Tory peer Lord Chadlington is to quit the Conservatives and retire from the House of Lords following a recommendation he be suspended from Parliament for a year.

It comes after an investigation found he breached the Lords code of conduct over his role in assisting a subsidiary of a company he chaired to secure contracts to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic.

Although the peer had initially been cleared in two previous investigations, a third probe was opened due to new information coming to light.

The former adviser to John Major said "any errors that I did make were honest," and he "wholly rejected" the findings of the commissioner.

The investigation, by the Lords standards commissioner Martin Jelley, followed a complaint that Lord Chadlington had referred a supplier, SG Recruitment Ltd (SGRL), to the government's 'High Priority Lane' for PPE contracts in 2020.

This route was used by the government during the Covid crisis to directly award contracts to companies offering to supply personal protective equipment, which would usually be opened to competing bids.

SGRL, which was awarded contracts to provide PPE during the Covid crisis, was a subsidiary of a holding company, Sumner Group Holdings Ltd (SGHL), of which Lord Chadlington was a shareholder and non-executive director.

The commissioner's latest inquiry followed two previous investigations by his predecessor, in 2022 and 2023, that found the Tory peer's actions had not breached the Lords code of conduct.

But the commissioner launched a third probe after concluding that evidence submitted by Lord Chadlington to the Covid inquiry presented "fresh evidence" of his contact with ministers and advisers during the pandemic.

In a report published on Friday, the commissioner found the Tory peer had committed three breaches of a Lords rule banning peers from providing "parliamentary services in return for payment or other incentive or reward". This included introducing SGRL's chief executive, David Sumner, to Lord Feldman, then an adviser to the health department on procurement, and contacting then-health secretary Matt Hancock to obtain the personal contact details of another adviser, Lord Deighton, for Sumner.

He was also found to have breached the code by advising Sumner on how to approach Lord Deighton.

In addition, he was also found to have breached the code by failing to fully co-operate with the two previous investigations, and by failing to act "on his personal honour".

Lord Chadlington had appealed against the commissioner's findings, insisting he had demonstrated his "total commitment to full transparency", and also to the recommended sanction of a year's suspension, which he said was "wholly disproportionate".

It said there was "no finding that Lord Chadlington deliberately set out to mislead the former commissioner", but his actions "fell short of the standards the House expects of its members".

The recommended suspension had been due to be voted on by the whole House of Lords later in March, but on Friday the Tory peer said he would be stepping down.

In a statement, he said: "Although the committee have acknowledged that I did not act dishonestly, it is important that I make clear that I never profited from an introduction, properly made with honourable intent, at a time of unprecedented national crisis.

"Any errors that I did make were honest.

I have apologised for them and I do so again today.

"For more than three years, since reaching 80, I have discussed retiring with House officials but did not wish to do so while these investigations were ongoing.

"I have now decided, having proudly served as a peer for 30 years, that the time is right for me to retire and resign my membership of the Conservative Party

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source