PEERS who avoid tax or have criminal convictions - such as Lord Archer and Lord Black - are to be expelled from the House of Lords in the wake of the lords for hire scandal.
The reforms are being drawn up by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, in an attempt to restore the Lords’ battered reputation after last weekend’s revelations in The Sunday Times. He plans to enact the legislation necessary to expel them before the general election, which has to be held by May next year.
Peers who are “non-domiciled” or “non-resident” for tax purposes - there are thought to be at least seven - will lose their seats, as will those who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence.
Our disclosures that Labour peers were prepared to amend laws in the Lords on behalf of businesses has lifted the lid on the frenetic business activity in the second chamber. Today we can further disclose that: Lord Truscott, one of those named in the lords for hire scandal, met the energy minister, allegedly without declaring that he was being paid by a lobbying firm that had among its clients Russia’s state-owned gas giant Gazprom.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who was also named, lobbied a civil servant about a planning application for a power plant put forward by a paying client. Lord Snape, another named peer and a consultant to First-Group, the transport company, had previously tabled two amendments favourable to bus companies. He withdrew them to avoid any suggestion of a conflict of interest.
Our inquiries have established that other peers are routinely attempting to change legislation that would favour companies and organisations which pay them.
At present the author Jeffrey Archer, who received a four-year jail sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice, and Conrad Black, the former Daily Telegraph proprietor jailed for fraud, are allowed to remain peers despite their criminal convictions.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, said the system was “bananas”.
There is now also cross-party agreement on ridding the Lords of members who avoid paying tax. Nonresidents are people who live abroad to avoid paying tax and nondomiciles are people who are resident in the UK but were born abroad and are therefore “domiciled” abroad for tax purposes.
Lord Ashcroft, the billionaire Tory donor, has repeatedly refused to confirm his tax status, while Lord Laidlaw, the Conservatives’ biggest donor, lives in Monaco and is widely reported to be a tax exile.
Lord Paul, the steel magnate and billionaire Labour donor, and Baroness Gardner, the Australian Conservative peer, are both openly non-domiciled. Lord Foster, the architect who is a cross-bencher, lives in Switzerland. His staff refuse to answer questions about his tax status.
In a further effort to clean up the upper house, Straw is ready to put the Lords Appointments Commission onto a statutory basis for the first time, giving it powers to eject peers who break undertakings made when they accept peerages.
Sources close to Straw say he is expected to use a Commons bill on constitutional renewal, already in the pipeline, to make the changes, which have Tory and Liberal Democrat backing. These changes would be retrospective. A private member’s bill on nondoms and nonresidents, drawn up by Matthew Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, and going through the Lords, is likely to be used as a template.
“Nondom and nonresident peers can hide their income in tropical tax havens: they must pay up or pack up. Meanwhile, peers convicted of fraud or perjury can stroll out of the prison gates after breakfast and into the division lobby after lunch. Tax-dodgers, bung-takers, fraudsters and perjurers must be cleared out of parliament now,” Oakeshott said.
Last week it was disclosed that Taylor, a former education adviser to Downing Street, Snape, a former whip and Truscott and Lord Moonie, former ministers, were secretly recorded telling undercover reporters posing as lobbyists that they could assist them in changing a law. They discussed fees of between £24,000 and £120,000.
Each said they could not personally put down the amendments and no payments were actually made, as it was a newspaper investigation. All deny breaking any parliamentary rules. But both Taylor and Truscott indicated they had previously helped to secure changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients.
On Friday The Sunday Times sent dossiers of transcripts and tape recordings to the Lords authorities and to Scotland Yard, who had both requested our evidence.
During the undercover investigation, Truscott, the energy minister until 2007, said he had recently been talking to Gazprom about issues of interest to the firm. The Russian state-owned gas company is hoping to become a main player in the UK gas market.
He said that his contact with the gas company was through Gavin Anderson, a public affairs company which has been paying him as an adviser since November 2007. “One of the companies I advise, advises Gazprom. I don’t advise Gazprom directly,” he said.
It has now emerged that in February 2008 Truscott had lunch with Malcolm Wicks, his successor as energy minister, and, according to a source, did not mention his link to Gazprom.
Wicks said: “We had lunch and chatted about all sorts of things, mainly as I recall about Russia which Peter [Truscott] has a strong interest in. We talked about energy policy . . . we talked about where we’re going to get our gas in Europe and Russia crops up, of course it does.”
The source said Wicks was “amazed” later to discover the Gazprom connection. “Gazprom is no ordinary gas company, it’s crucial to the Russian economy and everyone knows how close it is to Putin and the state,” the source said.
Truscott, 49, has a Russian wife, Svetlana, and has written three books on the country, including a biography of Putin, the prime minister, which was well received in Moscow.
He told the undercover reporters that he had just had lunch with a Gazprom executive and had given the company’s delegates a guided tour of parliament.
He was recorded saying: “When I was energy minister they [the government] were very wary about letting Gazprom in and there were other issues, security issues as well, some of which is secret.
“Now it’s still very sensitive. The UK arm of Gazprom is gradually expanding in the UK and expanding in the retail sector. The big issue a couple of years ago was Gazprom buying Centrica. That was a security issue. So these are the sorts of things I advise them on as well.”
Truscott was unavailable for comment yesterday. His appointment with Gavin Anderson was cleared by the body that monitors former ministers’ outside interests before his meeting with Wicks.
Gavin Anderson has suspended Truscott pending the outcome of the lords for hire inquiry. A spokesman denied he had been advising Gazprom and claimed he had met their executives only informally at industry events. Gazprom Marketing & Trading, the UK subsidiary of Gazprom, said Truscott had never acted as an adviser.
Further details have also emerged about the activities of Taylor. The undercover reporters taped Taylor boasting of how he knew key civil servants and named Gary Mohammed, an official who recommends whether power stations should be approved.
Last week Mohammed said he had been lobbied by Taylor in the late 1990s about an application to build a £600m gas power station in Fleetwood, Lancashire. Taylor later took Mohammed for lunch at the House of Lords.
At the time Taylor was paid £80,000 over a two-year period by Canatxx, one of two companies behind plans for the power station. Last week Taylor confirmed that he had lobbied Mohammed and said he declared his paid interests at the time. His lawyer said: “Lord Taylor has committed no criminal offence and has broken no rule of the House of Lords.”
It can also be disclosed that Snape, who is paid by First-Group, tabled two amendments to the Local Transport Bill as it passed through parliament last year. The changes would have favoured bus companies in dealings with councils. Later Snape decided against formally moving the amendments.
His lawyer said last week the peer took the decision to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. A spokesman for First-Group said Snape was paid as a public affairs adviser and the company did not request him to put down amendments.
source: the times
search the web
Custom Search
