Questions for Paisley

When this newspaper reported last year that Ian Paisley, the Democratic Unionist MP, had failed to declare two luxury family holidays in Sri Lanka, he denied the allegations. He said they were “defamatory” and the article was “devoid of fact or logic”. But they were true, as he must have known, and this week he was suspended from the House of Commons for 30 days, the heaviest penalty handed down for 70 years.

The committee on standards found that he had committed “serious misconduct” and “brought the House into disrepute”. Under the Recall of MPS Act, it is also open to Mr Paisley’s constituents in North Antrim to force him to contest a by-election.

Mr Paisley has offered an “unreserved” apology for his behaviour and yet reservations evidently remain. He disputes the alleged £100,000 cost of the holidays and says the true figure was half that, still a significant sum. He says that it was genuine oversight on his part that they were not registered. The standards committee said it was because he was “conscious of the potential embarrassment that would be caused to him were it to become publicly known that he had accepted very expensive hospitality... from a foreign government accused of serious human rights violations.”

Was he unaware of this? If so, why did he subsequently write to the Prime Minister urging the UK Government not to support a UN resolution critical of Sri Lanka for abuses in its civil war? He contended this was not paid advocacy but the committee disagreed. If Mr Paisley is to be required to fight a by-election, we trust he will be more candid with the voters than he was with this newspaper or his fellow parliamentarians.