THE agent of a former Colchester councillor now facing suspension from the House of Lords has called for him to be permanently barred from Parliament.

Lord Truscott who, as Peter Truscott, represented Greenstead for Labour in the late Eighties, was caught offering to help shape legislation in exchange for cash.

Along with Lord Taylor of Blackburn, the Lords’ Privileges Committee has recommended the peer be suspended until the end of the Parliamentary session in November, denying them tax-free allowances worth up to £335 a day.

If approved by the Lords in a vote on Wednesday, this would make the pair the first peers to be suspended since the 17th century.

Don Quinn, who was Lord Truscott’s agent when he was a Colchester councillor, described it as “an extremely sad situation”.

“I do understand he’s sorry and I only ever saw Peter working hard for the Labour party and the people he represented,” he said.

“But nowadays, politicians seem to think more about money than representing the people they are elected by, and I think Peter has gone the same way.

“I do think he should be permanently excluded from Parliament for what he’s done, not just suspended.”

Mr Quinn, who runs event organising company Snake in the Grass, said he had considered Lord Truscott to be “at his level, as a councillor”.

“I am amazed that he ever became a lord, but he was in the right places at the right time and did what he was told,” he said.

In a Sunday newspaper sting, reporters approached several peers, posing as lobbyists who wanted to secure an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill for a foreign businessman looking to open a chain of shops.

Secret recordings showed former energy minister Lord Truscott discussed a fee of up to £72,000 to work “behind the scenes”, while Lord Taylor offered to conduct a campaign to persuade ministers and officials for £120,000.

Neither peer took any money nor offered to table an amendment themselves.

A report by the Lord’s Interests Sub-committee stated that the evidence was “so clear and so plentiful” that Lord Truscott had breached the ban on exercising parliamentary influence in return for cash.

Lord Truscott dismissed the findings as “outrageous and slanderous” and compared the approach of the sub-committee to Stalinist Russia.

But the Privileges Committee rejected his appeal and concluded that “in order to secure a lucrative consultancy, he was willing at the very least to hold out the prospect that he would be willing and able to exercise improper parliamentary influence”.