Lord Moonie—Hansard Transcripts
Telephone Call to Lord Moonie ("LM")
from "Claire Taylor" ("Woman") of the Sunday
Times, Friday 9 January 2009
Telephone CD1 page 5 of 28
[new call]
Woman: Hello, it's Clare Taylor here
calling from Michael Johnson Associates. I'm sorry to call you
slightly out of the blue. I work for a communications company
and we largely do our work in kind of Brussels and the States,
but we're looking to expand our network in the UK, er, for one
client in particular, actually, and one of my researchers did
some work to identify people at your level who, er, maybe do consultancy
work and that might be worth talking to about whether they'd be
interested, erm, in perhaps doing some kind of freelance or retainer
work for us and your name came up, so I'm calling really to see...
LM: Did you phone me yesterday when
I was in the car?
Woman: I did but there was bad reception.
LM: [inaudible] blasted phone.
It basically [inaudible]
Woman: Oh, right. It's always a struggle,
actually, when you're talking, isn't it, to someone else.
LM: Oh I know. I really shouldn't be
answering it. If there were any police watching me.
Woman: Yes, of course, that would be
dreadful.
LM: [laughter]
Woman: From what I've been told, you
do some kind of consultancy work, or you have done in the past.
LM: I do, yeah, quite wide-ranging stuff,
yeah.
Woman: Oh, okay. So perhaps it might
be worth, I don't know, meeting for a cup of coffee some time
to have a chat about it.
LM: Yes. Do you want to come to the
House of Lords?
Woman: Yes, that would be good. I know
it's recess at the moment, but, erm...
LM: We're back there on Monday. I know
that I'm in on Tuesday. I'm away in [inaudible] on Wednesday,
Thursday, so there's not really very much next week other than
Tuesday.
Woman: Tuesday would be fine, actually.
Could you do some...
LM: In the morning?
Woman: Erm, yeah, I think Tuesday morning
would be fine. What kind of time?
Telephone CD1 page 6 of 28
LM: Well, I've got a conference call
at 9.30, so if you came along about 10.30. About 10.30 at the
House. That would be fine.
Woman: Okay, brilliant. Where should
I meet you.
LM: Come in by Peers' entrance.
Woman: Okay, I'll do that.
LM: Do you know where that is?
Woman: Yes, I do.
LM: You know where the public entrance
is. It's along the road to the west of the public entrance. Your
name, sorry, was?
Woman: It's Clare Taylor. T-A-Y-L-O-R.
LM: T-A-Y-L-O-R. Right, okay. I'll see
you Tuesday morning, then.
Woman: Okay, see you then. Cheers.
LM: Cheers.
Woman: Bye bye.
LM: Bye.
[end of track 1]
Meeting of Lord Moonie ("LM")
with "Claire Taylor" ("Woman") and "David
Thompson" ("Man") of the Sunday Times at the House
of Lords, Tuesday 13 January 2009
Lord Moonie Meeting page 1 of 22
Man: Hello, we have a meeting with Lord
Moonie.
Male Voice: What time, sir?
Man: At 10.30.
Male Voice: At Peers'...
Woman: Entrance.
Male Voice: Have you got any paperwork
with you at all, email or any ID with you?
Woman: No. I've got my business card.
[Pause] There you go.
Male Voice: You're together, are you?
Man: Yes.
Male Voice: Have you been before?
Man: Yeah.
[They walk towards security, muttering
to each other]
Woman: Yes, hello, sorry... I've brought
one of my directors.
Man: Hello, pleased to meet you.
LM: How do you do.
[More inaudible muttering]
Female Voice: Just walk through the
arch please.
[more clanking, emptying of pockets,
etc, as they go through security]
Man: Now, what else have I got in here?
I know. Various mobile phones, which are bound to set the thing
off, aren't they? That should be it.
Female Voice: You need to have a photo
taken. If you can just stand in the footprints and look at the
camera, please. Thank you.
[more picking up of coins, keys,
etc.]
Lord Moonie Meeting page 2 of 22
Man: I keep so many things in my pockets.
[more rustling and moving]
Man: I'll give you back your, erm...
Woman: Thank you very much.
[inaudible chat as they walk]
LM: ??? the session started so
late this year.
Man: Yes, you're just back, aren't you?
LM: Yes. ??? rather [un?]
contentious Bill
Man: Sorry, what's that.
[5.00]
LM: It was on last night. The Marine
and Coastal something or another Bill
Man: It's not one I know.
LM: ??One not for the nervous, I'm
afraid.?? [inaudible] You get the impression that increasingly
legislation's not that important. The rest of us ???[inaudible]
buggers up our lives??? Have you been in this place before?
Man: Yes.
LM: Well, we can use it for meetings.
I thought you'd rather have a cup of coffee.
Woman: Yes.
LM: The State Procession comes through
there ... use it for addresses by leaders of foreign Administrations,...
the French, because you have Waterloo on one side and Trafalgar
on the other. It pisses them off.
Man: Is this the older bit of the building?
LM: No, the whole building other than
a few bits at the other end and below St Stephen's was completed
in the 1850s of 60s after the disastrous fire in the 1830s which
destroyed all conglomeration of palaces, though the Crypt Chapel
is still there, and Westminster Hall.
Man: It is very wonderful.
Woman: Yes.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 3 of 22
LM: I think we'll sit in the middle
of the room if that's all right. It's more comfortable.
Woman: Is it?
Woman: Which side to you need to be?
Man: My only consideration is that I'm
deaf in one ear, so I have to sort of...
LM: ??Some people here are deaf in
both ears?? Morning. What would you like?
Woman: A cup of tea, please.
Man: A cup of coffee, please.
LM: Can you bring us a cafetiere for
two, please, and make it quite strong.
Man: Milk, no sugar.
LM: Unless you want something really...
I'd better not ??? that would be really mean, wouldn't
it?
Man: Yes, I thought I wasn't going to
be able to come here. Initially we just arranged for Clare to
come on her own. Did Clare explain on the phone?
LM: Briefly, yes. [noise of teacups]
Would you like a biscuit?
Woman: Yes, that would be nice.
LM: I'll put my glasses on. Ageing eyes
as well. Where are you based?
Man: Waterloo Place. Just up there.
You can walk here.
LM: Well, you must be doing all right,
then. It's one of the more expensive addresses. Mind you, when
I first came down here I lived in Mayfair, in Audley Street, [Woman:
Very nice.] which is full particularly of Conservatives. It
was a Church Commissioners' flat which my wife's cousin lived
in. A vaguely grotty place.
Man: What a fabulous place to be based.
LM: It was lovely, yeah. It's just down
from Oxford Street. You walk through there every morning. But
it sounded a lot better than it really was.
Man: I imagine that's quite an expensive
place to be, though,
LM: Oh, jeez, yes.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 4 of 22
Man: If you want to go out for a meal
or anything round there.
Woman: When I first moved to London
I moved to Wellington Square, which is where my halls of residence
were for university and it was very grand and very beautiful.
I think everyone, being a student, people were quite surprised.
I stayed at these ridiculously overpriced halls of residence.
LM: So.
Woman: So, as I explained on the phone,
we are a consultancy? who are looking to expand and one
of our researchers did some work for us identifying the people
that it would be good for us to meet and might be interested in
doing some work for us.
[10.00]
Man: Our background is we started off
in Brussels with an American businessman called Michael Johnson
and we do a lot of public affairs work in Brussels. We've not
really had a presence over here, mainly over here it's been more
[small?] communications work, PR, that sort of thing, financial
PR.
LM: My son works in that field. Financial
PR.
Woman: Does he?
LM: He works for ???
Man: More recently we have decided to
sort of expand into public affairs work in this country. We've
always been in the other countries. And so one of the things we
were looking for is we were looking for somebody who might be
able to act as a consultant for us in relation to particular clients.
We have one client in mind at the moment who is a consortium from
the Far East who are planning to set up a number of retail outlets
across the UK. They are called Emerald. You wouldn't know the
name, I don't think, because it's more a sort of working name
for the -
LM: For the project.
Man: For the project, yeah. In effect,
it's clothes retail, so if you imagine, say, Gap, Uniqlo, it's
that sort of market. And the aim would be to set up at some time
in the next 18 months, I mean I know the economic climate's not
brilliant at the moment, which is one of the reasons why they
want as much help as they can get at the moment, but the consortium
consists of a company called Won King, who are a big retail company
in Taiwan who have lots of retail outlets in the Far East but
are not a presence that's known here and there's also our specific
client who is also involved, who is a man called Wu Li Jiang and
we have done a lot of work for him in Brussels because he is an
importer and exporter and there were a number of issues that he
had in terms of exporting to the European Union, which is how
the relationship built up in the first place. And so as a result
of that he has hired us for this particular launch of these retail
outlets and there are a number of issues that they feel that are
going to come up over the next—one of them of
Lord Moonie Meeting page 5 of 22
course is planning, because obviously
they have got to find the outlets. They are looking for fairly
big stores.
LM: That will be difficult.
Man: No, well exactly, yeah.
LM: Depends on the size you want, anything
from Woolies down.
Man: Woolies, yeah. This is it exactly.
So in effect, for instance one of the issues that they identified
was that it would appear that they will be launching around about
the time that the Business Rates Supplement Bill would come into
force. I don't know if you are familiar with this. We might call
it one of those obscure pieces of legislation. Basically, it allows
local councils to levy a supplement on the business rate of 2%
to finance projects. For instance, I think the main thrust of
this is actually to finance Crossrail
LM: Yeah.
Man: But it's a law that will affect
all councils across all companies and it's a sort of unnecessary
addition at a time when, you know, business is already struggling.
I mean, their argument would be, especially in this economic climate,
in which they are setting up retail outlets at a time when retail
outlets are going bust, then they need all the help they can get,
so, for example, I mean, I think the Second Reading was yesterday,
actually, of the Bill. They were looking for certain amendments
on it, say, for example, that new businesses setting up might
have an exemption from it for the first two years, or alternatively
there is another amendment, which has been proposed by a lot of
businesses, you know, the, sort of, all the retail forums and
the British Retail Consortium are all proposing that the businesses
affected by the tax should be able to vote on it before it is
implemented and if they agree that it is for the good of local
businesses and they want it then they should. And that was one
of the issues that they had identified very early on as something,
but that is only one issue that could be, there are in effect,
what we are looking for is a relationship with somebody whereby
we could call upon them for advice on these issues and that, you
know, when things like this come up that they might be able to
act on our behalf for them. Now, I don't know whether it's the
sort of work you do or not.
LM: It's not an area that I work in,
retail, although I was sponsored for 17 years in the Commons,
18 years in the Commons by the Co-op.
Man & Woman: Oh, right.
LM: So I can't say it's an area I know
nothing about, you know, so I've obviously taken part over the
years on things like Sunday trading, which I was rather embarrassed
to find that I was a strong supporter of it and the Co-op of course
were strong opponents, so we had a modus operandi that involved,
I basically just kept my mouth shut and voted for what I wanted
to. They knew they would get my services on other things.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 6 of 22
Man: No, it's been a good thing. I can't
see that anyone would argue that it was a bad thing in the end.
LM: They were reluctant to as well.
They are a union.
Man: Well, you can understand why they
would.
LM: They obviously went through the
motions, but I think they were quite pleased. So, yeah, the Bill
started in the Commons, not here. I think it did start there.
Man: Yes.
LM: So I should be able to get a copy
of the Hansard for it if you want have a look and see what was
said. To save you looking for it anywhere else I'll try and grab
a copy of it from the Library or their Vote Office.
Man: Yeah, I mean, I don't know how
easy it is to—
LM: It depends what you want. There
are rules now about, if you take payment from somebody, for example,
there are rules about what you can do or say [Man: Right]
on an issue, but there again there are plenty of people in here,
or in both Houses, who would take a strong interest in a Bill
like this [Man: Right] and not just supporting it either,
I would think. My instincts would tell me that this is a Bill
that may run into some vocal difficulties. As you say, it is not
a good time to be putting extra costs on anybody, and that's something
that needs to be driven home very strongly to Government, so that
they can make the modifications that can be made. The new business
one might well be something that might strike a chord. I have
to say the idea of allowing businesses to vote on it, that's a
non-starter. They don't ?ever do that? with anybody.
Man: There is a limited form, actually.
They do allow—
LM: With the experience they've had,
we never really allow people to vote on anything that they might
[inaudible].
Man: Strangely.
LM: Strangely enough. So I would say
that's definitely a non-starter.
Man: There is a provision within the
Bill to consult—
LM: It's a good hook to hang debate
and argument on to try and wring concessions out on something
else.
Man: What about the possibility that
we may be able to get an exemption for new business starting out?
Lord Moonie Meeting page 7 of 22
LM: That's more realistic.
Man: Mmm hmm.
LM: Except that existing businesses
will rightly say that there is already ample competition in this
area in the marketplace and therefore new businesses should have
to suffer the same costs and impositions as everybody else.
Man: In which case it's up to us to
make our case, obviously.
LM: You've got to make your case. [unclear]
... anything on that ... circumscribed ...
Man: Are you able, I mean would you
be able to do ????
LM: I'm going to have to check up on
that. I mean, basically what I do in consultancy is I tell people
who to talk to. I'll tell them how to write their letters if they
don't know how to write the letters, you know, what points to
put where. You know, the rules on lobbying are such that you try
to avoid it, ??almost anything direct?? It doesn't mean
to say that you can't speak on issues. You can.
[20.00]
It may be that you shouldn't put down—I
would need to look up the rules. Maybe you can't actually put
down amendments, but again, the British Retail Consortium have
their own advisers in the House who will be prepared to put down
almost anything that's to be done and I've plenty of people I
can consult here. The stuff I work in tends to be telecommunications.
Man: Oh, I see.
LM: Science and medicine and things.
Man: I assumed you might do defence
work, as a former Defence Minister—no?
LM: I've never actually looked for any.
A lot of the work I do is tangential. Health stuff, for example,
often has a lot of resonance for the Defence Medical Services,
particularly the stuff that one of the people I work for does
on head injury.
Man: Right.
LM: But in these cases, if I was doing
this, I mean I really think this is something you ought to be
looking at for your own good, seeing as a lot of the work we do,
there's a team of people over here today from the US talking to
Dawn Primarolo about vaccines and how ??quick they are and
how resilient they are?? in preparation both for terrorism
and for natural biological disasters—a very virulent flu,
or something. We have a great deal of expertise in this country
on how to do things like that, [loud noise interrupting from
elsewhere—sounds like comedy hiccups] but no money.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 8 of 22
Man: Who are they selling it to?
LM: The whole point is that—
Man: Are they selling to Government?
LM: The nation should stockpile or you
prepare a resilient system so that when something happens they
can immediately switch to producing, at relatively short notice
they can switch to producing what you need, and in the mean time
they identify ... Most of it is done through recombinant techniques
nowadays.
Man: For what sort of, what sort of,
er?
LM: Anthrax, Dengue fever, smallpox
possibly, although there are no known natural reservoirs of that
now.
Man: Is there not?
LM: But we know the Russians have it
and if the Russians have it there's a chance it will escape. That's
the sort of thing. Flu, SARS when it was around, the respiratory
thing. The sort of thing you don't think about. The trouble is
if you, the thing is if you have a resilient system and a thing
comes up which you don't expect—the unknown unknowns ...
Man: Do we not have any stockpiles of
that sort of thing?
LM: We have various things. The old
vaccines aren't very effective. The new recombinant ones are better,
they produce fewer side-effects ...
Man: I see. But quite an expensive purchase,
I would imagine.
LM: Oh yes. The US have spent God knows
how many hundred millions, probably over a billion, well over
a billion dollars and so far they have got bugger all because
they picked the wrong horse. They paid a company called VaxGen
something like $650 million and got nothing out of it that worked.
Woman: Oh, dear.
LM: So they are kind of desperate to
find something that actually does work. I'm now working for a
company called PharmAthene that's bought up most of the development
rights on PSTL?? and the Health Protection Agency's vaccines,
so ...
Man: What does that, just so that we
have an idea of ... I'll be honest with you, we are talking to
about two or three people but ...
Lord Moonie Meeting page 9 of 22
LM: What did I do for them, in other
words?
Man: Yeah, I just want to get an idea.
LM: First of all I am a doctor myself.
I have a background in public health and I have inputs I can give
them on that. I also have a passionate interest in ??saving
lives?? So this is an area I would work in whether I got paid
or not, because it's something I passionately believe we ought
to be doing. The fact that I get paid for it is a bonus. But,
for example, I know that there's a guy called Nigel Lightfoot
who's about to retire from the Health Protection Agency, a senior
doctor who just got a CBE in the honours list, so he's obviously
on the way out and is not quite important enough to get a knighthood.
You know how the Civil Service works. But Nigel knows everything.
He's a bit of an old woman, but a very nice guy. Forgive me. Sometimes
you just use the appropriate phrase, as the prince found to his
cost. The appropriate phrase sometimes is...
Man: Not quite right.
LM: Not always what you may think is
the appropriate phrase for politics, but he's a kind of fussy
old guy. He knows everything about everything that's going on
and so if the company wanted to talk to anybody I'd ??say??
write to Nigel or get in touch with Nigel and speak to him. What
I don't do is go to Nigel and say I've got this great idea and
these people have paid me lots of money to tell you about it,
because that's against the law.
[25.00]
But advising the company, this is the
guy you've got to speak to, or this woman here or this guy here,
go and speak to him, you know, that's what they're paying for.
Man: So you identify the key decision-makers
for them.
LM: The people they are actually dealing
with, yeah. What you can't do is give them introductions to Ministers,
and things like that. That's just... some people still do that,
but I think that's sailing very close to the wind.
Man: Yeah.
LM: You know, finding out who in the
Minister's office is dealing with it and making sure they know
who to write to or speak to is legit. You've got to draw that
fine line between what you can do and what you can't do.
Man: So you don't facilitate those things.
LM: Not directly, no.
Man: You point them in the direction.
LM: You shouldn't do that. Quite apart
from the fact that this particular Administration is very paranoid
about anything like that, so somebody like the Chancellor, and
a lot of
Lord Moonie Meeting page 10 of 22
people who have worked for him, it's
a very bad idea to approach them, as a guarantee that your company
won't get ??heard??. It's quite the reverse. So it's better
not to. It's better just to assume that you go through the proper
channels.
Man: So you never make it clear to Nigel
that you were involved in this in any way. There would be no need.
LM: No, I mean if we were talking about
something, yeah, I mean inevitably I would let him know that I
was involved in it, yeah. I wouldn't ask him to do anything for
??me/them??. If I thought there was something worthwhile
in it I might say that it might be worth his while meeting these
people to see what they had to say.
Man: So in our example, what you'd be
looking to do would be to identify maybe other people
LM: Other people who could do it. Exactly.
And the other thing is, and this is what a lot of us do now, one
person acts as agent and the one who is not will actually put
down the Question and then they can speak on it. As long as you
declare your interests you can speak on a matter in general terms,
without saying, "I have this excellent bunch from the Far
East and much as they would like to do it, the thought of this
extra 2% is really breaking their hearts". You can't say
that, but you can speak in general terms and you can advance the
arguments.
Man: So, sorry, I don't quite understand.
What you mean is that you can find somebody else who would speak
on it for you.
LM: If you needed that, yes. On broad
issues like this, you're not going to have any shortage of people
to speak. What you need to do is find out who spoke at Second
Reading and see what they say. If they show any expertise or any
particular insights or particular interest then these are obviously
your primary contacts for any future lobbying on behalf of the...
Man: So you could in effect get... They
don't... I mean your problem is...
LM: I doubt very much if you need me
to tell you that.
Man: No, I don't suppose so. But I was
just thinking that...
Woman: It would be better coming from
you, I suppose, than from us.
LM: Sorry, do you need a top-up? I'm
a coffee addict. It's wonderful.
Man: I love coffee.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 11 of 22
LM: Yes, so do I. Life is a search for
it. I found one actually round where I live in Dolphin Square,
there's a wee Italian place that does what I think is probably
the best espresso I've ever ...
Woman: Really?
LM: ... tasted in this country. The
trouble is you end up with about 8 of these a day and by the end
of the day...
Man: You're completely shaking.
Woman: No chance of sleep.
Man: It's a completely variable thing
for me.
LM: I'm not trying to talk myself out
of a job, but I think it's best to be completely upfront with
people and be honest with the people you're trying to deal with.
I believe there are still people in here who will cut corners,
but it's daft, frankly. One, it'll ruin their reputation, so they
shouldn't be doing it. Two, as far as the company's concerned,
if you're found out to have done anything like that, you're dead.
Nobody will work with you.
Man: So the way that it works
LM: The matter is ?? how you get
by the system ?? to your best advantage and there are [inaudible]
something that really is likely to grasp the attention of someone.
Because there's a lot of people on our side of the party, [inaudible]
??and it's not just ours??, but there are a lot of people
who are interested in meeting the sector, it is not going to be
difficult to excite interest in this.
[30.00]
Man: Yes, I can see that. In effect,
they are the people who you could then represent to and they are
the people that, yeah.
LM: You get somebody to put down the
amendments and other will speak to it and provide briefing notes,
all the standard ...
Man: Yeah. Does that happen often, that
in effect you've got someone, you've got a representative and
the representative gets the other person to ...
LM: I don't know. I've never done it.
But it's something that you can easily find out just to make sure.
From your point of view I wouldn't want you to do anything that,
er ...
Man: No, I can understand that.
LM: ... that involved doing something
even slightly improper.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 12 of 22
Man: No, no. I have to say I haven't
done any work on what the ...
LM: What I need to do is speak to one
or two people. The work I've done, I mean I've done a vast amount
of Committee work in the Commons both as a Minister and as a Back-Bencher
??? when we were in opposition, so I'm absolutely familiar
with what goes on, ??? although things have changed so much,
with the rules, but basically to be absolutely sure beforehand
... what we're going to do???. All I was saying was there
are one or two who I know in this House in particular who I need
to speak to just to make sure I know exactly what's legit and
what isn't.
Man: Right.
LM: ?? I'd be daft not to??
Man: Yeah, I'm not quite clear on ...
I don't know the rules myself.
LM: Well, the rules are pretty unclear.
It's one of these unfortunate things that I suspect the rules
are being made as they go along, or, you know, they're being ...
It's like, you make a law, but the ??remit of the law?? is
tested and defined by how it operates in practice.
Man: Have they been in place a long
time, these rules? I'm not quite sure.
LM: No, they've changed. Most of it's
come in over the past 10 years. The list of interests in the Lords
... the thing about the Lords is there's virtually nothing they
can do to you, unless you are going to actually break the law,
there's nothing they can do to you.
Man: No, that's true.
LM: In practical terms. If you don't
declare anything, they just jump up and down and shout and bawl
and say how terrible it is, but at the end of the day, still,
there's nothing they can do. I declare everything that I feel
is material. I mean, you get some people who declare tickets things
like to the theatre or something. That's absolute nonsense, unless
the ticket comes from somebody who operates outside the law.
Man: Yeah, well clearly.
LM: Then perhaps you should not accept
it.
Man: I always assumed that there was
a difference between Lords and MPs because obviously MPs are elected
and salaried.
LM: Practically there is a difference.
A lot of people in here would like to stop [inaudible]
Man: In a funny way, I thought it would
be more, sort of ...
Lord Moonie Meeting page 13 of 22
LM: And that's why, there are one or
two guys I know, ***, for example, who is ***. He was a *** ??and
masterminded the [inaudible] and I know speaks on Bills. I'm
pretty sure if *** is speaking on a Bill that he has an interest
in for somebody?? He was speaking on the Energy Bill earlier
this session??. So he would be my first point of contact because
I've worked with him before on other issues. He would be my first
point of contact.
Man: And he would know exactly what
the situation was and what you would be able to do and what you
wouldn't be able to do. That seems fair enough. It's a sensitive
issue, but in terms of fee, what sort of fee would be... or should
we just make a offer?
LM: Probably, yes. I wouldn't be unfair.
Man: I won't embarrass you by doing
it now; I'll do it, erm...
LM: It would be easy enough for you
to find out... A lot of people tend to overcharge. Fees vary.
It depends how much work you do.
[35.00]
Man: Yeah. I mean, as far as I can see
it's anything from, like, sort of 5,000 to 100,000.
LM: There's not too many hundred thousands.
Man: No, I don't think there are, but
I think especially...
LM: Most people are bright enough to
think, hmm, have a look at this a bit more closely if you get
an offer like that. For a fairly simple consultancy, I would think
5 to 10 thousand would be standard. People sometimes pay more.
It depends how much work is needed.
Man: Yeah. And there would be no conflict
of interests with any of your other clients, would there, as far
as I can see.
LM: My clients at present, mostly, as
I say, are health, public health and defence-related, pharmaceutical.
I am an adviser at Northrop Grumman, they're a big defence company.
In fact it's an IT division that we're advisers to.
Woman: What are they interested in doing?
Selling? Contracts over here, maybe?
LM: No, not this part. No terrible stuff.
They're involved in the preparation of ID card software. They
do a lot of work in the US on health services. Their specialty
is ???
Woman: The bits of computer systems
behind ...
Lord Moonie Meeting page 14 of 22
LM: Yes, so some of the guys I'm working
with, I'm talking to just now about, they're working at the basic
level in the NHS trying to provide a system that works better
than the one the NHS is actually developing—one that actually
works, in other words...
Man: That's a huge project.
Woman: Is that the patient access...
you can see all the records?
LM: Patient access, yes.
Man: As I understand it, the NHS have
had huge problems trying to implement an across-the-board system,
haven't they?
LM: Another thing, there's actually
a new defence company, somebody who is increasingly using us again,
it's a small board of advisers and basically it looks for bright
ideas and new technologies and ways of selling them to the military,
so they started, they discovered that existing protections against
radio-detonated bombs are not very good, so they went out and
found somebody who could make a better one and parcelled it up,
called it Juke Box for some reason, God knows why, and sold it
to the US military and they are now trying to sell the same thing
over here. It's very,very effective.
Man: And very, very useful in Afghanistan,
I would have thought.
LM: Useful in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Also useful for people thinking about protecting the Olympic sites
against potential ...
Man: Yes, I suppose so.
LM: I mean, if the bad guys can't use
mobile phones to detonate bombs then nobody else can use a mobile
phone in the area it's no bad thing.
Man: No.
Woman: They should watch the sport rather
than chatting.
Man: What do they do, jam the radio
waves in some way?
LM: [inaudible] and it's portable
enough to carry in a small vehicle. There's an area of coverage
as well, so ...
Man: Why are we not using that?
LM: ... so if you've got one in your
Humvee or your Jeep it's blanketing an area 15 miles on all sides,
so the troops get protection as well.
Man: Why are we not using them now.
It seems so logical to have something like that.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 15 of 22
LM: Because we have existing systems
which are less effective, but they're already paid for.
Man: Oh, I see.
LM: So they won't basically put everything
else [inaudible]. Other than that, well, what do I do?
I'm on the board of AEA, which is a consultancy. It used to be
part of the Atomic Energy Authority, they basically now do energy,
green, climate change, environment, all kinds of things, mostly
[... Government?] ... And I'm senior director for a company
called PartyGaming; we're the biggest of the offshore gambling
companies.
Man: Are they one of the new ... internet,
aren't they?
LM: Yes. They were the ones who started
it off.
Man: That's not an interest, presumably.
LM: Pardon?
Man: That's not an interest of yours,
is it?
LM: What, gambling? No. I was an adviser
to William Hill in the past in the Commons as well so I suppose
I've always had an interest in gambling. I was headhunted for
this job by the guys ??? on the board of AEA??? I don't
know what it was about me that excited them, but anyway ... [inaudible].
[40.00]
With gambling, so many Governments basically
want all the money that goes to gambling basically to come into
their own pockets and nobody else's. There are always certain
risks involved ... [company you've never heard of ... somebody
in that line of business has stepped out of line???]
Man: It's a funny old one, isn't it,
because obviously it wouldn't be in their interests to have casinos,
would it? One of our clients had been very very keen to have the
casino in Blackpool ...
LM: Oh yes?
Man: ...and has been very disappointed,
not because he's actually in casinos himself; he's actually just
a big property developer in Blackpool who would benefit from the
input into that area. He was very disappointed that it didn't
happen.
LM: I quite understand, really, because
they basically just political fright.
Man: Yeah. Well, you can understand
it.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 16 of 22
LM: We allow so much. We actually have
one of the most liberal regimes almost in the world on gambling.
Man: Yeah, cos in America you can't,
well, it's sort of split, isn't it? It's not strictly legal, is
it, to internet gamble, as I understand it.
LM: No, they've actually specifically
banned it. PartyGaming lost 75% of its turnover overnight. We
just pulled out completely the day they passed the Act two and
a bit years ago. Some of the people you see now advertising like
Full Tilt and Poker Stars, who are the biggest now, I mean poker
itself, have continued operating illegally in the States, which
is really daft. Before the UIGEA came in, it was at least arguable
in law that the prior Acts related to horse and dog racing and
not to gaming—to racing rather than gaming—but there
is absolutely no doubt about it now, so sooner or later these
guys are going to get whacked by the US.
Man: PartyGaming is based, not here
are they?
LM: Gibraltar.
Man: They are based in Gibraltar, yeah.
LM: We're quoted on the quoted Stock
Market. We were on the FTSE 100 [inaudible] internet boom,
made some of their £4 billion of ...??? 40% of the
company ... number 13 in the top 100.
Man: But you don't do parliamentary
consultancy for them. You're just on the board.
LM: [inaudible] companies of
that size have their own people to do that sort of thing. If I
thought they were doing anything wrong I'd soon tell them about
it, but I'm not obliged to do anything myself. There's an outside
chance that a Minister, knowing my interests, might approach me
and say, "Well, what's your attitude to tax?" We'd rather
be paying taxes and ensure that people who should be doing things
didn't as long as everybody else is paying taxes as well, because
then it just raises the floor for the industry. It makes your
life so much easier. We'd far rather be regulated as long as they
are using a light touch.
Man: No, I can see that, otherwise all
sorts of people could come in, couldn't they, who wouldn't be
as regulated.
LM: We ??? do something that's
legit, particularly in the US, because there's huge long association
with Mafia interests, so the way to do it is to legitimise it
and control it. And I think that's what the new regime will do
over there.
Man: It's so big in the Indian populations
in India, isn't it, as in the indigenous Indian populations in
America?
Lord Moonie Meeting page 17 of 22
LM: Yes, because they have the rights
to have casinos on their land so they tend to be very reactionary
about internet stuff. They don't realise that you're talking about
two different markets and what you do is you increase the overall
gambling market. The terrestrial one is really hammered just now
anyway. Although they do say it is one of the most resistant industries.
Woman: Really?
LM: Yes, most people don't ... you know,
the image of the fanatical gambler spending all their money on
it... there's not many like that. Most of them play penny gambling??
Small stuff.
[45.00]
Man: You also read that lots of housewives
are now getting into online gambling, but they're not big gamblers.
LM: It soon mounts up. The industry
don't want people bankrupting themselves. They want them to carry
on playing for ever. And that means they play within themselves.
We contribute loyally to GamCare and all the other charitable
things.
Man: The other thing that's in the back
of our minds, and I won't mention their name because we haven't
got them yet, we are currently looking at taking on as a client
a defence manufacturer in Europe and it occurred to us that you
might fit quite nicely in with that.
LM: And it probably wouldn't interfere
with anything else I do, directly. Northrop Grumman are a defence
company, but we work for their IT division. What I would have
to say is that if there was anything that involves [???] I
would have to check with them that it was okay.
Man: Yes, that's fine.
LM: That there was no conflict of interest.
Man: So how shall we proceed? Shall
we just take it that you will go away and just check what it is
that, erm ...
LM: On the retail thing, I'll want to
just find out exactly how much work. I'm quite sure work can be
done. What I'm not certain of is exactly how we do it to ensure
that we stay within the letter of what's there, the regulations.
From your point of view, you want to be sure that that's done.
Man: We're obviously middle people in
this, but we obviously get pressure from above, because they say,
"Oh, can't you have a look at that and see if you can find
someone to amend it?" And it would be quite useful to know
how feasible that was.
Woman: I think it's knowing how the
system works, really. We're not ...
Lord Moonie Meeting page 18 of 22
LM: The easiest way to get something
done is to approach the Opposition spokespeople and see if they
are interested—the Liberals of the Conservatives, see if
they're interested in putting something forward. By and large,
they are under a lot of pressure and I'm sure that they more they
can get somebody else to provide them with amendments if they
agree with the basic principle of what's being done, the happier
they'll be, because it makes life easier for them.
Man: Is that something that you would
suggest that we should do, or that you would be able to do?
LM: Either, but it's probably better
if it comes from you.
Man: From us?
LM: Yes.
Man: Oh [disappointed]
LM: But that's the sort of thing on
which we can make introductions easily. Particularly the Opposition,
you're not influencing Government.
Man: No, exactly.
Woman: It's always something that's
quite tricky for us to pick up the phone and try to speak to them,
particularly someone we haven't met.
LM: You've got to make the first contact.
If you think at the end of the day that you'd be better off with
somebody else on the retail scene then, you know, I'll wish you
good luck.
Man: Yeah.
LM: Give you a few names of people you
can approach. If you're likely to have other things, then ...
Man: Yeah, we are, but I can't quite
be specific about them at the moment.
LM: That's all right. I've got plenty
of work to do. The great thing about being a consultant is that
I'm effectively semi-retired when you come into this place, you
have almost limitless time available to do things. Your day is
never full. The happiest time I ever had was when I was Defence
Minister and I was working 14 hours a day.
Man: It's funny, isn't it? It is funny
how, when you're really immersed in something, it is, life is
far more interesting in that way, isn't it?
LM: Mind you, after four years of it
I was quite glad to pack my bags???
Lord Moonie Meeting page 19 of 22
Man: 14 hours a day is not easy, is
it? Okay, well I think that covers everything, doesn't it?
[50.00]
Woman: Yeah. I think we're probably
going to go over things and [decide on tactics??]
LM: You've got my contact details.
Man: I've got your email address.
LM: [inaudible] With a bit of
luck a little guy up at Vodafone will work his magic and I'll
actually be able to pick them up on my mobile phone after today.
I have a hotmail account, which is my private account and I've
had it for years, being relatively conservative in my behaviour,
although I'm in politics. I stick with it, although everybody
says you're better off with Google or Yahoo or somebody. Microsoft
are ??a horror?? to work with. They're so user-unfriendly.
All I did was change my phone and promptly, whatever system was
using it went down and they said, "You have to reapply".
So I reapplied and nothing happened and sooner or later you get
to a point in the proceedings where the scheme just refuses to
go on. I've tried it a dozen times and in the end I thought I'd
save my blood pressure. I'm obviously doing something wrong here,
I'll get somebody else to ...
Man: I hate it. Whenever I do something
on my computer at home, I sit down and I think, "Well, this
is going to be straightforward, it says you load the software
and...". And in about three hours later I'm tearing my hair
out frantically emailing the helpline.
LM: The trouble with so many of them
is, I had an occasion on Saturday night when I was booking rooms
at the Hilton in Glasgow, because there's a Labour Party fundraising
dinner coming up in Scotland. Booking a room for myself and a
room for my son. I did everything right. Paying in advance for
this, I remembered there had been a check off at the start, you
know, if you want fully flexible it's an extra six quid. Could
I go back to the original screen? No. I couldn't. They'll send
you back to a screen to change your room, but never that. Nothing
really happened at all. I came out of the system, went back in
but forgot to change the date so I discovered at the end, it had
all worked perfectly and I said, "Yes!" and suddenly
realised I had booked two rooms for Saturday night. It was now
9 o'clock on Saturday night. And of course it's an automatic booking
system, so you can't—you can send them an email but they'll
just ignore it. That's how the system works. So I phoned the hotel
and finally found somebody intelligent enough to transfer the
booking, but I still wouldn't be surprised if I get up there in
two weeks' time to find out there's no booking and they've taken
the money off me.
Man: Sometimes those electronic things
work like clockwork, but quite often you do actually have to have
human contact in the process.
LM: So many people don't realise that,
and it costs them so much business.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 20 of 22
Woman: On EasyJet or things like that,
if you click the button more than once you end up buying the flight
five times and you can see on your debit card or whatever that
you've been charged however many times and you have to call and
then you have to pay a percentage. I'm always clicking too many
times.
LM: Yeah, it's like this tremor in your
finger—oh bugger.
Woman: And sometimes some sites now
say "Please click only once otherwise you will be charged".
But when it's taking a while to load, you just click.
LM: There should be some feedback somewhere
on that that says, "Do you really want to buy two flights?"
In other words, they are defrauding you. Otherwise they would
have built that into the program. You need to find somebody with
deep enough pockets to sue them and establish the point and then
they would all have to change.
Man: I had it yesterday, because a friend
of ours is trying to come on holiday with us with his family,
but he's booked the wrong flight, which means we'll have to wait
for six hours. All he wants to do with EasyJet is transfer the
flight to a different time that day, and for some reason you can
transfer it... if it was on a different day you could, but not
on the same day. The computer just won't allow you to do it.
Woman: You really need to speak to someone.
If you're ready to pay 70p a minute to be on hold.
LM: "Your business is important
to us. Please hold on". You're charging me 70p a minute;
of course it's important to you.
Woman: It's terrible, things like that.
Particularly if you have to call from abroad because there's been
a problem.
Man: Well, we'll be in touch.
LM: I'll grab a Hansard for you on the
way out if you like so that you can see what's going on.
[walking]
Man: Did you not bring a bag or anything?
Woman: Yeah. I've got my backpack that
we hung up.
LM: You've got to pick your stuff up.
Man: Yes, we do. So there's no Lords
today?
LM: Oh yes.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 21 of 22
[inaudible]
Man: Are you able to do that? Are you
able to arrange dinners for clients?
LM: Oh, I've had dinners with clients.
It depends what you mean by that. If I am having dinner with you
...
Man: Then that's fine.
LM: If, on the other hand, I'm booking
a room for an interest, you know for something in which I have
an interest, I have to be very careful. That's one of the things
that the most stupid of all. It's considered to be using the House
to further your own interests ... [inaudible]
Woman: It's a good place to come for
a short trip.
Man: Isn't it.
[more walking]
LM: Business Rates Supplement Bill.
There you go.
Man: Thank you.
LM: Is one enough for you?
Woman: We can share.
LM: Save a tree.
Man: We'll see who's been agitating
for and against.
LM: [inaudible] everything a
Minister says during the course of a Bill, whether he agrees with
something even if it isn't enacted, it may be enforceable in law
because he said we will do it or our policy is such and such.
People are entitled to interpret it as that. There are obviously
frantic going on between the box where the officials are and the
Front Bench where the Minister is. Sometimes he has to stand up
shamefaced and say that what he said before was inaccurate and
of course it is in fact this, the correct version.
[more walking and inaudible chat]
LM: I'll drop you a note? When we find
out exactly what the, what things are.
Man: You have our email, yes.
Lord Moonie Meeting page 22 of 22
LM: Assuming it's on the card you gave
me, which I haven't yet read.
Man: Well, look, good to meet you and
thank you very much.
Woman: Yes, and thanks for coffee.
[more walking and inaudible chat]
Man: Thank you very much.
Woman: Thank you, bye bye.
LM: Are you heading back up towards
Whitehall?
Man: Yes, we're going to walk up that
way. Thank you very much.
Woman: Thank you. Bye bye.
[They have now left Lord Moonie,
but continue to chat inconsequentially to each other about having
a head for heights and going to the theatre.]
According to the Sunday Times, "David
Thompson" of the Sunday Times rang Lord Moonie on Tuesday
20 January 2009
Please see the Lord Moonie Sunday Times
transcript (p MST8), and the Sunday Times letter of 17 March 2009
(pp W8-9), for the journalist's recollection of the call.
E-mail to "David Thompson" of
the Sunday Times from Lord Moonie, Wednesday 21 January 2009
Please see Sunday Times transcript (p
MST8) for the journalist's transcription of the email, which we
have not seen.
Telephone Call to Lord Moonie ("LM")
from "Claire Taylor" ("Woman") of the Sunday
Times, Friday 23 January 2009
Telephone Extra recordings page 10 of
11
Woman: Hello?
LM: Hello.
Woman: Hello. Is that Lewis?
LM: Yes.
Woman: Hi Lewis, it's Clare Taylor here
calling from Michael Johnson.
LM: Hello.
Woman: Hello, just a quick call. I understand
you spoke to David earlier in the week and I was just going to
sort out some kind of, I don't know, agreement or a kind of contract
or something to send over to you. Is it best to email it over
or should I send it by post?
LM: Have you got my email address?
Woman: Yes, I think it's on your card,
isn't it?
LM: I'm up in Scotland over the weekend.
Woman: Oh, are you? Okay, no problem.
When you spoke to David, I think he told me you were going to
speak to John Healey. Is that right?
LM: Erm, no I don't think so.
Woman: Oh, okay.
LM: Erm, I think we've got to decide
exactly [very bad phone line]
Woman: Okay then, we can have a meeting
to thrash that out. One other thing that I need to think about
is, I don't know if you've had some time to consider how much,
you know, you want to be paid. I think you said that between 5
and 10 was standard, but I didn't know what to put in the letter
or the contract.
LM: Right, erm ... I'm standing in a
train station right now. Can I get back to you?
Woman: Yes, yes of course you can. No
problem.
LM: Thanks.
Woman: Okay, speak later. Bye.
LM: Bye.
[end of call].
Failed Telephone Calls to Lord Moonie
from Michael Gillard ("Man") of the Sunday Times, Friday
23 January 2009 (1)
Telephone CD2 page 18 of 29
[New call] 26:47.
Answerphone Message: This is a Vodaphone
voicemail service for ***** ******. Please leave a message after
the tone. When you have finished recording, please hang up or
press the hash key for more options.
Man: Hello, this is a message for Lord
Moonie from Michael Gillard of the Sunday Times. It's just coming
up to five to two on Friday. Lord Moonie, I'm very keen to speak
to you if I can about some conversations you've been having with
a company called Michael Johnson Associates, who represent a Chinese
client, I believe, who's interested in amending the business rates
supplementary Bill that's going through the two Houses. Could
you, we're publishing this weekend a story in that regard, and
I'm very keen to discuss with you what you thought you were being
asked to do and what, indeed, you may have agreed to do for them.
My numbers are ***** ******. If no one picks up, please try the
news desk and they'll find me on ***** ******. It's now five to
two and it's Friday and, as I said, it is urgent that we speak
to you just to understand what it is your position is in light
of the conversation that I'm going to have with you. So, look
forward to hearing from you. Bye for now.
[call ends]
[New call] 28:33
Answerphone Message: You're through
to Sheila and Lewis Moonie at ***. Please leave a message after
the tone.
Man: Hello, it's Michael Gillard from
the Sunday Times. It's five to two. I'm leaving a message for
Lewis Moonie. Mr Moonie, could you give me a call on ***** ******
or ****. It's concerning discussions you've been having with a
company called Michael Johnson Associates, who represent a Chinese
client who's interested in amending the business rates supplementary
Bill. We're running a piece this weekend and I would very much
like to talk to you about what you understood you were being asked
to do and what, indeed, you may have agreed to do. So, you've
got my numbers. Very keen to speak to you. Look forward to that.
Bye for now.
[call ends]
Telephone Call to Lord Moonie ("LM")
from Michael Gillard ("Man") of the Sunday Times, Friday
23 January 2009 (1)
Telephone CD2 page 19 of 29
[New call] 30:28
Man: Gillard.
LM: Lewis Moonie.
Man: Hello, Mr Moonie, thanks for getting
back to me.
LM: Alright.
Man: What it concerns is Michael Johnson
Associates.
LM: Um-hm.
Man: A company that you've met recently,
I understand.
LM: Yep.
Man: Yep. And what I understand is that
they're interested in having an amendment made to a piece of legislation
that's coming before your House and certainly the other House
on supplementary business rates.
LM: That's right, they're interested
in that piece of legislation.
Man: What I wanted to ask was what you
believed they were asking you to do.
LM: Um, well I don't yet know, I'm afraid.
We're not at that stage.
Man: Right.
LM: Er, of discussions with them. I've
made no agreement with them.
Man: Right.
LM: Or anything. Certainly, they don't
know anything about legislative procedure.
Man: Right.
LM: Which is not surprising. They've
not been involved in it before.
Man: Yeah.
LM: Erm.
Man: Who is the company?
LM: MJ. Well, a small PR company, I
understand. They're based in central London.
Telephone CD2 page 20 of 29
Man: Right.
LM: Erm.
Man: And who's their client?
LM: I've no idea. It's somebody from
the Far East. As I say, I haven't actually got to the realms of
discussing anything like that with them.
Man: Right, okay.
LM: How on earth did you get involved
in something like this, if you'll forgive me asking? I'm quite
intrigued.
Man: What we're looking at is Lords
and what they will or will not do with regards to outside interests.
LM: Um-hm.
Man: And people trying to get things
done on behalf of commercial clients.
LM: Yep. The rules on this are absolutely
clear on what you can do and what you can't do.
Man: Yeah. Do you think they're absolutely
clear?
LM: I think they're clear enough to
know what is correct conduct and what isn't.
Man: Right.
LM: Erm. You don't lobby Ministers directly
on clients' behalf. You certainly don't speak on their behalf
in either House. You don't put down amendments on behalf of business
for which you're getting paid. You can advise them on how to do
that, which is the jig of it. But everything has to be
done at second hand. Anybody with a modicum of sense knows that.
Man: You can't put down amendments,
but you can get others to do it for you.
LM: No, what I would tend to do is to
put them in touch with people who would. I mean, for example,
you make common cause with other people who are interested in
seeing legislation amended, or they can speak to opposition Members
who may be interested in this line of inquiry or line of interest.
Man: Right.
LM: But the areas are very clear. The
amount you can do directly is very limited.
Man: Right.
LM: What you can do is advise them on
how to use the system properly.
Telephone CD2 page 21 of 29
Man: Right.
LM: If they don't know how to.
Man: Putting down an amendment yourself
for a pay client wouldn't be something you could do.
LM: Och, shit, no, I don't think I would
ever consider that.
Man: But getting others to do it on
your behalf—or their behalf, rather. Is that within the
rules?.
LM: I don't know. I would have to ask
somebody. Again, it's not something I would do without clearing
up exactly whether it's legitimate or not.
Man: Alright. Cards on the table. The
people you met were undercover reporters.
LM: Aha.
Man: The conversations were all taped.
The only thing that I have to ask you about is that it appears
from the transcripts of those conversations that what you were
willing to do would be to—that you wouldn't personally put
down an amendment but you would get others to do it on behalf
of the client.
LM: No, I said to them that I would
have to go and see somebody to find out exactly what could be
done. I would have to talk to a colleague. That's what I said.
I think you should check your transcripts again.
Man: Right. You said that you would
talk to a client, a colleague to see what could be done.
LM: To see what was legitimate, yeah.
Man: If I may I will check the transcript
because I didn't have the conversation with you. I will recheck
the transcripts and if it is at odds with how you've described
it, then I'll give you a call back. Is that alright?
LM: [inaudible] They talked about
speaking with John Healey.
Man: Yeah.
LM: And I made it clear to them that
while I could write to John on their behalf, obviously not using
House—even though I didn't say this, you wouldn't use House
of Lords paper. You know, if a Lord were to do that. Quite frankly,
I thought the work they were requiring to do would be better done
by an intern on their own behalf, although we didn't get along
to discussing this.
Man: Yeah, yeah. Alright, well let me
check it.
Telephone CD2 page 22 of 29
LM: Recheck it and get back to me.
Man: And I'll get back to you. On this
mobile, yeah?
LM: Yeah, that'll be fine. Thanks.
Man: Alright. Bye for now.
[call ends]
Failed Telephone Calls to Lord Moonie
from Michael Gillard ("Man") of the Sunday Times, Friday
23 January 2009 (2)
Telephone CD2 page 23 of 29
[New call] 36:14
Answerphone message: This is a Vodaphone
voicemail service for ***** ******. Please leave a message after
the tone. When you have finished recording, please hang up or
press the hash key for more options.
Man: Lord Moonie, it's Michael Gillard.
Would you be kind enough to give me a call on ***** ******. Thanks
a lot. It's now ten to three. Bye bye.
[call ends]
[New call] 40:26
Answerphone message: You're through
to Sheila and Lewis Moonie at ***. Please leave a message after
the tone.
Man: Lord Moonie, it's Michael Gillard.
I left a message on your mobile, and hopefully, I'm not sure whether
you're in your home constituency, but anyway I'm leaving another
message. My numbers are ***** ****** or ****, and it's now coming
up to five to three. Thanks a lot, bye.
[call ends]
Telephone Call to Lord Moonie ("LM")
from Michael Gillard ("Man") of the Sunday Times, Friday
23 January 2009 (2)
Telephone CD2 page 24 of 29
[New call] 42:35
Man: Gillard.
LM: Lewis Moonie, hello.
Man: Thanks for getting back to me.
I've had a chance to, um, speak to the reporters and, um, look
at the stuff. Um, the common ground, it seems, between us is that
Michael Johnson Associates told you quite clearly that, um, they
were representing a Chinese client, Mr Jiang, and that his interest
was to amend a piece of legislation going through the House. Is
that... Is that... were there...?
LM: Well, I recall the words "Far
Eastern client" was used, but I don't recall hearing a name.
It wouldn't have meant anything to me anyway.
Man: Okay, and, and that a meeting was
had and conversations with a representative of MJA were had, and
on Wednesday you agreed to work with MJA on that basis.
LM: I said it would be possible to work
for them myself, yes.
Man: Yes, and sent an e-mail obviously,
um, to that effect that a fee structure for them [inaudible]
LM: Yeah, but I'm not saying... I made
them think [inaudible]
Man: Hello, sorry.
LM: I made them think that I was [inaudible]
a bit suspicious about their motives, suspicious about their motives.
Man: Well if you did, it is not spelt
out in the e-mail.
LM: No absolutely not, absolutely not.
[inaudible]
Man: Um, and—
LM: Certainly they've no agreement anything
that I would consider to be outside the rules regarding [inaudible]
lobbying.
Man: Well I wanted to get to that, and
where we, when we last spoke, where we were, appeared to be at
a disagreement was that I was saying that, um, in those conversations
you had agreed that you wouldn't put down any amendment to legislation
but you would be prepared to help the company and its client find
people who would on its behalf.
LM: And somebody senior, yes. I did.
Man: Yes, okay. Um, and that is obviously
on a paid basis.
Telephone CD2 page 25 of 29
LM: Yes.
Man: Yep. Now, your view is that that
is or is not within the rules?
LM: What, to assists somebody in finding
a way of a getting an amendment put down? Yes, of course it's
within the rules.
Man: Right. On a paid basis.
LM: To advise people on how to do it.
Yes.
Man: Right. Okay. Um, I mean our understanding
is that it isn't, in that we spoke with the Registrar and they
said to us that it would be a breach of the rules for a lord on
behalf of a paid client to seek to amend legislation, whether
or not he or she declared it. [inaudible]
LM: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
Man: Right. So could you help me in
understanding how it is you believe that what you were agreeing
to do on behalf of this Chinese person was within the rules?
LM: I would have asked them to get in
touch with the Opposition, their spokespeople to see if they had
common ground with them, with other people like Land Holdings,
who are interested in amending legislation, to see if they have
common ground with them, and to find a way forward for them.
Man: Right. Okay. Um, in your wider
point, do you think that lords who are supposed to be, I mean,
taken from a layman's point of view, independent, a check and
balance on the other Chamber but independent of commercial interests,
should be able to be bought or rented, however you want it, or
hired to effect change in legislation in this way for a client
they have never met or don't know anything about?
LM: No, sorry, to advise people on how
to change legislation.
Man: To have a specific piece of legislation
amended so that this particular individual would benefit.
LM: Also any individual who's in a position
to benefit.
Man: Yes.
LM: Sorry, I did not agree to amend
legislation. I agreed to seek to help them to find a way of trying
to amend the legislation [inaudible]
Man: Forgive me. I'm not making the
allegation that you personally say you would make the amendment.
I'm not making that allegation. I'm saying that you made it clear
that you wouldn't personally do it.
LM: Nor that I would speak on behalf
of it or do anything to get—
Telephone CD2 page 26 of 29
Man: No, [inaudible] behind the
scenes lobbying. Getting someone else to effect that aim for payment.
What I'm asking you is, you quite clearly, and I understand you
said to me you think that was within the rules. I said we think
it isn't, having had a conversation with, with the Registrar.
But the more wider point is whether you think it's right that
that lords, in a more sort of general moral sense, that lords
who should be independent when it comes to the process of legislation
going through the Chamber should be able to be hired by people
they've never met, checked for [inaudible].
LM: How do you think, how do you think
anybody can get any legislation amended if they don't speak to
somebody within the [inaudible]?
Man: Maybe I'm not making myself heard
but—
LM: You're not making your point very
clearly at all.
Man: Maybe my point is this. It's that
you don't know by your own admission who MJ Associates were.
LM: And do you not think I would have
found that out before I actually signed any contract with them
or anything? Don't be stupid.
Man: And you don't know, by your own
admission, who that client was, other than he was a Chinese person.
LM: Will you, will you confirm that
the transcript says that I would check with somebody?
Man: Check with somebody what?
LM: I would check with somebody what
was legitimate to do and what was not.
Man: Your, your e-mail says, um, er,
you know, we must of course always pay due heed to the rules for
your sake as much as mine.
LM: Yeah.
Man: Yeah, um.
LM: That's all.
Man: And this is the e-mail on the Wednesday,
but there was a [inaudible] conversation on Wednesday and
you do choose a model for the fee structure agreed, which you
put down.
LM: There was no fee structure, no,
sorry, sorry, sorry. Er, no fee structure had been agreed at that
stage.
Telephone CD2 page 27 of 29
Man: In the former case, I would expect,
in the former case, which is whether you would do it [inaudible].
LM: No, that was, that was after the
conversation I had on Wednesday, not before. I said in principle
it should be possible to work with them there and try setting
out what a possible fee structure was.
Man: Which you did.
LM: Which I did, absolutely, yes, as
a matter of record.
Man: So the phone call was the agreement
to do the work and the email was setting...
LM: No, the agreement to do the work
is a signed contract. All I agreed was to follow discussions with
them, which I would have done next week, after I'd carried out
due diligence on the company.
Man: So your point is.
LM: You'll quote me on that, I hope.
I presume you're recording.
Man: [inaudible] on anything.
What I was going to ask you for was whether you would prefer to
do a statement and I could ring you back to take it down, or whether
you just want to talk me through what you want your position ...
LM: I think you can just publish whatever
you want to publish. Okay?
Man: You don't ...
LM: Any allegations about any of my
conduct which you cannot substantiate, then the obvious will take
place. When I've finished speaking to you, I'll be talking to
solicitors in London.
Man: Is that ...
LM: We'll be asking for a copy of the
transcripts of everything that's taken place between me and MJ
Associates.
Man: Sure. Is that you saying that you
don't want to make a statement?
LM: That I want what? At this stage...
What can I make a statement on? There's nothing ...
Man: We've discussed ...
LM: You can't give me [inaudible]
I actually haven't had the full conversation that I wanted to,
to find out exactly what was and was not, which is why I was going
to speak to them next week to find out exactly what it was they
wanted me to do. I'm not really in a position to make a statement
of any kind.
Telephone CD2 page 28 of 29
Man: There are two things that you have
quite clearly spoken on, which is, one, you think that whatever
you did do with MJ Associates was within the rules.
LM: Anything that I would do with them
would have to be within the rules.
Man: And the discussions that went on
that were attributable to you were all done within the rules,
right, but there was nothing that you suggested that you would
do that was outside of the rules.
LM: I don't believe so, no.
Man: Right. On a second, wider point...
LM: The other thing, of course, I would
have phoned the register. I've not done any direct parliamentary
work with anybody before.
Man: Yes.
LM: So I would have had to speak to
the Register to find out exactly what was [inaudible] and
what wasn't. We were just talking about an agreement in principle.
That was all. Nothing else.
Man: The second wider point is that
in general you don't see there's anything wrong with Lords acting
in this way.
LM: I see nothing wrong with Lords advising
people on how to proceed with legislation.
Man: How to amend legislation.
LM: [inaudible] didn't say that
on the record, no. [inaudible] for Lords to advise people
on how to have legislation amended, as we do with commercial interests,
as we do with charities and many people [inaudible] doing
that as well [inaudible] and all pro bono work. There's
a very very wide range of organisations who would like to see
legislation amended.
Man: Right.
LM: And of course [inaudible]
help them, otherwise how would you know how to do it? The level
of ignorance of people [inaudible] is quite staggering.
That's why they often, they do have to come to people.
Man: Okay.
LM: Yeah.
Man: Well, if you change your mind you've
got my numbers in terms of wanting to give me an on the record—a
further statement. But I think I've got the essence of what you
think.
Telephone CD2 page 29 of 29
LM: Thank you.
Man: Alright, thanks for your time.
Bye-bye.
[call ends]
|
|
