Keith Vaz comes under fire again

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, MARCH 13.Less than a week after the Hammond inquiry cleared him of any wrongdoing in the Hindujas' passport case, the Minister for Europe, Mr. Keith Vaz, was under fire again today triggering demand for his resignation and putting a question mark over his future after the general election. This followed an indictment of his behaviour by a parliamentary watchdog committee which inquired into a raft of allegations over his business links and constituency affairs. While the committee did not uphold most of the charges, it rebuked him for `obstructing' the inquiry by refusing to cooperate with it and was seen to be in breach of the MPs' code of conduct. The commissioner of the Commons Standards Committee, Ms. Elizabeth Filkin, in her report described it as a ``particularly unusual case'' in terms of difficulty she had in obtaining information from him and his associates including his wife.

She said she was faced with ``contradictory statements made by some witnesses and the failure on the part of Mr. Vaz to provide full and accurate answers to certain of my questions - in some cases, throughout the inquiry, in others until evidence was produced from other sources''. Inquiry into eight complaints could not be completed for want of cooperation from Mr. Vaz and other witnesses. These included the allegation that he solicited and received money from a Leicester businessman, Mr. Jaffer Kapasi, for helping him with building plans. Mr. Kapasi who had made the allegation retracted it before the inquiry but the committee found his retraction `unconvincing'.

Another complaint that Ms. Filkin could not complete related to the Minister's alleged use of money from a company in which his wife and mother are directors to fund his parliamentary office disclosing the sources of its income. Ms. Filkin observed: ``I remain of the view that Mr. Vaz could and should have been more candid and forthcoming.....it appears beyond doubt that Mr. Vaz had direct access to the relevant information and could have provided it to me himself if he had wished to do''.

In another case, while the committee dismissed the charge that he took money from a solicitor, Mr. Sarosh Zaiwalla, for recommending him for an honour it criticised him for ``lack of openness with Ministers when making a recommendation for an honour''. It said Mr. Vaz should have disclosed his connections with Mr. Zaiwalla while making the recommendation.

The fact that the committee cleared Mr. Vaz of most of the charges was overshadowed by its sharp criticism of non- cooperation which extended to Labour officers in his Leicester East constituency. They have been criticised for being ``consistently unhelpful'' to Ms. Filkin and `frustrating' her investigation. The Tories were quick to dub him `Mr. Stonewall' and the shadow foreign secretary, Mr. Francis Maude, declared that he was ``unfit to be a Minister'' and should be sacked. Mr. Vaz's solicitor, Mr. Geoffrey Bindman, denied that the Minister did not cooperate with Ms. Filkin and said that ``in some cases he did not answer questions because he wasn't even told what the allegations were''. ``The fact is that it is Mr. Vaz who had been treated very unfairly by the wild allegations against him''.

Mr. Vaz in a statement said he was ``absolutely delighted at the complete rejection by the committee.....of all the allegations made against me save one which was raised by the commissioner herself''. He said: ``While I fully support the need to ensure that MPs maintain the highest possible standards of probity the present procedures give too much latitude to the purveyors of lies and malice.''

Even as Downing Street stated that the Prime Minister had full confidence in Mr. Vaz, there was speculation that his vulnerability to controversies was turning him into a political embarrassment and he may not return to the Government after the elections.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Mori faces censure motion
Next     : Foot and mouth scare hits U.K. tourism