Keith Vaz conceded on Sunday that he would have to relinquish his post as chair of the Commons home affairs committee – at least temporarily – after he was accused of paying for the services of male prostitutes in a Sunday newspaper sting operation.

Although he said he would not be making a formal announcement until he meets the committee on Tuesday, he effectively confirmed that he would have to stand aside when he issued a statement saying he did not want to be a “distraction”.

The Labour MP also condemned the conduct of the Sunday Mirror, saying it was “deeply troubling that a national newspaper should have paid individuals who have acted in this way”.

He did not comment on the truth or otherwise of the allegations, which were set out in the paper over five pages accompanied by pictures that appear to have been recorded covertly.

What makes the allegations particularly awkward for the MP is that Vaz’s committee is carrying out an inquiry into prostitution, focusing on whether “the balance in the burden of criminality should shift to those who pay for sex rather than those who sell it”. In July it published an interim report saying it was not yet convinced that buying sex should be outlawed, but that soliciting by sex workers should be decriminalised.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, said that he regarded this as a “private matter” and that he had no intention of suspending Vaz from the party, but that Vaz’s future as the chair of the home affairs committee was a matter for the committee and Vaz himself to decide.

“He has not committed any crime that I know of,” said Corbyn, when asked if he was happy for Vaz to remain in the Labour party. “He is going to meet the home affairs committee and discuss with them what his role will be in the future. I’m not sure what their decision will be.”

Vaz seems to be hoping that that he will be able to temporarily stand aside without having to give up the chairmanship, which he has held for nine years, for good. But his fate will depend on whether fellow members of the committee accept this solution or whether they take the view that the allegations have made his position as chairman permanently untenable.

On Saturday night, when the story first broke, Vaz gave a statement to the Mail on Sunday saying that he was “genuinely sorry for the hurt and distress that has been caused by my actions in particular to my wife and children” and that he would be “standing aside” from chairing home affairs committee hearings with immediate affect.

On Sunday morning his office released a statement to the media which said nothing about being sorry or standing aside, but which criticised the Sunday Mirror and said he was referring the allegations to his lawyers. His office refused to say whether he stood by the comment issued to the Mail on Sunday.

Then, on Sunday afternoon, Vaz issued a fresh statement signalling that he intended to duck out of the limelight. “At this time I do not want there to be any distraction from the important work the home affairs select committee undertakes so well,” he said.

“Select committees do vital work in holding the government and others to account. We are due to publish two reports, one into antisemitism and the other into FGM in the next few days, in addition we have a number of key witnesses.

“I will of course inform committee members first of my plans when we meet on Tuesday.”

On Tuesday the committee is scheduled to take evidence from the immigration minister Robert Goodwill and on Wednesday it will be questioning Amber Rudd, the new home secretary. Vaz’s office and the committee’s spokesperson were unable to say who would be chairing those sessions.

Naz Shah, a Labour MP who sits on the committee, said on Sunday that it was right for Vaz to stand aside from the chairmanship. John Whittingdale, the Conservative former culture secretary, also said this was the correct move for Vaz. “Given the areas [for] which the committee is responsible, that does seem to me to be a sensible course of action,” Whittingdale told Sky News.

Diane Abbott, the shadow health secretary, told the same programme that she did not want to comment on Vaz’s future but that “this must be a dreadful time for him, and his family – his wife and his two children.”

According to the Sunday Mirror, which has illustrated its report with a picture showing Vaz with a man said to be one of the escorts, the MP met two eastern European male sex workers eight days ago in a flat he owns in north London.



According to the paper, Vaz asked one of the men in a text message sent before the encounter to bring poppers, the sex-enhancing drug used by gay men that the government came close to banning in a law passed this year.

Vaz argued in parliament that poppers should not be included in a list of substances banned by the Psychoactive Substances Act and in the paper he is quoted as telling the escorts that he did not use them himself.

Vaz, who reportedly told the men his name was Jim and that he was a washing machine salesman, is also quoted discussing with the men the possibility of obtaining cocaine for the next time they met, although Vaz reportedly said he would not want to take the drug himself.



The paper says two payments of £150 each were made into a bank account before the 27 August encounter after one of the escorts supplied the account details to Vaz.

The Sunday Mirror also claimed that the money paid into the bank account of one of the escorts on behalf of Vaz was paid in by a man linked to a diabetes charity set up by the MP.

The Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said he would be urging the Charity Commission to investigate. Bridgen also said he would be writing to the parliamentary commissioner for standards regarding Vaz’s conduct.

A spokesman for the Charity Commission said it was aware of the allegations made regarding an individual linked to the charity Silver Star. “The commission has asked journalists to forward any details and evidence they have in order to determine whether there is a regulatory role for the commission.”

There is no suggestion in the newspaper report that the charity’s money was used in the affair or that the man knew what the payment was for.



In its interim report on prostitution in July, the home affairs committee said: “We are not yet convinced that the sex buyer law would be effective in reducing demand or in improving the lives of sex workers, either in terms of the living conditions for those who continue to work in prostitution or the effectiveness of services to help them find new ways to earn a living.

“Evaluations of the impact of sex buyer laws are largely based on data about street prostitution, and therefore offer little insight into the large parts of the sex industry which take place in various indoor environments, and there are indications that the law can be misused to harass and victimise sex workers, who are the very people whom the law is seeking to protect.”

Responding to Vaz’s comment, a spokeswoman for the Sunday Mirror said the paper “stands by the story”.