Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fifth Report


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


previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 8 February 2002