Note submitted by the Parliamentary Commissioner
Mr Vaz's response document is divided into two parts.
From page 46 onwards, the response puts forward Mr Vaz's views
on the complaints which I considered, the evidence, including
that provided by Mr Vaz, and my analysis.
Pages 1-45 are much more wide ranging and tendentious.
Along with Mr Vaz's criticisms, they contain numerous inaccuracies
and apparent misunderstandings. The following are examples of
p. 10 Mr Vaz makes inaccurate statements about
the age of the complaints. The Gresty complaint deals with August
1998 to May 2000 rather than being five years old, and the property
complaint includes recent matters for instance the ownership
of the flat in Vanburgh Court, transferred to Mrs Vaz senior in
p. 18 Mr Vaz refers to the list of payments to
Fernandes Vaz in respect of legal work for the Hinduja brothers'
business (Annex i25 page 151). Mr Vaz says 'presumably of the
Hindujas or of companies associated with themand not to
the Hinduja brothers'. This list of payments was provided by the
Hinduja brothers about work carried out for their business.
p. 30 My questions about 70A Teignmouth Road
and its link with the Asian Business Network were not related
to whether Mr Vaz sold the flat in 1997 or 1999. I was pleased
to receive from him the corrected date of 1997 and included it
in my memorandum (see footnote, page 109). The fact that the Asian
Business Network continued to appear in reference works as based
at the address after Mr Vaz sold it is much less significant.
The question, still unanswered, is why it was registered there
in the first place.
p. 30 Mr Vaz says that he wrote to me on 22 August
2001 asking me to confirm that I had nothing more to put to him
and that I replied on 23 August saying I had not. While I did
write those words, my letter (Annex IV 11 page 286) ended 'If
any further information is provided to me which differs in any
way from your answers I will of course put it to you so that you
may respond to it before I take any view on it'.
p. 35 Mr Vaz makes comments about my record of
my meeting with the Telegraph journalists on 29 March (Annex ii
21, page 181). He says 'Mrs Filkin was rather disappointed with
what the Telegraph had turned up. She said 'I had the impression
when this meeting was requested that considerable information
was available which would be given to me. However no further information
was given'. (However I am at a loss to know how she knew this
on 29 March) I can only conclude that this minute was written
in November and not in March as is claimed'. It is not accurate
to suggest a date later than 29 March. The note of the meeting
is perfectly comprehensible. I was not disappointed, this is a
factual record of what occurred in the meeting which I made immediately
after the meeting.
p. 50 Mr Vaz says that 'Mrs Gresty in her letter
of 23 March says she had nothing to do with the company (Mapesbury)
and did not mention me in that context'. So much is true. On the
other hand, in her submission, forwarded by Miss Eggington, of
15 February 2001, which was provided to Mr Vaz, Mrs Gresty said
that in about October 1998 she had taken minutes of a meeting
held under the auspices of Mapesbury PR [Mr Vaz says there was
'no such company' but the resemblance is clear enough] at Coleridge
House (memorandum, para 110, page 24). Mr Vaz accepts, at page
52 of his response, that Mrs Gresty does say she attended a meeting.
On page 83 he says again that Mrs Gresty denies any involvement
p. 74 Mr Vaz suggests that Miss Eggington 'points
the finger at Mrs Filkin or Mr Andrew Pearce from the Home Office
' as the source of the Mail on Sunday' (Annex IV 23 page 495).
Miss Eggington merely says "The only material which could
be argued to be confidential to your client and which I have ever
had in my possession was passed by me to the appropriate public
bodies, i.e: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and
the Head of the Security & Anti-Corruption Unit, Home Office
In addition, there are several serious allegations
that I said things which were in fact said by Mr Vaz. The support
for my version of the conversations is my contemporaneous file
notes; I have therefore not listed them. The file notes are in
18 January 2002 Elizabeth
21 See Appendix 1. Back