Skip to main content Scroll Top

Two peers face suspension from House of Lords

Two peers are set to be sus­pend­ed from the House of Lords for breach­ing rules, includ­ing pro­vid­ing par­lia­men­tary ser­vices in return for “pay­ment or reward”.

Former Army chief Lord Richard Dannatt and busi­ness­man Lord David Evans of Watford face sus­pen­sions of four and five months respectively.

The House of Lords’ stan­dards watch­dog launched sep­a­rate inves­ti­ga­tions into the two men fol­low­ing an under­cov­er oper­a­tion by the Guardian newspaper.

Neither peer appealed the stan­dard com­mis­sion­er’s find­ings or the sanc­tions, which will come into force once approved by the House of Lords.

Crossbencher Lord Richard Dannatt and Labour peer Lord David Evans of Watford have both been suspended

In the course of his inves­ti­ga­tion, the stan­dards com­mis­sion­er found that cross­bench peer Lord Dannatt had breached the code of con­duct by cor­re­spond­ing with min­is­ters and gov­ern­ment offi­cials about three com­pa­nies — UK Nitrogen, Teledyne UK and Blue International Holdings — in which he had a finan­cial interest.

The com­mis­sion­er also iden­ti­fied four ways in which Labour peer Lord Evans had bro­ken the rules, includ­ing by spon­sor­ing events in Parliament for a com­pa­ny that was owned by his son, and in which he held one-third of the shares.

Both men referred them­selves to the com­mis­sion­er after the Guardian report­ed com­ments they had made to the news­pa­per’s under­cov­er reporters.

Lord Dannatt was filmed telling the jour­nal­ists, pos­ing as poten­tial com­mer­cial clients, he could make intro­duc­tions to peo­ple in gov­ern­ment and could “make a point of get­ting to know” the best-placed ministers.

The com­mis­sion­er con­clud­ed that no lob­by­ing had tak­en place and no pay­ment had been received.

However, he said Lord Dannatt had demon­strat­ed “a clear will­ing­ness to under­take activ­i­ty that would have amount­ed to paid par­lia­men­tary ser­vices” and had “demon­strat­ed insuf­fi­cient regard for the need to act sole­ly in the pub­lic inter­est in the course of his par­lia­men­tary activities”.

For that rea­son, he said the peer had breached the sec­tion of the code of con­duct which requires mem­bers to “always act on their per­son­al honour”.

During the course of the inves­ti­ga­tion, the com­mis­sion­er iden­ti­fied three fur­ther breach­es, relat­ing to Lord Dannatt con­tact­ing peo­ple in gov­ern­ment about com­pa­nies in which he had a finan­cial interest.

In these instances, the com­mis­sion­er said the peer had breached the sec­tion of the code which states that peers “must not seek to prof­it from mem­ber­ship of the House by accept­ing or agree­ing to accept pay­ment or oth­er incen­tive or reward in return for pro­vid­ing par­lia­men­tary advice or services”.

He said Lord Dannatt’s “lack of under­stand­ing” about the code and his belief that he was “act­ing in the nation­al inter­est” were not mit­i­gat­ing fac­tors, but acknowl­edged the peer’s “proac­tive expres­sions of remorse” and “will­ing­ness to learn”.

In a state­ment, Lord Dannatt accept­ed three breach­es of the code of con­duct had been found by the com­mis­sion­er but added “for the record” that the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists had inves­ti­gat­ed the two UK-based mat­ters and “con­clud­ed that I had not con­duct­ed con­sul­tant lobbying”.

He said he “deeply” regret­ted the find­ings and said that the “hon­ourable course of action was not to waste the Conduct Committee’s time by appeal­ing against the find­ings but to accept the appro­pri­ate sanction”.

Lord Dannatt said he had declared all rel­e­vant inter­ests, as well as reg­is­ter­ing them with the Registrar of Lords’ Interests, but he accept­ed his actions had been “insuf­fi­cient” and that “igno­rance” was no defence for any breach of the code of conduct.

He added: “I also under­stand that act­ing in the nation­al inter­est in good faith, which was my moti­va­tion in the three mat­ters, is not an excuse or jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for breach­ing the Code of Conduct.

At near­ly 75 no-one is too old to learn lessons and I hope that these activ­i­ties will be placed in the con­text of my 56-years pub­lic service.”

Lord Evans was found to have failed to “act on his per­son­al hon­our” by telling the Guardian jour­nal­ists he could intro­duce them to MPs.

He also spon­sored events in Parliament for the com­pa­ny, Affinity, and asked mem­bers of the House of Lords if they would speak at the events.

Tickets to the events were adver­tised for sale at a price greater than the actu­al cost per head, con­tra­ven­ing House of Lords rules on hold­ing events, the com­mis­sion­er’s report said.

He not­ed that Lord Evans had believed his shares in Affinity had been trans­ferred to his son in 2013 and there­fore “did not think he would ben­e­fit from spon­sor­ing events for Affinity as a shareholder”.

However, the com­mis­sion­er con­clud­ed that, tak­ing into the account the “num­ber and seri­ous­ness of the breach­es”, a lengthy sus­pen­sion from the Lords would be appro­pri­ate.

Author: Kate Whannel Political reporter

Original sto­ry: BBC

Download PDF:

THE CONDUCT of Lord Evans of Watford