PEERS have proposed more than 50 amendments in the past two years to change the law in favour of the organisations paying them.

The peers have tried to change planning, transport and construction laws. In one case, Lord Berkeley, a peer paid by the rail freight industry, tried to make at least nine amendments to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 2008.

Lord O’Neill said this weekend that he now considered eight or nine amendments he tabled to a construction bill earlier this month to be “inappropriate”, and has withdrawn them. O’Neill, who is paid as president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, said he proposed the amendments to secure a better deal for members of his organisation - typically small building firms. “ I have not sought to advance their interests, apart from putting down these amendments, and as soon as I realised it was inappropriate, I withdrew them,” he said.

O’Neill and the other peers say they are scrupulous about declaring their interests - both in the register of interests and during debates in the house. They believe they are not in breach of rules because they have not been paid specific fees or bonuses by their organisation for trying to change laws.

Baroness Valentine, who earns £185,000 a year as chief executive of London First, which represents businesses such as Canary Wharf Group and the developer Westfield, tabled amendments to the planning bill last year. These were tailored to the agenda of London First’s campaign to help developers by changing a proposed levy. It has also emerged that Valentine’s speeches in the house on the bill were partly written by the London First press office.

While her amendments were not accepted, ministers subsequently changed the bill in accordance with her wishes. Valentine said she was an “unashamed advocate” for the capital’s interests and the aim of her intervention last year was to make the levy work as the government intended.

Lord Berkeley is paid £40,000 a year as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, and he has also tried to change laws affecting his group’s members. In the Lords, he has repeatedly tabled amendments on rail bills, including the Channel Tunnel Rail Link bill and the Crossrail bill, which are seen as being beneficial to his organisation.

Berkeley claimed not to discuss the amendments with the group, but uses them as a means of highlighting issues to ministers. He added that he could not recollect any of his amendments on rail bills succeeding. “I felt like tabling them,” he said last week. “I’ve taken a lot of advice on this, and I’m following the rules.”

Lady Coussins, a cross-bencher who is a non-parliamentary adviser to a US drinks company, tabled 27 amendments to a private member’s bill last year.

The proposal would have insisted drinks firms label the risk of alcohol to pregnant women, but Coussins argued the adequacy of the present system, adding that she neither discussed the bill with the client nor believed her amendments would benefit them.

“I am a paid advocate for no one,” she said.

Other peers with interests in the green energy sector have tabled amendments to legislation affecting the industry. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who works for one company providing advice on “renewable energy policy”, tabled an amendment to the energy bill last October, which would have benefited green energy companies. His proposal would have meant green companies wouldn’t be penalised with a reduction in renewable energy credits if they had already been given research grants. He declared an interest, then withdrew the amendment.

This weekend Wallace stated he didn’t propose the amendment on behalf of a client. He provides advice to the company via a public relations firm he isn’t obliged to identify. “None of the work I have done in relation to that company has had any bearing to my duties in the House of Lords,” he said.

Times Recommends

• Oh no, Mr Darling: you have failed
• BBC survives dogfight over Kennel Club expose
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone