Labor has called for a review of Lords conduct rules after Conservative peer Lord Chadlington was cleared of lobbying for £50m worth of Covid contracts awarded to a company in which he had a financial interest.
Lords Commissioner for Standards Akbar Khan ruled that Peter Selwyn Gummer, who sits as Lord Chadlington in the upper house, had not broken any rules.
This is because Gummer did not approach the government directly on behalf of the company, SG Recruitment, which was part of a group in which he was a director and shareholder.
The report found that Gummer had given the company’s chief executive, David Sumner, the email address of Lord Feldman, another Tory peer then advising the Department of Health and Social Care.
After Sumner emailed him on April 21, 2020, Feldman directed SG Recruitment to government officials who processed the company through the government’s “VIP lane” for politically connected firms.
The “high priority” band gives companies 10 times more chance of getting Covid contracts than those without political connections, according to an analysis by the Audit Office.
Just five days later, on April 26, SG Recruitment, then a small company that helped find health staff for the NHS, was awarded a £23.9 million government contract to supply coveralls.
The second contract, for £26.1 million for the supply of hand sanitiser, was awarded on 28 May 2020. The contracts were awarded without competition as the government had suspended normal public procurement tendering procedures due to the pandemic emergency.
The commissioner’s report does not cite the email from Sumner to Feldman, or indicate whether Sumner mentioned Gummer by name in it, or tell Feldman that Gummer had an interest in the company.
Khan said: “There is no evidence to suggest that the fact that Lord Chadlington [Gummer] provided Mr Sumner with the email address which played some part in the decision to award the two contracts to SG Recruitment UK.’
A spokesman for Khan, asked if he had seen the email from Sumner as part of his investigation and whether Sumner had indeed mentioned Gummer’s name, replied: “The Commissioner … was satisfied on the basis of Lord Chadlington’s account and corroborating evidence from Lord Feldman of Elstree and the Cabinet that there was no violation [of the Lords code of conduct].
“The use of Lord Chadlington’s name by Mr Sumner in this case is not relevant to whether Lord Chadlington has committed a breach of the code.”
Labor peer George Foulkes, who made the original complaint, said the rules needed to be reviewed: “I accept the commissioner’s decision under the existing code of conduct,” Foulkes said, “but it shows the code needs a review to consider the more subtle approaches.’
Joe Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, which launched a successful legal challenge against the government that led to the VIP lane being declared illegal, said: “It is difficult to look at the approach taken by the commissioner and see how he is protecting a public interest of fair and transparent governance.”
Feldman, asked if Sumner mentioned Gummer’s name to him and if that was the reason the company was targeted for the VIP bar, declined to answer directly. He said: “My only action in relation to the email offer from Mr Sumner was to pass it on to the relevant government officials who were responsible for the supply of PPE. I played no further role and was not involved in the contract award decision.
The Guardian asked Gummer whether Sumner had mentioned his name in his email to Feldman or stated that he had an interest and a stake in SG Recruitment’s parent company.
The Conservative peer did not respond directly, saying: “There was a full investigation by the commissioner, which, as noted, I co-operated fully and transparently. I stand by his conclusions. I have nothing more to add on this matter.”
Sumner and SG Recruitment did not respond to questions.
Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST
Add Comment