Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
Lord Moonie
10 MARCH 2009
Q1 Chairman: Lord Moonie, may I say thank
you very much indeed for coming and for your time this morning.
Lord Moonie: Not at all.
Q2 Chairman: I would just like to
begin by explaining to you the purpose of our inquiry. As you
know, it is to investigate a complaint by Baroness Royall based
on the allegations printed by the Sunday Times newspaper
on 25 January and supported by evidence, recordings and transcripts
which have been provided by the Sunday Times and Hansard,
and I think you have copies of all of those. What we want to do
today is to establish the facts before coming to our conclusions
based on our interpretation of the Code of Conduct and we will
be reporting these to the Committee of Privileges and of course
you will have a right of appeal if necessary. What I want to emphasise
is the Sub-Committee's purpose is to establish whether there has
been a breach of the Code of Conduct and what we are not doing
is considering the behaviour of the Sunday Times newspaper.
This evidence is being taken in private but a full transcript
is being taken which you will have the opportunity to see and
correct, and it may be referred to or published at the discretion
of the Sub-Committee and the Committee of Privileges. Because
this session is on record, I think it is important that when we
refer to the evidence we make clear references to the pages, whether
we are referring to the Hansard one or the Sunday Times,
so it is clear which evidence is actually being referred to. Is
there anything you want to clarify before we proceed?
Lord Moonie: I had assumed the Hansard
would be, for the purposes of argument, a more correct record
than the other.
Q3 Chairman: Yes. We are happy to
work to that.
Lord Moonie: I would be happy to work
to that.
Q4 Chairman: That is fine. Before
we get into the discussion, is there an opening statement you
would like to make? Anything you wish to say?
Lord Moonie: Further to my letter, no,
I do not think so. I think I have made my position clear. I do
not think I broke the Code of Conduct in any way in what I did
and I shall stand by that.
Chairman: My colleagues will ask questions and
we will start with Lord Irvine.
Q5 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Lord Moonie,
we are going to start with the Hansard transcript.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q6 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And only
when need be depart from it into the Sunday Times transcript,
but you will remember there were two telephone conversations with
Mr Gillard of the Sunday Times and I may be asking you
to go to them. So I hope that tells you my route of travel.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q7 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Basically
we of course know the manner in which this entrapment took place.
The two under-cover reporters told you a false story that they
had a Far East client who planned to set up a number of retail
stores and he was concerned to obtain a legislative exemption
for two years from the power of local authorities under the Business
Rates Supplement Bill, a capped levy of two per cent supplement
on the business rate. They said, if we go to page 5 of the Hansard
transcript, that they wanted your advice and you to act on their
behalf. I can show you, it is two-thirds of the way down, "...
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."
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q8 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So that
was their invitation to you, correct?
Lord Moonie: That is correct, yes.
Q9 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then if
you go to page 6 in the transcript, about half way down, you said
to them that there would be plenty of people in the Lords "...
who would take a strong interest in ..." such a Bill.
Lord Moonie: Yes. I think I meant in
both Houses. I did say "in both Houses".
Q10 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Correct.
You said on page 7, if we go there, about a third of the way in,
you said that what you basically do in consultancy is "...
tell people who to talk to ...", correct?
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q11 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is
of course absolutely unobjectionable. You can give information
as to which members of the House might be sympathetic to the interests
of the client or who are the appropriate ministers to approach.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q12 Lord Irvine of Lairg: There is
nothing wrong with that at all. Then you said, a little further
in at page 7, that maybe you could not actually put down amendments
and that you had to look up the rules.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q13 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In fact,
under the Code you cannot table support or make amendments under
a parliamentary consultancy but you would have checked up on that
by looking up the rules. Correct?
Lord Moonie: Correct.
Q14 Lord Irvine of Lairg: A nod does
not go down on the transcript.
Lord Moonie: Sorry.
Q15 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But you
would have checked up on that by looking up the rules or perhaps
asking the Registrar, who is on my right here, Mr Brendan Keith,
or perhaps even, is this correct, colleagues better versed in
the Code than you?
Lord Moonie: Yes, correct.
Q16 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If we go
forward to page 9 of the transcript, you talked about the work
you do in the health area?
Lord Moonie: I did.
Q17 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And how
you might put the company you worked for in touch with an official
called Nigel Lightfoot?
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q18 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And again,
on the same page, what you described, how you proceeded, advising
people whom to approach?
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q19 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You said
that that is what they would be paying for?
Lord Moonie: Yes.
| 
