Former Army Chief Faces Parliamentary Suspension
The House of Lords has suspended former head of the British army Lord Richard Dannatt for four months following a damning investigation that found he repeatedly broke parliamentary rules by using his position to benefit his business interests. The 74-year-old peer, who was awarded his lifetime peerage by David Cameron in 2011, was found to have breached the Lords' code of conduct on four separate occasions since 2022.
From Battlefield to Boardroom
After 40 years of distinguished military service that saw him awarded the Military Cross at just 22, Lord Dannatt transitioned into consultancy work following his retirement in 2009. However, the House of Lords conduct committee ruled that he had failed to understand one of parliament's fundamental principles: a peer cannot lobby for payment.
The investigation revealed how Dannatt used his privileged access to ministers and officials to assist various companies, including energy firm Joule Africa, US defence contractor Teledyne, and consortium UK Nitrogen. In each case, his status as a member of the House of Lords provided the access that commercial clients sought.
The Sierra Leone Dam Project
One of the most detailed examples involved Joule Africa, an Anglo-American company planning a £500 million hydroelectric dam in Sierra Leone. Within a year of becoming a peer, Dannatt arranged a meeting between company executives and the minister for Africa in September 2011. Months later, he joined the company's advisory board and received shares instead of a salary.
The relationship continued for years, with Dannatt writing to British officials in Ghana in January 2024 to seek help for the company's goldmine operations there. He described the intervention as being "in the UK national interest" while acknowledging it would benefit the company commercially.
Undercover Sting Operation
The peer's activities came under scrutiny after he was filmed by undercover Guardian reporters earlier this year. Speaking from his home office with his arms tightly crossed, Dannatt boasted about his ability to "easily rub shoulders with people" in Westminster and help facilitate conversations for a fake property developer.
He emphasised that any work would need to align with the country's best interests but made clear he expected payment, suggesting between £1,800 and £2,800 per day was "a ballpark I recognise". The Lords commissioner ruled these statements broke the fundamental principle that peers should "always act on their personal honour".
Pattern of Improper Influence
The investigation uncovered multiple instances where Dannatt used his parliamentary status to gain access for paying clients:
- In 2022, he helped UK Nitrogen seek £10 million government support for a factory takeover, receiving £8,000 in "honorariums"
- He wrote to the home secretary on behalf of Teledyne after protests at their Welsh factory
- Court proceedings revealed concerns that he sought to influence a criminal investigation into activists who targeted Teledyne
This wasn't Dannatt's first encounter with controversy. In 2012, the Sunday Times revealed he had discussed a £100,000-a-year role that would involve speaking to officials about defence procurement, though he was cleared of wrongdoing at that time due to lack of evidence of actual lobbying.
Significant Sanction Imposed
The conduct committee justified the four-month suspension - considered a hefty punishment - by citing "the sheer number of Lord Dannatt's improper interactions with ministers or officials, and their duration over a period of two years".
In his response, Lord Dannatt stated: "I deeply regret the commissioner's findings regarding my personal honour and I decided that 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 added that at nearly 75, "no one is too old to learn lessons" and hoped his activities would be viewed in the context of his 56 years of public service.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about transparency and accountability in the House of Lords, particularly regarding the use of privileged access for commercial gain.
