Analysis (i)
(i) Complaints relating
to Mr Vaz's alleged financial relationship with the Hinduja brothers
The previous inquiry
As part of the previous enquiry,
the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee had asked
Mr Vaz to provide complete information about any payments or benefits
received by him or any member of his family from the Hinduja family
or business.[84]
a) Complaint by Mr Andrew Lansley
64. Mr Lansley alleged that Mapesbury Communications
had received a payment of £1,196.10 from the Hinduja Foundation
in respect of a lecture by Dada Vaswani at the House of Commons
in 1995; that the Foundation was wholly controlled by the Hinduja
brothers and Mapesbury Communications was a potential source of
income to support Mr Vaz's Parliamentary office; and that accordingly
the payment by the Foundation might constitute a registrable benefit
to Mr Vaz.
65. Mr Vaz's response was that the payment was
intended solely to cover the costs incurred in organising the
lecture; that there was no net gain to Mapesbury Communications;
and that neither he nor his office had benefited from the event.
66. The copy of the invoice for the payment,
provided by Mr Vaz, listed a series of items of expenditure which
might be expected to have arisen in connection with the practical
arrangements for the holding of the lecture and the associated
reception. The total amount, although it included a sum to cover
the cost of reprinting invitation cards, was not so obviously
excessive that it was queried by the Hinduja Foundation (whose
responsibility it would have been to do so, according to the Hinduja
brothers). Mr Broad, the director of the Foundation has confirmed
that the payment was for services provided by Mapesbury Communications
in connection with the lecture.
67. Although there was some confusion on Mr Vaz's
part over the date of the lecture, and the invoice, somewhat unusually,
was dated four days before the event actually took place, I do
not regard either of these factors as significant.
68. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the
payment of £1,196.10 by the Hinduja Foundation represented
anything other than the reimbursement of the costs claimed to
have been incurred by Mapesbury Communications in making the arrangements
for the lecture. Nor has any evidence been produced to show that
Mr Vaz or his office benefited from this payment.
b) Complaint by Miss Eileen Eggington
69. Mrs Eileen Eggington alleged that Mr Vaz
had an undisclosed financial relationship with the Hinduja brothers.
She based this allegation on a statement by Mrs Rita Gresty, a
former personal assistant to Ms Fernandes.
70. Mrs Gresty's statement contained two separate,
but related categories of allegation: the first suggesting that
Ms Fernandes had misused her position as a solicitor specialising
in immigration and nationality cases to obtain preferential treatment
for clients associated in some way with the Hinduja family; and
the second claiming that Mr Vaz and Ms Fernandes had enjoyed various
registrable benefits, including hospitality and gifts of flowers,
provided by the Hinduja brothers or business. Implicit in Mrs
Gresty's statement was the allegation that the benefits which,
according to Mrs Gresty, were supplied to Mr Vaz and Ms Fernandes
represented payment for the favourable handling of immigration
cases obtained by Ms Fernandes on behalf of the Hinduja family—making
use of Mr Vaz's position as a Member of Parliament.
Ms Fernandes
71. My approach to the allegations which concern
Ms Fernandes's activities as a legal practitioner has necessarily
been cautious. My remit does not extend to Members' spouses or
partners; and I would only think it right to investigate matters
which related to them where it had a direct bearing on the subject
matter of a complaint against a Member of Parliament, or where
a Member and his or her spouse or partner appeared to be acting
in concert.
72. Because of Ms Fernandes's role as a director
of Mapesbury Communications which was a company set up by Mr Vaz
and the apparent links between the company and the Hinduja brothers,
I would have judged it appropriate to consider the allegations
relating to Ms Fernandes' actions, if I had received substantive
evidence in support of them—in particular, suggesting that
Mr Vaz, as a Member of Parliament, was involved in some way—which
warranted further investigation.
73. Equally, where the Committee had requested
either from Mr Vaz or Ms Fernandes, but not received, answers
to questions in connection with the previous inquiry, I regarded
it as my duty to seek to obtain the information as part of the
current investigation. (In particular, the Chairman had requested
Mr Vaz to provide the Committee with information about links between
Mapesbury Communications and himself or any member of his family[85]
and had asked Mr Vaz in his letter of 20 March 2001 whether "you,
or any member of your family, has received or been associated,
in any way, with any other payments or benefits provided by the
Hinduja family, or their Foundation, and, if so, provide full
details.")
74. During my meeting with Ms Fernandes on 4
July I asked her to provide me with information about any links
she had with the Hinduja brothers. Although Mrs Gresty came to
see me on 11 October 2001, she did not produce any evidence which
added significantly to her original statement or the questions
I had already raised with Ms Fernandes and which warranted my
putting it to Ms Fernandes.
75. Mr Vaz strongly denied the allegations that
he and his wife received registrable benefits from the Hinduja
family or business, whether or not in return for favourable treatment
of immigration cases secured by Ms Fernandes. In addition, Mr
Vaz questioned Mrs Gresty's state of health and said that she
was engaged in legal proceedings against his wife. Mr Vaz also
suggested a possible explanation for Mrs Gresty's reference to
gifts of frozen food—namely that it was Mrs Gresty herself
who had been the recipient of such goods, from Mr Vaz and Ms Fernandes's
own freezer.
76. Mr Vaz accepted that, in common with other
Members of Parliament, he had attended social functions at the
invitation of the Hinduja brothers. But, as he correctly stated,
such hospitality would not constitute a registrable interest unless
its value to an individual Member exceeded the relevant monetary
limit in force at the time,[86]
or the function in question was organised for the personal benefit
of the Member.
77. The Hinduja brothers also rejected Mrs Gresty's
claim that they "showered" Mr Vaz and Ms Fernandes with
invitations and that they provided the Vaz's with benefits in
the form of flowers. They insisted that the immigration and nationality
casework carried out by Ms Fernandes on their behalf did not involve
preferential treatment and was paid for at normal rates. And they
denied that they had asked Mr Vaz to approach Mr Mandelson about
the Millennium Dome.
78. Particularly when set against the strenuous
denials of both Mr Vaz and the Hinduja brothers, the information
I have received from Mrs Gresty does not amount to proof that
Mr Vaz received registrable benefits from the Hinduja family or
business of the kind she has suggested, nor that Ms Fernandes
sought to obtain favourable treatment for passport applications
on behalf of the Hinduja family by making use of Mr Vaz's position
as a Member of Parliament.
79. Although, as I have indicated, Ms Fernandes
is not herself the subject of any complaint, she is a witness
in a Parliamentary inquiry and, as such, has a duty to be co-operative
and open in answering any questions. When, during our interview
on 4 July 2001, I first asked her about the immigration and nationality
cases she had conducted for clients on behalf of the Hinduja brothers
or their business interests she told me that her professional
duty of confidentiality prevented her from answering. At her request
I subsequently wrote to her, on 10 July 2001, asking her to approach
the relevant clients to seek their consent to her providing me
with the details I required.
80. As was clear from my letter of 10 July, I
was not seeking access to details of the personal handling of
the cases connected with the Hinduja brothers, but simply a breakdown
of their nature and the fees charged. I assumed that her clients
would waive confidentiality for this purpose since they had already
been frank with me about the work Ms Fernandes had undertaken
on their behalf.
81. A month after I first wrote to her, Ms Fernandes
told me that she would need to take legal advice but that she
would let me have a reply when she had done so. No such response
was forthcoming and I was obliged to send her a reminder letter
on 11 October 2001. In her reply Ms Fernandes merely repeated
the position concerning client confidentiality but without stating
whether she was prepared to approach her clients to seek a waiver.
82. As the Hinduja brothers had already supplied
me some details of their professional dealings with Ms Fernandes
it is hard to believe that, if approached directly by her—their
legal adviser—they would have refused to allow her to disclose
related information to me. Since after more than four months Ms
Fernandes has failed to indicate even whether she is prepared
to put my request to her clients, I am obliged to conclude that
she has no intention of co-operating with my investigation. This
unhelpful attitude towards a Parliamentary inquiry is regrettable.
83. Moreover, although Mr Vaz had told me in
a letter dated 21 March 2001 that he would speak to his wife about
this matter he appears to have failed to do so. As a result he
has not corrected the statement which he made to the then Chairman
of the Standards and Privileges Committee in his letter of 20
March 2001 stating "Neither my family nor I have received
any payments from the Hinduja brothers". Mr Vaz also
replied to me in his letter of 26 March 2001 saying:
"I have not received
any payments from the Hinduja family; neither has my family, as
far as I am aware".
84. Mr Vaz said he would check these matters
with his wife and I regard his failure to do so and, if necessary,
to provide a correction as misleading. Consequently Mr Vaz's inaccurate
statements to the then Chairman and to me remain on the record
of this inquiry. I deal with this aspect of the complaint against
Mr Vaz in more detail in my conclusions.[87]
c) Allegation that Mr Vaz received free
office accommodation at the Hinduja Foundation
85. As I have already indicated,[88]
on the basis of the information I received concerning the allegation
that Mr Vaz had been provided with free office accommodation at
the Hinduja Foundation, I decided that it was not necessary for
me to put the matter to Mr Vaz.
84 See paragraph 14. Back
85
Emphasis added. See paragraph 19. Back
86
0.5% of a Member's annual parliamentary salary. Code of Conduct
and Guide to Rules relating to the conduct of Members HoC 688
24 July 1996. Back
87
See paragraphs 832-836. Back
88
See paragraphs 60-63. Back
| 
