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answers you may feel that some information should not be published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
|