Allegations that snared minister
The raft of sleaze allegations surrounding Keith Vaz began to surface during the Hinduja "cash for passports" affair early last year. He was accused of intervening to help the citizenship applications by the billionaire Hinduja brothers - both as a backbench MP and, more seriously, after he became a minister.
Who are the Hinduja brothers?
Srichand and Gopichand Hinduja, billionaire businessmen who were facing serious corruption charges in India, gave £1million sponsorship to the Millennium Dome. They have networked with a number of senior government figures, including Tony and Cherie Blair. They were at a party at Labour's 2000 conference also attended by Jack Straw, Robin Cook, Peter Mandelson and Ulster Secretary John Reid.
While they were sponsoring the Dome, passport applications by the duo were placed on the fast track by the Home Office. Both Mr Mandelson - at the time Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Dome - and Mr Vaz faced claims they had intervened on the brothers' behalf. Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry into the Hinduja affair effectively cleared every political figure of wrongdoing, including Mr Mandelson and Mr Vaz. However, it failed to rescue Mr Mandelson, who had been forced to resign from the Cabinet after giving confusing accounts of his role. Mr Vaz, meanwhile, was still facing unanswered questions. How hard had he pushed the Hindujas' passport applications when he was a backbench MP and what interventions he had made to the Home Office after he became a minister? Did he at any stage hand them any confidential Foreign Office material to aid their applications?
Did Mr Vaz face any other accusations?
Yes. The Hinduja affair ushered in new allegations against him, many from his early days as an MP in the late-Eighties and involving links with leading Asian businessmen. These included alleged four-figure payments from London solicitor Sarosh Zaiwalla, a man later recommended for an honour by Mr Vaz. It was also claimed a company operated by Mr Vaz and of which his wife and mother were directors was used to fund the MP's parliamentary office without disclosing the sources of income. Other allegations were that the Sikh business community was made to donate £10,000 to Mr Vaz's 1997 election campaign and that a jeweller had provided him with a car for the campaign. Only one count was fully upheld against him by MPs. Mr Vaz has also been accused of failing to declare his ownership of two London flats and of concealing payments to his wife's law firm by the Hindujas; charges set to be ruled on today by outgoing parliamentary standards commissioner Elizabeth Filkin in her second report on the MP.
What happened when Mrs Filkin first investigated Mr Vaz?
Ms Filkin found her inquiries obstructed by Mr Vaz and his lawyers. She said he had failed to provide "full and accurate" answers to her questions and listed the lengths to which the Vaz camp went to avoid giving details. This was responsible for eight lines of inquiry being left undecided on. Mr Vaz was found guilty of failing to register payments from Mr Zaiwalla. Question marks were also left over nine other counts which Ms Filkin failed to uphold. MPs on parliament's standards and privileges committee endorsed Ms Filkin's findings but failed to recommend any punishment.
