lord chadlington will quit the Conservative Party and retire from the House of Lords after a recommendation that he be suspended from Parliament for a year following findings that he breached the Lords code of conduct over pandemic-era PPE dealings.
What happens next for Lord Chadlington and the Lords?
The Lords standards commissioner, Martin Jelley, launched a third investigation after determining fresh evidence had emerged from material the peer provided to the Covid inquiry. The commissioner found breaches of the rule that peers must not provide parliamentary services in return for payment or other incentive. The inquiry identified actions in which the peer introduced a company in which he had a financial interest to government contacts and assisted its executives in accessing procurement channels.
The commissioner found that the peer introduced SG Recruitment Ltd’s chief executive, David Sumner, to Lord Feldman, made contact with then-health secretary Matt Hancock to obtain the personal contact details of another adviser, Lord Deighton, and advised Sumner on how to approach that adviser. The government route involved was the ‘High Priority Lane’ for PPE contracts. The commissioner concluded there were three breaches of the code and two further breaches of standards for failing to cooperate fully with previous investigations and for not acting on his personal honour, amounting to five breaches in total.
The peer appealed and maintained that any errors were honest and that the recommended 12-month suspension was disproportionate; the Lords conduct committee rejected the appeal and upheld the recommendation while noting there was no finding that he deliberately set out to mislead the former commissioner. The suspension was due to be considered by the whole House, but the peer chose to step down.
What does the investigation reveal about PPE contracts and accountability?
The company at the centre of the inquiry, SG Recruitment Ltd, was a subsidiary of a holding company in which the peer was a shareholder and a non-executive director. The company was awarded contracts to supply personal protective equipment during the Covid crisis after being routed through the expedited procurement channel. Subsequent accounts set out that the company received substantial contract awards within weeks and later faced financial collapse; it was said to have gone into liquidation owing taxes and to have had at least part of its early PPE supply rejected by the Department of Health and Social Care while payments had been made.
- Key findings: three breaches of the parliamentary services rule; two breaches for failure to cooperate and failing to act on personal honour.
- Key actions cited: introductions to government advisers, contact with a health secretary to obtain contact details for a procurement adviser, and advice given to the supplier on approach strategy.
- Sanction path: a 12-month suspension recommended by the commissioner, upheld on appeal by the conduct committee, followed by the peer’s decision to retire before a full-house vote.
The inquiry process unfolded after earlier investigations had cleared the peer; the commissioner opened a further probe when evidence made available to the Covid inquiry was judged to be fresh. The complaint that helped trigger renewed scrutiny was made by a campaign group representing bereaved families, who raised concerns about how the supplier came to be introduced to government procurement channels.
What readers should take away is that the internal standards and conduct mechanisms in the Lords produced a finding of multiple breaches and a near-maximum suspension recommendation, which in turn prompted the peer’s departure. The episode underscores tensions between expedited procurement in a crisis and the governance rules that apply to parliamentarians with commercial interests. The peer, lord chadlington, has asserted his actions were honest and contested the proportionality of the sanction, but the conduct committee concluded his behaviour fell short of expected standards.
