Examination of Witness (Questions 1-12)
Lord Snape
11 MAY 2009
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, Lord Snape. Thank
you for coming to the meeting. I am now warned that there is likely
to be a division fairly shortly which may interrupt our deliberations
if it comes. I think it might be worth trying to get started in
any case. You probably know all the members of this Committee;
if not, they have nameplates in front of them. You are aware that
three members of the Committee who also sit on the Sub-Committee,
Baroness Prashar, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Baroness Manningham-Buller,
have all disqualified themselves from taking any part in the hearing
or consideration of your appeal, and the Leader of the House,
as the complainant against you, has similarly disqualified herself.
We have a shorthand writer present for today's meeting. We are
in private at the moment, but there will be a transcript for publication
in due course. We have all read the appeal prepared for you by
your lawyers, which is extremely clear and helpful. As you know,
the purpose of this meeting is not to cross-examine you in detail
or to examine the transcripts of your conversations with the Sunday
Times undercover journalists, but to give you a chance to
present your appeal in person and to give members of the Committee
the opportunity to clarify any uncertainty that they may have
as to your grounds for appeal. I hope this meeting will not take
too long, but there is no strict time limit. Would you like to
begin by making any opening remarks?
Lord Snape: Yes, thank
you, my Lord Chairman. May I thank you for giving me the opportunity
to appear in person before you. As you will be aware, my Lord
Chairman, I received the Sub-Committee's Report on Friday 24 April.
I was given an extremely limited period to put in an appeal which
was lodged, as requested, by noon on Tuesday 5 May after the May
Bank Holiday. I trust, my Lords, that you will have read my appeal
and the enclosures to it as well as the other pertinent documents,
and I hope that your decision will be considered and not rushed.
At the outset I wish to reiterate my concern at the contents of
the Sub-Committee Report. As my appeal sets out, I attended before
that Sub-Committee on 10 March. Prior to that, my understanding
of the purpose of the inquiry was derived from the Chairman's
letter of 13 February which stated that the purpose was to determine
whether the facts apparently disclosed by the tapes and transcripts
of the conversation with the undercover Sunday Times journalists
constitute any breach of the Code, in particular paragraph 4.
I understand that you will not normally reopen the Sub-Committee's
investigation, but rather that you will use your judgment to decide
whether on a balance of probabilities you endorse the conclusions
of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee in paragraph 19, my Lords,
made it clear that its findings were based on a higher standard,
and I quote, "falling just short of the criminal standard"
which they described as "a very high standard of proof".
The Sub-Committee said that a key question was "did the evidence
show that the Lord in question expressed a clear willingness"—my
emphasis—"to breach the Code of Conduct?" I would
like to be satisfied, my Lords, that in relation to my appeal
a fair test will be applied by you with regard to the standard
of proof. I would add that although paragraph 25 regarding procedural
safeguards in the Guidance Against Members of the House of
Lords Against Whom a Complaint is Made states that the Sub-Committee:
"seeks wherever possible to operate informally". May
I assure your Committee, my Lord Chairman, that my attendance
at that Sub-Committee, a two hour cross-examination by the former
Lord Chancellor, did not in my opinion or experience mean an informal
cross-examination by any stretch of the imagination. As my appeal
makes clear, I refused very early on in the conversation with
the undercover reporters to table or arrange to table an amendment
to any bill. I stated that I did not think I would be able to
take a retainer to help the PR company to amend the Business Rates
Supplement Bill and that I would need to take advice from the
Registrar. I referred several times to the need to check the position
with the Registrar and to take advice and check the rules. Indeed,
my Lords, I believe I mentioned these at least 12 times during
the course of a meeting lasting less than one hour. I made it
clear that I would not take matters any further forward unless
I had obtained permission from the Registrar. I was not negotiating
with the individuals who I understood to be from a PR company.
Had they sent me written proposals for a retainer following the
meeting, which they did not, I would have considered the matter
further and taken advice from the Registrar before doing anything.
My Lords, I have always acted within the Code of Conduct and sought
to do so. I was a member of the House of Commons from 1974 to
2001 and have been a member of your Lordships' House since 2004.
I have never intended to breach the Code or had any intention
to do so and I have at all times acted on my personal honour.
As you must appreciate, my Lords, I thought I was having a meeting
with two genuine business people from a PR company. I thought
the suggested general exemption from the supplementary rate for
all new businesses on a time limited period had merit; a position
I genuinely held. I was at pains to emphasise that I would have
checked with the Registrar of Members' Interests as to whether
or not I could advocate a general amendment in the event that
I was retained by the consultancy and this would apply to any
steps taken in that regard. My Lords, I am sure you are all familiar
with paragraph 18 of the Code of Conduct. This says that the Registrar
is available to advise members of the House, and that a member
who acts on the advice of the Registrar in determining what is
a relevant interest satisfies fully, and I emphasise the words
"satisfies fully", the requirements of the Code of Conduct.
This is plain and straightforward language, it is non-legal language,
and I would have thought, my Lords, it was intended to send a
clear message to any member of the House that they can rely on
it. That is why I referred to the Registrar and advice so frequently
in my meeting with the two individuals as I wished to make it
absolutely clear to them that I would not contemplate doing anything
which would breach the Code of Conduct. I believe I have always
acted on my personal honour and integrity. Paragraph 4(b) of the
Code of Conduct stating that a member of the House should always
act on their "personal honour", has, as the Sub-Committee
Report acknowledges, never been defined. As my appeal states,
this is not acceptable. These proceedings are based upon Code
4(b), so a definition of Code 4(b) is essential surely where there
is the possibility of potentially serious disciplinary sanctions
and given the inevitable damage to reputation surrounding this
matter. I believe it is a fundamental aspect of the duty of fairness
in these circumstances that the disciplinary offences are clearly
defined and certain. My own understanding is that the word "personal"
in 4(b) is key and, again, I can categorically state, my Lords,
that I have never done anything regarding this matter or, indeed,
otherwise which I know or believe to be dishonourable. The Sub-Committee
concluded that I had a mistaken belief about what could be done
subject to the advice of the Registrar. However, the issue was
whether I could promote a general amendment which I supported
on its merits as being in the public interest—bear in mind,
my Lords, these individuals had cited important organisations
like the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses, as also supporting
such an amendment—if it benefited a company with which I
had a declared consultancy or one of its clients. I believe that
the Sub-Committee misrepresented the position regarding the "mistaken"
belief, as is set out in the appeal. The Sub-Committee also claimed
that I was enthusiastic for the amendment because I was inspired
by the prospect of payment by the company. This I find extraordinary,
my Lords, as nowhere in the conversation did I say that I wanted
to be paid to promote any amendment. On the contrary, I set out
my belief that a new start-up business in the country ought to
be exempt from the supplementary rate because of the high cost
of starting up and the need for Government to encourage small
business, and large, in the current economic situation. The Sub-Committee
conclusion that my enthusiasm for the amendment was inspired by
the prospect of payment seems to be based on an inference they
have drawn from my discussion with the undercover reporters. My
Lords, I consider this to be completely unreasonable. My views
on the merits of the postulated amendment were genuine and I thought
were shared by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and
others. Perhaps it is in respect of the Sub-Committee's view,
my Lord Chairman, regarding my decision not to move amendments
to the Local Transport Bill that I find the Report to be most
perverse. I have a declared and stated consultancy with First
Group and when I tabled two amendments to the Local Transport
Bill last year, and though I believed the amendments to be appropriate,
it occurred to me that there might be a perception of a conflict
of interest and I did not take any steps to move those amendments.
This is incorrectly referred to in paragraph 125 of the Report
of the Sub-Committee as me having "abstained from a blanket
amendment". An abstention, my Lords, would be quite different
as it implies a debate had proceeded. In any event, I did not
move the amendments in that case because although I believed them
to be in the public interest I thought others might think that
I was doing so to benefit First Group and I wanted to avoid that
perception. I believe that in this case I would have acted in
the same way. I may have decided myself on reflection that the
same concern arose, or it would presumably have been pointed out
to me by the Registrar. I find it bizarre that the episode which
in my view illustrates my concern to comply with, and be seen
to comply with, the Code of Conduct has, in fact, been used by
the Sub-Committee against me to demonstrate my bad faith in this
instance. It leaves open the perception that the Sub-Committee
was determined to use any means to justify a pre-formed conclusion.
I consider that on any reading of that evidence the only reasonable
conclusion on the basis of a standard of proof of the balance
of probabilities would be the fact that I would be unlikely to
move any amendments if I thought there might be a perception of
a conflict of interest, and this would be supported by my expressed
concern to seek advice from the Registrar. My Lords, the Sub-Committee
made no finding of a breach of the Code, whether paragraph 4(c)
or (d) or indeed (b), against me. The Sub-Committee has, however,
made a finding in paragraph 125 that I: "expressed a clear
willingness to breach the Code of Conduct" even though in
the very next sentence they acknowledge that I: "may have
believed that moving a blanket amendment was legitimate".
The Sub-Committee never asked itself if I honestly believed that
I would be acting legitimately if I advocated the general amendment
believing it to be in the public interest and having sought the
advice of the Registrar. At no point did the Sub-Committee ask
whether there was any evidence at all to suggest that I would
not have gone to the Registrar for advice and, indeed, there was
no such evidence. Had I been enthusiastic to seize the prospect
of a paid consultancy I would surely not have placed obstacles
and raised with the bogus PR representatives my intention to go
to the Registrar for advice on the rules, which I did on several
occasions, as that would surely have discouraged them. I do not
believe that any proper finding can be made that in speaking to
the journalists, who I believed to be legitimate business people,
I did anything that I either knew or believed to be dishonourable
in the context of the Code and my membership of this House. At
the end of my meeting with the bogus PR representatives I did
not know what might be contained in their written proposal document
if, indeed, one was ever to be received. As I have already made
clear, the meeting discussed tentative proposals only and had
subsequent written proposals been received I would have considered
the communication and taken no steps to advance the matter without
seeking the advice of the Registrar. My Lords, I note that nowhere
in the Sub-Committee Report does it address Code paragraph 18.
I make no comment with regard to the other Lords who are subjects
of this inquiry and note that this procedure, which has been implemented
for the first time, will deal with each Lord separately. I hope
that I can be reassured, my Lord Chairman, that you will treat
each of us with the same impartiality. I am an honourable man
and have never previously had any imputation otherwise cast against
me. Despite the efforts and methods used by the undercover reporters
engaged in a clever and well-rehearsed sting operation, I made
it clear that if matters were to progress on the basis of a consultancy
such would have to conform with the Code of Conduct and the advice
of the Registrar. Far from expressing a "clear willingness"
to breach the Code, I expressed the opposite of any such willingness.
I have co-operated willingly with this inquiry in the expectation
that it would be conducted fairly and that, far from the worst
interpretation being put on what I said, my words would be accepted
as sincere. My Lord Chairman, my Lords, I believe that on those
grounds I should be exonerated. Thank you, my Lord Chairman. Forgive
me for taking as long as I have.
Chairman: Thank you, Lord Snape. I am
going to go round the Committee and ask if any members of the
Committee would like to ask Lord Snape any questions.
Q2 Lord McNally: I take the point
you made, Lord Snape, that you have had 32 years of parliamentary
service without any allegation of misconduct. The one thing I
would like you to clarify is, as you know I have worked in this
area and have never believed that you could hide a particular
interest under a blanket proposal. My interpretation has always
been the interpretation that you, I thought quite rightly, made
in the case of the Local Transport Bill. When they put the proposal
to you, how did you get into this idea that the general could
cover the particular and that you were going to have a financial
interest?
Lord Snape: You have to bear in mind,
my Lord, this whole interview took about 50-55 minutes and we
returned, as I realised subsequently, deliberately on the part
of the journalists masquerading as PR people, to this particular
amendment. I confess—confess is the wrong term—I was
attracted to the general amendment. I realised how bad things
were for business and, as I told the Sub-Committee, my wife and
I started a small business in the 1980s. It is not the big items,
the employment items that weigh you down when you start a small
business, it is the things you have not taken into consideration,
the two per cent here, the three per cent there. I was taken with
the idea that if we really did want to promote new business in
the current economic circumstances then some encouragement was
needed. Indeed, the Government, whether wisely or not, gave their
view of encouraging business by reducing VAT by 2.5 per cent or
whatever it was. I was not specific about moving an amendment
on these particular lines. I said such an amendment would make
sense but I never said that I would move it and I certainly did
not say that I would move it without some consultation with the
Registrar. Whilst I hear what you say, Lord McNally, about not
seeking to conceal a particular amendment under a blanket clause,
had I had time during the passage of the Local Transport Bill
to consult the Registrar and he had said to me, "Don't move
those two amendments" I had tabled, I would not have done
so. I would have behaved in exactly the same way in this particular
case but I did not get the opportunity.
Q3 Lord Graham of Edmonton: Lord
Snape, you indicated that throughout the interview with the journalists
you took the raison d'être for the meeting and your reaction
to it as a normal discussion of a business nature and in that
sense you were not alerted to or suspicious about what, in fact,
transpired later. You also told the Committee time after time,
quite rightly, that if there was ever any proposition put before
you, you would seek the advice of the Registrar. My question is
at what stage did you consult the Registrar and, if you did not,
why did you not do that earlier than the exposé by the
Sunday Times?
Lord Snape: I think it is important,
my Lord, to recollect the timescale. I received a telephone call
from these people asking if they could come and see me, purportedly
on the part of a PR company, to discuss a proposed consultancy.
I saw them on the Thursday of the week the story appeared in the
Sunday Times. They came to see me and spent an hour or
so in my office on the Thursday. The House was sitting on the
Friday that week and on my way back from the House the following
day another journalist from the Sunday Times rang me and
put these accusations to me, and the Sunday Times printed
on the Saturday night for Sunday. I ask you to bear in mind I
was not negotiating with these people, my Lord. This was a preliminary
discussion in my office. They came to see me ostensibly not about
this amendment but about a consultancy on their behalf. I realise,
of course, when I read the transcript back, as I have done quite
a few times since, that they rather artfully, because they were
fairly well-rehearsed, kept coming back to the question of the
amendment. Again, I repeat, my Lord, having said 12 times during
the course of 55 minutes that I would need to take advice from
the Registrar I think I made it quite plain that I was going to
abide by the Code of Conduct and would have referred to the Registrar
had there been time, but there was less than 72 hours between
the initial interview and the newspaper appearing.
Q4 Lord Bassam of Brighton: Lord
Snape, you have drawn our attention to paragraph 125 of the Sub-Committee's
Report. It is the paragraph that concludes, I think, on your case
as it were. I suppose the Sub-Committee really are trying to come
to a conclusion with their finding and to do so they quote Baroness
Manningham-Buller's question to you. To quote her question, and
it has a preamble but the part that is in the Report reads: "On
your reading of paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct, and in particular
the last two points of it, do you think with hindsight and on
reflection that offering to get someone to table an amendment
and picking them is within the Code of Conduct?" Your reply
on that is: "On reflection and with hindsight, no, I do not",
which on the face of it seems to be an admission on your part.
Lord Snape: If I may say so, my Lord,
that quotation could well have come from the Sunday Times
because it left out the most important part of the sentence of
what I actually said. My appeal sets out what Baroness Manningham-Buller
said: "Obviously you would have referred to the Registrar
... " which changes the whole composition of the sentence.
Those words, "Obviously you would have referred to the Registrar
... " were left out, and have been left out of paragraph
125 of the Report. I submit that, my Lord Chairman, considerably
alters the balance and meaning of the particular sentence. "Obviously
you would have referred to the Registrar ... " is a very
important preamble which unaccountably the Sub-Committee left
out. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight I would have acted
differently. If you had gone through the past four months that
I have gone through, my Lord, and I am sorry, I did not mean to
personalise this, anybody would have acted differently. I think
that the sentence ought to be read in full and I find it surprising.
I repeat, and I do so respectfully, it is the sort of omission
that the Sunday Times made. May I say this, my Lord Chairman:
all the omissions that the Sunday Times made and all the
alterations that the Sunday Times made were never commented
on by the Sub-Committee. I appreciate it is not the Sunday
Times that is on trial, but this was a deliberate attempt
at entrapment. I do not complain about that, that is the way the
press behave these days, but I do feel for the Sub-Committee to
leave out a very important part of that sentence emulates the
behaviour of the Sunday Times and I do not think it is
fair to alter the meaning of that sentence in the way that they
did.
Q5 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
Can you remind me of the nature of your relationship with First
Group. Was it the case that you had indicated to them that you
were prepared to move amendments that would be helpful to them?
If that was so, what were the arrangements if you decided that
a particular amendment should not be moved?
Lord Snape: No, my Lord, and I had no
consultation with First Group before those amendments were made.
If I might amplify that. In the early 1990s I was appointed a
non-executive director of a bus company based in Birmingham and
subsequently became chairman of that particular bus company. That
was taken over by National Express and the National Express Group,
and to my surprise, and certainly to the surprise of some of my
colleagues, I became chairman of their bus division. When I left
the National Express Group on retirement at 65 First Group approached
me to act as a consultant on their behalf. I did not act as a
parliamentary consultant. My consultancy was based on my general
experience in the bus business. I tabled those amendments, which
I did not move for the reasons I have outlined, myself without
any consultation with First Group and I have never tabled any
amendments or done any parliamentary business on their behalf.
Chairman: Does anybody else have questions for
Lord Snape?
Q6 Lord Strathclyde: Can I follow
up the question from Lord Brooke. It is a part of your defence
that you would have gone to the Registrar, yet in the case of
not moving the two amendments on First Group you chose not to
go to the Registrar, you used your own judgment. How do you argue
that you used your own judgment in the first case, but in the
second case you would not have done anything without going to
the Registrar?
Lord Snape: I have to put the first case
down to my own incompetence, my Lord. The Minister who was on
that particular Bill is present in another capacity, and I was
taken aback at the speed we got to that particular part of the
business of the Bill. I had no time other than to decide whether
or not to move these because the amendments were called before
I had actually prepared. In that case, because I had not had time
to refer to the Registrar, I decided that I had better not move
them, and I did not do so. Again, I point out that paragraph 125
is particularly inaccurate on that particular point. If I had
abstained on that amendment it would have been a serious business
indeed because it would have indicated that they would have been
debated rather than left on the table as they were for the reasons
I have just outlined.
Q7 Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I
just want to further clarify, are you therefore saying that it
is your general practice to table an amendment first and ask the
advice of the Registrar afterwards?
Lord Snape: I have to say I am not in
the habit of tabling amendments anyway. I was anxious during the
passage of the Local Transport Bill that this particular aspect
of the Bill be debated which led me to the convolutions. I find
drafting amendments an extremely arduous process and it is no
wonder that lots of people in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
act as parliamentary agents in order to do that. I cannot give
you a brief answer to that question, I am afraid, because I am
speaking from memory. I do not think in the five years that I
have been a member of your Lordships' House I have previously
tabled any amendments at all.
Q8 Chairman: Are there any other
questions for Lord Snape? In that case, thank you very much indeed
for coming this afternoon. I am not quite sure at this point when
our report will be ready to be published, but when it is we will
let you have advance notice of what it says about you.
Lord Snape: Thank you, my Lord Chairman.
May I say that I have brought some copies of the statement I made
today and may I leave them with the Committee?
Q9 Chairman: You may leave them.
We have, of course, your appeal.
Lord Snape: Yes, indeed. This is the
statement I have made today.
Q10 Chairman: You would like that
to be included in the evidence?
Lord Snape: I would, please.
Q11 Chairman: It will be in the transcript
anyway.
Lord Snape: Yes, indeed.
Q12 Chairman: We will take a copy
if we may as well. Thank you very much.
Lord Snape: Thank you.
|
