Hindujas' affair: Probe report a 'whitewash job'

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, MARCH 10. The Opposition and the media today attacked the Hammond inquiry report on the Hindujas' passport affair calling it a ``whitewash job'', long on ``Whitehall-ese'' and short on hard answers. They criticised Sir Anthony Hammond for not pursuing his own observations to their logical end, and leaving some of the key issues unanswered.

The Guardian described it as a ``classic insider's job, the cosy work of a civil servant who points no fingers and attaches responsibility to no one.'' The Times was struck by Sir Anthony's conclusion that everyone acted in good faith ``even though the stories put in front of him by the major players were transparently inconsistent.'' It said that in exonerating everyone, he had stretched too far Abraham Lincoln's idea of acting with ``malice towards none, with charity for all''. It was convinced that the ``route by which Mr. (S.P.) Hinduja won his citizenship demands further investigation.''

Credibility in doubt

The Shadow Home Secretary, Ms. Ann Widdecombe, questioned the credibility of the findings and wondered how the inquiry came to its conclusions. ``It may not have been the intention for this report to be a whitewash, but anyone reading it must wonder how such conclusions could be reached credibly,'' she said pointing out that report detailed ``massive and inappropriate ministerial involvement'' in the Hindujas' attempt to get British citizenship and yet arrived at conclusions which seemed inconsistent with the information at its disposal.

Mr. Martin Bell, an Independent MP and a former BBC journalist who won the last election on a campaign against sleaze, was disappointed with the report which he thought did not address the crucial issue of favouritism for ``special people.''

``I hoped this would be a government which did not give favours for special people but I am afraid we still have to clean up our act in this country, and this report does not do it.''

The man least satisfied with the report was the Liberal Democrat MP, Mr. Norman Baker, whose parliamentary question triggered the controversy. He said the report showed ``only a corner of the jigsaw rather than the whole puzzle.'' He did not think the main concerns at the heart of the affair would go away. ``

The larger issues such as how the Hindujas managed to get access to the every Cabinet minister while they were being investigated by the security services haven't been addressed. This issue will go on as far as I am concerned,'' he said.

Access to high places

There was widespread concern over the issue of the Hindujas' access to high places and political leaders cutting across party lines thought that ministers and senior civil servants needed to be more discriminating in their social contacts. Some MPs demanded a tougher ministerial code and a more effective mechanism to prevent a replay of the Hindujas' affair.

Some of the questions which the Opposition said had not been answered by the Hammond inquiry were: how the Hindujas were able to gain access to virtually half of the Blair Cabinet; why the MI6's information that the two Hinduja brothers were being investigated in India for alleged corruption was not passed on to the Home Office when it was processing their passport applications; how did the Hindujas get to know that there had been a change in the government policy on naturalisation even before it was announced; and was Mr. S. P. Hinduja's application ``fast-tracked'' because of Mr. Peter Mandelson's telephone call to the then Home Office Minister, Mr. Mike O'Brien?

But for all the criticism, the report does expose the style of functioning at Whitehall and as The Guardian in an editorial pointed out, it has been ``exposed as the amateurish, back- covering world we had always feared.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Albanian rebels open another battle front
Next     : Pak. test-fires missiles