Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Minutes of Evidence

Examination of witnesses (Questions 960 - 979)



  960. There is a calendar of 1999 which shows that there was an involvement subsequently.
  (Ms Fernandes) You just point me to it.
  (Mrs Filkin) Yes, certainly. (Indicating)
  (Ms Fernandes) That calendar? That is not the calendar we are talking about, is it?
  (Mrs Filkin) No, there are two calendars, and we are trying to track the payments in and out for both of those calendars.
  (Ms Fernandes) Right. That calendar had nothing to do— That calendar did not go through the company at all. The calendar that we are talking about is the big one with his picture in the middle, with all these things round it, all the advertising round it.

  Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr Williams

  961. I am sorry, I am trying to make this clear. What we therefore want to know is, since it still could receive money on behalf of Mr Vaz, since nothing had changed, are there any payments that could have been payments intended for Mr Vaz or for his use, and were there any payments out that could have been intended for Mr Vaz or for his use? That is what we need to clarify.
  (Ms Fernandes) Right. The answer is no, as far as I am aware, but I am happy— I thought actually that the accountants' letter made it quite clear what the position was, but I am happy to go back and take that on a more specific point.

  962. Also if he had use of the company assets; this also should be easy enough to establish.
  (Ms Fernandes) Company assets, right.

  Mr Williams: Thank you.

Shona McIsaac

  963. Ms Fernandes, you said that Mapesbury was an off-the-shelf company. You were the one who purchased this off the shelf?
  (Ms Fernandes) Yes.

  964. When was that? Do you remember exactly when that was?
  (Ms Fernandes) The year?

  965. Yes, the year.
  (Ms Fernandes) 1994, I think it was. (After a few moments) Because it was an off-the-shelf company, it would have had—

  966. You can write it down, if you like.
  (Ms Fernandes) It is 1994.

  967. You have been a director for the whole period since it was set up?
  (Ms Fernandes) Yes.

  968. Mrs Vaz is the company secretary?
  (Ms Fernandes) She is.

  969. Has she been involved since the beginning as well?
  (Ms Fernandes) She was not at the start. She was not, as far as I know, immediately. We have got a date for 1996, but I know she was not—

  970. There was no company secretary between 1994 and 1996?
  (Ms Fernandes) It was my mother.

  971. Your mother. She passed away?
  (Ms Fernandes) She passed away.

  972. So it was your mother, not Mr Vaz's mother?
  (Ms Fernandes) Yes.

  973. I just wanted to get that clear in my mind. I note from a letter we have received from, I think it is, your legal firm, Davenport Lyons—it is a letter dated 9 February—that it does state in paragraph 6: "We enclose herewith the accounts filed at Companies House for the period ending 31st October 1995, 1996 ...", basically the accounts file.
  (Mrs Filkin) We had that way back in December.

  974. We had those in December?
  (Ms Fernandes) And they are available on the internet.

  975. Can I check whether the Committee received those accounts?
  (Mrs Filkin) They do not give the information we have been seeking. They are the final-year accounts.

  976. So accounts have been supplied, although obviously they are not detailed accounts?
  (Ms Fernandes) They have been filed.

  977. It is just that I think what has been made clear earlier is that although you have supplied these, you were not terribly sure what we were looking for. Did you feel that what you supplied then was meant to satisfy the Committee?
  (Ms Fernandes) When?

  978. Those accounts that you filed.
  (Ms Fernandes) In this letter?

  979. Yes.
  (Ms Fernandes) This letter of mine?

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 16 March 2001