David Laws (left) and James Lundie had lived together for
11 years – nine of which they have been lovers. 

U.K. Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws resigned from his position after a newspaper reported he’d claimed an estimated £40,000 (US$58,000) in expenses for renting rooms in two London properties owned by his male partner over a period from 2006 to 2009. He had vowed to immediately repay what he had claimed as housing costs. Since 2006 parliamentary rules have banned MPs from leasing accommodation from a partner. 

The Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil since 2001 was only 17 days into his first cabinet post in Britain’s new coalition government.

The Daily Telegraph reported that Laws claimed up to £950 a month for five years to rent a room in two properties owned by his partner, James Lundie, 34, who works for a public relations firm.

The multi-millionaire former banker issued a statement to the British media last Friday saying he was motivated by a desire to keep his relationship with the man private and not to reveal his own sexuality.

“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 – about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.

“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.

“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”

The Independent newspaper noted: "Mr Laws apparently convinced himself that since there was a degree of ambiguity in his relationship with his landlord, James Lundie (they are not civil partners or a couple in social circles), the arrangement remained within the rules. That was a misjudgement, as Mr Laws now accepts. But any fair-minded person examining Mr Laws's conduct would conclude that it was an understandable one."

The 44-year-old was quoted in The Guardian as saying: "When I grew up, being gay was not accepted by most people including by many of my friends. So I have kept this secret from everyone I know for every day of my life. I was so determined to keep my private life secret that James and I behaved as if we were good friends."

He hinted at the difficulties in his private life: "I hope that others will now learn that it is time for people to be honest about their sexuality. Keeping secrets is much tougher than telling other people who you really are."

Admitting his actions would seem "very strange for many people today", Laws said Lundie was the only person with whom he had had a relationship. "Only one person was aware of who I really am – James. I hope that people will understand that fear of loss of privacy rather than desire for financial gain has been behind the problems I now have," he said.

While many are disappointed that Laws – considered the most powerful gay man in the Cabinet – could not be open about his sexuality, some are not convinced by his justification that what he considered “partner” under Commons’ expenses rules did not not apply to his situation as they had separate banking and social arrangements despite living together for nine years (as the relationship progressed from landlord to partner).

"Am I mad or does the fact that David Laws is gay make no difference to the fact that he fiddled his expenses?" The Observer's Barbara Ellen wrote in her column "The David Laws story is nothing to do with sexuality. It's about money."

"The gay public figure coming out to great sympathy and applause is almost a British cliche now. Unfortunately for Laws, it is also an irrelevancy. This cannot be judged to be in any way a gay issue – how could it, when, had Laws been straight, his actions would be judged exactly the same, if not more harshly?"

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the gay, lesbian and bisexual charity, wrote in column for The Independent: "If his reported comments were correct, it is genuinely confusing that Mr Laws said his motivation was not to reveal his sexuality and to protect his privacy and that of his partner. If he had made no claim, then none of this would be in the public domain now and no one would know about their relationship."

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.