The House of Lords has suspended two of its peers
The House of Lords has suspended two of its peers.
Due to rules violations, including offering parliamentary services in exchange for "payment or reward," two peers will be suspended from the House of Lords.
Watford businessman Lord David Evans and former Army leader Lord Richard Dannatt will be suspended for four and five months, respectively.
The two men were the subject of separate investigations by the House of Lords' standards watchdog after the Guardian newspaper conducted an undercover operation.
The standard commissioner's conclusions and the sanctions, which will take effect if the House of Lords approves them, were not contested by either peer.
During his investigation, the standards commissioner discovered that Lord Dannatt, a crossbench peer, had violated the code of conduct by communicating with government officials and ministers regarding three businesses in which he had a financial stake: UK Nitrogen, Teledyne UK, and Blue International Holdings.
Additionally, the commissioner found four instances in which Lord Evans, a Labour peer, had violated the law, including sponsoring events in Parliament for a business in which he owned one-third of the shares and which was owned by his son.
Following statements they had made to the Guardian's undercover reporters, both men referred themselves to the commissioner.
Additionally, the commissioner found four instances in which Lord Evans, a Labour peer, had violated the law, including sponsoring events in Parliament for a business in which he owned one-third of the shares and which was owned by his son.
Following statements they had made to the Guardian's undercover reporters, both men referred themselves to the commissioner.
On camera, Lord Dannatt told the reporters—posing as possible business clients—that he could "make a point of getting to know" the most influential ministers and introduce himself to government officials.
The commissioner came to the conclusion that neither payment nor lobbying had occurred.
However, he claimed that Lord Dannatt had shown "a clear willingness to undertake activity that would have amounted to paid parliamentary services" as well as "demonstrated insufficient regard for the need to act solely in the public interest in the course of his parliamentary activities" .
He said that because of this, the peer had violated the rule of conduct's requirement that members "always act on their personal honour."
The commissioner discovered three further violations during the investigation, all of which had to do with Lord Dannatt contacting government officials on businesses in which he had a financial stake.
The code's clause stating 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" was allegedly broken in these cases, according to the commissioner.
He recognised the peer's "proactive expressions of remorse" and "willingness to learn" but said Lord Dannatt's "lack of understanding" of the code and his conviction that he was "acting in the national interest" were not mitigating circumstances.
In a statement, Lord Dannatt acknowledged that the commissioner had discovered three violations of the code of conduct, but he added "for the record" that the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists had looked into the two UK-based cases and "concluded that I had not conducted consultant lobbying."
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," he said, adding that he "deeply" regretted the results.
Although he acknowledged that his actions had been "insufficient" and that "ignorance" was not a justification for any violation of the code of conduct, Lord Dannatt stated that he had declared all pertinent interests and registered them with the Registrar of Lords' Interests.
"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," he continued.
"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."
By assuring the Guardian journalists he could introduce them to MPs, Lord Evans was deemed to have failed to "act on his personal honour."
Additionally, he asked members of the House of Lords to appear at events he sponsored for the company Affinity in Parliament.
According to the commissioner's findings, tickets to the events were marketed for sale at a price higher than the real cost per person, in violation of House of Lords regulations on organising events.
He stated that Lord Evans "did not think he would benefit from sponsoring events for Affinity as a shareholder" because he thought his shares had been passed to his son in 2013.
Nonetheless, the commissioner came to the conclusion that a protracted suspension from the Lords would be suitable given the "number and seriousness of the breaches."
Post a Comment