Examination of Witness (Questions 60-79)
MR KEITH
VAZ, MP
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY 2002
60. In spite of the fact that your answer to
the first question is that they were not in existence at the same
time?
(Mr Vaz) No, because we are talking about different
calendars and we are talking about different years. I am afraid
we have got an awful muddle about this with the calendars. This
calendar (indicating) is my constituency calendar, which
is produced on an annual basis. The calendar that Mrs Filkin was
referring to in the last evidence was an Asian community calendar,
where people would buy adverts and then it would be published,
which is what I sought advice from Sir Gordon Downey about. What
we were referring to, as far as Wildberry was concerned, was a
payment that had been made by Mr Zaiwalla to buy an advert in
the Asian constituency calendar. I do not know whether Mrs Filkin
has brought her calendars with her, Mr Chairman.
61. You are answering a question of mine, at
the moment.
(Mr Vaz) Because that would help. It would help Mr
Ottaway because he was not a member of the Committee last time.
Chairman
62. I think he is just interesting in finding
out what the relationship is between these two companies, both
of which have connections with each other.
(Mr Vaz) None, because—
Richard Ottaway
63. Even though some printing was done for one
of these calendars at some time.
(Mr Vaz) Yes, but there was no connection between—there
could not have been payments between Mapesbury to Wildberry because
the companies did not exist at the same time.
64. Who did you pay for these calendars?
(Mr Vaz) These? The Office Costs Allowance.
65. Who did you pay? Who did the printing?
(Mr Vaz) I do not know. A firm in Nottingham, I think.
66. And the earlier calendars?
(Mr Vaz) Are they?
67. You said there were two lots of calendars.
(Mr Vaz) No, this was the official calendar. The reason
why the Wildberry issue arose was because I had a calendar for
the British Asian community, which started off this size, it then
went on to this size and then it went very big. It was done for
three years. That is what Mapesbury did. People would buy adverts
and that is why I went to see Sir Gordon Downey and said—
68. Who printed these?
(Mr Vaz) These?
69. No, the big ones.
(Mr Vaz) I do not know. This was in 1993, 1994 and
1995.
70. When Mr Zaiwalla put in his office cash
book of September 1995, "Wildberry. K Vaz. Calendar",
what do you think he meant?
(Mr Vaz) All I can do is refer you to the evidence
I gave on 30 January last year, which is—
71. What do you think?
(Mr Vaz) I have no idea. It is up to Mr Zaiwalla,
as I said on 30 January last year, what he meant by it. I would
assume—my assumption—that he was supporting a calendar
for the British Asian community. In Mr Zaiwalla's evidence to
this Committee he said he put the reference there. Of course it
was a calendar for me. There is no dispute about it. It is in
the register; annual calendars are in the Register of Members'
Interests, there is no dispute that I received income for it.
I asked for all this to be done.
Ross Cranston
72. Can I ask you, Mr Vaz, to give us the reference
to the time that Wildberry existed? You said that you had evidence
from Companies House. I cannot see that in your memorandum.
(Mr Vaz) No, it is in the accounts. I think Mrs Filkin
has a copy of the accounts of Wildberry. It ran from 1993 to 1994
and dealt particularly with one of the calendars. I can certainly
send it to you[2].
73. What you are saying is that the company
was wound up in 1994—
(Mr Vaz) No, it was wound up in 1997 but it traded
for one year, between 1993 and 1994.
Mr Dismore
74. There are Wildberry accounts for 1993-94,
but is possible it continued to trade but did not file accounts?
(Mr Vaz) I do not know. I do not know the legal position
on that.
75. It would have been against the rules but
it would have been possible for it to have done that.
(Mr Vaz) I have no idea.
76. Did Wildberry actually print any of these?
(Mr Vaz) No.
77. So if we look at the calendar for calendar
year 1996, have you any idea who printed that one?
(Mr Vaz) The actual printers?
78. Yes.
(Mr Vaz) No.
79. Would it be possible for another company
with a name similar to Wildberry but not Wildberry to have done
work for you?
(Mr Vaz) I do not understand.
2 Note by witness: I have ordered a set of
accounts. Back
| 
