Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
Lord Moonie
10 MARCH 2009
Q20 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Information,
advice, as to whom to approach?
Lord Moonie: Correct.
Q21 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You then
went on, in the passage immediately below, to say, that what you
can't do is give people introductions to Ministers.
Lord Moonie: Correct.
Q22 Lord Irvine of Lairg: It depends
quite what you meant by that, because you may have been too self-denying.
You are of course permitted to tell the people consulting you
who are the appropriate Ministers for them to approach. Do you
agree?
Lord Moonie: That is right, yes.
Q23 Lord Irvine of Lairg: For the
purposes of furthering the interests of the client. And you are
permitted to tell them under the Code how such approaches might
be made.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q24 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But I assume
that what you meant here was that you could not speak to the Minister
on their behalf in advance of their approaching the Minister?
Lord Moonie: I did not think that was
the case, no.
Q25 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Would you
explain it in your own words?
Lord Moonie: Since then I have wondered
whether for the purposes—there is a constitutional issue
here—whether the executive is treated in the same way as
the House. There is a distinction between them and whether the
Code of Conduct refers to behaviour in the House or behaviour
with the executive. Frankly, I was not certain of that at the
time I was speaking there, and nor am I certain of it yet.
Q26 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Quite.
Lord Moonie: There is of course a distinction
between the two, which is not spelt out in the Code. Frankly that
is why I felt I needed to take advice, initially from senior colleagues
and then I would have approached the Registrar before going on
with anything else. I would also of course have expected a draft
contract from these people to look at before I did anything for
them.
Q27 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is
a little bit further ahead. Looking back at the transcript, you
see what you say is that what you cannot do is give them introductions
to Ministers.
Lord Moonie: Correct.
Q28 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What exactly
did you mean by that?
Lord Moonie: I meant I did not think
that I personally could write to Ministers on their behalf.
Q29 Lord Irvine of Lairg: No.
Lord Moonie: Because of this doubt in
my mind as to the distinction between the House, Parliament, and
the executive. I was absolutely uncertain in my own mind whether
that was in fact reasonable advice I was giving them or not, or
whether in fact I could and therefore I would have to check up.
Q30 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But did
you think you could tell them who the relevant Minister was?
Lord Moonie: Yes, I did. Or who the special
adviser was or whoever might be appropriate.
Q31 Lord Irvine of Lairg: For them
to approach?
Lord Moonie: For them to approach, yes.
Q32 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Because
you went on and made that rather clear further in on page 9, "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."
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q33 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You have
to draw that fine line between what you can do and what you cannot
do?
Lord Moonie: That is right.
Q34 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Correct.
So you continued and I would like help with this. "Man: So
you don't facilitate those things. LM: Not directly, no. Man:
You point them in the direction." Then you said, "You
shouldn't do that." Maybe you were being too self-denying
there because you can point them in the right direction without
speaking in advance on their behalf to the Minister or somebody
in the Minister's department.
Lord Moonie: I was still referring to
my previous, "You don't facilitate those things. Not directly,
no"; my continuation. I do not suppose I need to point out
because you will listen to the transcript but this was a highly
informal setting we were in, and therefore I suspect my use of
language was not quite as precise as I might on a better day or
in a more serious context have assumed. In this sort of initial
contact I try to make the situation as unthreatening both to me
and to the person I might be working for as possible, and therefore
that informality comes through I think a great deal in my use
of language and the cross-reference I made in passing. But the
"You should not do that" in fact was a continuation
of what I had said rather than "You point them in the direction".
I had not registered that.
Q35 Lord Irvine of Lairg: My point
to you was not a point of criticism at all but you may have been
too self-denying in the sense you are perfectly free to point
them in the direction of people to whom they could speak?
Lord Moonie: I was trying to make it
quite clear to them, although they had not directly said, "Would
you do this, would you do that", I was trying to make it
clear to them that there were things you should not do and that
they must err on the side of caution.
Q36 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That appears
later. What you were trying to do also is to lay down, in accordance
with such knowledge which you have, or experiences you had, ground
rules which would have to be followed?
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q37 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What I
am a bit puzzled by is the passage in the Hansard transcript on
page 10. I am just going to read it to you, I am not going to
suggest anything, because I am genuinely puzzled and would like
your help. The under-cover reporter says, "So in our example,
what you'd be looking to do would be to identify maybe other people."
Then Lord Moonie, "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
two per cent is really breaking their hearts'. You can't say that,
but you can speak in general terms and you can advance the arguments."
Then the man goes on, and I will read all this to you because
you are going to tell us what it means, "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 further lobbying on behalf
of the ... ." And then it tails off. Could you tell me what
all this is about? What were you saying could be done?
Lord Moonie: Basically what I was trying
to say, which I did not say very clearly I have to admit looking
at the transcript again, was in continuation of the type of work
I would do. I would find out who had spoken, who had insight,
who had obviously showed expertise in this area and who they could
approach. I did not make that clear in the first statement. I
did say, "... these are obviously your primary contacts for
any future lobbying ..." and in the "your" there
I did mean them and not me.
Q38 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you
have a paid parliamentary consultancy, you cannot table, support
or move amendments or lobby other members of the House.
Lord Moonie: No, that is right.
Q39 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So what
exactly is it that you had in mind in this passage I have read
to you that you would be able to do?
Lord Moonie: What I had in mind was that
I would be able to advise them, having looked at those who would
participate in the debate, who would be the most appropriate people
for them to contact in order to get their amendments put down.
| 
