Select Committee on Standards and Privileges First Report


APPENDIX 14 - Continued

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS' INTERESTS

TUESDAY 3 APRIL 1990


Asterisks in the oral evidence denote that part or all of a question thereto, has not been reported

Members present:

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, in the Chair.
Mr Robert Adley
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Bob Cryer
Dame Peggy Fenner
Mr Peter Griffiths
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
Mr Tom Pendry


Examination of witness

Mr Ian Greer, Chairman, Ian Greer Associates, examined.

Chairman

  1659. Thank you for coming, Mr Greer. As you know, this is a session of the Committee which is not taken in public. The exchange that we have this afternoon will in due course be published. However, if in the course of the questions and answers you may feel that some information should not be published perhaps you will let me know and then we can adjourn proceedings and discuss the matter. The final decision of course on whether to accede to your request lies with the Committee. If you have any hesitation, as I say, please let me know and we will stop the proceedings and discuss the matter.

  (Mr Greer) May I ask one question?

  1660. Please?

  (Mr Greer) If a question is asked and I feel that I should not answer it or I prefer not to, do I say that before I answer it? Do I answer the question and then say I would rather it was not published? The decision obviously is the Committee's.

  Chairman: Please say that, then we can discuss; discuss the matter with us before you decide to answer the question.


Mr Campbell-Savours

  1661. Mr Greer, you wrote to the Committee some weeks ago. Would you like to comment on the letter you wrote to the Committee explaining what the position was when you were asked by our Clerk a series of questions? Is there anything you would like to add to the letter?

  (Mr Greer) No, I have taken the opportunity to bring a copy of the letter with me. I do not think I have anything to add to the letter I wrote to the Clerk in answer to his letter of 25 October.

  1662. Do you recall a conversation with me before Christmas on the telephone?

  (Mr Greer) Vividly, Mr Campbell-Savours, yes.

  1663. When you said to me you had been making payments to Members, not one but to a number of Members of Parliament, you did it obviously in the belief that what you were doing was perfectly correct so far as those Members would be offering a service or helping you and it was not an illegal transaction that was taking place, it was perfectly legal. Did you feel in saying that that in any way you were contradicting the statements you had made to the Committee earlier last year?

  (Mr Greer) Mr Chairman may I ask for clarification from Mr Campbell-Savours. My conversation with you I remember very well indeed, as I say. Could I check and be clear in my own mind what you are saying? On the word "service" I would like to be clearer. At no time have I expected/wanted MPs to render services to me. Did I understand you correctly when you used that phrase?

  1664. I did qualify it, but in whatever form you would care to describe the relationship, perhaps you can do that now. I referred in my conversation with you on the telephone to relationships you had had with MPs whereby sums of money were paid by you to them for making introductions.

  (Mr Greer) I would not like the word "relationship" to be misunderstood, Mr Campbell-Savours.

  1665. No, perfectly proper?

  (Mr Greer) I made clear to the Clerk in my letter and I think I clarified in my conversation with you before Christmas that from time to time third parties do recommend my company and no doubt other companies to potential clients. Occasionally that happens to be a Member of Parliament. As is frequently the case in the industry which I operate in an introductory fee is offered, sometimes taken, sometimes not; and in so far as any Member of Parliament might introduce a client to us, the same offer is made. One might say, "It is extremely kind of you, it is customary to make an introductory fee, we are very happy to do that". Sometimes that comes as surprise, as I said in my letter and I think in my conversation with you; sometimes that is accepted and sometimes it is not As regards the evidence I gave to the Committee when I appeared before it some months ago I do not see that there is any contradiction in the statement that I made, that I did not retain as consultants or as directors any Member of Parliament, peer or MEP. That was the case then and it is the case now.

  1666. But you have said, Mr Greer, that it was correct to say you were completely dissociated from them. You were asked, "You are completely dissociated from them?", to which you replied. "That is correct". From that the Committee deduced that you had no relationship of a financial nature with any Member of Parliament. In the light of our conversation on the telephone and the subsequent letter you wrote to the Committee, all I am asking is whether you feel in retrospect that that answer to the Committee was slightly inaccurate?

  (Mr Greer) I do not think so, Mr Campbell-Savours, no.

  1667. May I ask you then on how many occasions over recent years you have found it necessary to make payments to Members of Parliament for making introductions?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, I am very happy to answer that.   1668. You might do so in the context of the conversation we had on the phone and what you said then?

  (Mr Greer) I said my memory was a very clear one, Mr Campbell-Savours - I hope I can do that; I am not terribly sure I understand totally what you mean, "in the context that you answered on the telephone". The answer to your question is, my company has been in operation for some ten years and I have had business introduced to me on numerous occasions by third parties. So far as Members of Parliament are concerned, to my recollection it has happened on five occasions within that period.

  1669. Within the last couple of years?

  (Mr Greer) I think a longer period than that, within the last five years.

  1670. Are you sure it is five? Obviously you will have done your homework before coming to the Committee. Are you absolutely sure it is five?

  (Mr Greer) Let me go through it with you in more detail. I have done my homework, yes.

  1671. I am sure you have?

  (Mr Greer) We are talking of two Members of Parliament on two occasions and one Member of Parliament on one occasion.

  1672. Would you be prepared to tell the Committee who these Members were?

  (Mr Greer) Mr Chairman, I do not want to do that. I feel it is really not up to me to make declarations to this Committee or indeed to anyone else.

  1673. Have you asked the Members whether they have registered those payments?

  (Mr Greer) No. I have not.

  1674. Have you checked whether they have registered those payments? You might answer again in the light of what we discussed on the telephone?

  (Mr Greer) With respect, Mr Chairman, I do not need to be reminded of that particular point. I know what I said to you on the telephone; my answer would have been exactly the same whether I said it to you on the telephone or not. The answer is yes. I have checked, and in fact your second question was why did I check. I answered you then in a straightforward and truthful manner that it would be surprising if I did not check on a very regular basis the register of interests because on a daily basis we naturally talk to Members of Parliament and others. One would want to see if one was about to write to a Member or go and see him on an issue in which he naturally had an interest or had a client relationship with a competitor or whatever, so in the course of day by day work we frequently look at the register. The answer to your question is that I have checked the payments made; one has been registered -

  1675. Recently?

  (Mr Greer) Again, Mr Chairman, I am not totally sure whether I want to get into an area of when an MP registered and when he did not. On the Member of Parliament I think we are talking about, the declaration as I see it has been made earlier than recently. If I may say, one is looking at spasmodic payments.

  1676. I understand that?

  (Mr Greer) Therefore, they will only appear in the appropriate annual register.

  1677. But you accept although you are not responsible for making the registration that when the payments are made, despite the fact you are not retaining these Members, they should have declared them under the rules as you understand them and you knew when you came before the Committee last year?

  (Mr Greer) Mr Campbell-Savours, I was not asked that question last year. It is not up to me to interpret the rules for Members. I think quite a few of your parliamentary colleagues would be amazed if I was tempted to do so.

  1678. I am sorry to press you on this. I am not criticising you; you have not done anything wrong in terms of failing to require them to register, that is not your responsibility. You have entered into a commercial transaction. It is my view that those payments should have been registered. I am simply asking whether you accept that they were the kind of payments that were registrable?

  (Mr Greer) I really do not think it is up to me to make a judgment on that.

  Mr Campbell-Savours: On the telephone we also discussed other public relations companies, and I -

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson

  1679. May I get it clear that no one asked you for any money; you chose to give them a gift - it is as simple as that?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, it is. Some people would describe it as a "thank you" payment.

  1680. No one said to you, "I will give you an introduction if you will promise . . ."   (Mr Greer) Oh, no, never.


Mr Campbell-Savours

  1681. You mentioned that one other company had made payments that you were aware of. Would you be prepared to identify that company to the Committee?

  Mr Greer. Mr Campbell-Savours, you recall my answer, and my answer was very clear to you then. I said then that just the same as I do not feel I can be expected to make declarations on behalf of Members of Parliament nor do I feel it is up to me to make declarations on behalf of other companies. I would be very surprised if they did it to me. I have no intention to do it to them.

  1682. Then could you explain to the Committee the basis on which these payments were made?

  (Mr Greer) There is not a strict "basis"; it does not however, depend on the generosity of the mood in which I wake up in the morning.

  1683. Is it possible they were a percentage of the contract price with any particular client?

  (Mr Greer) If I decline to answer that question I hope you will understand. I do not want to be discourteous to you or to the Committee, but I really do not feel that is commercially something that I wish to discuss.

  1684. Then a final question: do you accept that you are refusing to answer three of our questions, first, a question identifying the Members, secondly, the amount of payments in the case of each Member and thirdly, you are refusing to identify another company to which you referred in a conversation with me on the 'phone which has been making similar payments? Would you confirm that is the position?

  (Mr Greer) In doing so may I say that I have no intention of being discourteous to you or to the Committee. That is not my intention this afternoon. I really do not think I should be asked such questions.

  Dame Peggy Fenner: I have a procedural question, Mr Chairman. I am not sure whether this procedural question can be taken in open committee.

  Chairman: In that case, we will have to clear the Committee I am afraid, Mr Greer, I must ask you to leave for a few moments.

  Room cleared   The Committee deliberated.

  Mr Ian Greer, Ian Greer Associates, further examined.


Chairman

  1685. I apologise for the delay, but it was a procedural point. Before I call on Mr Griffiths, I would like you to confirm that the payments to which we have been referring in the course of our discussion when they were made to Members of Parliament were made to Members of Parliament who recommended companies to you which were in the private sector at that time and therefore that the arrangement was, you might say, a commercial and private transaction?

  (Mr Greer) No, there certainly was one company that was in the public sector at the time it was introduced to me.

  1686. Was that decision made by that company in the public sector a decision made by the company itself completely unilaterally by the chairman or those who advised the chairman of that company? Did it involve any Minister?

  (Mr Greer) No, none whatsoever. Any introduction that has been made has been made in a very straightforward manner - "I happen to know Ian Greer is a good chap and runs a good company and I think he can do an able job for you, and if you want to pick up the 'phone and arrange to meet him, why not?". Naturally from that moment onward it has been 100 per cent the decision of the chairman of that company or his managing director or directors or whomever one met as to whether they took it any further; some have not, I am sad to say.

  1687. So these introductions by Members at no time involved any government department?

  (Mr Greer) None whatsoever.

  1688. Or any political or ministerial intervention?

  (Mr Greer) None whatsoever.


Mr Griffiths

  1689. Mr Greer, your agency is a business, a commercial enterprise?

  (Mr Greer) Yes.

  1690. And a commercial enterprise would pay a supplier for goods, services or perhaps even goodwill and those things can be measured in price, is it fair to say?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, I think so.

  1691. So if your commercial company makes a payment it is in fact receiving something of value: the payment is a recognition of a receipt of value, it that right?

  (Mr Greer) Yes.

  1692. If we go back to the previous evidence you gave the Committee when you appeared before us, the Chairman asked you, "You also claim independence which is not always claimed by some public relations companies, namely, that you do not retain any peers or Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament or other, so-called, political advisers." On that question of retention I think we understand that you do not retain. However, the Chairman went on to say, "You are completely dissociated from them?". That goes much further than retaining. You have just indicated that you obtained from Members of Parliament service of value, something of value, goodwill, service, introduction, call it what you will. Can you explain to us how you can possibly say then to the Committee that you are completely dissociated from people of this sort? That is much more than the question, "Are you retained?", is it not?

  (Mr Greer) I am sorry Mr Griffiths, I do not quite see it that way. I understand a retainer to mean that someone is going to render a service to me or to my company on a regular basis be it one day a week or one day a year. I think it is terribly important to me to explain to you that if someone introduces a potential client to me that is the end absolutely of the service that they render to me. One does not go back to them and say, "That's fine, the client has now come to me by the way, could you do this or that". That is what I understand would be a retainer relationship. A consultancy relationship, or whatever. In their case I am able to say that one was not associated with any particular Members of Parliament because the way I understood the question was very simply, had I got a relationship to be able to pick up the telephone and say, "David/Mary, will you do this for me?". That I had not. For someone to come along once over two, three or four years and say, "Ian, I think I can introduce someone to you who may become a client", I do not see that as anything more than a casual introduction.

  1693. You would not regard the payment of a sum of money in return for a service as an association?

  (Mr Greer) No, I do not think so.

  1694. Even if the same person came back - I think you have indicated that has happened - it still is not an association? How many times would they have to supply your company with information for you to regard it as an association?

  (Mr Greer) I really would not see it, if they came back to me on three or four or five occasions over a period of a year, as an association. Perhaps I have a wrong understanding of the word association; I would certainly see them as friendly and helpful. My understanding of the word association is much closer to the word relationship. I do not see it in that way.

  1695. Finally - obviously we disagree entirely on the actual wording - and accepting the point that you define association differently from the way I would do it and therefore answered the question about dissociation in your view correctly, knowing that the Committee was looking at the question of commercial lobbying and the relationship between Members of Parliament and companies such as your own, do you feel that in the words you used a moment ago - Members being helpful and considerate to you - you were that to this Committee when you said, "That is correct"; do you think that was as helpful as you could be?

  (Mr Greer) I was called before the Committee to answer questions, and the questions I was asked I answered honestly. If I had been asked a question, "had you at any time made a payment to a Member of Parliament for business introduced" I would have answered it as honestly as I am doing now.

  1696. "Helpful" was the word.

  (Mr Greer) Yes, Mr Chairman, perhaps it would have been helpful to say at that juncture during the Committee proceedings, "I don't retain any Members as consultants or advisers but from time to time, yes, I have made a payment for the introduction of business". I would not quarrel with that. Perhaps it would have been helpful. If that is the case then I apologise to the Chairman for maybe not saying it at that time. I must say, with respect, Chairman, that appearing before a Committee like this - even for a chap who claims to advise others on how to do it - is not a particularly easy experience. I think therefore one's mind is heavily concentrated on answering the questions rather than coming out with other points that might flash across one's mind. It did not at that time, perhaps it should have done.


Mr Adley

  1697. Why is it not an easy experience?

  (Mr Greer) I am not talking about this Committee. I think appearing before any Committee, be it in this House or be it a Minister or Member of Parliament, any such appearance has to be taken very seriously and I think it is very hard knowing one's case and putting it over effectively. I do not find myself awestruck, but I still think it is something that is, yes, an experience that one does not particularly relish.

  1698. Could it be - and I am sorry, I was not at the last meeting - that it is not easy because when the Chairman was asking you whether you are completely dissociated from them you knew in your mind you were paying, you were not asked whether you were paying, you said you did not retain and you said, yes, you were completely dissociated from them? Was the difficulty the fact that in your mind you knew you were being probed on a question which, had you answered it as you are answering it now, would inevitably have created a great deal of further questions?

  (Mr Greer) If I may say to Mr Adley, Mr Chairman, I made my remark to Mr Griffiths in perhaps a slightly more lighthearted way than I should have done and I would not like you to read too much into it. The answer to the question is most certainly not. I was not in any way thinking that the next question may be this or that relating to the issue we are now discussing, not for one moment.

  1699. So it never crossed your mind at any time that there might be questions coming where you might if you were not careful have implicated Members of this House in possibly breaking the rules by not registering payments that they received? That never occurred to you?

  (Mr Greer) If the question had been raised I would have answered it in a truthful fashion. I was not concerned about any of the questions that were asked and I was not particularly thinking of questions that might be asked that I might be embarrassed about, no.

  1700. You have been trading for ten years with access to this House pretty freely. During all those ten years the Register has been in existence have you been aware for all those ten years that we as Members are required to declare our interests?

  (Mr Greer) Has it been as long as ten years?

  1701. Yes, 1979.

  (Mr Greer) Yes, of course I have been aware of it.

  1702. You have told us this afternoon there have been five separate occasions when you have paid Members of Parliament who have not declared that they have been in receipt of payment from you?

  (Mr Greer) No, with respect I did not say that. I said there are five occasions when payment has been made. I have endeavoured to make clear that it is nothing whatsoever to do with me, but if you look in the register in the appropriate year, you will find that some of those payments have been declared. First, I do not believe it is up to me to be saying even to this Committee this afternoon whether they have been declared or not. There have been declarations made in, as I have always said, appropriate years.

  1703. In that case there can be no objection on your part to the names of those Members who have declared their interest. It would just save our Clerk a great deal of work.

  (Mr Greer) The Clerk I think is well aware, Mr Chairman - we have had discussions on that. Again I am sorry, I do not want to be unhelpful, but I do not think it is up to me this afternoon to disclose any names whatsoever.

  1704. But you say on the five occasions some of those five have declared their interest?

  (Mr Greer) Yes.

  1705. Yes. Were those declarations immediately following the receipt of payment?

  (Mr Greer) I do not know, I am sorry.

  1706. You do not know, and you have not checked?

  (Mr Greer) I have not actually sat down and said, I paid someone in June and they took until July[14] . . .

  1707. You realise it is your right to feel a little bit sore about being cross-questioned about this because we are here not to cross-question you because you have not done anything improper; if any of our colleagues have, then we fall foul of the allegation that we are not doing our job properly unless we try to find out because we are looking into this whole question of lobbying?

  (Mr Greer) I understand.

  1708. Where in your view does hope become expectation, if I may use a phrase familiar to us in the context of another investigation? Would you be able to say beyond peradventure that none of the recipients of thank you bonuses from you have ever let it cross their mind that they might be in receipt of financial reward for introducing you to prospective clients?

  (Mr Greer) I am sorry, I do not understand the point -   1709. Well, could you put your hand on your heart and say that none of the Members concerned to whom you have paid money could ever have known or anticipated or expected to receive money from you as a result of the introductions that they effected on your behalf?

  (Mr Greer) That would be a tall order, I could not say that, no, of course not. I think it would be untruthful to suggest which would be your next question no doubt - that when one has made a payment to an individual and said thank you it is quite inconceivable that the next year or 10 years later they might come back and introduce another client - whether influenced by the fact they had received the payment or the fact they thought I was still doing a good job and I was the sort of chap they could introduce a client to and I would do well for them. I do not know, that is up to them to make a judgment on, not me.

  1710. Would you think we were going beyond our terms of reference if we were to allow ourselves to think that an arrangement whereby the Member sought not to disclose the money he had received from you coincided with the fact you chose not to tell us or to declare in any way for public consumption that you had paid a Member was getting near to the proposition that both you and the Member concerned - "conspiring" is an awful word - had simultaneously reached the conclusion that it would not be in either of your interests to allow this information to enter the public domain?

  (Mr Greer) Yes.

  1711. Yes, what?

  (Mr Greer) It was a very long question, but I think you started by saying, would I believe you were going beyond your brief, and the answer is, yes.


Sir Michael McNair-Wilson

  1712. Mr Greer, how do you get most of your business?

  (Mr Greer) I would think possibly 80 per cent is by recommendation of our existing clients. The rest might come from companies themselves who say: right, who is in the field, we have a problem we might like to have some advice on. Occasionally of course it is the Budget; we say, who is going to be affected in the Budget, and we drop them a line. About 80 per cent comes through personal recommendation, which is very good.

  1713. Therefore, what percentage of your business comes through introductions?

  (Mr Greer) In the way in which we have been discussing?

  1714. Yes?

  (Mr Greer) Introductions, Mr Chairman, as you know, are not limited to Members of Parliament.

  1715. That is my point.

  (Mr Greer) Very occasional; in the course of a year I would think three or four introductions are made to us by third parties. It can naturally vary.

  1716. When you receive an introduction from someone who is not an MP do you like to give them something as well?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, in the industry in which I work it is normal practice. I cannot say that every single company does it, but it happens very regularly. If somebody telephones me from a public relations/advertising company and says, "Mr Greer, *** There are quite clearly some Members in the House in these last few years who have not thought it necessary to register single payments.


Mr Campbell-Savours

  1735. May I ask you whether you are prepared to provide a list of all payments made over, let us say, the last five years to Members of Parliament?

  (Mr Greer) Mr Campbell-Savours, I am sorry. I really must say ªno" to that. I have made clear at the beginning that I do not feel that it is my personal responsibility to make disclosures on behalf of Members of Parliament. May I add to that. With great respect, you have another way of achieving your objective as opposed to my being used as a short cut. You can ask each Member of Parliament to come before the Committee and you can ask each of them that question. I think it is unfair to try to use me as the short cut.

  1736. Would you be prepared to submit to the Committee a schedule of all payments without disclosing either the sum or the name of the Member in the last five years?

  (Mr Greer) Can you expand? Do you mean, £5,000, £3,000, £2,000 and so on?

  Chairman: Without an amount.


Mr Campbell-Savours

  1737. And the date paid?

  (Mr Greer) What would the schedule comprise?

  1738. The date and the Member, without naming the Member, identifying whether a different Member was being paid. It might be: 1 January 1989, a payment to Member X; 1 February, a payment to Member Y; 1 March, a payment to Member Z.

  (Mr Greer) Are you saying, X, Y? You are not asking me to name a Member?

  1739. I am not asking you to name a Member, simply to identify the dates on which payments were made and whether they were different Members.

  (Mr Greer) I do not know whether I am allowed time to think about that. As I understand it - I want to be very clear, Mr Chairman - I am being asked, would I be prepared to put on paper to the Committee that I have made five payments, one on 3 February 1986, say, and one on 4 January 1987 and so on? That is what you are asking me to do?[15]

  1740. Yes, and, where they were paid to Members, that Members be identified perhaps by a prefix so they can be seen to be different Members so that we may know the number of them?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, I understand. Yes, I am prepared to do that. I do not want to appear discourteous or unco-operative; I have the feeling you think I am perhaps being both, Mr Campbell-Savours. It is not my intention. Yes, I see no reason why I cannot do that.

  1741. Were any payments made before the last five-year period?

  (Mr Greer) I am pretty sure not, but I would genuinely need to check that. If they were, I would naturally be prepared to include these. I am sure that we are talking of the last five years.


Mr Adley

  1742. A couple of minutes ago in response to one of Mr Campbell-Savours' last questions about disclosures you said, "I am not sure I would be allowed to . . ." - allowed by whom?

  (Mr Greer) If I said that, I do not know how I said it. I do not see who would be stopping me.

  1743. The only people would be, if you had entered into an agreement with the Member of Parliament that you would both say nothing about it till death do you part?

  (Mr Greer) No, I have not done that. I have not had any such conversations or discussions. There is no one who can stop me if I choose to do it any more than there is anyone who can stop me disclosing names if I choose to do so. I just choose not to do so.

  1744. No Member has ever asked you not to say anything?

  (Mr Greer) Certainly not.

  1745. I do not understand why you are not wanting to disclose it then?

  (Mr Greer) I really have a problem here. I do not think it is my job to disclose it. I declare my income tax, I send in my company reports. I think many of your colleagues would be very surprised if I discussed matters pertaining to them on their behalf. If I may say so, in my dealings in the House of Commons over the last 10 years - which I have enjoyed very much - one thing I am very conscious of is the way that Members of Parliament jealously guard the question of parliamentary privilege and how far one who is not a member, can or cannot go. I go out of my way to respect that. I do not really think that many of your colleagues would find it acceptable if I was to make disclosures on their behalf.

  1746. How does that square with the sentence in your memo to us "The major effect of a register of lobbyists would be to enable consultancies to be seen to be working in a professional and totally `above board' way."?

  (Mr Greer) You know, Mr Adley, that that phrase was not relating in any way to payments being made. I am at a loss to add to what I have said. I do not think it is up to me to make disclosures.

  Chairman: I understand that, and I think you have said that several times in answer to questions that we have put in different ways to you. I think we must call a halt to the questions.


Mr Campbell-Savours

  1747. You say it does not relate to payments, but it does relate to payments. In the next paragraph in your submission to the Committee you go on to talk about what would be included, "A code of conduct would require the registered lobbyist to disclose such information as details of clients and of those holders of public office who were employed by the consultancy". You are recognising the responsibility there that some of us - certainly I - are inclined to place upon you today that is, to divulge the information today?

  (Mr Greer) We are talking here of a register of lobbyists?

  1748. Yes.

  (Mr Greer) But there is not a register of lobbyists.

  1749. Therefore you do not accept the responsibility is placed upon you today to act in an above board way? It is only when a register of lobbyists comes in?

  (Mr Greer) That is unfair, I really think it is unfair to say that I do not accept the responsibility to behave properly at the moment. Of course I do; naturally I do. I do feel that you should not be asking me to make disclosure on behalf of your colleagues. I cannot add to that. If you introduce a register of lobbyists and you say, "You have got to enter your clients", as they do in the States, "and how much your fees are and how much you have in expenses" and they are updated every three months, fine, of course I will do that, as I am sure any other sensible lobbyist would do. If that is the rule of the House, that is the rule. You know from my evidence previously that I lean much more towards a mandatory register than you because I feel that a voluntary register may not work in quite the way that you expect. You may not get as much out of it as you feel you want. Whilst there is not a register at the moment, it does not lessen my responsibilities. With respect, I do not think it lessens the responsibility of Members either. That is all I can say.

  Mr Campbell-Savours: Can I put it to you that when you have made payments you knew on occasions that those payments were not being declared; and you told me in the conversation on 29 November "somehow not declared", your words - -   Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Mr Chairman, we do not know about this conversation. This is out of order.

  Mr Campbell-Savours: Mr Greer has said these things to me and he is in a position to deny it now.

  Chairman: Perhaps he wishes to deny it or to comment on it. I say to the Committee generally that I do not think that questioning on the basis of a note made on a telephone conversation is going to be too helpful.

  Mr Campbell-Savours: I am entitled to ask whether he admits that he told me on occasions that some payments have not been declared.


Chairman

  1750. I do not know whether you wish to answer, Mr Greer?

  (Mr Greer) We are going to get very deeply involved in the telephone conversation. While I claim that my memory is jolly good, you have the benefit of notes that apparently you made at the time or recorded afterwards. I did not. You 'phoned me about quarter to one as I was hurrying out to lunch. I could very easily have said that I was at lunch. I took the call. I would expect to - -

Mr Campbell-Savours

  1751. So you are not prepared to answer my question when I put it to you that you told me that on some occasions, some Members,

  (Mr Greer) Mr Chairman, if I may,

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Mr Chairman, this really cannot be relevant.

Chairman

  1752. It is difficult for us to consider a matter like this when we are basing the questioning on a private telephone call that you had with the witness before us, Mr Campbell-Savours. This is your memory versus someone else's. When we question people in committee we are all there, the record is taken and we all know what is said. That is a very important distinction; it is fair to the witness and of course to the Committee, and we have played fair with the public. If we try to drag into the conduct of our affairs what was said or not said in a private telephone conversation we are in very great danger of jeopardising our proceedings. I think we must put an end to further questions on the basis of the telephone call, particularly in view of the fact that you yourself in this instance, Mr Greer, feel that your memory does not recall making this sort of comment. Perhaps I may put one or two questions to you myself. I am sorry that this is taking so long, but I will do my best to be brief. You have seen the article entitled "Behind the Discovery of Influence Peddling" taken out of the journal "Parliamentary Profiles", which purports to describe how the company known as Shandwick lost the British Airways account to you because your company was recommended to British Airways by Michael Grylls. This is the report on which some of the questions have been based and which certainly has influenced colleagues on the Committee when looking at the question of your relationship with a Member of the House. However, I do not know whether you have seen the report of our proceedings of 7 June when we had Mr Burnside before us, who is the Director of Public Relations of British Airways. Did you, before you came, refresh your memory?

  (Mr Greer) No, I did not. I know that David Burnside appeared before you, and I remember reading it at the time, but I did not do that.

  1753. He was asked by Mr Pendry about the circumstances which led you to have this account. Mr Pendry said, "Can I just ask you this" - and I should say that I am quoting from question 100 of the proceedings of 7 June 1988 - "you said you have got Ian Greer Associates who were actively working for you and B.Cal. When you were going private you had a different company for you, as I understand it? (Mr Burnside) Question No. 102. You did not? (Mr Burnside) I came to the company in summer 1984 at the beginning of the big lobbying battle over the routes which ran into the Government decision in the autumn 1984 to transfer the Saudi routes and South American routes. From the time I joined the company we appointed Ian Greer that summer. We had had a consultant who had been with the company for a number of years prior to that, but they left. Shandwick left in the summer of 1984. So Ian Greer is the only - - ", and then he was interrupted by Mr Pendry, who wanted to make sure that the person who had left was the consultant employed by Shandwick. Mr Burnside repeated the fact that Shandwick had left in summer 1984. Then Mr Pendry said, "When you say they left, did they leave or did you leave them? What I am trying to get at is, do you look upon these lobbyists as some horses for courses? Do you think one would be rather better at doing an operation like privatisation and another one at perhaps working on, say, the B.Cal? How do you determine in your own mind the best to go for for a particular - ". He is then interrupted by Mr Burnside, who explains how he picks consultancies for all sorts of different reasons. There is no indication here, is there, that Mr Burnside was tempted by Mr Grylls to leave Shandwick?

  (Mr Greer) No.

  1754. But Shandwick left them or there was a departure because the accountant or person working on the account was no longer, presumably, employed.

* * *

Chairman

  1762. In your letter to the Clerk to the Select Committee you said, "I would add that on many occasions the payment of a fee is not solicited by the introducing party and our offer to make such a payment frequently comes as a surprise. I am sure you will understand, therefore, that no introducing party is `retained' or `engaged'." When therefore I asked you the question, "You are completely dissociated from (any Member of Parliament)?", in what context did you understand that? Did you understand it as a separate question or in the context of what I said earlier in the first part of my intervention in the proceedings of the Committee? I will repeat what the first part of that intervention was: "You also claim independence which is not always claimed by some public relations companies, namely, that you do not retain any peers or Members of Parliament or Members of the European Parliament or other, so-called, ªPolitical advisers, you are completely dissociated from them?", and you said, Mr Greer, "That is correct.". Are you telling the Committee that you felt the purpose of my questions was to find out to what extent you had an on-going relationship or relationships with Members as consultants?¾   (Mr Greer) Yes. As you well know, many companies retain consultants or some even have them on the board. We have always said that we did not do that. I think I am right in saying that part of the subsequent evidence related to questioning as to why we did not do it - did we think Members of Parliament actually were not worthwhile being engaged as consultants or advisers? It was in that context that I replied.

  1763. You could not have replied in that context quite. Mr Greer, because my question No. 514 followed. "This is a conscious policy decision or is it that you do not find anyone outside the world in which you inhabit worthy of being employed by you" Your answer says: No it is very much a conscious decision taken when the company was formed and it is something that we do not see any reason to change¾. Then you went on to talk about the friends you have in Parliament. If someone asked you if you had paid anything to an official, would you have thought that improper?

  (Mr Greer) To a civil servant as a result of introduction of business?

  1764. Yes?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, I think I possibly would have done.

  1765. We ourselves do not think there is anything - we have made this clear to you - improper in making a payment to a Member of Parliament who has recommended you. Mr Campbell-Savours has made that clear. Do you therefore feel that the fact a Member of Parliament has received fees from you, or one-off payments which presumably you prefer to call them, is a matter which solely concerns that Member; and you do not believe that in any way you misrepresented the position of your company when you answered the question that I put to you? Is that correct?

  (Mr Greer) Yes. The answer to the question is, yes, I do not believe that I misrepresented my company's position because I understand the questioning to relate to retainers/employment of directors, advisors, etc., and that, as you know, I said we do not do. I have already, in answer to Mr Cryer, said yes, if I had thought about it in terms of volunteering that information, I would have said it - it was not a question of trying to hide it. I am prepared to admit that. The question as I understand it related to consultancies and directorships and nothing more.

  1766. And it is true you said you have a great number of friends in both Houses of Parliament "and I think there is no reason for us to engage or retain any Members"?

  (Mr Greer) Yes, that is absolutely right.

  1767. Thank you, Mr Greer.

  (Mr Greer) May I add one point that I should have done at the beginning. I would like it recorded that prior to receiving the letter from Mr Hastings I had contacted you and volunteered to appear before the Committee if they felt it would be helpful. I would again apologise, if I may, to Mr Campbell-Savours if he thinks I have been difficult or unforthcoming, but I genuinely believe that I cannot be more helpful to the Committee. I am sorry, it is not a question of discourtesy.

  1768. We quite understand that no discourtesy is intended. We are very grateful to you for coming.

  (Mr Greer) Thank you very much indeed.





14   Footnote by witness: I have not actually sat down and said "I paid someone in June and they took until July to make an entry in the Register" - indeed, the Clerk and Members only have access to the principal Register. Publication of the Register takes place annually and there is no way that I, or anyone in my position, would know whether a Member made an entry or not. Back

15   See Appendix 3, p. 12. Back


 
previous page contents next page
House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 8 July 1997