Annex 60
Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards from Mr Sarosh Zaiwalla
Thank you for your letter of 12 April 2000,
which I have seen upon my return from China this morning.
I am surprised that your office has given any
credence to the allegations by my former employee, Mr Milne. Mr
Milne is carrying out a personal vendetta against me and is clearly
abusing the process of Parliamentary investigation to attack and
discredit me for his mischievous ends.
I am bound to say that I found any suggestion
coming from your office that I had discussed Honours with Mr Vaz
"in any terms" as personally offensive and untrue. However,
I respect your office and deal with your enquiry below.
With regard to the alleged conversation with
the "Sunday Telegraph" reporters, I suggest you ask
the newspaper to provide you with a transcript along with the
original tape of the conversation.
1. I confirm that I had no conversation
at all concerning Honours with Mr Vaz, as allegedly reported in
the Sunday Telegraph. On one or two occasions at public events
Mr Vaz had praised the work I was doing and had jocularly said
"Lord Zaiwalla" and that was all. I was aware that he
joked with other Asians too in a similar way.
2. Mr Vaz has not come and never came into
my office, as alleged or at all, "brandishing a letter of
recommendation that he promised had been sent to John Major".
3. Neither did Mr Vaz at any time promise
me "a place on the Honours list" as the libellous report
published in the Sunday Telegraph alleges.
4. I had no contact whatsoever with Mr Vaz
around the time of the 1997 General Election, and there had been,
at any time, no discussions between Mr Vaz and myself about Mr
Major's resignation Honours list.
5. As I have previously advised you, some
time in 1993 or 1994, I had received from Mr Vaz what I believe
to be a standard letter enclosing a copy of his letter to Mr Major,
stressing the need for more Asian faces to be included in the
future Honours list and purporting to enclose a list.
6. My correct recollection is that in that
letter, Mr Vaz had said that he would, or had sent a list of recommendation
of suitable candidates for Honours in which List would have included
my name.
It appears to me that your office is executing
quasi judicial functions under the aegis of the High Court of
Parliament. I stress that it is only equitable that you should
ensure that an innocent third party is not hurt by the risk of
tainted reporting of the colourful allegations of Mr Milne by
the "Sunday Telegraph" or any other newspaper.
Mr Milne has been found to have been:
(1) untrustworthy and in breach of his fiduciary
(see Sir Brian Neill's Award, a copy of which has already been
sent to you);
(2) a person in the habit of making false
allegations against innocent individuals (see His Honour Judge
Cowell's Judgement, also sent to you earlier); and
(3) a person who has had Bankruptcy Orders
made against him on two separate occasions in 1992 and March 2000
by the English Courts for hundreds of thousands of pounds of unpaid
debt on each of the two occasions.
I find it extremely hard to accept that your
office would give any credence to Mr Milne's allegations.
In any case, need I say I expect that in your
further report you will make known to the Committee Mr Milne's
shadowy history. It is gross abuse of the process of Parliament
that an individual like Mr Milne with a blemished background can
freely abuse the Parliamentary process to discredit his former
employer.
I am likely to be a witness for the Crown in
the likely event of the City of London police, who are at present
investigating Mr Milne's fraud, commences criminal proceedings
against him.
I trust that the foregoing enables you to proceed
with your enquiry.
17 April 2000
| 
