[nodisharmony]

Who is Keith Vaz?? (Many of you may ask??)
__________________________________________

Keith Vaz was born in Aden, Yemen on November 26th 1956. His parents were from Goa, India, and the family arrived in Britain from Aden 1965.

He was educated at Latymer Upper School, Hammersmith and Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge University where he recieved a B.A. (1979) and an MA (1987).

Keith Vaz's previous career involved being a Solicitor at Richmond Council (1982). Senior solicitor, London Borough of Islington (1982-1985). Solicitor at Highfields and Belgrave Law Centre in Leicester (1985-1987)

Keith has been a Member of Parliament for Leicester East since 1987. During this time he has held a number of Government posts: Minister of State for Europe (1999-2001); Parliamentary Secretary (Minister), Lord Chancellor's Dept (May-Oct 1999); Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney General, John Morris and Solicitor General, Lord Falconer QC (June 1997-May 1999).

He currently serves as a Member of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, as chair of the Sub-Committee for Courts and the Judiciary, and has previously been a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee (1987-1992). Between 1993-1994 he was a Member of the Executive Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Keith is an member of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee. He is also Chair of the Labour Party's Ethnic Minority Taskforce.

He is married to Maria and they have two children, Luke aged 10 and Anjali aged 8.
___________________________________________

What Keith Vaz can do for you:

Keith's role as an MP is to represent all the people in his constituency; not just those who voted for him. Whether or not you voted for Keith Vaz or agree with the views of the Labour party, Keith Vaz is your MP and he is here to help you with all matters for which Parliament or Central Government is responsible.

Keith is not able to help in private disputes with other individuals or, for example, to interfere with decisions made by courts.

Every week, Keith Vaz receives hundreds of letters, e-mails and phone calls. He and his staff reply to them all as quickly as possible.
___________________________________________

There is much more about Keith Vaz than you may realise?

His face is often in the News and he has a hard line about Racism and had quite a bit to say about Big Brother & Celebrity Big Brother 5 & the race furore..

He likes to get stuck in.

But seriously, do you trust him and perhaps a future Prime Minister??

He could be better than Gordon Brown?

Anyway, here is his comments in relation to CBB5 which some of you may find interesting?

____________________________________________
Adjournment Debate - Racism and Channel 4



The Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP secured an adjournment debate on the Responsibilites of Broadcasters on 15th March. The follow is an excerpt from the Official Report of the House of Commons:

Channel 4

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Roy.]

6.7 pm

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the subject of Channel 4 and public service broadcasting. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), is in the Chamber for this debate, but sorry that I have had to take him from pressing duties elsewhere, at the launch of the new digital service.

The debate offers the House its first formal opportunity for a full and frank discussion about the offensive and—in my opinion and that of many others—racist material broadcast on Channel 4 two months ago. In January, Channel 4 began broadcasting the latest and fourth series of “Celebrity Big Brother”. The channel’s 24-hour, seven-day-a-week coverage of celebrities isolated in a house in Hertfordshire attracted millions of viewers who had tuned in to see a narrative of human interaction. However, that series revealed a much uglier side to so-called reality television. It began with bullying, derogatory cultural references and blatant racist behaviour against the Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty from Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O’Meara—a trio of young female celebrities. Two of them have since apologised for their behaviour.

It is not necessary or productive to provide a full list of the incidents of abuse that took place inside the “Big Brother” house, but to have an understanding of the situation we should remember that over successive days and weeks Ms Shetty was called “Shilpa Poppodum”, asked whether she lived in a “house or a shack”, told to “go back to the slums” and repeatedly referred to as “the Indian”. Those were the bits that were broadcast, although for the many hours of footage that were shown many more hours were not aired. One wonders how much of it was in a similar vein.

Given the 24-hour nature of the programme and its wall-to-wall coverage, it is not surprising that the public’s reaction was so intense. The programme holds the record as most complained about in British television history. More than 40,000 complaints were received by the authorities. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Ministers and 91 Members of the House made it clear that they felt that the programme was doing a disservice to the multicultural society we have achieved today and was providing a major platform to the minority with such prejudiced sentiments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke for many when she said in a personal capacity that “Celebrity Big Brother” was nothing more than “racism masquerading as entertainment”—one of the most powerful and commendable statements made by anyone on this subject.

Of course, offence was caused not only to the British Asian community, but to our friends and allies in the sub-continent. Fortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was leading a delegation to India at the time and could properly and immediately represent the rejection of the racism shown on “Big Brother”. Otherwise, I fear that even greater damage would have been done to our standing abroad.

It is of credit to Britain that this series of “Big Brother” resulted in a final victory for Ms Shetty, who won herself many admirers when she became the first ever ethnic minority winner. The Minister himself spoke for millions when in the Chamber on 29 January he congratulated Ms Shetty on her victory after what he described as a “ghastly few weeks” on the programme.

Throughout this sorry state of affairs, Shilpa Shetty carried herself with dignity, calm and grace—a real ambassador for Asian women the world over. The millions who voted for her also deserve congratulations on their rejection of those who sought to demean and humiliate her. We should rightly pride ourselves on the steps that our country has taken in recent years to change our national culture into one that accepts differences and respects diversity.

The loser from the whole incident was the broadcaster Channel 4. Through ignorance or wilful neglect, it allowed these broadcasts to continue through to a very bitter end and then sought to justify that on the basis that its viewers had chosen Ms Shetty as the winner even though Channel 4 had no role in or influence on the final result. In so doing, it lost the support of its viewers and it lost a multi-million sponsorship from the Carphone Warehouse and the advertising revenue of PepsiCo as those companies took the right decision to stop supporting it. It also lost the revenue from its premium rate phone lines as it was forced into donating the money to charity. Finally, it lost the trust of the nation, which had looked to Channel 4 as a responsible public service broadcaster and as a real champion of ethnic minority broadcasting—hence this debate.

The initial response of Channel 4 during the peak of public outrage was most disappointing, as it distanced itself from the outrage felt by many. On 18 January, Channel 4 chairman, Luke Johnson, went on the “Today” programme and provided Mr. Jim Naughtie with a succession of “no comments”. As the interviewer aptly pointed out, it was a great irony on that day that it appeared that the only person in the country with nothing to say on this major news story was the chairman of the broadcaster responsible for it.

By lunchtime, when it was apparent that such stonewalling would not do, its chief executive, a tie-less Andy Duncan, appeared before the world’s press in Oxford. His statement offered the opinion that what constituted racism was a “complex” area. It appears sadly from a successful career at Unilever that Mr. Duncan, the man who promoted the catchphrase “I can’t believe it’s not butter” also could not believe that it was racism. Mr. Duncan went on to say that it was “unquestionably a good thing” that the programme

“raised these issues and provoked such a debate”.

Others believe that the role of “Big Brother” has a less grand purpose than creating a national debate on major issues. In fact, it was the very same Mr. Duncan who reportedly said 20 months before that “Big Brother” made no claim to provide “social or moral education” but was just a very important entertainment
15 Mar 2007 : Column 549
programme for Channel 4. Rory Bremner could have turned up on 18 January and would have done much better.

It is perhaps not surprising that Channel 4 was so unprepared for the reaction. Remarkably for a major public institution, it is run by an all-white management board. Despite the channel’s professed commitment to providing a service to all minorities, there is no way that any member of the board could have understood from personal experience what racial discrimination felt like. Perhaps that is why they found the issue so complex.

Overall, the response of Channel 4 was pathetic, ineffective and derisory. I met Mr. Duncan last week at my request. It was clear that he felt that his response and the general response of Channel 4 was in retrospect unsatisfactory. Mistakes were made, he said. He assured me that Channel 4’s internal investigation will address the areas where improvements could, and I suggest should, be forthcoming. It is a sad fact that during the events of January the channel, which was originally set up with the express intention of catering for minority interests, responded so poorly. It has damaged its own hard-won reputation in the eyes of many who previously looked to it to represent their experiences. What pride it took last year when it chose to front its alternative Queen’s speech with a woman in a niqab. Was that pride before the fall?

I hope that, at the conclusion of the investigation, Channel 4 will take a belated opportunity fully to condemn racism in all forms and fully to apologise to all offended, especially Ms Shetty. The regulator’s inquiry is important—not least for the precedent that it will set in a digital age. “Big Brother” is a unique show and I have concerns about the regulatory framework. It does not have the capacity to cope with reality television programmes of this kind. Unlike a normal programme, which lasts a few hours or less, the 24/7 nature of reality programmes results in masses of footage, filmed by several cameras. In the case of “Big Brother”, there would have been hundreds of hours of footage. Unfortunately, the complaints are not being assessed individually by the regulator. It has been pretty slow in responding to my requests for a meeting, although, oddly enough, it has agreed to meet me next week. The Minister will understand that, as channels proliferate on the digital spectrum, there is no effective mechanism that provides an efficient and effective oversight of the increasing number of reality shows that are broadcast over weeks or months.

It has been reported that, in an age of strong digital competition, the future of Channel 4 is uncertain. Its chief executive has projected a £100 million shortfall for the channel once digital switchover is complete. It is clear that that is expected to be made up in the form of a direct Government subsidy. The sum of £100 million would be only slightly more than the channel receives from the “Big Brother” franchise, which accounts for between 7 and 10 per cent. of its £800 million budget. It is clear that the management at 124 Horseferry road are attempting to avoid having to make a choice. They are trying to square the circle of broadcasting high-profit television franchises while demanding a subsidy on the basis that they are a public service broadcaster serving the public interest. It would have happened eventually, but “Big Brother” has shown that that will not be possible.

Many have misunderstood the debate as being one about editorial censorship. I must clarify that. This is a debate about how a channel that causes massive offence to the public in pursuit of advertising revenue can claim to be serving the public interest and deserving of public subsidy. Channel 4 now faces a clear choice between maintaining its distinctive and original identity and becoming just another outlet for shock television.

I hope that the Minister will join me and clearly state that, as far as he is concerned, racism is not a complex area involving subjective opinions. He has been involved in the great steps taken by the Government to promote the equality agenda and to encourage public institutions to modernise their attitudes. I call on him to ensure that all broadcasters can properly represent today’s Britain. Perhaps he can even get Channel 4 to apologise.

I also ask the Minister to use his good offices so that the public can be assured that all the money raised by premium-rate phone lines and later pledged to charity is accounted for. Many members of the public pursued their involvement in voting for Shilpa Shetty only on the basis that Channel 4 would not directly profit from their votes. In the light of recent scandals affecting other game shows and TV competitions, of which the Minister is very aware, there are questions about how much the concerned charities should expect to receive from Channel 4 and by what deadline, and who will monitor the money earned for the charity and the processing of that amount. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that position.

Is the Minister satisfied that the powers of the regulator are strong enough to deal with reality television formats? Can he offer the House any assurance about how far a reality-series television station could go before Ofcom could intervene with force?

The issue of accountability is at the heart of this. Mr. Duncan explained the system of accountability in Channel 4. The chairman and non-executive members appear to be appointed by the regulator. Ofcom will be expected to regulate the broadcaster under the management of its chosen appointees. At the same time, the chief executive of Channel 4 is selected by the board of Ofcom-appointed non-executive directors. One can imagine that once the board selects Channel 4’s chief executive, it will be loth to admit collective responsibility for selecting an individual who is not up to the job. Will the Minister clarify that point about accountability?

If this case were simple, one would obviously have expected a ministerial response, but it is complicated, and Ministers cannot intervene because they have appointed a regulator to do so. However, the Minister must accept that there is a duty in such a situation for the regulator to be able to intervene and, quite frankly, press the off button. What assurances can the Minister provide the House that his Department will consider again whether the powers of the regulator are effective enough when it comes to such broadcasts?

What are the Minister’s thoughts about where the future of Channel 4 lies? We await the publication of two reports on that subject. If either investigation reveals that Channel 4, either by act or omission, was in any way responsible for the broadcasting of racist material and failed to act appropriately, will the Minister join me in expecting either the chairman or the chief executive—or both—to offer their immediate resignation?

The past 10 years have seen a radical time of change and the adaptation of different approaches for those in the media. That will continue in forthcoming decades. The House is familiar with the continuous debate that we have on the role, responsibilities, functions and financing of the BBC. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to begin a new national debate on the future of Channel 4.

6.22 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Shaun Woodward): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on securing the debate. I certainly join him unequivocally in condemning all racism, wherever and whenever it takes place. We rightly should be totally intolerant of racism in this country. Why anyone would want to put themselves up for “Celebrity Big Brother” is somewhat beyond me, and I say that as an editor of “That’s Life!”, which was a programme that understood the values of entertainment.

The truth is that however awful hon. Members might find this form of programming, the public could watch our own “Celebrity Big Brother” in this Chamber every day, yet, remarkably, few choose to do so. I do not know what our viewing figures are right now, but I suspect that they are in the single figures, with hon. Members’ relatives probably being the major players. However, “Big Brother” and its derivatives attract huge audiences and it is clear that the public enjoy them. Equally, “Celebrity Big Brother” enjoyed huge audiences.

I want to put on record, as I am sure that all hon. Members will continue to do, our admiration for Shilpa Shetty. She is a woman who, even if we did not know her as a celebrity before, in the course of enduring those weeks in the house earned huge respect from many people throughout the country, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. Her resilience and dignity during what I have referred to as “ghastly” weeks, as my right hon. Friend said, were as remarkable as the apparent bullying and racism were distasteful, grotesque and highly offensive.

My right hon. Friend has a proud track record of ensuring and fighting for equality in this country. As I have already said, I share his feelings about the need to root out racism. However, when it comes to sharing some of his conclusions, I urge caution. I absolutely understand, as he does, why so many people found the programme so distasteful. It led to Ofcom receiving a record 45,000 complaints.

The Government’s position on racism is unequivocal: we find it totally unacceptable. We have legislated to that effect, and Government policy reflects our view. We introduced a specific offence of racially aggravated harassment. In addition, under the Public Order Act 1986, there is an offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. That offence covers inflammatory comments made in public or in the media, as well as the distribution of printed material. “Celebrity Big Brother” was unquestionably highly offensive, but the question is not whether it was offensive, but whether an offence was committed. I understand that Hertfordshire police have announced that no criminal charges will be brought in connection with “Celebrity Big Brother”, and the Crown Prosecution Service has stated that what occurred was clearly offensive, but not criminal.

On editorial content, and on “Celebrity Big Brother” specifically, responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the organisations that regulate broadcasting, which in Channel 4’s case is Ofcom. Ofcom is, of course, independent of Government. We believe that that is right, and that it should remain independent. It is a fundamental principle that the Government do not and should not intervene in matters of editorial or programme content, particularly when an investigation is in progress. We believe that it is right to let the regulator continue to conduct the inquiry.

Ofcom has been charged with the task of setting and assessing standards for the content of television and radio broadcasting. Its standards code, drawn up under the Communications Act 2003, aims to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services. Its function is to provide the public with adequate protection from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material. Of course, the legitimate question in this case is whether the public have been adequately protected. That is why Ofcom’s inquiry is so important. Parliament has charged Ofcom directly with establishing procedures to handle and resolve complaints, so it seems premature to prejudge the inquiry’s outcome, and the procedures by which it will achieve that outcome, while the inquiry is being conducted. After all, its procedures are not a reality TV show, and while we await the outcome, we should be careful about carrying out our own voting on its procedures.

My right hon. Friend raises the question of whether the regulator should have hit the “off” button. It has been suggested that a fundamental design fault must exist, as the big button was not hit when “Celebrity Big Brother” was on air. I suggest that we pause to make sure that what we are asking for is really what we want. We should ask whether the request truly falls in with the responsibility that Members have chosen to give Ofcom, and indeed whether it runs against the principle of providing a fair hearing, which should extend to Channel 4. Ofcom can, if appropriate, take action against a licensee while a series is on air. However, in line with the right to a fair trial and the provisions of the 2003 Act, it must give licensees an opportunity to make representations before any decision is reached on whether material is in breach of the standards code.

There were undoubtedly tens of thousands of complaints, and clearly many people were offended, but the number of complaints about a programme is not, and should not, be a factor to be weighed in a set of scales. The fact that there has been a large number of complaints should not, prima facie, prove that a programme was guilty. We need an inquiry to be conducted.

The question was raised of whether each complaint should have been investigated. The chief executive of Ofcom wrote to my right hon. Friend on 26 February, and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. It explained that Ofcom decided not to reply to individual complaints, not because of the high volume of complaints, but because the regulator wanted to pursue a full investigation into them. Having said that, I do not think that Channel 4 or its chief executive, Andy Duncan, are complacent or remotely insensitive to what happened. At no point did Channel 4 condone what was happening, and I know that Andy Duncan has extremely strong views—as strong as those of my right hon. Friend and myself—about racism and the need to root it out from our society.

Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Woodward: Yes, but my right hon. Friend should remember that I have only five minutes left to answer all his questions.

Keith Vaz: Briefly, has the regulator asked the Department for any additional resources to deal with the issue?

Mr. Woodward: As far as I am aware, the regulator has not asked us for additional resources, but I do not believe that that will be a problem. If it is, I invite the regulator to tell us. We cannot allow a lack of resources to prevent us from dealing with the issue, but I genuinely do not believe that that is the case. If it is, however, we would want to help.

In evidence heard by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in March 2007, Mr. Duncan acknowledged that there were lessons to be learned from the episode by Channel 4. Channel 4 has indicated that its own internal review of “Celebrity Big Brother” will include an examination of the channel’s complaint handling, response times and communications. I share my right hon. Friend’s interest in the review’s conclusions, but I truly believe—and I honestly believe that this is part of the principle of natural justice—that it is only right that we should allow the channel to conduct that inquiry before we condemn it.

I therefore urge caution before we turn our attack on Channel 4. I put on record my belief that Channel 4 is an exemplary public broadcasting channel. In its work on equality issues, for example, it tackled gay issues head-on at a time when other programmes and channels found them a difficult area to tackle. In religion, its high-quality programming has looked at different religions and cultures at a time in the past few years when some found that too difficult to handle. “What Muslims Want” was a major study in multiculturalism. “Undercover Mosque” aired during the “Celebrity Big Brother” run, and it looked at the impact of hate-style preaching in this country. My right hon. Friend will accept that to caricature Channel 4 as a channel that deliberately chose to offer only shock television is a little unfair. Channel 4 has done a great deal to further understanding and tolerance in this country, and I believe that its chief executive believes firmly in that.

That does not mean that the result of the review by Channel 4 and of Ofcom’s work will stop the House from wanting to debate the subject again. However, I urge my right hon. Friend to be cautious lest he hastily decide that Channel 4’s chief executive is not up to the job or, indeed, that he has led the channel into the kind of broadcasting that does not reflect its inception in any shape or form. The review is extremely important as, indeed, is Ofcom’s investigation into “Celebrity Big Brother”. The Government believe that Channel 4 has a role to play alongside the BBC, both now and in future, in the provision of public service broadcasting. It has a distinctive public service remit, a great tradition of innovative, quality programme making, as well as a wide remit to appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society.

Channel 4 has made an important contribution to broadcasting in the United Kingdom in the past 25 years, and I am confident that it will continue to do so under its existing leadership in future. It is worth reminding ourselves that only last year, a cultural diversity network survey confirmed “Channel 4 News” as the news service that Britain’s ethnic minorities thought covered their issues best. That news service, of course, is broadcast under the present Channel 4 leadership.

Although the debate has focused on allegations of racism and how they were handled, it also offers an insight into how bullying operates in our society. As a former deputy chairman of ChildLine, I saw the harm that bullying can do. It rears its revolting head by using vehicles of racism, homophobia, religion and many others. In my own household we found that the “Celebrity Big Brother” to which my right hon. Friend referred indeed provoked a discussion about racism, and also about bullying.

The good thing is that so many people in this country complained about the programme. That demonstrates progress. I doubt that there would have been so many complaints a decade ago. We look to our broadcasters to ensure that such behaviour is not exploited as entertainment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, albeit in a private capacity, described the programme at the time as “racism masquerading as entertainment”, and I think that many in the House knew exactly what she meant.

The programme was a reality TV show, but because it allowed us to see through the window we, the public, were educated about some of the attitudes of some people in our country, and we were all ashamed of what we saw. So now we look to the broadcaster for its review to ensure that such television does not become an entertainment practice by prosecuting values which most of us hoped had long since gone. Ofcom undoubtedly has a role to play in that, and we look to its inquiry to see how we can improve the handling of complaints about such programmes.

We should all look carefully at the lessons to be drawn. We should be cautious about expressing our own anger and focusing it, perhaps, on the leadership of Channel 4. The programme may have reflected something deeply distasteful, although regrettably not everybody finds it distasteful. The problem with bullying is that it can find any vehicle. Sometimes it is racism, sometimes it is homophobia, sometimes it is focused on women, sometimes it is focused on someone’s size, but bullying is a part of our society and all of us have a duty to tackle it. I hope that that is a subject to which Channel 4 will direct its attention in the months to come.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the debate, which has raised some important issues. I promise him
15 Mar 2007 : Column 556
that I will meet him and discuss with him the outcome of the reviews, both by Channel 4 and by Ofcom. I commend him for having brought the debate to the House tonight. If in future he or other hon. Members want to raise the subject, I will be more than happy to discuss it.

The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Seven o'clock.







nodisharmony

[Dr43%er]

Vas is dodgy as ****, allegedly.

[nodisharmony]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
Vas is dodgy as ****, allegedly.

Proof is better than assumption

He must be good, as he is going places, which is more than I can say for some politicians.

He likes to get stuck in and do a proper job.

Completely within the law. But if you can point something dodgy out, then we can discuss that






nodisharmony

[Dr43%er]

Ok. From the BBC:

Former Europe minister Keith Vaz has apologised to MPs and been banned from the House of Commons for a one-month period.

The Commons standards and privileges committee recommended the ban last week in a damning report accusing Mr Vaz of showing contempt for Parliament.

Mr Vaz was given the opportunity to address colleagues ahead of a debate on the report and he apologised to the House of Commons adding that he accepted "completely" the committee's findings.

"I apologise to the committee and the House and in doing so I underline my unreserved support for the integrity of the House and its procedures," said.

It would have been almost unheard of for the Commons not to approve the recommendations of the committee, which also criticised Mr Vaz for breaking the MPs' code of conduct.

MPs' findings
Vaz should be suspended for a month
Three out of 11 complaints upheld
Vaz committed "serious breaches of the MPs code of conduct"
He was guilty of "a contempt" of the Commons
In the event they agreed the suspension without a division.

Before withdrawing from the Commons' chamber to allow MPs to debate the report, Mr Vaz argued that he had "co-operated in every possible way" with the inquiry.

That point was disputed by Sir George Young, the chairman of the Standards and Privileges committee.

The standards committee had criticised the Leicester East MP for refusing to co-operate with an inquiry into his conduct and failing to declare cash donations.

Sir George went on to question Mr Vaz's wisdom in holding an impromptu press conference on the report last week.

Mr Vaz said at the time that the punishment, one of the toughest ever handed down to an MP, was "disproportionate" to his alleged misdemeanours and against natural justice.

Response to Filkin

Mr Vaz was found to have given "misleading information" about his financial links to the Hinduja brothers, whose passport applications caused the storm that saw Peter Mandelson resign from government.

The standards committee upheld three of the 11 complaints against Mr Vaz.

Elizabeth Filkin

It said it might have been satisfied with an apology had it not been for the way the MP responded to Ms Filkin's inquiry.

The committee concluded: "We have found that Mr Vaz committed serious breaches of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House."

Attack on process

Conservative MP Peter Bottomley says he is standing down from the Commons standards committee in protest at the way Ms Filkin has been treated.

The watchdog has complained of a whispering campaign against her and says her job has been downgraded.

She will be replaced by newly appointed standards commissioner Philip Mawer.

Mr Vaz argues the report was rushed out and published before the full facts were known and says he did cooperate with the investigation.

But his claim that Leicestershire Police are still investigating one of the claims has been denied by the force.

Resignation

Mr Vaz clearly wants to continue in the Commons and has the full support of his constituency party.

An investigation last year upheld only one minor charge against Mr Vaz, out of a total of 18, and the standards committee took no disciplinary action.

But Ms Filkin said she could not complete her inquiries on another eight complaints because she said Mr Vaz failed to give her prompt and clear answers.

Mr Vaz, who was last year cleared of wrongdoing over the Hinduja passports affair, resigned from the government after the general election, citing ill health.





From Wiki:


Filkin inquiry

In February 2000 the Parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin was requested to investigate allegations of undisclosed payments to Vaz from businessmen in his constituency.[1] The following year, 2001, members of the opposition began to question what role Vaz may have played in helping the billionaire Indian Hinduja brothers - linked with a corruption probe in India - to secure UK passports.

In March 2001, the Filkin report cleared Vaz of nine of the 18 allegations of various financial wrongdoings, but Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of blocking her investigation into eight of the allegations. He was also censured for one allegation - that he failed to register two payments worth £450 in total from Sarosh Zaiwalla, a solicitor whom he recommended for an honour several years later.

Mrs Filkin announced in the same month a new inquiry which would focus on whether or not a company connected to Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by the Hinduja brothers. The results of the inquiry were published in 2002 and it was concluded that Vaz had "committed serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and a contempt of the House" and it was recommended that he be suspended from the House of Commons for one month[2].

Keith Vaz was also a director of the company General Mediterranean Holdings' owned by the Anglo-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who had in the past hired British politicians Lord David Steel and Lord Norman Lamont as directors. Vaz resigned his post as director when he became Minister for Europe, but it was later discovered that he had remained in contact with Auchi and had made enquiries on his behalf over a French extradition warrant, Auchi even calling Vaz at home to ask the minister for advice.[3]

Since 2003 he has been a Member of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. Once suggested as a possible candidate for a future leader of the Labour Party, it is unclear whether he will ever return to a frontbench role.




More BBC:


Vaz inquiry widens
Keith Vaz
Keith Vaz has been ill since March
The parliamentary inquiry into Keith Vaz is to be extended, the BBC has learned.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Elizabeth Filkin is to examine claims the Leicester MP did not disclose all his property interests when he was investigated

The news comes as Mr Vaz was released from hospital after being treated for an infection and as he was removed from the government team by Tony Blair.

It follows a report by BBC News earlier this year suggesting that Mr Vaz had told Mrs Filkin he had three properties when in fact he had four.

Inquiry

Mr Vaz made the statement last year as part of an investigation into his links with business.

That inquiry considered 18 charges but upheld just one. However, a further eight were unable to be completed because, according to Mrs Filkin, Mr Vaz had failed to give her prompt and clear answers.

An investigation by BBC Radio 4's Today programme, earlier this year, discovered documentation showing Mr Vaz owned four properties and that he had transferred ownership of a fifth property to his mother eight days after he was asked by Mrs Filkin for details of all the properties he owned.

Elizabeth Filkin
Mrs Filkin is investigating Mr Vaz for a second time
The MPs' Code of Conduct states that MPs must declare "any land or property, other than any home used for the personal residential purposes of the Member or the Member's spouse, which has a substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived."

Mr Vaz told the Today programme he gave details of all his properties to the Commons Registrar of member's interests in January of this year. He has denied misleading parliament.

Hospitalised

Mr Vaz was discharged from Leicester Royal Infirmary on Monday where he was admitted at the weekend.

Mr Vaz, who was re-elected as MP for Leicester East last week, was taken to Leicester Royal Infirmary's accident and emergency department on Saturday afternoon and was treated for an infection.

Mr Vaz has been ill since collapsing during a television interview in March and little was seen of him on the general election campaign trail.

A hospital spokeswoman said today: "There would have been a ward round this morning and that is when he was given the all-clear to be discharged."

It is believed Mr Vaz left the hospital through a side exit, avoiding waiting reporters and photographers.






Do you want me to carry on?

[Billy]

Originally posted by nodisharmony

Proof is better than assumption

He must be good, as he is going places, which is more than I can say for some politicians.

He likes to get stuck in and do a proper job.

Completely within the law. But if you can point something dodgy out, then we can discuss that






nodisharmony

Actully nodisharmony, we can discuss without proof, as I dont see the moderator status underneath your name

[Dr43%er]

Post deleted by Admin.

[Dr43%er]

"Proof is better than assumption"

I was basically being called a liar. I feel I had a right to reply.

[Billy]

I dindt know we needed proof for a forum

[rex3]

The only reason Keith Vaz is being targetted is becuase he has an inch of arab in him, in that he was brought up in an arab country and the majority of the people in the House of Commons are JEWISH!!!!

[Dr43%er]

No, it is because he is a dodgy ****, allegedly. To be honest I thought he was a Hindu. My dislike of him has bugger all to do with where he was born or what religion he is. It is more to to with him lining his pockets at the expence of the electorate.

[spitfire]

Originally posted by rex3
and the majority of the people in the House of Commons are JEWISH!!!!

Are they?Any proof of this?I think you maybe wrong but i stand corrected if you show the proof.

[rex3]

well good thing you asked go check Ed miliband and david miliband on WIKIPEDIA.

JACK STRAW the one that LED THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ, is famously known as being Jewish

[spitfire]

Originally posted by rex3
well good thing you asked go check Ed miliband and david miliband on WIKIPEDIA.

JACK STRAW the one that LED THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ, is famously known as being Jewish

So out of how ever many members of parliment there are,youve named three.Not quite a majority.

[rex3]

Originally posted by spitfire

So out of how ever many members of parliment there are,youve named three.Not quite a majority.

oh please, im not gonna start a whole row with you, GO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

.. obviously the ones with the less power, like the back benchers are christians. But someont Like : -

MARGRET BECKET
JACK STRAW
the new FORIENG MINISTER DAVID MILLIBAND

are ten times more powerful than the christian ones at the back.

[spitfire]

Originally posted by rex3

oh please, Im not going to start a whole row with you, GO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

.. obviously the ones with the less power, like the back benchers are christians. But someont Like : -

MARGRET BECKET
JACK STRAW
the new FORIENG MINISTER DAVID MILLIBAND

are ten times more powerful than the christian ones at the back.

Not disagreing with that but you said...

Originally posted by rex3
The only reason Keith Vaz is being targetted is becuase he has an inch of arab in him, in that he was brought up in an arab country and the majority of the people in the House of Commons are JEWISH!!!!

And didnt/dont think thats a true statment.

[rex3]

I dont know, but Keith Vaz is obviously there just to show Diversity, id rather go watch Cats at the west end the get into Politics in this country.

[Dr43%er]

Then why post about the politics of this country? Go watch Cats instead.

[nodisharmony]

Keith Vaz may have made mistakes, but the Newspaper articles are never enough, as we see with BB & CBB housemates, past & present.

Keith is there and in our faces and he has been accused of stuff, but the positives outweigh the negatives.

I shall search at some stage in the near future and dig out plenty of positives, which will paint a better and clearer politician, even though a few may choose to name and shame.

Keith Vaz is the shape of things to come.

Gordon Brown will have his eye on the ball, as he has a government to reshape, the election is nearing.





nodisharmony

[Dr43%er]

Nodis, I posted extracts from the Filkin enquiry. Asked for by the parliament and then released by them. They are not from "Newspaper articles" as you suggest.