Tory peer faces second investigation over lobbying allegations

A Conservative hereditary peer is under investigation for a second time by the House of Lords standards watchdog over allegations that he misused his parliamentary position to lobby for a firm that was paying him.

The Earl of Shrewsbury claimed in correspondence that he was meeting a series of politicians and officials to promote a healthcare firm that employed him as a consultant.

The leaked documents show that the peer boasted “very considerable” potential to open doors for the firm, SpectrumX, through what he called “my extremely high-level contacts”. He described one of his contacts as being “at the very top of the feed chain”.

The Guardian can reveal that the earl also tabled nine questions in parliament that elicited information from the government about issues that appear to be connected to SpectrumX, which marketed products to combat coronavirus. After he had received answers from a minister, the peer forwarded them on to SpectrumX.

Peers are not allowed to exploit the House of Lords or their political contacts to lobby specifically for commercial firms and organisations that pay them.

The peer – whose full name is Charles Henry John Benedict Crofton Chetwynd Chetwynd-Talbot – was largely exonerated in May by an investigation into his involvement in SpectrumX by the House of Lords commissioners for standards.

However, the Lords commissioners, after receiving new evidence, have now launched a second investigation into Shrewsbury and his work for SpectrumX.

A Cheshire-based firm, SpectrumX marketed products including a hand sanitiser and a tunnel, or pod, in which people would walk through a mist of disinfectant that it said was capable of neutralising Covid-19 and other viruses.

The firm paid the peer £3,000 a month between the summer of 2020 and January this year to be its consultant.

When he was initially hired, the earl, who has been in the House of Lords since 1981, described in an email his areas of expertise, which included “advice on parliamentary and other matters”. He added that he was “personally unable to undertake political lobbying or advocacy but I am able to speak in generalities”.

On 6 September 2020, he sent an email to SpectrumX in which he outlined “after very considerable thought” how he intended to discuss the firm with political figures.

He said that he intended to meet Alex Burghart MP, then a parliamentary aide to Boris Johnson. He wrote: “Alex is at the very top of the feed chain and is with Matt Hancock, the education and policy unit at No 10, Gavin Williamson – the education secretary whom I also know well – and other members of the cabinet, on a daily basis. You cannot go any higher.”

Shrewsbury also wrote he intended to persuade senior colleagues to attend a demonstration of SpectrumX’s disinfectant tunnel that the firm wanted to set up within the grounds of parliament.

He said he intended to have a meeting with a senior official responsible for running parliament, the clerk of the parliaments, to discuss demonstrating the disinfectant tunnel to other officials.

And the peer also said he had arranged to meet Lord Bethell, then a health minister, “to discuss SpectrumX in the same vein”.

He concluded: “I think the potential to open these doors is very considerable indeed.” He added, however, that SpectrumX needed to pay him two outstanding invoices within days “in order for me to progress this”.

In February last year, he emailed SpectrumX to say that “through my extremely high-level contacts” he had placed one of its products “in front of” a key scientist who was an adviser to the government. He said this scientist “had the ear” of the prime minister and a minister.

In April last year, the government set up a taskforce to investigate potential treatments for Covid-19. Two months later, the earl submitted details of one of the firm’s products to the taskforce, declaring that he was being paid by the firm.

Between June and November, he submitted five questions in the House of Lords asking about the progress of the taskforce. One asked how many applications for product assessment the taskforce had received, while another asked what steps the taskforce had taken to identify suitable treatments for patients who had been exposed to Covid-19.

In the previous autumn, he had tabled two questions to the government asking what assessment it had made of “the use of (1) tunnel, and (2) pod, disinfection systems to protect against Covid-19” and the substances used within them. Two other questions last year related to the sale of hand sanitisers – SpectrumX sells a type of alcohol-free sanitiser.

Peers are not permitted to use parliamentary means, including asking questions and lobbying ministers, MPs or officials, to specifically promote a firm that is paying them. They are also required to declare any financial interest when they ask a question in parliament.

However, the Lords website does not appear to record that the peer declared his consultancy with SpectrumX when he asked the questions.

In response to the first investigation by the Lords commissioners, the peer said he had not lobbied for the firm in breach of the rules. He said he did not meet any government ministers or officials about the firm’s products.

When questioned by the commissioners about a question he had tabled in parliament about sanitisers, the earl said he had not broken the rules as the question was related to numerous companies that sell alcohol-free sanitisers.

He said his contact with the taskforce or MPs did not break the rules as he was not promoting SpectrumX specifically.

The commissioners gave him a mild rebuke after completing their first investigation into him in May. Dismissing allegations relating to alleged lobbying and other issues regarding SpectrumX, they found only one failing – a “minor and inadvertent” breach of the rules when he had failed to make public a list of the clients of his firm, Talbot Consulting Ltd.

In their report, the commissioners said that he had “candidly admitted” this failure as soon as it was brought to his attention, explaining the failure had been “inadvertent”.

In their second investigation, the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards are looking at allegations that the earl potentially broke three rules that govern the conduct of peers, including whether he received money as “an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence” or “in return for providing parliamentary advice or services”.

The investigation is also looking at allegations that he may not have declared – as required – the payments he received from the firm during his parliamentary work, and that he may have sought to have used parliament to specifically benefit SpectrumX.

The peer said: “As this matter is subject to an ongoing inquiry by commissioner for Lords standards, I am advised by him that to discuss the matter with anyone whilst the enquiry is ongoing would be a contempt of parliament.” SpectrumX did not comment.

The Earl of Shrewbury is the 22nd hereditary male holder of the title, which was first bestowed on his ancestor John Talbot in 1442. Generations of his ancestors have been given a place in the Lords, which he joined 41 years ago.