The Conduct of Lord Moonie, Lord Snape, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn - Privileges Committee Contents

Lord Truscott—Hansard Transcripts and Original E-mails

Telephone Call to Lord Truscott ("PT") from "Claire Taylor" ("Woman") of the Sunday Times, Friday 9 January 2009

Telephone CD1 page 3 of 28

  [new call]

  PT: Hello.

  Woman: Hello, is that Lord Truscott?

  PT: Yes, speaking.

  Woman: Hello, my name's Clare Taylor. I'm calling from Michael Johnson Associates. I'm sorry to call you slightly out of, er, the blue. I work for a communications company, as I said, called Michael Johnson—

  PT: Yes.

  Woman: We're, we've got a number of clients and we mainly work in Brussels, but we're looking to kind of expand our network in the UK and one of my researchers did some work to identify people at your kind of level who we might be interested in doing some consultancy work with, perhaps, on a freelance basiq or retainer—

  PT: Yes.

  Woman: ... and you were identified, and I wondered if you might like to meet up and have a coffee about it some time.

  PT: Yes, I think, er, well, I do do sort of similar type work with one or two organisations, so yes, I'd be happy to chat about it in, er, in, er principle and I'm just trying to find my diary at the moment. Where are you based?

  Woman: In London. In Trafalgar Square kind of area.

  PT: Right, okay. Okay. And it's Michael Johnson, is it?

  Woman: Yes, Michael Johnson Associates, or MJA.

  PT. Right. Okay, now let's see. Now, are you around next week?

  Woman: Yes, I am. I know it's recess at the moment. I'm sorry to bother you.

  PT: No, no, no. That's okay. I've sort of started, erm, started, erm ...

  Woman: Going back.

  PT: This week, because it's been a sort of exceptionally long recess.

  Woman: Yes, it has, hasn't it? That's quite fortunate, I suppose.

  PT: Gordon Brown has decided we're only going to sit 128 days this year, which has pluses and minuses. Right, well actually, let's see now, are you free actually Monday afternoon?

Telephone CD1 page 4 of 28

  Woman: Monday's a bit tricky, actually. I've got a couple of meetings that day that might go on for a while, but I'm free practically any other day. I'm quite flexible.

  PT: Sorry?

  Woman: The other days of the week, I'm completely flexible, especially the end of the week.

  PT: Right, let's see now, erm, right, erm, in that case, let's see, how about Wednesday?

  Woman: Yes, Wednesday's fine.

  PT: At sort of 3.30. [inaudible] That's the afternoon tea slot in the Lords.

  Woman: Shall I come and see you in the Lords? Okay.

  PT: Yes, yes. If you come and see me in the Lords, erm, say 3.30, if you come to the Peers' entrance ... I don't know whether you know that. Do you know the Peers' entrance?

  Woman: Yes, I do.

  PT: Yep, if you come to the Peers' entrance at 3.30 then we'll have, er, have tea. Sorry, what's your name again?

  Woman: It's Clare Taylor.

  PT: Clare Taylor. All right. Okay. So, 3.30 on Wednesday and then we'll have a chat ...

  Woman: Yeah, that sounds good. All right.

  PT: All right.

  Woman: Take care

  PT: Thanks for your call. Bye bye.

  Woman: Bye bye.

  [end of call]

Meeting of Lord Truscott ("PT") with "Claire Taylor" ("Woman") and "David Thompson" ("Man") of the Sunday Times at the House of Lords, Wednesday 14 January 2009

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 1 of 24

  Woman: Hi, nice to meet you. I've brought along one of my directors.

  Man: Hello there, hi, nice to meet you.

  [Going through security]

  Woman: I shall try not to pick up somebody else's coat.

  PT?: They've got an underground car park in the Commons. Actually that was where Airey Neave was killed because the IRA set a bomb under his car and he was blown up ... We don't use the Commons car park.

  Woman: Luckily.

  [inaudible inconsequential chit chat about car parks as they walk along]

  Woman: It's surprising how cold it is today. I thought it was getting warmer.

  [More inaudible inconsequential chat about Monday and Sunday and the rooms that they are walking through, I think, plus how they got here today.]

  Woman: I wonder if I might just go to the ladies loo actually. Which way is it?

  PT: Yes, sure. Right, well, it's quite a way from here. If you go the way we came, it is through the Princes' Chamber where people were hanging around, keep on going and it's on your right.

  Woman: Okay, I'll find it. What's this room called, in case I get lost?

  PT: This is Peers' Dining Room.

  [Woman reporter goes to the toilet and uses the sink afterwards, all with the microphone on.]

  Man: How do you find it being in the Lords compared to being the Commons?

  LT: Well, I have never been in the Commons, so I would not know, really, although I have got friends in the Commons. I was an MEP, which is a totally different sort of environment. The European Parliament is different world, in a way. It is a multinational institution, it works on the basis of consensus and you've got electronic voting. We had very modern offices, particularly in Brussels, and the Lords is sort of the opposite, really. It's one of the oldest democratic institutions, certainly in terms of parliamentary institutions it's one of the oldest in the world and it's a sort of part-time environment. Very few Members of the House of Lords have staff, for example. The Cross-Benchers and many of the people who were appointed for public service don't really see themselves as politicians at all. They are here to feed in their thoughts on issues that they feel strongly about or know about, so it's a sort-of part-time institution, but as a historian, I mean, I studied history and got a doctorate in history

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 2 of 24

  from Oxford, so I feel quite at home with the history of the place and I like it. One of my former colleagues from the European Parliament said they would like to scrap the House of Lords and work from the purpose of ??? but I quite like the history of the place, so there you are.

  [10.00]

  And also when I was a researcher I was sort of coming in here interviewing Peers back in the 80s, so I'm sort of familiar with the place and then a few MEPs and my colleagues came here.

  Woman: Yeah

  PT: There are five MEPs that were here that were in parliament at the same time [ ... ].

  Man: I am sure Clare knows all of this, but you came from straight from being an MEP to being a Lord, because you were a Minister of course.

  PT : There was a gap, actually. I was an MEP 94 to 99, and then between 99 and 2004 when I came in I was doing other things, writing books, particularly on Russia and wrote Putin's biography, adviser to the European Commission, adviser to our Government as well. So I was involved with a whole number of things, and then Tony Blair invited me to come in here, but there was quite a delay with a list coming forward because of the ideas for further reform that Robin Cook had ... so in effect although after every election there are a number of MPs coming and others coming in, my political list was held up for about three years.

  Woman: Oh right.

  PT: So I knew I was—

  Woman: You knew it was coming.

  PT: But it was an awful long delay.

  Man: And you had to do something in the mean time

  PT: Yeah

  Woman: Yeah

  PT: Something in the mean time. And the other deal is that if you are a working Peer like I was really you have to have the sort of interests that can fit in with being a working Peer.

  Woman: Yeah

  PT: So I've got quite a good attendance record, about 80%, so, yeah, the average is about 50, 40 to 50 per cent. That is part of the deal that you ... Tony Blair particularly wanted me to come here to talk about foreign affairs and security issues, Europe to a certain extent, and then after about 18 months he invited me, when Lord Sainsbury stood down at DTI he invited me to go to the DTI as a Minister, but not as

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 3 of 24

  Science Minister, which was Sainsbury's brief, but as Energy Minister, so I did that, and then I left at the same time as Tony Blair, although Gordon Brown did invite me to stay as Consumer Affairs Minister in the new BERR department, but consumer affairs is not really my thing. Certain things I am interested in that, you know, energy, international affairs, trade but domestic and consumer affairs. This may be your, you need to tell me about your organisation because it's not a particular interest of mine so. One beauty of the House of Lords is that you can be a bit choosey in the Lords.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: One difference with the Commons is of course most people, unless they are in rock-solid safe seats, they don't know how long they are going to be there.

  Woman: Yeah

  PT: Because, you know, they are all there by the grace of the electorate and most of them want to get as far up the greasy pole as they can in a limited time.

  Woman: Yeah

  PT: Very people actually turn down jobs in the Commons. They just go for it. They tend to be jacks of all trades whereas here I mean quite a few people are specialists or experts and it does also mean that you can sort of pick and chose to a certain extent. I mean the average age is 68, so in political terms [ ... ] experience [ ... ] future role

  Woman: Yeah

  PT: Quite a few people start their political careers in their 60s here so [ ... ]

  Woman: It's great really, isn't it?

  PT: I've got some time to go [ ... ] So tell me about Michael Johnson Associates. I mean, I did try to Google you but, um, I only came up with Michael Johnson Australia and one in the States so.

  Man: It depends which one you got for us ... We started off in Brussels actually, but shortly—about the same time as you left, by the sound of things— it's a public affairs company set up by a man called Michael Johnson in Australia and initially we set the Brussels base, it has been doing public affairs in Brussels now for sort of 10 years, I suppose, and we set up an office here in the UK back in 2002, which was initially communications really and didn't do public affairs here but just recently we have decided to move into public affairs in the UK, which is partly why we wanted somebody to help us with connecting with the two Houses of Parliament.

  [15.00]

  At the moment we've got certain clients. We've got one client in particular that we're thinking of who's looking for some help. We get a lot of our [inaudible] one of our [inaudible] companies who do not necessarily have strong contacts within the two Houses, and I think one of our researchers, erm ...

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 4 of 24

  Woman: Yes, that's right, to identify people we might like to talk to, to kind of expand our political network, I suppose. And also, as a company we're interested in maybe having some consultants that kind of do work for us and provide us with political expertise, as well as perhaps people that can work more directly for individual clients. Both are an option, and your name came up when the researchers ...

  PT: I do various sort of work for companies and organisations. Some of it's sort of strategic advice, depending on, er, the market [inaudible] going to or whether it's the sort of passage of legislation, the development of legislation and how the Government work, and what's happening in internal departments and the way to go about influencing Government and legislation that's going through, then the interface really between Parliament with business and how that sort of works, and I also give some advice on [inaudible].

  Man: Gosh.

  PT: It depends what sort of advice your clients are looking ... Are they looking at the sort of legislative stuff that they can give, you know, contracts with Government or were they thinking of just how the political system works?

  Man: Rather than contracts with the Government, it's more the legislation. The particular client we have in mind—and bear in mind that if we were to have some sort of arrangement, then there might be other clients as well in the future—the particular client we have in mind is setting up a retail group [inaudible] sort of consumer affairs [inaudible] but that's sort of neither here nor there, and it's going to set up 40 retail clothing chains across the United Kingdom within the next 18 months. They're calling it [inaudible] but that doesn't exist as such at the moment, that's just a working title. They are a company called Won King, which is Taiwanese, which has more than 2,000 clothes retail outlets not just in Taiwan but in the broader Far East, and our own client, the connection comes in, it's a conglomerate between the two, is a man called Li Lu Jiang, who is an importer/exporter. We came across him initially because he did some work, we did some work for him on tariffs at the European Union because he exports to the European Union, and he asked us to get involved with this ... They are very used to, in their own countries, having quite a close relationship with the Government when it comes to setting up a major business project such as this, and they have identified a number of issues that they see as important to them. One of them is the Business Rates Supplement Bill—I don't know if anybody, probably, you may or may not—

  PT: Yup.

  Man: I can jog your memory. What is it? The Business Rates Supplement Bill is an extra 2% rate on top of the existing business rate, which is being proposed—in fact, it had the Second Reading on Monday in the Commons and it's coming up to the Lords. Already people are paying around about 43% in business rates, so they're quite high. So the imposition of an extra tax was not really welcome to our client. It's a measure that was brought in really to finance Crossrail, as far as I can see. It's a way for councils to use that money to finance the Olympics [inaudible] projects.

  [20.00]

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 5 of 24

  One of the things they were looking to do, or he was looking to do. And I think that concern at this matter is shared by the British Retail Consortium and the Forum for Private Business, so we are looking to see if it could be, the Bill could be amended in some way. So, for instance, there are two possibilities. One is that the Bill is amended so that the retailers who are affected, ie the retailers who would actually be paying the tax, the businesses that would be paying the tax, vote on it before the tax is levied. There is some scope within the Bill already for consultation with the retailers but it doesn't quite go as far as saying they should vote on it. Alternatively, a possibility is that there may be an exemption introduced into the Bill for new businesses. And what we were looking for is somebody who might be able to help us with that sort of area. I know it is not something you can instantly say, "Well, I know all about [inaudible] ...

  PT: I mean, as I say. I mentioned about consumer affairs but I was passing a consumer affairs Bill through the Lords and the Lords [inaudible] and the Government [inaudible] for the DTI and covered everything for the Lords. I mean, I do, erm, I followed the Energy Bill, for example, when we went through it. I mean it is in the public record. I mean I advise a smart metering company which is interested obviously in smart metering and smart meters.

  Man: This would be the meters that you have in people's homes that turn things off

  PT: Yes, that's right. To tell you what your, the energy that you are using is going to cost and ...

  Woman: Yes. So you get far more information

  Man: The companies themselves, they have, they can read your usage without having to check the meter reading, so ...

  Woman: Oh, right.

  PT: It's good for the company and for their consumers. You should be able to see the costs and maybe encourage them to switch over ...

  Woman: Yes.

  Man: And what are they looking for? What do they [inaudible]?

  PT: Well, I mean ... First of all, the Energy Bill included clauses on smart metering and everything, so I was advising on that sort of thing in the Bill, and also looking to the future, obviously, they are hoping to ensure that the technical specifications sort of fit in with the way that they are thinking as well.

  Woman: mmm ... [murmur of agreement]

  PT: The Government doesn't (require?) a specification for smart meters which.

  Woman: They can't do

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 6 of 24

  [mixed voices and laughter]

  PT: And then eventually they want to move to the position where they can, you know, bid for the smart meters concept ... quite substantial. Obviously they have really put themselves in the prime position and, I mean, that is quite a big market. When you think of 44 million households.

  Woman: Quite a lot of people for these meters

  PT: A millions of pounds market, really

  Woman: Yes, well, a lot of people use those meters, don't they?

  PT: Yes, I mean it may not just be one company. But, even so, if they receive quite a chunk of it, that is quite a significant [inaudible] so obviously they've got an interest in that, and I advise them on that. Incidentally, I've just had lunch (this could be "I should have had lunch") with somebody from Gazprom so, er, one of the companies that I advise is Gazprom ... I don't advise Gazprom directly ...

  [mixed voices and laughter]

  PT: I would manage to get in Private Eye for doing that so it is an indirect connection. So I do advise ... One thing I would say, though. If you have sort of legislation going through, I can advise you on the process. We can work on who puts the amendments, but I wouldn't put amendments directly myself ...

  Man: Right

  PT: Because if I am paid as a, as a consultant, then I can't be paid for parliamentary advocacy, as it were.

  Man: I see.

  PT: So, while I ... as I did ... I spoke on the Energy Bill and declared an interest and mentioned smart meters, I can declare an interest. But I would not be comfortable myself being paid by the company to put amendments directly myself. What I could do is advise on the process. You know, identify all the people who would be willing to ... who could be approached to put the amendments forward and all that sort of stuff. So I draw a line between sort of advice, consultancy, and actually ... er ... er ... er ... direct advocacy of, you know, particular causes ... like if I was sort of paid by a company or whatever. So, as I say, I mean, the smart metering case is a case in point. I spoke on the Second Reading of the Energy Bill and I did mention smart meters amongst other things, but I declared an interest. I monitored the Bill going through about smart meters and the amendments that were going through ... and that the amendments that industry wanted to see put forward were put forward, but they weren't put forward by me.

  Woman: Mmm (agreement)

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 7 of 24

  PT: And then I held meetings with officials to discuss various issues including the smart meters, but I didn't stand up and say, "I move an amendment on behalf of, effectively, smart meters.

  Woman: Yes

  Man: Mmm (agreement)

  PT: Because clearly, I mean, that would be, you know, that would be, er, frowned on because someone would say, "Well, you were patently paid to move this amendment." So, you know, I have to be a bit careful ...

  [25.00]

  Man: You can find somebody else who will do it for you?

  PT: Well, I mean, it wouldn't be for me, would it? It would be for you.

  Woman: It would be for the company.

  PT: All I can do is facilitate the system and advise but I can't get involved in the paid advocacy in Parliament.

  Woman: You can't actually do it.

  PT: Because that is against the rules and the code of conduct, plus it would make me a big target for the media. It wouldn't be good for your client either. What I am saying is, there are ways to do these things but you have to be—there's a degree of subtlety required and you have to work behind the scenes, to a certain extent. Most people are actually happy with that because at the end of the day what you want is good advice, you want results, you want to be able to influence things. Again, smart metering things, I held meetings with officials. I could pick up the phone with officials and say, "What's happening?"

  Woman: Officials at the department—civil servants?

  PT: I could say what's happening [inaudible] or, well, there are these issues cropping up in the Bill [inaudible]. So I am perfectly happy with doing that but you just have to be a bit careful about paid advocacy.

  Man: Is that now an Act?

  PT: The Energy Bill? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Smart metering is involved and there are going to be further Government announcements about how they are going to implement. I mean the decision of the Government is starting to get—all this is in the public domain so there's not really any confidentiality. The Government said they would spend about two years working out how the implementation would actually be achieved, the technical side of it, how it would be introduced and then smart meters would be rolled out to all domestic households over a 10-year period.

  Woman: Right.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 8 of 24

  PT: Ten years plus two is 12. So that's, you know, that's an ongoing thing.

  Man: And did it in the end work out the way that your company wanted?

  PT: Yeah, they were very happy because they got a Government commitment to do the thing, to roll out these things.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: There is a watching brief because then you have to watch all the implementation. It is one thing, as you know, for all these issues, making an announcement, the other thing is sort of implementing it and watching all the detail.

  Man: Were there any sort of crucial points at any point [inaudible] that people had to change or was the Government likely thinking along the right lines from the start?

  PT: Well, there are issues that cropped up, but, I mean, that's why amendments were moved and issues were raised and the Government had to think about all that were important to industry. They wanted them to highlight ...

  Woman: Yeah.

  Man: I say that because say, for example, an issue such as we have here, is it possible for us to just leave it with you to identify the right people and coach them?

  PT: Well, I think it would—I mean, it should normally be a sort of partnership, as it were, you know.

  Man: So you would want some input from us as well?

  PT: I mean, normally, normally, that's the way it works, yes. I mean, I can sort of identify people and talk to them and sort of talk with officials and all this sort of thing but normally I would work with the organisation.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: I might, for example, say that Clare, you know, such and such a person is following this and you really need to chat to them and stick out all their notes, put a briefing note, have a cup of tea with them and say would you move these amendments, Lord Truscott mentioned it [inaudible] you know.

  Woman: Yes. That's essentially—without me personally, say, knowing any of these people, it would be quite difficult for me to pick up the phone and say hello, you've never heard of me, I wonder if you could do this amendment for me please.

  PT: Yeah, going in cold is difficult. It's knowing [inaudible] I mean that's the thing about why, you know, lobby groups and PR companies, you know, use .... You don't know who to approach, who's interested, and if you approach the wrong person, you're going cold and you could be absolutely wasting your time.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 9 of 24

  Woman: Yes.

  Man: The information is not available from the outside. You don't have an idea, if someone is looking in, you don't see it.

  PT: For example, there was an occasion again with the Energy Bill when the Energy Retail Association approached me and said, you know, will you move these amendments? I said no I won't, but I know who will. I know the person that's interested in [inaudible] and it was one of my colleagues that did move the amendment.

  Man: Because they'd seen you were interested in it, presumably.

  PT: Yeah, well, as a former Energy Minister [inaudible]

  Woman: Yes.

  [30.00]

  PT: He said, you know, will you move these amendments? I said, well, you know, I'm monitoring the Bill but I did not want to be seen to be moving amendments myself. Some of my colleagues might be happy to do that. But again, you know, it depends on who you're interested in and what. It depends on the circumstances, you know. There can be some sort of grey areas. But, again, you know, if you have a clear linkage—you had a client who wanted this achieved ...

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: It would not necessarily be that they'll accept that sort of approach.

  Woman: But you could smooth the way for us.

  PT: Yeah.

  Woman: For instance, you could say this person you need to speak to, I've spoken to them already. You know, they're expecting your call.

  PT: Yes, I mean, again on the BERR thing, the er, the sort of client said, well what's happening about this government decision? We've heard, you know, that it's going to be delayed. You know, what are the things that's sort of holding up, the problems. So I can just ring up someone and chat to them.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: They had their CEO over from Australia. He's just come from Australia, he's off to New York. So I had to have.

  Man: The CEO of ...?

  PT: The CEO of the client company.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 10 of 24

  Man: Oh, I see, right.

  PT: The other thing that I often would do with, say, an organisation like yourselves is say well, we can have a lunch or a cup of tea and sort of chat a bit about the issues. You know, the way the Government's ... you know, what the Government position is, what they want to achieve and how you could, er, bridge the gap.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Like, I've been involved in one or two other things. The sale of BE, for example, British Energy, both as a Minister and then there were various bids. One or two of the bidders sort of approached me to advise them on that process. [Garbled.]

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: You know, EDF XXXX

  Woman: Yes, they were successful.

  PT: So to, er, press ahead with it. Are you waiting for Gordon Brown's brother?

  Woman: Laughs. Yeah.

  PT: No, no, I'm not saying there's a connection necessarily.

  Man: I often wonder how that works.

  PT: Well, they will say that, you know, there is no direct connection. I think he does communications or something.

  Woman: Yeah, I think so.

  PT: So there's no doubt .... But I know ??? pretty well because, er, he ??? UK energy ???

  Woman: Yes.

  Man: So, actually, I always fancied that Brown's a very straight individual. So I can't imagine he would.

  PT: Yeah. I mean, pfff, EDF's been the front runner for some time ???

  Woman: Did you ever help EDF at all? With anything?

  PT: No. No, I didn't work with EDF. But I did work with some of the other companies involved. So I don't think, I mean, there wouldn't be any clash between a retail company any other client you've got.

  Man: ???

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 11 of 24

  M: No, I was thinking about that. But I was just worried, partly when I was ???. The other thing I like to be sort of up-front with the companies I do work with. I am a non-executive director of several companies, mainly in exploration and production and a couple of ??? companies. And I advise several companies as well, but it's all on the register of interests.

  Woman: Right.

  PT: What I would say is if there was a conflict of interest then I would write to your company appropriately, or I may even not be able to do it because you have a client that was, er,

  Woman: They were too similar to something you were already doing, yeah.

  PT: Or ??? or whatever.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: Um, you know, we'd discuss it and ...

  Man: ??

  PT: Yeah. I mean, because, as we were saying earlier, most people in the Lords, it's part time. ??????. We meet sort of half past two, three o'clock in the afternoon and go on `till 10 o'clock at night sometimes, but most people have outside interests as a result and it tends to be a sort of portfolio type of existence. I mean, some people write or ... Ruth Rendell is a Labour Peer, but generally people have sort of other sort of part-time interests. Those sort of interests that fit in with being a Member of the Lords, so it's—

  Man: I would imagine it's easier to be a Member of the Lords in that sense than being a Member of Parliament. Sort of standards—

  PT: Yeah.

  Man: ... sort of expected to kind of work for their constituencies ...

  PT: There, it's the exception having other interests. Or maybe if they've got other interests it takes up maybe 10 per cent of their time. They have their constituencies and other things. Here it's more of a balance. Say you have 50/50 or even, you know, 60/40 people having outside interests taking up quite a bit of their time.

  [35.00]

  So, in terms of the conflicts of interests, everyone is pretty well experienced in handling those sorts of issues. I've got my published Register of Interests here, which is open to the public anyway. So it's all above board. There's nothing that lacks transparency.

  Man: How does it work? Would you put us on the register or our client on the register?

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 12 of 24

  PT: No, it would be you, rather than the client. Because it's still only a year since I was a Minister, any job that I want to do has to go before the business advisory appointments committee. Usually what they say is that it's okay to take up a position, providing it's beyond ... if you've been a Minister more than 12 months before, in that case, you can't directly lobby government or government departments. I have never seen my role as lobbying. I am not personally a lobbyist. I don't actually lobby. What I will do if someone wanted—a client, for example— ... lobbying companies that lobby. I don't mind advising lobbyists, but I don't personally lobby.

  Man: You don't phone up officials and make the pitch yourself?

  PT: No, I wouldn't do that. That's the other thing to make clear. I don't lobby myself. I don't mind being employed by them, but I advise the lobbyists rather than doing the pitch myself. I am happy to find out information, but that's a slightly different thing. That's just my view. As I say, then the advisory committee usually gives us advice and says, "Well, yes, there's not a problem with you taking up this position providing you don't lobby". As I say, I'm quite a ...

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: And then, the other thing is the Lords Register of Interests, which every company you work for, you list the company, and in what capacity, whether it's as a director, a consultant, whatever. In this case, if it's a parliamentary consultancy, then you can state that in the contract, or whatever. I only do general consultancy for ... therefore, I would write that ... agreement that I'm a consultant with Michael Johnson ... That's it. Your client list is probably confidential, so there is not really anyone's business who your clients are.

  Man: It would just be Michael Johnson. Yeah, that's right. We wouldn't be pushing you into breaking any rules, insofar as it would be parliamentary, obviously.

  PT: Yeah, but it wouldn't be exclusively parliamentary work. I wouldn't be employed as a parliamentary applicant or lobbyist. That's the key definition. I would advise on ??? ... interests, or whatever. It may well be that ??? ... next time has a broader remit.

  Woman: Yes. And how does it work with your current consultancies? Do you work on a kind of retainer basis, or?

  PT: Yes. Two other ... I mean, as I say, I'm a non-executive director of several companies, but I'm also a consultant to those companies ... basically ... all different things ... operating from the Soviet Union or Africa ... international relations. There are two companies that currently I'm consulting with. One is the smart metering company.

  Woman:. Mm.

  PT: And the other one is a financial PR company. One of their clients is, this is in the public domain, is Gazprom.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 13 of 24

  Woman: Right.

  PT: So, as I say, Gavin Anderson. Have you heard of Gavin Anderson?

  Man: Yeah.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: So, I mean.

  Man: [inaudible] They are international as well.

  PT: Yeah.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: They sell themselves as the biggest financial PR company in the world, but they do lots of IPOs, merger and acquisition, er. These do have some [inaudible] clients, but I mean, we'd have to judge whether that was, you know of itself [inaudible]. But from what you're saying, it's quite easy to separate it. Separate clients and separate issues.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Certainly the sort of stuff that you are talking about is different concerns. That's why [inaudible] Like I said, they've got things like British Energy, IPOs, Gazprom.

  Man: What are Gazprom's interests in the [inaudible] They don't own anything in the UK. Do they have them?

  [40.00]

  PT: Well, again, without breaching confidentiality, I mean, Gazprom employs three [inaudible] agencies [inaudible] one in Brussels [inaudible].

  Woman: Yeah.

  Man: Oh yeah yeah yeah.

  PT: One in the states. Ketchum. Have you heard of Ketchum?

  Woman: No.

  Man: No.

  PT: And one for the UK, which overlaps a bit with Brussels.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: [inaudible] Gavin Anderson. They advise them on all the financial PR, their image and how to present things. They've been quite busy I would say with Ukraine.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: Er, um, and I had dinner with, you know, the deputy CEO of Gazprom [inaudible].

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 14 of 24

  Man: Oh I see.

  PT: So I talk to Gazprom, and I had lunch with the UK PR director today for Gazprom. So I am in contact with Gazprom, but mainly through Gavin Anderson.

  Man: Right.

  PT: Because I'm, I mean, that is a slightly different thing, that I'm sort of regarded as a Russian expert. [inaudible].

  Man: So both energy and Russia dovetail quite nicely.

  PT: Yeah, they do.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: I was involved with Russia before I was involved with, er, energy, really.

  Woman: Oh.

  PT: And I got to know energy through Russia. I met President Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan.

  Man: Did you?

  PT: And, yeah. So, I mean.

  Man: I was wondering whether Gazprom had any sort of interests here as ...

  PT: Well they've got, they've got, um, again it's all in the public domain. And, two years ago they had nothing in the UK.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Now they employ 200 people and, um, they've got ?fights? over the retail market.

  Man: Oh all right.

  Woman: Oh, I didn't know that.

  PT: So, and they also use London as a base for their carbon trading.

  Woman: Right.

  Man: Right.

  PT: They've recently done deals with India and Japan. Er, they're using it as a base of standing to, er, to the United States, and they also, they've got their gas trading arm here. They've got [inaudible] They've got a gas trading arm, an energy trading arm here. They're mainly based in Manchester. They've got another office in Bridgeport?. Um. So they're, you know, they're quite vigorously expanding as a sort of, this is, er, Gazprom marketing and trading in the UK, which is sort of an offshoot of, er, of

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 15 of 24

  Gazprom, their foreign exports retail arm. So, you know, there are all sorts of issues there, as well, and discussions around, you know, how much foreign companies like Gazprom should have in the UK market.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: To a certain extent there's a debate with EDF as well.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: Gazprom is a bit more sensitive about that.

  Man: We're already all our gas from them.

  PT: Well we're not actually. We only, you know, the UK.

  Man: No, we're not so bad, are we? It's Europe that's felt the effect of that.

  PT: Yeah. The UK gets about 3 per cent from Russia. So that [inaudible]

  Man: I didn't realise there was a ??limit?? on the amount that Gazprom can have in the UK.

  PT: There's not a limit. There's not a formal one.

  Man: It's just a—

  PT: There was a row a few years back about, er, how, you know, for example if Gazprom started buying up [inaudible] assets, er, you know, chunks of the energy infrastructure and UK companies, whether the Government would block it either on competition grounds or security grounds.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: And there was a disagreement between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Tony Blair basically said this. I wrote a report on political risk management a couple of years back and, er. Actually I'm an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute. I'm currently writing a report on energy security actually, which will be looking into security issues [inaudible]. But I wrote a report a couple of years ago, and there I documented there was really basically a row between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair which sucked in Alan Johnson. Er, Secretary of State for the DTI [inaudible], because Tony Blair was basically saying we were open liberalised market so Gazprom, they want to come in, they can [inaudible].

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Er, Gordon Brown was saying hold on, I mean, political issues here [inaudible] Are we going to [inaudible].

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 16 of 24

  PT: So there was a bit of a debate about that. It was never really reconciled in the department and the Treasury. Certainly when I was in the DTI [inaudible] debate, very wary [inaudible] Gazprom. And, er, there were other issues, security issues as well. Um. Some of which is secret. Um, but which would have meant that, er, Gazprom would have probably [inaudible].

  Man: Oh I see.

  PT: Now, you know, things move on but it's still very sensitive.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Gazprom is probably sort of, gradually, the the UK arm's gradually sort of expanding in the UK. And this expanding is sort of in the retail sector. I mean, the big issue a couple of years ago was talk about Gazprom thinking of a sale???

  Woman: Oh right.

  PT: That would have been a big issue because of, you know, security issues, storage and all that. You know, Gazprom owning ??? or whatever.

  [45.00]

  PT: So, those sorts of things I'm quite happy with.

  Woman: Um.

  PT: As well.

  Man: Oh I see.

  Woman: Do you work for other clients within Gavin Anderson or is, do you just work with Gazprom?

  PT: Well, I mean, the way that it works with them is that they often say, we have a client who would like to talk to you about this [inaudible] they ask me to take on such and such. Gazprom is in the public domain. I have talked about British Energy or the other clients. And generally also we have occasional meetings where we talk about issues of interest to them and their client ... ??? this that and the other or they'll ask me ... ??? Your earlier question was how does this work with them. I mean, I work on a retainer basis. Usually, with the consultancy thing, it's all parliamentary-led???

  Sunday Times: Yeah.

  PT: I don't do timesheets or anything, but, generally, it works ??? might call somebody ??? one or two days a month. Time-wise, it varies.

  Man: So it's an hour here, an hour there. What is it likely to be ... ???

  PT: No, I mean, generally, it can vary. I mean, it depends. If I was to go to a conference in Zurich or something, that would be a whole day

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 17 of 24

  Woman: And sometimes, it can vary. Some months, I may only do a few hours, and, another month, you know, you get two days.

  Woman: Do much more, yes.

  PT: Mine is sort balanced. I sort of work ...

  Man: Do they say, you know, we want, I don't know, 60 miles out of you in one month???

  PT: Yeah, no, it does vary and it's flexible. The other way is that what you normally do is, say, sign a contract for 12 months with a review period. If you're not happy, you just don't continue with it. But, touch wood, so far, everyone I've worked with is happy. It may be that a relationship comes to an end for financial reasons, that you've achieved all your aims.

  Man: Yeah. So, what's the, sort of, going rate?

  PT: Well, my rate—

  Man: What's your rate?

  PT: Well, I get paid £2,000 a day.

  Man: So, in fact, it's £4,000.

  PT: If you want two days, or if you want one day ... You can do it either way.

  Woman: Oh, right. OK.

  PT: I mean, the other thing I would say as well is it depends how much time you want and what you want me to do. You may come up with a plan and say, "Well, we've got enough for you to do for one day a month, but probably not two days".

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Or you could say, "Well, we'll take one day a month and then we'll review it after 12 months".

  Woman: Yeah, and see it whether it needs to be increased or not.

  PT: An increase, or you think ... So you can review the situation and see whether you are happy with the arrangement. That's pretty standard ... for here really. You'll find, I think, the rate varies from £1,000 to £5,000 a day. So that's the equivalent of ... That's what I've been paid for the last ...

  Man: I don't think the money's ... In fact, it won't really be us who pays, it's the client.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 18 of 24

  Woman: Yes. Exactly.

  Man: Quite sort of relaxed about it. I think it's just a question of getting the right person.

  PT: Yeah.

  Woman: Do you want some more tea? A bit more water.

  Man: Presumably, if he was to come to the UK, you could show him around.

  PT: Yeah, yeah. I'll show him everything.

  Sunday Times: Do you ever organise dinners in the Lords or something like that?

  PT: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Just before Christmas I had the head of the Japanese bank for international co-operation, the present CEO ... the local office of ??? We had lunch and everything. And, yeah, I mean, I've done dinners before, lunches; I continue to show people round. The Gazprom people I showed around the Commons and the Lords. They were here for a dinner and then, afterwards, there was a big reception, and then I showed them the Lords and the Commons at the end of the day when you could go in the Chamber when it wasn't sitting, so they quite enjoyed that ...

  Woman: Yes.

  [50.00]

  Man: It's a fascinating historic building.

  PL: The other thing I can do is, quite apart from, say, if I have a lunch or dinner here, as an individual Member I can bring six people in without a problem. If we need a few more, then I can always get my colleagues to [inaudible]. But also you can hire a room for lunch or dinner as well.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: I do some philanthropic work for my college, Exeter College in Oxford, so I put on a dinner reception for them in the summer—no actually it's going to be in the autumn—in one of the rooms downstairs, the Cholmondeley Room, where you can have 50 people for dinner.

  Man: I hear it's quite hard to book a room sometimes because they're quite busy.

  PT: Sometimes. Members get some preferential slots. You can't just say, well I think I want a room, and in a month get one.... booking in advance ... You may get some slots and some flexible dates but they can be booked up quite a bit. It is better to book ahead if you want one of those rooms. Downstairs, we'll meet downstairs on the Terrace of the Lords. There's a big room, the Cholmondeley Room, which opens up on to the Terrace. The reception [inaudible]

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 19 of 24

  PT: Say for dinner or lunch for about 50 or 60. There's a smaller room, the Attlee Room, in which you can have a reception for about 60 people, or lunch or dinner for up to about 30 or 35. So those rooms you can book in the Lords. Often if it's just, say, for lunch or dinner you could come in here??[inaudible]—

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Or afternoon tea, which I find is a convenient slot for some people as well. They may not have time for lunch or dinner—you know, two hours—but they come for an hour for afternoon tea.

  Woman: Yes. It can be slightly less formal as well, can't it?

  Man: On the nitty-gritty, just going back to the business for a second on the Bill, which is obviously one of the things that has been identified to us [inaudible]. It's in its Second Reading, so it's not at its beginning [inaudible].

  PT: Is it in the Commons, the Second Reading?

  Man: Yes, a Commons Second Reading. In practice, if one were to try and amend it, say, with an amendment which said, for example, that you can, you were exempt for a certain period, would one have to ... Would you be looking for people who were already like-minded to do that sort of thing?

  PT: Or try to persuade them that it is a good idea. One or other. You'd start off in the Commons but it's easier to amend the things here, because, if you think, the Government's lost two votes in the House of Commons more or less since 1997 but they've lost 400 votes in the Lords. Because of the inbuilt government majority in the Commons, it's a lot easier to amend things here. The Government's got about 28 per cent of Members in the Lords, so there's no inbuilt majority.

  Man: Does that mean that they're more likely to make concessions then? Is that how it works?

  PT: Yes. Because they're more likely to lose votes. So that's when the Lords comes into its own as a sort of revising Chamber. So in that sense it's easier [inaudible] here.

  Man: Don't you ever virtually put down a formal amendment or is there a process in which there is [inaudible] and someone [inaudible].

  PT: You can get the Government to amend its own Bill, provided you can [inaudible] a Minister or his officials [inaudible] they can introduce their own amendments, and they may do that because they prefer to handle that themselves rather than have it imposed on them, even though it is fairly similar [inaudible], and then those cases [inaudible].

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 20 of 24

  PT: [inaudible] So they may well add it themselves so that they feel that they are in control [inaudible] ... the officials ....

  Man: Yeah.

  PT: [inaudible]. Director of policy responsible ... [inaudible] the Bill team.... Obviously, when it comes, I can advise on procedure and who to deal with in the Commons but obviously when it comes to the Lords it is far more within my ambit to influence it than in the Commons.

  [55.00]

  Man: Because you know the officials or—

  PT: Well I know the officials. I can contact the officials as it goes through the Commons stages, but in terms of, I can contact some of the MPs as well, but in terms of influencing Members and knowing the people, obviously I know the people better up here than in the Commons.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: I know people in the Commons, ex-colleagues and colleagues, but in a way because of the government inbuilt majority as well, it is sort of easier in the Lords to achieve what you want here [Inaudible]

  Woman: Yes.

  PT1: You have a first bite of the—if the Bill comes through the Commons first [Inaudible] but if the Bill starts off in the Commons, you have the first bite of the cherry there, you have the second bite here and you may even have a third bite [Inaudible]

  Woman: Yeah, so you've got lots of opportunities to try to get a—

  PT: [Inaudible]

  Man: [Inaudible]

  PT: The other thing is that I have staff to help as well.

  Woman: Do you have an office here with staff in it?

  PT: I have an office, but staff not based in the office, because we all have shared offices. Although I am in a sort of ministerial office, so we have [Inaudible] in the office, [Inaudible] Digby Jones, there is me and Lord Clinton-Davies [inaudible] he is getting on now. One of the problems with the Lords is A you do not have a budget for staff at all—

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 21 of 24

  PT: There is no researcher. It is not like the Commons where you have staff. You have no budget at all really, you have some expenses but no serious—you have nowhere to put staff.

  Woman: Quite a problem!

  Man: [Inaudible] that? You can get a desk, can't you?

  PT: I have a desk, and I share with two other people. When I was a backbencher before, I was in a room with 10 other people and that is quite common, especially—if you want to go across the road—I think it is better being in the Palace—you will be sharing with just one other person in Millbank, but I prefer to be in the Palace. It still means that there is nowhere to put staff, so the staff have to [Inaudible] I take people [Inaudible].

  Woman: So they are like consultants for you, I suppose.

  PT: Yeah, and/or research assistants for a time.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: But in reality a lot of it comes down to me.

  Woman: Mmm.

  PT: Because I know the people we are talking about

  Woman: Yes.

  Man: Yes, absolutely.

  PT: The head of the Bill team is not going to talk to a researcher.

  Woman: No. That is true.

  Man: That all sounds good.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: So you are just building up the public affairs side really?

  Woman: Yeah, that's right.

  Man: We are trying to make as many contacts as I suppose we can, and we feel that by having some key, strategic people, such as yourself, if we can go ahead, that would certainly help, we feel.

  PT: Have you got a card?

  Woman: Yes.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 22 of 24

  [Inaudible]

  PT: [Inaudible]. There is my email address: ***.

  Woman: Thank you. Great. Well, thank you very much for your time today, it was really lovely to meet you, and I think we just need to have a sit down and talk to our clients I think to make sure we get a 100 per cent what they want and plan the next couple of steps, so we will be back in touch with you shortly.

  Man: It sounds as if broadly you would be able to do it.

  PT1: Yeah, in principle, yes I would, yes. I do do similar things, and I've got the time to do it sort of currently in with what I am also doing, so the life is sort of part-time here. I am still working less hard [Inaudible] hours anyway than—

  Woman: Yes, I bet you worked very hard then.

  PT1: They give you a red box or two at the end of the day.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT1: I was lucky if I had half a day off a week, so—

  Woman: Oh, goodness me.

  [1.00.00]

  PT: I mean, the energy job was interesting, the energy brief was interesting, so I think being a Minister is overrated. I think if you don't really enjoy the brief, you shouldn't really do it. I may go back into Government at some stage in the future, but I'm quite happy to do other things for a while. So Gordon's invited me back a couple of times ... the first time round it wasn't really my thing, so I think now I'm committed do other things for a while—

  Man: Then maybe—

  PT: Then maybe at some point—

  Woman: What areas would draw you back? What are the—

  PT: I'm interested in energy, trade, security, foreign affairs [inaudible] areas of interest, so—

  Woman: Yes, there's quite a few there.

  PT: Yes, but I mean some things I'm not particularly interested. Consumer affairs, I wouldn't want to do that full time.

  Man: I can understand why.

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 23 of 24

  PT: You know, pensions, agriculture, all those things, important as they are—

  Woman: Yes. (Laughter)

  PT: They're not my cup of tea.

  Man: I can understand that [inaudible]

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: So there you are. Anyway, well nice to meet you.

  Woman: Yes, very nice to meet you.

  (Sounds of walking)

  Woman: Oh, yes.

  PT: [inaudible] in the spring you can use the terrace.

  Woman: Yes, that is lovely. Do a lot of people have, kind of, spring receptions or summer receptions on the terrace?

  PT: Yes, it's very nice [inaudible]

  Woman: Yes, it's very pleasant, isn't it?

  (Sounds of walking)

  Unknown male: [inaudible] about eight years.

  Unknown male: Oh, really.

  (Walking)

  Unknown male: Thank you very much.

  (Walking)

  (Inaudible chatter)

  Unknown male: Is that where you're from?

  Unknown male: No, I'm originally from South Devon.

  (Inaudible chatter and laughter)

  Woman: Where do I hand my pass into? What do you want, sorry [inaudible] No, I wasn't sure because I thought I saw another one, sorry. I thought I saw another one in

Lord Truscott Meeting (1) page 24 of 24

  there; I thought that's what you did. (Laughter) Yes, I have, no problem. Here, I can luckily squash it by my scarf. Nice to meet you. Have a nice afternoon. Bye, bye.

E-mail to "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times from Lord Truscott, Wednesday 14 January 2009

  From    ***

***

***

  To       [e-mail]

  Cc       [e-mail]

  Subject  SPAM-LOW: Meeting.

  Attachments cvO8(final)02doc, addendurn(final)2.doc.

  Date:  Wed 14/01/2009 18:05.

View:  HTML I Text I Header I Raw Content.

  Dear David,

  It was good to meet you and Claire this afternoon for tea. I attach my cv and addendum for your information. In principle, I think working together could be of great mutual interest and benefit. As I mentioned, probably 1-2 days per month would probably be sufficient, depending on the intensity of your campaign and work programme, with a review after 12 months.

  Do get in touch when you've had time to think about if further, and we could then have a follow-up meeting to finalise the details, if you are happy to proceed.

  Best wishes,

Peter

LORD TRUSCOTT

***

Curriculum vitae

Former UK Energy Minister and Department of Trade and Industry Government Spokesperson in the House of Lords; author and expert on Russia, the former Soviet Union, the EU political risk management and defence; media broadcaster; former Member of the European Parliament.

Currently a consultant and non-executive director working mainly with energy, mining and public affairs companies

1.  POLITICAL :

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (UK Energy Minister) at the Department of Trade and Industry and Government DTI Spokesperson in the House of Lords, 2006-07.

  UK's (sole) Energy Minister, with responsibility under the Secretary of State at the DTI (Alistair Darling), for oil and gas, coal, the North Sea, renewables, nuclear power and security, transmission and distribution, security of energy supply, the Shareholder Executive (including BE), sustainable development and the environment, energy infrastructure planning issues and tackling fuel poverty. Represented the UK at the EU's Energy Council of Ministers and the International Energy Agency. Jointly responsible for producing and publishing 2007 Energy White Paper.

  Lord (Peter) Truscott of St James's was appointed a Labour Peer on 1 of May 2004.

—  Departmental Liaison Peer to the UK Ministry of Defence, 2004-06.

—  Hon. Secretary, All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Army, 2004-06, 07-.

—  British Council Ambassador, Russian Federation and republics of the former Soviet Union, 2005-06, 07-.

—  European Union Select Committee, Sub-Ctee C (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy), House of Lords, 2005-06, 07-.

  Elected Member of the European Parliament for Hertfordshire, June 1994-July 1999.

—  Member of the Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy Committee, 1994-99.

—  Vice-President of the Security Sub-Committee, 1994-99.

—  Labour spokesperson in the European Parliament for Foreign Affairs and Defence and departmental link person for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Ministry of Defence (MoD), January 1997-July 1999.

—  Member of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with the Russian Federation and the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.

—  Shadow Rapporteur on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the Russian Federation, and the EU's Common Strategy towards the Russian Federation.

—  Official observer of the Duma elections, December 1995, and the Russian Presidential elections of 1996, on behalf of the European Parliament. Observed the 1999 Duma elections as long-tem observer and expert with the OSCE.

—  Co-ordinated and drafted response to the UK's Strategic Defence Review (SDR), submitted to the Secretary of State for Defence in the Commons Library.

—  Co-ordinated and drafted response to future European defence cooperation and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and submitted to the FCO and MoD.

—  European Parliament's rapporteur on future relations with Central Asia and Estonia's association agreement.

—  Attracted £120 million in EU loans and grants to Hertfordshire, 1994-99.

2.  EDUCATION:

  Oxford University, Exeter College, 1978-85. M.A and D.Phil. ("The Korean War in British Foreign and Domestic Policy, 1950-52"), Modern History, 1985. B.A. (Hons), Upper Second, Modem History, 1981; Exeter College History Prize, 1981.

3.  EMPLOYMENT

  2008-: Non-Executive Director and consultant, Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd; Non- Executive Director and consultant, African Minerals Ltd; Non-Executive Director and consultant, Eastern Petroleum Corporation Ltd; Director, Energy Enterprises Ltd. Consultant, Landis + Gyr Group.

  Associate Partner and Adviser, Opus Executive Partners, professional executive search firm and strategic advisers.

  Consultant, Gavin Anderson, global communications and financial public relations company.

  Currently writing a report for the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, provisionally entitled "European Energy Security- Facing a future of increasing dependency", for publication with ISBN number in July 2009.

  2006-07: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy at the Department of Trade and Industry and DTI Government Spokesperson in the House of Lords.

  2005-06, 08-: Associate Fellow, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, Whitehall, London. Published a Royal United Services Institute report on political risk management in the energy and defence sectors: The Ascendancy of Political Risk Management and its Implications for Global Security and Business Investment (RUSI, November 2006). Worked closely with companies in the energy and defence sectors to assess their levels of political risk and mitigation strategies.

  2004- : Appointed Life Peer, 1 May 2004 (Baron Truscott of St James's in the City of Westminster).

  Completed a year-long Industry and Parliament Trust placement with ConocoPhillips, BAE Systems, KPMG and Marsh to assess different commercial approaches to risk management (2004-05). Subsequently elected Fellow, Industry and Parliament Trust.

  2002- : Worked on internationally acclaimed political biography of President Vladimir Putin: Putin's Progress: A biography of Russia's enigmatic President Vladimir Putin (published by Simon and Schuster in several languages from 1 March 2004 and then paperback, January 2005).

  1999-02: Wrote and published the international bestseller Kursk: Russia's Lost Pride (Simon and Schuster, 2002). Subsequently turned into a National Geographic Discovery Channel documentary, presented by the author.

  Visiting, then Associate Research Fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), Published major IPPR report on European defence, European Defence: Meeting the Strategic Challenge (IPPR, 2000). Launched by the UK Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, who said the report was "..a significant contribution to an increasingly important debate." Involved working closely with defence companies engaged in the European defence market.

  Independent policy analyst, author and broadcaster. Wrote scores of articles (see addendum).

  Long-term Election Observer in the Russian Duma Elections with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

  Senior expert with the European Commission on a TACIS project in Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia, advising on establishing a European Policy and Legal Advice Centre to develop democracy and economic prosperity.

  1994-99: MEP for Hertfordshire.

  Wrote two parliamentary reports and Russia First, a book on Yeltsin's Russia (IB Tauris, 1997). The latter became a university text book on Russian foreign policy.

  1989-94: National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), Team Leader and later Manager.

  1986-89: Labour Party Political and Campaign Organiser.

4.  MEDIA EXPERIENCE

  Extensive media experience has included regular appearances on: BBC Newsnight, CNN (including 30 minutes on Q & A twice), Sky UK, European and World News, BBC TV News, BBC Breakfast, Breakfast with Frost, BBC News 24 and World, national radio ("Today", "PM", and the "World at One", "World Tonight", BBC World Service, Radio 2 Jimmy Young programme, Radio 4, 5 Live and UK Talk Radio), regional TV and local and regional radio stations, plus BBC Wales and Scotland. Appeared on Russia's NTV several times. Presenter and author for the National Geographic Discovery Channel's documentary, Seconds from Disaster: Sinking of the Kursk.

6.  PERSONAL

  Peter Truscott was born in Newton Abbot, Devon, on 20 March 1959. Married Russian-born Svetlana (nee Chernicova) Truscott, June 1991. Late father-in-law was Professor Colonel Nicolai Chernikov of St Petersburg. Hobbies are swimming, walking and the theatre.

7.  LANGUAGES

  Knowledge of Russian, French and Spanish.

8.  REFERENCES

  Available on request.

9.  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE, ETC:***

E-mail to Lord Truscott from "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times, Friday 16 January 2009

  Fri 16/01/2009 16:17.

  From    David Thompson

`David Thompson"

  To      *** "***

  Subject  re: Meeting

  View HTML I Text I Header I Raw Content

  Dear Peter,

  Thanks so much for your CV. I've sent it to Mr Jaing who is very impressed and appears keen to take things further. He's particularly anxious to get cracking on amending the Business Rates Supplement Bill as soon as possible.

  Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you but I've been very busy this week. Are you free next week to finalise details? I'll be free on Tues and Weds in the afternoon and my diary is empty on Thursday.

  Can you remind me of your day rate/ I didn't write it down and Claire and I remember different figures. Was it £3,750 a day?

Kind Regards

David

E-mail to "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times from Lord Truscott, Friday 16 January 2009

  Date    Fri 16/0l/200 16:54

  From    ***

"***"

  To      [e-mail]

  Cc      [e-mail]

  Subject  SPAM-LOW: RE: Meeting.

  View HTML I Text I Header I Raw Content.

  Dear David,

  Good to hear from you. Currently I charge £2,000 per day, plus VAT. I think the only question was whether you would require 1 or 2 days per month, or even more, depending on the intensity of your campaign. One- two days usually covers a watching brief on your areas on interest, with advice and input so you achieve your aims. Obviously, we'd have to make a rough assessment of how much time and input you want me to commit. After my meeting with you and Claire, and the urgency of your issues, my feeling is that two days per month could be sufficient, with a review after 12 months.

  I'm free on Wednesday afternoon. Would you care to come in for tea again at 3.30pm, Peers' Entrance?

  Best wishes,

  Peter

E-mail to Lord Truscott from "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times, Tuesday 20 January 2009

  Date    Tue 20/01/2009 09:17

  From    David Thompson

"David Thompson"

  To      ***

"***"

  Subject  re: SPAM-LOW: RE: Meeting.

  View HTML I Text Header I Raw Content.

  Thank you Peter.

  We can do Wednesday afternoon but I have a diary clash. Would you be able to come for tea with us at The St James's Hotel and Club, 7-8 Park Place, SW1, at 4.30pm? It just make our logistics easier.

  Many thanks

  David

E-mail to "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times from Lord Truscott, Tuesday 20 January 2009

  Tue      20/01/2009 09:58.

  From    ***

"***"

  Subject  RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: Meeting

  View HTML I Text I Header I Raw Content.

  Dear David,

  That's not a problem, I'll come to you. I've meanwhile found out more about the Business Rate Supplements Bill, which had its Second Reading on 12 January, and is now in Committee in the Commons and heading for the Lords, but we can discuss that tomorrow.

  Best,

  Peter

E-mail to Lord Truscott from "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times, Wednesday 21 January 2009

  Date    Wed 21/01/2009 08:56.

  From    David Thompson

  To      ***

"***"

  Subject  RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: Meeting.

  View HTML I Text I Header I Raw Content.

  Dear Lord Truscott,

  See you later today. Many thanks.

  Kind regards

  David

Meeting of Lord Truscott ("PT") with "Claire Taylor" ("Woman") and "David Thompson" ("Man") of the Sunday Times at St James' Hotel and Club, Wednesday 21 January 2009

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 1 of 24

  Footsteps and rustling ...

  Woman: Oh, Lord Truscott. Sorry, we were just around there.

  PT: Hello.

  Woman: Nice to see you. Sorry about that.

  PT: That's all right.

  Woman: I was worried we'd got the time wrong or something.

  PT: No, I was wondering which part you would be in.

  Woman: I thought I'd come and have a check before we gave you a call.

  Footsteps ...

  General "hellos" ...

  Man: We've got this rather large table. We've got scones as well.

  PT: I'll just have one.

  Man: These have got cinnamon.

  PT: Oh they're quite delicious.

  Man: Have you been waiting long?

  PT: No, no, no..... just a few minutes. Just got comfortable. Got a glass of orange juice.

  Man: Did you walk up here or did you ... ?

  PT: Yes, I walked from the Lords. I usually walk. Because I've got a place in ***, so I walk down to the Lords and walk back.

  Woman: It's quite a nice walk. Do you cut through St James?

  PT: Yes, yes.

  Woman: Lovely, isn't it?

  PT: Down Lower Regent Street, Pall Mall ... and through the park.

  Man: Because I reckon it was probably the nicest day of the year so far. Not that the year is very old.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 2 of 24

  Woman: It's a couple of weeks.

  PT: I know. The light's very good, isn't it?

  Woman: It is quite warm as well today. The sun on your face when it was shining was lovely. I'm sure it will be quite a cold evening now with the clear skies, but at least it was pleasant today.

  PT: No rain as well. I don't mind cold, but I ...

  Woman: Yeah. I don't like the rain either. I'm forever losing my brollies, which means I get wet.

  Laughter ...

  PT: Talking of brollies, I used to leave them in phone booths in the old days before mobile phones came in. Make your phone call and put the brolly on the side.

  Woman: Yeah, and that would be that.

  PT: That would be that. Never see it again.

  Man: You don't really see phone boxes much any longer, do you?

  PT: No, no.

  Man: Working ones. They're sort of few and far between really.

  Woman: Apart from tourists standing in the couple that are left as they take their pictures. A lot of them are for picture purposes as they pose on the phone.

  PT: Yeah, I suppose we've got to keep a few of them.

  Man: I think that's a plum jam. I'm trying to work it out.

  Woman: No, no. It's far too ... No, it's not plum. I think it could be like fig or something.

  Man: Fig, yeah. It could well be fig.

  Woman: Because of the consistency. Plum's normally a lot more jelly-like.

  Man: Well, we spoke to Mr Jiang and I think in principle we're almost there. He's got to find the ...

  PT: Mm.

  Man: But, um, he was quite impressed with your CV and your background. So, um, I hope, hopefully we can get to work as soon as possible on ???????

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 3 of 24

  PT: Yes, I mean, I did a bit of preliminary work, but not too much, because of ... I went through Second Reading. So it's already gone through Second Reading, I think as I said in my email.

  Man: ... That doesn't mean last week, does it?

  PT: The 12th, yeah. They've got to put a programme for it in Committee. So there will be a couple of days for Committee—the 20th and the 22nd—where it can be amended. There are also public hearings where various interest groups can give their views—the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Society of Chartered Surveyors and various interest groups, local authority groups and all the rest. So they'll be giving evidence as the Bill goes through. Then there will be amendments put down and the Liberals have already started putting down some amendments and they will be taking them in the Committee stage and the Report stage. It is due to come out of Committee on 3rd February.

  Man: Is this Committee for the House of Commons?

  [5.00]

  PT: Yeah,

  Man: Because you have a separate committee don't you?

  PT: Yeah, Yeah, No, No. We'll go through all the same thing in the Lords, so Lord [ ... ] will go through all that. It will come through to the Lords in March.

  Man: Right

  PT: And then we'll go through all same things, Second Reading and the Committee Stage with amendments, then Report Stage and Third Reading and amendments can still

  Woman: Still happen.

  PT: Still happen then. In fact, they are more likely to go through, I think. It is interesting in Second Reading that the Tories called a vote to vote against the Second Reading which is unusual because normally it is a vote on the principle.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: It is just a thorough debate on the principles of the Bill.

  Woman: Yes, yeah.

  PT: But the Tories are clearly very unhappy about what it could mean for businesses They're calling it a stealth tax, in effect, and it could create burdens on businesses. I think the estimates are something between 360 million and 600 million extra cost that it will create. So they called a vote on the Second Reading, but they said that they weren't opposed to it as far as Crossrail is concerned because apparently the form of funding was agreed some time ago specifically to fund Crossrail in London and even

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 4 of 24

  Boris Johnson and the LGA would be in favour of that, and the London Assembly. So the Tories sort of voted against, but said they would be still be in favour of it for Crossrail, and I think there does seem to be all-party support that a supplementary rate of some form is necessary to support Crossrail. That's all-party. The Liberals supported the Government on the Second Reading vote, and only the Tories voted against. Their line was again to support Crossrail and they have a sort of philosophical point that they believe in more powers being devolved to local authorities.

  Woman: To local authorities, yeah.

  PT: but they really want to see a local income tax, that was their point. However, I think even though the Liberals voted with the Government on this Bill, there was concern about the lack of balance because one of the main things that the Tories said and that business interests said is that before these supplementary rates can be applied, there should be a ballot involving businesses and that they should sign up to it, in effect, only if they want it in their area.

  Man: Yes

  PT: It would be a vote in the upper-tier level, whether it's a county council or a unitary authority. So they are saying that there should be a vote, and I think the Liberals may be sympathetic to that. Um. So I think politically, looking at it, there's no way that the Bill will be defeated, but there's obviously a good chance of it being amended as it goes through, particularly in terms of a ballot. Apparently for the local business development scheme, there is, in effect, a ballot

  Woman: Yes

  PT: so they have to sort of sign up to it and be a consensus. There has to be a consensus. So I think that is an area which clearly can be.

  Man: On the [ ... ]

  PT: Yeah. You know, um, can be, um, looked at. As I say, I don't think the Bill, because you've got the Government and the Liberals signed up in support of the Bill, particularly because they would see it as undercutting Crossrail if they didn't support it. There is, as far as the detail is concerned, particularly the principle, say, of ballots, then there could well be majority gains, and even if the Government gets through the Commons stage, that could be amended in the Lords, where the Government hasn't got a majority. Because obviously, in effect, the ballots would probably mean that it would be very, very difficult to ever raise it unless all the local businesses felt very strongly that this was something that was going to benefit them. Even in the Bill as it currently stands, if any project is identified as for economic development, if any project is identified for which this supplementary rate Bill would provide more than a third of the funding, then there would have to be a ballot anyway.

  Man: Yeah

  PT: So, um, so um, so that's already in the Bill.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 5 of 24

  Man: It's just a question of extending it.

  PT: Yeah

  Man: to service all funding

  PT: Yeah, and the other thing is about the rateable value that would also, I think would go through amendment because there is going to be a rate revaluation next year.

  Man: Next year

  PT: And currently there's a cap of 50,000

  Woman: Yes

  PT: for businesses, and the Government is currently saying that 91 % of businesses will not be affected because of the rateable value, but the Conservatives and one or two others saying, well, once the rateable value is changed next year

  Woman: Yes

  [10.00]

  PT: Then a lot more business will come within the net. Clearly, there's already been a degree of lobbying on this from the CBI, Chambers of Commerce.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: So there will be allies in this in work being done on amending the Bill. It does seem to be, given the economic cycle [inaudible] you know, something that obviously business is always concerned about because they can get lumbered with another tax. There is a concern as well that local authorities, if they're having their council tax kept down and their spending kept under tight control, they just may use it for another source of fund raising.

  Woman: Yeah. Some extra money.

  Man: Yeah.

  PT: A cup of tea for me, I think.

  Waitress: Any preference? Breakfast or white tea?

  PT: Have you got Assam?

  Waitress: We have Assam.

  Woman: Can I have another English breakfast tea please?

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 6 of 24

  Man: Could I have a latte please?

  PT: Yeah, the other thing that was said in the Second Reading debate was that they said in the Lottery that it would only be used in cases of additionality, where there's clear additional spending and not on standard, core local government spending. The Lottery did in the end start funding hospital wards and

  Woman: Yes, all kinds of things. Yes

  PT: So that could be watered down later on. But I think that's quite a dangerous precedent.

  Man: In terms of procedure, you've got the Committee stage for the Commons later this month.

  PT: Then Report stage and Third Reading.

  Man: Say, for instance, our a suggestion of an exemption for new businesses, would it be possible to get an amendment on that as early as the Committee stage?

  PT: Well, yes, I mean, what I was gong to ask you is what does your client actually want? I mean, what are they seeking to achieve?

  Man: I mean, I mean, he would like both really. He would like both the ballot and then as extra security an exemption for business for the first two years, if you're a new business.

  PT: No matter what the size and the rateable value?

  Man: Yes. Because he assumes that all of his premises are going to be big premises and therefore probably are going to fall

  PT: Mmm.

  Woman: Yes, exactly.

  Man: over the fifty thousand, so, so he would quite like us to sort of—I mean, we can draft it ourselves, I suppose, draft the amendment. We would have to get a parliamentary draftsman, presumably, to do it.

  PT: Not necessarily. You can sort of—you can, you can—well, it may be better. I mean, if you get amendments to put it through, you can put it through the Public Bill Office so that they put it in the right language.

  Man: Right.

  Woman: Yes, exactly.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 7 of 24

  PT: But quite a lot of organisations do, if they've got lawyers that are skilled in that area, they would do the draft themselves. Or alternatively, you can work with the Public Bill Office and they will make sure you get the wording right.

  Man: Right. The question then is how do we actually get the amendment into the Committee.

  PT: Right. I mean, well, there are a number of things. First of all you need to find out what some of the other lobby groups are doing, whether they are doing something similar, something along the same lines. It all depends on the, because normally they will be able to produce briefings for MPs and Peers and they will suggest various amendments. They will be going round having meetings with MPs and Peers and Front Benchers saying, well, you know, lobbying in effect and saying, "Have you thought of putting forward this amendment?. [inaudible] Here is an amendment and this is the reason for it". Sometimes individual opposition groups will, if they agree with the argument in principle, they will just adopt it. It is a lot easier to actually take a ready-made amendment.

  Man: Mmm

  PT: Because they don't have to think of it themselves or have their assistant, usually if you are a Front Bencher you have to one researcher or something and they will be snowed under so it's a lot easier for them to take a template from someone else and just bang it in as an amendment.

  Man: Mmm.

  PT: So I think first of all you need to work out whether the other lobby groups—either Chambers of Commerce, the CBI—are already doing that so you don't duplicate.

  Woman: As far as I know they seem to be—they are on board with the idea of a vote, but not the exemption for new businesses.

  PT: And then—I mean really, on that one, what you need to then do is, I'd invite private Front Benchers who are taking it through the Commons and the Lords. Caroline Spelman has just been made the new shadow local government—

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: And it comes under local government and communities department. So those are the teams. Hazel Blears is doing it for the Government with overall control, and John Healey is taking it through Second Reading.

  [15.00]

  So once you know what you want to do, and then you can say that you know that no one else has proposed it.

  Woman: Yes. I don't think they have ...

  PT: It would be to, say, have a meeting with opposition MPs or individual MPs and persuade them of the argument and then they will be banging ... banging this

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 8 of 24

  amendment, providing that they think it's a logical argument, then they'll probably go along with it.

  Man: Why aren't the ....

  PT: And the other thing is, you know, try to get the CBI and other groups to do, you know ...

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: The same thing. Why aren't the CBI [inaudible]?

  Man: Because no one has approached them, I think.

  Woman: Yeah, so ... yeah. I don't know if they have a problem with it, but they seem to be just focusing on the vote thing, maybe because they think it's achievable because of the other vote system that's in place for the business district thing. I don't know.

  PT: I mean, what's the logic in terms of the new businesses; is that so that you encourage investment and don't deter it?

  Man: Absolutely, yeah. And, you know, it's a very difficult time for any business when it's setting up and especially in this particular environment, you know, you would have thought that the Government would have wished to encourage new business setting up, especially the retail sector, where we're losing businesses all the time at the moment, and so we would sort of propose a two-year exemption for a new business.

  PT: No matter what its size? I mean, there may be an argument whether it should be, sort of, well-off business then maybe it can afford it. Maybe an argument—sorry, I'm just saying there might—

  Man: Counterargument.

  PT: And the government may say, well, that's, you know, small businesses, okay, but if you've got a big conglomerate like, say for the sake of argument, Wal-Mart [inaudible] ...

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: ... Er, you know, what's the need to exempt them? So yes, have the counterargument ready for, er ...

  Woman: Yeah. Well I suppose, you know, we want a full high street, don't we, rather than ...

  PT: Well, yeah. Any investment's welcome.

  Woman: Yeah, exactly.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 9 of 24

  PT: And if something like this is going to deter someone from coming from abroad and investing ... Yeah.

  Man: How far are you able to help us in all of this?

  PT: Well, as I said to you before, I mean, I can work with you over it, and it is, it, you know, identifying people and, obviously, following it and identifying people to talk to talking with people to facilitate the amendments and make sure that the thing is drafted. I mean, I think it's got to be a sort of partnership, as it were.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: Because I don't think for even two days a month I'm not going to be able to go away and do the whole shooting match on my own, you know. But I think if it's approached in a sort of partnership then I think it's, you know, perfectly feasable.

  Man: I mean, do you know Caroline Spelman?

  PT: Caroline Spellman? No, No. I know, you know, some of the MPs and I know all the Tories in the Lords, so I've got no problems with approaching them. I mean, I think, as I said, I think it might be worth having a first bite of the cherry in the Commons.

  Man: The Commons.

  Woman: Yes.

  Man: If it's on the 22nd, 23rd of this month, I've just thought, then that must be this week.

  PT: Yeah, yeah. They've already had one committee day.

  Man: Oh, right. Sorry, sorry, yes. Forgive me. When you first said it, I thought we were talking about later in the month, but no, clearly not.

  PT: So these are ... They've got 20th, 22nd of January, 27th of January, 29th of January and 3rd of February, and then it will be out of committee.

  Woman: Yeah, it's very soon, isn't it?

  PT: Yeah, so it's already going to be through all its stages and in the Lords by March, so this is why I was saying to you I think probably one day a month would probably not be enough. [inaudible] Because even doing background work takes almost a day, so to monitor it going through all its stages—

  Man: Or could we structure it so that we did more days in the beginning and then ... I don't know how your, what your timeframe is.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 10 of 24

  PT: Erm ... Well, that's ... that's possible, but ... I mean, I think it should be doable, erm, you know, couple of days, really. I'm going to take on a researcher in the next week or two to assist me, so ... for this and other things, so ... Have you done anything like this before?

  Woman: Not so much here, no, erm ... As I said, you know, before, we want to expand the kind of public affairs thing and this is one of our first projects to kind of get to grips with, and unfortunately it's happening very quickly with this particular client, so we're having to get a move on with it, really. What about ... ?

  [20.00]

  PT: We could say sort of, like, what I've done sometimes with other organisations is a minimum of two days, say, and then if you feel, well, we really need to give this a push, you say to me, can you do more days and just put more time into it. Because, for me, really, it's just a question of time. The other thing is, I think it's better, developing relationships, to have a sort of minimum commitment so that I don't just put in an awful lot of time over three months and then that's it because also I'm doing other things so [inaudible].

  Man: Yes, of course.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: But I think maybe in this situation if we said a minimum of two days and then you thought well, we need to give this more of a push, and then you want me to do more, then you can ask me to do more days.

  Woman: And you can see whether you have the time.

  PT: That's right. Or you may think that two days is adequate with this, the way it's going your end. I agree with you, you have to get on with it because it's already going through, the amendments are already going in.

  Man: I'm assuming that during your two days, what you'll be doing is contacting people for us and contacting people could take days or it could take two minutes. It's a difficult thing, isn't it?

  PT: There are a number of things that need to be done. First of all, you need to follow the Bill to go through all its different stages so that means someone's got to be reading all the debates, all the Committee stages and

  Woman: Yes, we could allocate someone to do that.

  PT: So someone's got to do that and obviously I have got to keep an eye on the progress of the Bill. Then I think the other thing is identify who could be approached to put forward amendments at various stages and maybe other bodies to contact. Then that comes down to, I think it will be a bit of a mix—you talking to some people, me talking to some people, sometimes both of us talking to people.

  Woman: To people together, yes.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 11 of 24

  PT: To people together to put something through. Really you have to feel your way a little bit because some people like to do it over a cup of tea in the Tea Room and some people prefer to have a proper sort of, you know, chat and presentation and feel that they are [inaudible] But you've got to be careful that you don't make them feel that they are having their arms twisted up their back.???

  Woman: Yes.

  Man: And to an extent, I think some people will find it much better to deal with you as a fellow Peer and a former Minister than they would necessarily because they don't know us. We come from nowhere.

  PT: And also there would probably be a different style maybe in the Commons and in the Lords. I mean, in the Commons, it might be better, I'll identify the MP, but it might be better for you to talk to the MP. That's why, if you know an MP, have a word with them. And then I see the Lords people on my own, because, you know, I know everyone in the Lords so I'm quite happy to see them on their own. It may well be a sort of combination that if you set up a meeting and say, you know, we've got Lord Truscott and even in the Commons Lord Truscott would like to come along and talk you about things that [inaudible] representations have been made, then I am also happy to do that.

  Woman: So if I were to set up a meeting with you and I to go along and see someone.

  PT: In these sort of situations, what I usually do is I don't do all the legwork myself. I am there to give advice and to talk to people. I am quite happy to talk to MPs, Peers, officials, and to do behind the scenes stuff. As I said to you before, I don't think I'd be comfortable moving amendments myself ?? because I didn't give notice saying that I had a direct financial interest??

  Man: No, but the question is that you would be able to find someone who could.

  PT: That's right. And there's nothing to—I mean, I can occasionally speak on the subject and just declare an interest, if I feel that to be required, or whatever, but I think it's probably better to ?? get someone else to do it ??. From what I see, certainly on the ballot issue, you're really pushing at an open door as far as the Conservatives and the Liberals are concerned. The only thing may be, you know, this exemption for new companies, which no one else has mentioned so far. Let's get that on the radar —

  Man: Yes, it's a question of getting someone to raise it who —

  PT: The logical people would be the Tories, actually.

  [25.00]

  Have you thought about it and, er, you know, say, you know, we know a company that's willing ... Are you prepared to disclose your client and to the scale, kind of thing, and say, "Well, we know a company who's willing to invest x amount in the UK, but ..."?

  Man: Yes. I don't think it's any secret.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 12 of 24

  PT: "But, you know, given this regime they're going to be put off and they'll invest somewhere else." Sometimes, I mean, if you can [inaudible] sometimes that might be quite useful [inaudible] for the Members to actually use [inaudible] change it, so that could be quite useful.

  Man: What about the Minister? The Minister in this case would be, I assume, would be John Healey, is it?

  PT: Yeah.

  Man: Is he someone you know, or is he ... ?

  PT: Yes, I know John Healey, yeah.

  Man: I mean, is it worth talking to him?

  PT: Erm, yes, yeah. Certainly I can, er ... yeah. Certainly I can, er ... There's no problem with me approaching the Minister either at the Commons stage or the Lords stage and saying ... because it's usually a common thing that's done that the Ministers and the Bill team—that's the other people you need to contact, the Bill team—that they will brief MPs and Peers, so there's plenty of opportunity for exchange between MPs and Peers, and so ...

  Woman: The bill team brief MPs and Peers?

  PT: Well, and Ministers, together—usually together. So that is, there will be an opportunity for someone to raise it directly with the Minister, whether it's John Healey in the Commons or the Minister who's taking it through in the Lords, which is normally Kay Andrews, who's the local government and communities minister there. Probably Kay Andrews.

  Woman: Is that something we can find out now, who it will be in the Lords, or does that happen nearer the time?

  PT: No no, we can find out now. I've already talked to the Chief Whip's special adviser, so ... who's a bit hazy on the details, but, you know, you can go directly to the department or as it progresses ... they do usually offer briefings, and certainly I can ask for a briefing and use that as a time to say, "Well, have you thought about this?".

  Man: Yeah, "have you thought about the exemption?", yeah.

  PT: Of course the Minister may or may not take it on board, and usually they won't take it on board unless they think there's a head of steam behind it and they can lose a vote, because the Minister, the departments are quite rigid in their, they've got their Bill and they don't really want to amend it unless they ...

  Man: Unless they really have to. Well, you can sort of see that they see it, as much as they possibly can, a finished piece of work, presumably.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 13 of 24

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Yeah, they've been working on it for a year or so. The Bill team has [inaudible] it for a year.

  Man: It's like saying to them, "Look, hold on, why didn't you see, spot this in the first place?".

  PT: Yeah.

  Man: But I suppose it's making the case that a lot of businesses might be more comfortable with the Bill if things ...

  PT: Again, thinking back to the Energy Bill, I had meetings with the Bill team, the relevant Minister and head of policy, actually, at, er, BERR.

  Woman: Yes. It's moved to DECC. It's all DECC now, is it?

  PT: Yeah, it's DECC now. So all that's possible and that's fine, you know, I don't mind doing that.

  Man: What was your objective? Was that again, was that to amend the Energy Bill?

  PT: Well, I was keeping an eye on smart metering ...

  Woman: Ah, yes.

  PT: ... but also I was interested in, you know, the general principles of the Bill, energy security and all that sort of crap??. But the specific thing was energy, er, smart metering.

  Woman: Yes, of course, you were working for the smart metering client.

  Man: And did you manage to get it amended in that instance?

  PT: They got the result they wanted, yeah, in terms of the ... because they wanted a commitment that smart metering would be in the Bill and that it would be rolled out, and both commitments were given.

  Man: Were they not in originally, or ... ?

  PT: There was some debate about whether they would be in, and there was certainly no government commitment to when the rollout would happen ....

  Woman: When it would be rolled out.

  PT: ... over what period.

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 14 of 24

  Man: So you managed to get that changed so it would be in there?

  PT: Yeah.

  Man: I see.

  [30.00]

  PT: Again, it was sort of pushing at an open door because I know from my time as a Minister that the Government was keen on the principle of smart meters and willing to try it out, but essentially get it moving from a position where they in general support something to actually getting them to do it.

  Woman: Well of course, if they put it in the Bill, then that becomes an Act, then they're committed to that in legislation, aren't they, rather than just, you know, potentially in everyone's minds?

  PT: In this Bill, the Government will have to make concessions because otherwise they will start losing clauses. Their priority is for Crossrail particularly and they are using the Supplementary Rates Bill to do it and they will sort of try and resist amendments. But at the end of the day they are going to make concessions to ensure they get the Bill through.

  Man: Yes, yes.

  PT: They won't want it voted down and it's not likely to be voted down. But there's clearly a majority from ?????? ... they can't just push it through.

  Man: It's quite interesting, your experience with the Energy Bill. It's quite instructive. How do you manage ... how do you actually ... presumably, there has to be at some point a piece of paper which is an amendment. How do you actually manage to find the right person to do that in that particular instance?

  PT: Well, it has to be a Member that has to move an amendment, even if ... it can be .... it can be one of the Front Benchers or it can be an individual Member.

  Woman: A Member of the Commons or the Lords, depending on where you move it.

  Man: So with the smart energy, you found a person who was willing to ....

  PT: Yeah, it was very ... amendments were moved both in the Commons and in the Lords.

  Man: Right, okay. And that effectively gave ... those amendments gave ... changed the legislation in so far as it took account of your client's view, your client's needs?

  PT: Um ... yeah, well, I mean ... yeah, I mean, they were ... they were happy with the result. I mean, as I say, I was pushing at an open door in a way because government policy was going that way. It was simply a question of getting the Government to firm up its position.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 15 of 24

  Man/Woman: Yeah, yeah.

  Woman: I suppose there's a difference, isn't there, between Government saying "This is kind of what we want to do". But if they write it down and that, you know, becomes legislation, then that is a commitment which is far more formal, I suppose, which is useful. You know, bash them over the head with it.

  Man: Yeah.

  Woman: I think my tea's arrived. The sandwiches and your tea. No, it's not. That's Assam tea.

  Inaudible ...

  Woman: Excuse me, I ordered some English breakfast tea, but it hasn't arrived. A big pot of Assam came. Okay. I ordered some English breakfast tea and Assam tea.

  Waitress: English breakfast and Assam is the same.

  Woman: Oh really, I didn't realise. I thought Assam was more ...

  Waitress: No, is the same ... is the same. We make a large pot.

  Woman: Oh, okay. Oh!

  Background noise ... inaudible chat ...

  Woman: Oh, thank you. Do you know I never realised English breakfast tea was Assam tea? Apparently it is. I thought Assam ... this lady has just been telling me ... was far more aromatic. Did you know that?

  Man: No, I thought it was stronger than breakfast tea. So normally I order Assam rather than breakfast ... it comes stronger. I thought they were two entirely different ...

  Waitress: Would you like another cup of ... ?

  Man: No, I'm fine thank you. That's great.

  Woman: Could you pass me the milk, please.

  Man: As you saw, we were talking to Lord Taylor the other day.

  PT: Lord Taylor, yes.

  Man: He was talking to us actually ... more on the PR side actually. He's got someone called (Kantax?) .... who are quite interested in our services. But it could well be a public affairs thing as well. I did wonder about that in terms of ... (Kantax?) do gas storage, which is something you presumably know a reasonable amount about, a former energy Minister.

  PT: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 16 of 24

  Man: It's not a clash is it with your work that you do for Gazprom?

  PT: No, no, because they're on the retail ... the retail side.

  Man: Oh are they?

  PT: Yeah. So they're, they're interested in expanding the retail side, the retail market.

  Woman: What's that? Providing gas and electricity for homes?

  PT: Gas and electricity for ... and some of it, I think they provide for hospitals and football clubs and commercial customers as well. But they're not into storage facilities or anything like that.

  [35.00]

  Man: Are they not? For some reason ...

  PT: They do gas trading ...

  Man: Isn't one of the competitors to Kantax someone called Wingas? Does that make sense to you?

  PT: Yeah, they're German, though, aren't they, Wingas?

  Man: Yeah, but I've a feeling that Wingas were looking to do some sort of offshore storage in the UK, but I don't ....

  PT: Possibly. I'm not sure. I'll try and, er ... There's a limit to the offshore storage that we've got currently [inaudible] there's only one, Centrica. There's a big debate about how we should increase our storage because we've got very little gas stored as a proportion of our overall need requirements. I think, erm ... I'd have to check the figures, but, I don't know, we've got something like a week's supply whereas on the Continent they have, like, a month or two ...

  Man: Is that right?

  PT: ... and it's thanks to storage. It wasn't very important when we had North Sea gas, a lot of our own gas, because we could just pump it in from the North Sea, and even now we get a lot of, a majority of our gas comes from Norway, so they just [inaudible] pipeline to the UK, but in the future, as North Sea resources decline, both for the UK and for Norway, and we become more reliant on continental gas and LMG, storage will become an issue.

  Woman: Yes, of course. It seems quite worrying, actually.

  PT: Particularly since we don't have a long-term contracts, we've got to rely on [inaudible]

  Man: Well, no ... That is quite unpopular, as I understand it. I don't know ... we haven't really properly researched contracts, as yet, but I think they're looking to put a big storage depot in the north-west. I think it's one of those, sort of, NIMBYisms—

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 17 of 24

  PT: Onshore, it's ...

  Man: "We don't want one next to us", because obviously it's very combustible.

  PT: Onshore it's not wildly popular.

  Woman: No.

  PT: Always remember that they used to have those big gas, er ...

  Man: Yeah, exactly.

  PT: ... storage things in more or less every town, didn't they?

  Man: There was one down near Richmond, which is now a Sainsbury's supermarket [inaudible]

  Woman: Really?

  Man: Wonderful, huge great gas cylinders, they used to, they go up and go down, depending on the pressure. But I guess if, I don't know what the situation is with gas-fired power stations, but I guess if we have more gas-fired power stations, then we'll need even greater storage, won't we?

  PT: Yes. You know, that whole sort of security of supply debate as well.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: [inaudible] As you say, there's a sort of degree of NIMBYism there; no one really wants to [inaudible]. Taking it offshore is good if you can do it, but ...

  Woman: Yeah. Is it very difficult to do, presumably?

  PT: Well, it's usually more expensive building offshore facilities, but it's something probably we should be looking at.

  Man: Does that actually mean storing underground, or is that actually offshore?

  PT: Well, yes, I mean, you can store it sort of undersea, sort of aquifers, old mines and things.

  Man: Oh, I see. So you'd have something like, say, like an oil rig, presumably, and then you'd tap down, or would you just have a pipe into the ... ?

  PT: Um, I'm not sure about the technical side of it, really, but there are several different ways that you can do it. The CCS, carbon capture storage, one of the ideas they had for storing carbon is to use old mines, sort of go out into the North Sea [inaudible] basically they just pump it down into, and use the sort of mine, which you could do for gas or develop specialised facilities.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 18 of 24

  Man: I'm assuming the reason they don't do that currently is because it's quite an expensive thing to do, and that there just hasn't sort of been a need to do it. I don't know.

  PT: No, I'd say that's true.

  Woman: It's amazing to think, isn't it, all this gas being stored in the sea? [Fake laugh] Offshore. Strange

  [40.00]

  Man: Now, is there anything else we need to discuss for this point?

  PT: Well, I suppose you just need to give me, er, draw up a draft contract and then take it from there. I mean, presumably you've done similar things for similar sort of ...

  Man: Yes, yes.

  PT: So you don't need a sort of template from me, you've got your own thing. As I say, I think on the basis of a couple of days minimum, with a sort of review period put in later. I mean, hopefully, I see this, sort of ... that you'll have further requirements after this client.

  Man: Initially it is mostly ... We're narrowly targeted at amending this Bill and working for this client, but in future we're hoping that this will expand—say, for instance, if we were to take on Kantax?, we may wish to draw upon your expertise for that, which, I mean, you know, I would guess would be ... they would like, I dare say [inaudible]. That's just a for instance; I mean, I haven't discussed it with them all.

  PT: What do they want to do? They want to develop storage in the UK?

  Man: Yeah. I think there are planning issues and I think there are some political issues as well.

  PT: Well, it depends on the scale, because if it's fairly large-scale it can come under the new Infrastructure Planning Commission so it doesn't get bogged down in the local ...

  Woman: Yes, at a local level. Yeah.

  PT: So it depends on the level.

  Man: And we're talking about a year initially, aren't we?

  PT: Yeah, yeah. I would think, yeah, 12 months, review period, and then we can decide, if both parties are happy with it, and happy with the way it's going and sort of being put, then we can review it after that. I mean, that's what I've done with all the other [inaudible because Woman: says "Yeah"] I've entered into [inaudible].

  Man: Okay, well that's quite straightforward.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 19 of 24

  Woman: Yeah.

  Man: I mean, we already have contracts, they're former contracts which are ... which we can get run up from ... it's just a question of word processing, isn't it?

  Woman: Yes, I'll just get the lawyer to check it.

  PT: And once we do that, then we can have another meeting to sort of talk about the all the tactics. I'm due to, as I said, appoint a sort of researcher in the next couple of weeks, and then I can sort of get them on to [inaudible] from there. And all the rest. And take it from there. How much time are you yourselves going to devote to it?

  Woman: Well, I think quite a lot, definitely, over the next couple of months, yeah. I think we need to give it a big push. What we need to decide is who else is going to work on it. We'll definitely need, you know, a researcher in the office. We need someone to do some monitoring and that kind of work, really, so we need to decide who that is—if it's just one person or two people, you know. There's some quite basic dividing up things to be done.

  PT: But actually, I mean, I think on the issues, I think, you know, it should be doable, actually, because you've got this piece of legislation which does seem to be, erm, quite onerous for business at the moment. People are sort of concerned about the implications; clearly an issue on the balloting, from what you've said to me about the other issue and businesses, again that really should be saleable, one would have thought. So, I mean, it's not, like, impossible, I mean ... if it was something else that you'd come to me with and said, you know, "Can you do this for me?", sometimes if the political will isn't there in terms of the political party [inaudible] then it just may not be possible, but, erm ... what you're talking about should be really within the bounds of possible. Very possible I would have thought.

  Man: And all we've got to do is get the amendment into the Bill, and then presumably Members have got to vote on it, haven't they?

  PT: Well, yes, yes, you've got to take it all the way.

  Woman: Yeah.

  PT: Try to get it amended in the Commons or, if not, in the Lords—and then of course you have to be careful that the Government then doesn't try to amend it again in the Commons during ping-pong.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: But I should think the Government wants this done and dusted and out of the way by the summer recess ....

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 20 of 24

  PT: ... because they want to introduce this ... they want to be able to implement this by April of next year.

  Woman: Yeah, so they've got a pretty quick turnaround time too, haven't they?

  PT: I mean, they've got to have time to implement it.

  Man: You see, I would have thought that their sticking point will be on the ballot rather than on the exemption. I don't know, I mean, you probably know better than I do, but you can see the potential to really damage the whole thing for Crossrail if ....

  Woman: If everyone keeps voting no all the time.

  PT: Well, you know, that may be an area where you just have to give ground and say that this doesn't apply to Crossrail and London, but applies to the rest of the ...

  Woman: But elsewhere, yeah.

  [45.00]

  PT: Because I think it's true that if it's seen as scuppering Cross rail then you're not going to get ...

  Woman: Not going to get anywhere.

  PT: [inaudible] or Labour support. So that's the compromise that you may have to make. You are ringfencing Crossrail in London, but for the rest of the country ... and then you can still do the new businesses bit. I think that would be seen as reasonable, and I think you can get that through. I'm not quite sure that the Liberals yet are 100 per cent signed up for the ballot idea, but, er ... I feel that they go along with it, that's the feeling I get so far. But then that's what we need to talk to them about, really ...

  Woman: Yeah, exactly.

  PT: ... and, you know, present the issues. But I think they can be persuaded on that, I would have thought.

  Woman: Yeah, you'll soon find out when you get talking to them.

  PT: That's right. So, er ... Fine. So what sort of timescale are you ... ?

  Man: For ... ?

  PT: For, erm ....

  Woman: To sort the contracts out and stuff? I'd hope to do it this week, really.

  Man: I think so, yeah.

  Woman: So hopefully have it to you by, erm, the end of the week.

  PT: There's no reason why we couldn't start work on that tomorrow, is there?

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 21 of 24

  Woman: Yeah. I don't think ... I think that would be fine. Is it all right for us just to email it across to you as an attachment?

  PT: Yeah, fine, as an attachment, yeah.

  Man: So what other issues do you think may come up later in the year? Possibly the gas storage stuff? I suppose it depends which clients come forward.

  Woman: Yeah, it does. You know, the thing about changing people that we kind of do PR for into public affair clients, really. It can be quite tricky but some of them seem quite keen. We'll have to see how it goes.

  Man: I think it's all about managing expectations, you know, seeing what's achievable. From what you say, in this case it should be achievable, it should be doable, but sometimes there might be clients that are unreasonable and the expectation's so high that they think, you know, just pay [inaudible] I'll change the world.

  PT: So which, er ... is it Mr Jiang? Your client?

  Man: Yes. Lu Li Jiang—J.I.A.N.G.

  PT: And where's he from?

  Man: He's from Hong Kong. We know him because of the work we did in Brussels for him on leather imports—shoe imports, actually—but he's jointly with a company called Won King, which are a Taiwanese company who are a big retailer, and that's where the retailing element of it comes in. He as much as anything is a financier of what will be the consortium which is going under the name (Benrol?) at the moment—it may well be that when the shops come out.

  PT: Is it general retail?

  Man: Clothing.

  PT: And what's his timescale for doing that?

  Man: It's ... We expect to have the first shops opening around about the turn of next year, which is why ...

  PT: Pretty brave in this environment.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: That's an argument you can use, isn't it really?

  Woman: Yeah.

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 22 of 24

  Man: Actually, I think the business rate supplement will actually come in around about April next year, won't it? So, I think, which is why initially I think it was identified by his people as something that they wanted to sort of somehow neutralise if they possibly could.

  PT: Mm. Yeah. Is it so important, on the cost side, if it's going to be two billion in business rates, it'll be something like a four per cent increase in rates?

  Man: I think it's the uncertainty of it I think he doesn't like because ...

  PT: It may be applied, it may not be applied, and once the local authority [inaudible]—

  Woman: Yeah, exactly, what will happen?

  Man: And then you put it, you know, the business rate at the moment I think is 43p, and as you said there's going to be a rate review next year in which the thresholds will go up, and it's just eliminating one of those areas of uncertainty.

  PT: I think in the current environment the Government would be mad to create more burdens for business and create any uncertainty at this particular time. It's going to be a very difficult couple of years, isn't it?

  Man: It's surprising that they are going through with it, in a sense, but I suppose, you know, they want to find some way of funding Crossrail.

  PT: Yeah, I mean, apparently the original idea was to have a Crossrail funding Bill, but then they decided that, I think maybe because of the business improvement [inaudible]

  Woman: Yeah. Things.

  [50.00]

  PT: Or the bids, they thought, well, it'd be a jolly good idea to create this sort of Bill so that it would not only fund Crossrail but other local authorities ....

  Woman: Potentially ...

  PT: ... could do a similar sort of thing. I think the argument for the Government is: why should it only be London and Crossrail to benefit? What happens if Leeds or Manchester or Birmingham want a big infrastructure project? And this is the way to achieve it. But as you say, I mean, I think that there can be so many negative, you know, influences, really, negative effects that the Government hasn't really fully thought through. It's one thing supporting Crossrail, which everyone's been supporting for years, and it's another thing just putting this out there with, giving the local authorities the discretion whether to raise it or not, and for very unclear purposes. It's not specified what they need to raise it for. There are some clauses which they, what it's not meant to be used for—housing, education [inaudible] but there's no prescribed area that they have to spend it on. So, you know, I'm quite comfortable with—

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 23 of 24

  Man: Who's in charge of sponsoring the Bill as such? Presumably the head of the Bill Committee is—

  PT: No, it's the Minister.

  Man: It's the Minister. So it's Hazel Blears.

  PT: Well, Hazel Blears is, you know, the Secretary of State ...

  Woman: Yes, so she's got overall ....

  PT: ... so she takes ultimate responsibility, but it will be given to John Healey in the Commons [inaudible] and it will be given to his opposite number in the Lords [inaudible].

  Man: It was Healey who was fielding questions in the Second Reading, wasn't it?

  PT: I came across John ... well, I remember I helped him in his by-election when he was elected, I think, and then I came across him again quite a bit when I was a Minister, because he was the Treasury's man at the time.

  Man: So he might listen to the arguments, in that case?

  PT: Yeah.

  Man: Well, it's worth giving it a go.

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: You know, the department, as I've said, departments and Ministers usually back down when they think they're going to lose, rather than being convinced of the eloquence of your argument, I'm afraid.

  Man: Righty-ho.

  Woman: Right.

  PT: Well, I'll just put a ...

  Man: We'll get back to you tomorrow, and then [inaudible, chairs scraping]

  PT: [inaudible] and then once we get it sorted out we can, sort of ...

  Woman: Yes.

  PT: ... sort of, take it from there, and then sort of do a programme of what we're going to do ...

  Woman: Yeah, exactly, we can map it out [inaudible]

Lord Truscott Meeting (2) page 24 of 24

  PT: ... and then have a plan for the Commons and then a plan for the Lords, and then ... sort of following it all the way, chasing progress all the way through. OK.

  Woman: All right. Nice to see you. Have a nice afternoon.

  PT: OK. Bye.

  Man: We'll talk soon.

E-mail to "David Thompson" of the Sunday Times from Lord Truscott, Wednesday 21 January 2009

  Date    Wed 21/01/2009 18:38.

  From    ***

"***"

  To      [e-mail]

  Cc      [e-mail]

  Subject  SPAM-LOW: Today's Meeting.

  View HTML I Text I Header I Raw Content

  Dear David,

  Good to see you and Claire again today. I've looked at my commitments again, and I can give MJA three days per calendar month for the duration of the contract (with a 12 month review). If you are concerned that later the workload might decrease, we can include a proviso that this may, if felt appropriate by MJA, be reduced to two days per calendar month from September 2009 onwards.

  As I mentioned to you, I will be taking on my own assistant in the next couple of weeks, who will be dedicated to this assignment.

  Best wishes,.

  Peter

Failed Telephone Call to Lord Truscott from Michael Gillard ("MG") of the Sunday Times, Friday 23 January 2009

Telephone CD1 page 13 of 28

  Recording: Hello, you have reached Lord Truscott's office. Please leave a message after the tone, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for calling. This office is closed in the recess.

  Electronic voice: Please speak after the tone.

  MG: Lord Truscott, it's Michael Gillard from the Sunday Times. I urgently need to speak to you about a story we're running this weekend involving discussions that you and other Lords have been having with a company called Michael Johnson Associates who represent a Chinese businessman called Li Jiang. I need to speak to you as I said because the story is going in this weekend and there are details of their discussions that we have, very accurate details, that I would like to put to you and get your explanation, understanding, of what it is you thought you were doing for them. My contact details are ***** ****** or *** ****. It is now 12.08 and it's Friday, erm, and as I said, it really is important that you get back to us as soon as you can today, erm, to have that discussion. Thanks very much. Bye for now.

  [call ends]

Telephone Call to Lord Truscott ("PT") from Michael Gillard ("MG") of the Sunday Times, Friday 23 January 2009

Telephone CD1 page 13 of 28

  [new call]

  Woman: Hello?

  MG: Oh hello. Lord Truscott please.

  Woman: Who shall I say is calling him?

  MG: It's Michael Gillard from the Sunday Times.

  PT: Hello, Peter Truscott

  MG: Hello, it's Michael Gillard from the Sunday Times.

  PT: Hello there.

  MG: Hello. Can you speak?

  PT: Yes, I can do.

  MG: I'm calling you about some discussions that you've had over the last week with a company called Michael Johnson Associates ...

  PT: Yeah.

  MG: ... who represent this Chinese businessman, Li Jiang. And I understand that they've been asking you and others to help them in their, erm, approach to amend some legislation that is going through the Houses relating to supplementary business taxes.

Telephone CD1 page 14 of 28

  PT: I have been having talks with them, yeah. What, it's a scam is it?

  MG: Well, from the outset I'll make sure that you're aware that they were undercover reporters and the whole conversations were taped.

  PT: Mm-hmm.

  MG: And so I wanted to take you through, take you through those conversations so that we can get a better understanding of what it is, erm, you felt you were doing when you had those two meetings.

  PT: Right. How many other people did they interview, as a matter of interest?

  MG: We'll get to that at the end, if you don't mind. I wouldn't mind just going through your particular two meetings.

  PT: [inaudible]

  MG: It seems to us from, from, from the transcripts that, erm, you did agree to help Michael Johnson Associates on behalf of their client and it was very clear in those conversations that what they were interested in doing was having the legislation amended as it went through the House.

  PT: Mm-hmm.

  MG: You're not denying that.

  PT: Well, um. Yes, you know, people obviously do approach to, to, to have that sort of work done, yes.

  MG: Yes, and obviously you sent a CV to the company and in that CV it was made clear that you were going to take on a, a researcher to deal with the work that, erm, that they wanted to engage you to do and a fee structure was, erm, was discussed of £72,000 for a year based on a three-day month.

  PT: Well, you know, I, I'm not going to go into details of anything that I thought was, a, you know, sort of legitimate, you know, transaction.

  MG: What is it that you—

  PT: I'm not going to divulge any commercial discussions.

  MG: Well, I mean, the company doesn't exist. There is no Li Jiang. The whole thing was, erm ...

  PT: I was actually suspicious about about that, yeah.

  MG: Right. I mean, were you suspicious enough to, um, to not do business with them? Obviously not.

Telephone CD1 page 15 of 28

  PT: I was, err, I did, I was suspicious about it.

  MG: No, I'm just, simply—

  PT: I did actually wonder whether it was a journalistic set-up, to be quite frank. I was trying to get from them what it was that they expected. I was suspicious, but obviously I was, you know, trying to work from them what sort of work was required ...

  MG: Well, does that—

  PT: ... and what it would be ethical for me or not do in those circumstances.

  MG: But you did agree, and these are your words, to facilitate the amendment by talking to people who could affect that aim ....

  PT: No, no.

  MG: ... and you said a lot about putting, finding people to put an amendment down and that you would work behind the scenes, were your phrase, to influence things.

  PT: No, no, that wasn't, that wasn't, er, that wasn't my understanding of my role at all. My role would be to, er, assist them in the aims that they had to support their client. I specifically said to them I would not put down amendments myself.

  MG: Yeah.

  PT: Erm, what I suggested to them was that there were a number of organisations that were involved in the supplementary rates Bill who were lobbying people concerned, Ministers and other people that they would bring forward amendments and I suggested to them how they could take part in that lobbing process

  MG: With respect, that's not what the transcript ...

  PT: Sorry?

  MG: With respect, Lord Truscott, that's not what the transcripts show. What they show is that you did make it clear, correctly, that you wouldn't put down the amendment itself, but you said that you would find third parties to do it and you would work behind the scenes to influence things. You talked about speaking to [inaudible]

  PT: No, no, what I said is that they should ident—what I said to them, and I am sure this is in the transcript, what I said to them was they needed to identify individuals to whom they could make their case and I would help them identify individuals to whom they could make their case and, um, and I said to them that they would, you know, they should go about, er, how they should sort of go about that.

Telephone CD1 page 16 of 28

  MG: Yes. But getting back to the point of using someone else to put down the amendment, that is quite clear from the transcript that you were suggesting that that's how you would do it.

  PT: No, no. Look. What I said was they had to present their case to people who were involved in the legislation and they had to persuade them to put forward amendments and that I would not do that and I would specifically not lobby people. What I could do is obviously follow the legislation as it goes through the House and, er, keep them informed but I specifically said that I would not, er, I would not put forward the amendments myself and they would have to identify people to whom they should make their case. This happens all the time. I mean in the instance that they were talking about, the supplementary rates bill, there's the Chambers of Commerce and the CBI who are putting forward amendments, who are putting forward suggestions for amendments to the bill and they're giving evidence to the bill committee as it's going through currently. There are two issues they mentioned: the ballots before that went through, and also there was another thing about, you know, the exemptions for business, new businesses.

  MG: Yeah.

  PT: I said, I said, well they should be pushing at an open door as far as the ballot is concerned because from what I could see the CBI and other businesses were lined up behind that, but with the exception that, er, Crossrail, erm, the funding for Crossrail, er, should not be affected and they would probably have to make concessions as far as London was concerned because the funding was already lined up for that, but they may well be able to sort of persuade, to, er, to, er, ensure that amendments were moved as far as the ballots were concerned because it seems that the opposition parties were pretty well signed up to that. So I said that in that case they were sort of pushing at an open door. As far as exemptions for new businesses were concerned, and they mentioned this Mr Jiang who was going to make a large-scale investment in the UK, as far as that was concerned, erm, erm, er, I said that they would have to make the case for that, erm, and they may well be able to persuade people. I said, you know, and that is, that is something that they would have to do.

  MG: Right.

  PT: I did actually say to them that I did Google MJ Associates and I came up with Michael Johnson, an operation in Australia and the US, that they did insist to me—then they created, obviously, a fake website and I did go on that website in which they claimed they had been in operation since 2002. I also went to Trafalgar House, erm, and I couldn't actually find them listed amongst the companies there, so clearly, er, before actually signing any agreement or, as you said, there were various sums discussed, before signing any agreement I would have clearly checked them out more thoroughly. We obviously didn't get to that stage.

  MG: Well, we did get, you got to the stage of sending your CV, talking about a researcher to assist in the work and discussing the fee structure, but ...

  PT: Yeah, yeah.

Telephone CD1 page 17 of 28

  MG: ... but moving on from that, because we're slightly off the point, the point that I am making is, I'm not suggesting that you suggested in those two conversations that you would make the amendment, put down an amendment ...

  PT: Yeah

  MG: I'm not suggesting that, so we're clear on that. What I am suggesting is that the transcripts are clear that you suggested that it would be done through a ...

  PT: Sorry?

  MG: ... third party that you would arrange.

  PT: Sorry? Say that again, I ...

  MG: What I am suggesting is that the transcripts show that you were suggesting that the putting down the amendment could be done through a third party that you would arrange.

  PT: No. No, I, I don't believe that is the case. What I said to them was ...

  MG: Well, I'll read you the transcript if you like. It says, erm, this is you, "As I said before, I don't think I would be comfortable moving the amendments myself". Then the reporter says, "But the question is would you be able to find someone who could?" Your reply: "Yes, Yes, that's right. I mean, I can speak on the subject just to declare an interest but I think it's better to ... ". So, I mean, I don't think it can be any clearer that you did say that, um, you would find someone to put the amendment down other than you, ie by proxy.

  PT: No, no. I, no, no, that is not, that is not, er, that is not, that was not my intention. If you go through the whole thing, it's clear that they have to go through a process of making their case to various people involved in the legislation and they, together with my advice, would identify sympathetic parties that might be willing to put forward an amendment. And I said, that is ...

  MG: Let me stop you there. I mean, to pick you up, the transcript also is clear on the fact that, erm ...

  PT: Sorry?

  MG: The transcript is also clear on the fact that you said that you would be working behind the scenes to also identify officials who you could speak to to further the aim of MJ Associates.

  PT: No, no. That is not, that is not my—Can I have your name again please?

  MG: Of course you can. Michael Gillard.

  PT: Michael, and what's the second name?

Telephone CD1 page 18 of 28

  MG: Gillard. G-I-L-L-A-R-D.

  PT: Yeah. Well ...

  MG: You said ... Can I just put these things to you, and then obviously you are free to say what you want. You also talked about a willingness to speak to civil servants, the head of the bill committee and ministers and you said that people would pick up the phone to you because of who you were.

  PT: No, I didn't say that. Look, Mr Gillard, I, I, I appreciate that this is a sting operation. I think that your reporters have embellished and taken out of context what I said. I will, if you do publish defamatory, er, a defamatory story about me, bearing in mind that your journalists were obviously out to deceive quite comprehensively and I was quite clear about what I would and wouldn't do, and my position, bearing in mind the role that other MPs and Peers have taken in this kind of role, I was quite clear that what I was doing would be entirely, er, entirely ethical, if you do, obviously, print a defamatory story then I will reserve the right to take, er, legal action. And you are journalist, are you, for the Sunday Times?

  MG: I am, yes.

  PT: Yeah, and you're with the Insight team or something?

  MG: It is the Insight team, yeah.

  PT: Yeah, yeah. Well, okay, I mean, that's my position. I think I've been frank enough up till now [inaudible].

  MG: Fine, but I do have an obligation to put to you the full raft of allegations that we might make, so if you could bear with me ...

  PT: Yeah, you know what, I mean your journalists were clearly, er, dishonest, er, deceptive ... I mean, they were clearly trying to entrap me, and I made it clear that I would only assist them in their work. I would not do anything unethical. I would not put amendments myself. I was helping

  MG: [inaudible] It's quite interesting that you say that because I ...

  PT: I would help them put their case and their case of their clients, but as it was the normal practice that I would not do anything unethical. OK?

  MG: Well, talking about that, we did speak to the Registrar of Interests for the Lords.

  PT: Sorry?

  MG: We did speak to the Registrar of Interests for the Lords ...

  PT: Yeah

Telephone CD1 page 19 of 28

  MG: ... to understand where the rules are on this particular issue and we were given a very clear steer as follows, which is that it is a breach of the rules for a member of the Lords to take money from a third party when that third party wants to amend a piece of legislation and it is also a breach of the rules for a Member of the Lords to, erm, in any way try and, erm, affect parliamentary business for money, whether or not that Member declares or doesn't his interest with that particular company. And what I'm saying is the basis of this transcript and these two meetings that you had with our undercover reporters is that what they show is that that you were willing to engage with MJ Associates on behalf of a Chinese company and client to amend a piece of legislation for money, and regardless of whether you would or wouldn't have declared that, that, according to the Registrar, is a breach of the rules.

  PT: Can I have your number?

  MG: Of course you can. Have you got a pen?

  PT: Yeah.

  MG: **** ...

  PT: Yeah.

  MGL: *** ...

  PT: Yeah

  MG: ****.

  PT: Yeah. Well, the thing is I was not agreeing to amend the legislation myself or to bring that about. All that I was going to do was assist them to make their lobbying case so they could lobby to make amendments and to put their case to parliamentarians who would then amend the legislation. I never ...

  MG: And what is the difference between those two positions?

  PT: I was not personally going to amend the legislation or ...

  MG: [inaudible] suggest you could amend the legislation.

  PT: ... convince, convince any MP or peer or minister to amend the legalisation. I was merely going to advise them how they could go about planning their campaign to amend legislation. And you will find that lots of people give advice on how companies and lobby groups can go about amending the legislation. I was giving advice, nothing more.

  MG: But you did say that you had already spoken to the chief whip's special adviser on this issue.

  PT: No, that was, that was, that was not on the issue of the Bill. That was merely on the issue of the timing of the legislation going through, and it wasn't the special

Telephone CD1 page 20 of 28

  adviser actually, it was someone in the whips' office who, not the special adviser, I didn't know back then. It was merely an adviser on the timing of the bill going through the Commons. It was not about the substance of the bill, about lobbying the government or anything, it was about the timing and they informed me, as I informed your reporters, that the bill was in committee and it would be coming to the Lords in March. That was merely about timetable. That was nothing else.

  MG: Do you also accept that, that you would, that you said to a reporter that you wouldn't register the relationship as a parliamentary consultancy, even though they made it clear that it was parliamentary work in its entirety that they were asking you to do?

  PT: I think, er, I, that would have depended on the nature of the contract, which I haven't received, and obviously, you know, there are various, there are various consultancies. I explained to them that it's parliamentary work or non-parliamentary work and that would have depended on the contract, which I didn't receive, on how I would have to register it. That was the something for, something for later on.

  MG: I mean, you did give other examples of work you'd done for other individuals. I think you talked about an energy Bill that was changed favourably for a smart metering company.

  PT: Sorry?

  MG: You talked about an energy Bill that had been changed favourably for a smart metering client. Do you remember that? Do you remember talking about having done work for a client who was involved in [inaudible]?

  PT: No, no no, that was not changing, that was not changing legislation.

  MG: No, no, I'm not suggesting it was, what I am saying is that during the conversation you did refer to other work you had done for other consultant, as a consultant for other companies.

  PT: Yes I have mentioned other work but not in terms of, er, I did not amend any legislation myself. I merely said that, that, er, that, um, you know, that a bill had gone through that I was involved with, the energy bill, but I did not [inaudible]

  MG: Yeah, but you'd met the bill team, you'd met the head of policy and the relevant Ministers. As part of your work for the smart company.

  Pt: No, no, that was part of me monitoring the bill overall. That was not part of, doing specific job [inaudible] company. I made that clear. As a former energy minister I followed the energy bill, and I didn't, er, I spoke on second reading but I did not, er, amend any, er, any part of the legislation or take part in [inaudible] support an amendment or amend it ??manually?? myself, and if you go through all the Hansards you will find that that's the case.

  MG: Um. And you did refer to doing some work for a client who was involved in the British Energy sale. Was that through Gavin Anderson?

Telephone CD1 page 21 of 28

  PT: I'm not prepared to discuss any more of this. I mean, er ...

  MG: If I can put to you, because it is of interest to us because that's not declared in your register of interests that you did this work on behalf of a client over the British Energy sale.

  PT: I'm not going to discuss this any more because clearly we are now into a legal situation where you are going to print a report. Could I say, don't print lies. Your journalists already extensively lied to me. Erm, obviously I'll look at what you print and if it is defamatory then I will reserve the right to take legal action. Okay.

  MG: Is there anything more you want to say?

  PT: Bye bye.

  MG: Bye bye.

  [call ends]

---