Examination of Witness (Questions 260-279)
MR KEITH
VAZ, MP
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY 2002
260. Turning to the calls, you say you have
changed the number, but on the number that that alleged call was
made, the one that you had at the time, can I ask you if that
has a caller ID facility? Do you know the people who are ringing
in?
(Mr Vaz) You mean if you dial 1471?
261. No. Well that is one way of doing it, but
you can also subscribe to the BT service which enables you to
see the incoming caller when the call is made. Do you have such
a facility?
(Mr Vaz) No.
262. Not as far as you know?
(Mr Vaz) No, I cannot— I am trying to picture
the telephone, but no, I do not think so. It was a number that
she has had for—It was a number she took over when she moved
into the house.[17]
263. This is a separate number from the one
you use?
(Mr Vaz) There is no other number. For those familiar
with my arrangements, it is 146 Uppingham Road, which used to
be the Labour Party office; it used to be the Labour Party number,
which she took over.
264. Do you know in whose name it is now registered?
(Mr Vaz) It is hers. It is her house.
265. My final question: do you know if there
has been a trace on that number, either before or after this incident?
(Mr Vaz) No.
266. You do know that, or the answer is "No"?
(Mr Vaz) No, I do not know.
Mr Foster: I am grateful. Thank you so
much.
Chairman: Mr Cranston.
Ross Cranston
267. In fact that was the question I was going
to ask. To your knowledge, have incoming calls ever been traced
by the police?
(Mr Vaz) No. They told me they could not do it, when
I spoke to them.
268. To your knowledge, did your mother ever
consent to that?
(Mr Vaz) No. I have not discussed this with her.
269. You have not given your consent?
(Mr Vaz) No. I mean, if she wants this done it will
be done, but you have to tell people, as we discussed with the
police, what will they end up doing. It is all very well us discussing
it in the Committee, and it is a serious matter and it is important,
but seriousness goes both ways. Other witnesses have been contacted,
and I do not see the enthusiasm to try and find out why they were
contacted. I hope that the Committee will actually look into that
as well.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr Heath.
Mr Heath
270. Can I take you back, Mr Vaz. I think you
said—and please correct me if I am wrong—that—
(Mr Vaz) Could I stop you? Mr Bindman has to be away
at a meeting, if you would not mind excusing him.
(Mr Bindman) I am willing to stay for a little longer.
Chairman
271. What I am hoping to do is that there are
two more colleagues who want to ask questions on this, and there
may be others, then there is one final issue which I want to raise,
which is about the general nature of your co-operation. I believe
that we can do that by 1.15, but I do not want to constrain the
discussion, because this is an important exchange of views, so
I suggest we try to make progress with a view to hitting that
target; if we do not, we shall have to adjourn and come back,
but I would like to avoid that if we can.
(Mr Bindman) I may be able to stay until 1.15.
Chairman: Very well.
Mr Heath
272. Mr Vaz, I think I heard you say—and
you must correct me if I am wrong—that your sister had written
to the police to say that your mother would be very happy to co-operate
with the police inquiry, if it was ongoing, when she was recovered,
is that right?
(Mr Vaz) Yes.
273. Have you any idea when she may have written
to them to that effect?
(Mr Vaz) No, because the police have written to 146
Uppingham Road. My mother has been with me in London, and nobody
wants to raise any issues that are going to cause her further
anxiety, because she will need a whole explanation, my mother
being what she is, of exactly how this has all come about and
probably want to come and give evidence herself, she is that kind
of a woman. Given that she might want to do that, we will have
to take medical advice.
274. I understand that, but I simply want to
be clear about this. You believe that your sister had written
to the police to that effect?
(Mr Vaz) Yes—well she told me she had.
275. Would that have been prior to 10 January?
(Mr Vaz) I do not know, because I did not know all
this was going on, these meetings and so forth.
276. When did she tell you roughly?
(Mr Vaz) Saturday.
277. Last Saturday?
(Mr Vaz) Yes, because I promised the police that if
they wrote, it was not appropriate for me to deal with their correspondence
as there was a clear conflict of interest between my mother and
me, but another member of my family would. Then she told me. I
do not know when she wrote, but she told me. I can find out.
278. So she told you that she had written?
(Mr Vaz) Yes.
279. On Saturday, about the information?
(Mr Vaz) Yes, to acknowledge the letter that had gone
to Leicester and to say that when she was fully fit she would
be more than happy to talk to them.[18]
17 Note by witness: I have checked; the phone
does not have a caller ID. Back
18
Notes by witness: I saw this letter after the evidence
session. Back
| 
