Ian Paisley is facing fresh questions over a number of trips he reportedly took to the Maldives.
Last December BBC Spotlight raised queries over who paid for a luxury holiday the DUP MP and his family took to the Coco Bodu Hithi resort in the nation in 2016.
Mr Paisley said then that he paid for part of the holiday and the rest was paid for by a friend.
He did not reveal the identity of this friend, but added that the friend was unconnected with his work and has received no benefit as a result of his work.
On Tuesday night, a follow-up BBC Spotlight programme, Paisley In Paradise Revisited, reported that the friend was Dr Mohamed Shainee, who at the time of Mr Paisley's trip to Coco Bodu Hithi was the Maldives Fisheries and Agriculture Minister.
Dr Shainee told the programme he did not pay for the trip.
READ MORE: Paisley apology for retweet of Katie Hopkins comments welcomed by Muslim community
However the programme reported that in a statement, Sunland Hotels which owns the resort, told them: "In 2016, Mohamed Shainee requested Sunland Hotels co-owner Hussain Hilmy for a rate at one of the company's resorts ... Shainee settled the payment for Ian Paisley's stay at the head office".
Barrister Gavin Millar QC told Spotlight: "If it's correct, in light of everything we know about his dealings with the government, that a government minister negotiated a rate at this holiday resort for Mr Paisley and his family and then subsequently paid the bill for the accommodation, that is unquestionably an example of a gift which would generate the obligation to register it and tell the public about it.
"He has to produce some tangible evidence to show that what you've found is not correct and the government minister didn't pay for it."
READ MORE: DUP: We do not abstain on the Union
BBC Spotlight also raised questions about other visits it reported that Mr Paisley made to the Maldives.
One of these trips, in February 2016 with the All-Party British-Maldives Parliamentary Group, was registered with the House of Commons Register of Interests.
But the other two trips - one to Kandolhu resort with his family in April 2014 and a two-night stay in January 2016 at Paradise Island resort - were not declared.
The trips would only require to be declared if they were gifted to the MP.
Spotlight reported that a source told them the trip to Kandolhu was complimentary.
Mr Paisley did not respond to BBC Spotlight over these questions, and did not respond when approached by Press Association.
Spotlight also approached the DUP over whether an announced investigation into Mr Paisley's visit to the Coco Bodu Hithi resort had reached a conclusion.
A DUP spokesman said: "Discipline is an internal party matter. We do not give a running commentary. All members are treated fairly and have a right to due process."
Mr Paisley was suspended from the House of Commons in 2018 for 30 days for "serious misconduct" for failing to declare two family holidays to Sri Lanka in 2013.
He referred himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
The Commissioner, Kathryn Stone, found that Mr Paisley had failed to properly declare two holidays and engaged in paid advocacy for the Sri Lankan government.
Parliament suspended Mr Paisley from the House of Commons for 30 days over the matter.
However, a petition to trigger a by-election in his North Antrim constituency fell short by 444 votes.
On his return to the House of Commons following his suspension, he said: "A smaller man than me would have crumbled."
Mr Paisley is the son of veteran politician Ian Paisley, who was one of the founders of the DUP, and held the North Antrim Westminster seat since 1970.
A DUP spokesman said: "We note the serious issues raised in the programme. The Party Officers will consider these matters within the context of our disciplinary process and any other relevant authority.
"Ian Paisley MP was suspended from the Party for 57 days. He was readmitted to membership, with conditions. Amongst other sanctions, was a ban on holding office in the party for 12 months. That ban is still in place.
"We require high standards from our elected representatives. Discipline is an internal party matter. We do not give a running commentary."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here