Boris Johnson Contents

---

Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards - Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP

Summary

This memorandum reports on the inquiry that I began following a complaint that Mr Johnson had made an inaccurate entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to his family holiday on the island of Mustique from 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020.43

I began the inquiry on 2 March 2020 following a complaint received on 13 February 2020. I suspended the inquiry between 7 April 2020 and 30 June 2020 in recognition of the increasing burdens on the Prime Minister due to the pandemic, and because of his serious illness. In addition, I have been delayed by the difficulty of obtaining evidence.

MPs (including Ministers) are required to follow the principle of openness. They must record in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any benefit they receive which might reasonably be thought by others to influence their actions or words as an MP. They must provide detailed information about the benefit, including who funded it, and its nature and value. Mr Johnson registered at the proper time that he received free accommodation for his family holiday. But it has been alleged that he registered inaccurate information about the donor (the person who funded his holiday accommodation) and about the value of the free accommodation.

It has been unusually difficult to find facts during this lengthy investigation. After an inquiry lasting more than a year, I have not found any reliable documentary evidence of the arrangements for paying for Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation. I am therefore not able to reach a view on whether Mr Johnson’s Register entry was accurate and complete. But it is not my role to provide the missing information. This remains the responsibility of the Member.

I have also not been able to establish the basis on which the benefit received by Mr Johnson was valued at £15,000. I have however no reason to dispute that the villa could have been charged out at £15,000 for a last-minute booking for a party of similar size to Mr Johnson’s and in similar circumstances, from 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020.

I believe that this free accommodation met the condition for the Register, and that Mr Johnson was right to register it. Accommodation in a luxury villa for ten days, to a value of £15,000, is a substantial benefit which others might reasonably consider to influence an MP. It follows that Mr Johnson should have made sure that he had the full information needed for his Register entry in January 2020.

Mr Johnson was right to name Mr Ross in his Register entry as the person who played a key role in obtaining a villa for Mr Johnson’s use. I accept that Mr Johnson had originally expected that the villa would be owned by Mr Ross. I find it surprising that, when he realised that he was to stay elsewhere, Mr Johnson did not establish the full facts about who was the owner of the villa, how the villa would be funded and the value of the benefit, before accepting the accommodation as a gift.

Mr Johnson has told me that he believes the owners received a payment for his use of the accommodation. At another point he told me that Mr Ross arranged to meet the “notional costs” by making his own villa available to the Mustique Company on future dates. He has not explained how these two accounts relate to each other.

The rules require Members to fulfil “conscientiously” the requirement of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. 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, I find that Mr Johnson has not fulfilled conscientiously the House’s requirements for registration. I find that this is a breach of paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct. I also find that Mr Johnson has not shown the accountability required of those in public life.

Mr Johnson has breached the registration rules on three previous occasions. He has been referred to the Committee on Standards on two of these, in 2017–19.44 On the last occasion the Committee said, “Should we conclude in future that Mr Johnson has committed any further breaches of the rules on registration, we will regard this as a matter which may call for more serious sanction”. I therefore refer this matter to the Committee on Standards for their consideration.

Report

Background

1.I began an inquiry on 2 March 2020, following a complaint I received that Mr Johnson’s following entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests was inaccurate:45

Name of donor: Mr David Ross

Address of donor: private

Nature and value of benefit in kind (or amount of any donation): accommodation for a private holiday for my partner and me, value £15,000

Destination of visit: St Vincent and the Grenadines

Dates of visit: 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020

Purpose of visit: private holiday.

(Registered 27 January 2020)

2.This complaint had been prompted by an article in the Daily Mail (13 February 2020),46 which quoted a spokesperson for Mr Ross who denied that Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation had been funded by Mr Ross.

Relevant rules of the House

3.Paragraph 14 of the 2018 Code of Conduct (the Code) for Members states that:

“Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”

4.Chapter 1 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members sets out detailed rules on the registration of financial interests. Paragraphs 31 to 38 deal specifically with visits outside the UK and paragraph 36 lists the information Members must provide.

Threshold for registration

31. Members must register, subject to the paragraphs below, any visits to destinations outside the UK where the cost is over £300 if that cost is not wholly borne by the Member or by UK public funds.…

36. Members are required to provide the following information:

a)The name and address of the person or organisation funding the visit;

b)The amount of any payment, and/or the nature and value of any donation in kind such as flights and accommodation;

c)The destination of the visit;

d)The date(s) of the visit;

e)The purpose of the visit.

My Inquiry

5.I have obtained evidence from Mr Johnson, Mr Ross and the Registrar during this inquiry. I attempted to obtain information relevant to this inquiry direct from the Mustique Company,47 through whom the accommodation was arranged, but was informed by legal counsel acting on behalf of the Mustique Company that they were unable to provide any information due to statutory restrictions contained in the Mustique Company Limited Act 2002, which expressly prohibits the Company from any disclosure in relation to its licensees. Licensees refers to any individual or legal entity who acquires any land or interest in land in Mustique. Independent research confirmed this to be accurate.48 Following the sharing of the draft Memorandum with the Member for fact checking, I received an unsolicited letter from Mr Ross providing me with a copy of a letter to him from the Managing Director of the Mustique Company, and dated 9 March 2021.49

Evidence

6.On 24 January 2020 Mr Johnson’s office telephoned the registration team with details about Mr Johnson’s holiday to Mustique and followed up with an email on 27 January 2020. Mr Johnson’s updated entry in the Register was published as in paragraph 1 in the next edition Register, that of 10 February 2020:

Media Reports

7.The Guardian reported on 12 February 2020 as follows:

A spokesperson for the businessman50 told the Daily Mail: ‘Boris Johnson did not stay in David Ross’s house. Boris wanted some help to find somewhere in Mustique, David called the company who run all the villas and somebody had dropped out. So Boris got the use of a villa that was worth £15,000, but David Ross did not pay any monies whatsoever for this.’ Asked about Johnson’s declaration, the spokesperson reportedly said: ‘I believe it is a mistake’.51

8.The Daily Mail reported (12 February 2020) that Mr Johnson’s spokesperson responded to the comments by Mr Ross’s spokesperson as follows, ‘All relevant transparency requirements have been met. This was a benefit in kind from Mr Ross’.52

9.An article in The Independent on 13 February 2020 quoted the spokesperson for Mr Ross as adding that Mr Ross ‘had not put his hand in his pocket whatsoever and can obviously prove that – [he] most definitely did not pay anything and it was not his house. It was a house that was rented but the people could not turn up, so Boris Johnson got the use of it’.53

10.Subsequently, Mr Ross’s spokesperson departed from his earlier statement. This was reported by the Daily Mail (12 February 2020, updated 14 February 2020):

The spokesman then made a U-turn, insisting that ‘Mr Johnson’s declaration to the House of Commons is correct’ because ‘Mr Ross facilitated accommodation’.54

11.The Mail Online reported on 13 February 2020 that the owners of the villa had confirmed that they had been paid. The article reports that the owners had no idea who covered the cost as it had been handled by The Mustique Company. The article did not confirm the amount.55

12.On 13 February 2020 I received a letter of complaint alleging that Mr Johnson’s registration entry in relation to his holiday to the island of Mustique was incorrect. The complainant relied on the articles in the media to support this allegation.56

Evidence from Mr Johnson and Mr Ross

13.On 2 March 2020 I wrote to Mr Johnson to tell him that I had begun an inquiry and invited his comments.57

14.Mr Johnson responded on 12 March 2020 stating he was happy to provide additional information and context, explaining that “The original plan was for my partner and me to stay at Mr Ross’s villa. When I arrived at the Island it transpired that Mr Ross had made an alternative arrangement because his own villa was unavailable”. Mr Johnson clarified that “Until recent media reporting I was not aware of the identity of the person whose villa I stayed in.” Mr Johnson said “In the interests of full transparency, as it was Mr Ross who facilitated the provision of dedicated holiday accommodation for us, it was important to me that this connection was properly declared. As I was not aware of the identity of the individual who owns that accommodation (and in any event they were not conferring the benefit as they received payment for its use - which has been publicly confirmed by the individual), there was no connection with me and so no benefit or gift to declare”.58

15.In relation to the value of the use of the accommodation Mr Johnson stated, “Mr Ross indicated to me that the value of the use of the accommodation was £15,000”.59

16.I was not satisfied with this response as I had asked Mr Johnson to give details of the steps which he took to ascertain the information required for the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. He did not provide these details. On 12 March 2020 I asked Mr Johnson to make relevant enquiries and ascertain the details of the donor.60

17.Mr Johnson responded on 16 March 2020 and stated “…the individual who made the arrangements for my accommodation was Mr Ross. Therefore, in response to your question, it was Mr Ross who funded the accommodation, and this is why I set out his name in the register of interests as the person providing the benefit in kind”.61

18.In light of the global health crisis and Mr Johnson’s own ill health, I suspended the inquiry on 7 April 202062 and reinstated it on 30 June 2020.63

19.To assist with my inquiry, I wrote to Mr David Ross on 7 July 2020.64 I asked Mr Ross specific questions including to the best of his knowledge, who paid for the villa. I also asked Mr Ross why his spokesperson initially stated that he believed Mr Johnson’s register entry contained “a mistake” (as reported in the Guardian on 12 February 2020) as he had not paid for the villa, and why later his spokesperson had departed from this earlier statement, saying Mr Ross had facilitated the accommodation and that Mr Johnson’s entry was correct (Daily Mail 12 February 2020, updated 14 February 2020).

20.Mr Ross provided a response on 20 July 2020 and stated “Mr Johnson mentioned to me in a conversation at some stage before Christmas 2019 that he may be looking for somewhere to stay for a forthcoming holiday which would need to be private and which could also take account of his security needs. I offered to try and help him. I then checked with the Mustique Company who manage a property that I own on the island but was told that my house had been let. They said they would find something by way of an alternative. Mr Johnson’s name was not mentioned or used. I referred to him as Mr Jones. Subsequently they contacted me to say that they had a very late cancellation for another property which was therefore available at short notice and at no cost to Mr Jones. Details of the stay were then confirmed directly between the Mustique Company and Mr Johnson’s office.”65

21.In relation to the value of the accommodation Mr Ross clarified “I was later told by the Mustique Company that the value of the accommodation was £15,000.”

22.Mr Ross explained that the comments made by his spokesperson on 12 February 2020 were incorrect and had not been authorised by him and therefore it was necessary for the correct position to be made clear.

23.I sent a further letter to Mr Ross on 1 September 2020 asking whether he had recompensed the owner of the villa where Mr Johnson stayed.66

24.Mr Ross responded on 9 September 2020 confirming that he had not recompensed the owner of the villa in any way.67

25.In addition, I sent a letter to the Mustique Company on 1 September 2020 asking for details about the owner of the villa, whether someone else had paid for the villa and the market value of Mr Johnson’s use of the villa.68

26.A lawyer on behalf of the Mustique Company Limited wrote back to me on 17 September 2020 and advised that although the company would like to be of assistance “…unfortunately, it is prevented by the Laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines from responding to the questions listed in your letter. In particular, restrictions in the Mustique Company Limited Act 2002, as amended, expressly prohibit by law the Company from providing the information requested”.69

27.I wrote to Mr Johnson with an update and also requested, given Mr Ross had confirmed he had not paid for the villa, that he take steps to find out who paid for his holiday accommodation and the value of the benefit he received. I reminded Mr Johnson of his responsibility to ensure that the information he provides to the Registrar for inclusion in the register is accurate.70

28.Mr Johnson responded on 15 October 2020 and stated “When considering the appropriate entry to make on my register of interests I was of the view that Mr Ross provided the benefit in kind to me. He had made available a villa for my use. As set out in my earlier letter, at the time of making the arrangements I was not aware that the villa made available to me was not Mr Ross’s. Following enquiries upon my arrival, I understood that Mr Ross had agreed to make available his villa to the Mustique Island company for their use at a future date in return for them having provided Mr Ross with the alternative villa for my use (while his villa was already in use). Therefore, he was the individual left out of pocket and was providing me with a benefit in kind.” Mr Johnson invited me to ask Mr Ross if this was a benefit in kind through a separate arrangement with the Mustique Company.71

29.I wrote again to Mr Ross on 22 October 2020 and asked him to confirm whether he had reached any agreement with the Mustique Company or anyone else, whereby a villa was made available for Mr Johnson’s use in return for his undertaking to make his villa available to them or someone else in the future. I asked Mr Ross to provide me with any documentary evidence to support his response. I also requested an explanation as to why any such agreement had not been mentioned in his previous correspondence if this was the position.72

30.Mr Ross replied on 3 November 2020. He did not address my questions directly but said that due to his relationship with the Mustique Company, they had found another property for Mr Johnson when Mr Ross’s villa was unavailable. He explained as follows, “I have referred to them numerous clients over the years and have an ad hoc understanding with them whereby I lend them on occasions my house to accommodate other of their guests and I imagine that I will do so in the future. We have also worked closely in respect of my support of local charity initiatives in Mustique. Accordingly when they said they would find a property for Mr Johnson following my request, my belief is that they did so because of my relationship with them”.73

31.On 18 November 2020, I informed Mr Johnson by letter that I had considered all the evidence including the information provided by Mr Johnson and the published rules and guidance. I advised that I was not satisfied that the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to his visit to St Vincent and the Mustique from 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020, contained accurate information about the name of the donor and the value of the benefit. I explained that Mr Ross’s evidence made it clear he did not pay for Mr Johnson’s stay in the villa. I was also not persuaded that the entry recorded the correct value of the benefit. I informed Mr Johnson that I would be concluding the matter by referring a formal Memorandum to the Committee on Standards.74

32.Mr Johnson wrote to me on 24 November 2020 disputing the market values (based on a web search, for the forthcoming winter season) I had included in my previous correspondence. He said “£15,000 was the effective market rate for a last minute use of a property that would otherwise be empty, one year ago”.75

33.In relation to the source of the donation Mr Johnson stated:

I would again make the point that this was a donation in kind, with the benefit provided by Mr Ross and that it was proper for me to declare Mr Ross as the source of the donation given that my interaction had been only with him and it was on his account that I was offered the villa.

As outlined in his letter to you of July 2020, Mr Ross has use of accommodation facilities on the island. Although I am not privy to the precise arrangements set up by the Mustique Company (and I appreciate that the Company itself has chosen not to engage), Mr Ross is eligible for use of an island property. Sometimes, he allows his property to be let out to others. If so, in due course, he is allowed use of similar accommodation on different dates in return.

Again, this is analogous to a timeshare property; it is common that such market arrangements allow for the timeshare property to be swapped with other similar ones on different dates.

I note that prevailing Government guidance on timeshares explains: “Timeshares have been in existence since the mid 1960’s and are used by individuals as a way of obtaining a stake in a property without actually purchasing the entire property. Commonly a system whereby residential units are shared on a weekly basis, with concurrent ownership, all owners contribute to the expense and maintenance of the timeshare property, which can be undertaken either by the owners themselves or by sub-contractors employed by them. The chief benefit is that the individual (or company in some circumstances) will be able to have access to a property they would not be able to afford to buy outright, and it is likely that the timeshare owner will have purchased either a period of time within an annual timespan, or specific dates within the year, which can be used by the owner or swapped with other owners for different weeks or different resorts.”

I was allowed to use such ‘swapped’ accommodation for the registered period, as Mr Ross’ primary property was in use, whereas a nearby property was empty for that period. The benefit in kind directly and necessarily comes from Mr Ross, and derives from his legal rights to occupy holiday accommodation on the island. There is no third party donor….

It has also been reported in the media (Daily Mail, 13/14 February 2020) that the owner of the property received a payment from the Mustique Company for the use of their property being rented out for my use. It was thus clearly not a donation from that individual.

I would hope that you agree that where a MP receives a donation of a use of a timeshare property, the donor is the owner of the timeshare, not the company providing the timeshare.

Your letter states that Mr Ross “did not pay for your stay in the villa.” Again, I would respectfully assert that this is an error of fact. Mr Ross has paid for the ongoing use of an island property. His financial arrangement merely allows for the specific property to be varied, depending on availability of his and neighbouring properties.76

34.I decided to seek advice from the Registrar in relation to the latest information provided by Mr Johnson. I wrote to the Registrar on 27 November 2020.77

Evidence from the Registrar

35.The Registrar responded on 1 December 2020 and advised “I have real doubts about whether the arrangement was exactly as he describes, and also about whether Mr Ross was - for the purposes of the Register - the donor of this visit”. The Registrar further explained that “Mr Ross describes a goodwill arrangement with the Mustique Company which from time to time involved his making the villa available as a favour. Mr Ross has said nothing to make me think he was the person who funded Mr Johnson’s overseas visit. Mr Ross did not own the villa in which Mr Johnson stayed, and he does not appear to have paid for the visit either in money or in kind (e.g. through a reciprocal stay in his own villa). He has not told you that this was a timeshare arrangement”. The Registrar was very clear that “facilitating a visit is not the same as funding it”.78

36.Of particular note is the Registrar’s view that, “The evidence…does not show who did fund Mr Johnson’s stay in Mustique”.

37.In relation to the value of the benefit the Registrar advised, “£15,000 would be the right value for this stay if that is the price that another person would have been charged if they had asked to rent the property for the same period of time, on a similarly last minute basis, and for a similarly-sized party”.

38.I provided Mr Johnson the opportunity to respond to the advice given by the Registrar, and he responded on 15 January 2021.79 Mr Johnson confirmed that he believed the value of £15,000 for the benefit to be “an accurate and reasonable declaration.” Mr Johnson notified me that his office had originally proposed the details of entry to the Registrar as including the following words “received hospitality in the form of use of a private house organised by a friend, Mr David Ross.”, but this was amended by the Registrar to receiving “accommodation for a private holiday”. Mr Johnson notified me that he had asked Mr Ross to provide me with additional information in relation to his long-standing and continuing financial arrangement with the Mustique Company. Mr Johnson advised that he felt this relationship justified Mr Ross being named as the “ultimate funder and donor” of the benefit.

39.Furthermore, Mr Johnson said that while the arrangements for this benefit in kind might be unusual, he believed that there was no factual error or omission.

40.Mr David Ross wrote to me again on 21 January 2021 in which he talked about his long standing personal and professional relationship with the Mustique Company.80 Mr Ross also said that since Mr Johnson’s stay, further reciprocal arrangements had taken place between himself and the Mustique Company which covered the notional cost of this and other accommodation. No further details about the reciprocal arrangements were disclosed and no documentary evidence provided.

Statement of Facts

41.The following facts are agreed.

• Mr Johnson and his partner stayed at a villa on the island of Mustique from 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020.
• Mr Johnson and his partner did not stay at a villa owned by Mr Ross but at an alternative villa during their stay.
• Mr Johnson did not pay any accommodation costs for his stay but met all other costs.
• Mr Johnson’s office registered his stay on 27 January 2020.
• Mr Ross did not pay the villa owners for Mr Johnson’s use of the villa.
• Mr Ross facilitated the use of the villa for Mr Johnson.
• The Mustique Company have valued the benefit at £15,000.

The Mail Online reported that the villa owners were paid for their use of the villa, but I have seen no independent evidence to corroborate this.

Analysis

The Holiday

42.Mr Ross says that Mr Johnson approached him at some stage before Christmas 2019 and mentioned that he might be looking for somewhere to stay for a forthcoming holiday. Mr Ross offered the use of his villa in Mustique. Mr Johnson describes Mr Ross as a “long-standing friend, a former colleague from my time as London Mayor, and a political supporter of the Conservative Party.”81

43.Mr Ross says that he made enquiries with the Mustique Company but was told his villa had already been let during the relevant period and that they would find an alternative. I have been given no dates for these enquiries. At this stage Mr Ross did not disclose Mr Johnson’s identity. According to Mr Ross, he was then contacted by the company who said they had a late cancellation for another property, and this could be made available at no cost to his guests. Mr Ross states that details of the villa were then confirmed directly between the Mustique Company and Mr Johnson’s office.82

44.Mr Johnson says it was only once he arrived at the holiday destination that he was made aware that Mr Ross’s villa would not be available during the period 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020. Mr Johnson states “When I arrived at the island it transpired that Mr Ross had made an alternative arrangement because his own villa was unavailable”.83

45.Mr Johnson says in his first letter to me that he was not aware of the identity of the person whose villa he stayed in until the media reporting in February 2020.84 In recent correspondence, Mr Johnson’s solicitors have stated that “The police undertook a search of the villa in advance of our client’s arrival but, given the control the Mustique Company exercises, it was not necessary to enquire into the ownership of the villa”.85

Value of the visit

46.The value of the accommodation has been registered by Mr Johnson as £15,000. Mr Johnson, throughout his correspondence with me, has maintained that this figure was provided by Mr Ross.86 Mr Ross in turn has provided that he was given it by the Mustique Company.87

47.The Register requires Members to record the market value of the use of the villa i.e. what would normally be charged for use of the villa, for a party of Mr Johnson’s size, for the period in question and in similar circumstances. The quoted market rate or “rack rate” for use of the villa for the 2020–21winter season was advertised as follows:88

20.12.20 - 03.01.21 £3,388 per night

48.At these prices, a ten day stay in this villa would have cost £33,880 in December 2020/January 2021. Figures for the winter season 2019–2020 were not available.

49.The Mail Online reported, “… the villa’s advertised price of $27,000 per week at that time of year, a ten-day stay would normally have cost $38,500 (£29,500). The villa is priced at varying rates depending on the time of year. But in the two weeks leading up to January 4 it was advertised at the premium rate”.89

50.I am conscious that the rate charged for the villa might differ from the advertised figures, if the villa had become available at the last minute due to a cancellation. It would not then be appropriate to value the accommodation at its rack rate.

51.Mr Johnson told me in March 2020 that “£15,000 was the effective market rate for a last minute use of a property that would otherwise be empty, one year ago”.90 Once the draft memorandum had been shared with Mr Johnson, I received a letter addressed to Mr Ross from the Managing Director of the Mustique Company.91 In this letter, the Managing Director confirms that “they were able to offer use of the villa to Mr Ross for his guests at a rate of £15,000 GBP.” I have not been provided with information about how this rate was calculated, but I have no evidence to suggest the rate is unreasonable.

My finding

52.I have no reason to dispute that the villa could have been charged out at £15,000 for a last-minute booking for a party of similar size to Mr Johnson’s and in similar circumstances, from 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020.

Source of donation

53.During my inquiry:

I read in the media that:

• The villa owners were paid.
• A spokesperson for the Mustique Company confirmed the Mustique Company did not pay the owners.

Mr Johnson told me:

• He accepts the villa owners were paid.
• Mr Ross made his villa available to the Mustique Company in exchange for Mr Johnson’s use of the villa.

Mr Ross told me:

• He did not pay the owners or recompense them directly in anyway.
• He agreed to make his villa available to the Mustique Company in exchange for Mr Johnson’s use of an alternative villa.

54.Mr Johnson’s office registered the holiday on 27 January 2020, and I have had sight of the earlier email correspondence.92 The initial email from Mr Johnson’s office to the Registrar included the following details: Name of donor: Mr David Ross. Nature and value of benefit in kind: My partner and I received hospitality in the form of use of a private house organised by a friend, Mr David Ross. The approximate value of renting the property for this period was £15,000. I paid for all other expenses, including flights. This was registered by the Registrar as follows:

Name of donor: Mr David Ross …

Nature and value of benefit in kind: accommodation for a private holiday for my partner and me, value £15,000.

55.The new entry was published in the Register of 10 February 2020 and attracted media attention at the point that Mr Ross’s spokesperson reported in the media that the entry naming Mr Ross as a donor was a mistake. The day after this media report a spokesperson for Mr Ross said that Mr Ross had facilitated the accommodation and the entry was therefore correct.

56.In my view, there is no question that Mr Ross facilitated Mr Johnson’s use of the alternative villa. Mr Johnson was right to name Mr Ross in his Register entry as the person who obtained the villa for his use. As Mr Johnson’s solicitors have pointed out, “Without [Mr Ross’s] intervention, and without his election in making the use of the villa available to our client, the benefit could not have been conferred upon him.”93 However, I am not convinced that Mr Ross was the person who funded the holiday accommodation for Mr Johnson at the time.

57.The Guide to the Rules says:

36. Members are required to provide the following information:

The name and address of the person or organisation funding the visit; [my emphasis]

58.I am not satisfied that ‘to facilitate’ has the same meaning as ‘to fund’, for the purposes of the register. It appears to me that to facilitate does not require a monetary transaction whereas in accordance with the general definitions, ‘to fund’ does.

59.The evidence I have received about Mr Ross’s role is inconsistent. On 12 February 2020 Mr Ross’s spokesperson denied, and on 13 February confirmed, that Mr Ross was the donor of the accommodation. On 1 September 2020 I asked Mr Ross whether he had recompensed the owners of the villa in any way, and on 9 September 2020 he told me that he had not. On 22 September 2020 I asked Mr Ross to confirm whether he had reached any agreement with the Mustique Company or anyone else whereby a villa was available for Mr Johnson’s use in return for his undertaking to make his own villa available in the future. Mr Ross did not supply this confirmation. But on 21 January 2021 he told me ‘Since Mr Johnson’s stay I can confirm that further reciprocal arrangements have taken place between The Mustique Company and myself covering the notional cost of this and other accommodation’. On 29 March he told me that he expected to make his villa available again in future.

60.In addition, the Mail Online reported on 13 February 2020 that the owners of the villa had been paid. But it is far from clear who made any payment, if there was one. In recent correspondence, the Managing Director of the Mustique Company has advised that the owners of another villa had not been able to visit their villa due to illness and the company had offered this house to Mr Ross’s guests “at a rate of £15,000 GBP”. But on 27 April 2021 the Mail Online reported that a representative of the Mustique Company denied making the payment.94

61.This means that two parties are reported to have paid for Mr Johnson’s use of the villa: first, the villa owners, if media reports are accurate; and then Mr Ross, who said that he had afterwards made his own villa available to cover the notional costs of Mr Johnson’s stay. I consider it unlikely that both parties paid for the accommodation. Without evidence to support either of the accounts of how Mr Johnson’s visit was paid for, I am unable to reach a conclusion on this.

62.The purpose of the Register is ‘to provide information about any financial interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.’ But even if it was correct for Mr Johnson, in his Register entry, to name Mr Ross as the person who sought out and obtained the accommodation for him, he should also have given the details of whoever funded his holiday accommodation in the first instance. The person funding the benefit is more important than the person facilitating it. On this occasion the initial funder was not Mr Ross.

63.I have set out below a review of the evidence provided to me during the course of this inquiry.

Mr Johnson

64.Mr Johnson has advanced changing arguments for registering Mr Ross as the donor of his free holiday accommodation.

65.In his letter of 12 March 2020 Mr Johnson said that as it was Mr Ross who facilitated the accommodation it was important that the ‘connection was properly declared’. Mr Johnson adds that as he was not aware of the identity of the villa owners there was no connection to him and so no benefit to declare.

66.In his letter of 16 March 2020 Mr Johnson said “…the individual who made the arrangements for my accommodation was Mr Ross. Therefore… it was Mr Ross who funded the accommodation, and this is why I set out his name in the register of interests as the person providing the benefit in kind”.95

67.In his letter of 15 October 2020 Mr Johnson mentioned for the first time an agreement between Mr Ross and the Mustique Company for the reciprocal use of holiday villas. He said:

“Following enquiries upon my arrival, I understood that Mr Ross had agreed to make available his villa to the Mustique Island company for their use at a future date in return for them having provided Mr Ross with the alternative villa for my use (while his villa was already in use). Therefore, he was the individual left out of pocket and was providing me with a benefit in kind”.96

68.In his letter of 24 November 2020 Mr Johnson said that Mr Ross’s arrangement with the Mustique Company was analogous to a timeshare.

69.Mr Johnson’s solicitors have said:

“By virtue of the owner’s comments to the media, our client understands the owner of the villa has been compensated by the Mustique Company for their lending the use of the villa. Clearly then, the owner cannot be the donor of the benefit in kind. Similarly, the Mustique Company did not know that our client would be receiving the benefit of the use of the villa when they provided it for the use of Mr Ross. They cannot be the donor as there was no intent at any time to make a donation to him and they do not believe that they have made a donation. There are no other parties involved. This leads to the logical position to deduce by the process of elimination that Mr Ross is the only person who could have provided the donation in kind for the purposes of registering this benefit”.97

70.If the villa owners received payment at the time for Mr Johnson’s use of their villa, it is likely that someone other than Mr Ross met the costs of the villa initially. Mr Ross has said that he did not pay the villa owners. And I have received no evidence that a timeshare existed. Mr Johnson’s position however is that the benefit in kind came only from Mr Ross and derives from his legal rights to occupy holiday accommodation on the island.98

Mr David Ross

71.In his first correspondence to me (20 July 2020) Mr Ross explained that as his villa was unavailable the Mustique Company informed Mr Ross that they had a late cancellation for another property which was therefore available at short notice and at no cost to his guest. Mr Ross advised that the Mustique Company were not at this point aware the villa was being arranged for Mr Johnson.99

72.Mr Ross states that he did not recompense the owners of the villa in any way.100 I think this is a very important point as if he had paid the owners, he was correctly identified as the ‘donor’.

73.In later correspondence (3 November 2020), Mr Ross supports Mr Johnson’s contention that Mr Ross had agreed to make available his villa to the Mustique Company for their use at a future date in return for them having provided an alternative villa for Mr Johnson’s use. This was not how Mr Ross had framed his response in his initial letter to me. Mr Ross does not provide any documentary evidence to support this assertion (I had requested a written agreement between himself and the Mustique Company). He also does not provide any further clarity about whether he provides his villa free of charge, or how quickly he is expected to provide accommodation in return for the benefit given to Mr Johnson. It is puzzling that Mr Ross had not described this arrangement in previous correspondence.

74.In more recent correspondence of 29 March 2021, Mr Ross states that he has allowed the Mustique Company to use his property and has also agreed to make his property further available for them to use in the future.101 No further details have been provided. Mr Ross’s letter was sent more than a year after Mr Johnson’s holiday, and it is not clear how many further uses were or will be required to repay the company for Mr Johnson’s use of the alternative property, which was valued at £15,000; or how the values of the exchange have been calculated.

75.I am grateful for Mr Ross’s cooperation with my inquiry but am disappointed that he has provided me with a new explanation just over 3 months after his initial response. In his original letter, Mr Ross stated that the villa was available at no cost to his guest and that he, Mr Ross, had not recompensed the villa owners in any way. He made no mention of any other arrangements agreed with the Mustique Company.

The Registrar

76.In accordance with my usual practice, I sought the advice of the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests. The Registrar’s view is that from what Mr Ross has said, he is not the person who funded Mr Johnson’s overseas visit. This is on the basis that there was no agreed exchange of accommodation and what Mr Ross describes is a goodwill arrangement whereby he made his villa available to the company from time to time as a favour. The Registrar notes that Mr Ross has not described it as a timeshare arrangement.

77.Mr Johnson responded to the Registrar’s advice (15 January 2021) with reference to his office’s communication with the Registrar in January 2020, when Mr Johnson’s office attempted to register the entry as “received hospitality in the form of use of a private house organised by a friend, Mr David Ross.” The Registrar amended this to receiving “accommodation for a private holiday”.102 It is unfortunate that Mr Johnson did not clarify why he had listed Mr Ross as the donor of the visit but also referred to his having ‘organised’ it. The rules require Members to register the name of the donor as being the person who ‘funded’ the holiday and Mr Johnson has consistently and continuously maintained that Mr Ross is the ‘donor’. The Registrar at that time had not been given any information about who owned the villa and the financial arrangements, which would have enabled her to provide more tailored advice about the register entry.

78.My assessment has been made more difficult by a shortage of evidence, by conflicting media reports and by the absence of documentary evidence of financial transactions. After an investigation lasting over a year, I am unable to reach a conclusion about who funded Mr Johnson’s accommodation in Mustique. The media have reported that the owners received payment for this, and also that the Mustique Company denied making this payment, but none of this evidence has been corroborated. The Mustique Company have provided no information at all about who made the reported payment or how much it was. If I had been provided with the identity of the payer it is likely that I would have regarded this person or organisation as the “donor” for the purposes of Mr Johnson’s Register entry. Mr Ross has told me that he did not “recompense” the villa owners, so I do not believe that he was the “donor”. He later said that he made his own villa available to cover the “notional” costs of Mr Johnson’s accommodation. However, this information was provided to me some eight months after the start of my inquiry, and neither he nor Mr Johnson has explained how this related to the initial payment reportedly made to the villa owners. I do not know why neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Ross had informed me before October 2020 about Mr Ross’s agreement with the Mustique Company. While it might be that in the spring of 2020 Mr Ross did not make his villa available to the Mustique Company, it is hard to explain why he did not at that stage tell me that he had agreed to do so in future. I have not been provided with the date or other particulars of any agreement between Mr Ross and the Mustique Company, or with documentation relating to any such agreement.

79.There is also a lack of documentary evidence about the payment which, according to the media, was received by the villa owners. Mr Johnson has told me that he believes they were paid for his stay, but I have not been provided with any evidence about who paid them or how much. If this payment was made but not by Mr Ross, some other person or organisation must have been responsible. In short, without further information about the payment and other arrangements I am unable to reach a firm view on who met the costs of Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation in December 2019 and January 2020 and whether they were later repaid.

80.I can understand that after the stress and business of a General Election the Prime Minister might have relied on others to make the arrangements for his holiday. But this did not remove his responsibility to find out the full facts about his free holiday accommodation before he decided to accept it. And even if he did not succeed in establishing these facts before he arrived in Mustique. I would have expected Mr Johnson to make conscientious enquiries at that stage to find out who owned the villa, who (if anyone) was going to pay the owners and how much. It was clearly a different arrangement to the one he had expected, which was the loan of a friend’s holiday house; and it raised the possibility that a payment would be involved. Mr Johnson has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that he had made sufficient enquiries to ascertain all the necessary information before I sent him my draft memorandum in 2021.

Mr Johnson’s comments on a draft of this Memorandum

81.I wrote to Mr Johnson on 16 February 2021 to give him an opportunity to comment on a draft of my memorandum. Mr Johnson wrote to me on 12 March 2021, attaching a letter from his solicitors.103 I also received a letter from Mr Ross, forwarding a letter from the Managing Director of the Mustique Company dated 9 March 2021.104

82.In view of the additional information I had received, I asked further questions of Mr Ross in a letter dated 19 March 2021.105 I also sought further advice from the Registrar, 19 March 2021.106

83.Both responses were sent to Mr Johnson on 1 April 2021.107 Mr Johnson responded on 6 April with additional comments.108

84.I have incorporated the most significant newly acquired information into the body of the memorandum where appropriate.

85.I have reviewed all the additional information which I have received, which although useful does not justify a significant move from my initial conclusions, save that having had sight of the letter from the Managing Director of the Mustique Company, I do not have any evidence to suggest the value of £15,000 is unreasonable.

86.I do not accept Mr Johnson’s submissions through his solicitors that the House’s rules did not require him to register the holiday in Mustique. His solicitors state:

“In January 2020, our client’s office sought advice from the Registrar on whether it was necessary to register a benefit in relation to his holiday to Mustique. This is because the benefit relating to a private holiday had no direct connection with his parliamentary or political activities, but arose from his personal relationship with Mr David Ross. The Registrar confirmed that the client was required to register the benefit only if it related in some way to his membership of the House or to his parliamentary or political activities. Notwithstanding this confirmation, our client decided, out of an abundance of caution, to register a benefit in order to ensure transparency and compliance with his obligations. This is an important consideration in assessing whether there was any breach of the Code: it would or indeed could not be a breach of the Code if there was no actual requirement to register a benefit”. (page 4 of written evidence 33)

87.I asked the Registrar her views on this point. She responded as follows:

“You ask whether I consider that there was a requirement for Mr Johnson to register his visit to Mustique. The answer is yes”.109

I agree with the Registrar’s reasoning in her response that if a political donor such as Mr Ross, provides a Member with a personal benefit, this relates sufficiently to a Member’s parliamentary or political activities to require registration under Category 3 or 4. In addition, the Registrar points to the overall purpose of the Register. Paragraph 4 of Chapter 1 of the Guide to the Rules says:

“When considering registration, Members are also required to keep in mind the overall purpose of the Register, which is to provide information about any financial interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament. If a Member has any financial interests which meet that purpose but which do not fall clearly into one of the defined categories, he or she is nonetheless required to register them, normally under the Miscellaneous category.”

88.I agree with the Registrar that the free use of holiday accommodation valued at £15,000 might reasonably be thought to influence the actions of the Member recipient. For this reason, I find that Mr Johnson was required to register this benefit in line with the Rules and the Guide to the Rules. I do not accept Mr Johnson’s solicitors’ submission that this was a voluntary registration, as the Guide to the Rules does not provide for voluntary registrations.

89.It is unfortunate that I only received a letter from the Managing Director of the Mustique Company at the near conclusion of my inquiry, but I understand that there are legal prohibitions which prevented him providing this information to me directly at an earlier stage. The letter is useful in that the Managing Director confirms the Mustique Company were able to offer the alternative villa to Mr Ross’s guests at a rate of £15,000 but does not go as far as to give details as to whether the owners of the villa were paid or how much was paid. He also speaks of his understanding that Mr Ross was responsible for compensating the company “in the usual way”, but regrettably provides no further clarification as to what this entails.

Mr Johnson’s comments on a second draft of this Memorandum

90.I wrote to Mr Johnson on 7 May 2021 to give him an opportunity to comment on the factual accuracy of a revised draft of my memorandum. I received a letter from Mr Johnson’s solicitors on 14 May 2021.110

91.The letter from Mr Johnson’s solicitors does not raise any challenges as to the factual accuracy of this memorandum, but instead questions my interpretation of the evidence and application of the rules. I have reviewed the submissions made, and do not consider that I need to amend this memorandum as a result.

92.I note Mr Johnson’s solicitor’s assertion that Mr Johnson would be happy to conduct further enquiries. However, this investigation has now gone on for well over a year. I have made it clear that I require Mr Johnson to identify who paid for his holiday, and I do not consider he has identified who that was. I cannot see that granting more time at this stage would assist.

Conclusion

93.My inquiry began in March 2020, at a time when the effects of Covid-19 required Ministers’ urgent attention. The pandemic undoubtedly added greatly to the demands on Mr Johnson, and he himself experienced a serious illness. In recognition of this I suspended my investigation for a period of two months. The events of March 2020 onwards do not remove the need for compliance with the House’s rules on disclosure of interests.

94.Mr Johnson’s holiday took place in December 2019 and January 2020. I would have expected him, before he arrived on the island of Mustique, to find out definitively who was to fund the free accommodation he had been offered, and what arrangements had been made to pay for it. He needed to have this information before he decided whether it was right to accept this benefit, and so that full details could be registered within 28 days. If Mr Johnson had not been satisfied that he knew the details I would have expected him conscientiously to reject the offer of free holiday accommodation. It was his responsibility to ensure that he had all relevant information at the time of accepting the benefit. Transparency and accountability are crucial for the public to maintain confidence in elected Members of the House.

95.It has been unusually difficult to find facts during this lengthy investigation. After an inquiry lasting more than a year, I have not found any reliable documentary that clearly outlines the arrangements for how Mr Johnson’s holiday accommodation was paid. I am therefore not able to reach a view on whether Mr Johnson’s Register entry was accurate and complete. But it is not my role to provide the missing information. This remains the responsibility of the Member.

96.I have also not been able to establish the basis on which the benefit received by Mr Johnson was valued at £15,000. I have however no reason to dispute that the villa could have been charged out at £15,000 for a last-minute booking for a party of similar size to Mr Johnson’s and in similar circumstances, from 26 December 2019 to 5 January 2020.

97.Mr Johnson was right to name Mr Ross in his Register entry as the person who played a key role in obtaining a villa for Mr Johnson’s use. I accept that Mr Johnson had originally expected that the villa would be owned by Mr Ross. I find it surprising that, when he realised that he was to stay elsewhere, Mr Johnson did not establish the full facts about who was the owner of the villa, how the villa would be funded and the value of the benefit, before accepting the accommodation as a gift. Mr Johnson has told me that he believes the owners received a payment for his use of the accommodation. At another point he told me that Mr Ross arranged to meet the “notional costs” by making his own villa available to the Mustique Company on future dates. He has not explained how these two accounts relate to each other.

98.On two occasions, 12 March 2020 and 9 October 2020, in accordance with the principle of accountability, I asked Mr Johnson to make enquiries as to who paid for his use of the villa and to check the value of the benefit. I understand that Mr Johnson may have faced the same obstacles to disclosure from the Mustique Company that I have during my inquiry. But I have not been provided with evidence that Mr Johnson made any such enquiries in response to my request.

99.The rules require Members to fulfil “conscientiously” the requirement of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. 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, I find that Mr Johnson has not fulfilled conscientiously the House’s requirements for registration. I find that this is a breach of paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct. I also find that Mr Johnson has not shown the accountability required of those in public life.

100.Mr Johnson has breached the registration rules on three previous occasions. He has been referred to the Committee on Standards on two of these, in 2017–19.111 On the last occasion the Committee said, “Should we conclude in future that Mr Johnson has committed any further breaches of the rules on registration, we will regard this as a matter which may call for more serious sanction”. I therefore refer this matter to the Committee on Standards for their consideration.

Kathryn Stone OBE

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

17 May 2021