Letter to Mr Geoffrey Bindman, Bindman
& Partners, Solicitors, from the Parliamentary Commissioner
I am sorry to have to add further questions
to those in my letters of 3 and 12 October but in the process
of preparing my report I find I do need to clarify some other
facts with Mr Vaz.
1. Please would Mr Vaz check the following
information concerning his property and either confirm that my
understanding is correct or provide me with corrections.
(a) Mr Vaz owns 144 Uppingham Road, which
he uses as his office.
(b) Mr Vaz owns 146 Uppingham Road, which
is his residence.
(c) Mr Vaz has never had any paying tenants
in either property although he allowed Councillor Kamal to live
temporarily at 146 for 5 months prior to 1991.
(d) Mr Thomas has never lived at either property.
(e) Mr Vaz allowed a ground floor room at
146 to be used as a constituency office, rent free for the years
2. Please would Mr Vaz let me know the dates
on which he purchased 144 and 146 Uppingham Road.
3. For the sake of completeness, would Mr
Vaz also give me details of any other properties he owns, their
purpose and the date of purchase.
4. Have any of the funds raised in the constituency
for premises been used, at any time, for the purchase or maintenance
of either 144 or 146 Uppingham Road?
Mr Vaz replied to my enquiries about this company
in his letter of 17 July 2000. He said, "After the calendar
project was abandoned the company continued to trade with new
officers and its own activities." I note from Mr Vaz's letter
of 19 January 1996 to my predecessor that he said he had set up
the company with the purpose of supporting his work with the Asian
community. He said that at that time the directors were his wife
and his mother-in-law.
5. On what date did Mr Vaz cease to be involved
in any way with Mapesbury Communications?
6. During the period 1996 to date were any
payments paid from this company to support Mr Vaz's work as a
Member of Parliament in the manner described to my predecessor?
If so, please give details.
7. At what date did Mrs Vaz and Mr Vaz's
mother-in-law cease to be directors of the company?
8. Am I correct in understanding that although
Mr Vaz set up this company he was never a shareholder in this
I look forward to receiving Mr Vaz's reply to
these questions, along with his replies on the other matters which
19 October 2000