This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/18/ian-paisley-faces-commons-suspension-over-sri-lanka-holidays

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ian Paisley faces Commons suspension over Sri Lanka holidays Ian Paisley could face byelection after breaking Commons rules
(about 4 hours later)
The Democratic Unionist party MP Ian Paisley is facing suspension from the House of Commons for 30 sitting days of parliament after failing to declare holidays worth £50,000 paid for by the Sri Lankan government and becoming a paid advocate of the Sri Lankan government. The Democratic Unionist party MP Ian Paisley could be forced to stand down and face a byelection after a serious breach of parliamentary rules.
His suspension, which is likely to be approved by MPs, will have serious repercussions for Theresa May’s government. Her working majority will be reduced by one until November, as the government tries to pass contentious Brexit legislation. The member for North Antrim is already facing a suspension from the House of Commons for 30 sitting days after becoming a “paid advocate” for the Sri Lankan government and failing to declare family holidays worth at least £50,000.
The suspension, which is the most serious punishment short of expulsion from the house, has been recommended by the House of Commons standards committee in a highly critical report examining two family holidays the MP took to Sri Lanka in 2013. His suspension will have repercussions for Theresa May’s government. Her working majority will be reduced by one until November, as the government tries to pass contentious Brexit legislation.
The 30-day ban, if accepted, could trigger a recall petition following a recent change to legislation. If 10% of the electorate signs a petition within six weeks, a byelection would take place at which Paisley could stand again.
Political opponents in Northern Ireland, including the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin, have called for him to resign or face a public vote.
A spokesperson for Sinn Féin said that in the absence of his resignation or being forced to stand down by the DUP “we will support a recall if the percentage of the electorate required to trigger a recall prevails”.
Paisley’s suspension has been recommended by the House of Commons standards committee in a highly critical report examining two family holidays the MP took to Sri Lanka in 2013.
It could last 30 sitting days and is due to begin on 4 September, the committee said. Parliament goes in to recess over the party conference season, which means the suspension will last well into the autumn.It could last 30 sitting days and is due to begin on 4 September, the committee said. Parliament goes in to recess over the party conference season, which means the suspension will last well into the autumn.
“We have concluded that Mr Paisley’s actions were of a nature to bring the House of Commons into disrepute,” the report said.“We have concluded that Mr Paisley’s actions were of a nature to bring the House of Commons into disrepute,” the report said.
It found Paisley failed to register the visits to Sri Lanka within 28 days and later engaged in “paid advocacy” in a 2014 letter to the prime minister. In her report, the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, found that Paisley breached the rules on paid advocacy – lobbying in return for reward or consideration – by writing to David Cameron on 19 March 2014 to lobby against supporting a UN resolution on human rights abuses in Sri Lanka after receiving holidays from the South Asian country’s government.
The claims first appeared in the Daily Telegraph in September 2017. He also breached rules on declaration by failing to declare the personal benefit in his letter to the prime minister and breached rules on registration of interests.
The standards commissioner investigation focused on whether Paisley, whose father, also Ian Paisley, set up the DUP in the 70s, breached the rules in respect of the members’ register of financial interests. The MP would be free to stand again in the subsequent byelection and it is understood Paisley has indicated he would do so. His majority is more than 20,643.
The 30-day ban, if accepted, could trigger a recall petition by which Paisley could lose his seat if 10% of the eligible electorate in their constituency signs a petition. But the MP would be free to stand again in the subsequent byelection and it is understood Paisley has indicated he would do so. His majority is more than 20,643.
Under the Recall of MPs Act, which came into effect in 2016, MPs who are convicted of a criminal offence and jailed, barred from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or convicted of providing false information on allowance claims can lose their seat if there is a successful petition to recall them.Under the Recall of MPs Act, which came into effect in 2016, MPs who are convicted of a criminal offence and jailed, barred from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days or convicted of providing false information on allowance claims can lose their seat if there is a successful petition to recall them.
In her report, the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, found that Paisley breached the rules on paid advocacy – lobbying in return for reward or consideration – by writing to David Cameron on 19 March 2014 to lobby against supporting a UN resolution on Sri Lanka after receiving holidays from the state. Paisley is due to address parliament on Thursday. A statement issued by his lawyer said the MP accepted the committee’s decision but argued that legal proceedings were still being considered against the Daily Telegraph, which broke the story.
He also breached rules on declaration by failing to declare the personal benefit in his letter to the prime minister and breached rules on registration of interests by failing to register within 28 days of the two visits in March/April 2013 and in July 2013. “My client has apologised unreservedly at the outset for his unintentional failure to register the hospitality he received. Legal proceedings are being considered. No further comment will be made until Mr Paisley has addressed the house on Thursday.”
Paisley has been asked by the Guardian to respond to the ruling.
Democratic Unionist party (DUP)Democratic Unionist party (DUP)
House of CommonsHouse of Commons
LobbyingLobbying
Northern Ireland
Northern Irish politics
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content