Key findings of Vaz report

The Commons standards and privileges committee considered 11 separate allegations against the former Europe minister. It dismissed eight allegations, and upheld three, two of which it did not regard as serious. The committee report concludes that these offences would on their own have merited nothing more than an apology to the house. However the committee believes that Mr Vaz's response to the investigation was "a serious breach of the code of conduct" and recommends that he be suspended from the house for a month.

Complaints upheld about Mr Vaz's attitude to the committee investigation:


· The committee found that in responding to the parliamentary commissioner for standards' investigation Mr Vaz "seriously misled to obstruct and mislead the committee and her".

· The report complains that when interviewed by the committee he refused to answer questions and delayed providing evidence about his property interests.

· It also argues that his response to these investigations was "not appropriate to his office as a member" including making a damaging allegation about a witness interviewed by the committee.

Complaints upheld about Mr Vaz's activities as an MP:


· That Mr Vaz misled the standards commissioner and the committee about the financial relationship between his family and the Hinduja brothers. The report says that although in several letters Mr Vaz told the committee that he and his family had received payments from the Hinduja his wife had, in fact, been paid by them for legal work.

· That Mr Vaz had not declared paid outside employment while he was an MP. However the committee sees this as a minor offence since the work took place soon after his election to parliament in 1987.

· That Mr Vaz failed to register a political donation from a company. The committee agrees that Mr Vaz should have registered the payment and argues that Mr Vaz's claim that his decision to register a second payment also covered the first one is wrong. However the committee says this is not a serious offence.

Complaints not upheld:


· Three complaints that Mr Vaz had an improper financial relationship with the Hinduja brothers. This was one of the most serious allegations about Mr Vaz's behaviour but the committee agrees with the standards commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin, that the evidence available does not support the charges.

· That he had an improper financial relationship with Mapesbury Communications, a company set up by Mr Vaz and managed by his family. The report "finds it odd" that information about the company "proved so elusive" but does not uphold the complaint on the basis of the information available.

· That Mr Vaz gave a misleading account of his property interests. The committee rejects the report but records its "dismay that it has taken Mr Vaz so long to provide the necessary information when it was so readily available".

· That Mr Vaz employed an illegal immigrant as a servant and kept her passport. The committee says neither claim is correct.

· That Mr Vaz wrongly intervened in a criminal investigation. The committee says there is no evidence of this.

· That Mr Vaz failed to register a paid directorship. The committee does not uphold the complaint after evidence from the company that Mr Vaz had not been paid.