PRAKASH HINDUJA

  6.1. I have already explained in Chapter 1, paragraph 1.2, why I have decided also to investigate the approaches made to the Home Office in relation to Mr Prakash (also known as "PP") Hinduja's interest in naturalisation, in so far as they are relevant to my review of Mr S P Hinduja's naturalisation application.

Background

  6.2. The first time when Mr Prakash Hinduja comes into the picture, as far as this Review is concerned, is when Mr Mandelson handed a letter to Mr Straw in May 2000. The letter in question was written by Mr G P Hinduja (attached at Annex S) and asked Mr Mandelson's advice on whether the Home Office were likely to approach a citizenship application from Prakash in a positive way. Mr G P Hinduja anticipated potential problems. Mr Prakash Hinduja would need to become a permanent resident of the UK and would also need to meet the residence requirement in terms of spending more time in the United Kingdom. But Mr G P Hinduja concluded that:

"the benefits he would bring as a UK citizen would far outweigh any hurdles that there may be.".

  6.3. Mr Mandelson did not recall how he received Mr G P Hinduja's letter of 18 May 2000. He thought that he might have been given it at a meeting with Mr G P Hinduja, or it might have been sent to him by post. Mr Mandelson said that he then passed the letter on to Mr Straw, as Home Secretary, without comment. Mr Straw thought that he had been asked to sort the matter out quickly, although this might have been a reference to giving Mr G P Hinduja a prompt reply to his letter rather than any priority if he, Prakash Hinduja, provided any future application for citizenship. Mr Mandelson appears to have handled this letter entirely properly, in that he passed it to the Home Office to consider without further comment.

  6.4. I have been unable to establish how exactly the letter passed from Mr Mandelson to Mr Straw. But this is not an issue of any significance.

  6.5. On receipt of the letter, Mr Straw wrote a manuscript note on his copy to the private secretary in his private office who dealt with immigration and nationality issues, Dr Mara Goldstein. Mr Straw's manuscript note said:

"Mara—Mr Mandelson raised this matter with me. Please have a word first then get some advice.".

  Mr Straw had written underneath this:

"? Zola Budd"

  a comment which he had circled. Mr Straw does not appear to have discussed this reference to Ms Budd with Dr Goldstein. When I met him, Mr Straw recalled that there had been some attention focussed on Ms Budd, an athlete, when she was granted British citizenship under the previous Government, but he could not recall why he had referred to her in this way on the top of Mr G P Hinduja's letter. I do not regard this as significant.

  6.6. Dr Goldstein told me that Mr Straw passed her the letter from Mr G P Hinduja on 25 May 2000. Mr Straw had asked her whether she knew who the Hindujas were. Dr Goldstein had said that she did not. She told me that Mr Straw said that the Hindujas brought a lot of business into the United Kingdom and that the letter from Mr G P Hinduja should be considered by the Home Office in that context.

  6.7. Having given Mr G P Hinduja's letter to his office, Mr Straw wrote Mr Mandelson a hand-written acknowledgement on 25 May 2000 (Annex T). This said that he was:

"following the matter up personally and will be back in touch as soon as I can."

  The letter was marked "Personal". Mr Straw said that it was his usual practice to write personal acknowledgements in this way when he received letters from close colleagues. Ms Hilary Jackson, his principal private secretary, confirmed this and said that it was also Mr Straw's usual practice to take a copy of these hand-written letters so that they could be placed on the file in the Home Office. Mr Mandelson said that he was slightly surprised by the personal note from Mr Straw, but thought that this was consistent with Mr Straw's normal practice. Mr Mandelson's view was that Mr Straw was a considerate Minister who liked to deal with colleagues in a courteous way. He did not think that there was anything improper about the fact that Mr Straw had written him a manuscript acknowledgement in this way.

  6.8, I agree with this interpretation. Mr Mandelson was a high profile and senior Government colleague and Mr Straw would have wanted to demonstrate to Mr Mandelson, as he would other such colleagues, that the matter which he had raised with Mr Straw was being dealt with efficiently and properly.

  6.9. Mr Goldstein e-mailed Mr Walmsley in the Nationality Directorate in Liverpool on 25 May 2000 to ask him to telephone her so that they could discuss the letter from Mr G P Hinduja. She had sent it to him on the same day asking him to:

"look at this request and provide advice as soon as possible and certainly by 15 June".

  On the typed covering sheet which accompanied Mr G P Hinduja's letter, Dr Goldstein had described the subject of the letter as:

"British citizenship request of Prakash Hinduja. Letter from Mr Mandelson to Home Secretary, 18 May".

  When we met her on 31 January, Dr Goldstein explained that this was an error and that, in fact, there had been no letter from Mr Mandelson, just the one from Mr G P Hinduja.

  6.10. Since she had not heard from Mr Walmsley, Dr Goldstein telephoned him on 31 May 2000 and spoke to one of Mr Walmsley's colleagues, Mr Tony Dalton. Mr Dalton took a message which he passed on to Mr Walmsley by e-mail. This e-mail message to Mr Walmsley said:

"Mara Goldstein telephoned me today because she was unable to contact you.

She said she had faxed you details of a request made to the Home Secretary in a letter dated 18 May on behalf of Prakash Hinduja. This is a sensitive case because of the prominence of the family. They have all been granted British citizenship except for Prakash Hinduja who is resident in Switzerland and visits the UK periodically. The family have considerable business interests which can bring benefit to UK interests. The Home Secretary would like the case to be dealt with "helpfully".

Mara asked me to pass this message on to you—she is concerned that the case should be dealt with quickly.".

  6.11. I was particularly interested to know what Dr Goldstein understood by the phrase:

"the Home Secretary would like the case to be dealt with "helpfully"

  and whether this indicated that the Home Secretary wanted Mr Prakash Hinduja to be given any form of priority or special treatment. Dr Goldstein said that she thought that Mr Straw's attitude to this case had been that, as the Hindujas brought certain benefits to the United Kingdom, he would want the Home Office to do what it could, within the rules, to grant naturalisation. Dr Goldstein said that this was not an unusual way for Mr Straw to approach such a case. She thought that if Mr Straw thought that he had come across a deserving case then he was in favour of officials using their discretion to decide in favour of the applicant, as long as that would be within the rules.

  6.12. Mr Straw confirmed this interpretation. He said that, in his view, the word "helpfully" meant that he wanted the matter dealt with properly, as was his approach to all cases, but that if it was right, within the rules, to exercise discretion in this case, then the Home Office should look to do so. Mr Straw said that he had not been proposing that Prakash Hinduja should be given citizenship just because he might bring benefits to the country. He had not wanted officials to depart, in any way, from the usual rules or processes for granting nationality. In sum, he had wanted them to approach Mr G P Hinduja's letter sympathetically, but strictly within the rules. Mr Walmsley put a similar interpretation on the word "helpfully". Mr Dalton said that Dr Goldstein had not explained to him what she had meant by "helpfully" as this had not arisen in the conversation.

  6.13. Having heard these accounts, I am satisfied that the use of the word "helpfully" did not have any suspicious connotations, nor did it suggest that the Home Secretary wished to give Mr Prakash Hinduja any preferential treatment which he would not have offered in other cases of this kind. During my interview with him on 31 January, Mr Straw said that he had, also, recently, been asked to deal with the nationality cases of two international musicians. He thought that both of these musicians were deserving and would benefit the United Kingdom if they became citizens. He therefore had asked for their cases to be considered in much the same way as he had suggested in the case of Mr Prakash Hinduja. I am also satisfied that, at no time, did Mr Straw suggest that officials should consider the enquiry from Mr G P Hinduja in any way which was outside the usual nationality rules or processes.

  6.14. I also asked Dr Goldstein why she had asked for advice from Mr Walmsley:

"as soon as possible, and certainly by 15 June"

  and whether this was an indication that Mr Prakash Hinduja was being given priority. Dr Goldstein said that giving officials this amount of time to provide advice to the Home Secretary (in this case, one month after the date of Mr G P Hinduja's letter; 21 days from receipt of the letter) was her usual practice. It did not represent preferential treatment.

  6.15. Dr Goldstein said that she had asked for the papers to be brought forward on 15 June and telephoned Mr Walmsley on that date to chase up the response to Mr Hinduja's letter. Again, Dr Goldstein said this was her usual practice. This was corroborated by Ms Jackson, who confirmed that Dr Goldstein had a very effective "Bring Forward" system and would speak to officials if advice had not been received by the date it had been requested.

  6.16. Mr Walmsley's advice arrived on 22 June 2000, in the form of a submission to the Home Secretary (Annex U). Unlike his submission of 14 August 1998 in relation to Mr S P Hinduja, this submission was copied to the Immigration Minister, the Permanent Secretary and others in the usual way. Mr Walmsley's submission concluded that "on the face of it" it was unlikely that Mr Prakash Hinduja, who at the time lived in Switzerland, would meet the requirements that he should have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Attached to the submission was a draft letter for Mr Straw to send to Mr Mandelson, which reported this advice. This letter, with some drafting amendments, but none of substance, was sent on 26 June 2000 (Annex V). At the end of the letter, Mr Straw had added a manuscript note:

"I hope this is helpful. I'd be happy to have a further word with you.".

  6.17. Dr Goldstein had annotated the submission:

"You asked for a positive approach. Seems you do have discretion, but Andrew proposes he discusses with the solicitor first. Content with this approach for now and ask AW to report back to you in 1 month?".

  6.18. Mr Straw ticked and initialled the submission.

  6.19. The letter of 26 June 2000 to Mr Mandelson had suggested that Mr Walmsley would contact Mr Hinduja's solicitors to:

"offer advice on how he might obtain settlement under the immigration rules and on the timing of any application for citizenship." .

  Although Dr Goldstein had changed Mr Walmsley's draft letter to make the tone friendlier, this part of the letter was not changed. Having spoken to Mr Walmsley about this, I am satisfied that the suggestion that he would contact the solicitors did not indicate any preferential treatment for Mr Hinduja, but was an example of Mr Walmsley trying to provide a helpful service to applicants and their representatives. Following his involvement with the cases of Mr GP and Mr SP Hinduja, Mr Walmsley said that he would have previously had a number of dealings with the Hindujas' solicitor, Mr Richard Hoare, previously. Mr Straw said that, on reading the draft letter, he had wondered whether it was usual practice for an official to approach the solicitors direct, but thought that if Mr Walmsley was willing to initiate contact with the solicitors, so be it.

  6.20. Mr Mandelson told me that, on receipt of the letter of 26 June 2000 from Mr Straw, he would have copied the letter to Mr G P Hinduja in the normal way. He confirmed that he had had no further contact with the Home Office about Mr Prakash Hinduja's naturalisation and did not know what had happened in relation to it following his contact with the Home Secretary. I have found no evidence to contradict this.

  6.21. Meanwhile, back in the Home Office, Dr Goldstein chased up a progress report at the end of August 2000, but was told that Mr Prakash Hinduja's legal advisers were in no hurry to take forward his application for naturalisation. She therefore let matters lie.

Findings

  6.22. I do not believe that there is anything suspicious about Mr Straw's hand-written letter of 25 May 2000; the use of the words "helpfully" or "positive" in respect of Mr Prakash Hinduja's interest in naturalisation; the efficiency with which Dr Goldstein chased a response from officials; or Mr Walmsley's suggestion that he contact the solicitors direct.

  6.23. I am satisfied that Mr G P Hinduja's letter of 18 May 2000 was dealt with entirely properly by Mr Mandelson, Mr Straw and his office and the Nationality Directorate in the Home Office.