House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fifth Report

III COMPLAINTS AGAINST MR KEITH VAZ MP NOT RELATED TO, OR ARISING DIRECTLY FROM, THE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION

(v) Complaint against Mr Vaz alleging that he employed an illegal immigrant, Mrs Mary Matin, and held her passport in his constituency office as a means of exerting improper influence over her

799. Whether Mrs Matin is, or has been, an illegal immigrant at any time is not a matter for me. On the other hand, if Mr Vaz used his position as a Member of Parliament to make representations to officials and Ministers about Mrs Matin's immigration status, and in return she provided domestic or other assistance to Mr and Mrs Vaz at a reduced rate, or free, Mr Vaz might be considered to have obtained a registrable benefit.

800. The information provided to me about whether Mr Vaz employed Mrs Matin is contradictory.

801. Mrs Gresty says that Mrs Matin received a wage from Mr and Mrs Vaz. But I have been provided with no hard information which supports Mrs Gresty's statement. Mrs Matin and Mr and Mrs Vaz deny that they were in an employer-employee relationship at any time. Mr Vaz described Mrs Matin as a friend of the family.

802. In attempting to resolve this conflict of evidence, I am bound to take account of the fact that, as first-hand observers over a considerable period, Mr and Mrs Gresty have attested to Mrs Matin's employment by Mr Vaz and Ms Fernandes, both at their home and in Ms Fernandes's office. In my view, Mr and Mrs Gresty were credible witnesses. They impressed me as truthful and without malicious motivation. Their accounts are supported by two letters signed by Ms Fernandes and referring to Mrs Matin as follows:

"Mary [Mrs Matin] will be preparing some food for you, Rita [Mrs Gresty] and the kids and passes her best wishes."[

171

"The volume of work has increased... but only to the point where it needs a part-time additional member of staff. Mary [Mrs Matin] was already doing some work [in Ms Fernandes's office] and I know that Rita [Mrs Gresty] found that it helped her..."[172]

803. By contrast, Ms Fernandes inaccurately denied that Fernandes Vaz had told the Immigration Service that they were representing Mrs Matin.

804. From the information I have received it is my assessment that, whether she was paid or not, Mrs Matin devoted considerable time to assisting Mr and Mrs Vaz by performing various domestic tasks and by helping out in Ms Fernandes's office. Nor is it in dispute that Mr Vaz helped Mrs Matin with her immigration affairs by making representations on her behalf to Home Office Ministers and the Immigration Service. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, if Mrs Matin was not paid for her services, or if she was paid an unusually low wage, it was the hope of having her immigration status satisfactorily resolved which tied her to the Vaz household.

805. Mr Vaz has not responded to my questions as to whether he, at any time, held Mrs Matin's passport and, if so, for what purpose.

806. Similarly, I have not been able to conclude my enquiries as to whether there was an employment relationship between Mr and Mrs Vaz and Mrs Matin, and hence whether any declaration on Mr Vaz's part was necessary when he made his representations to civil servants and Ministers on Mrs Matin's behalf about her immigration status.

Inquiries incomplete

(vi) Complaint against Mr Vaz that he inappropriately intervened in a criminal investigation by the Intervention Board and that he failed to declare to a civil servant an interest in a company under investigation by the Board

807. Mr Peene was a civil servant who, in March 1999, was engaged in an anti-fraud inquiry for the Intervention Board into a company in which Mr Peene alleged Mr Vaz had an interest. Mr Peene says that during a meeting about his personal matters at Mr Vaz's constituency office, Mr Vaz raised this anti-fraud inquiry with him.

808. Immediately after the meeting Mr Peene reported to his superiors Mr Vaz's enquiry about this highly confidential matter. Mr Peene's action in this respect has been confirmed to me by the Intervention Board. Mr Peene says that his wife was present at the meeting with Mr Vaz and confirms that Mr Vaz raised this matter with Mr Peene.

809. Mr Vaz denies both that he had any connection with the company under investigation and that he raised the anti-fraud inquiry with Mr Peene. Mr Vaz says it was Mr Peene who broached the matter of the inquiry with him during the period when he was helping Mr Peene as a constituent. Mr Vaz's case file, which I have checked, does not record this.

810. I have no reason to doubt Mr Peene's account of what was raised at the meeting but I have been provided with no information which demonstrates that Mr Vaz had a financial, or other, link with the company under investigation by the Intervention Board in 1999.

811. I have, however, been most concerned at Mr Vaz's attempts to undermine Mr Peene's credibility rather than to deal with the allegations by providing me with the facts.

812. I regard Mr Vaz's statement that he did not understand Mr Peene's complaint, which in my view Mr Peene had stated with clarity, as disingenuous.

Complaint not upheld

(vii) Allegation that Mr Vaz failed to register a remunerated directorship with General Mediterranean Holding or its subsidiary

813. Mr Vaz says that in 1999 he was offered, and accepted, a non-executive directorship of General Mediterranean Holding (UK) Ltd at an annual fee of $20,000. Mr Vaz made a Register entry to that effect in a letter dated 28 April 1999. That entry did not, however, appear in any regular updated printout of the Register since he withdrew it on 19 May 1999, seven days before the next print-out was published. Mr Vaz's explanation to the then Registrar for this action was that he had resigned from the directorship before receiving any remuneration from, or participating in a board meeting of, the company.

814. The information provided to me by Mr Vaz concerning the timing of the offer to him in 1999, and his acceptance of the directorship was confirmed by the company secretary.