Boris Johnson rapped over lavish Caribbean holiday

Boris Johnson has been rapped on the knuckles over his declaration of a lavish New Year’s holiday in the Caribbean.

The Commons Committee on Standards rejected a finding by Parliament’s sleazebuster that he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct.

But given that Mr Johnson was twice reprimanded by the previous Standards Committee in the last Parliament, in the space of four months, for “an over-casual attitude towards obeying the rules of the House”, the Committee reported that it would have “expected him to go the extra mile to ensure there was no uncertainty about the arrangements” for his luxury holiday with his then partner, now wife, Carrie Symonds.

The committee said it was “regrettable” that a full explanation of the funding of the Mustique trip by a Tory donor had not been provided long ago.

Its conclusions include urging MPs in future to avoid seeking or accepting gifts or hospitality on the basis of “complex and unclear funding arrangements, which are by definition opaque, lack transparency and run counter to the principle of openness”.

It also called on MPs to reject any donations whether in cash or in kind where they are not absolutely certain of the identity of the person facilitating, providing and funding the gift.

The row centres on an entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning holiday accommodation provided to Mr Johnson on the island of Mustique in St Vincent and the Grenadines between 26 December 2019 and 5 January 2020.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Kathryn Stone found:

• Mr Johnson sought and was offered the use of a villa owned by Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross, a friend of Mr Johnson and a political supporter of the Conservative Party, on the island of Mustique.
• In the event Mr Ross’s villa was unavailable for those dates, but another villa on the island, Indigo, which was not owned by Mr Ross, was provided.
• This was the villa in which Mr Johnson and his partner stayed during the period. Mr Johnson did not pay any accommodation costs for his stay, although he met all other costs.
• Mr Johnson named Mr Ross as the donor in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Commissioner agreed that Mr Johnson was correct to include the name of Mr Ross, since he was the person who facilitated the visit. She found, however, that if another person had provided funds or a benefit in kind, Mr Johnson should also have given the details of whoever funded his holiday accommodation in the first instance.
• The Commissioner did not conclude that Mr Johnson’s Register entry was inaccurate since, as she notes, she was unable to conclude what Mr Johnson’s Register entry should have contained. The Commissioner was told by the Mustique Company (the island’s management company) that they were prohibited by law from disclosing information relating to the arrangements for the use or rental of villas on the Island.
• The Commissioner found Mr Johnson in breach of paragraph 14 of the Code because he did not “make sufficient inquiries to establish the full facts about the funding arrangements for his free accommodation, either before his holiday, as he should have done, or in 2020”.
• The Commissioner stated that these enquiries should have included inquiring “definitively who was to fund the free accommodation he had been offered, and what arrangements had been made to pay for it” before accepting free holiday accommodation.

During her investigation, the Commissioner considered whether £15,000 was an accurate value of the accommodation provided. Based on the evidence provided to her during the investigation, she concluded that she had no reason to dispute the valuation.

The detailed report also revealed how the Prime Minister brought in lawyers to challenge the Commissioner’s argument that he had broken the rules.

Mr Johnson argued that his registration of the holiday accommodation he received was “voluntary”.

But the Standards Committee agreed with the Commissioner that Mr Johnson was required to register the accommodation in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests so wrote to Mr Johnson, Mr Ross, and Mrs Sarah Richardson, the reported owner of the villa in which the Prime Minister stayed, to request further information about the arrangements.

The committee concluded:

• Mr Ross facilitated, via the Mustique Company, the use of a villa, Indigo, for Mr Johnson’s use.
• The ad hoc agreement at the time that the benefit was conferred on Mr Johnson was that the Mustique Company would pay the owners of the villa.
• Mr Ross would, in recompense, allow the Mustique Company the use of his own villa to cover the value of the accommodation.
• Taking the additional new evidence into consideration, the Committee concluded that Mr Ross was the donor of Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation.

The Committee therefore found that Mr Johnson’s Register entry was accurate and complete, and found no breach by Mr Johnson of paragraph 14 of the Code.

But it stated, however, that it was “regrettable” that a full account and explanation of the funding arrangements for Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation only came to light as a result of its own further enquiries rather than at an earlier stage.

“If greater clarity had been made available to the Commissioner at the first instance this matter could have been cleared up many months ago,” it added.

By Mr Johnson’s and Mr Ross’s own admission, the arrangements for funding Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation were ad hoc and informal, and do not appear to have been fully explained to Mr Johnson at the outset, the committee explained.

It added that it was “unsatisfactory” that neither Mr Ross nor Mr Johnson explained the arrangements to the Commissioner until last autumn and that Mr Ross only provided minimal information on the arrangement this spring and in response to the Committee’s further enquiries.