Mr Vaz's response
161. On 14 March 2000, I put to Mr Vaz the allegation
concerning payments to him by Mr Kapasi (but without, at that
stage, disclosing the supporting evidence). In a letter dated
19 March (Annex 19), Mr Vaz replied:
"I categorically deny this. I have never
offered to help Mr Kapasi for £500 or any other amount in
exchange for planning permission for a mosque. Mr Kapasi has never
given me money or payments of any kind in 1991 or at any other
time. The allegation is a serious one: that Mr Kapasi, the Deputy
Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire, and an MP are involved in a
criminal offence. In 1995 Mr Kapasi telephoned me whilst he was
on a course in Brighton to categorically deny [this] allegation.
He telephoned me on Sunday [19 March] to tell me he was outraged
at this suggestion. There is no mosque in Hamilton. The group
who want the mosque have to the best of my knowledge not purchased
the land. ... This is complete fiction."
162. In a letter from Bindmans dated 5 July 2000
(Annex 36), Mr Vaz replied to a series of questions about Mr Kapasi,
which formed part of a questionnaire I had sent to Mr Vaz in preparation
for a meeting with him in my office on 3 July.[143]
In his responses Mr Vaz made the following statements:
— that he had known Mr Kapasi for
fifteen years;
— that he had never asked Mr Kapasi for
any payment to him personally, for the Labour Party, or as a contribution
to his office expenses;
— that he had not checked whether Mr Kapasi's
donation of £52 to the Sahara Trust, established after the
death of Mr Vaz's child, had actually reached the charity—which
was administered by Mr Vaz's mother-in-law;
— that the transcript of Mr Kapasi's conversation
with The Sunday Telegraph was "not evidence"
and it was not for him to explain Mr Kapasi's remarks about alleged
payments to Mr Vaz;[144]
— that he had no personal connection with
the Dawoodi community;
— that Sir Peter Soulsby had "spent
his entire career in Leicester" attacking Mr Vaz and his
mother and that, because Sir Peter had been defeated by Mr Vaz
for the Labour Party nomination in Leicester East, Sir Peter "thus
had an interest in denigrating me".
163. Asked in the questionnaire whether he had
ever solicited or received any other payment or benefit from Mr
Kapasi, whether for himself personally, the Labour Party, his
constituency office or any charity or other organisation which
he supported, or with which he had any association or interest,
Mr Vaz replied: "If you have any evidence you should put
it before me and I will comment on it".
164. On 10 July, Bindmans wrote to me (Annex
37) repeating Mr Vaz's previous comments concerning Sir Peter's
alleged hostility towards Mr Vaz and enclosing a copy of a report,
dated 31 July 1994, to the Executive Committee of Leicester East
Constituency Labour Party concerning allegations against certain
officers of the Party, including Sir Peter. The letter also drew
attention to the fact that Sir Peter and I were both members of
the Audit Commission at the same time and claimed that this "could,
however unintentionally, predispose you to giving credibility
to his complaint".[145]
165. I wrote again to Bindmans on 11 July 2000
(Annex 38), following up Mr Vaz's replies to two of my written
questions concerning Mr Kapasi. The two further sets of questions
I put to Mr Vaz were:
— what was the purpose of the Sahara
Trust; who, if anyone (apart from Mr Vaz's mother in law), was
a signatory to the Trust's accounts; and whether Mr Vaz could
supply me with any documents relating to the Trust;
— whether, for any purpose, Mr Vaz had
ever received any payment or other form of support from the Dawoodi
community, either personally or through his mother and whether
Mr Vaz had had any connection with the community in any way and
at any time.
166. In a letter dated 17 July 2000 (Annex 39),
Bindmans replied to these questions on Mr Vaz's behalf, as follows:
— in relation to the Sahara Trust,
Mr Vaz had never been a signatory to the charity's accounts and
did not know who the signatories were; he had never asked his
mother-in-law for sight of any documentation "as all the
donations were in the public domain", and the Trust had "not
given donations for a number of years";
— so far as the Dawoodi community was
concerned, Mr Vaz did not routinely "ask constituents what
their community affiliation or religion is"; if the community
had asked him for assistance as a Member of Parliament he or his
office would have "written on his behalf"; and in view
of the "35,000 files collected over 15 years" it would
be impossible to trace "any particular letter on behalf of
any member of this community".
167. On 18 July 2000, I sent Mr Vaz copies of
the complete transcripts of the conversations between Mr Kapasi
and The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph (Annex
40).
168. On 22 August 2000 (Annex 43), Bindmans wrote
again to deny, on Mr Vaz's behalf, the complaints against Mr Vaz
which involved alleged payments to him by Mr Kapasi. The letter
(which had presumably crossed with mine of 18 July to Bindmans)
requested that I supply Mr Vaz with the transcripts and original
tapes of Mr Kapasi's conversations with The Sunday Times
and The Sunday Telegraph.
169. On 3 October 2000 (Annex 45), I wrote to
Bindmans to ascertain whether, since I had by then received no
response from Mr Vaz to the transcripts of Mr Kapasi's conversations
with The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph sent
to Bindmans on 18 July, Mr Vaz wished to make any observations
on those documents.
170. In a letter from Bindmans, dated 2 November
2000 (Annex 50), Mr Vaz replied: "... the transcripts are
mere hearsay and of no evidential value. You have failed to respond
to my request for the tape recordings, or to provide any evidence
to support Mr Kapasi's allegations, which have been categorically
denied."
171. I responded to this last point in a letter
to Bindman's dated 9 November 2000 (Annex 51), as follows:
"I have already provided Mr Vaz with all
the relevant transcripts of tape-recorded conversations. As I
have said, Mr Vaz and/or you, are welcome to hear the tapes in
my office at your convenience. It is not my practice to supply
original tapes but if Mr Vaz wishes to have any tape checked forensically
I can arrange for this to be done."
Evidence from Claire Ward MP
relating to the Leicester East Constituency Labour Party
172. I received evidence from a separate source,
Ms Claire Ward, the Member for Watford, which echoed Sir Peter
Soulsby's account of problems which had arisen with the running
of the Labour Party in Leicester East.
173. I had been informed by several witnesses,
including Sir Peter himself that Ms Ward had, prior to her election
as a Member of Parliament, served as a member of a Labour Party
inquiry team in 1994 which had been set up by the Party's National
Executive Committee to consider complaints about alleged irregularities
in the Leicester City Labour Party. I invited Ms Ward to see me
(Annexes 102, 103 and 105) to enable her to explain the background
to the inquiry and to provide me with any information which might
be relevant to my investigation of the complaints concerning Mr
Vaz. I met Ms Ward on three occasions (22 March, 5 April and 8
May 2000).
174. Ms Ward said that the inquiry had been publicised
and any Party member who wished to do so was able to give evidence
in person on a specified day, or to write to the inquiry team.
The range of irregularities reported to the team on the day set
aside for receiving submissions was such that they decided they
needed to meet again to complete their work. They arranged a further
day's hearing, but came to no immediate conclusions and made no
report. Ms Ward told me she was surprised when, the next day,
the Party's regional secretary issued a press release announcing
that the inquiry was complete and that the membership's concerns
were being dealt with. The press release said:
"The Panel recognised that there were problems
identified in regard to membership and have instructed the Regional
Office to take all the necessary constitutional and organisational
steps to rectify the problems raised". (Annex 104)
175. Ms Ward expressed her concern to the regional
secretary about this purported summary of the inquiry's conclusions.
Thereafter, when she was adopted as prospective Parliamentary
candidate for Watford, she wrote to the regional secretary to
say that she could take no further part in matters relating to
Leicester Labour Party nor receive any further correspondence
from Party members in Leicester East.
176. Having consulted the Chairman of the Standards
and Privileges Committee, Ms Ward provided me with some documents
which had been received by the Labour Party's inquiry team including:—
— a Labour Party press release;
— correspondence relating to the affairs
of Leicester City Council between Mr Vaz and Sir Peter Soulsby
(the then Leader of Leicester City Council), Councillor Brian
Shore and all members of the Leicester City Council Labour Group;
— newspaper articles concerning the dispute
between Sir Peter Soulsby and Mr Vaz and a transcript of a Newsnight
programme shown in September 1994 about alleged membership irregularities
in Leicester East constituency party;
— a letter and attachments from Mr Paul
Gosling, dated 20 August 1994, to the inquiry team;
— Ms Ward's notes of the evidence from
Councillor Ned Newitt, Chief Whip of the Labour Group Leicester
City Council, Mr D Thomas, a Labour Party member, and Councillor
Sir Peter Soulsby;
— a letter to the inquiry team from Councillor
Newitt alleging improper interference by Mr Vaz in City Council
business, together with enclosures.
177. These documents were supplied to me in confidence
and I have not therefore thought it appropriate to attach them
as annexes to this memorandum. They do, however, provide some
background information about disagreements and disquiet in Leicester
East Constituency Labour Party, in which at least some of those
giving evidence to the inquiry team believed Mr Vaz to have had
some part. Since the inquiry was brought to a premature conclusion
and took no decisions on who, if anyone, was responsible for the
alleged irregularities in the membership or about the other issues
raised by Party members, I have not taken a view as to its evidential
value for the purposes of my inquiry. In any case, the concerns
put to the inquiry related for the most part to internal party
organisation rather than to matters which, if true, would constitute
breaches of the rules or the Code of Conduct of the House of Commons.
Nevertheless, I am bound to record the anxiety which Ms Ward expressed
to me (Annex 106) that if the matters raised with the inquiry
team by members of the Labour Party were not dealt with they were
likely to resurface. She said she believed that, in part, the
allegations which have emerged during the course of my investigation
of the original complaint from Mr Milne have been raised because
the internal Labour Party inquiry was not fully completed.
142 The single document annexed to this memorandum is
the Report of the Director of Environment and Development to the
Environment and Development Committee of Leicester City Council,
dated 9 June 1998 (extract). Back
143 The
original purpose of this meeting was to enable me to put questions
to Mr Vaz and for him to give his account. In the event, the
meeting (at which Mr Vaz was accompanied by his solicitor) was
devoted largely to practical and procedural issues. Back
144
I had at this stage supplied Mr Vaz only with relevant extracts
of the transcripts of the taped conversations between Mr Kapasi
and The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph. Back
145
I had already pointed out on several occasions both to Mr Vaz
and to Bindmans that Sir Peter was not a complainant, but
a witness. See also my correspondence with Finers Stephens
Innocent in relation to Mr Kapasi (paragraph 150). Back
