V ALLEGATIONS THAT MR VAZ MAY
HAVE MISLED OR SOUGHT TO OBSTRUCT THE COMMITTEE OR ME
832. The complaints from Mr Robathan, Mr Lansley
and Miss Eggington which related to matters examined during the
previous inquiry implied that Mr Vaz may have been less than frank
with the Committee, or with me, and thereby may have misled us.
In addition the information provided by the Today Programme
and the Daily Telegraph raised questions about whether
Mr Vaz had used the opportunity provided by the previous inquiry
to ensure his Register entries concerning his property interests
were complete. The information provided by the Financial Times
raised similar questions about whether Mr Vaz's Register entries
were complete with regard to his financial interests.
833. Mr Vaz provided inaccurate or incomplete
information in some instances during this and the previous inquiry
which he has not sought to correct, for example:
— Mr Vaz said to
the then Chairman and me that neither he nor his wife had received
payments from the Hinduja brothers. This is untrue;
— Mr Vaz also avoided answering questions
fully; for example, he has still not confirmed as complete the
information, which I have sent him to check, about his UK property
interests and he has failed to give me answers to my questions
about whether and, if so, for what purpose he held Mrs Matin's
passport. Mr Vaz has failed to provide adequate information to
settle the question about the relationships, if any, between Mapesbury
Communications Limited, Wildberry and the Asian Business Network
or any of these.
834. Moreover, some of the information provided
by others with whom Mr Vaz is closely associated, such as Ms Fernandes
and Mr Pathan, cannot be described as full and frank (see paragraphs
733-734). In particular, as directors of Mapesbury Communications
Limited they have been unwilling to provide answers to simple
questions.
835. Most importantly, Mr Vaz has given me inaccurate
information about complainants or witnesses. I have concluded
that this information was given to me by Mr Vaz to mislead me
about the motives and credibility of Mr Peene, Miss Eggington
and Mrs Gresty (see paragraph 751).
836. By the actions and omissions that I have
set out in detail in this memorandum, Mr Vaz seriously misled,
and sought to obstruct, the Committee and me.
Complaint upheld
13 December 2001
ELIZABETH
FILKIN
| 
