MP Keith Vaz facing six-month suspension after offering to buy cocaine for male prostitutes

Leicester East MP could face recall petition in his constituency if the Commons approves the suspension recommended by watchdog

The House of Commons’ standards watchdog has recommended a six-month suspension for Labour MP Keith Vaz after finding that he significantly damaged the reputation of parliament by offering to buy cocaine during an encounter with two male prostitutes.

If approved by the Commons, the sanction will trigger the terms of recall legislation, allowing constituents to sign a petition on whether he should be forced to seek re-election to his Leicester East seat.

A report by the Commons Committee on Standards also found that the veteran MP tried to “complicate, obfuscate and confuse” the inquiry with “ludicrous” explanations for his conduct.

An inquiry was launched by the Commons Standards Commissioner in 2016 following a newspaper article alleging that Mr Vaz, posing as a washing machine salesman, paid two male escorts for sex and offered to buy cocaine for a third prostitute.

Following the scandal, 62-year-old Vaz resigned as chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee. The sleaze inquiry was put on hold during a police investigation which concluded without charges, and was later delayed again due to Mr Vaz’s ill-health.

In a report detailing the findings of her inquiry, commissioner Kathryn Stone said that tape recordings of his conversations with the two men contained evidence of Mr Vaz’s “apparent willingness to purchase controlled drugs for others to use”.

“While his comments concerning this may not amount to a criminal offence, he shows disregard for the law and that, in turn, is disrespectful to the House and fellow members, who collectively are responsible for making those laws,” found the commissioner.

And in scathing comments about his conduct during her inquiry, she said that the Labour MP was “disrespectful” of parliament’s standards system.

“He has failed, repeatedly, to answer direct questions; he has given incomplete answers and his account has, in parts, been incredible,” she said. “I do not believe he has given me or my predecessor a full and accurate account of the relevant events.”

Accepting the commissioner’s findings, the Standards Committee said: “By expressing willingness to purchase a class A drug – cocaine – for others to use, thereby showing disregard for the law, and by failing to cooperate fully with the inquiry process, thereby showing disrespect for the House’s standards system, he has caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole.

“This is a very serious breach of the Code. We recommend that the House should suspend Mr Vaz from its service for six months.”

The committee said that on leaving parliament, Mr Vaz – an MP of more than 32 years’ standing – should be stripped of the right to a former member’s pass allowing him to use facilities at Westminster.

The commissioner did not uphold allegations that Mr Vaz should have stepped aside from inquiries into psychoactive drugs and prostitution conducted by the committee he chaired.

While it was “more likely than not that Mr Vaz has engaged in paid sexual activity”, it was not clear whether he had done so during the period of the prostitution inquiry, she found. And she said the evidence she saw did not demonstrate that the MP had any involvement in the use of drugs relevant to the committee’s narcotics inquiry.

Mr Vaz told the commissioner his encounter with the men was to discuss plans to decorate his flat, and that the recording of their conversation was not reliable. He said that because they were involved in a sting operation, the men steered the conversation in a way which gave a misleading impression. Eight months after the event, he contacted the commissioner to say he could not discuss what happened in detail because he had little memory of the evening, possibly due to his drink being spiked.

But after taking evidence from two experts, Ms Stone found no evidence that the tape was doctored or tampered with.

And she found it “incredible” that the MP could have invited two men who he did not know to his flat at 11.30pm on a Saturday to discuss a decoration project, particularly as there was no mention of the subject during the recording of their 90-minute visit.

The committee dismissed Mr Vaz’s claims about the purpose of the men’s visit as “frankly ludicrous”, adding: “We find the evidence to be compelling that Mr Vaz was previously acquainted with the men, that he had paid them money to engage in sexual activity with him, that he had paid money to procure the attendance of a third man also to engage in sexual activity.”

It said the evidence was “compelling” that Mr Vaz’s explanation of events was “not believable” and that he had expressed willingness to buy a class A drug for the use of another person.

The report said: “The contents of the covert audio-recording contain nothing to suggest that Mr Vaz was being tricked or inveigled into doing anything he was reluctant to do … they strongly suggest that he had engaged in similar activities on previous occasions.”

‘Mr Vaz has done his best to complicate, obfuscate and confuse the inquiry,’ the committee found (PA)

The committee accepted the commissioner’s finding that there was “no evidence” that his drink was spiked, adding that his claimed amnesia “does not prevent us from reaching our own conclusions as to the nature of those events and the plausibility of Mr Vaz’s overall evidence”.

And it rejected the MP’s argument that he cannot have breached parliament’s code of conduct because the events complained of were “purely private and personal”.

In a damning conclusion on the MP’s conduct during the inquiry, the committee said: “Much of the welter of documentation and procedural challenges which has emanated from Mr Vaz has been designed, in our opinion, to ‘throw dust in the eyes’ of the commissioner and the committee.

“The core issues in this inquiry are relatively simple; but Mr Vaz has done his best to complicate, obfuscate and confuse the inquiry through arguments of little merit and documentation of dubious relevance.”

However, the committee stressed: “In reaching this conclusion, we are not seeking to judge Mr Vaz’s private life or his personal morality. We note in this context that payment for sexual services, between consenting adults, is not a criminal offence.”