Top lawyers in House of Lords rail against disclosing foreign interests
Members of the House of Lords have criticised stricter rules on disclosing payments from foreign governments.
The upper chamber decided without a vote there should be no exemptions from the tougher transparency regime, despite concerns expressed by senior members of the legal profession sitting on the red benches, due to the duty of confidentiality.
One former attorney general said he now had to decide whether he would take a leave of absence from Parliament, while another top barrister branded it “an intrusion”.
Foreign interests
It follows the introduction of a new requirement for members to register foreign interests, including money paid by companies or individuals connected to overseas governments.
This was in response to an investigation by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which highlighted links between some members of the Lords and business interests in Russia, and companies linked to Vladimir Putin’s regime.
The inquiry called for more transparency on the financial dealings of peers and foreign governments.
It also comes against a background of an ongoing lobbying scandal at Westminster, involving former prime minister David Cameron.
On the call for exemptions to the new rules, the Lords Conduct Committee, which drew up the code, said it understood the concerns, but added: “We believe that the public interest requires absolute transparency when it comes to members of the national legislature working for a foreign power.”
Opening the debate, Conduct Committee member Baroness Donaghy said: “Being a legislator is a privilege, and with that privilege comes an obligation to be transparent.”
But urging further consideration by the committee, Tory former solicitor general and QC Lord Garnier said: “We cannot be complacent about hostile states deliberately trying to influence our democratic processes, but making me say whether I have advised an EU member state’s justice ministry or a Commonwealth country’s law commission about the English deferred prosecution agreement system, and what I was paid to do so, is not going to stop President Putin suborning our democracy.”
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, himself a QC, said: “I oppose these proposed changes in principle. Not to protect other lawyers but because I believe they directly conflict with a professional duty of confidentiality which lies at the heart of the lawyer-client relationship.”
Leave of absence
Labour former attorney general Lord Goldsmith revealed he may have to take a leave of absence form the Lords as a result of the new disclosure rule, as he believed it would deter clients.
“It goes further than that, because, as I practise in an international law firm, I cannot simply take the view that I can forgo such assignments with equanimity or weaken the showing that we make to potential clients by excluding myself from their possible representation,” he said.
“I have not finally decided… but I am of the provisional view that I would need to take leave of absence to avoid the dilemma of letting down my partners and colleagues.”
But independent crossbencher Baroness Deech, a former chairwoman of the Bar Standards Board, said: “By accepting the immense honour of becoming members of the Lords, we explicitly take on certain limitations in the rest of our lives.”
Former Tory leader in the Lords Baroness Stowell said: “We have to accept that we live in an era where openness and transparency are important aspects of accountability. Because we are an unelected House, these principles are even more important.”
Leading lawyer Lord Pannick, who has advised foreign governments, said he was “surprised and disappointed” at the move, which he described as “an intrusion”.
“The consequence of the Conduct Committee report, if agreed, will be that I and other barristers advising and representing foreign governments will need to tell prospective clients that we cannot any longer offer them the confidentiality to which they are entitled,” he said.
“The inevitable result will be that many of them will decide to seek legal advice and representation elsewhere.”
Arguing that the committee “fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the role of the barrister”, he added that “legal advice is inherently confidential, it is proper, it is regulated and the barrister is not working for a foreign power.”
But this was disputed by Labour former cabinet minister Lord Adonis, who said: “Any reasonable member of the public accepts… that the person who pays you is the person you are working for.
“That does not mean you do not act thoroughly professionally but it does mean you are working for them, and that should therefore be declared.”