Key Highlights
- Two peers, Lord Richard Dannatt and Lord David Evans, face suspensions from the House of Lords for breaching rules.
- The breaches involved providing parliamentary services in return for “payment or reward,” according to the standards commissioner’s findings.
- Lord Dannatt faces a four-month suspension, while Lord Evans will be suspended for five months after failing to act on his personal honour.
The House of Lords: A Case of Breached Rules
In a significant development in the political landscape of the UK, two peers from the House of Lords have been found guilty of breaching parliamentary rules and are set to face suspensions. The cases of crossbencher Lord Richard Dannatt and Labour peer Lord David Evans highlight the strict regulatory environment surrounding members of the upper chamber.
Lord Richard Dannatt’s Breach
The investigation into Lord Dannatt, former Army chief, revealed that he had breached the House of Lords’ code of conduct by corresponding with ministers and government officials about companies in which he had a financial interest. The standards commissioner found four specific instances where Dannatt engaged in activity that would have amounted to paid parliamentary services.
Despite not having received any payment or lobbying taking place, Lord Dannatt’s willingness to engage in such activities was deemed unacceptable by the commissioner. He acknowledged this and expressed remorse for his actions, stating, “I deeply regret the findings… 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 David Evans’ Breach
Lord David Evans faced a more severe penalty. He was found guilty of failing to act on his personal honour by sponsoring events in Parliament for a company owned by his son, Affinity. According to the commissioner’s report, Lord Evans had believed his shares in the company had been transferred to his son in 2013, but he still benefited from these actions.
Lord Evans expressed shock at the findings and said, “I’m horrified by the whole thing…
I’ve had a clean reputation all my life. I’ve never done anything wrong.” However, the commissioner noted that given the number and seriousness of breaches, a lengthy suspension was appropriate. He added, “Given the circumstances at the time, when I didn’t even know I was a shareholder – I had resigned from the company – I thought it was appropriate and I wasn’t breaking any rules.”
Regulatory Environment and Implications
The case of these two peers underscores the importance of adhering to the strict codes of conduct within the House of Lords. The breaches highlight the potential for conflicts of interest and the need for stringent oversight to maintain integrity in parliamentary activities.
House of Lords standards watchdogs play a crucial role in ensuring that members uphold ethical standards, and these cases serve as a reminder of the consequences when such guidelines are not followed. The suspensions reflect the seriousness with which the House takes violations of its rules, demonstrating its commitment to maintaining transparency and accountability within the institution.
The incidents also bring attention to the broader issue of financial interests and parliamentary services in a time where technology and lobbying practices continue to evolve. As the regulatory landscape adapts to these changes, ensuring that members remain vigilant in their adherence to ethical standards will be crucial for maintaining public trust.
