Mr David Laws|
1. We have received a memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards reporting on his investigation into
the conduct of the Rt Hon David Laws MP. Mr Laws wrote to the
Commissioner on 31 May 2010, following press coverage of his claims
for accommodation in London. The allegation made was that Mr Laws
rented accommodation from a partner from June 2001 and continued
to do so after the rules were changed in 2006 to prohibit explicitly
such an arrangement.
2. In referring himself to the Commissioner, Mr Laws
The key issue was my claims for London living post
the 2006 rule change which banned payments to family members and
I have already stated that I will pay back in full
my claims from 2006 to 2009, but I also request that you should
look at this issue for the same period. The issue is that because
I wanted to keep my sexuality secret, I was having a close relationship
with someone who I was denying publicly to be a "partner"
with. We made no claims as partners (e.g.
for travel etc), and our financial arrangements and assets were
separate. Essentially we presented ourselves as being friends
and not partners.
On 4 July 2010 Mr Laws drew attention to allegations
that there were issues about the level of some of the claims,
and asked the Commissioner whether it would "be sensible
for me to widen my self-referral to ask you to consider the level
of claims over recent years".
The Commissioner responded that a second self-referral was unnecessary
and that he would examine matters relating to the arrangements
made by Mr Laws as a lodger.
3. The Commissioner initiated his inquiry on 3 June
2010, before the Committee had been formed. The Committee agreed
to its continuation at its first meeting on 27 July 2010. The
Commissioner's memorandum is published in a separate volume of
this Report, as Appendix 1. We have also received written evidence
from Mr Laws, which is at Appendix 2.
Issues identified by the Commissioner
4. In the course of his investigation, the Commissioner
identified the following issues:
i. Did Mr Laws correctly identify his property
in Somerset as his main home for the purposes of his claims for
his London home?
ii. Was the landlord with whom he shared two
of the London homes his partner under the terms of the Green Book
rules and, if so, what were the consequences for the legitimacy
of his claims (a) after July 2006 and (b) before July 2006?
iii. Did Mr Laws subsidise his landlord's costs
by claiming for more rent than was reasonable for the accommodation?
iv. Did Mr Laws gain benefit above his legitimate
costs for himself and his landlord in the claims he made for his
other (non-food) costs: (a) council tax, (b) utilities, (c) repairs,
insurance and security, (d) telecommunications, (e) building and
maintenance, and (f) other items?
The Commissioner's findings
FINDINGS OF FACT
5. The Commissioner has set out a series of factual
findings. These are summarised below.
- Mr Laws owned a substantial
house in Somerset from 1999, on which he had a mortgage. On his
election in 2001, he designated this as his main home, and this
designation remained until 2010. Mr Laws had a mortgage on this
property, which was increased in 2007.
- Mr Laws lived with his landlord in London in
a flat owned by the landlord, on which there was a mortgage, from
2000-2007. Mr Laws claimed for the cost of rental and other services
from the ACA.
- In July 2007, Mr Laws and his landlord moved
to a second London property. This was financed in part by a gift
of £99,000 from Mr Laws. Mr Laws remortgaged his Somerset
property to provide this sum. Rental costs, utilities, council
tax, phone, cleaning service and maintenance and repairs were
claimed against this property, as they had been for the previous
property. Mr Laws also contributed substantially to other costs
which he did not claim against Parliamentary allowances.
- With the exception of his claims for rent, Mr
Laws' monthly claims against each heading were under the threshold
for which invoices and receipts needed to be submitted.
- Throughout the period, Mr Laws deposited a series
of rental agreements with the House authorities. Mr Laws and his
landlord did not take professional advice on these agreements,
and based the rental amounts on information in estate agents'
advertisements and on the internet.
THE COMMISSIONER'S CONCLUSIONS
6. The Commissioner has found that the designation
of the Somerset property as Mr Laws' main home in 2001 was correct
but that, over time, Mr Laws came to spend more time in London.
Mr Laws was in breach of the rules from April 2005 in continuing
to identify his Somerset property as his main home, despite the
fact that substantially more time was spent in London than in
Somerset, and that the "gravitational pull" was towards
London. As the Commissioner says "if this finding is accepted,
it follows that from April 2005 none of Mr Laws' claims for the
London properties was acceptable under the rules, since they were
claims made on what were in fact his main homes."
However, the Commissioner has also considered further matters
arising from the claims "partly in case the Committee should
come to different conclusions and partly because these other questions
related to the allegations which caused Mr Laws initially to refer
himself to me."
7. The Commissioner found that "[...] I am in
no doubt that any reasonable person properly seized of all the
facts would conclude that Mr. Laws' landlord was his partner for
the purposes of the prohibition against leasing from a partner,
introduced for the first time in the July 2006 Green Book".
8. The Commissioner also found that although there
was no specific prohibition on leasing from a "partner"
before the July 2006 Green Book, nonetheless Mr Laws' claims on
the London property from 2001 to 2006 were not above reproach.
The lodging agreements sent to the department gave a false impression
of the relationship between Mr Laws and his landlord. The Commissioner
I consider Mr Laws mistaken in thinking that the
prime purpose of any agreement was simply to identify the location
and state what the rent was. It was also to identify what the
rent bought and the terms on which the transaction was made. Mr
Laws' rental agreements fell down in both these respects.
The Commissioner says:
I conclude, therefore, that Mr Laws' conduct was
not above reproach because he submitted to the Fees Office from
2001 lodging agreements which gave a false impression of his relationship
with his landlord and of their shared use of the landlord's successive
London properties. I come to this conclusion on the basis of the
standard expected of Members at the time and not any subsequent
raising of the bar. Even in 2001, it would not, in my judgment,
have been acceptable to seek to make claims supported by misleading
documentation. The result was that the Fees Office had no opportunity
to challenge or advise Mr Laws about the particular nature of
his claims in the light of his circumstances. Mr Laws' wish to
maintain his personal privacy cannot, in my view, justifyalthough
it may explainsuch conduct.
9. The Commissioner has found that Mr Laws made a
number of other breaches of the rules:
- Mr Laws claimed for higher
rent from his Parliamentary allowances for his use of the two
London properties than was justified either under the terms of
the lodging agreement, or as a reflection of the true arrangement
he had for living with his partner in these two properties;
- Mr Laws wrongly claimed some £2,000 for
building work in the second property, which should have been covered
by the rent charged;
- Mr Laws' claims for his phone in Somerset and
his mobile telephone could not be covered by the Additional Costs
Allowance. Although in principle both could have been claimed
under the allowance for office expenses, the Commissioner noted
that Mr Laws in fact had insufficient headroom in this allowance.
10. The Commissioner concludes:
324. I consider that Mr Laws' breaches of the rules
in respect of his second home claims were serious. I have no evidence
that Mr Laws made his claims with the intention of benefiting
himself or his partner in conscious breach of the rules. But the
sums of money involved were substantial. He made a series of breaches.
Some of them continued over a number of years and despite specific
and clear changes made to the Green Book. But it is to Mr Laws'
considerable and personal credit that, when his living arrangements
came to public attention in May 2010, he immediately and publicly
accepted that his claims from July 2006 had not been above reproach.
He resigned from the Cabinet before referring himself to me. He
made early repayment of £56,592 to take account of all his
claims from July 2006 to July 2009, making no allowance for the
fact that, had he arranged matters differently, he could legitimately
have claimed for overnight stays away from his main home.
The Commissioner also notes "Mr Laws has emphasised
that all his actions were motivated by his desire first to keep
his private life and his sexuality secret, and second to provide
value for money for the taxpayer."
However, he concludes:
I believe there was a conflict between [Mr Laws']
private interest in secrecy and the public interest in him being
open and honest in relation to his expenses claims. I recognise
and have very great sympathy with Mr Laws for the difficulty of
the decision he had to make in resolving that conflict, because
it affected all aspects of his life as he had presented it over
many years. But it was, in my view, a decision which he had to
make under the Code of Conduct and one which he should have straightaway
resolved in the public interest, either by being open with the
House authorities about the relationship with his landlord, or
by making no claims at all against his accommodation allowance
and accepting the ever-present risk that the relationship would
anyway come to public attention, as, eventually, it did.
11. Mr Laws has cooperated with the Commissioner's
investigation, and submitted a memorandum in which he says that
he understands and accepts the Commissioner's key judgments, including
that on the "partner" rule, and accepts that he made
an error in not ensuring that his claims were "above reproach".
12. Mr Laws told us that he believed at the time
that his situation "was consistent with the rules, as well
as offering good value for money to the taxpayer". His assessment
of the value for money of the arrangements was based on the view
that if his Somerset home been designated for ACA purposes he
would have been able to claim the maximum permitted amount. Alternatively,
as Mr Laws notes, he could have been open about his relationship,
and not only have claimed allowances, but partner benefits such
as travel and death benefits. The Commissioner notes:
I believe it is right to recognise that Mr Laws'
ACA claims were below the maxima provided by the allowanceand
increasingly so in the later yearsand I recognise his evidence
that, had he claimed for his Somerset property, and had he wished
to do so, he could have claimed considerably more.
13. There is no dispute that from July 2006 the prohibition
on renting from a partner meant that Mr Laws' arrangements were
impermissible, whether or not they were good value for the taxpayer.
Before 2006, the arrangements might have been permissible, if
the Somerset property were indeed Mr Laws' main home. Mr Laws
I did not re-designate my main home in 2004/05 because
I believed that to do so would be likely to raise questions about
my relationship with my landlord. I also did not want anyone to
conclude that I was re-designating for financial gain. The fact
that the Green Book said that the main home will "normally
be a matter of fact", and that that my Somerset home was
the only home I owned, reinforced my conclusion at the time that
my designation was reasonable. Finally, I did not think I could
be criticized for designating in a way that clearly provided better
value for money to the taxpayer.
14. We note these arguments. However, we also note
that in 2004-05 Mr Laws was apparently concerned about public
perception of the designation of his main home, before such matters
were generally in the public domain or a matter of public comment.
The Commissioner also questioned Mr Laws about the motivation
for keeping claims below the receipts threshold:
you help me on the reasons you gave me in your letter of 20 July
for keeping your claims below the receipts thresholdwhich
was because you did not want your landlord's name on the bills
sent to the Department? I am trying to work out how that protected
DL I didn't want to send
in bills with his name on. It was an aspect of my secrecy. After
the receipts threshold changed I reduced my claims below the threshold.
So I didn't claim for my mobile costs or the costs of my Somerset
landline, which were legitimate expenses, although claimed under
the wrong heading.
JL Can you help me on
why you felt that was going to work?
DL Until then the relationship
had been private for a very long time. I had supplied lodging
agreements but these were not supposed to go into the public realm.
I felt that if I didn't have to supply information, I didn't see
why this situation couldn't continue.
JL Surely redactions would
have protected information like phone numbers?
DL But FOI was only just
on the horizon. I was worried about anyone identifying that we
lived in the same property.
JL But couldn't anyone
in the Department have worked out who you were living with simply
by looking at your rental agreements?
DL Yes, but they wouldn't
have put it into the public domain. 
If Mr Laws could trust the Department of Resources
not to release the name of his landlord, it is not clear why he
should have been so concerned that other invoices would have been
15. In evidence to the Commissioner, the Director
General of the Department of Resources said:
In his letter to you of 14 January, Mr Laws argues
that his "gravitational pull" from 2004 was to his London
home; that he probably ought to have designated London as his
main home, and that the Department would have accepted such a
designation. It is certainly the case that the Department could
well have accepted that Mr Laws' main home was in London from
2004 if all the facts had been known to us. I note, however, your
own advice to the Standards and Privileges Committee that what
the Committee called a "value for money" test
should be applied when other considerations did not provide an
unambiguous answer as to which home should be designated as a
second home. In Mr Laws' case, the designation he made appears
to offer greater value for money, and this might have been seen
as a relevant factor at the time if the issue had been seen as
The Director General's advice was given before Mr
Laws' interview with the Commissioner. In that interview Mr Laws
said that "in 2009-10 I spent 191 nights in London, 134 in
Somerset and around 40 in neither". He considered this was
the general pattern before 2009-10 and that his arrangements "started
to tilt to London in 2004-05".
We see no reason to depart from the Commissioner's finding
that from April 2005 Mr Laws' main home was in London, not Somerset.
The Green Book stated clearly "If there is any doubt
about which is your main home, please consult the Department of
Finance and Administration." Mr Laws failed to take advice.
16. We now turn to the other breaches of the rules.
THE NATURE OF MR LAWS' RENTAL AGREEMENT
17. Mr Laws' memorandum states that his rental agreements
were drawn up from publicly available templates, and were simply
designed to record agreed rental levels. They were not designed
to obscure the actual circumstances of his tenancy. However, it
is clear from Mr Laws' own evidence that the rental agreements
did not set out the actual arrangements on which the property
was shared, which, as the Commissioner said, might have no exact
equivalent. Mr Laws based his assessment of market rents on Assured
Shorthold Tenancies, rather than on the lodging agreements which
he had submitted to the department. We agree that in reality Mr
Laws' living arrangements were more advantageous than the bare
terms of the agreements. Nonetheless, if the Department had been
aware that the arrangement was between close associates, it might
have looked more closely, or at least referred the matter to the
Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances. We consider the rental
agreements submitted between 2003 and 2008 were misleading and
designed to conceal the nature of the relationship. They prevented
any examination of the arrangements that in fact pertained over
the entire period.
18. We note that in evidence to the Commissioner,
Mr Laws defended his decision not to seek advice in order to protect
Mr Laws did not believe that, even if he had produced
a more accurate agreement, the Department would have questioned
it. He commented, "They said I could have asked a senior
member of the Department. They then said they would have felt
obliged to seek advice from a Committee of the House. That was
precisely why I didn't ask; I was very keen not to reveal information
about my sexualitynot least to MPs from other parties."
19. We return to the issue of whether Mr Laws' arrangements
were "above reproach" later in this report.
THE LEVEL OF MR LAWS' CLAIMS FOR
RENT AND BUILDING WORK
20. As we have noted, the Commissioner has found
Mr Laws' claims for rent to be higher than reasonably justified.
There is disagreement between Mr Laws and the Commissioner's independent
property adviser as to whether Mr Laws significantly over paid
on the rent for each of these two properties. Mr Laws states that
"my landlord and I fixed the rental levels between 2004-2009
by taking 50% of the observed market rents for similar properties"
in the area. The principal reason for this disagreement is because
by using this method Mr Laws based the level of rent on an Assured
Shorthold Tenancy (AST) rather than on a lodging agreement, which
will not command such high rents.
21. The Property Adviser gave evidence on both the
level of payment for an AST, and for a lodging agreement. The
adviser's initial figures for an AST were based on calculations
assuming that rental levels in the area tracked the national index,
although the advisers warned that this was not necessarily the
case. When the figures were challenged by Mr Laws the advisers
reconsidered their estimates for the AST rental levels. They also
produced figures for similar properties which had been available
locally at the time. The rent paid by Mr. Laws was above
50% of the AST rent identified for similar properties available
in the locality from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2004, and from
1 March 2008 to 31 July 2009, but below the figures charged
for similar properties between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2007.
 We note the adviser's
view that some of these properties were larger than those rented
by Mr Laws.
22. The adviser also revised the estimate of the
AST rental which might have been achieved for Mr. Laws' landord's
properties. On this estimate, Mr Laws' claims were in most months
significantly above the market rate. These differences ranged
from roughly £80 a month to nearly £230 a month, although
in 2007-08 the rent paid by Mr Laws was less than the AST figure
calculated by the Property Adviser. 
23. While the evidence relating to the AST was altered
as a result of Mr. Laws' comments, the adviser considered that
the original estimate estimates of market levels of rent for lodging
agreements were correct. If this is the case, between April 2003
and March 2008 the actual rent paid exceeded the market rents
due under a lodging agreement for a similar property by between
£209 and £370 per calendar month.
24. We also note the adviser's view that the market
would not have demanded contributions towards building repairs
and maintenance. Mr Laws has told us:
I accept the Commissioner's ruling on my claims in
respect of the £2,000 costs of necessary repairs and maintenance
work in 2007/08. The Commissioner has accepted that these costs
were "a comparatively minor contribution to the full works",
but his view is consistent with his ruling on the issue of lodging
agreement rental levels versus AST rentals.
25. Mr Laws contends that the payments were lower
than they would have been had he claimed on his Somerset home,
or made other permissible arrangements. In our view, it is inappropriate
to judge whether the claims on property A are appropriate by reference
to potential payments on another property, which is not in fact
26. Mr Laws chose to claim ACA for his London
homes. He should have taken care that the rental and other costs
charged for those homes were appropriate. Due to the secrecy Mr
Laws adopted, it is now impossible to establish with any certainty
the extent to which the rental claimed was excessive, given the
passage of time, the difficulty in finding precise comparators,
and the disparity between Mr. Laws' rental agreement and the arrangements
which were actually in place. Nevertheless, we see no reason to
dispute the professional assessment that the amounts charged were
above the market rate, and that the market would not have demanded
contributions towards building repairs and maintenance.
CLAIMS FOR TELEPHONY
27. We note the Commissioner's findings that Mr.
Laws wrongly claimed for his mobile phone and his main home costs,
and Mr Laws' evidence:
I accept the Commissioner's ruling on my mobile phone
costs and my main home parliamentary calls, and I am grateful
that the Commissioner accepts that, had I been aware of these
rules at the time, I could have ensured that there was sufficient
headroom in my IEP budget to pay these sums.
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE BREACHES
28. As the Commissioner notes, two provisions of
the Code of Conduct are particularly relevant in this case:
Paragraph 9 provides:
"Members shall base their conduct on a consideration
of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest
and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two,
at once, and in favour of the public interest."
Paragraph 14 provides:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
The first provision has been in place since the Code
was approved in 1996, and the second, which has been in place
since 2005, is a reformulation of the original rule that "no
improper use shall be made of any payment or allowance made to
Members for public purposes and the administrative rules which
apply to such payments and allowances must be strictly observed."
29. Mr Laws judged that there was no conflict between
the public interest and his personal interest. His desire for
privacy meant that he did so without the benefit of any advice
- the designation of his main
- (pre 2006) the appropriate way to establish a
market rent for his London accommodation;
- the nature of his rental agreement.
While it is clear that Mr Laws could have arranged
his affairs in a way which was less good value, we do not agree
that the criterion of value for money should be established by
comparing his potential claims with his actual claims. Having
chosen to designate London as his second home, it was Mr Laws'
responsibility to ensure that his claims were above reproach.
30. Although we entirely accept the Commissioner's
assessment that London was Mr Laws' main home from April 2005,
it is understandable that up until July 2006, when the rules and
their interpretation were not subject to as much scrutiny as now,
Mr Laws was able to convince himself that Somerset was his main
home, given that it was the property on which he had a mortgage.
However, even if that mistaken decision was explicable, Mr Laws
needed to establish a proper market rent for the London property.
The method used would be acceptable for private individuals seeking
to set a price for an arrangement they were funding themselves;
it was not acceptable where public money was concerned. If Mr
Laws was reluctant to consult the Department, he could have taken
advice from a property professional, who could have helped identify
both an appropriate form of tenure, and a reasonable rent.
31. By denying himself the advice of the Department
of Resources or property professionals over a period of more than
5 years, Mr Laws failed to ensure his claims were above reproach.
In fact, even if renting from a partner had been permissible,
the arrangement for Mr Laws' first property, as the Commissioner
said, "represented a very good deal for the landlord. It
was not a goodor reasonabledeal for the House."
In our view the breach of the rules in relation to the second
property was still more serious, in that Mr Laws had made significant
financial contributions to the purchase and upgrading of the property.
Such commitments are unusual between landlord and tenant, or even
between friends. In consequence he should have had no doubt that
he and his landlord were "partners" for the purposes
of the Green Book.
32. It is clear that Mr Laws recognized that there
was potential conflict between the public interest and his private
interest. By omitting to seek advice he made himself the sole
judge of whether that conflict was properly resolved. It was inappropriate
for him to be judge and jury in his own cause. As the Commissioner
comments, it can never be acceptable to submit misleading documents
to those charged with overseeing public finances. As this case
shows, Mr Laws' desire for secrecy led him to act in a way which
was not compatible with the standards expected of an MP.
33. Mr Laws has told us:
I accept that I was wrong not to have either re-designated
my main home in July 2006 after the "partner" rule change,
or to have asked the advice of the Department of Resources. I
also accept that on the "nights spent" test, London
was my main home from 2004/2005.
To conclude, I did not think that I was putting my
private interest in the privacy of my personal circumstances ahead
of the public interest in the scrutiny of my circumstances because
I was certain that my choice of main home designation was better
value for the taxpayer.
My motivation, as the Commissioner has accepted,
was to protect my privacy, not to benefit financially, and indeed
the effect of my decisions was to reduce the overall costs to
But I now accept that my claims were, as a consequence
of that desire for privacy, not "above reproach." For
this I apologise and accept complete and personal responsibility.
We welcome this apology, and Mr Laws' cooperation
with the Commissioner's thorough investigation. As the Commission
notes, Mr Laws has already repaid £56,592, the sum of his
full ACA claims for the period of 1 July 2006 to 31 July 2009.
£6,770 of that claim was for food costs.
34. Mr Laws tells us he has also made no claims "against
PAAE" (Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure) in
the last year. We
consider this is a matter between himself and IPSA, and have not
taken it into account in the following conclusions.
35. The Commissioner's report indicates that the
Somerset property was correctly designated as Mr Laws' main home
until April 2005. Between April 2004 and June 2006 Mr Laws claimed
£41,336 in ACA, of which £20,420 represented rent. The
Department of Resources has informed us that the payment for the
fourteen months wrongly claimed was £11,780. The Commissioner's
office informs us that Mr Laws was also paid £2,248.67 telephony
costs for his mobile phone and home phone. Both were wrongly claimed,
in that they were set against ACA rather than IEP (Incidental
36. Mr Laws' repayment already includes £6,770
of food costs, which would have been incurred whatever the validity
of his other claims. We also recognize the fact that, if he had
been more open, Mr Laws would have had substantial legitimate
claims against his Somerset property.
37. Mr Laws' main home designation was incorrect
from April 2005. However, his claims for food up until and beyond
July 2006 were legitimate. Moreover, the rules on renting from
a partner were not yet clear, and Mr. Laws would have been due
some ACA if he had arranged his affairs properly. The evidence
suggests that Mr. Laws' rental claims were excessive in comparison
to market rent, but it is not possible to determine the exact
discrepancy. The adviser's estimates of the market rent due for
a lodging agreement over this period suggest that the maximum
overpayment for rental would have been some £4,470, in addition
to the £2,248 of incorrect claims for telephone usage. The
total is below the £6,770 of food costs already repaid. Given
this, we do not recommend repayment of these sums, which we would
otherwise have done.
38. We have also considered whether there needs
to be a stronger sanction than repayments. Not only has Mr Laws
already resigned from the Cabinet, his behaviour since May 2010
has been exemplary. He quickly referred himself to the Commissioner,
has already repaid allowances from July 2006 in full, and has
cooperated fully with the Commissioner's investigation. This behaviour
has influenced our recommendation.
39. Nonetheless, whatever his motives and subsequent
behaviour, Mr Laws was guilty of a series of serious breaches
of the rules, over a considerable time. We recommend that Mr Laws
should be suspended from the service of the House for a period
of 7 sitting days. As the timing of the debate on this Report
is uncertain, and there is a recess approaching, we recommend
this suspension should begin on 7 June, when the House resumes.
Mr Laws should also apologize to the House by way of a personal
1 WE 1 Back
WE 21 Back
WE 23 Back
Appendix 1, paras 273 and 276 Back
Appendix 1, para 305 Back
Appendix 1, para 305 Back
Appendix 1, para 306 Back
Appendix 1, para 312 Back
Appendix 1, para 314 Back
Appendix 1, para 315 Back
Appendix 1, para 321 (e) Back
Appendix 1, para 321 (d) Back
Appendix 1, para 324 Back
Appendix 1, para 325 Back
Appendix 1, para 327 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 278 Back
Appendix 1, para 325 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 279 Back
Appendix 1, WE 68 Back
Appendix 1, WE 62 Back
Appendix 1, WE 68 Back
Appendix 1 para 244 Back
Appendix 1, paras 287-8 Back
See Appendix 1, para 115. No figures given for the period July
2007 and December 2008 Back
Appendix 1, WE 48, Appendix 4 Back
Appendix 1, para 84 (including footnote) Back
Appendix 1, para 85 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 282 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 282 Back
Appendix 1, paras 8-9 Back
The Code of Conduct together with The Guide to Rules
Relating to the Conduct of Members, approved by the House
of Commons on 24 July 1996, HC 688 Back
Appendix 1, para 317 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 282 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 282 Back
Appendix 2, vol-II, p 278 Back
For details of Mr Laws IEP expenditure, see Appendix 1, WE 67 Back