Ian Paisley, the ‘personal friend’ he hasn’t seen for seven years and the £4,000 hotel bill he didn’t have to pay

The report by the Commons standards watchdog Kathryn Stone reveals that Mr Paisley initially expressed considerable concern about telling her the name of the man.

However, he then gave her what he said was his identity – the name of an individual with an address in England whose name has not been published by the commissioner but who is said to be the owner of a resort in the Maldives and is referred to as ‘Director A’.

Mr Paisley said that he had first met the man a decade before in Central Methodist Hall in London after which they “struck up a friendship with each other and dined together”.

He said that “our interests were not in politics but other matters, including beliefs, family and travel”.

Explaining his reluctance to put the commissioner directly in touch with Director A, Mr Paisley told her that his relationship with the man had been strained by the publicity following the BBC Spotlight programmes which exposed the holidays “and that he wanted any communication to be channelled through the chief operating officer at Coco Bodu Hithi [resort]”.

Ms Stone said to the MP in a letter: “You said this was why you had not provided the direct contact details I had requested.”

However, Mr Paisley later said he had not been in contact with Director A for years so it is unclear how he came to believe he did not want his details to be given to Ms Stone.

Later, a senior Commons official involved in the investigation asked Mr Paisley again about Director A’s contact details. A minute of her conversation with Mr Paisley said: “She asked what others might infer from [Mr Paisley’s] failure to provide direct contact details for a personal friend?

“Ian Paisley said this was naïve. While members might understand Kathryn Stone’s role, private individuals outside of Parliament might not welcome direct contact from the commissioner, asking questions about their friendships.”

In a meeting in January of this year, Mr Paisley produced a business card from Director A which apparently had his personal number written on the reverse.

However, when Ms Stone asked to see it more closely Mr Paisley “declined to give it to the commissioner”.

However, when the commissioner eventually gave up on contacting Director A directly and instead contacted the man Mr Paisley suggested could be a conduit to him – the resort’s chief operating officer – she received a reply to say that he had left the business and a suggestion that she email someone in marketing or sales.

Mr Paisley then told Ms Stone: “I have not had any direct contact with [Director A] since the allegations were made. I did try but without success. Anyway, I did not think it appropriate to do so.”

Mr Paisley then provided a mobile number for the chief operating officer. But when Ms Stone spoke to him he said that he did not have a lot of contact with Director A and had no contact details for him.

As Ms Stone probed the nature of their friendship, it took her a long time to extract from the MP just how little he and his “personal friend” knew about each other.

He told her that he had never met the man’s children, that they had not visited each other’s homes, that they weren’t “boozing buddies”, and that they did not see each other every week.  
Under further questioning from Ms Stone, Mr Paisley said that he had only met Director A “a couple of times” since they first met a decade ago.

Mr Paisley then clarified that he had not seen his “personal friend” for seven or eight years.

Mr Paisley also revealed that he had undertaken another holiday to the Maldives which had been paid for by someone else, although Ms Stone did not probe the circumstances around that issue.

He said that in 2016 - the same year as the trip in question - he was at the “Paradise Island” resort for two nights “as the guest of friends” from Northern Ireland “who I have known for a very long period of time”. The identity of the “friends” was not released but was supplied to Ms Stone.

MP got donor ‘coffee and cakes’

A senior Commons’ official believed that Mr Paisley had told her that as well as Director A paying for his holiday, the MP had partly paid for a holiday for Director A.

When questioned on that, Mr Paisley said it “seems to be a misinterpretation” and he had not done so. However, he said that he had “paid for hospitality” for Director A.

But when asked to clarify what he had paid for, Mr Paisley then siad that this was a single lunch and “coffee and cakes” – far short of the £4,000 resort stay which the man had given him as a gift.

Mr Paisley said that he had assumed that Director A paid his bill because when he went to pay for it, “credit card in hand”, he was told it was complimentary – but he never contacted the man to thank him for his generosity.

——— ———

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers — and consequently the revenue we receive — we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to newsletter.co.uk and enjoy unlimited access to the best Northern Ireland and UK news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit https://www.newsletter.co.uk/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Alistair Bushe

Editor