I INTRODUCTION
752. On Friday 30 November 2001, in accordance
with the procedure agreed by the Committee, I provided Mr Vaz
and his legal adviser with a copy of my memorandum in draft (Sections
I to V and Annexes). In my covering letter I explained the timetable
(Annex I4) and asked for any corrections and further comments
which Mr Vaz might wish to make by 8.30 am on Monday 10 December
2001. During the time Mr Vaz was considering my draft, as I had
said to Mr Vaz, I made necessary corrections to sections I-V and
the Annexes.
753. Mr Vaz made no response to me but he wrote
to the Chairman in a letter dated 7 December 2001 (Annex I5) to
give his reasons for not responding by 10 December 2001. Mr Vaz
asked for his request for more time to respond to this memorandum
to be put to the Committee. The Chairman replied to Mr Vaz on
10 December 2001 (Annex I6). He said that Mr Vaz should include
whatever points he wanted to make in a memorandum and send it
directly to the Committee so that it was in their hands in early
January before the Committee began a detailed consideration of
this memorandum. This memorandum has not therefore had the benefit
of Mr Vaz's corrections of fact, or other comments.
754. In the introduction to this memorandum[158]
I drew attention to the difficulty I had experienced in the previous
inquiry in obtaining information and to the failure of Mr Vaz
to provide full and accurate answers to certain questions. I recalled
that as a result my memorandum was not as complete as the Committee
would expect.
755. In my memorandum to the previous inquiry
I said that:[159]
"I have endeavoured
to establish the truth in relation to the complaints against Mr
Vaz—a task which serves two distinct purposes. The public
interest and fairness demand a clear rebuttal of unfounded allegations.
But they equally require the upholding of any complaint supported
by relevant and credible evidence."
756. I also drew attention to improper pressure
on witnesses and the Committee in their report stated that: "Intimidation
that comes to our attention will be dealt with severely"[160]
757. My aim in this inquiry, as in the earlier
one, was to establish the truth in relation to these complaints
against Mr Vaz. I am sorry to report that my experience during
most of this inquiry has been similar to my experience during
the previous one. Initially Mr Vaz appeared keen to draw a line
under those events and to set the record straight. He undertook
to assist me by providing the necessary information. Mr Vaz suffered
a period of illness during this inquiry and this must have been
somewhat debilitating. However, in the period from June onwards
it was difficult to obtain straight answers from Mr Vaz and his
wife, as the copious correspondence demonstrates. Their approach
has too often been one of obfuscation, prevarication, evasiveness
and delay.
758. As a result I had to make many more enquiries
of other organisations and people than would have been necessary
if Mr Vaz had provided complete and accurate answers when first
requested. This was highly unsatisfactory, because it was time-consuming
and frustrated the inquiry. As a result some of my investigations
are still incomplete.
759. In addition there have been worrying occasions
during this inquiry when a complainant or someone providing information
has felt harassed by Mr Vaz or his wife. Mr Vaz has also reported
a harassing telephone call received by his mother from a complainant.
158 
