Lords’ links to Russia must be transparent

We have to be certain that the Kremlin is not peddling influence in the heart of our democracy

After the Government produced compelling evidence that the Salisbury poisoning was carried out by Russia’s GRU military intelligence service, the prudent course of action for any British parliamentarian with Russian business links might be to reconsider their position.

Instead, as an inquiry undertaken by the foreign affairs select committee has discovered, a number of prominent peers have continued lobbying on behalf of Russian companies suspected of having close ties with the Kremlin.

And such is the level of concern across the political divide about the possibility of Russian influencepeddling in Parliament, MPS on the select committee intend to raise the issue today when they have their first session with Jeremy Hunt since his appointment as Foreign Secretary.

In particular, MPS are taking a keen interest in evidence provided by Ben Wallace, the security minister, who has written to the committee that he has been contacted by two Conservative peers who have directly requested “government assistance for Russian associates”. Mr Wallace says he has revealed details of the approaches because of renewed interest in Moscow’s attempts to influence Parliament, which have continued in spite of the global condemnation of the Salisbury poisoning last March.

In the letter, Mr Wallace says he had a meeting with Lord Fairfax of Cameron, who wanted to discuss issues relating to his work for the state-owned Russian shipping company Sovcomflot, which is run by a former aide to the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

The minister says, though, that he declined an offer to meet and discuss sanctions with Lord Barker of Battle, the chairman of EN+, the Russian energy giant in which Oleg Deripaska, the oligarch also known for his close relationship with Mr Putin, has a majority stake. EN+ and Mr Deripaska have been targeted with sanctions since the Salisbury attack.

Lord Barker’s involvement with EN+ provoked controversy earlier this year when MI6 raised concerns after the company succeeded in raising funds on the London Stock Exchange, with the money then being used to pay off debts owed to Russian banks subjected to sanctions. Now the select committee is keen to question Lord Barker about his dealings with Mr Deripaska following reports that the oligarch continues to maintain close links with Russia’s intelligence and security establishment – including the GRU.

A number of former senior members of Russia’s intelligence and security services are said to have ties with Mr Deripaska’s companies. These include Colonel Viktor Boyarkin, a former senior officer in the same GRU organisation that carried out the Salisbury poisoning, who, until recently, was on the payroll of Rusal, the Russian aluminium giant in which Mr Deripaska has a significant stake.

The oligarch has also employed Valery Pechenik, a former career intelligence officer with Russia’s FSB intelligence agency, who was recently appointed head of Basic Element, Mr Deripaska’s holding company that has a controlling stake in EN+. During his FSB career, Mr Pechenik was in charge of counter-terrorism, the department responsible for targeting MI6.

Russia’s intelligence and security establishment is known to maintain close relations with the country’s main corporations through the appointment of former senior officers.

In his defence, Lord Barker, who served as a minister in David Cameron’s coalition government, has rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing. He denies that he sought to lobby Mr Wallace, and insists that his work for EN+ is solely aimed at removing Mr Deripaska’s involvement in the company.

But MPS are becoming increasingly frustrated by Lord Barker’s failure to accept an invitation to appear before the select committee. According to a committee source, the peer was originally invited to appear in early July, but the appearance was then postponed until September 11.

It was then delayed again after the peer said he would have to cancel because he was involved in urgent discussions in the US about the future of EN+.

Now it is being reported that Lord Barker has written to Tom Tugendhat, the committee chairman, saying he would only appear before MPS if his evidence was heard in private.

Lord Barker’s failure to appear before the select committee to date does little to reassure those MPS who are concerned about the wider implications of the links between Russian business and British parliamentarians.

And, given the current parlous state of relations between Britain and Russia, the only way to ensure that the Kremlin is not peddling influence in the heart of British democracy is to persuade parliamentarians of all political persuasions that they need to be completely transparent about any dealings they may have with any enterprise that has ties to the Russian state.