Analysis (viii)
(viii) Complaint relating
to Mr Vaz's alleged failure to register a donation from a company
owned by Lord Paul
707. Mr Robathan alleged that Mr Vaz had failed
until 1995 to register a donation received from Lord Paul in 1993
(the first of a series of such gifts) and that, as a result, his
financial relationship with Lord Paul was concealed for two years.
Mr Robathan further contended that Mr Vaz's explanation for the
timing of the registration of the first donation from Lord Paul—namely
that no annual printed Register was published in 1994—was
untenable since the document was issued in February 1994.
708. The facts are that:
— the first cheque
from Caparo, for £3,000, made out to "The Office of
Keith Vaz", was dated March 1993;
— the second cheque from Caparo, for £8,777.25,
made out to "Advance Systems (Computer for Keith Vaz)"
was dated 17 August 1994;
— Mr Vaz first notified the Registrar of
any donation from Caparo on 28 October 1994, using the description
"Computer equipment donated by the Caparo Group";
— the first reference in any annual printed
Register to a donation from Caparo to Mr Vaz was in January 1995
(such a reference had, however, appeared in one of the regular
intermediate updated print-outs dated 21 November 1994, which
was available for public inspection).
709. Mr Vaz explained that the two payments,
of £3,000 in March 1993 and of £8,777.25 in August 1994
were intended for the same purpose—the purchase of computer
and electronic equipment for his office. He further stated that
the "total donation was registered in 1995", although
in the same letter he had referred to the payments as "two
donations". He added: "If there was an unreasonable
delay in registering the first part of the payment I cannot explain
it after this length of time, but I did register it and the purpose
of it".
710. Mr Vaz also said that he had consulted the
Registrar about the registration of donations to him or his office
by Caparo and/or Lord Paul. This statement is correct in so far
as it refers to a meeting with the Registrar in March 2001 and
to the subsequent correspondence between him and Mr Vaz. It is
clear, however, that the Registrar's advice was couched in general
terms and that he was careful not to be drawn into retrospectively
validating Mr Vaz's Register entries relating to Caparo and Lord
Paul—not least because he did not, at that stage, have the
information about the precise timing of the various donations
and of their subsequent registration.
711. Mr Vaz was late in registering the first
donation. It should have been registered within four weeks of
its receipt—not some 19 months later. Mr Vaz has implied
that he regarded the first and second donations as, in effect,
a single gift made in two instalments. This explanation is difficult
to accept given the 17 month gap between them. Unless Mr Vaz was
expecting the second donation to follow within four weeks of the
first, the latter should have been separately, and promptly, registered.
712. It is irrelevant for this purpose whether
or not a printed Register was published in 1994. It is the date
on which a benefit is notified to my office which determines whether
it has been registered in a timely fashion. The second donation
was also registered after the four week grace period had expired,
though in this case the delay only amounted to a few weeks.
713. I also agree with the Registrar's comment
(in his letter to Mr Vaz of 1 May 2001) that, so far as the last
of the four donations in 1997 was concerned, it would have been
better if Mr Vaz had continued to describe the source as "the
Caparo Group" rather than amending it to "Lord Paul".
But there is no evidence that in using this description Mr Vaz
had any intention to mislead the House and I do not therefore
regard it as a matter of great importance.
| 
