Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fifth Report


The Committee on Standards and Privileges has agreed to the following Report:


1. We have considered a memorandum by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards relating to the complaints by Mr Andrew Lansley, Member for South Cambridgeshire, Mr Andrew Robathan, Member for Blaby, Miss E M Eggington QPM of Northwood, Middlesex, and Mr G H Peene of Leicester, against Mr Keith Vaz, Member for Leicester East. The Commissioner's memorandum, several memoranda submitted to us by Mr Vaz in response and various other items of written evidence are appended to this Report. The minutes of the oral evidence we have taken from Mr Vaz in the course of our own inquiry are also published with this Report.

2. The Commissioner's memorandum deals with the original complaints against Mr Vaz and with the manner in which he responded to them. We deal with that question in this Report.

3. We have considered with care the opinions of leading counsel,[1] which were submitted to us on behalf of Mr Vaz, and in which it was suggested that the Commissioner might be thought to have been partial in her conduct of the investigation, and that it might be unsafe for the Committee to rely on her findings in making a recommendation to the House.

4. We have taken into account all the oral and written evidence which was before us, including material submitted by and on behalf of Mr Vaz, as well as the Commissioner's report. We are satisfied that we have reached our conclusions fairly.

5. The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life said:

    "We believe that the spirit of what Nolan recommended would be met if the Committee [on Standards and Privileges] normally published the reports and findings of the Commissioner in full where a prima facie case to answer had been established."[2]

We have followed our practice in publishing the Commissioner's report in full (subject to certain deletions of personal information such as names and addresses which she herself has made according to the standard procedure), together with all the evidence and legal opinions provided by Mr Vaz.

Complaints about Mr Vaz's alleged financial relationship with the Hinduja brothers

6. We agree with the Commissioner in not upholding the following complaints:[3]

    (i)  that the Hinduja brothers made payments to Mapesbury Communications Limited which constituted a benefit to Mr Vaz which he failed to register;

    (ii)  that Mr Vaz received registrable benefits from the Hinduja brothers in return for seeking, mainly through his wife, preferential treatment of immigration issues on behalf of the Hinduja family or business, and that Mr Vaz failed to register those benefits; and

    (iii)  that Mr Vaz received free office accommodation at the Hinduja Foundation which he failed to register as a benefit.

Complaint about the provision of information about the financial relationship between Mr Vaz and the Hinduja brothers

7. The Commissioner has upheld the complaint that, during the inquiry carried out last year by the previous Committee, Mr Vaz misled her and the Committee about the financial relationship between the Hindujas and Mapesbury Communications Limited.

8. We consider that, on the evidence we have seen, the information provided by Mr Vaz about the Hindujas during the last inquiry, which was that "no donation has ever been made by the Hinduja brothers",[4] was accurate.

9. At the outset of the present inquiry the then Chairman of the Committee[5] wrote to Mr Vaz on behalf of the Committee and asked whether—

    "you, or any member of your family, has received or been associated, in any way, with any other payments[6] or benefits provided by the Hinduja family or their Foundation."[7]

Mr Vaz replied—

    "Neither my family nor I have received any payments from the Hinduja brothers."[8]

Mr Vaz subsequently wrote a letter to the Commissioner in which he said:

    "I have not received any payments from the Hinduja family neither has my family as far as I am aware."[9]

10. Mr Vaz then had a meeting with the Commissioner. She drew his attention to suggestions that the Hindujas had paid Fernandes Vaz, the solicitor's practice of Mr Vaz's wife, for legal work. The Commissioner wrote to Mr Vaz the following day to confirm that she had

    "suggested that, in order to settle all outstanding concerns, you also review all transactions for any purpose between you, Mapesbury Communications or Ms Fernandes and the Hinduja family or Foundation."[10]

11. The Hindujas have confirmed to the Commissioner that they made several payments through their businesses to Fernandes Vaz.[11] We have no reason to believe that those payments were in any way improper.

12. Mr Vaz has explained that he did not believe that professional fees paid to his wife's firm, about which he knew nothing, fell within the terms of the then Chairman's letter, and that his reply had referred only to registrable benefits.[12] We have difficulty in accepting this explanation.

13. Mr Vaz has made much of his wife's right to confidentiality in her professional capacity,[13] a point which we accept. Yet although the Commissioner had specifically drawn his attention to the point, he did not explain to the Commissioner that his reply to her had not taken account of any such payments to his wife, nor that it would be inappropriate for him to ask her to give him details of such payments.

14. Mr Vaz had told the Commissioner that he would ask his wife to provide information about Mapesbury Communications.[14] The Commissioner was led to believe that, if there had been any payments from the Hindujas to Fernandes Vaz, she would be given the information about them, whether or not they were registrable.

15. Mr Vaz ought to have been explicit about the basis on which he was answering the questions which were put to him. Whilst no registrable interest is known to have been concealed, Mr Vaz has made no attempt to correct or add to the limited information he originally provided. We conclude that Mr Vaz provided misleading information to the former Committee and the Commissioner about the financial relationship between his family and the Hindujas.

Complaints about Mr Vaz's alleged financial relationship with Mapesbury Communications Limited

16. The Commissioner's task was to establish whether or not Mr Vaz had obtained payments or benefits via Mapesbury Communications Limited. She said she had received no hard information to link payments into Mapesbury with payments or benefits to Mr Vaz. She has reported to us that because of the unhelpful way in which her requests for information had been handled by Mr Vaz and the directors of Mapesbury, she had been unable to complete her inquiries into that allegation.

17. Among the things we (or the last Committee) have been told about Mapesbury are the following:[15]

    (i)  Mr Vaz set it up to receive his earnings from activities outside Parliament.

    (ii)  It was intended to provide funds to support his parliamentary work but did not do so.

    (iii)  Mr Vaz's wife was the sole shareholder in the company, and was a director.

    (iv)  Mr Vaz's late mother-in-law, and then his mother, was the company secretary.

    (v)  The company provided a car for the use of Mr Vaz's mother.

    (vi)  A family friend and former employee of Mr Vaz worked for the company and later became a director.

    (vii)  Another former employee of Mr Vaz also worked for the company.

    (viii)The company's cumulative reported profits amounted to £60,000.

    (ix)  The only person who could have provided detailed information about the company's activities was an employee who had since died and whose papers had not survived.

18. Mr Vaz told us he could not speak on behalf of the company because he was not involved in it. He had received no benefits from it, but he was prepared to register it if the Committee thought he should do so.[16]

19. Mr Vaz seems to have been in a position to exercise considerable influence over the company. He had no formal responsibility for its activities. We find it odd that the information about a company established by Mr Vaz and run by his friends and relations has proved so elusive, and that the directors of what was a small company were able to provide so little information about where its money had come from and where it had gone.

20. The complaint is not upheld on the basis of the information which has been provided

Complaint about Mr Vaz's alleged failure to register remunerated employment

21. The Commissioner has upheld the complaint that Mr Vaz failed to register remunerated employment in the Leicester Law Centre when he first entered Parliament in 1987. It is clear even from the terms of Mr Vaz's response[17] that he continued to be remunerated for a short period even though he did no further work for the Law Centre after his election, and that accordingly he ought to have registered an interest. Mr Vaz would have done better to have acknowledged this frankly, instead of splitting hairs about whether he was employed by Leicester City Council or not.[18]

22. A complaint dating back more than seven years would not normally be investigated unless the allegations were serious or the complaint was linked to a more recent complaint.

23. Mr Vaz's failure to register took place 14 years ago and he retained the interest for a short period only after his election. We agree with the Commissioner in upholding the complaint. In the circumstances we do not regard Mr Vaz's failure to register this interest as serious. A newly elected Member could easily make this mistake.[19]

Complaint about Mr Vaz's property interests

24. The Commissioner reported that Mr Vaz had failed to provide the confirmation she needed in order to provide a complete picture of Mr Vaz's property interests or determine whether he had failed to make any necessary register entry.

25. Mr Vaz has now confirmed that since he became a Member he has had no financial interest in any property which is not listed in the table included in the Commissioner's memorandum.[20] That being the case we agree with the Commissioner that Mr Vaz appears to have fulfilled the registration requirements and accordingly we do not uphold the complaint.

26. We are dismayed that it has taken Mr Vaz so long to provide the necessary information when it was so readily available. We discuss this matter more fully later in the Report (see paragraphs 40-42 below).

27. The Commissioner has drawn our attention to the question whether a Member's ownership of several residential properties may constitute a financial interest of such significance that it ought to be registered.[21] We will give further consideration to that.

Complaint alleging that Mr Vaz had employed an illegal immigrant and had held her passport

28. The Commissioner reported that she had not been able to conclude her inquiries into the complaint that Mr Vaz had employed an illegal immigrant as a domestic servant, and had held her passport in his constituency office as a means of exerting improper influence over her.

29. We have seen no evidence that the person to whom the complaint relates is an illegal immigrant.

30. Mr Vaz told us that the person in question was a family friend not an employee,[22] and denied that he had held her passport.[23] Through her solicitor, she said that she was not employed by Mr Vaz and his wife.[24] Having weighed that evidence against the evidence provided in support of the complaint[25] we do not uphold the complaint.

Complaint about an alleged inappropriate intervention in a criminal investigation

31. The Commissioner has not upheld the complaint that Mr Vaz inappropriately intervened in a criminal investigation by the Intervention Board and that he failed to declare to a civil servant an interest in a company under investigation by the Board.[26]

32. The Commissioner was provided with no information which demonstrated that Mr Vaz had a declarable interest in that company.

33. We decided we should inquire further into the circumstances in which the criminal investigation was allegedly raised by Mr Vaz with the complainant during a constituency surgery. We are satisfied that no adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that it was Mr Vaz who invited the complainant to attend his surgery. The meeting took place on 17 April 1999. According to information provided by the Intervention Board to the Commissioner, the only written information the Board now holds is a statement by the complainant dated January 2001 in which he says he reported the conversation with Mr Vaz to his superior officer in May 1999. There is no contemporary corroboration of the complainant's account.

34. We accept Mr Vaz's evidence.[27] We agree with the Commissioner in not upholding the complaint.

Complaint about Mr Vaz's alleged failure to register a remunerated directorship

35. The Commissioner reported that she had not been able to conclude her inquiries into the allegation that Mr Vaz had failed to register a remunerated directorship with General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) or its subsidiary because GMH had not provided documentary evidence relating to Mr Vaz's appointment as a director which would have settled the conflict in the evidence submitted to her.

36. The company's published accounts for 1998, which listed Mr Vaz as having been a director in that year, gave rise to this complaint.

37. The company has now provided us with some of the documents the Commissioner had asked to see, which confirm that Mr Vaz was offered a directorship on 26 January 1999. The Chairman of General Mediterranean Holding said that "whilst the letter states that the appointment was deemed to start on 1 January 1999, Mr Vaz only accepted the appointment, verbally, with effect from 13th April 1999. There was no formal written acceptance." He confirmed that no remuneration had been paid to Mr Vaz, who had resigned on 17 May 1999.[28] Accordingly we do not uphold the complaint.

Complaint about Mr Vaz's alleged failure to register a donation from a company

38. We agree with the Commissioner in upholding the complaint that Mr Vaz failed to register a donation from the Caparo Group in March 1993 within the time allowed by the rules. We reject Mr Vaz's claim that his registration (in October 1994) of the second such donation, which he received in August 1994, somehow covered the first donation as well.[29] We do not regard Mr Vaz's initial failure to register as particularly serious, but he should have admitted his shortcoming frankly.


39. In addition to the allegations which the Commissioner investigated, other issues arose in the course of the investigation which gave rise to concern and on which she has reported to us.

40. The Commissioner concluded that—

Mr Vaz had seriously misled and sought to obstruct the Committee and her.[30]

41. When Mr Vaz gave evidence to us the Chairman put to him the suggestion that he had failed to co-operate with the Commissioner as fully as he might have been able to do. The exchange went as follows:

    "MR KEITH VAZ: ... ... I have not misled her. I have provided accurate information. If she would like to give me one example, through you, or if the Committee would like to give me any example, of me not providing accurate information, I would be happy to do so.

    SIR GEORGE YOUNG: Can I respond and give just one example. On 26 October last year the Commissioner asked you whether you had "organised any other events for the Asian Business Network since 1997 and if so please list them". Your reply was, "I have attended many events over the last 14 years. I cannot give you a list of each organisation's events." So it was a specific question about organising and a specific date, and your answer was not about organising at all, it was about attending.


    SIR GEORGE YOUNG: Why not?

    MR KEITH VAZ: Of course it is, because it is how you use language. I have not organised any events for the Asian......... Because people would think, as Mr Zaiwalla did on the last occasion, because I happen to chair an event, I am organising it. That is why I gave the answer about attending Asian community events. Organising requires you going around and organising things, but as Mr Ottaway has correctly pointed out, if somebody in the cash book puts a donation to a calendar and he puts my name against it........

    SIR GEORGE YOUNG: Why not say, "I have not organised any events"?

    MR KEITH VAZ: Because then Mrs Filkin will write back and say, "You say you haven't organised it, but Mr Zaiwalla said you had," and we are then into this long discussion as to what my role was in these various events."[31]

42. This response is unacceptable. Mr Vaz has no right to refuse to answer questions directly.

43. We referred earlier[32] to our dismay that it had taken Mr Vaz so long to provide the necessary information about his property interests. The Commissioner said in her memorandum that she had put to Mr Vaz, in the form of a schedule which he could confirm or correct, her understanding about his properties:

    "I had assumed that Mr Vaz would take my schedule as a starting point. He would then indicate in each case whether he had (or had previously had) an interest in the property, and, if so, what kind; whether rental income had been received; and whether any properties in which he had an interest had been omitted. Instead, Mr Vaz wrote a series of letters to me requesting additional information or seeking clarification of points of detail in the schedule which did not appear to me to be necessary to enable him to set out with precision his own property interests.

    Having written to Mr Vaz enclosing the schedule on 19 June 2001, I received from him on 28 September what he described as his response on the outstanding matters relating to his property interests. Because his answers were incomplete this gave rise to further questions from me in a letter dated 19 October 2001, some replies to which were supplied by Mr Vaz in his letter of 3 November 2001.

    In my view, it should not have taken as long as five months to seek to obtain from Mr Vaz comprehensive factual information about his property interests. Even now I can not confirm that the information on his property interests is comprehensive because Mr Vaz has failed to provide me with clear confirmation despite several requests."[33]

44. The Commissioner also drew attention to the difficulty she experienced in getting information from Mr Vaz about people who were registered to vote at his property in Kennington and about the circumstances in which the property was transferred to his mother during the previous investigation.[34]

45. When we put it to Mr Vaz in the course of his oral evidence that the question of his property interests was fairly straightforward and should have been easy to answer, he said:

    "No, because we had reached a stage after ten months of this, where we just could not go on. Every single time we replied to a question of Mrs Filkin she would ask another ten questions. It just could not go on. ..."[35]

He continued:

    "We had to have some relevance to the questions that were being put forward... ... . We had just reached a stage, after ten months and 560 questions, that we just could not carry on. There was no purpose... ..."[36]

The Commissioner effectively disposed of this point:

    "At various points during this inquiry I have received the impression that I was being given a literal answer rather than the whole truth. This has then required me to ask a follow-up question to ensure I did not misrepresent the witness or, indeed, Mr Vaz himself. I have then been criticised by Mr Vaz for asking the follow-up question."[37]

46. The Commissioner characterised Mr Vaz's approach to her inquiry as one of "obfuscation, prevarication, evasiveness and delay".[38] Mr Vaz vigorously contests this.

47. We should record that, while the current investigation was under way Mr Vaz suffered two periods of illness, fought a general election, resigned from his Ministerial position, and was subjected to stress as a result of media speculation. He clearly feels both that the investigation process is unfair and that his relationship with the Commissioner has broken down.

48. Whether or not Mr Vaz thought the process was fair, he had a responsibility to co-operate. Mr Vaz has failed to answer questions fully, directly, clearly and promptly.

49. Mr Vaz's failure to co-operate is made more serious by the failings on his part which were identified by the last Committee following the investigation of numerous complaints against him less than a year ago. The former Committee said:

    "This inquiry has taken far too long. If Mr Vaz and other witnesses whom the commissioner asked for information had answered her questions fully and promptly, the Commissioner would have been able to complete her report in a much shorter time."[39]

    "Mr Vaz was wrong to say to the Commissioner last December that he was not prepared to answer further questions from her. All Members have a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner and to assist her with her inquiries. We consider that in this respect Mr Vaz's behaviour was not in accordance with his duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct... ..."[40]

50. In his response to the investigation of the complaints against him since February 2000 Mr Vaz failed in his duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct by refusing to submit himself to the scrutiny appropriate to his office as a Member.

Wrongful interference with the investigation process

51. On 5 October Mr Vaz contacted Leicestershire Constabulary via the Chief Constable's office and said that Miss Eggington had made a telephone call to his mother at her Leicestershire address claiming to be an ex-employee of the Metropolitan Police. He said that Miss Eggington was connected, as a friend and advocate, with Mrs Gresty, an ex-employee of his wife's, who had become embroiled in harassment allegations. Mr Vaz gave the police Miss Eggington's address and the names of two Metropolitan Police officers who had dealt with the harassment allegations against Mrs Gresty.[41]

52. On 8 October he telephoned the Commissioner. He then made the following written allegation to the Commissioner:

    "I am writing to confirm that Eileen Eggington telephoned my mother in Leicester last Thursday [4 October 2001] and asked her questions apparently on your behalf. You have informed me that she was not acting for you and had no remit to gather information in this way. You will recall that during the last inquiry you took action against those witnesses who sought to interfere with your investigation. As Ms Eggington has put herself forward as a complainant I would be glad to know what action you propose to take.

    I have informed the police of the activities of Miss Eggington which I regard as harassment. My mother is now in hospital."[42]

In a subsequent letter to the Commissioner Mr Vaz said:

    "I explained to you that when the call was made to my mother she was told by Ms Eggington that she was a police officer and that you had asked her to ring. This occurred on 4th October and she was admitted to hospital shortly after the call. I telephoned the Leicester Police on 5th October".[43]

53. The Commissioner put Mr Vaz's allegation to Miss Eggington, who denied it in the strongest terms.[44]

54. Having obtained from Mr Vaz the name of the police officer who was dealing with the case, the Commissioner asked for the results of any inquiries the police had made into the matter. The police had been unable to obtain Mr Vaz's mother's account of the telephone call because she was ill. They contacted Mr Vaz on 23 November. According to them, he said that he "did not think it was advisable to approach" his mother and "did not want to waste any time for yourself".[45]

55. On the same day Mr Vaz contacted the Commissioner to make a strong complaint about her contact with the police. He alleged that she was interfering in a criminal investigation and said he would report her to the Speaker.[46]

56. At the end of November both Mrs Gresty and Miss Eggington were interviewed by the police about the alleged telephone call.

57. The police contacted Mr Vaz again on 5 December. Mr Vaz, according to them, "again declined to facilitate contact with his mother stating that he was unhappy with the way the inquiry was being conducted. He formally asked the officer to pass his remarks to the Chief Constable".[47]

58. On 12 December Leicestershire Constabulary wrote to the Commissioner to say that they were —

    "in receipt of information to suggest that no calls were received by Mrs Vaz's home telephone on 4th October 2001, that could be attributable to either Miss Eggington or Mrs Gresty."[48]

The police officer in charge told us on 12 January:

    "We have not confined our enquiry solely to contact with Mr Vaz. We have interviewed the most likely potential suspects, who have co-operated fully and we have been provided with information by independent third parties. We have found nothing that would lend weight to the allegations originally made by Mr Vaz. Indeed, I am satisfied that no malicious calls were made."[49]

59. When Mr Vaz appeared before us he said that—

    (i)  his mother had received a telephone call and the words "Eggington" and "Filkin" had been used;[50]

    (ii)  his mother knew who the Commissioner was but did not know who Miss Eggington was ("she clearly knows who Mrs Filkin is because the word Filkin is used occasionally in our household but Mrs Eggington's name is not used");[51]

    (iii)  he had not been able to establish with his mother whether it was Miss Eggington or the Commissioner who had made the call.[52]

60. In a subsequent written submission he said —

"The evidence on which I based my request for advice to the police was that my mother had told me that she had received a telephone call from a woman called Eggington claiming to be speaking on behalf of Mrs Filkin. I was very concerned about the possibility of involvement of the Eggington/Gresty duo in my mother's life. As she did not know the name Eggington she could hardly have made it up".

61. He also told us that he had not complained to the police but had asked for their advice.[53] In his subsequent submission he said —

    "I did not at any time ask that the police go and interview anyone thus the accusation of "intimidation" is groundless. I always maintained in accordance with usual practice that the victim herself who should decide with the police how to proceed and that they should do no more than they would do for any other member of the public".[54]

62. Mr Vaz said that his mother would be keen to co-operate in a police investigation of the matter if she had been in good health.[55] Mrs Vaz has written a letter to the police in which she said she had been unable, for reasons of health, rather than unwilling, to co-operate with their inquiries.[56]

63. We had decided that, in view of the state of her health, it would be inappropriate for us to seek any information from Mr Vaz's mother directly. She has volunteered a statement:

    "... The call I received was from a woman whose voice I did not recognise who said her name was Eggington, and that she was ringing me on behalf of Mrs Filkin, to ask me some questions. I had no idea who this person was and I put the receiver down immediately. I did not engage in any conversation.

I told Keith about the call later. I believe this all happened on 4th October ... I cannot be absolutely certain that I received the call on that very day or shortly before that day as I was so unwell at the time ..."[57]

64. We accept the evidence Miss Eggington has provided, and we do not believe that any call which may have been reported to Mr Vaz by his mother came from Miss Eggington.

65. When Mr Vaz gave oral evidence, his account of what his mother had told him was that there had been a telephone call involving the names "Eggington" (of whom his mother says she had never heard) and "Filkin". Mr Vaz then —

    (i)  informed the Leicestershire police on 5 October that Miss Eggington had made a harassing telephone call to his mother and that she was linked to Mrs Gresty;

    (ii)  provided them later that day with Miss Eggington's address and with contacts in the Metropolitan Police;

    (iii)  informed the Commissioner on 8 October by telephone, and on 9 October in writing, that Miss Eggington had made a call, had claimed to be a police officer, and had put questions to Mrs Vaz claiming to be acting on the Commissioner's behalf;

    (iv)  asked the Commissioner what action she proposed to take in respect of his allegations against Miss Eggington; and

    (v)  provided the Commissioner with the name of the police officer who was dealing with the case.

66. The information Mr Vaz says he had about the call does not justify all the actions he took on the basis of it. In particular, what Mr Vaz said to the Commissioner in his letter of 9th October went beyond what both he and his mother told us they knew. It was to be expected that both the Commissioner and the police would follow up what he told them. When the Commissioner did follow it up, as Mr Vaz had asked her to, he accused her of interfering with a criminal investigation and threatened to report her to the Speaker. The Commissioner's action with Miss Eggington, and the police interviews with Miss Eggington and Mrs Gresty, resulted directly from what Mr Vaz had said and done.

67. Mr Vaz's position appears to have shifted in the course of time. As the police indicated,

    "The nature of allegations by Mr Vaz appears to have changed subtly as time has gone on. Initially, [the police officer concerned] understood himself to be investigating a complaint of malicious telephone calls and harassment. Mr Vaz has since said that it was never his intention to make a formal complaint of any crime, his contact with the Police was intended to be an informal request for advice. He has now made it entirely clear that he does not wish us to investigate these incidents; ..."[58]

68. Mr Vaz made it plain to the Commissioner in his letter of 9 October that he expected her to pursue his complaint against Miss Eggington. He then gave the police the impression that he did not want them to pursue his report to them. The police were unable to interview his mother because of her illness. On 23 November he accused the Commissioner of interfering in a criminal investigation, though he must have known that no such investigation was in progress. We find Mr Vaz's conduct unacceptable.

69. We conclude that Mr Vaz recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the Commissioner, which was not true, and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermined her credibility. Miss Eggington and Mrs Gresty were interviewed by the police as a direct result of his intervention. Having set the Commissioner on a false line of inquiry Mr Vaz then accused her of interfering in a criminal investigation and threatened to report her to the Speaker.

70. In the report on the earlier complaints against him our predecessors said—

    "Intimidation that comes to our attention will be dealt with severely."[59]

His action, which was to interfere wrongfully with the investigative process, should be treated in the same way.

71. Mr Vaz failed in his public duty under the Code of Conduct "to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in [him]". By wrongfully interfering with the House's investigative process he also committed a contempt of the House.


72. Of the original eleven allegations made against Mr Vaz we have not upheld eight. We have upheld three, two of which we do not regard as serious. If that had been all, we would have recommended an apology to the House. Regrettably two further matters have arisen from the way Mr Vaz responded to the allegations against him investigated by the Commissioner. We have found that Mr Vaz committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and a contempt of the House.

73. We recommend that Mr Vaz be suspended from the service of the House for one month.

1   Appendices 14 and 25. Back

2   First Report, HC 637 (1994-95), paragraph 26. Back

3   Appendix 1, paragraphs 760-7 and 777. Back

4   Third Report, Session 2000-01, HC 314-II, p. xxxv. Back

5   Rt Hon Robert Sheldon MP, now Lord Sheldon. Back

6   ie apart from the payment from the Hinduja Foundation to Mapesbury Communications Limited in respect of the Dada Vaswani lecture. Back

7   Appendix 1, Annex i3. Back

8   Appendix 1, Annex i8. Back

9   Appendix 1, Annex i7. Back

10   Appendix 1, annex ii19. Back

11   Appendix 1, Annex i14. Back

12   Appendix 13; Qs 5-10. Back

13   eg Qs 2-4. Back

14   Appendix 1, Annex i32. Back

15   Third Report, Session 2000-01, HC 314, paragraphs 54-8; Appendix 1, paragraphs 778-85; Qs 36-52. Back

16   Qs 41-45. Back

17   Appendix 4, paragraph R41. Back

18   Appendix 4, paragraph R39. Back

19   It would be helpful if this point could be drawn to the attention of new Members (including Members returned at by-elections.) Back

20   Appendix 1, paragraph 485; Qs 107-12. Back

21   Appendix 1, paragraph 542. Back

22   Qs 122-5. Back

23   Qs 113-5. Back

24   Appendix 1, Annex v18. Back

25   Appendix 1, Annex v15A and Annex v16. Back

26   Appendix 1, paragraphs 807-12. Back

27   Qs 128-81. Back

28   Appendix 16. Back

29   Appendix 4, paragraph R55. Back

30   Appendix 1, paragraphs 832-6. See also paragraphs 744-51. Back

31   Qs 299-302. Back

32   See paragraph 26 above. Back

33   Appendix 1, paragraphs 505-7. Back

34   Appendix 1, paragraphs 526-34. Back

35   Q 106. Back

36   Q 106. Back

37   Appendix 1, paragraph 426. Back

38   Appendix 1, paragraph 757. Back

39   Third Report, Session 2000-01, HC 314, paragraph 2. Back

40   Ibid, paragraph 66. Back

41   Appendix, Annex IV8. Back

42   Appendix 1, Annex IV3.  Back

43   Appendix 1, Annex vi16. Back

44   Appendix 1, Annex IV5. Back

45   Appendix 1, Annex IV22. Back

46   Appendix 1, Annex IV9. Back

47   Appendix 1, Annex IV22. Back

48   Appendix 1, Annex IV22. Back

49   Appendix 12. Back

50   Qs 213 and 245. Back

51   Q 249. Back

52   Qs 251-3. Back

53   Q 195. Back

54   Appendix 19. Back

55   Q 280. Back

56   Appendix 20. Back

57   Appendix 22. Back

58   Appendix 12. Back

59   Third Report, Session 2000-01, HC 314, paragraph 69. Back

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 8 February 2002