KEITH VAZ MP

  7.1. Because of the prominence which Mr Vaz has received in connection with the subject matter of this review, it is, I believe, appropriate, and also fair to him, to describe his role in the history of the applications for naturalisation by the Hinduja brothers and to put it in the context of the position which he holds in the Asian community in this country. I have interviewed Mr Vaz and he has supplied me with a file of his correspondence. Some of it is contained in the files of the Nationality Directorate. I think that it is right to place on record my impression that he has been open and frank in the way in which he has approached my Review and has willingly provided me with all the information which I have sought.

  7.2. Mr Vaz was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1987. He was the first Asian Member of Parliament since 1922 and until 1992 was the only Asian Member. As such, he became (to use his own words) something of a magnet to members of the Asian community, who looked on him to represent their interests, whether or not they happened to be his constituents. In the nature of things, he became actively involved in issues which concerned the community such as race relations, immigration and nationality. In this role he attended a large number of community events, although he has, necessarily, had to reduce his attendance since becoming a Minister. He has about 35,000 Asians in his Leicester East constituency and is expected to visit parts of India such as Gujarat. As well as being a well-known figure in India, he has, effectively, acquired a national constituency in this country.

  7.3. One of the issues which has attracted comment is the fact that Mr Vaz has, on occasions, taken up cases on behalf of members of the Asian community who are not his constituents. He has explained to me that, where possible, he has referred those who have approached him and who are not his constituents to their constituency MP, but there were some occasions when it was quicker and easier for him to deal with the matter and others when they preferred him to represent their interests.

  7.4. Mr Vaz said that he had met the Hinduja brothers at many functions. Because of their position as leading and wealthy members of the Asian community in this country, most important events involving members of the community were attended by them and some of these were hosted by the Hindujas. It is clear that many prominent politicians of all parties had attended functions hosted by them or at which they were present. Mr Vaz said that he had got to know them very well.

  7.5. Mr Vaz said that he had also been involved in supporting Millennium projects proposed by organisations and members of the Asian community. One of these had been a project called Concordia, a project with a religious theme, proposed by the Hindujas, in Peterborough, which he had, in common with other Asian projects, supported. This project was rejected by the Millennium Commission so it was proposed in 1997 to attempt to get the project accepted for the Dome. On 17 July 1997 Mr Vaz wrote to Mr Mandelson, at the request of the Hindujas, saying that he was disappointed that there were no Asian projects in the Dome and saying that he hoped that it might be accepted for the Dome (see also Chapter 8, paragraph 8.2). Having described Mr Vaz's role in representing the Asian community, I now turn to the handling of the naturalisation applications from the Hinduja brothers. To some extent I have touched on the contacts which Mr Vaz had with the Home Office over these applications in Chapters 4 and 5.

  7.6. The first recorded contact between Mr Vaz and the Home Office over the applications for naturalisation from Mr G P Hinduja and Mr S P Hinduja was in December 1993, when Mr Vaz wrote to Mr Charles Wardle MP, the then Minister in charge of immigration and nationality matters, (that is to say after the applications had been refused in 1991). Mr Vaz's letter is not on the file, but Mr Wardle's reply is. He was clearly asked about the scope for exercising discretion to waive excess absences. Mr Wardle said that he could not give any guarantees about how the discretion would be exercised in a particular case, as much depended on individual circumstances, and advised that new applications should be sent and should be carefully timed (presumably because of the requirement to be in the United Kingdom at the start of the five year period). They should be sent direct to Mr Walmsley, the Head of the then Nationality Division. During 1994, there was further correspondence from Mr Vaz to Mr Walmsley, enquiring about progress.

  7.7. On 23 December 1994 Mr Walmsley wrote to Mr Vaz requesting details about Mr S P Hinduja's absences from the United Kingdom over the past five years and confirmation from the tax authorities that he was resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes. In February 1997, Mr Vaz wrote again, enquiring about progress about the applications from both brothers (but without supplying any details). In March 1997 Mr Walmsley replied giving the up-to-date position. Mr Walmsley's submission of 3 July 1997 recommending that Mr G P Hinduja be granted naturalisation (see Chapter 4 above) mentioned that the matter had been raised orally by Mr Vaz with Mr O'Brien, although there is no record of when that took place. The next letter on the file from Mr Vaz is one of 15 October 1998 recording a telephone conversation with Mr Walmsley about Mr S P Hinduja's case and thanking him for his help in resolving the issue. This appears to be Mr Vaz's last intervention in the matter.

  7.8. I have dealt at some length with Mr Vaz's role in the applications for naturalisation by the Hinduja brothers because of the comments which this has excited. It is clear that he made representations and enquiries on behalf of the brothers, particularly Mr G P Hinduja. He also made representations on behalf of many others, both individuals and organisations, in connection with immigration and nationality matters. It is also clear that a number of other prominent public figures made representations on behalf of the Hinduja brothers. Some of these are mentioned in earlier chapters. It is true that Mr Vaz was probably more vigorous in his representative role than most of the other people who made representations. But I believe that it is legitimate to view Mr Vaz's role in the context of his unique position in the Asian community, which I have already described. I have been able to find nothing improper in his relations with the Home Office over these matters. Mr Walmsley has told me that he did not feel that he was put under any improper pressure from Mr Vaz or that Mr Vaz's interest in assisting the Hindujas was unduly close. Mr Vaz has said that there was never any suggestion from the Hinduja brothers that there was or should be a link between their sponsorship of the Dome and their efforts to obtain naturalisation (see Chapter 8 on the Dome). Indeed, Mr Vaz has told me that he never took part in any discussions about sponsoring any part of the Dome.

  7.9. When Mr Vaz first became involved with making representations on behalf of the Hinduja brothers, he was, of course, a Backbench Member of Parliament. He continued to enquire about their cases after he became the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Law Officers. Given the history of his interest in the naturalisation applications and Mr Vaz's position in the Asian community, I do not think that there is any reason to criticise Mr Vaz on that score.

  7.10. It has been suggested that Mr Vaz wrote to the Prime Minister and Mr Mandelson about the Hinduja brothers' applications. There is no trace of any such letter in the Prime Minister's Office or elsewhere. Mr Vaz categorically denied this suggestion and said that it would have been absurd to do so, as it would have achieved nothing. Given that Mr Vaz had regular contacts with the Home Office over immigration and nationality matters and how well he knew how the system worked, I find the suggestion difficult to credit and I accept Mr Vaz's explanation.

  7.11. There have been stories in the press about "topping and tailing" letters drafted by the Hinduja brothers. Mr Vaz explained that, if this had happened (and he has no record of it), it might have been dealt with by one of his staff in connection with the Concordia project and not himself. This has been borne out by Mr Vaz's explanation that a letter of 30 October 1997 from him to Darin Jewell—former assistant to the Hindujas—was dealt with by his constituency office. This letter has been signed by way of a rubber stamp facsimile of Mr Vaz's signature rather than Mr Vaz signing it personally. I do not regard this as a matter of any great significance.

  7.12. Finally, I will deal with an allegation I became aware of that Mr Vaz had attended a meeting at New Zealand House, the business premises of the Hinduja brothers, where he had discussed issues concerning their possible extradition to India to face the investigation which was being carried out into the Bofors scandal. The article alleged that Mr Vaz had passed secrets to the Hindujas. Mr Vaz categorically denied that he would have discussed this issue at any meeting with the Hinduja brothers or that he had any priviledged information to pass on. If they had raised the issue, he would have referred them to the FCO Minister responsible for the relevant matters. There was a meeting in the FCO at the request of Mr Barry Gardiner MP in January 2001 to discuss the issue of extradition and their status as British citizens. The Minister present was Baroness Scotland. Mr Vaz did not attend that meeting. There was also a letter from Mr Piara Khabra MP of 15 December 2000 to Rt Hon Robin Cook MP asking for support for the Hinduja brothers. Mr Vaz was not involved in drafting the reply to this letter, but he had seen a copy of it. The reply, signed by Mr Cook, said that both the Hinduja brothers would get the full consular support available to any British citizen, but there could be no question of intervening in the due legal process in India.