House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges

Leaks relating to the case of Mr

Seventeenth Report of Session 2010–12

Report and Annex together with formal minutes

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 12 July 2011

HC 1433 Published on 14 July 2011 By authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

The Committee on Standards and Privileges

The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

Current membership Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Tom Blenkinsop MP (Labour, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) Rt hon Tom Clarke CBE MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative, West Suffolk) MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test)

Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/sandp.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Eve Samson (Clerk), Mr Richard Kelly (Second Clerk) and Miss Christine McGrane (Committee Assistant).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615.

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 1

Contents

Report Page

Report 3 The process 3 Chronology 3 Conduct of this inquiry 5 Leaks and press speculation 7 Material suggesting briefing or leaks 8

Annex: Summary analysis of press coverage 12

Formal Minutes 19

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 3

Report

The process

1. This Report sets out the findings of the Committee’s investigation into leaks and alleged leaks of documents relating to Rt Hon David Laws MP. There are two documents under consideration: the first is the memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PCS) to the Committee setting out his findings and conclusions; the second is the Committee’s own Report. Before we turn to the details of this case, it will be helpful to outline the normal process of an investigation and report.

2. When the Commissioner has decided to conduct an investigation he collects evidence by means of correspondence and interview. This process can be lengthy, as matters need to be checked and thoroughly explored. Once the investigation is complete he sends the findings of fact to the MP who is the subject of that investigation for agreement. When the facts have been agreed, the Commissioner’s conclusions are added, and the memorandum sent to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Clerk has standing instructions from the Committee to send the memorandum both to the Committee itself, and to the Member concerned. This means that he or she has the opportunity to make representations to the Committee in writing or, if the Member desires and the Committee agrees, by giving oral evidence. If the Committee does not receive a request to give oral evidence, a memorandum is usually considered at the meeting the week after it has been circulated, and any report published as soon as possible thereafter. The report is sent to the printer on the day of the meeting. The subject of the complaint is given an advance copy an hour before publication, but the press does not have any embargoed copies. It is desirable to publish the Commissioner’s memorandum and related material at the same time as the Committee’s Report so that the full facts are available.

3. The Commissioner for Standards publishes statistics about his inquiries on his webpages. They indicate, among other things, which inquiries are in train. By comparing entries from one month to another it is possible to deduce whether a memorandum has been sent to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. These statistics are updated once a month. While the Commissioner does not volunteer information about inquiries, his office will answer questions put to it by journalists, such as whether a memorandum has been submitted.

Chronology

4. On 29 May 2010 reported that Mr Laws had “used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner.” On 31 May 2010 Mr Laws wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards asking him to look at the issues raised by his claims from 2006 to 2009. Mr Laws also repaid the expenses he had claimed over that period, and resigned from his position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

5. The Commissioner’s inquiry was extensive, and was not completed until April 2011. During the intervening period there was occasional coverage of the case, often based on the

4 Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws

original Daily Telegraph story. For example, related stories appeared on the PA newswire on 2 June 2010, 29 July 2010, 17 October 2010 and 24 November 2010.1 Several Freedom of Information requests about Mr Laws’ expenses were also submitted to the House and answered. They were:

i. two inquiries about room bookings;

ii. an inquiry about the arrangements for Mr Laws’s constituency office; and

iii. three inquiries relating to Mr Laws’s repayments of expenses.

6. On Thursday 28 April 2011 the final version of the Commissioner’s memorandum was sent to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges as a password protected document.

7. Given the sensitivity of the material, the memorandum was not distributed to Committee Members and to Mr Laws until Tuesday 3 May. Further copies were sent to the Attorney General and the Clerk of the Journals the next day. The document was not sent out electronically: hard copies were delivered by hand, in double envelopes, marked “IN CONFIDENCE: To be opened by addressee only”. The document itself was marked on each page: “Restricted Access: Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards”. The electronic document remained password protected: hard copies were kept securely within the office.

8. Between Tuesday 3 May and the Committee meeting on Tuesday 10 May Committee staff, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, worked on a draft Report. The draft was password protected. Although at one stage it contained a recommendation for suspension of a number of sitting days, that number was removed during the drafting process.

9. The Commissioner’s website was updated on Thursday 5 May, to remove Mr Laws from the list of current inquiries. Later that day Chris Ship of ITN asked when the Commissioner’s inquiry was likely to conclude and was told the memorandum had been submitted to the Committee. On Friday 6 May Katie Blower of Hanover contacted the Commissioner’s office to confirm that the memorandum had been sent to the Committee; she mentioned that she had picked up the news from Twitter.

10. On Saturday 7 May Brendan Carlin of the Mail on Sunday contacted at least one Committee member to ask about the case. It is clear he also contacted others outside the Committee, since Mr , the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, contacted the Chairman of the Committee to alert him to Mr Carlin’s inquiries.

11. On Sunday 8 May stories about the case appeared in the Mail on Sunday and in the Sunday Times. That evening a piece also appeared on website.

12. On Monday 9 May printed articles about the case appeared in the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Guardian, , the Belfast Telegraph and the Western Morning News. The Independent’s story includes the line “Mr Lyon also notes

1 Gove pays tribute to ‘honest and principled’ Laws, Esquire tips Laws for swift return to Cabinet, Laws signals hope of frontbench return, Laws set for return to government

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 5

that Mr Laws could have cost the taxpayer more if he had followed the rules in place at the time.”

13. At 22.21 that evening Michael Crick, the political editor of , reported on his blog that a source told him that the document was long and complicated and “There will be lots of discussion and lots of questions.”

14. On Tuesday 10 May the Committee met. Staff briefed Members that on their initial analysis the articles appeared to be based on speculation rather than leaks. Committee staff were unaware of the Michael Crick report, which was drawn to their attention. The Committee agreed its Report, including the recommendation that Mr Laws should apologise to the House and be suspended for seven sitting days. That recommendation was arrived at in the Committee meeting, and the figure of seven days was inserted into the draft for the first time. During the course of the day, the Committee staff prepared the Report for publication, sending it to TSO in electronic form at 17.37 hours. Committee staff also transferred the Commissioner’s memorandum into the second volume of the Committee’s report. These files were not password protected. The Committee’s Report was reported to the House (ie, arrangements were made for an entry to appear in the Votes and Proceedings, indicating that the Committee had agreed a report) before staff left at 6 p.m.

15. Also on Tuesday 10 May, the first report appeared that Mr Laws had “broken six expenses rules”. This story appeared to have been first broken by the Evening Standard, shortly after lunch, and was quickly repeated on the BBC. At 4:33 p.m. that day Sir made a Point of Order about the Committee’s meeting and the press reports.2

16. Although it was not widely noticed at the time, Political Scrapbook tweeted the Committee’s recommendation for a seven day suspension at 11.23 p.m. on Tuesday 10 May. This appears to have been directly retweeted by 11 people.

17. On Wednesday 11 May at 12:01 p.m. the recommendation for suspension became widely reported on Twitter. The story appeared on the Sky breaking news feed around 12.24 p.m. No further detail of the Committee’s report emerged. That afternoon, a further point of order was made about the leaks by ,3 and the Chair of the Committee announced there would be a leak inquiry.

18. On Thursday 12 May carried a story “Laws is ‘cleared’ on expenses”. This story contains a direct quotation from the Commissioner’s memorandum: “I have no evidence Mr Laws made his claims with the intention of benefiting himself or his partner in conscious breach of the rules.” The Committee’s Report, and with it the Commissioner’s memorandum, was published at 11 a.m. that day.

Conduct of this inquiry

19. Our inquiry attempted to gather as much evidence about the leaks as possible. The responses we received were extremely full; some reveal security information which it would

2 HC Deb, 10 May 2011, c1049 3 HC Deb, 11 May 2011, c1181

6 Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws

be best not to make public. We have decided not to make the full documents public, but instead to summarise them in this report.

20. The Chair wrote to all Members of the Committee and to Mr Laws to ask whether they had any information about these reports. The Chair asked whether Members had been approached by any journalists seeking information, and, if so, how the Member had responded. The Chair also asked if the documents were mentioned to third parties, and whether anyone in the Member’s office or family might have handled or had access to these documents.

21. All Members of the Committee replied. Most of them had been approached by journalists at some point, but all denied giving information about the Report. Some told us that, well before the memorandum had been received, they had given colleagues informal indications that no Report would be issued before early May, and that, given the length of the inquiry, the prospects for Mr Laws were “not great”. After the Committee meeting it is clear that some Committee members had told colleagues the Report would be released at 11 am on Thursday 12 May, and was “not good”. All denied giving details of the contents. All confirmed that their staff or family members did not access the papers.

22. Mr Laws assured us that he kept the Commissioner’s Report confidential, and did not speak to any journalists about it. He also told us that his family and friends did not have access to the document.

23. In addition to letters to Members, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and his relevant staff were asked for information as were Committee staff, the Clerk of the Journals and the Law Officers. None could shed any light on the leaks. Several journalists made inquiries both of Committee staff and the PCS staff member authorised to respond to media questions. Committee staff responded by saying they did not comment on the Committee’s agenda. Following normal practice, the PCS’s office confirmed that the memorandum had been sent to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and requests for information about the timing of any report were referred to the Committee clerk.

24. The Committee staff approached TSO and PICT to establish whether the documents could have been accessed through the printers, or through the parliamentary network. For the reasons set out in paragraph 34, it was concluded that these were unlikely sources.

25. The staff of the Committee collected all the press coverage they could find and examined it closely, to establish as best they could which coverage was based on material already in the public domain, and which was based on briefing or leaks. They also requested details of freedom of information requests on Mr Laws, to establish what information had come into the public domain through this route. It cannot be guaranteed that every relevant article has been found, but, as set out later in this Report, this work suggested a number of particular articles which might have been based on leaks or briefing.

26. Once that had been done, the Clerk of the Committee wrote to the journalists who had been responsible for each of the key stories, asking if they could shed light on the matter. Given journalists will wish to protect their sources, the letter asked whether those concerned would indicate whether or not their source was directly linked to the Committee. None was willing to give even this limited information.

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 7

Leaks and press speculation

27. It is clear that any leaks were the result of media inquiries, rather than being initiated by someone with inside knowledge. There was no press coverage of the Commissioner’s memorandum until the routine updating of the Commissioner’s webpages. Once that happened, extensive attempts were made to engage with Committee members and others to obtain briefing. Clearly, some of those attempts were successful. It has not been possible to establish whether material which appeared in the press was obtained from those with first-hand knowledge of the documents in question, or indirectly. Moreover, it is far from clear to what extent certain stories were the result of intelligent speculation, briefing, or leaks.

28. Our examination of the material published by the press suggests that much (although not all) of it was based on matters already in the public domain, and intelligent speculation. The inquiry into Mr Laws’ affairs had taken the best part of a year: it was a reasonable assumption that it would be complex, and that the outcome might not be wholly favourable. The detail of what was reported was often unrelated to the material in either the Commissioner’s memorandum or the Committee’s report:

• the Commissioner’s memorandum makes clear that Mr Laws breached the rules by wrongly designating his main home. This was not reported until after the Committee’s report was published;

• the Commissioner’s memorandum contains a great deal of material about the relationship of the rent paid by Mr Laws to the expected market rent; again, this was not reported until after the Committee’s report was published;

• although both the Commissioner’s memorandum and the Committee’s Report contained the fact that Mr Laws had repaid £56,592, and this figure had already been given in response to FOI requests, press reports cited a figure of “£40,000”, the amount given by the Daily Telegraph on 2 June 2010; and

• some details which might appear to suggest leaking were not covered in depth by the Commissioner, and were in fact either already in the public domain, or unknown to the Commissioner and the Committee.

29. The most telling examples of material which suggests extensive leaking but, on closer analysis, are not linked to the Commissioner’s or the Committee’s work are those relating to Mr Laws’ utilities bills. It is clear that the media considered that utilities bills might be an issue before there was any question of leaks occurring, since on 20 April 2011 the Commissioner’s office confirmed to James Lyons of the Mirror that the Commissioner had received a complaint about over-claiming for utilities bills. In fact, although this was examined, the Commissioner’s memorandum contains relatively little about such bills and concludes “there is no evidence that Mr Laws over-claimed on his share of the utility bills”.4

30. On Sunday 8 May the Sunday Times reported “Lyon has also examined Laws’s utility bills which were in “rounded” figures” This might appear to be a leak, but the original

4 Committee on Standards and Privileges, fifteenth Report of Session 2010–12, Mr David Laws, HC 1023-II, para 320 b

8 Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws

Telegraph article of May 2010 suggested “Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008 he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.” [Committee emphasis].

31. On Thursday 12 May the Daily Telegraph claimed that “in 2008 the House of Commons specifically requested that Mr Laws submit receipts for council tax and utilities. Mr Laws instead sent in another copy of the existing rental agreement, with the council tax and utility costs filled in by hand”. This information, if accurate, must have come from the Telegraph’s own papers; any request for submission of receipts was not even known to the Commissioner, let alone covered in his memorandum.

32. In principle, there should be complete silence about Committee papers. In practice, some things may be said which, although undesirable, are not leaks: for example, someone asked about the likely timetable for appearance of a Report may indicate that the matters are complex, and a timetable cannot be given. In this case, although there were undoubtedly were leaks both of the Commissioner’s memorandum and of the Committee’s recommendation, much of the initial noise around the Report did not arise from such leaks, and nor were there any signs of extensive briefing from those close to the Committee.

Material suggesting briefing or leaks

33. Within this general “noise” it is clear that there was some briefing of the press, not necessarily directly from those with access to committee documents, and not necessarily in any great depth. It is also apparent that some material within the Committee’s papers was leaked. In this context, the most significant developments in the story can be summarised as follows:

i. comments that the Commissioner’s memorandum was “damning” (Daily Telegraph, Sunday 8 May);

ii. comments suggesting that the Committee’s verdict would be less damaging than frequently supposed, since Mr Laws had co-operated with the inquiry, paid back the money, and was motivated by a desire to protect his privacy (Sunday Times, Sunday 8 May; Mail on Sunday, Sunday 8 May; Financial Times, Monday 9 May; Guardian Monday 9 May);5

iii. comments that Mr Lyon also noted that Mr Laws could have cost the taxpayer more if he had followed the rules in place at the time (Independent, Monday 9 May);

iv. Michael Crick’s report that the matter was complex (BBC 22:21, Tuesday 10 May);

v. allegations that there were “six breaches” of the rules (Evening Standard, around noon Tuesday 10 May);

5 Articles clearly entirely based on other press work have been omitted from the analysis.

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 9

vi. the leak of the Committee’s recommendation (Political Scrapbook late Tuesday 10 May; Sky Wednesday 11 May; Sky, Thursday 12 May); and

vii. the leak of a single sentence in the Commissioner’s memorandum (The Sun, 12 May).

Given that it is easy to make unguarded remarks which give away more than intended, and for remarks made in confidence to gain wider circulation, we have not been able to establish whether any of the leaked material came directly from the Committee or from those with legitimate access to its papers.

34. We do not believe that the leaks came from TSO, since the time between their receipt of the document and the first tweet was so short. Similarly, although in principle some leaks could have come from IT staff with legitimate access to the Committee’s drives, this can be discounted since there is no evidence that an entire document was leaked. Moreover, such staff would not have known the password for the Commissioner’s memorandum, nor have been aware of the relatively brief time when it and the Committee’s report were available without password protection.

35. Items i, ii and iv on this list of potential leaks (namely the allegation that the Commissioner’s report was “damning”, comments favourable to Mr Laws and the comment that the document was complex) are not properly speaking leaks. Any such remarks were unwise, and doubtless contributed to the currency of the story, but did not amount to revealing the contents of any documents.

36. We now turn to the allegation that there were “six breaches” of the rules. It is arguable that the Commissioner’s findings are more complex than this, but paragraph 323 of his memorandum the Commissioner sets out his overall conclusion in a list of six items. It is clear that the assertion that the Commissioner had found six breaches of the rules was indeed based on the Commissioner’s work. However, the speculation which appeared in the press before the Report was published on what those breaches might be was inaccurate, and consistently failed to identify a main finding, namely that the designation of London as a second home was incorrect. It is reasonable to conclude that this leak was likely to have been prompted by unguarded comments; it was of the most general nature. It is not possible to establish its source.

37. The articles in The Independent on 9 May and The Sun on 12 May do appear to contain leaks from the Commissioner’s memorandum. The recommendation for suspension contained in the Committee’s own report was clearly leaked. Nonetheless, we are confident that neither the Commissioner’s memorandum nor the Committee’s report were leaked to the press in their entirety.

38. In hindsight, the readiness to believe that coverage of the possible content of the Commissioner’s memorandum to the Committee was the result of leaks may have had the unfortunate result of increasing press interest in the story, and consequently increasing the pressure on those with inside knowledge. A more measured approach to press reports at the beginning of the process might have reduced that pressure which regrettably ultimately led to the leaks of the Committee’s recommendation, and of at least one sentence from the Commissioner’s memorandum.

10 Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws

39. In his point of order Sir Menzies Campbell asked:

what protection is available to hon. and right hon. Members who find themselves in such a position? Such leaking risks undermining the work of the Commissioner and the Committee on which we all rely. What confidence can my Right Honourable friend have that he has been, and will be continue to be, given a fair hearing under the principles of natural justice will be upheld?6

This Committee can only deal with the fairness of its own processes. No leak of substance had appeared before the Committee meeting on 10 May at which the Report was agreed. The entire Committee was present at that meeting, and considered the press coverage before it considered the Commissioner’s memorandum. We are confident that our processes were fair.

40. Whether the media reporting both before and after our meeting was fair is not for us to judge. We understand the concern about the apparent leaks from the Commissioner’s memorandum. Mr Laws himself considered that the media carried reports which were damaging to him, and that it was very difficult to be unable to respond. Nonetheless, the coverage was not uniformly negative. The clearest leak from the Commissioner’s memorandum was in an article predicting Mr Laws would be cleared, published on 12 May, only a few hours before the Committee’s report appeared. Most of the reporting of the Commissioner’s memorandum appears to have been based on speculation, not on leaks. We cannot establish the source of the two undoubted leaks.

41. In a previous Report we noted:

the unauthorised disclosure of a draft Report or of advice to a select committee not only betrays confidence but can damage trust between Members, and between Members and those who work for or with them. It also undermines the effectiveness of the committee’s work.7.

We do not consider the coverage of the Commissioner’s memorandum has reduced our ability to work together.

42. The leak of the Committee’s recommendation took place after the Committee had agreed its report, and after the document had been reported to the House. It does not appear to have been motivated by a desire to interfere with the Committee’s work.8 The document had already been agreed. It could not have been altered. Accordingly it was not a contempt. We remain concerned by it. Our assumption is that the recommendation was not leaked directly to the press, but came about because someone felt under pressure to brief a colleague in confidence. That, in itself, is extremely regrettable; it is still more regrettable that the recommendation was quickly revealed to the media. The incident has demonstrated to the Committee the need to resist such

6 HC Deb, 10 May 2011, col 1049 7 Twentieth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2007–08, Premature disclosure of select committee papers, HC 1212 8 See Erskine May, 24th edition (London, 2011), p 838 “...disclosure of a draft report which has been submitted to a committee, before such a report has been agreed to by the committee and presented to the House, may be treated as a contempt” (see also pp 259-260)”

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 11

pressure in future, and to avoid unguarded comments. Nonetheless, we believe that we can continue to work effectively and fairly.

Laws of MrDavid case tothe relating 12 Leaks Annex: Summary analysis of press coverage

Press analysis for the David Laws leak (PCS memorandum, and Committee Report) (HC 1023–I)

Date Publication Headline Article Summary Sources quoted Leaked?

Example of Mail Online Lib Dem MP David As long as David Laws is not criticised too harshly on the A friend Predated PCS memorandum previous Laws ‘will be back in PCS Report, he’ll be back on frontline by Christmas. coverage frontline post by Claimed £40,000 in second home expenses. Kept sexuality David Laws [on giving policy 6 Christmas’ after private. Offered to pay money back and referred himself advice to Government] November resigning over to PCS. 2010 expenses scandal

8 May The Mail on Damning Report to Assessment of Mr Laws’s prospects. A well placed source Details of claims had 2011 Sunday hit David Laws’ hopes Claimed more than £40,000 in expenses despite ban on appeared in Daily of a return to Cabinet MPs making claims on renting from partners. Other Friends of Mr Laws Telegraph, 29 May 2010, as expenses challenged, including use of rule allowing claims had some material on house without receipts. Defence was did not want to disclose A spokesman for the MP sales sexuality. Details of Mr Laws’ partner’s house sales, and Mr Laws’s rental payments.

8 May The Sunday Disgraced Lib Dem Laws facing censure after claimed up to £40k in expenses Parliamentary sources No details other than those 2011 Times Laws faces censure to pay rent to his boyfriend. PCS to be considered by in 2010 coverage and powerful committee of MPs, expected to recommend he speculation be formally reprimanded. Unlikely to be referred to Police for investigation. Paid rent to partner for 8 years. MPs Already clear rules on have received report by PCS who is believed to have found renting from a partner the MP beached rules banning members from “leasing breached accommodation from...a partner” Parliamentary sources indicated that Mr Laws fully co-operated with inquiry. Return to front bench unlikely months.

8 May Guardian.co.uk David Laws faces PCS expected to rule that Laws broke the rules claiming No specific source No details other than those 2011 reprimand over more than £40,000 in expenses for rent paid to partner. in 2010 coverage and expenses claim Will touch on other areas, including claims for utility bills. speculation

Date Publication Headline Article Summary Sources quoted Leaked?

Even though his return to the Cabinet is sought, it won’t happen quickly if there is harsh criticism in the PCS’s Report.

9 May Daily Mail Laws Sleaze Setback PCS is expected to rebuke Mr Laws for claiming £40k in None Reference to “report is 2011 rent for his partner. This will dash hopes of a return to the expected to clear him of front bench. Report is expected to clear him of using the using system for personal expenses system for personal gain. Paid money back and gain” Other details already co-operated with the inquiry. If a reshuffle can be delayed in public domain until next spring, he may be on the front benches again.

9 May The Daily Report could block Expenses report expected to be highly critical. Claimed Earlier Daily Telegraph articles Any details not already in 2011 Telegraph return of Laws more than £40k renting from a partner. Details of public domain available expenses claims for utilities, telephone, cleaning etc, and from unredacted MP of total claims made over six years. expense data

9 May Western MP Laws faces a See Mail on Sunday, 8 May. See Mail on Sunday, 8 May See Mail on Sunday, 8 May 2011 Morning News ‘damning’ expense verdict Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws David of Mr thecase to Leaks relating 9 May Belfast Laws to learn fate Mr Laws to learn whether he faces censure over paying None Appears summary of 2011 Telegraph over his expenses rent to partner. Motivated by need to protect privacy previous pieces rather than financial gain.

9 May The Expenses decision Former Lib Dem MP will learn whether he’ll be censured None Explicit reference to PCS 2011 Independent due on ex-minister for claiming up to £40k to pay rent to partner. Motivated memorandum. by need to protect privacy, “Mr Lyon also notes that Mr Laws could have cost the taxpayer more if he had followed the rules in place at the time.”

9 May Financial Times Return of Laws to £40k claimed in expenses for renting a room without People familiar with the No details not already in 2011 political front line revealing his landlord was his partner. Other criticisms; Commissioner’s investigation public domain seen to hinge on inquiries ranged much further than Mr Laws’s rental findings of year-long payments. Whilst and hope that Friends of Mr Laws investigation the end of the DL inquiry will clear the way for his return 13

Laws of MrDavid case tothe relating 14 Leaks Date Publication Headline Article Summary Sources quoted Leaked?

to the Front bench, senior Lib Dems fear the PCS will Senior Lib Dems provide critics with enough ammunition to hamper this return. Friends of Mr Laws are confident that he never acted for personal gain and only ever wanted to protect his privacy.

9 May The Guardian Laws faces mild PCSs expected to rule that Mr Laws broke the rules by Lib Dems expect No details not already in 2011 reprimand over claiming more than £40k in expenses paid to partner. Lib public domain expenses claim Dems expect Lyon broadly to endorse Laws’s position— rules broken to protect privacy. Mild censure could pave way for return to office.

9 May BBC News Whither David Laws? “I’m told” PCS memo is long and complicated and “one source” ?Is it a leak to say 2011 (Michael Committee may not be able to resolve it at a single something is long and (22.21) Crick’s blog meeting (10 May 2011). complicated

10 May London Laws hit for six PCS is believed to have found six breaches of the “I’m told” There is a list of six breaches 2011 Evening regulations, breaking regulations on claims for a second in PCS memo. Clear no Standard home, statements made to the Commons authorities, details of findings available (Nicholas renting property from a partner and other issues. His allies to journalist Cecil’s blog) are not giving up hope that the Committee will find breaches to protect privacy rather than for personal gain

10 May London Laws is guilty of six Based on blog with addition As in blog As in blog 2011 Evening breaches of Standard, print Commons rules, says His allies insist he kept the living arrangements secret Mr Laws’s allies edition watchdog because he did not want his sexuality to be known publicly. They say he could have claimed far more than he did under the flawed system

10 May The Spectator None Article discusses when Laws will return to the frontbenches Evening Standard No details not already in 2011 and what the motivation could be for this elevation. It also Sky (tweet) public domain (15.03 quotes the ES report on Laws being found guilty of pm) breaching 6 Commons rules.

Date Publication Headline Article Summary Sources quoted Leaked?

10 May BBC News David Laws ‘broke six Lib Dem MP David Laws has been found guilty of A source No details not in public 2011 MPs’ expenses rules’ breaching parliamentary rules over more than just his domain since Evening (16.22) claims for rent, the BBC has been told but it will stress he BBC’s deputy political editor Standard report. did not intend to benefit himself or his partner. The level of sanction will indicate when and if Mr Laws can return to Lib Dems refusing to comment Government. Other breaches were discovered including until report officially published. phone bills and building work. A source said: “This is Party statement "Mr Laws has considered a serious matter”. always maintained that his decisions were driven by the desire for privacy, rather than to benefit in any way from the expenses system. Mr Laws has also always maintained that his actions led to a lower cost the taxpayer than would otherwise be the case."

10 May New David Laws found . PCS Report Material already in public 2011 Statesman guilty of breaching The Sun (Cameron Interview) domain (16.37) “around six” expense rules Laws David of Mr thecase to Leaks relating

10 May Daily David Laws must say Mr Laws claimed over £100 k in total. When House asked Sources close to the Lib Dem Any details not already in 2011 Telegraph sorry after breaking for receipts for council tax and utilities, Mr Laws submitted MP public domain available (22.00) website six expense rules another copy of the existing rental agreement with costs from unredacted MP filled in by hand. Sources close to the MP insist that Mr expense data. PCS unaware Article Laws kept his living arrangements secret because he didn’t of receipt allegation appeared in want his made public. print 11 May

10 May Daily Mail Former Lib Dem Laws expected to be found guilty of breaking 6 expenses Sources No detail not already in the 2011 treasury chief David rules, Committee findings to be published tomorrow. public domain (23.14) Laws ‘broke 6 Sources said the commissioner’s report “pretty bleak”. PM’s spokesman expenses rules’ Downing street said Mr Laws could still return to the front benches. 15

Laws of MrDavid case tothe relating 16 Leaks Date Publication Headline Article Summary Sources quoted Leaked?

10 May Lib Dem Voice David Laws: questions The widespread leaking of the Commissioner’s Report None No detail not already in the 2011 for him, questions for raises 3 questions: First, is there a difference when the MP public domain (23.21 ) the political breaks the rules and benefits the taxpayer. Second, has journalists (from the only a partial version of the PCS’s report been released to Lib Dem Voice) spin a version of the whole report. Third, signs so far point to the leak coming from a Member of the S&P Committee—if one of them has leaked the report—should they continue in their present form.

10 May Political We’re hearing Mr None S&P Report (23.23) Scrapbook Laws is in for a 7-day suspension

11 May The Laws faces 6 breaches of rules including claims for telephone and Lib Dem sources No material not already in 2011 Independent punishment for building work together with £40,000 paid to partner in the public domain breaking expenses rent. Lib Dems sources claim that the leak was politically ruled motivated.

11 May Daily Mirror David Laws facing The S&P Committee found that Mr Laws broke up to 6 HoC The Mirror (on police No material not already in 2011 new police probes rules. There was speculation on what will be in the Report, investigations) the public domain over expenses and article also implied that depending on the findings of the PCS Report, the police might re-open their investigation.

11 May Sky Ticker Former Lib Dem Tsy — None S&P Report 2011 Secy DL to be suspended for 7 days and to apologise to the Commons for breaches of the expenses rules

11 May Guardian.co.uk David Laws faces Laws facing a 7 day suspension. The scale of his deceit Lib Dem source: “we all knew No material not already in 2011 Commons larger than first thought. PCS memo took over a year to he’d done something wrong— public domain or possible to (18.50) suspension—Liberal produce because of exchanges between Laws and the David acknowledge that—but work out

Date Publication Headline Article Summary Sources quoted Leaked?

Democrat MP who Commissioner on the issues. 6 breaches of the rules had his is harsher treatment than resigned over occurred. others have got” expenses scandal may be suspended for seven days

12 May The Sun Laws is ‘cleared’ on David Laws broke parliamentary rules but not to line his A Commons official Sentence from 2011 expenses—David own pocket. He could have claimed an additional 30k had Commissioner’s Laws only submitted he declared relationship with partner. memorandum dodgy expenses to hide he was gay, a sleaze probe has ruled

12 May The Telegraph David Laws The article provided a summary of where Mr Laws has Previous Daily Telegraph No material not already in 2011 suspended over lived in Central London, how much he paid his articles, DL’s expense claims. public domain (06.30) pages of expenses landlord/partner in rent and other utility costs, and claims timelines when these thing happened together with dates and costs.

Laws David of Mr thecase to Leaks relating 17

Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws 19

Formal Minutes

Tuesday 12 July 2011

Members present:

Mr Kevin Barron in the Chair

Sir Paul Beresford Mr Geoffrey Cox Tom Blenkinsop Matthew Hancock Annette Brooke Oliver Heald Mr Tom Clarke

Draft Report (Leaks relating to the case of Mr David Laws), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 20 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 21 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 22 to 31 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 32 and 33 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 34 and 35 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 36 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 37 to 41 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 42 read, amended and agreed to.

A Paper was annexed to the Report.

Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Seventeenth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 13 September at 9.30 am