Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
Lord Moonie
10 MARCH 2009
Q120 Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wanted
to come back to a remark you made quite early on about the distinction
in behaviour in approaching the executive as opposed to within
Parliament. It hinges, it seems to me, on the words in the Code
which say that members of the House must never accept any financial
inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary
influence. I take that to mean, and I think my colleagues are
the same, that the words "parliamentary influence" mean
any influence arising from the fact you are a member of a House
of Parliament, which would include you approaching a civil servant
or a ministerial office, as it were. They would obviously treat
you differently because you are a member of a House of Parliament
than they would if you were a member of the public?
Lord Moonie: That is a perfectly reasonable
interpretation of the Code. I do not know whether it is absolutely
correct or not. I was talking about musings which had been going
on in my own mind since this whole thing happened, whether there
was a distinction between the two, and not what is exactly Parliament
and what is the executive. Is there a distinction between the
two. That was all. I think there may be.
Q121 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think
Lord Cope has put the interpretation of the Code which currently
appeals to this Sub-Committee, and you were good enough to say
it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the Code in your
view, but, even if there was a different view of the Code, you
never did anything pursuant to such a different view by way of
approaching a Minister, did you?
Lord Moonie: No.
Q122 Lord Cope of Berkeley: I should
make clear what concerns me at this point. We are asked not only
to look at the individual cases of yourself and others but also
to make any general recommendations which arise out of that as
to how the Code might be re-interpreted or modified or changed,
and that is why I was wishing to probe a bit the distinction.
Lord Moonie: I see what you mean. I think
there is a genuine point of argument here as to what—since
we are talking about largely an unwritten constitution in this
country—constitutes Parliament and what constitutes the
executive, where the two overlap and are the two seamless or are
they not. That is purely speculative in my own mind, Lord Cope,
as to whether that is something we ought to be looking at or be
defining much more clearly than is defined just now.
Q123 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Why is
Lord Cope not absolutely right in what he put to you, that to
exercise parliamentary influence means to exercise influence by
whatever means arising out of your status as a Member of the House?
Lord Moonie: As I say, his interpretation,
particularly as it is the one the Committee takes, clearly the
one which holds just now, and I am not going to fly in the face
of that, I was making a speculative comment. I am looking at the
institutions and what constitutes behaviour within the institution
and behaviour outside it, it is behaviour to the executive, behaviour
within the institution and behaviour outside. A peer after all
may do anything he likes outside the House, that is not a matter
for the House at all. Well, it may be.
Q124 Lord Cope of Berkeley: But you
would not think that we were wrong to say that behaviour anywhere
which arises or is affected by the individual's membership of
one of the Houses of Parliament could come under the term "using
parliamentary influence"? I do not think parliamentary influence
myself is limited to what happens in this building. I think a
lot of parliamentary influence can be exerted outside. I think
it is a very wide phrase, "parliamentary influence",
actually, I take it to mean influence arising from membership
of a House of Parliament and that is not confined geographically
or in any other way. Do you think we would be wrong to interpret
it in that way? I do not think, as I have hinted, it affects our
judgment of anything you said to the Sunday Times or whatever.
Lord Moonie: No.
Q125 Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am
just concerned.
Lord Moonie: I should not have introduced
this. I was being speculative and I do take an interest in the
constitution, although it has not been noted in anything I think
I have ever said in either House on the subject. Are you saying
your interpretation of the rules mean that if I write signing
myself Lord Moonie to an executive agency, to local government,
to the Scottish Parliament, to the Welsh Assembly, to anywhere,
that would count as part of it? I cannot see that this is the
case. Therefore, I think further refinement, if you like, of what
I accept is the position, as you put it, which is correct I think
within the context, may be necessary.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We need to reflect on
that.
Chairman: I think Lord Dholakia wants to come
in.
Lord Dholakia: If Lord Irvine wants to ask a
supplementary to this, mine is a slightly different matter.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: No, no, I am content.
Q126 Lord Dholakia: Lord Moonie,
can I take you to the question which was earlier put by Baroness
Prashar in relation to your email.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q127 Lord Dholakia: Of 21 January.
You were interviewed by the Sunday Times on 13 January.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q128 Lord Dholakia: You then, after
all the discussion that has taken place so far, wrote to them
on 21 January and said, quite rightly, "We must of course
always pay due heed to the rules for your sake as much as mine".
That is the first thing.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q129 Lord Dholakia: You then went
on to talk about the fees and "... I would expect a fee of
£2,500 per month, in the latter rather more." That is
the email that you sent.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q130 Lord Dholakia: There had been
seven or eight days in between the interview and the email that
you sent. You repeatedly said that you did not consult, you did
not look at the Code itself. Did it occur to you to consult the
Registrar about what had happened in relation to the discussions
so far because you go on to say in your annex that you sent to
your chronology of events that "... On Friday 23rd I received
a call on my mobile from `Taylor' who rattled on rather about
sending me a contract and asked me outright if I would write to
John Healey for them, and mentioned a possible fee of £500-£1,000
per month. My suspicions of her motive in speaking to me were
confirmed ..." I am trying to find out if your suspicions
were confirmed, first of all what were your suspicions and at
that stage did you inform the authority about what was going on?
Lord Moonie: No, I did not. I am trying
to think. I know I was abroad for part of the time on business
and I had a fairly full weekend between the two events. I cannot
now remember which day I spoke to Jack Cunningham, but I did not
really give it much thought until they got back to me on the Wednesday.
I do remember it clearly as being the Wednesday morning. It is
one of these funny things in your mind, nobody ever telephones
you when you are sitting on your own in a room but if you are
standing talking to an assistant in a busy shop in Knightsbridge
then of course they do and I had to break off my conversation
with the girl. I say suspicions, there was nothing I could put
my finger on at that time because I had not done any of the due
diligence one would expect. You may think that rather dilatory
of me but until I received—If I may, just as an example,
I have brought two examples of contracts with me just to show
the level of detail that one would expect people to go into in
proper consulting agreements. Still assuming this was a legitimate
enquiry, that is what I assumed would be coming to me for consideration.
At that time I would have done whatever was necessary to ensure
that what I was doing was okay. It just did not strike me that
what I still considered to be a relatively informal situation—I
had suggested a range of fees and it was up to them to come back
and start some form of concrete offer.
Q131 Chairman: The journalists are
very clear of what they wanted you to do, that was to amend legislation.
Did that not in any way concern you because their intentions were
very clear, they were very clear what they wanted you to do? If
it did concern you, why did you continue to negotiate with them?
Lord Moonie: Because I assumed that what
they were asking stemmed from ignorance of the procedures rather
than any other motive. They said themselves they had no experience
of dealing with legislation at some stage during the transcript
which was why they were seeking a parliamentary consultant. In
a way one would put it down to naivety about the parliamentary
process and questions. I tend to take people at face value. On
the face of it, they were legitimate people who did not know what
they were talking about. It was not until she started to press
me later on that I began to wonder whether there was more to this
than met the eye.
Q132 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
Can I just press you once more on the email. You say in it, "I
have taken advice from colleagues ..." I think that was just
Lord Cunningham.
Lord Moonie: That was just one colleague,
yes.
Q133 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
"... as to the range of activities I can carry out for you."
Did that conversation give you greater clarity about the Code
which, although you said to the journalist is pretty clear; you
earlier said to us you thought it was not altogether clear? What
did you think you were going to be doing for your £2,500
a month?
Lord Moonie: I thought that I was going
to be advising them on how to get amendments to legislation put
down in one or other of the Houses.
Q134 Chairman: Can I ask one general
question, Lord Moonie. Regardless of your conversations with journalists
and technicalities of the agreement and so on, would you say that
the purpose and the tenor of your conversation with the MJA would
be regarded as honourable?
Lord Moonie: My own?
Q135 Chairman: Yes?
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q136 Chairman: You thought your conversation
was within the bounds of what the Code permitted?
Lord Moonie: They expressed—how
shall I put it—I cannot think of anything that I said or
did in my contacts with them that was not within the bounds of
conduct. If it were then it was entirely inadvertent. I would
never do anything, it is not worth it. Quite apart from the fact
it is wrong, it is not worth it.
Q137 Lord Cope of Berkeley: You mentioned
just now the other contracts. I picked up from one of the bits
of paper you sent a quotation from one of the Northrop Grumman
people in which he said, "Members of the strategic advisory
board ..." of which I believe you are a member—
Lord Moonie: Yes.
Q138 Lord Cope of Berkeley: "
... are expressly prohibited from contacting, directly or indirectly,
any public or government officials on our behalf and promoting
or marketing any products or services of Northrop Grumman."
He presumably correctly describes the agreements or that aspect
of the agreements which you had?
Lord Moonie: Yes, absolutely.
Q139 Lord Cope of Berkeley: Because
that places you very firmly within what is allowed under the Code
in my view in the case of that one.
Lord Moonie: Yes.
| 
