Keith Vaz is living proof that MPs cannot be trusted to regulate themselves

Some of those questions date back to 2001, when Mr Vaz resigned – ostensibly on medical grounds – from Tony Blair’s government during an investigation into allegations he received undeclared payments from several businessmen, including the Hinduja brothers.

Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary standards commissioner found evidence of “deliberate collusion” between Mr Vaz and his wife to conceal details of his finances from her inquiry and to prevent examination of his “possible financial relationship with the Hinduja family.” She also found that he failed to register financial payments from a solicitor whom he recommended for an honour several years later.

Mr Vaz was briefly suspended, but returned to the Commons where he now occupies a senior and influential position. While his career was unaffected, the woman who exposed his conduct had no such fortune. Ms Filkin was later hounded out of her job by MPs.

In 2009, this newspaper revealed details of Mr Vaz’s expenses claims. He claimed more than £75,500 in expenses for a flat in Westminster despite his family home just 12 miles from parliament. He also flipped his designated second home from that flat to a house in his Leicester constituency and back again in the space of a year, an arrangement that allowed him to furnish the house at public expense while renting out the flat. He later repaid £18,949 in expenses. Mr Vaz faced no censure from parliamentary authorities over his behaviour.

In 2012, the Telegraph revealed that the police were investigating hundreds of thousands of pounds held in Mr Vaz’s bank accounts. He denied wrongdoing and the parliamentary authorities declined to independently investigate.

This dismaying pattern continues up to the present day. Earlier this year, it was reported that Mr Vaz had intervened with UK immigration officials to help an Indian millionaire. Despite concerns raised by other MPs about his actions, the current standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, refused to investigate the matter.

Despite all of the questions about his conduct, Mr Vaz remains a senior member of the parliamentary club, on friendly terms with senior figures such as John Bercow, the Speaker.

His chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs committee does not just give him a prominent public position and an additional salary, it also gives him regular direct contact with senior ministers and officials, and privileged access to some of the most sensitive official information about matters of crime and national security. 

In short, Parliament has chosen to ignore all of the questions about Mr Vaz’s conduct over many years and reward him with a position of great power and responsibility.

Time and time again, serious concerns have been raised about the “integrity and probity” of Mr Vaz. Every time, the parliamentary authorities have failed to investigate those concerns with the tenacity or objectivity requited to give the public full confidence in their findings and in Parliament as a whole.

This newspaper has argued over many years that MPs sadly cannot be trusted to police their own conduct, calling instead for independent oversight, perhaps from a body similar to the US Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog solely composed of non-politicians.

Mr Vaz is living proof of why politicians cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.