Who is this shamed Keith Vaz?

Who is this Keith Vaz, British Labour Party MP leading a campaign against Sri Lanka. According to reports he is a supporter of the LTTE. But, there is much more. He was once banned from the House of Commons for sleaze.

How can he point a finger at Sri Lanka when he has got four fingers and more to point at him. In the interest of Sri Lankans we reproduce some of the articles and news items published in the year 2002 about the shamed Keith Vaz who is now making a desperate attempt to disgrace our motherland - Sri Lanka.

***

Dramatic fall for Vaz

Sleaze allegations: BBC's Sarah Nelson considers how a man so popular in his Leicester constituency lost favour in the Commons.

When Keith Vaz was re-elected last year, the Leicester East MP, Britain's first Asian member of parliament, had a bigger majority than either of the city's two other Labour MPs, with a higher turnout.

A background of ongoing investigations into sleaze allegations seemed to have little or no effect - locally the former Europe minister is praised as an excellent MP who has served his constituents well.

So how come his peers at Westminster have recommended he be suspended from the House of Commons for a month, for contempt and serious breaches of the code of conduct for MPs?

The answer lies in the work of Elizabeth Filkin, Parliament's sleaze watchdog, who has investigated allegations against him not once but twice.

And ironically, it's what Vaz did after the second batch of allegations were made, rather than anything he did to prompt the investigation in the first place, which has led to his likely suspension.

Essentially he claimed that a woman who had made an allegation against him had phoned his sick mother and harassed her.

What has shocked the committee of MPs who have to judge him is that this allegation was not true - and it could have "intimidated" or "undermined" the woman concerned.

The police were called in by Vaz and they interviewed her.

MPs also found that Vaz set Elizabeth Filkin on a false line of inquiry by asking her to investigate the phone call, and then, when she did ask questions, he accused her of interfering in a criminal investigation where police were involved.

MPs decided this amounted to contempt, and that is why he should be suspended. These are serious charges and next week MPs will vote on whether to accept Vaz's suspension - all the signs are they will. Mired as he has been in allegations of sleaze in the past year, Vaz has found it difficult to find trusted political friends to come to his aid publicly.

No Labour MP has spoken in his defence now this latest report has been published. The prime minister did give him his backing just before the last general election - but Vaz was not reappointed to government and lost his job as Europe minister in the reshuffle.

And Downing Street has issued a curt "no comment" when asked about the suspension.

If there is any comfort for Vaz, it is that this report is the final "hurrah" for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Ms. Filkin.

She has her supporters in the Commons - but not many and this will be her last report. Vaz feels that another commissioner might have found very differently in his case.

It may also be that Vaz also would have acted differently - but he is likely to have a month to reflect on that very soon.

BBC-February 8, 2002

***

Vaz faces Commons suspension

Serious breaches: Former Europe Minister Keith Vaz faces being suspended from the House of Commons for a month for misconduct. The Commons standards and privileges committee has found Mr Vaz committed serious breaches of the MPs' code of conduct and showed contempt for the House of Commons.

Mr Vaz said he thought the punishment was "disproportionate" and he hoped natural justice will prevail.

He says the report has been rushed out and published before the full facts were known.

But his claim that the police would be investigating the matter further have been denied by Leicestershire police.

In a statement, the force said there was no evidence that a witness had made malicious calls to Mr Vaz's mother, as the ex-minister claimed.

The MPs' recommendation will now have to be approved by a Commons vote but it is almost unheard of for the Commons to turn down such a recommendation. The findings follow an investigation by parliamentary standards commissioner Elizabeth Filkin, who leaves her job next week.

Response to Filkin

Mr Vaz was under investigation over complaints that he had not fully declared his financial links to the Hinduja brothers, whose passport applications caused the storm that saw Peter Mandelson resign from government.

MPs on the committee said they would have been satisfied with an apology for the complaints upheld against him had it not been for the way he treated Ms Filkin's investigation. "We have found that Mr Vaz committed serious breaches of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House," said the committee.

The one-month suspension will be seen as a serious censure of the Labour MP. The complaints the committee upheld against Mr Vaz were:

* He previously gave "misleading information" to the standards committee and Ms Filkin about his financial relationship to the Hinduja brothers

* He failed to register his paid employment at the Leicester Law Centre when he first entered Parliament in 1987

* He failed to register a donation from the Caparo group in 1993

But the committee's most serious criticism comes about the way Mr Vaz has responded to the investigation of those complaints since February 2000.

Political reaction

The MPs say he refused to put himself before the kind of scrutiny expected of an MP, although he argues he has been "very cooperative".

They also conclude that Mr Vaz "recklessly" made an untrue and damaging allegation that his mother received nuisance telephone calls from a woman making a key complaint against him.

Mr Vaz also accused Ms Filkin of interfering with a criminal investigation after himself setting the MPs' watchdog on a "false line of inquiry", says the report.

But the MP says the police now plan to investigate his claims about the nuisance calls and he accused Ms Filkin of failing to follow her own procedures.

"This report would have been very different had it been completed properly by the new parliamentary commissioner instead of being rushed out as Elizabeth Filkin's last hurrah," added Mr Vaz.

Earlier, former Independent MP Martin Bell said the report on Mr Vaz's conduct would reflect on the prime minister Tony Blair, who has mounted a vigorous defence of Mr Vaz in the past.

Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith says Mr Blair should now "make clear whether his defence of Mr Vaz is still absolute."

Liberal Democrat spokesman Norman Baker said: "Today's decision brings into question why Mr Vaz was allowed to remain in ministerial office for as long as he did."

Before last year's general election, Mr Blair said each time allegations had been levelled at Mr Vaz they were found to be groundless but critics just moved to another set of claims.

Resignation

An investigation last year upheld only one minor charge against Mr Vaz, out of a total of 18, and the standards committee took no disciplinary action.

But Ms Filkin said she could not complete her inquiries on another eight complaints because she said Mr Vaz failed to give her prompt and clear answers.

Mr Vaz, who was last year cleared of wrongdoing over the Hinduja passports affair, resigned from the government after the general election, citing ill health.

BBC - February 8, 2002

****

Keith Vaz: What the report said

Report: The Standards and Privileges Committee report entitled Complaints against Keith Vaz has been published. Here are its main findings:

Complaints Upheld

"Mr Vaz provided misleading information to the former Committee and the Commissioner [Elizabeth Filkin] about the financial relationship between his family and the Hindujas."

"Mr Vaz failed to register remunerated employment in the Leicester Law Centre when he first entered Parliament in 1987. In the circumstances we do not regard Mr Vaz's failure to register this interest as serious. A newly-elected MP could easily make this mistake."

"Mr Vaz failed to register a donation from the Caparo Group in March 1993 within the time allowed by the rules. We reject his claim his registration [in October 1994] of the second such donation, which he received in August 1994, somehow covered the first donation as well.

"We do not regard Mr Vaz's initial failure to register as particularly serious, but he should have admitted his shortcoming frankly."

"Mr Vaz failed in his duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct by refusing to submit himself to the scrutiny appropriate to his office as a Member."

"Mr Vaz recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the Commissioner, which was not true, and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermined her credibility.

"Miss Eggington and Mrs Gresty were interviewed by the police as a direct result of his intervention.

"Having set the Commissioner on a false line of inquiry Mr Vaz then accused her of interfering in a criminal investigation and threatened to report her to the Speaker."

"Mr Vaz failed in his public duty under the Code of Conduct "to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in (him)". By wrongfully interfering with the House's investigative process he also committed a contempt of the House."

Complaints not upheld

"That the Hinduja brothers made payments to Mapesbury Communications Limited which constituted a benefit to Mr Vaz which he failed to register."

"That Mr Vaz received registrable benefits from the Hinduja brothers in return for seeking, mainly through his wife, preferential treatment of immigration issues on behalf of the Hinduja family or business, and that Mr Vaz failed to register those benefits."

"That he received free office accommodation at the Hinduja Foundation which he failed to register as a benefit.

"That Mr Vaz obtained payments or benefits via Mapesbury Communications Limited. The Commissioner said she had received no hard information to link payments into Mapesbury with payments or benefits to Mr Vaz."

"Mr Vaz appears to have fulfilled the registration requirements (with regard to his property interests) and he has now confirmed that since he became a Member he has had no financial interest in any property which is not listed in the table included in the Commissioner's memorandum."

"The Commissioner reported she had not been able to conclude her inquiries into the complaint Mr Vaz had employed an illegal immigrant as a domestic servant, and had held her passport in his constituency office as a means of exerting improper influence over her.

"Having weighed that evidence against the evidence provided in support of the complaint we do not uphold the complaint."

"That Mr Vaz inappropriately intervened in a criminal investigation by the Intervention Board and that he failed to declare to a civil servant an interest in a company under investigation by the Board."

"The Commissioner reported that she had not been able to conclude her inquiries into the allegation Mr Vaz had failed to register a remunerated directorship with General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) or its subsidiary.

This was because GMH had not provided documentary evidence relating to Mr Vaz's appointment as a director which would have settled the conflict in the evidence submitted to her... so we do not uphold the complaint."

Conclusion

"Of the original eleven allegations made against Mr Vaz we have not upheld eight. "We have upheld three, two of which we do not regard as serious.

"If that had been all, we would have recommended an apology to the House. Regrettably two further matters have arisen from the way Mr Vaz responded to the allegations against him investigated by the Commissioner.

"We have found he committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and a contempt of the House. "We recommend that Mr Vaz be suspended from the service of the House for one month."

BBC - February 08, 2002

 Shamed Vaz banned from Commons over sleaze

Marie Woolf

SUSPENSION: Keith Vaz is to be suspended from the House of Commons for a month after he committed "serious breaches" of the MPs' code of conduct, provided false information to Elizabeth Filkin and tried to obstruct an inquiry into his activities.

Internal links

The 'nabob of the network' who never undersold his own self-importance In 450 pages, the damning verdict on bullying Vaz is laid bare by MPs Keith Vaz is to be suspended from the House of Commons for a month after he committed "serious breaches" of the MPs' code of conduct, provided false information to Elizabeth Filkin and tried to obstruct an inquiry into his activities.

The former Europe Minister was also rebuked by a powerful committee of MPs for "recklessly" making an untrue and damaging allegation to the police against a witness who made a complaint against him.

He was also accused of undermining Elizabeth Filkin, the Parliamentary commissioner for standards, and of wasting police time. The House of Commons standards and privileges committee ruled that the Labour MP, who has consistently enjoyed the support of Tony Blair, was guilty of "contempt" of the Commons by "wrongfully interfering with the House's investigative process."

The punishment - the harshest meted out to a Labour MP - is to be approved by the Commons next week. It will prove hugely embarrassing to the Labour Government and further undermine public confidence in Parliament.

Mr Vaz was also rebuked for failing to answer MPs' questions about his business affairs, and misleading the inquiry with inaccurate information.

The scathing report follows an exhaustive second inquiry by Elizabeth Filkin, who leaves her job next week, into Mr Vaz's tangled financial affairs. The standards committee upheld only three of 11 allegations made against Mr Vaz, two of which were not seen as serious.

But it was his failure to cooperate and apparent attempts to intimidate witnesses that led to the decision to suspend him. "Mr Vaz failed in his public duty under the Code of Conduct to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in (him)," the committee said.

"By wrongfully interfering with the House's investigative process he also committed a contempt of the House." Some MPs on the Labour dominated Standards and Privileges Committee wanted Mr Vaz suspended for more than a month.

The punishment, which was also inflicted the Tory MP Teresa Gorman two years ago, will mean he is barred from debates but can continue to act as a constituency MP when the decision is rubber-stamped next week.

Yesterday Mr Vaz withdrew his name from a string of Commons motions. He was unrepentant and claimed the report had been rushed through by Elizabeth Filkin, ahead of her controversial departure. In a thinly-veiled attack on her, he implied that her successor would have a more balanced approach to the job.

He pointed out that most of the allegations against him had been thrown out. "Two minor one have been sustained, to do with the law centre many years ago and a donation which I subsequently put on the record."

Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said: "For Keith Vaz to be suspended from the House is a very serious charge indeed. It means he has misled the House and the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. I think Tony Blair also has to answer some questions because he was the one backing up Mr Vaz before the general election."

Last year Mrs Filkin had accused Mr Vaz of deliberately obstructing her inquiries. In yesterday's report the MP was not only accused of failing to co-operate but of supplying misleading information.

Both inquiries investigated Mr Vaz's links with millionaire Indian industrialists, the Hinduja brothers. He claimed, in the first inquiry, that the Hindujas had never made a donation to Mapesbury Commun- ications, a company he set up to receive earnings from activities outside Parliament. His wife, Maria Fernandes is the sole shareholder.

But the Hindujas have now told the Commissioner that they had made "several payments through their businesses" to the firm.

Independent-February 4,2002

****

Mrs Vaz ordered to submit papers

Financial affairs: The wife of Europe Minister Keith Vaz has been ordered to hand financial documents to Parliament's "sleaze watchdog".

The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee told Maria Fernandes to submit accounts from the family's Mapesbury Communications PR and publishing company by 1200 BST on Friday. The move comes after an investigation into the minister's financial affairs was reopened.

Ms Fernandes - a director of the firm - must list all payments of pound 1,000 or more to or from the company. Mr Vaz has been on sick leave since collapsing in March in the wake of a previous investigation. In a statement issued through the Labour Party on Friday the firm said the response to the new order was "in the post".

It also pointed out the committee had already seen the list.

It is understood MPs on the committee are determined to ensure there is no link between the company and the Hinduja brothers.

Inquiry problems

An earlier inquiry by Standards and Privileges Commissioner Elizabeth Filkin covered 18 allegations of wrongdoing against the Leicester East MP.

Mr Vaz was criticised for failing to disclose links to a lawyer he had recommended for an honour in 1997. The matter was considered too minor for punishment, and he was cleared of nine other counts.

But Mrs Filkin said there was insufficient evidence to decide on the other eight charges and accused him of obstructing her investigation, saying he refused to answer all her questions.

A newspaper subsequently revealed that the company received nearly pound 1,200 from the Indian-born tycoons' Hinduja Foundation, to pay for a lecture in Parliament by an Indian spiritual leader.

But Mr Vaz dismissed the payment, saying he had checked with the Commons Register of Members' Interests and Mrs Filkin and was told he did not need to register the company. He also said the payment had been of no benefit to Mapesbury, to any member of my family, or to him personally.

But the Tories, led by shadow cabinet office minister Andrew Lansley, complained and a new investigation was begun.

Hinduja brothers

On Friday Mr Lansley welcomed the decision to order the handover of the documents. "It is right for the committee to be undertaking their inquiries with rigour and with speed since Parliament is to be dissolved on Monday," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Mr Lansley said: "Before the election I think members in Mr Vaz's constituency and the public generally should be able to assess whether he has met the requirements of the Code of Conduct for MPs." He also said the public should be allowed to decide "whether Mr Blair was right to retain his services as a senior member of the government."

The Hindujas are currently in India facing charges linked to a corruption scandal. They were the subject of a passport inquiry earlier this year, which led to the ministerial downfall of Peter Mandelson.

In an earlier version of this story we said that "Mr Vaz was found guilty of improperly tipping a lawyer for an honour." We would like to make clear the report criticised Mr Vaz for failing to disclose that a "financial relationship" existed between him and the lawyer in question.

The report also concluded that: "We do not believe the recommendations (for an honour) were made because of the two small payments."

BBC-May 11, 2001