- News
- UK
- UK Politics
Lord Dannatt and Lord Evans of Watford violated regulations prohibiting the provision of parliamentary services for "payment or reward"
Jonathan BunnMonday 24 November 2025 15:34 GMTComments
open image in galleryLord Dannatt, a former head of the British army, has been suspended from the Lords for four months (Joe Giddens/PA Wire)
Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inbox
Get our free View from Westminster email
Get our free View from Westminster email
Email*SIGN UPI would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice
Two prominent members of the House of Lords are facing suspension after being found in breach of parliamentary conduct rules related to potential financial gain.
Separate inquiries concluded that Lord Dannatt, a former head of the British army, and Lord Evans of Watford violated regulations prohibiting the provision of parliamentary services for "payment or reward".
The independent Commissioner for Standards’ findings and recommendations were subsequently upheld by the Lords Conduct Committee.
This led to Lord Dannatt receiving a four-month suspension, while Lord Evans faces a five-month exclusion from the chamber.
Neither peer challenged the Commissioner’s conclusions or the proposed sanctions. Both suspensions are pending agreement by the House of Commons before they officially take effect.
The investigations were launched in response to comments made by both peers to undercover journalists.
Lord Dannatt was found to have showed a “clear willingness to undertake activity that would have amounted to paid parliamentary services” during his conversations, but no money was exchanged.
open image in galleryThe suspensions of Lord Dannatt (pictured) and Lord Evans are pending agreement by the House of Commons before they officially take effect (UK Parliament/PA Wire)Evidence later emerged of three separate cases in which Lord Dannatt had provided parliamentary services in return for payment.
These involved corresponding with ministers and officials on behalf of companies in which he had a financial interest and, in two cases, attending a meeting with a minister or senior official.
The firms involved were UK Mitrogen, Teledyne UK and Blue International Holdings.
The Conduct Committee said it 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”.
But it added: “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.”
It was alleged that Lord Evans offered “cash for access” during meetings with undercover journalists posing as potential clients of a company, Affinity, owned by the peer’s son.
Lord Evans held one-third of the shares in the company.
The Commissioner said Lord Evans failed to act on his personal honour when he told undercover journalists he would be willing to introduce them to MPs, given his financial interest as a shareholder in Affinity.
It was also found that Lord Evans had sponsored events at the House of Lords on behalf of the company and approached members of the House of Lords to speak at those events, thereby providing parliamentary services to the company in which he had a financial incentive.
The Commissioner also concluded that Lord Evans broke House of Lords events rules as tickets for the events were advertised for sale at above cost price.
open image in galleryLord Evans of Watford is set top receive a five-month ban from the House of Lords (Universal Pictorial Press Photo)The events were used to promote and drum up business for Affinity and Lord Evans, as sponsor of the events, “failed to satisfy himself that the events complied with the House’s rules”.
In a statement, Lord Dannatt said: “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.
“I accept further that ignorance of all aspects of the Code of Conduct does not constitute a defence and that registration of my interests with the Registrar of Lords’ Interests and my declaration of my relevant interests in correspondence and at meetings, as occurred in all three matters, was insufficient.
“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 seventy-five 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.”
More about
House Of LordsJoin our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments
