House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fifth Report

(ii) Complaints relating to Mr Vaz's alleged financial relationship with Mapesbury Communications Limited

Background

86. In the course of my investigation into allegations against Mr Vaz in the last Parliament[89] I established with some difficulty that a payment had been made by Mr Zaiwalla of £200 to Wildberry printers for a calendar linked with Mr Vaz.

87. Mr Vaz's Register entries contained four references to calendars, namely:

Date of Register	Entry
31.01.95	Income received from Annual Calendars used to pay for staff and publications to further community political involvement and information, including work on the Race Relations (Remedies) Act 1994 and Report on ethnic involvement in Quangos.[90]
31.03.96	Income received from Annual Calendar used to support the work that I do with the Asian community; no payment made to me.
31.01.97	Income received from Annual Calendar used to support the work that I do with the Asian community; no payment made to me.
31.01.99	Contribution towards the cost of constituency calendars for 1999 from Mr A P Patel; no payment made to me.

88. Mr Vaz wrote to me on 17 July 2000 telling me that the calendars were intended only for his constituents and did not carry advertising (which was not in fact true of all of them). He added that they had not been a success and had been discontinued. He explained that the question of how to register the calendars had been the subject of extensive discussion with the previous Commissioner and the then Registrar.

89. The substance of Mr Vaz's correspondence with the then Registrar on the subject of the calendars (in addition to the annual renewal of his entries) was as follows:

— on 17 October 1994 Mr Vaz wrote to the then Registrar asking whether it was necessary for him to "declare every advertisement in the calendar" and adding "The income goes to a company, Mapesbury, which administers the staff that are employed for the purposes set out.[92] None of it comes to me".

On 19 October 1994 the then Registrar replied as follows:

(i) they sponsor the calendar fairly predictably year after year, and
(ii) they pay more than £500 each for the advertising space.

If any of the advertisers does meet both criteria, it should strictly speaking be identified as a sponsor of your political activities, even though you derive no personal pecuniary benefit from the arrangement."

90. Paragraph 101 of my memorandum for the previous inquiry read "Since the stated purpose of the annual calendars was to support Mr Vaz's work with the Asian community I noted from Mr Vaz's personal Register file that on 19 January 1996 a year after the company was set up] he informed the then Commissioner, in a letter, that he had established a company called Mapesbury Communications Limited with the same objectives and that the company would receive his "income from the annual calendar together with all income I receive from outside Parliament' ."

91. In the same letter, Mr Vaz had explained that "as yet no income has been spent from this company on any parliamentary duties, but I anticipate that it will pay for publications that cannot be paid by the Fees Office— petrol payments for members of my staff and equipment such as a computer or a shredding machine".

92. The then Commissioner had replied that since the Register showed Mr Vaz's income from the calendar, and assuming that he did nor receive any personal income or benefit from Mapesbury Communications, his present entry "would seem to be satisfactory".

93. Mapesbury Communications Limited has never appeared on Mr Vaz's Register entry and he has never been a shareholder or director.

94. Given that the stated purpose of Mapesbury Communications Limited was to support Mr Vaz's work with the Asian community I attempted to investigate the possibility that the alleged payments might have been processed through Mapesbury Communications to support Mr Vaz's parliamentary office without his registering the income from the company or any such support.

95. I was unable to establish whether the payment from Mr Zaiwalla in respect of the calendar was processed through Mapesbury Communications Limited.

96. I was unable to complete my investigation because Mr Vaz, as I reported, was unwilling, "ostensibly on the grounds that he had no involvement with the company, to provide details of the expenditure and income of Mapesbury Communications, when it was he who set it up and its officers until the present date, have been mainly members of his immediate family".[93]

97. I further reported "the lack of co-operation from Mr Vaz on the last of these matters is especially troubling since it has prevented me from establishing whether any of the income of Mapesbury Communications has been used to support Mr Vaz's parliamentary office in any way. I have received no evidence that this is the case, other than that supporting the calendar, although Mr Vaz told the then Commissioner in 1996 that this would be the main purpose of the company. Mr Vaz was in a position to clarify this uncertainty and chose, for whatever reason, not to do so".[94]

98. On 31 January 2001 (Annex ii1), the Clerk to the Standards and Privileges Committee wrote to Mr Bindman, Mr Vaz's solicitor, referring to an offer from Mr Vaz to use his good offices to secure from Mapesbury Communications Limited the information the Committee was seeking. Specifically he asked:

2. I understand that money related to Mr Vaz's calendars was processed through the company. Please would you provide me with extracts from the audited records which shows these transactions, including details of who provided those contributions and the payments made from them.

5. It may be that some of the material published by the company includes Mr Vaz's name, if so, please would you list such publications and provide me with details.

6. Please would you provide me with copies of the full audited accounts for each of the years the company has been in operation with the underlying records which show all the payments into and out of the company, since it was set up.

The Commissioner attaches particular importance to being able to see the supporting material referred to in questions 2 and 6."

99. Mr Bindman replied, on 1 February 2001 (Annex ii2a), that he had sent a copy of this letter to the solicitor acting for the company (Davenport Lyons) for reply.[95]

100. Following receipt of my memorandum, the Committee took oral evidence on Mapesbury Communications Limited and related matters, from Mr Vaz on 30 January and 13 February, and from his wife, Ms Maria Fernandes the sole shareholder and a director of the company on 13 February 2001.

101. The Committee made a report to the House of Commons on 9 March 2001.[96]

102. The Committee reported that Ms Fernandes had provided to the Chairman and Clerk, but not to the Committee as a whole, "a list showing the sources of payments of £1,000 or more into the company and the recipients of payments of £1,000 or more from the company, which she said was complete. This information was provided by the company, rather than by its solicitors or accountants, as we had requested. It is not evident that the information was based on the accounts of the company. We were told that it was not possible to provide us with the details of payments into and out of the company for which we had asked: the person who dealt with the filing of accounting records had died in November last year [2000] and his widow had said she did not think there were any papers, though there might be some in her garage. The company's accountants did not have this information because they had returned all financial records to the company on completing their work on each year's accounts".[97] Letters from the two accountants acting at different times for the company were presented to the Committee to the effect that no payments had been made to Mr Vaz personally or to his parliamentary office.

103. The company's accounts deposited at Companies House do not contain the detailed information the Committee sought because, as a small company for the purposes of the Companies Acts, Mapesbury Communications is entitled to exemption from audit under Section 249A of the Companies Act 1985.

104. The Committee reported: "The full accounts and underlying records of the company were not provided. Ms Fernandes refused to provide the information she had to the Committee or to the Commissioner. No evidence has been provided to the Commissioner or the Committee that establishes the absence or the existence of a Mapesbury link with Mr Zaiwalla or any other significant contacts of Mr Vaz".[98]

105. I had been unable to complete my investigation into the complaint. The Committee concluded: "The information that has been provided does not lead us to uphold the complaint".

The new complaint

106. There the matter rested until on 19 March 2001 Mr Andrew Lansley wrote to me (see Annex i1). Insofar as they related to Mapesbury the salient points of his letter were:

— that the Report had also noted that Mr Vaz's Register entries had never contained any reference to Mapesbury Communications Limited;

— that when asked in a letter from me dated 14 March 2000[99] about an allegation that he had failed to register a substantial donation from the Hinduja brothers, Mr Vaz had replied in a letter dated 19 March 2001:[100] "no donation has ever been made by the Hinduja brothers";

— that paragraph 57 of the Committee's Report had recorded that Mr Vaz's wife, Maria Fernandes, had shown the Chairman and the Clerk a list of the sources of payments of £1,000 or more into Mapesbury Communications;

— that the accounts of the Hinduja Foundation (a charity established by the Hinduja brothers) as supplied to the Charity Commissioners for the year 1995, had recorded under the heading "Vaswani: Lecture and Reception" a payment of £1,196.10 to Mapesbury Communications on 6 July 1995;

— that the Hinduja Foundation was wholly controlled by the Hinduja brothers, who were its trustees;

— that in 1995 Mapesbury Communications Limited was a potential source of revenue to support Mr Vaz's office.

107. I reported receipt of this complaint to the Committee on 20 March 2001.

108. As the Committee had been obliged to take oral evidence in the later stages of the earlier inquiry because Mr Vaz had refused to answer any further questions from me, the Chairman of the Committee wrote on 20 March 2001 both to Mr Vaz (see Annex i3) and to Ms Fernandes (see Annex i4) asking them to supply me with further information about the payment by the Hinduja Foundation.

Other information

109. On 15 February 2001, Miss Eileen Eggington wrote to me (Annex ii4) enclosing information from Mrs Rita Gresty, who had been personal assistant to Ms Fernandes in her legal practice from 10th August 1998 to 15th November 2000 (though she had become too unwell to work in May 2000) (Annex ii5A), and her husband Mr Vyan Gresty (Annex ii5B). Miss Eggington explained that Mrs Gresty had become ill with depression in May 2000 and had since spent periods as an in-patient in hospital.

110. The parts of Mrs Gresty's information relevant to Mapesbury Communications, prepared by Miss Eggington, were:

Mapesbury PR was in existence in August 1998. Maria Fernandes, wife of Keith Vaz, owned it but she had no staff. Rita was aware that Hanif Pathan, Indian, aged about 32 years, was a director and he seemed to be the only person actively involved in the PR side of the business. Rita did not handle any accounts or correspondence, but believes that Maria employed a Chinese accountant. She read in the newspapers about three weeks ago that Mr Pathan had resigned as director.

In about October 1998 Rita took minutes of a meeting held under the auspices of Mapesbury PR at Coleridge House, 4/5 Coleridge Gardens NW6. Maria Fernandes and Hanif Pathan ran the meeting, which was about a forthcoming trip by MPs, including Keith Vaz, to Belgium. The MPs wished to try to stop illegal importation of cheap alcohol and tobacco because it was affecting the businesses of Asian newsagents. Rita does not know if the trip took place.

A man called David Golding used a rented office at Coleridge House as an accommodation address. He picked up post from there. Rita saw post addressed to him. She has not met him but has spoken to him on the telephone. He has a distinguished English accent...

Rita was under the impression that David Golding was a civil servant, probably working in the Immigration Department. Keith Vaz used to come into the office daily when Maria's office was in their * * * [Middlesex] home...

...In November 1998 Hanif Pathan, under the auspices of Mapesbury PR, organised a "Work Permit for Chefs" Seminar at Millbank Tower. Maria Fernandes hosted the event and the guest speaker was Barbara Roche. Rita had to compile the guest list. Keith Vaz sat down with her in the * * * [Middlesex] office going through the Egon Ronay Restaurant Guide. He picked out all the Indian and Nepalese restaurants and Rita sent out the invitations.

Rita helped out at the seminar. She saw that literature advertising Fernandes Vaz immigration and visa services was prominently displayed. Maria Fernandes gained a lot of new business from that seminar. The Department of Education and Employment took part in the seminar. They too brought literature but it was not prominently displayed."

111. The relevant parts of Mr Gresty's information were as follows:

In addition to running the professional practice of Mrs Vaz,

was also responsible for liaising with the various organisations with which the Vaz family were associated, including the Asian Business Network and Mapesbury (a public relations company).

Communications to the Asian Business Network were through a man named David Golding, at Coleridge House, 4/5 Coleridge Gardens, London NW6. Another contact for this company was Hanif, mobile telephone number...

I was engaged to play the piano at a function at the Connaught Rooms on 18 February 1999, and was paid a fee by the Asian Business Network. I believe the cheque was signed by Mr David Golding. The grand piano was hired from Harrow Piano Works who were paid a fee of £380 on invoice to Asian Business Network. My wife has confirmed Mr and Mrs Vaz worked jointly on several projects. The above function was chaired by Mr Vaz, and Mrs Vaz was the main speaker. The event was attended by members of the Cabinet and senior civil servants."

112. When I received Miss Eggington's communication I telephoned her and subsequently met her and wrote to her. In my telephone call of 16 February I said that that background information was helpful but that as far as I could see neither Mr nor Mrs Gresty was alleging that any of these activities were improper, nor had they provided information which undermined statements which had been made to the press by Mr Vaz. I explained that I could not take a complaint forward without a signed letter from someone who was willing, if necessary, to let their name become public at least as far as the Member of Parliament was concerned. (The Grestys at that time were not). I asked her to let me have any other information which became available which she felt might be relevant to my inquiry. I confirmed the telephone conversation of 16 February by letter on 26 February 2001 (Annex ii6).

The new inquiry

Mapesbury Communications Limited

113. In the light of Mr Lansley's allegation, and the evidence he provided regarding a payment to Mapesbury Communications Limited from the Hinduja Foundation (see paragraphs 13-17), I have made a further attempt to establish whether revenue from Mapesbury Communications was used to finance Mr Vaz's parliamentary office or provide him with benefits.

114. When I decided to investigate further the possibility that there was an unregistered financial link between Mr Vaz and Mapesbury Communications Limited it became appropriate to take the information provided by the Grestys and by Miss Eggington into account.

The Asian Business Network

115. In 1999 and 2000 Mr Vaz's entry in the Register of Members' Interests showed him to be honorary president of the Asian Business Network (ABN) and that he received no remuneration for this. The information provided by Mrs Williams suggested that Mr Vaz had an active role in the ABN, and that of Mr and Mrs Gresty suggested that there may have been links between Mapesbury Communications Limited and the ABN.

116. Other information suggesting that Mr Vaz's involvement with the Asian Business Network is deeper than is implied by 'honorary president' was supplied to me by the journalists Mr Chris Hastings and Mr Rajeev Syal of The Sunday Telegraph. On 29 March they came to see me and told me that until the previous day the Network had been listed in BT Directory Inquiries as being based at 70a Teignmouth Road, London NW2, the former London home of Mr Vaz. They also subsequently provided other material (see paragraphs 162 and 165).

117. In the light of the information provided to me by Mr and Mrs Gresty and by Mr Hastings and Mr Syal, I attempted to establish if Mr Vaz's links with the Asian Business Network were more extensive than was suggested by his Register entry and involved any financial interest, and what the relationships might be between Mr Vaz and Ms Fernandes, Mapesbury Communications and the Asian Business Network.

Wildberry Printers

118. In the course of the last inquiry I had established that a cheque for £200 was drawn on Mr Zaiwalla's account on 29 September 1994 which the office cashbook gave as being for the purpose "Wildberry (K Vaz Calendar)."[101] Since I was returning to the question of Mapesbury Communications Limited into which, Mr Vaz had informed the Registrar, income from the calendar was paid. I thought it appropriate to examine whether there were any financial links between Wildberry, Mapesbury Communications Limited and Mr Vaz's parliamentary office.

Misleading the Committee

119. The production and confirmation of an invoice from Mapesbury Communications to the Hinduja Foundation[102] throws doubt on Mr Vaz's denial in the last inquiry that "no donation [to him or to his office] has ever been made by the Hinduja brothers, since Mapesbury Communications had been set up specifically to receive income from his extra-Parliamentary activities". This doubt led me to consider further the role of Mapesbury Communications Limited in relation to Mr Vaz's office.

Information and witnesses in the current inquiry

120. Relevant information was provided by Mr Vaz himself, Ms Maria Fernandes, Ms Fernandes's fellow director of Mapesbury Communications Limited, Mr Mohammed Pathan, Mrs Rita Gresty (a former personal assistant and practice manager to Ms Maria Fernandes's law firm) and her friend Miss Eileen Eggington, the journalists Mr Chris Hastings and Mr Rajeev Syal of The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Carl Fellstrom (a freelance journalist), Mrs Pauline Elizabeth ( Liz) Williams, a former volunteer worker at Mr Vaz's constituency office, and Companies House.

121. With the exception of Miss Eggington, it would appear that most of the above named had been in disagreement with Mr Vaz or Ms Fernandes in the past. Mr and Mrs Gresty and Miss Eggington provided me with information about difficulties experienced over Mrs Gresty's entitlement to statutory sickness benefit from Ms Fernandes, and Mr Vaz referred in a letter to me dated 9 July 2001 (Annex iv8), to "Mrs Rita Gresty's mental illness, her hospitalisation and the industrial tribunal proceedings" (though in his letter of 13 August 2001 he told me he was not aware of what became of such proceedings). In the event, although proceedings were contemplated they were never undertaken. Mrs Williams told me she had ceased to work as a volunteer for Mr Vaz after an argument involving her husband. And although Mr Vaz told me in his letter of 18 November (Annex ii7) that he had no dispute with Mrs Williams, in our telephone conversation of 24 October he said he was unwilling to comment on the information Mrs Williams had supplied because he might be sued at any time in the future by her or her husband if the marriage broke down. Mr Hastings and Mr Syal have a longstanding professional interest in the activities of Mr Vaz and have published a number of articles in The Sunday Telegraph concerning him, with which Mr Vaz disagrees in some respects. Mrs Matin's legal affairs were transferred from Bindman & Partners to Coker Vis because of a conflict.

122. I set out in this section the information I have established about the company.

Information from the public records

123. Mapesbury Communications Limited was incorporated on 20 October 1994 as a shelf company with the name of Hobbyprime Limited under the registered address of 1 Mitchell Lane, Bristol. On 22nd February 1995 the name was changed to Mapesbury Communications Limited.

124. Information from the registers at Companies House shows that on 2 November 1994 the registered address of Mapesbury Communications Limited was 70a Teignmouth Road, London NW2, then the London address of Mr and Mrs Vaz (Ms Maria Fernandes). From 22nd March 1996 a box number— PO Box 8726—was added to the address. From 3rd June 1999 the company's registered address was 53 Scraptoft Lane, Leicester LE5 2FF, the home of Mrs Merlyn Vaz, Mrs Vaz senior (Mr Vaz's mother) (though the address where the Register of Members was held was from early 1997, * * *, the London address of Mr Vaz and of Ms Fernandes his wife). From 19 January 2001, the company was registered at Savant House, 63 to 65 Camden High Street, London NW1 7JL.

125. Until 2 November 1994 Instant Companies Limited are registered as directors. Ms Maria Fernandes is registered from 2 November 1994 onwards and Mrs Merlyn Vaz from 1 February 1996. On 1 April 1999 Mr Hanif Pathan became a director but he resigned on 19 January 2001.

126. As far as I have been able to ascertain Ms Fernandes has been the sole shareholder throughout, although the accounts for the year ending 31 October 1997 also name Mrs Merlyn Vaz as a shareholder.

127. The secretaries to the company have been Mrs Olga Fernandes (Ms Fernandes's late mother), from the company's inception to 29 December 1998, and Mrs Merlyn Vaz thereafter.

128. The activities of the company are described in each set of accounts in the terms: 'the principal activities of the company are those of publishing and public relations'.

129. According to the accounts deposited at the Companies House, the company's turnover and the associated profit or loss has been as follows:

Period to:	Turnover:	Profit/(loss):
31 October 1995	£3,200	(£616)
31 October 1996	£14,647[103]	£3,628 (after taxation)
31 October 1997	£ —	(£5,149)
31 October 1998	£73,764	£48,649
31 October 1999	£51,428	£13,535.

130. On 29 May 2001 notice was given of the winding up of the company. This should have taken place in August 2001 but on 27 June 2001 Companies House received, and agreed to, a request from the Inland Revenue for a stay.

131. The winding up of the company was resumed in October 2001, the objection having been withdrawn on 5 October and first gazette notice appeared in the following week.

Information provided by Mr Vaz during the previous inquiry

132. Although the stated purpose of the company had been to receive the money from the annual calendar and all the income he received from outside Parliament to support his work with the Asian community, Mr Vaz said it was never used for that purpose. Mr Vaz explained to the Committee that the calendars had made a loss and that the other income had never materialised. Since then, he explained, the company had been a publishing and public relations company run by his wife. It had, he said, continued to trade.[104]

133. In his evidence to the Committee and to me in the last investigation, Mr Vaz explained that Mr Raihan Mahmoud had been in charge of the calendar and had all the records, which was why, after Mr Mahmoud's death in late 2000, these appeared to have vanished.

134. According to Mr Vaz's evidence the last calendar published by Mapesbury appeared in 1996.[105] A calendar for the year 1999 carrying Mr Vaz's photograph but no advertising is in his personal Register file and Mr Vaz sent me a copy of a calendar for 2002 with his letter of 3 November 2001.

Chronology of the inquiry

135. After I had reported Mr Lansley's complaint to the Committee, the Chairman wrote to Mr Vaz on 20 March 2001 (see Annex i3) (see paragraphs 19 and 20).

136. Mr Vaz replied to the then Chairman on 20th March (see Annex i8). He explained that:

Mapesbury Communications undertook the public relations work for this

event at cost for the Vaswani Centre, which is a non-profit-making body. The costs of £1,196.10 (which I understand was for faxes, invitations, food, telephone calls etc) were reimbursed by the Hinduja Foundation. There was no benefit to me. There was no benefit to the company which, as you know if you have a report on the company, made a loss that year. Two accountants have certified that neither I nor my office received any benefit from the company

137. The then Chairman also wrote, on 20 March 2001 to Ms Fernandes (see Annex i4) asking her to provide details of the event and payments; the Clerk to the Committee also wrote to her on 29 March (see Annex i5A), Ms Fernandes replied on 20 April (see Annex i5) (see paragraph 348).

138. I also wrote to Mr Vaz on 20 March (see Annex i2) about Mr Lansley's complaints (see paragraph 18).

139. I raised the matter of Mapesbury with Mr Vaz in an interview on 21 March. I recorded the relevant exchange as follows:

"We also talked about trying to get some clarity about whether or not Mr Vaz had received any benefits whatsoever from Mapesbury Communications. Mr Vaz said that he has received no benefits whatsoever, and no payment from Mapesbury. I drew his attention to the fact that sometimes, assets of the company are used to benefit other people, for example cars, telephones, heating, lighting if a home is used as an office, I suggested that he think about that carefully and if that was the case, he put that in the letter of reply to me"

140. Following our meeting Mr Vaz wrote to me on 21 March 2001 (see Annex i32) saying he would speak to his wife "so that we can provide you with as much information as possible to deal with this matter" and hoped to respond "by Monday".

141. I replied on 22 March 2001 (Annex ii16), saying that I looked forward to hearing from him, and if appropriate from his wife, so that I could provide accurate information to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

142. Mr Vaz then wrote to me on 26th March 2001 (see Annex i7). His comments on payment from the Hinduja Foundation to Mapesbury Communications are set out in paragraphs 23-26, but on the specific matter of the Dada Vaswani event Mr Vaz wrote:

"I am not sure that there were "terms" if there were I had no knowledge of them. Mr Mahmoud would have dealt with the event himself possibly with volunteers in my office, since I would not have regarded this as a priority. The amount of the payment was £1,196.10 (this is confirmed in the books of the Charity Commission). I have no personal knowledge of this. I have been told that the reasons for the reprint was that there several spelling mistakes in the original invitation.

I understand that the payment was made to "Mapesbury Communications" (this was the information on the invoice). If verification of this is important I will request a statement, but I have no reason to doubt that this was the case. There was no benefit to the Company from this payment since it only covered costs incurred.[106] In fact, the company made a loss that year. The company accounts will bear this out but clearly, I do not have them to hand."

143. Mr Vaz discussed the content of his letter of 26 March 2001 with me at a meeting on that day (my record of this discussion is printed as Annex i6). The exchanges relating to the Swami Vaswani event are covered in paragraphs 23-26 but we discussed other matters relating to Mapesbury, as follows:

"Mr Pathan was a volunteer in his Leicester office from 1989. He then became a paid assistant in his Leicester office paid through the Office Costs Account. Mr Vaz agreed that I may check this information with the Fees Office and he will provide the details in his fuller letter to me. He will also inform me when Mr Pathan took on Directorship of Mapesbury Communications. Mr Pathan resigned as a Director in January 2001. He was never paid for his work as a Director of Mapesbury Communications. Mr Vaz says the two tasks did not overlap in any way. The work that he did in the office was separate from any work that he did to assist the Mapesbury Communications company. Mr Vaz told me that Mr Pathan was a long-term family friend who had been both a volunteer and then a paid worker and he had been helpful, taking on the trouble of sorting out the Mapesbury Communications.

... I said there had been various allegations about other events which Mapesbury Communications had organised for the Hindujas and whether the Hindujas had paid some money to Mapesbury Communications."

I asked Mr Vaz to provide a full account of payments to Mapesbury Communications Limited.

144. I wrote to Mr Vaz on 27 March 2001 (Annex ii19) thanking him for visiting me and asking him to respond to the points made in Mr Lansley's letters, the letters to him from the Chairman and the press comment, and suggesting he reviewed all transactions for any purpose between himself, or Mapesbury Communications, or Ms Fernandes and the Hinduja family or Foundation.

145. I wrote a further letter to Mr Vaz on 28 March 2001 (see Annex i20), drawing his attention to the suggestion of Mrs Gresty regarding the connections between himself and his wife and the Hinduja family or Foundation.

146. On 27 March 2001 Mr Chris Hastings of The Sunday Telegraph telephoned me, and on 29 March he and Mr Rajeev Syal of The Sunday Telegraph (Annex ii21) came to my office. They brought me information which they had collected and told me that the Asian Business Network had until the previous day been listed in BT Directory Inquiries as being based at 70a Teignmouth Road, the former home of Mr Vaz. They provided me with a print-out from the website 192.com which also gave that information as current. They raised concerns about the extent of Mr Vaz's involvement with the Asian Business Network, suggesting that he had arranged a conference on its behalf out of his parliamentary office.

147. By 2 April 2001 Mr Vaz had become unwell. On that day I told his agent Mr Keith Bennett that Mr Vaz should only reply to my questions when he had recovered.

148. I wrote to Mr Vaz on 2 April 2001 expressing my sympathy.

149. Ms Fernandes wrote to Mr Sheldon on 20 April 2001 (see Annex i5) in response to his letter of 20 March 2001 (Annex i4) and the Clerk's letter of 27 March 2001 (see Annex i5A) (see paragraphs 22, 152). She:

— reiterated that there were no payments from Mr Zaiwalla to Mapesbury Communications Limited

— reminded him that the list of payments had been prepared from memory and that she intended to maintain client confidentiality as to the detail of the payments

— explained that it was incorrect to say that there were 'no accounts for Mapesbury' as these had been filed according to statutory requirements

— confirmed that there were no papers beyond what the Committee had already received, that the issue of dissolution of the company had only arisen because of the inquiry but undertook that any papers which were found to exist would be preserved

— explained that she had asked the accountants to prepare a list of VAT payments and any information that had been sent to the VAT office[107]

— explained the expense and distress the inquiry had caused her.

150. Ms Fernandes concluded:

"May I finally summarise the position:

1. Two chartered accountants have unequivocally certified that neither Mr Vaz nor his office has benefited from this company.

2. The company filed its accounts in accordance with statutory requirements.

3. The accounts were prepared on an annual basis.

4. The receipts and invoices were not available. I agreed to show you a list prepared from my recollection, and that of former members of staff.

5. The current inquiry is about Mr Lansley's complaint concerning the Hinduja Foundation. I have no personal information about this, any information has already been supplied.

If you have any specific information which casts doubt on any of the points raised above regarding this company, and I reiterate, I did ask this both at the evidence session and when we met, I would be happy to help if it is within my knowledge."

151. I wrote to Mr Vaz on 3 May 2001 (see Annex I1) setting out the matters outstanding when he was taken ill (though I did not at that time send the letter to him but to his agent Mr Keith Bennett). I drew his attention to matters I had already raised with him in correspondence or at our meeting of 26 March and attached new information I had received for his consideration (this was not related to Mapesbury). In the context of Mapesbury Communications Limited I specifically reminded him of the matters covered in my letter to him of 27 March, with particular reference to Mr Lansley's letters, the Chairman's letter of 20 March, the press comment and the request for a review of all transactions between him and the company.

152. Mr Vaz and Mr Bennett came to see me on 3 May 2001 and I gave Mr Bennett my letter of 3 May 2001 on the understanding that Mr Vaz would answer it when he was well enough. I said that if I received further complaints or information which I needed to put to him I would do so via his agent so that his agent could hold them until he had recovered fully.

153. On 8 May 2001, the Committee met and, in response to her letter of 20 April (see Annex i5), made an order to Ms Fernandes to produce the list of payments previously shown to the Chairman and Clerk, and the Chairman wrote to Ms Fernandes enclosing a copy of the Order, as follows:

"The Committee was disappointed to learn that you were not prepared to provide it with the full list of payments into and out of Mapesbury for which you were asked in the Clerk's letter of 27 March. Accordingly it has no alternative but to use its formal powers to require you to supply the list.

I am enclosing a copy of the Order which the Committee has made. Failure to comply with the Order would be a contempt of the House."

"Ordered, That Ms Maria Fernandes, a director of Mapesbury Communications Ltd ("the company"), do lay before this Committee on or before noon on Friday 11^th May a copy of the list of (a) persons or organisations who made any payment to the company of £1000 or more for any purpose, and (b) persons or organisations to whom the company made a payment of £1000 or more or provided a benefit worth £1000 or more, which she showed to the Chairman on 15 February.—(The Chairman.)"

154. On 10 May 2001 Ms Fernandes replied to the Chairman (Annex ii26), enclosing the list of payments as follows:

"List of clients, events and payments in and out in the knowledge of the directors of the company"

The list records 13 "Payments in", including the following which are referred to in this memorandum;

The list records 12 "Payments out", including the following which are referred to in this memorandum;

155. She stressed that the list should not be considered conclusive, and asked that it be kept private and confidential.

156. She also asked the Clerk to acknowledge receipt of the list to the company secretary at the registered address.

157. On 11 May 2001 the Clerk to the Committee wrote to Ms Fernandes thanking her for providing the list and saying that he was writing to the secretary of the company as requested, and also wrote to the secretary of the company.

158. On 14th May 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes (see Annex i12) asking her to let me know:

— the period which the list covered and the level of payment over which she had made an entry on the list

— any payment in or out of the company which was in any way related to the Hinduja family or Foundation

— for whom the car(s) were purchased with dates and by whom it/they were used

— details of the complete funding arrangements for the following events: the Work Permit Conference, the seminar/event on visa policy and the Dada Vaswani event, and

— since the list was 'not conclusive', what were the totals covered by the list and received by the company in each of the years covered by the list

— whether she would prefer to meet me in the first instance rather than write.

159. On 17 May 2001 Ms Fernandes telephoned my office to say she would be replying "soon" to my letter of 14 May.

160. On 30 May 2001 Mr Mohammed Pathan, another director of the company, wrote to me (a letter which my office received on 15 June 2001) saying that Ms Fernandes had passed him my letter of 14 May 2001 and that he was replying as he had compiled the list from memory and his knowledge as a former employee and director. He said that he would be happy to meet me.

161. On 3 June 2001 an article appeared in The Mail on Sunday containing some information which was similar to that provided to me by Miss Eggington and the Grestys.

162. On 5 June the journalists Mr Chris Hastings and Mr Rajeev wrote to me (Annex ii31) suggesting again that Mr Vaz was more intimately connected with the Asian Business Network than his Register entries suggested. They:

— told me again that Mr Vaz had been using House of Commons facilities to raise money for the Network.

163. On 6 June 2001 Mr Bennett wrote to the then Registrar of Members' Interests asking him for copies of Mr Vaz's entries in the Register of Members' Interests for 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

164. On 12 June 2001 (Annex ii33) I wrote to Ms Fernandes to thank her for her telephone call of 17 May 2001 and to remind her that her reply to my letter of 14 May 2001 was still outstanding, and reminding her that I had said that if she would prefer to discuss the matters with me she in person should telephone me to suggest a convenient time to meet.

165. On 12 June I received from Mr Hastings and Mr Syal material relating to the Asian Business Network as follows:

— a brochure for the Asian Business Network's Into Leadership Conference held at the New Connaught Rooms, London, held on 23 June 1999, chaired by Mr Vaz: this included a telephone number which they said was registered to Mr Vaz's office in the House of Commons

— a copy of an article which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 10 June 2001 alleging that Mr Vaz had actively canvassed donations to the Network despite having denied to the previous inquiry that he had ever processed or collected money for Asian causes

— a transcript alleging to record a conversation on 9 June 2001 between Mr Hastings and Mr Keith Bennett, Mr Vaz's election agent.

166. They subsequently provided me with an Office of Public Service press release confirming that Mr Vaz had chaired the Into Leadership Conference.

167. On 14 June 2001 Ms Fernandes wrote (in a letter I received on 19 June 2001) to tell me she had passed a copy of my letter of 12 June 2001 to Mr Mohammed Pathan, who, she said, had written to me to arrange a meeting, and offering to be present herself if required.

168. On 15 June 2001 my office wrote to Mr Pathan thanking him for his letter of 30 May 2001 (which I had received only that day) and inviting him to telephone me to arrange a date for a meeting.

169. On 25 June 2001, having had no response from Mr Pathan, my office telephoned Mr Keith Bennett (Mr Vaz's agent) to obtain a contact telephone number for Mr Pathan so that a meeting might be organised and suggesting a number of possible dates on which I could meet Mr Pathan.

170. On 26 June 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes (Annex ii36) saying I was concerned at the delay in organising a meeting, rehearsing my efforts to do so, suggesting a number of possible times for one, inviting her or Mr Pathan to contact me by return to let me know when they were available to meet me, and requesting a contact telephone number.

171. On 27 June 2001, following conversations between Ms Fernandes and Mr Pathan and my office, I wrote to each of them confirming a meeting on Wednesday 4 July 2001.

172. On 1 July 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to me (see Annex I2). He:

— requested copies of

the 'full set of research papers sent' to me by The Sunday Telegraph;

— indicated that "in view of the comments of the Committee" he would continue to correspond with me but would be relying on the legal advice of Mr Bindman (his solicitor);

— told me that there was litigation pending in respect of some of the matters already raised in the press.

173. On 2 July 2001 I interviewed Mr Gopichand Hinduja and Mr Srichand Hinduja. A transcript was made of the interview (see Annex i14). They both denied any involvement with Mapesbury Communications Limited beyond the Dada Vaswani lecture, and also that they had given any gifts to Mr Vaz or Ms Fernandes beyond Diwali courtesies (see paragraph 52). They confirmed, however, that their business had used the professional services of Ms Fernandes's law practice, Fernandes Vaz, in immigration cases (see paragraph 53, 59 and Annex i30).

174. On 3 July 2001 I spoke to Mr Bennett about the timing of Mr Vaz's response to my questions and Mr Bennett undertook to contact me again the same afternoon.

175. On 4 July 2001 I met Ms Fernandes and Mr Pathan in my office, accompanied by a House of Commons shorthand writer (whom I introduced to Ms Fernandes and Mr Pathan and whose function I explained) who made a transcript of the interview (see Annex i15). As is the practice, the shorthand writer made a tape-recording of the interview for her own use in compiling the transcript. The tape recorder was on the table between Ms Fernandes, Mr Pathan, the shorthand writer and me throughout the meeting.

176. I explained the purpose of the interview:

MS FILKIN: I am not wishing to interfere in your affairs in any way that I do not have to, and I have not wished to do that throughout.

MS FERNANDES: Thank you.

MS FILKIN: Having said that, I have a duty to the House of Commons which is to make sure that I am giving a full and accurate picture in relation to the complaints that I have had and I have to verify information to them.[108]

177. Ms Fernandes explained to me that she was taking proceedings against the Mail on Sunday and said that she would need to be very careful because she did not want to do anything that would jeopardise those proceedings. I said I would not wish to jeopardise any proceedings.

178. I asked Ms Fernandes and Mr Pathan what work Mapesbury Communications had carried out for the Hinduja brothers or Foundation: Ms Fernandes said "None that I know of" and Mr Pathan said "None. No." When I prompted Mr Pathan about the Dada Vaswani event he said "They paid for the expenses or something of it, yes. That is the only one I know of."

179. In the course of the interview I asked Ms Fernandes not only about Mapesbury Communications but about any dealings which Fernandes Vaz might have had with the Hinduja brothers or Foundation (see paragraphs 53-59).

180. At the end of the meeting Ms Fernandes said she had noticed the shorthand writer's tape-recorder, and she and Mr Pathan objected to its use. I explained that the recording was only for the use of the shorthand writer to enable her to check the accuracy of her record. I apologised that I had not given a fuller introduction and promised to provide Ms Fernandes with the only copy of the tape.

181. On 6 July 2001 I sent Mr Vaz copies of the documents he had requested.

182. On 6 July 2001 Ms Fernandes wrote to me (Annex ii39) to complain about the shorthand writer's tape recording.

183. On 9 July 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to me (Annex iv8) that in order to give me a complete picture he needed certain additional information, namely:

— the covering letters to the material relating to property supplied by the BBC and The Sunday Telegraph.

Additionally he put it to me that several of the complaints referred to events many years old, and asked me what timetable I had in mind so that he might prepare a comprehensive submission between his return from a visit abroad and his impending operation.

184. On 10 July 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes and Mr Pathan (Annex i26) thanking them for attending the meeting, enclosing the transcript of the meeting for correction (I also sent the shorthand writer's tape recording to Ms Fernandes) and reminding them that they had undertaken to provide, for Mapesbury Communications Limited:

— a list of all the events which Mapesbury Communications organised, with dates;

— details of the work which the company carried out for the Asian Business Network and the events organised for the Network;

— the payments made by the company to Wildberry printers, with dates;

— the dates during which Mr Pathan was a director of Mapesbury Communications;

— the amounts paid in salaries and fees to directors and employees for each year;

— the rent paid each year to Acacia Holdings in respect of Savant House or any other property occupied at any time by Mapesbury Communications.

185. I also added that the answers to the questions set out in my letter of 14 May 2001 which were outstanding were as follows:

— since the list "should not be considered conclusive" the total amount in round numbers covered by the entries on the list, with dates, and the total income received by the company in each of the years covered by the list.

186. I also asked Ms Fernandes, so that I might have a complete picture of all her transactions with the Hinduja brothers, the Hinduja businesses and Foundation, if she would approach any client who was connected in any way with any of these to seek their agreement to disclose to me a list of the activities carried out for them with dates and the payment received for each piece of work.

187. On 11 July 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes (Annex ii42) in reply to her letter of 6 July 2001 about her concerns about the shorthand writer's tape recording, apologising again for not referring to the shorthand writer's tape recording and explaining that this was because the tape recorder and microphone were on the table in front of her.

188. On 16 July 2001 I wrote to Mr Vaz (Annex i22) saying I would be grateful for his response to all the matters I had raised as soon as possible.

189. On 16 July 2001, Mr Pathan wrote to me (Annex ii44) requesting a copy of the shorthand-writer's tape recording which I had already sent to Ms Fernandes. (No copy was made of the tape and Ms Fernandes holds it.)

190. On 18 July 2001 I replied to Mr Pathan (Annex ii45) advising him to contact Ms Fernandes if he wished to listen to the recording, as there was only one tape.

191. On 23 July 2001 Mrs Pauline Elizabeth Williams, a former volunteer assistant to Mr Vaz in his constituency office (Annex ii46) gave me information in a telephone call. Much of this concerned Mr Hanif (Mohammed) Pathan and work he did for Mr Vaz, with particular reference to the Into Leadership Conference (see paragraphs 209 and 224). She said that she didn't know anything about Mapesbury but she had heard it mentioned during her time in the office. She added that "she had been told she didn't need to know anything about it".

192. In the week of 23 July 2001, my secretary telephoned Ms Fernandes's office twice to inquire when we might expect to receive the corrected transcript, to be told she was on holiday until 1 August 2001 (my secretary also attempted to contact her on her mobile telephone and left a message).

193. On 1 August 2001 Mrs Williams telephoned me with corrections and additions to the file note of our telephone conversation.

194. On 2 August 2001 my office telephoned Mr Pathan about the transcript, after which he wrote to me (Annex ii47) saying he had left a message with Ms Fernandes asking her to contact him on her return from holiday but saying that a cursory glance suggested that a number of points of the transcript needed "clarification".

195. On 3 August 2001 I wrote to Mr Pathan (Annex ii48) asking if I might have the transcript by return.

196. On 6 August 2001 Ms Fernandes wrote to me (see Annex i27) referring to my letter of 11 July 2001 and the telephone calls from my office. She complained again about the shorthand writer's tape recording. Ms Fernandes said that:

— she would be taking legal and professional advice on the points I had put to her about her law firm and would respond as soon as she had done so;

— she reminded me that some of the matters were the subject of legal proceedings.

197. On 8 August 2001, Mr Pathan wrote to me thanking me for my letter of 2 August 2001 which he suggested had crossed with his of 2 August 2001, of which he enclosed another copy.

198. On 9 August 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes (Annex ii50) saying I was disappointed not to have received her additions and corrections to the record of our meeting as I did not wish to delay my work on the matter. I apologised once again that my efforts to ensure that her answers were accurately recorded by the shorthand writer had upset her.

199. On 13 August 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to me (Annex i23) commenting on my requests for information and asking if there were any other matters I wished to raise, as he wished to pass my requests on to Mr Bindman his solicitor.

200. Ms Fernandes wrote to me on 27 August 2001 (Annex ii52) complaining again about the shorthand writer's tape and saying "I would be grateful if all references to my legal practice and any other personal matters be deleted. If you wish to have page references I will be happy to provide this."

201. On 30 August 2001, my secretary recorded that she had been trying to contact Mr Pathan since 1 August 2001 but that she had only a mobile telephone number for him, and that the telephone was "switched off as always". She left several messages to which Mr Pathan mostly replied in writing.

202. On 3 September 2001 I wrote again to Ms Fernandes (Annex ii53) apologising again for our misunderstanding over the tape, thanking her for her co-operation with my inquiry, and inviting her to return the copy of the transcript with the corrections and deletions she sought clearly marked.

203. On 4 September 2001, Ms Fernandes wrote to me (Annex ii54) enclosing an annotated copy of those pages of the transcript she wished to have deleted as referring to her legal practice and friends. She added that her one brother-in-law was not a director of Wildberry Printers.

204. On 6 September 2001 Mr Bindman (Mr Vaz's solicitor) wrote to me (Annex ii55) asking for a list of the matters outstanding.

205. On 7 September 2001 I replied to Mr Bindman listing the letters I had written to Mr Vaz which required a response from Mr Vaz as follows:

"The following are the letters which I have sent to Mr Vaz asking for his comments or for information. If any of these are not included in the bundle provided to you by Mr Vaz perhaps your office would telephone mine and we will send you copies.

19 March 2001	Letter to Elizabeth Filkin from Mr Andrew Lansley + accounts of Hinduja Foundation.

20 March 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz attaching complaint letter from Mr Lansley

27 March 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz

28 March 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz

26 April 2001	Letter from Mr Andrew Robathan to Elizabeth Filkin

3 May 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz which rehearses the previous requests and also attaches the complaint letter from Mr Andrew Robathan dated 26 April 2001

16 May 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz attaching complaint letters from Mr G H Peene, and attachments, dated 31 January, 8 February, 9 May and 15 May

11 June 2001	Ms Eileen Eggington to Elizabeth Filkin with attachments

19 June 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr K Bennett

19 June 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz attaching complaint letter from Ms Eggington and enclosures and property schedule for comment and correction

6 July 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz attaching copies of documents relating to:

	a) complaints made by Mrs Gresty and Ms Eggington
	b) information provided by the BBC & The Sunday Telegraph
	c) Mr Vaz's letter to Elizabeth Filkin on 26 March 2001

16 July 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz

7 August 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz

23 August 2001	Elizabeth Filkin to Mr Keith Vaz

I have said to Mr Vaz that these letters cover all the matters which require his response but that if any other information is provided to me which might be at variance with the information which Mr Vaz gives me I will, of course, give him the opportunity to comment on it before I take any view on it."

206. On 7 September 2001 I wrote to Mr Vaz (ii57) thanking him for his letter of 31 August 2001 and noting Mr Bindman's letter of 6 September.

207. On 10 September 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes (Annex ii58) saying that I did not wish to jeopardise legal proceedings she was undertaking in any way but that as I did not know anything of them I would be grateful if she would let me know which matters covered in the transcript might be subject to those proceedings. I asked her to inform me when the proceedings were complete. I confirmed that she and Mr Pathan had visited my office following her offer to assist me. I went on to say that I did, however, need to ask her for some further pieces of information to ensure that I had an accurate picture to report to the Standards and Privileges Committee . I said that when we met I had asked whether, through Mapesbury Communications or through her practice, Ms Fernandes had helped Mrs Matin with her immigration issues and I set out our exchange on the matter:

MS FILKIN: ...Did you, through Mapesbury Communications or, indeed, through your practice, because then I will be able to clear it out of the way, help her with her immigration issues?"

MS FERNANDES: No.

MS FILKIN: So you have never done work for her?

MS FERNANDES: No.

MS FILKIN: In any capacity. Thank you..."

I said that I had subsequently received information that she had made a representation on Mrs Matin's behalf about her immigration status and I asked her to explain this discrepancy.

I added that she had said that she expected that Mapesbury would be wound up during the next month or six weeks but that I had been informed that a stay had been placed upon the proceedings and asked her to explain this discrepancy too, telling me why, when, and by whom and for what reason the request for a stay had been made.

208. On 10 September 2001 my office telephoned Mr Pathan and left a message saying that we had received Ms Fernandes's corrections to the transcript of the meeting on 4 July 2001 and that if we did not receive corrections from him by the end of the week we would assume that his corrections were included in Ms Fernandes's reply.

209. On the same day, 10 September 2001, I also wrote to Mr Pathan (Annex ii59) asking him to confirm that the transcript I had now received back from Ms Fernandes contained all the corrections he wished to see made. I continued:

"During our meeting I asked you about a possible connection between Mapesbury Communications and Coleridge House. As you will have seen from the transcript of our discussion, the exchange between us ran:

MS FILKIN: How is Mapesbury Communications connected with Coleridge House?

MR PATHAN: Coleridge House?

MS FILKIN: It is not?

MR PATHAN: No.

MS FILKIN: That does not mean anything to you

MR PATHAN: No."

Later on during the same meeting, another exchange took place, as follows:

"MS FILKIN: Mapesbury Communications booked an event on 23 June 1999 for the Asian Business Network at the New Connaught Rooms Did you book that event?

MR PATHAN: Sorry, say that again?

MS FILKIN: I believe that Mapesbury Communications booked an event at the New Connaught Rooms on 23 June 1999 for the Asian Business Network. I was asking whether you were involved in booking that event?

MR PATHAN: No, nothing I know about, no. The event, no.

MS FILKIN: I have been provided with information that the booking for an event held in the New Connaught Rooms by the Asian Business Network on 23rd June 1999 was made by Mr Hanif Pathan of Coleridge House, 4/5 Coleridge Gardens, London NW6. I understand that you collected the fees for this events. I have also been told that Mapesbury Communications were involved in a meeting at Coleridge Gardens around October 1988[109] and that you were present at that meeting.

I understand that in June 1999 you had an office in Mr Vaz's Leicester constituency office where you collected the fees for the conference held on 23 June 1999. On what basis were you employed in Mr Vaz's office? Over what period did you work at that office? Into which account were the conference fees paid?

In the light of the information I have set out above I would be grateful for your explanation of these apparent discrepancies, and would you let me know whether there is anything you would like to say adding to or altering anything which appears on the transcript?"

210. On 12 September 2001 I received a letter from Mr Pathan dated 30 August (Annex ii60) suggesting corrections and making comments on the transcript of the meeting. In this he:

— denied that Mapesbury Communications had booked or been involved in an event in central London on 23 June 1999 and asked me to supply any information I had to enable him to enquire further;

— said that he had written to the company accountant to obtain the dates of his employment by Mapesbury;

— confirmed that he had become a director on 1 April 1999 and resigned on 31 January 2001 for the reasons he had adduced at our interview, namely that Mr Mahmoud had died and 'there was no future, nothing left to follow' .

211. Mr Pathan's answers to the questions I had put in my letter of 10 July 2001 were as follows:

A1 We have explained the activities of the company. I cannot comment on the precise dates. As we explained to Mr Sheldon and to you this was a small company that at all times had professional advice and assistance.

Q2 A list of all the events which Mapesbury Communications organised with dates.

A2 We have explained to you all that is within our knowledge and pointed out that Mr Mahmoud was principally dealing with these matters. We have set out what has been done in the transcript on page 19.

[Page 19 of the transcript reads as follows:

"MR PATHAN: That is right, yes, the priest one.

MS FILKIN: Are you saying that as far as you know those were the only events?

MR PATHAN: That is right, yes.

MS FILKIN: So you do not recall any connection between Mapesbury Communications and the Asian Business Network?

MR PATHAN: Mr Mahmoud... I do not know about that. Mr Mahmoud might have, I do not know. I cannot answer that question.

MS FILKIN: And would you have a record of that somewhere?

MR PATHAN: I do not know. Really I do not know.

MS FILKIN: Does that mean anything to you, Ms Fernandes?

MS FERNANDES: It does not.

MR PATHAN: It does not, no.

MS FILKIN: Take me through then, if you would, the Dada Vaswani event. What was the role of Mapesbury in relation to that event?

MR PATHAN: I was not involved in that.

MS FILKIN: No.

MR PATHAN: I remember the event because it was a priest who came and did something, a lecture or something like that.

MS FILKIN: Yes.

MR PATHAN: That is all I know. Mr Mahmoud used to deal with the paperwork and all that, so he would know.

MS FILKIN: So you do not know whose initiative that was set up on?

MR PATHAN: I do not know, no.

MS FILKIN: Who was promoting it, who wanted it to happen, etc?

MR PATHAN: No, I do not, no. I only know that the event took place and the Hinduja Foundation paid for the expenses. That is all I know about it.

MS FILKIN: And those were processed through Mapesbury?

MR PATHAN: That is right, yes."]

Q3 Details of the work which the company carried out for the Asian Business Network and the events organised for the Network.

A3 See my reference to Page 22 above. [Mr Pathan had written "You stated that you believed the company booked an event in central London on the 23rd June 1999. The company did not book the event nor was it involved in it. If you have any information to enable me to enquire further please let me know"]

Q4 The payments made by the company to Wildberry printers with dates.

A4 I have answered this question on Page 36 of the transcript .

[Page 36 of the transcript reads as follows:

"MS FILKIN: There were no other publications that you can recall that carried his name?

MS FERNANDES: No.

MS FILKIN: Right. This list here does not record any payments to Wildberry, the printers Wildberry. They were the printers who, if you recall, printed Mr Vaz's calendars.

MS FERNANDES: Which calendars?

MS FILKIN: Certainly some of the calendars.

MS FERNANDES: There are two types.

MS FILKIN: Yes, I know, but some of them were printed by Wildberry and they have got that written on them, so they were. You did not include this in this list. Perhaps you could explain to me why Wildberry was not included in this list as some body whom the company made payments to?

MR PATHAN: I do not know. I do not know about Wildberry.

MS FILKIN: You do not know about that?

MR PATHAN: No."]

Q5 The dates during which Mr Pathan was a director of Mapesbury Communications.

A5 I have answered this question above. [He said "I became a director from 01.04.99 and resigned on 31.01.01 for the reasons I have given you. I received no remuneration"]

Q6 The amounts paid in salaries and fees to directors and employees for each year.

A6 These are in the company accounts for each year, which I understand that you have. If you would like me to total these up I will do so.

Q7 The rent paid each year to Acacia Holdings in respect of Savant House or any other property occupied at any time by Mapesbury Communications.

A7 I have written to the landlords and ask for this information. I will send it to you when I received this.

Q8 The period covered by the list which you provided to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee with your letter of 10 May 2001 headed "List of clients, events and payments in and out in the knowledge of the directors of the company".

A8 As we have explained to Mr Sheldon and yourself this list has been compiled from what is within our knowledge from our involvement with the company.

Q9 As you have confirmed that the list "should not be considered conclusive", would you kindly inform me of the total amount in round numbers covered by the entries on the list, with dates, and the total income received by the company in each of the years covered by the list?

A9 For the reasons given to you it is not possible to do this without the benefit of Mr Mahmoud's help. I would not like to guess and give you an inaccurate reply.

212. On 13 September 2001 I wrote to Mr Pathan (Annex ii61) thanking him for his letter of 30 August 2001, explaining that I had received it only on 12 September 2001 and that it had probably crossed with mine of 10 September 2001. I expressed my gratitude for his suggested corrections and for providing some information in response to my questions of 10 July 2001. I also asked him to let me have:

— the information he was obtaining from the landlords;

— his estimate of the period covered by the list which he provided for the Committee (with a caveat that I understood that it might not be comprehensive);

— his estimate of the total amount (with the same caveat).

213. I noted that he confirmed that Mr Vaz did not receive any payment from Mapesbury Communications, asked him for his replies to my questions of 10 September 2001 without delay and apologised again for the misunderstanding about the shorthand writer's tape recorder.

214. On 14 September 2001 Mr Bindman (Mr Vaz's solicitor) telephoned my office asking for copies of some of the letters which I had itemised in my letter of 7 September 2001 which he had not received from Mr Vaz.

215. On 14 September 2001 Mr Pathan wrote to me (Annex ii63) thanking me for my letter of 10 September 2001, which he said had obviously crossed with his of 30 August 2001. I received this letter on 25 September 2001. He wrote:

"I made it clear in our meeting of 4th July 2001 in response to your question as to whether the company booked the meeting on 23rd June 1999 that it did not. I expressed surprise at this suggestion, as can be seen from the transcript. I repeated this again at paragraph 2 of my letter of 30th August. If you would let me know who your informant is I can enquire further.

I did not have an office in Mr Vaz's constituency office in June 1999 nor was I employed there. It seems that someone is deliberately giving you false information, if you will let me know who your informant is I can enquire further.

I have now heard from the landlords. They have informed me that the rental per month was £108.33 and that a total of £3,509.83 have been paid to them. Please let me know if you require any further information on this.

I have spent a great deal of time on these matters. Please let me know if my bill of costs could be submitted to you as a reimbursement".

216. On 21 September 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to me (Annex ii64) asking questions about my inquiries and seeking information about the witnesses.

217. On 25 September 2001 I wrote to Mr Pathan (Annex ii65) thanking him for his letter of 14 September 2001, and for answering some of my questions. I reminded him that there were still a number of questions from me to him to which his replies remained outstanding, that when we had met on 4 July 2001 he had kindly said that he would try to obtain the information I needed, and that he had said in his letter of 30 August 2001 that he had written to the company's accountant for the financial information I required. I asked him for a copy of the accountant's letter to him, which I suggested might cover most of the outstanding questions. For ease of reference I listed the outstanding questions as follows:

From my letter of 10 July 2001:

— details of the work which the company carried out for the Asian Business Network and the events organised for the Network;

— the amounts paid in salaries and fees to directors and employees for each year.

From my letter of 13 September 2001:

— his estimate of the period covered by the list which he provided for the Committee [with the caveat as before];

— his estimate of the amount [with caveat as before].

218. In reply to his request for the names of witnesses to my enquiry I wrote: "You ask if I can provide you with the names of witnesses who have provided me with information that may be at variance with yours. As I am sure you will understand I do not provide the names of any witnesses to others during an enquiry. I would not give your name to other witnesses and likewise I would not disclose the names of other witnesses."

219. On 27 September 2001 I wrote to Mr Vaz (Annex ii66) answering the questions he had raised, explaining my procedure with witnesses, and inviting him to include in his response to me any information he wished.

220. On 27 September 2001 Mr Pathan wrote to me thanking me (Annex ii67) for my letter of 13 September 2001, which he suggested had crossed with his of 14 September 2001. He wrote:

"Questions from your letter of 10th July 2001

6. The company accountants have provided me a copy of the published accounts,[110] which I enclose a copy for your information so that you can extract the totals you require.

7. The information I was obtaining from the landlords has been provided to you in my letter of 13th September 2001.

8. I am still trying to work out an estimate by studying the published accounts, but as you appreciate this is extremely difficult, and I doubt this can be done.

Re: Your letter of 10th September 2001

I have replied to this on the 14th September. If you have not received this please let me know so that I can send you copy of the letter.

I have never attended a meeting on behalf of the company at Coleridge Gardens, around October 1988 or any other date."

He told me he was about to go on annual leave.

221. On 28 September 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to me (see Annex i9). He reiterated his statement of 19 March 2000 that "No donation was ever made by the Hinduja brothers". He referred to the account of the Swami Vaswani event in his letter of 26 March (see Annex i7), and rejected Mr Lansley's suggestion that the payment by the Hinduja Foundation to Mapesbury Communications undermined this denial of any such donations (see paragraph 16).

222. Mr Vaz reminded me of the evidence received by the Committee and the evidence of the accountants that no payments were made to him and ended "I can state categorically that I am aware of no other 'transactions' [between himself or Mapesbury Communications or Ms Fernandes and the Hinduja family or Foundation] other than those referred to in this letter and my other communications with you and the Committee".

223. On 1 October 2001 my office received back my letter of 25 September 2001 to Mr Pathan with "No longer at this address" written on the envelope. My office telephoned him on his mobile number (having no other) and spoke to him. He confirmed that the address was correct. My office offered to fax the letter to him. He asked for it to be posted again, and my office did so.

224. On 4 October 2001 Mr Pathan wrote thanking me (Annex ii70) for my letter of 25 September 2001 which he said he had that day received and which had crossed with his of 27 September 2001. He told me again that he was about to go on annual leave. He said that he had answered questions about the list of events organised by Mapesbury in his letter of 30 August. He said that he had replied to the question about work for the Asian Business Network in his letter of 30 August and repeated that the company did not book the event in the Connaught Rooms on 23 June 1999, nor was it involved in it and that he was unaware of any work carried out for the Network. He said that he had answered the questions in my letter of 13 September in his letter of 27 September.

225. On 8 October 2001 I wrote to Mr Pathan (Annex ii71) thanking him for his letters of 14 and 27 September 2001 and for the information he had provided. I said I looked forward to receiving his estimate for the total covered by the list or to being informed in writing that he could not provide it.

226. On 11 October 2001 I replied to Mr Pathan's letter of 4th October 2001 (Annex ii72), noting the points he reiterated and explaining that it was for me rather than for witnesses, such as himself, to make any necessary inquiries.

227. On 11 October 2001 I wrote to Ms Fernandes (Annex i28). In this letter I reminded her:

— that at our meeting and by the same letter I had asked her to obtain certain detailed information about the history and activities of Mapesbury Communications;

— that certain information requested by me in my letter of 14 May 2001 was still outstanding;

— that on 14 September I had written asking certain additional questions.

228. I told her which of my questions to Mr Pathan remained unanswered and what letters I had written to him reminding him of them. Finally I listed the questions to which I still required answers.

229. On 12 October 2001 Mr Pathan wrote to me (Annex ii74) expressing his disappointment that I felt he had provided only "some" information about the company and expressing regret that I had felt it necessary to write again to Ms Fernandes. He said that he had already answered all my questions (though he set out the answers again) but had delayed going on leave to go through them again. He said that he had that day spoken to the accountant who confirmed that there was no stay to the winding up process. He ended by reiterating that it was not only he who had said no payments had been made to Mr Vaz but the accountants themselves.

230. On 13 October 2001 Ms Fernandes wrote to me (Annex ii75). She:

— declined on the grounds of her duty of confidentiality to approach any clients who might be connected with the Hindujas for permission to reveal their names to me;

— declined to furnish information about the legal proceedings in which she was engaged on the grounds that in the past communications had been leaked;

— said that she had referred my request for additional information about Mapesbury Communications Limited to Mr Pathan.

231. Ms Fernandes copied this letter to the Chairman of the Committee under cover of a letter of the same date (Annex ii76), criticising the way I had conducted the inquiry.

232. On 17 October 2001 I acknowledged Ms Fernandes's letter of 13 October 2001.

233. On 19 October 2001 I wrote to Mr Vaz (Annex ii78) putting to him information I had received, and asking him a number of questions about:

— the extent of his involvement with the Asian Business Network;

— a former member of his parliamentary staff who had been an employee of Mapesbury Communications Limited;

— his family relationship with the firm of Wildberry printers.

234. On 22 October 2001 the Chairman of the Committee wrote to Ms Fernandes saying that I was independent in my conduct of investigations and declining to give any blanket assurance that the Committee would accede to requests for deletions from the transcript of our meeting.

235. On 22 October 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to the Chairman of the Committee (Annex ii80), about my procedures and sources of information.

236. On 22 October 2001 (Annex ii79) Mr Vaz wrote to me asking me to forward Mrs Williams's consent to his providing me with her file and asking about the people who had provided me with information.

237. On 24 October 2001 the Chairman replied to Mr Vaz (Annex ii81), explaining the circumstances in which journalists may contribute information to my inquiries and expressing the hope that Mr Vaz would be able to respond promptly to my outstanding questions.

238. On 24 October Mr Vaz telephoned me. He said that he could not provide me with any information in response to Mrs Williams's information without her written consent as he might subsequently be sued by her or her husband.

239. On 29 October 2001 I wrote, by recorded delivery (Annex ii82), to Mr David Golding at the Coleridge House address telling him that I had been told that: "at some time during the period August 1998 to January 2000" he was assisting the Asian Business Network, and that he had collected mail from a rented office in Coleridge House and had used it as an office address, and asking him:

— what is or was the purpose of any such meetings or contacts;

— if he had or had had an office in Coleridge House (and if so when) and which organisations were connected with his office there;

— if he was connected in any way with the Asian Business Network and if so what was the nature and purpose of this connection;

— if he had ever had any contact with Wildberry printers and if so of what kind and for what purpose;

— if he was or had been connected in any way with Mapesbury Communications or had knowledge of the company;

— what contacts he had had with Mr Keith Vaz, MP, Ms Maria Fernandes his wife, Mr Mohammed Pathan, Mrs Sally Williams or Mrs Rita Gresty or any other person connected with Mr Vaz in any way and what was the purpose of any such contacts.

240. Having received no response I wrote again on 12 November 2001 via registered post. No reply was received.

241. On 30 October 2001 Mr Vaz wrote to the Chairman of the Committee (Annex ii83).

242. On 31 October Mr Vaz telephoned my office to say he was redrafting the consent form I had supplied for Mrs Williams and drew attention to an inaccuracy in the attribution of information in my letter of 19 October 2001, for which I apologised.

243. Mr Vaz wrote to me on 3 November 2001 (Annex vi16). He corrected what I had written in that letter, namely, that Mrs Gresty had told me of his involvement with the Into Leadership Conference. He was right to do so; I had by mistake named the wrong person, as the information came from Mrs Williams not Mrs Gresty. I immediately apologised for the error and provided him with a corrected copy of the letter. Nonetheless, the substance of the suggestion, that Mr Vaz's involvement with the Conference was deeper than the information supplied by Ms Fernandes or Mr Pathan had indicated, remained.

244. In the same letter, Mr Vaz:

— sought more detail about my information about the Into Leadership Conference;

— agreed that Mr Pathan had been involved in organising the Conference, but not on his behalf;

— said that Coleridge House was the office of the Asian Business Network which had organised the Conference and that he had probably been there once;

— said that he knew two people called David Barnes and two David Goldings;

— said that the information on 192.com about the address of the Asian Business Network was inaccurate and commented that '70a' had been written on by hand;[111]

— reiterated his Register entries as to his relationship with the Asian Business Network;

— said that the Black Caucus had asked the House authorities for a room and staff access in the Palace of Westminster;

— said that he had agreed to allow access to his office for the conference (presumably—the Into Leadership Conference ) 'organisers' as long as they had their own telephone and paid their own bills and services and that this had been cleared with the House authorities on a number of occasions;

— said that Ms Coco's name was not on the [current] Register of Members' staff held in the Oriel room but that from recollection she had been a part-time overseas intern;

— confirmed that Paul Townsend was his brother-in-law .

245. Mr Vaz wrote to me on 12 November 2001 (Annex ii85), and asked me to forward Mrs Williams's "consent to the publication of her file".

246. On 12 November Mr Vaz wrote to the Chairman of the Committee thanking him for a meeting they had just had and saying he had let me have all the answers I required on 3 November, with the exception of one outstanding matter.

247. Mr Vaz telephoned me on 15 November (Annex ii85A); the discussion centred on the question of Mrs Williams' file.

248. I replied to Mr Vaz on 15 November 2001 (Annex ii86). In my letter I:

— supplied him with the website 192.com print-out showing the Asian Business Network at the Teignmouth Road address;

— sent him the list of staff showing Ms Coco;

— further explained my procedures.

249. Mr Vaz wrote to me on 18 November 2001 (Annex ii87). He:

— criticised again the inaccuracy of my reference to the Into Leadership Conference;

— confirmed (by reference) that Mr Pathan had booked the venue for the Into Leadership Conference;

— agreed that he had spoken to many people involved in the conference as he had been chairing it;

— explained that Mrs Williams's task on the day of the Conference had been to "sit on the late registration desk. This involved the collecting and filing of cheques and recording the names of people who paid on the day";

— said that Mrs Williams would have constructed her own contact list which was not necessarily accurate, and denied that Mr Pathan was his "director of events";

— commented again on the issue of the 'BT website';

— thanked me for the extract from the list of staff but said that the dates of issue and return of a pass were not necessarily the dates on which it was used.

250. On 21 November I wrote to Mr Vaz, returning Mrs Williams' file which did not appear to be relevant to my inquiry.

89 HC (2000-01) 314. Back

90 This interest was first registered on 18 July 1994. Back

91 See paragraph 87. Back

92 I noted in my memorandum of 17 January 2001 (HC 314 (2000-01)), Annex 1, paragraph 100, footnote 27 that it is not clear to what this phrase refers since the only enclosure with Mr Vaz's letter was a copy of the calendar itself. Back

93 HC 314 (2000-01), Annex 1, paragraph 337. Back

94 Ibid paragraph 338. Back

95 HC (2000-01) 314, Appendix 32. Back

96 HC (2000-01) 314. Back

97 Ibid, paragraph 57. Back

98 Ibid paragraph 58. Back

99 HC314 (2000-01), Annex 18. Back