Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards from Mr Geoffrey Bindman, Bindman & Partners,
I write in response to your request in the penultimate
paragraph of your letter of 10th January for further corrections
and you mention in particular appendix 2.
I set out below a number of errors and omissions
in appendix 2 and would be grateful if these could be corrected.
In general, tables do not set out evidence against
the complaint: see e.g. Zaiwalla's own evidence and that of Kapasi
No payment to Mr Vaz has been confirmed, merely to
a charity recommended by Mr Vaz. Hence no initial denial.
Payment to charity not handed to anyone acting
on Mr Vaz's behalf and no such allegation.
Photocopy of cheque has not been provided (does it
make any reference to Mr Vaz?)
Detailed response from Mr Vaz on all claims.
Table does not mention denials by Kapasi himself
including two statutory declarations.
An office held by Mr Vaz's mother is not evidence
against Mr Vaz.
In relation to the 3 alleged cheques, there is no
evidence. Soulsby gives no evidence about them. The Sunday
Times transcript is equivocal and does not support the allegation
His bank statements (which have not been disclosed)
do not, according to his bank, support any allegation that
payments were made to Mr Vaz. The evidence of the Bank directly
contradicts the allegation. Stuttard comments refer to 1997, not
In relation to the 50 Club, there was no supporting
evidence linking Mr Vaz to any payments to the Club. Mr Gratrix
was chairman of the CLP. Neither he nor the Stuttards give any
evidence supporting the allegation.
The premises fund was not for Uppingham Road but
to pay for new premises. It had no connection with Mr Vaz, as
has been made abundantly clear by Mr Vaz and party officers. This
should be recorded.
Mr Vaz is extremely anxious that this investigation
should be concluded as soon as possible. Can you please let me
know when I may expect a reply to my letter of 11 January.
15 January 2001