The House of Lords has handed down significant suspensions to two prominent peers following a comprehensive investigation that exposed serious breaches of parliamentary lobbying rules. Lord Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British army, and Lord David Evans of Watford face four and five-month suspensions respectively after being found guilty of multiple violations of the chamber's code of conduct.
Undercover Investigation Reveals Systematic Problems
The disciplinary actions stem from an extensive undercover investigation conducted by The Guardian, which exposed both peers offering to arrange meetings with government ministers for what they believed were potential commercial clients. The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards found that both men had demonstrated a failure to act on their personal honour - a fundamental principle governing conduct in the upper chamber.
According to the commissioner's detailed findings, Lord Dannatt, 74, was recorded offering introductions to ministers for companies in which he had financial interests. The former army chief went as far as stating he would make a point of getting to know whichever minister would be most useful to the supposed commercial interests. Further investigation revealed additional instances where he appeared to provide parliamentary services for payment, including corresponding with ministers and accompanying company representatives to meetings in Whitehall.
Lord Evans, 82, a Labour peer with over two decades of service, was filmed discussing access to ministers as part of a commercial deal worth tens of thousands of pounds with an undercover reporter posing as a property developer. The commissioner concluded that although no money ultimately changed hands, Evans had shown a clear willingness to undertake paid parliamentary services, constituting a serious breach of the Lords' rules.
Labour's Reform Agenda Gains Momentum
The scandal comes at a crucial time for parliamentary reform, with the new Labour government having previously committed to overhauling the unelected chamber. Before taking office, Keir Starmer described the House of Lords setup as indefensible and pledged to abolish it in favour of an elected chamber.
Rachel Oldroyd, The Guardian's deputy investigations editor, explained the context behind their months-long examination of the upper house. We started looking into all of it last year in the context of Labour saying the house needed reform, she stated. The idea that an unelected chamber, where members sit for life and the numbers have ballooned to around 800, just doesn't make sense in a modern democracy.
The investigation identified approximately 90 peers with roles that appeared to pose potential conflicts of interest or risk breaching parliamentary rules. From this group, journalists approached 11 peers undercover, leading to six formal inquiries by the Lords Commissioner. Four have already resulted in findings of breaches, with two investigations still ongoing.
Peers Accept Sanctions After Initial Defiance
Both peers initially challenged The Guardian's pre-publication reporting, maintaining they had done nothing wrong and stressing their long-standing service and understanding of parliamentary rules. However, neither contested the commissioner's findings or the recommended punishments when they were formally announced.
In a statement responding to the suspensions, Lord Dannatt said: 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.
The suspensions represent some of the most significant sanctions imposed on peers in recent years and highlight systemic issues within the Lords. As Oldroyd noted, After almost a year of work, we have found inherent problems, including that longstanding peers don't seem to know the rules. It really does need to be changed.
The scandal raises serious questions about standards and accountability in Britain's second chamber and is likely to intensify calls for comprehensive reform of an institution that many see as outdated and lacking proper oversight mechanisms.
