directly from, my previous investigation.
2. In summary, the further complaints against
Mr Vaz were as follows:
a) Complaints relating
to matters covered by the previous investigation
(i) that Mr Vaz had
received registrable benefits, both in cash and in kind, from
the Hinduja brothers (or the Hinduja Foundation) which he had
failed to register; and that by not disclosing these matters when
asked during the previous inquiry whether he had any financial
interests to declare, Mr Vaz had misled both me and the Committee;
(ii) that Mr Vaz had received registrable benefits
through Mapesbury Communications Limited, a publishing company
established by him in 1995, and that on the basis of information
which had come to light since the publication of the Committee's
report in March 2001, his denial of having received such benefits
was inaccurate and misleading;
(iii) that Mr Vaz had failed to register a remunerated
post with Leicester City Council;
(iv) that Mr Vaz had registrable interests in
various properties which he had failed to register and, more particularly,
that when asked during the previous investigation whether he had
any further property interests to register, gave an inaccurate
and misleading answer;
Some of these complaints were supported
by further evidence relating to matters on which I had already
reported but which led me to question the accuracy or completeness
of the information supplied to me in the course of the previous
inquiry.
b) Complaints not related to, nor arising
directly from, the previous investigation
(v) that Mr Vaz
and his wife had employed as a domestic servant a Ms Mary Matin,
knowing her to be an illegal immigrant to the United Kingdom and
that Mr Vaz held her passport in his constituency office, as a
means of putting pressure on her to remain in his employment;
(vi) that Mr Vaz had improperly sought information
from a constituent, Mr G H Peene, about a criminal anti-fraud
investigation Mr Peene was engaged in on behalf of the Intervention
Branch Executive Agency relating to a company with which Mr Vaz
had a connection and that Mr Vaz had failed to declare a relevant
interest in the company during communications with a civil servant
(Mr Peene);
(vii) that Mr Vaz had failed to register a remunerated
directorship with a company, General Mediterranean Holdings, or
with subsidiaries of that company;
(viii) that Mr Vaz had failed to register a donation
to him of £3,000 by Lord Paul (or by a company owned by Lord
Paul) in 1993.
3. In the following paragraphs each of these
complaints, including their source, is examined in detail, together
(where relevant) with an explanation of the relationship between
the new complaint and the matters contained the Committee's previous
Report.
4. I reported in my memorandum to the Committee
in respect of my previous inquiry into complaints against Mr Vaz:
"This has been a
particularly unusual case in terms of the difficulty I have experienced
in obtaining information; the contradictory statements made by
some witnesses; and the failure on the part of Mr Vaz to provide
full and accurate answers to some of my questions (in some cases
throughout the inquiry, in others until evidence was produced
from other sources)."[61]
The Committee noted in their report:
"This inquiry has
taken far too long. If Mr Vaz and other witnesses whom the Commissioner
asked for information had answered her questions fully and promptly,
the Commissioner would have been able to complete her report in
a much shorter time."[62]
5. When I met Mr Vaz at the beginning of this
inquiry on 21 March 2001 I recorded the following notes: "He
said on several occasions that he was very keen to cooperate and
to cooperate fully" (Annex ii14).
6. Because of the difficulties I had faced during
the previous inquiry and upon which the Committee had commented
I took the opportunity of raising the issue with Mr Vaz when we
met on 26 March 2001.
"I explained again
that what I was trying to do was to get a full picture of the
events referred to and to give him as the Member the opportunity
of clearing out of the way any matters which were raised maliciously
or were untrue or where people had put two and two together and
made five. Mr. Vaz said that he had always answered my questions
precisely. I said I was not arguing with that, but answering questions
precisely was not the same as giving a full picture."
(Annex i6)
The Duration of the Current Inquiries
7. I began investigating a number of the complaints
covered by this memorandum in March 2001—some time before
the General Election which was held on 7 June 2001. Two factors
(though not the only ones) affecting the length of my inquiries
have been the timing of the General Election and Mr Vaz's temporary
indisposition.
8. When Mr Vaz was taken ill at the beginning
of April 2001 I took steps to ascertain how serious his condition
was and how soon it would be appropriate for me to resume my inquiries
directly with him. I arranged with Mr Vaz to send correspondence
to Mr Vaz's agent, Mr Keith Bennett, so that he could hold it
until Mr Vaz was well enough to receive it. When I wrote to Mr
Vaz on 2 April 2001 I made it clear that I would not expect to
receive a reply until Mr Vaz was fully recovered.
9. Although he said he was not fully recovered,
Mr Vaz came to see me on 3 May. I stressed that I did not expect
a response until he was well again and he undertook to deal with
the complaints as soon as possible. I took the opportunity provided
by the meeting to set out in a letter of the same date (Annex
I.1) the matters on which replies were outstanding when Mr Vaz
became ill, as well as the new information which had been brought
to my attention since our previous meeting on 26 March. I gave
this letter to Mr Vaz's agent.
10. On 1 July 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to me (Annex
I.2) to say that although he was not yet fully recovered he would
begin the process of answering my questions.
11. By far the overwhelming reason for the duration
of this inquiry was the difficulty I encountered in obtaining
straight answers to my questions. This particularly applied to
that part of my inquiry which covers Mapesbury Communications
Limited. It is this difficulty, and the need to provide the Committee
with information to explain why this inquiry has taken so long,
that has led me to set out the relevant correspondence in much
greater length than is my habit.
People providing information
12. In the course of the current inquiry, I have
received information from, written to, telephoned, or interviewed
41 people or organisations. They are listed in Annex I.3 to this
memorandum.
60 
