House of Lords set to suspend Lord Dannatt and Evans
If you want a clear example of how Parliament polices itself, today is useful. On 24 November 2025, the Lords Conduct Committee published reports recommending that two peers be suspended for breaking the rule against providing parliamentary services in return for payment or reward. The House still has to agree the sanctions before they take effect.
The bare facts first. Former Army chief Lord Richard Dannatt, a crossbench peer, is recommended for a four‑month suspension. Lord David Evans of Watford, a Labour peer, is recommended for five months. Both cases began after undercover reporting by the Guardian and both men referred themselves to the watchdog. Neither appealed the findings or the sanctions.
What exactly is the rule they broke? The Lords Code forbids members from accepting, or agreeing to accept, any payment or other reward for doing (or not doing) something in the course of their parliamentary activities. That covers arranging meetings, approaching ministers or officials, or using parliamentary facilities for commercial gain. General commentary on policy and explaining, in broad terms, how Parliament works are allowed and do not count as parliamentary advice. This distinction matters in standards cases.
Who investigates? The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards is an independent officer who looks into alleged breaches of the Code, including misuse of facilities and rules on paid advice or services. The Commissioner reports to the Conduct Committee, which decides on sanctions to recommend to the House. In the two cases today, the investigations were overseen by Commissioner Martin Jelley, with parts of the Evans inquiry begun under former Commissioner Margaret Obi.
What the Dannatt report says. The Commissioner found that a filmed conversation with undercover journalists did not, by itself, amount to a breach of the paid‑services rule; however, Lord Dannatt’s statements showed a willingness to undertake activity that would have broken the rule, which in turn breached the Code’s requirement to act on personal honour. Separately, he was found to have contacted ministers or officials about three companies in which he had a financial interest-UK Nitrogen, Teledyne UK and Blue International Holdings-breaching the prohibition on paid parliamentary services. The Committee upheld the findings and backed a four‑month suspension.
Lord Dannatt accepted the findings and the recommended sanction, expressing remorse and saying he had lessons to learn about the Code. He also noted, in relation to two UK‑based matters, that the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists had concluded he had not conducted consultant lobbying-something distinct from the Lords’ paid‑services rule.
What the Evans report says. The Commissioner found four breaches. First, Lord Evans told undercover journalists he could introduce them to MPs, which the report says showed a clear willingness to breach the Code and failed the personal‑honour test. Second and third, he provided paid parliamentary services by sponsoring events in Parliament for Affinity-a company owned by his son, in which he held a one‑third share-and by approaching peers to speak at those events. Fourth, he broke House events rules because tickets were marketed above cost and the functions were used to drum up business. The Committee backed a five‑month suspension.
There has also been a party consequence. The Guardian reports that Lord Evans has had the Labour whip withdrawn. Separately, the Committee’s report warns that cases like this can erode public trust and points to the Nolan principles of public life-starting with selflessness-as the standard members are expected to meet.
Did lobbying actually happen or money change hands? In Lord Dannatt’s filmed meeting, the Commissioner concluded there was no breach of the paid‑services rule in that conversation, and the BBC reports there was no evidence of payment in that meeting. However, the separate findings about his correspondence on behalf of three companies did breach the paid‑services rule. This is a good reminder that intent, actions, and context are all examined in standards cases.
What happens next procedurally? Sanctions take effect only if the House agrees a motion following the Committee’s recommendation. When a suspension is agreed, the peer cannot sit or use facilities for the stated period; official guidance notes that passes are cancelled on the day a suspension is approved. This is how the Lords enforces its Code.
If you’re teaching or studying this, the primary sources are short and readable. Start with the Conduct Committee’s summaries, then check the annexed Commissioner reports for the evidence, the Code paragraphs cited, and the aggravating or mitigating factors. You can find them all on Parliament’s website.
Why this matters. Rules on paid parliamentary advice and services exist to keep public decisions free from private deals. Today’s reports show how the system tests what peers say they will do, what they actually do, and whether their actions are compatible with the public interest. For students of politics, it’s a live case study in accountability.