Two senior members of the House of Lords, Lord Richard Dannatt and Lord David Evans of Watford, are set to be suspended from the chamber after a series of high-profile breaches of parliamentary conduct rules. The suspensions, which will last four and five months respectively, follow a string of revelations triggered by an undercover operation conducted by The Guardian newspaper. The story has sent ripples through Westminster, raising fresh questions about standards, accountability, and the delicate balance between public service and personal interests at the heart of British democracy.
The saga began when undercover journalists, posing as potential commercial clients, approached both peers. The House of Lords’ standards watchdog launched separate investigations in response to comments made by the men during these meetings. According to BBC News, neither Lord Dannatt nor Lord Evans challenged the findings or appealed the sanctions. The suspensions will come into force once approved by the House of Lords, pending formal agreement by the House of Commons.
Lord Dannatt, a former head of the British Army and a crossbench peer, was found to have breached the code of conduct by corresponding with ministers and government officials on behalf of three companies—UK Nitrogen, Teledyne UK, and Blue International Holdings—in which he had a financial interest. The standards commissioner concluded that Lord Dannatt demonstrated "a clear willingness to undertake activity that would have amounted to paid parliamentary services," according to The Independent. While no money was exchanged, the commissioner determined that Lord Dannatt had "demonstrated insufficient regard for the need to act solely in the public interest in the course of his parliamentary activities."
In the words of the commissioner, Lord Dannatt’s actions breached the section of the code that requires peers to "always act on their personal honour." The investigation identified three further breaches related to his contact with government officials about companies in which he stood to benefit financially. The report noted that his "lack of understanding" about the rules and his belief that he was "acting in the national interest" did not serve as mitigating factors. Nevertheless, the commissioner acknowledged Lord Dannatt’s "proactive expressions of remorse" and "willingness to learn."
In a statement released after the findings, Lord Dannatt accepted responsibility, saying, "The Commissioner found that I had breached the Code of Conduct over these three matters. For the record, I would add that the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists also investigated the two UK-based matters and concluded that I had not conducted consultant lobbying. 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 continued, "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. 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."
Lord Evans of Watford, a Labour peer and businessman, was also found to have breached the code in several ways. Most notably, he sponsored events in Parliament for Affinity, a company owned by his son, in which he held one-third of the shares. He invited other members of the House of Lords to speak at these events and, according to the commissioner’s report, tickets were advertised for sale at a price greater than the actual cost per head—a direct contravention of House of Lords rules on holding events.
During the undercover operation, Lord Evans told journalists he could introduce them to MPs. The commissioner judged that this, combined with his financial interest in Affinity, amounted to a failure to "act on his personal honour." Lord Evans, for his part, maintained that he believed his shares in Affinity had been transferred to his son in 2013 and that he did not think he would benefit from sponsoring events for the company. However, the commissioner concluded that the "number and seriousness of the breaches" justified a lengthy suspension.
Reflecting on the episode, Lord Evans told the commissioner, "I was suspicious of the whole approach... in hindsight, I should not have agreed to attend the online meeting." When asked if he thought it was appropriate to invite peers to the events he hosted on behalf of Affinity, Lord Evans said, "Given the circumstances at the time, when I didn't even know I was a shareholder—I had resigned from the company—I thought it was appropriate and I wasn't breaking any rules." He added, "I'm horrified by the whole thing. I've had a clean reputation all my life. I've never done anything wrong."
The Conduct Committee, as reported by The Independent, gave "due weight to Lord Dannatt’s expressions of remorse and recognition of the potential damage such cases cause to the reputation of the House." Still, it emphasized the seriousness of the breaches, noting, "The key aggravating factor in the case was the fact that there were four separate findings of breaches of the code. The sheer number of Lord Dannatt’s improper interactions with ministers or officials, and their duration over a period of two years, justify a significant sanction." Similarly, Lord Evans’ case was marked by "multiple serious breaches" with the events used to promote Affinity and tickets sold above cost price. The commissioner stated that Lord Evans "failed to satisfy himself that the events complied with the House’s rules."
This episode has reignited a longstanding debate about standards in public life. The findings highlight the ongoing challenge of ensuring that members of the House of Lords—many with distinguished careers in public service or business—navigate the boundaries between their public roles and private interests with utmost care. The cases of Lord Dannatt and Lord Evans serve as a cautionary tale for all those in public office about the importance of transparency, accountability, and, above all, personal honour.
As the House of Lords prepares to approve the suspensions, the affair stands as a stark reminder: even the most experienced public servants are not immune to lapses in judgment. The repercussions for Lord Dannatt and Lord Evans may be personal, but the implications for public trust in Parliament are much broader and likely to reverberate for some time.
