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

Lord Truscott—Sunday Times Transcript

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 1 of 36

CLAIRE NEWELL (USING THE NAME CLAIRE TAYLOR) FIRST TELEPHONED LORD TRUSCOTT ON FRIDAY 9 JANUARY 2009 AND ARRANGED TO MEET ON WEDNESDAY 14 JANUARY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. NEWELL AND JONATHAN CALVERT (USING THE NAME DAVID THOMPSON) MET LORD TRUSCOTT IN THE LORDS TEAROOMS ON WEDNESDAY 14 JANUARY 2009. THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WANTED TO HIRE HIM TO HELP THEM DO POLITICAL CONSULTANCY WORK AND EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAD ONE PARTICULAR CLIENT IN MIND WHO WANTED TO AMEND THE BUSINESS RATES SUPPLEMENT BILL. TRUSCOTT INITIALLY SAID THAT HE WOULD HELP BUT DREW THE LINE AT LOBBYING HIMSELF. HOWEVER, LATER HE TALKED ABOUT HOW HE WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP CONTACT MEMBERS, OFFICIALS AND MINISTERS, AND HOW HE CAN EXERT INFLUENCE IN THE LORDS. HE AGREED THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSIST IN AMENDING THE BILL AND QUOTED A FEE OF £2,000 A DAY. THIS WAS INITIALLY FOR ONE OR TWO DAYS A MONTH BUT HE LATER SUGGESTED THREE DAYS A MONTH IN AN EMAIL.

Transcript begins as Lord Truscott (LT) Jonathan Calvert (JC) and Claire Newell (CN) sit down in the peers' dinning room. Three full-stops "..." denote a pause or an inaudible passage.

  JC: We have just recently starting doing public affairs in the UK which is partly why we wanted some help from someone connecting us to the two houses of parliament. At the moment we have got certain clients. We have got one client in particular that we are thinking of who wants some help and we, as a company, do not have strong contacts within the two houses and one of our researchers did some research.

  CN: Yes, that's right. To identify people we wish to talk to expand our political network and also as a company we are interested in maybe having some consultants who work for us and provide us with political expertise as well as working more directly with clients. Both are an option and your name came up.

  LT: I do various sort of work for companies and organisations. Some is strategic advice on what market they want to go into or the passage of legislation, how government works, what's the way to go about influencing government and ... legislation going through. And the other thing is the interface between parliament, the Commons and the Lords, with business and how that works. I also provide ... it depends what sort of advice your clients want. Are they looking at the sort legislative stuff or contracts with government?

  JC: It's more the legislation. The particular client, you have to bear mind that if we have an arrangement there might be other clients in the future, the particular client we have in mind is setting up a retail group in the UK, so it's sort of consumer affairs; it's setting up 40 retail clothing chains across the UK over the next 18 months. It's called Emerald but just a working title. They are a company called Wong Hing, Taiwanese. They have more than 2000 clothes retail outfits across Asia ... they are very used to having a close relationship to government in their own country when it comes to setting up projects such as this and and they've identified a number of issues which are important to them and one of them is the Business Rates Supplement Bill,

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 2 of 36

  which you may or may not. I can jog your memory. The BRSB is an extra 2% rate on top of the existing business rate which is being proposed and in fact had its second reading on Monday in the Commons. It's coming up to the Lords and people are already paying around 43% in business rates so they are quite high and the imposition of an extra tax is not particularly welcome to our clients. It was a measure that was brought in to really finance Crossrail as far I can see. It's a way for council's to invest in infrastructure projects. One of the things they were looking to see is if the bill could be amended in some way. So there were two possibilities. One was that the bill is amended so that the retailers actually paying the tax, the businesses that will be paying the tax, vote on it before the tax is levied. Now there is some scope in the bill already for consultation with the retailers but it doesn't quite go as far as saying. Alternatively, the possibility is that there may be an exemption introduced into the bill for new businesses. And what we were looking for is someone who would be able to help us with that sort of area. I know it's not something you could instantly say, I know all about the bill.

  LT: As I say, I mentioned consumer affairs ... passed a consumer bill through the Lords and I was the government spokesperson for the DTI. I covered everything, for the Lords. I do, I followed the Energy Bill, for example, er, it's in the public record, I advise a smart metering company, which is obviously, on the smart metering bill, smart meters.

  JC: These are meters which you have in people's homes?

  LT: Yeah, they tell you the energy that you are using. The cost, so you can watch—

  CN: So you get far more information?

  LT: The company themselves, they can read your usage, they don't have to send a meter reader. So, the consumer can see the cost, which might encourage them to use cheaper tariffs that kind of thing.

  JC: What were they looking for?

  LT: First of all, the Energy Bill included clauses on smart metering, So, I was advising them on the passage of the bill. And in the future they are hoping to ensure that the technical specifications fit in with the way they are thinking as well. That the government doesn't come out with specifications for smart meters which they can't do. Eventually they want to be in a position where they can bid for the smart meters contract, across the country. They put themselves in a prime position. That's quite a big market, 44 million households, it's a multi billion pound market really. It may not be just one company. Even so, if they receive a chunk of it, then that's quite a significant, so obviously they've got an interest in that. So, I advise them on that. I've just had a lunch with someone from Gazprom. One of the companies I advise advises Gazprom, I don't advice Gazprom directly. I'd get in Private Eye with even an indirect connection. One thing I would say though is that if you have legislation going through I can advise you on the process, I, we can work on who puts the amendments, but I can't put amendments directly myself, because if I am paid as a

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 3 of 36

  consultant, I can't be paid for parliamentary advocacy as it were. So, whilst as I did, speak on the Energy Bill, I declared an interest with smart meters, I can declare an interest, but I would not be comfortable myself being paid by a company to put amendments directly myself, but what I could do is advise on the process and identify other people who would be willing to, who would be approached and put the amendments and that kind of stuff. So I draw a line between advice, consultancy and direct advocacy of being paid by a company of whatever. As I say, on the smart metering case is a case in point. I spoke on the second reading of the Energy Bill. I did mention smart meters amongst other things, but I declared an interest. I monitored the bill on smart meters and the amendments going through. And that the amendments that the industry wanted to put forward were put forward, but they were not put forward by me. I held meetings with officials to discuss various issues including smart meters but I didn't stand up and say `I move an amendment on behalf of smart meters' because clearly that would be frowned upon. Because people would say you were basically paid to move an amendment so I have to be a bit careful in terms of approach.

  JC: So you find someone to do it for you or?

  LT: Well it wouldn't be for me would it, it would be for your client.

  JC: Yes, for our client yes.

  LT: What I can do is to facilitate the system, fine, but I can't get involved in the paid advocacy in parliament because that's against the rules and I'm pretty sure its against the code of conduct plus it would make me a big target for the media and it wouldn't be good for your client either. What I am saying is there are ways to do these things, but there is a degree of subtly required. You have to work behind the scenes to a certain extent. Most people are happy with that because what you want is good advice, you want results and to be able to influence things. Again with smart metering thing, I held meeting with officials, I can pick up the phone to officials and say what is happening with smart metering.

  CN: To civil servants?

  LT: I can say what's happening. Well there are these issues cropping up in the bill. I am incredibly happy with doing that. As I say you just have to be a bit careful with paid advocacy.

  JC: Is that now an Act?

  LT: Yes, the Energy Bill? Yes. Smart metering is involved in it. There will be further government announcements about how they can. I mean the decision of government is all in the public domain, so I am not breaching any confidentiality. The government said they would spend 2 years working out how the implementation would eventually be achieved and then smart meters would roll out to all domestic households over a 10-year period. Ten years plus two is twelve. That's an ongoing thing.

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

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 4 of 36

  LT: Yes, they were very happy because they got a government commitment to do the things, to roll out these. There is a watching brief because you have to watch for all the implementation. As you know, it's one thing making all these announcements and another implementing it and watching the detail.

  JC: Were there any crucial points with anything? That people had to change? Or was the government largely thinking along the right lines from the start?

  LT: There were issues that cropped up but that's why were amendments were moved and issues were raised that were important to industry. That they wanted to highlight.

  JC: I say that because if for an example there is an issue such as we have here. Is it possible for us to leave it to you to identify the right people and approach them?

  LT: I think it should normally be a sort of partnership as it were.

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

  LT: Yes, that's normally the way it works. I can identify people and talk to them, talk to officials and all this sort of stuff. But normally I would work with the organisation. I might for example say, `Claire such and such a person is following this and you really need to talk to them, give them a briefing note, have a coffee with them and would you move these amendments. Lord Truscott may have mentioned it to you.

  CN: That's it really, without me actually knowing these people it can be hard for me to call someone I don't know, and say `hello, you've never heard of me, wondering if you could you move this amendment for me please?'

  LT: Going in cold is difficult. It's knowing, it's why, it's why lobby groups and PR companies use politicians. They don't know who to approach, who is interested and if you approach the wrong person or go in cold, then you could be absolutely wasting your time.

  JC: Because the information is not available to someone on the outside looking in?

  LT: For example, there was an occasion again with the Energy Bill when the Energy Retail Association approached me and said will you move these amendments and I said no I won't but I know who will. I know a person who is interested and it was one of my colleagues did move the amendment.

  JC: Because they see you are interested in it presumably?

  LT: Yes, well a former energy minsters. They said `will you move these amendments' and I said `well I am monitoring the bill' but I didn't want to be seen to be moving the amendments myself. Some of my colleagues here might be happy to do that but again it depends on the degree of interest that you've got. I think it depends on the

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 5 of 36

  circumstances. There can be a slightly grey areas. But if you have got a clear linkage. If you had a client ... it might not necessarily be the clever approach.

  CN: If you could smooth the way for us. If you could say this is the person you need to speak to, I've spoken to them already, they are expecting my call?

  LT: Yes. On the first thing the sort of client said what is happening about this government decision, we've heard its going to be delayed. So, I could just ring up someone and chat to them and find out what's going on. They had their CEO for Australia. He'd come from Australia, was off to New York.

  JC: Sorry, the CEO?

  LT: The CEO of the client company. The other thing that I would often do is say with an organisation like yours, is have a lunch or a cup of tea and talk about issues, what the government position is, what they want to achieve and how you can bridge the gap. I've been involved with one or two other things, like the sale of BE for example, British Energy, both as a minister and then where there were various bids. One or two of the bidders approached me to advise them on the process. EDF won, of course. Might have been down to Gordon Brown's brother.

  JC: Quite handy though. I have often wondered how that works

  LT: Well they will say that no direct connection, but I know ... very well, the head of EDF ...

  JC: I always imagine that Brown is a very straight individual..

  LT: Yes, EDF have been trying to run it for some time.

  CN: Yes, did you help EDF at all.

  LT: No, I didn't work with EDF. I did work with some of the other companies involved.

  JC: So there wouldn't be any clash between our retail company and any other client that you've got. There's no conflict of interest in that sense is there?

  LT: No. I was thinking about that. It was partly what I was asking you. The other thing is I like to be up front with the companies I do work for. I'm a non-executive director of several companies ... and I advise several companies as well. But it's all on the register of interests. What I would say is if there is a conflict of interest I would advise the company appropriately or maybe not be able to do it.

  CN: If it was too similar to what you are already doing.

  LT: Yes. We would discuss it. As we were saying earlier, for most people in the Lords it's part time ... we meet at 2 or 3 o clock in the afternoon, sometimes until 10pm. But most people have outside interests as a result. It tends to be a portfolio

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 6 of 36

  type of existence. Generally, people have other part time interests, those sort that fit in with being in the Lords ...

  JC: I would have thought it was easier in that sense to be a Lord than a member of parliament where you have salaries you have a constituency to look after.

  LT: Yes, there it's the exception to have other interests or maybe if they've got other interests it takes up 20% of their time. They have their constituencies and other things to take up most of their time. Here it is more of a balance. I'd say 50/50 or even 60/40 have outside interests. In terms of the register of interests people are generally pretty well experienced at handling those. In terms of conflicts of interests people are pretty well experienced in handling those positions. I've got my published members register of interest which is open to the public so it's all above board, open to transparency.

  JC: How would it work? Would you put us on the register or the client on the register?

  LT: No, it would be you. Because its two years since I was a minister any job I was appointed to would have to go before the business advisory performance committee. Usually what they say is its ok to take up any position providing you've not been a minister more than 12 months before in that case you can't directly lobby government or government departments. I mean I don't see my role as, I've seen my role as lobbying. I'm not personally a lobbyist. I don't personally lobby. What I will do so on. Lobbying companies lobby.

  JC: You don't phone up officials and make the pitch yourself.

  LT: No. I wouldn't do that. That's the other thing I want to make clear. I don't mind being employed by a lobbyist. But I advise lobbyists rather than do the pitch myself. I am happy to find out information, but I think that is slightly different. The advisory committee normally gives us advice. Then the other thing is, the House of Lords Register of Interests, every company that you work for you list the company whether as a director or consultant. In this case, if it is a parliamentary consultancy then you can state in the contract, but I only do general consultancy. I would write down that I came to an agreement with Michael Johnston. That's it, then your client list is confidential. It's not really anyone's business who your clients are.

  JC: I see, you'd register it just as parliamentary. We would not be pushing you into break any rules in so far as it would be parliamentary work.

  LT: It wouldn't be exclusively parliamentary work. I wouldn't be employed as a parliamentary advocate or lobbyist. That's a key definition. I would advise clients ... interests or whatever. It might be that the next one has a broader remit.

  CN: And how does it work with your current consultancies. Do you work on a retainer basis?

  LT: As I say I am a non-executive director of several companies. I'm also a consultant to those companies ... There are two companies I currently do consulting for, one is a

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 7 of 36

  Smart metering company and financial PR company Gavin Anderson, one of their clients is Gazprom. Do you know Gavin Anderson?

  JC: Yes.

  LT ... They do have some big clients. You would have to judge whether that is of itself a conflict. From what you are saying, it is quite easy to separate out. Separate clients, separate interests. Certainly, what you are talking about is different to the sort of stuff I have done in the past. Things like British Energy, IPOs, Gazprom.

  JC: What are Gazprom's interests in the UK? Do they have them?

  LT: Well without breaching confidentiality, Gazprom employs three agencies worldwide, Gplus in Brussels, Ketchum in the US and Gavin Anderson in UK. They advise them on financial pr, their image, how to present things. They have been quite busy on Ukraine and I had lunch with Alexander ... the deputy CEO of Gazprom for Britain. So I am in contact with Gazprom but mainly through Gavin Anderson. That's a slightly different thing as I am regarded as a Russia expert, three books on Russia.

  JC: So both energy and Russia dovetail quite nicely.

  LT: I was involved with Russia before I was involved in energy and I've got to know energy through Russia.

  JC: I was wondering if Gazprom have any interests here?

  LT: Two years ago they had nothing in the UK. Now they employ 200 people and have 5 per cent of the retail market and they also use London as their base for carbon trading. They use it as a base for expanding to the US and their gas trading arm is here. They are mainly based in Manchester. They have got another office in Richmond. So they are quite vigorously expanding. This is Gazprom Markets and Trading UK, this is an off-shoot of Gazprom, their foreign export retail arm. So there are all sorts of issues there as well that are under discussion. How much companies like Gazprom should have in the UK market. Same with EDF, but a bit more sensitive with Gazprom, as you can imagine.

  JC: I didn't realise there was a limit on how much of the market Gazprom could have in the UK.

  LT: There's not a formal limit. There was a row a few years back when Gazprom started buying up big assets or UK companies and there was disagreement between Blair and Brown. Blair basically said. I wrote a report a couple of years ago. I am an associate fellow of the Royal United Services Institute and I'm currently writing a report on energy security. I wrote a report a couple of years ago and there was really basically a row between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, which sucked in Alan Johnson. Tony Blair was basically saying `we are an open civilised market so if they want to come in they can do what they like'. Gordon Brown was saying, `hold on there are political issues. Are we going to let the Russians have the power to switch our lights off'? So there was a bit of debate about that and it was never really reconciled. Certainly when I was energy minister they were very wary about letting

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 8 of 36

  Gazprom in and there were other issues, security issues as well. Some of which is secret. Now it's still very sensitive. The UK arm of Gazprom is gradually expanding in the UK and expanding in the retail sector. The big issue a couple of years ago was Gazprom buying Centrica. That was a security issue. So, those sort of things I would advise them on as well.

  CN: Do you work with other clients at Gavin Anderson or is it just Gazprom?

  LT: The way it works is that they say `we have a client that wants to talk to you about this'. They fix up a dinner or whatever ... There have been other clients. It's in the public domain. We have talked about British Energy. We also have occasional meetings when we just talk about issues that are of interest to them and their clients. Or they will ask me, `could you find out about this that and the other?' Your earlier question was how does this work with me. I work on a retainer basis. Usually with a consultancy thing it's for one or two days a month. I don't do time-sheets or anything but generally it works that the company calls on or will use me one or two days a month, sort of time wise.

  JC: So it's an hour here and there?

  LT: Yeah generally, it can vary. If I am asked to attend a conference in Zurich or something then that can be a whole day and sometimes it can vary. Some months I may only do a few hours and another month, you know, you get two days or so. I find it sort of balances out.

  CN: Much more. .

  JC: It's the sort of work you could say, we want 16 hours out of you a month?

  LT: Yeah, it does vary and it is flexible. The other way is that what we would normally do is sign a contact with a 12-month review period so if you are not happy you just don't continue. But touch wood so far everyone is all right with it. It may be that a relationship comes to an end for financial reasons in that we've achieved all your aims.

  JC: What's the going rate?

  LT: Well my rate.

  JC: What's your rate, I suppose?

  LT: Well, I get paid £2,000 a day.

  JC: So, in effect, that's £4,000 a month.

  LT: If you want two days or if you want one day then—

  CN: Yeah. Right ok.

  JC: Oh, I see, so we can do it either way.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 9 of 36

  LT: The other thing is, that I would say as well is that, it depends on how much time you want and what you want me to do. You make a decision and a plan. You can say well, we've got enough for you to do for one day, but probably not two days. Or you can say well we'll take you on for one day and then we will review it after 12 months.

  CN: And see whether it needs to be increased or not.

  LT: Increased or you think, you know, whatever. We can review the situation and see if you are happy with the arrangement. That's pretty standard really here really I think.

  CN: Yeah.

  LT: You'll find I think that rates vary from £1,000 to £5,000 a day so I think, you know, that's what I would propose.

  JC: I don't think the money is the problem. In fact it won't really be us who pays it but the client.

  LT: Yes

  JC: He's quite relaxed about it. I think it's just a question of getting the right person.

  LT: Yes

  JC: Presumably, if he were to come to the UK, you could show him around?

  LT: Oh yes.

  CN: Do you ever arrange dinners in the Lords?

  LT: Absolutely yes. Just before Christmas I had the head of the Bank of International Cooperation come my way, the CEO ... I've done dinners before, lunches, shown people round. I've shown the Gazprom people around. I showed them around the Commons and Lords and after dinner they wanted to see the chamber. They quite enjoyed that. If I have a lunch or dinner here, as an individual member I can bring 6 people without a problem. If we need a few more I can always get a colleague to -. Also you can hire private rooms for lunch or dinner ...

  [Talks about arranging lunch or dinner or afternoon tea for clients]

  JC: Just going back to the business rates bill, which is one of the things our client has highlighted to us. It's in its second reading in the Commons, so it's not at its beginning anymore. In practice, if we were to try and amend it, to say for example that new companies would be exempt for a certain period, would you be looking for people who were like minded to do that sort of thing or.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 10 of 36

  LT: Or try to persuade them. One or other.You start in the Commons, but it's easier to amend things here. The government has lost two votes in the Commons since 1997 and lost more than 400 votes in the Lords. And because of the in-built government majority in the Commons it's a lot easier to amend things here. The government has got about 28% of members in the Lords so it has got no in-built government majority.

  JC: Does that mean they are more likely to make concessions here?

  LT: Yes, they're more likely to lose votes, so that's when the Lords comes into its own as sort of a revival chamber. So, in that sense it's easier to get things amended here.

  JC: Do you have to put down a formal amendment or is it a process in which the bill is still being written in effect and someone writes it in?

  LT: You can get the government to amend its own bill, provided you can convince a minister or officials that they can make amendments. They may do that because they would prefer to amend it themselves rather than have it imposed on them even though it may be fairly similar, it may be more restrictive. In those cases ...They may well amend it themselves so they feel they are in control.

  There will be a bill team, policy director who is responsible and you need to talk to those people first and then the minister as well. And then—

  JC: And you could arrange all of that?

  LT: Yeah. I mean, yeah. Especially with the bill team, ministers, all that. I can advise on procedure and people to deal with in the Commons but obviously when it comes to the Lords it's far more within my ambit to influence it than in the Commons.

  JC: Because you know the officials or ?

  LT: I know the officials and I can contact the officials as it goes through the Commons stages but in terms of influencing members and knowing the people, I know people better up here than in the Commons. I still know people in the House of Commons, some are ex-colleagues, but because of the government in-built majority as well it's sort of easier in the Lords to achieve what you want really. If the bill comes through the Commons, you have first, we have the first bite of cherry there, the second bite here and you may even have a third bite.

  CN: So you've got lots of opportunities?

  LT: Yes ... And the other thing is I also have staff as well. [Talks about staff and space] In reality, a lot of it comes down to me. The head of a bill team is not going to talk to a researcher.

  ...

  JC: So it sounds as if broadly you would be able to do it.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 11 of 36

  LT: In principle yes. I do similar things and I've got the time to do it currently within what I am doing. As I say, the life is part-time. I'm still working less hard then when I was energy minister. They give you the odd red box at the end of the day. I was lucky to get half a week off. The energy thing was interesting. I think being a government minister is over-rated though. I think if you don't really enjoy the brief you shouldn't really do it. So, I may go back to government at some stage in the future but I am quite happy to do other things for a while. Gordon has invited me back a couple of time as it were. The first time it wasn't really my particular thing.

  Conversation trails off and they walk back to the peer's entrance.

That evening (January 14) Lord Truscott sent Calvert an email enclosing his CV

  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

The CV

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.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 12 of 36

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, 2007-

—  European Union Select Committee, Sub-Ctee C (Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy), House of Lords, 2005-6, 2007-

  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-term 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.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 13 of 36

—  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, Modern 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, 2008- : 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

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 14 of 36

  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

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 15 of 36

  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:

  ***

Calvert sent Truscott the following email on Friday 16 January 2009

  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

The following is Lord Truscott's reply on Friday 16 January 2009:

  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

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 16 of 36

Calvert sent the following email to Lord Truscott on 20 January 2009

  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

Lord Truscott replied on 20 January

  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

Calvert replied on Wednesday 21 January

  Dear Lord Truscott,

  See you later today. Many thanks.

  Kind regards

David

CALVERT AND NEWELL MET LORD TRUSCOTT ON WEDNESDAY 21ST JANUARY AT THE ST JAMES' HOTEL AND CLUB. LORD TRUSCOTT EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS BEEN DOING SOME WORK ON THE BUSINESS RATES SUPPLEMENT BILL AND, WHILE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO OVER-TURN THE BILL, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO AMEND IT. HE OUTLINES A JOINT CAMPAIGN BETWEEN THE FICTIONAL LOBBYING COMPANY AND HIMSELF TO GET THE AMENDMENT THROUGH. LORD TRUSCOTT MAKES CLEAR THAT HE WILL TALK TO MPS BEHIND THE SCENES AND MINISTERS, AND

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 17 of 36

he will deal with the Lords himself. He is also willing to attend meetings in which the lobbyists will be making representations to officials or members of the two houses. He goes on to describe how he met the key figures when promoting his paid-for client's interests in the Energy Bill. He suggests that his role helped ensure that the legislation was favourable to his client.

  CN : Oh, Lord Truscott, hello, we're just round there ...

  LT: Oh are you, hello.

  CN: Hello. Nice to see you, sorry about that.

  LT: That's all right.

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

  LT: No, I was wondering which part you'd be in.

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

  JC: Hello, hi.

  LT: Hi, I think we were sat at the wrong table.

  JC: Oh how embarrassing. Well, we've got this rather large table, and we've got scones. These have got cinnamon in and they're quite delicious.

  LT: Right, I'll have one.

  JC: Have you been waiting long?

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

  JC: Did you walk up here or did you —?

  LT: Yes, yes. I walked from the Lords. I usually walk down from there because I've got a place in ***. So, I walk down to the Lords and walk back.

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

  LT: Yeah, yeah.

  CN: Lovely isn't it?

  LT: Yeah then down Lower Regent's street, Pall Mall, walk through steps and through the park.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 18 of 36

  JC: Because I reckon it was probably the nicest day of the year so far, not that the year is very old.

  CN: A couple of weeks.

  LT: Yes and the light is very good

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

  LT: No rain as well which is good. I don't mind the cold.

  CN: Yes, I don't like the rain either. Well I'm forever losing my brollies so it just means I get wet.

  LT: I remember the brollies I used to leave in phone booths in the old days before mobile phones came. Make a phone call and leave it on the side and that would be that.

  JC: You don't really see phone boxes much any longer. Well, working ones are sort of few and far between.

  CN: Apart from tourists standing in a couple that are left. They just want them for picture purposes as they pose on the phone.

  LT: Yeah, I suppose they've got to keep a few open.

  JC: I reckon that's a plum jam. I'm trying to work it out.

  CN: No it's not plum I think it could be fig or something.

  LT: Yes fig.

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

  JC: We spoke to Mr Jiang and I think in principle we're almost there. He's got to find, I mean he was quite impressed with your CV and your background so I think hopefully we can get to work asap on ...

  LT: I did a bit of preliminary work on it, not too much but I went through the second reading, it's already gone through second reading.

  JC: That must have been last week.

  LT: Yes, so we've got a sort of programme ... it's in committee, so it will be a couple of days in committee on the 20th and 22nd where it can be amended. There are also public hearings where interest groups can give their view from the British Chamber of Commerce to the General British Retail Consortium, Society of Chartered Surveyors and various interest groups and local authorities and the rest. So they'll be giving

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 19 of 36

  evidence as the bill goes through and then there will be amendments put down and the Liberals have already started to put down amendments and they'll be taken at committee stage and report stage. It's due to come out of committee on Feb.

  JC: This is a committee for the House of Commons?

  LT: Yes.

  JC: Because you have a separate committee don't you and you go through all the same things in the Lords?

  (1 hour)

  LT: Yes, it'll go through all that and it'll come through the Lords in March. There will be a second reading, committee stage with amendments then report stage and third reading where amendments can still go through. And, in fact, they're more likely to go through. It's interesting in the second reading that the Tories call a vote to vote against the second reading which is unusual because normally it's a vote on the principle, sorry a debate on the principle of the bill. But the Tories are clearly very unhappy about what it could mean for businesses. They're calling it a stealth tax in effect, saying it would create a burden to business. I think the estimates are that it would cost £360m to £600m in extra cost that it will create. So they called a vote on the second reading but they said they weren't opposed to it as far as Crossrail is concerned. The funding was agreed sometime ago to specifically fund Crossrail in London and even Boris Johnson and the LGA were in favour of that. So, the Tories sort of voted against but said they would still be in favour of Crossrail. I think the party support a supplementary rate of some form to support Crossrail, that's all party. The Liberals supported the government on the second reading, only the Tories voted against. Their line was again to support Crossrail and they have a philosophical point that they believe in more power being devolved to local authorities. But they really want to see a local income tax. However, although the Liberals voted with government on this, there were concerns about the lack of balance because one of the main things that the Tories have said and that business interests have said is before these supplementary rates can be applied, there should be a ballot involving businesses ... and that they should sign up to it only if they want it in their area for the upper tier level or unitary authority. So they're saying there should be a ballot and I think the Liberals could be sympathetic to that. So looking at it politically, there is no chance that the bill could be defeated but there is a chance of it being amended as it goes through.

  This local business development scheme, there is, in effect, a ballot and I think that is an area that can be looked at. But as I say because you have the government and the Liberals signed up to the bill, particularly as they would see it as under-cutting Crossrail as they would be against it. It could well be a majority against and even if the government gets through the Commons stage it would have to get through the Lords.

  JC: It would probably be very difficult to raise unless the local businesses felt very strongly that this is something that is going to benefit them.

  LT: Uh huh, even in the bill as it currently stands, if any project is identified as being for economic development, which this supplementary rate bill would provide more

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 20 of 36

  than a third of the funding, then there would have to be ballot anyway. So, that is already in the bill.

  JC: So it's just a question of extending it to service ... for all funding?

  LT: Yes. The other thing is about the rateable value. There is also scope for amendment because there will be a rate revaluation next year. Currently there is a cap of £50 for businesses and the government is saying that 91% of businesses will not be affected because of the rateable value but the Conservatives and one or two others are saying well once the rateable value is changed next year and a lot more businesses will come within the

  (1.05)

  net. Clearly, there has already been a degree of lobbying on this from the BCI, chamber of commerce, so there will be allies in this on work being done to amend the bill and it does seem pretty strange given the economic cycle. There is the concern as well that if the local authorities, if they are having their council tax kept down they may just use it as another funding tool.

  ...

  The other thing said at the second reading debate, they said in the lottery that it would only be used in cases of conditionality when the clear conditional spending is not on core local government spending but the lottery did it in the end... but it would be watered down later on. I think that's quite a dangerous precedent.

  JC: So in terms of procedure ... you've got the committee stage for the Commons later this month. Say, for instance, our suggestion of an exemption for new businesses, would it be possible to get an amendment on that as early as the committee stage?

  LT: Well it depends, I mean, what I was going to ask you was what does your client actually want, I mean, what are they seeking to achieve?

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

  LT: No matter what the time, kind or the rateable value?

  JC: Yes. Because he assumes that all of his premises are going to be big premises and therefore the properties are going to be over the £50,000. I mean, we could draft the amendment ourselves I suppose, but you have to get a parliamentary draftsman to do it presumably?

  LT: Not necessarily. You can sort of, um ... well it maybe better to get a member to put it through the public bill office so that they put it in the right language. But a lot of organisations, if they have lawyers, they do the drafting themselves or alternatively you can work with the public bills office to get the wording right.

  JC: The question is how do we get the amendment into the committee?

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 21 of 36

  (1.08)

  LT: Well there are a number of things you can do. First of all you need to get all the evidence ...whether they're doing something similar along the same lines or pretend you are ...because normally they'll produce briefings when it appears ... and they'll suggest various amendments and they'll be going round various peers lobbying in effect ... and then saying .here's an amendment, this is the reason for it, maybe you should put it ...You find that sometimes if individuals or opposition groups, if they agree with the argument, well, they'll just adopt it because it's a lot easier for them to take ready made amendments than to think of it themselves. Usually a frontbencher, they have got one researcher or something and they will be snowed under, so it a lot easier for them to take a template from someone else and just bang it in as an amendment. First of all you need to work out whether the other lobby groups like the Chamber of Commerce are already doing that so you don't duplicate.

  CN: As far as I know they are on board with the idea of a vote but not the exemption for businesses

  LT: Then really on that one what you need to then do is identify private frontbenchers who are taking it through the Lords. Caroline Spellman has just been made a shadow local government representative so then it comes down to the local government communities department. Those would be the teams. Hazel Blears is doing it for the government and has overall control and John Healey takes it through the second reading to Sadiq Kahn ... so once you know what you want to do ... you could then have a meeting with opposition mps or individual mps and persuade them of the argument and ask them to bang in this amendment. Providing that they think it's a logical argument then they'll probably go along with it and the other thing is ... Try and get the CBI and other groups to do the same thing. Why aren't the CBI fundraising every time ...?

  CN: 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 ...

  LT: What's the logic ... in terms of new business ... so that you encourage investment and don't deter it

  JC: It's a very difficult time for any new business. You'd have thought the government would want to encourage new business especially the retail sector where we're losing businesses all the time ... so we propose a two year exemption ...

  LT: No matter what it ...? I mean there may be an argument that if it's a well off business then maybe it can afford it ... I'm just saying their might be an argument. Small businesses, ok, but if you have a big conglomerate like Walmart well what's the need to exempt them. So you'd have to have the counter argument for that ....

  CN: Well I suppose we want a full high street.

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

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 22 of 36

  [1:13:00]

  LT: Well as I said to you before, I can work with you over it and it is identifying people and obviously following it, and identifying people too, meeting people, I mean, talking with people to facilitate the amendment and making sure the thing is granted. I think it's got to be a sort of partnership as it were, because I don't think that for even two days a month I'm going to be able to go away and do the whole shooting match on my own. But if it's approached as a partnership then I think ...

  JC: Do you know Caroline Spelman?

  LT: Caroline Spelman? No. I know some of the mps and I know all of the Tories in the Lords and I have no problems approaching them. I mean, I think as I said it might be worth having the first bite of the cherry in the Commons.

  JC: 22nd/23rd this month, I've just thought well, that must be this week.

  LT: Yes, they have already had one committee day.

  JC: When you first said it, I thought you were talking about later in the month.

   LT: So ... [lists dates] until 3rd Feb then it's end of the committee. So it will be through all of its stages in the Lords by March so this is why I was saying to you that one day a month is probably not enough because even doing background work for it takes a day ... so to monitor it going through all its stages.

  J: Could we structure it so that we did more days at the beginning? I don't know what your period is?

  LT: Well that's possible. But I think it should be doable in a couple of days really. I'm going to take on a researcher in the next week or two to assist me with this and other things ... Have you done things like this here before?

  CN: No, not so much here ... we wanted to expand public affairs things. And unfortunately, it's all happening very quickly for this particular client so we have to get a move on really.

  (1.15).

  LT: Well we could say ... what I've done with other organisations is say well I could do a minimum of two days but then if you feel we really need to give this a push, say to me, can you do more days? And I'll put more time into it. For me it's just a question of time and the other thing is I think it's better to develop a relationship with the client to have a sort of minimum commitment so that I don't just put in an awful lot of time over three months and that's it. Because also I'm doing other things. But I think in this situation if we say a minimum of two days ... then you thought well you can give me a bit of a push if you need to do more then you can ask me ... to do more days.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 23 of 36

  CN: And you can see if you have the time ...

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

  JC: Yes, I'm assuming that during our two days for us you're contacting people for us ... is that ... and contacting people could take days or it could take two minutes and that's the difficult thing isn't it?

  LT: There are a number of things that need to be done. First of all, you need to follow the bill as it goes through all of its different stages. So that means someone has got to be reading all of the debates and all of the stages and I'll keep an eye on the progress of the bill and then I think the other thing is identifying who could be approached to put forward amendments at various stages and maybe other bodies to contact. So, that then that comes down to a bit of a mix. You talking to some people, me talking to some people, sometimes both of us talking to people to put something through. Really, you have to feel your way a little bit. Some people like to do it over a cup of tea in a tearoom, some people prefer to have a proper presentation and so on So you have to be careful that people don't feel they're having their arms twisted up their backs ... because then there will be a reaction.

  JC: To an extent, I think people will feel better dealing with you as a fellow peer and former minister ... because they don't know us and we come from nowhere ...

  LT: And there would be a different style maybe in the Commons and in the Lords. I mean, in the Commons, it might be better for me to identify the MP but for you to talk to mps unless I particularly know an MP and have a word with him and then I see the Lords people on my own because I know everyone in the Lords who is active. So, I'm quite happy to do that on my own. It may well be a sort of combination that if we set up a meeting, say in the Commons, and say we've got Lord Truscott and even in the Commons ... say you know, we've got Lord Truscott and he'd like to come along ... you know, representations are being made. I'm also happy to do that ...

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

  (1.18).

  LT: But I mean, what I ... In these sort of situations, what I usually do is, I don't do all the leg work myself. I'm there to give advice and to talk to people and I'm quite happy to talk to mps and ... with officials and do the behind the scenes stuff. As I said to you before, I don't think I would be comfortable moving amendments myself ... because I think people would complain it would be a direct interest.

  JC: But the question is, you would be able to find someone who could?

  LT: Yes, yes. That's right. I mean, I can speak on the subject just to declare an interest if I feel that's required but I think its better to ... and from what I've seen certainly on the balance you're pushing at the door on the Conservatives and Liberals but the exemption which no one else has mentioned. It's a question of getting that on the radar ...

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 24 of 36

  JC: It's a question of getting someone to raise it ...

  LT: The logical people would be the Tories actually ... Are you prepared to disclose your clients and the scale of investment ...say well we know a company that's willing to invest x amount in the UK but given this regime they're going to go somewhere else? If you can give ... ammunition for members to use ... in the chamber ....

  JC: What about the minister? It would be John Healey would it? Is he someone you know?

  LT: Yes, I know John Healey.

  JC: Is it worth talking to him?

  LT: Yes, yeah. Certainly I can ... erm, yeah, can arrange ... there's no problem with me approaching the minister either at the committee stage or the report stage ... and saying, because it's usually a common thing that's done. That's the other people you need to contact, the bill team ... because they will brief mps and peers so there is plenty of opportunity for exchange between mps and peers.

  CN: The bill team brief mps and peers?

  LT: And the minister. Together. Whether it's John Healey in the Commons or the minister taking it through in the Lords which will probably be ... Kay Andrews ... as local government communities minister there ... probably be Kay Andrews.

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

  LT: We can find that now. I already spoke to the chief whip's special advisor, so ... he was a little hazy on the details. But you know, you can go directly to the department or have it progressed through ... they do usually offer briefing papers and certainly I could ask for a briefing and use that as the time to say, well have you thought about this?

  Of course, though, the minister may or may not take it on board. Usually, they won't take it on board unless they think there's a head of steam behind it and they could lose a vote. Because departments are usually quite rigid, they have got their bill and they don't want to amend it unless they have to.

  (1.23).

  JC: Well, you can see that they see it as a finished piece of work presumably, don't they?

  LT: Yes, they've been working on it for years ...

  JC: It's like saying to them why didn't you spot this in the first place. I suppose, its making the case that a lot of businesses might be more comfortable with the bill in ...

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 25 of 36

  [1:23:00]

  LT: Again, bringing it back to the Energy Bill. I had meetings with the bill team and the relevant minister and the head of policy actually, at BERR.

  CN: It's all DECC now isn't it?

  LT: Yes, it is DECC now. So all that is possible and that's fine, I don't mind doing that.

  JC: What was your objective? To amend the Energy Bill?

  LT: Well I was keeping an eye on the smart metering in particular, but also, I was interested in general elements of the bill, energy security and all that stuff. But the specific thing was smart metering.

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

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

  LT: They got the result they wanted. In terms of the, they wanted a commitment that smart metering would be in the bill and that it would be rolled out. And both commitments were (eg)—

  JC: Were they in the bill originally?

  (1.24).

  LT: There was some debate about whether they would be in, and there was certainly no government commitment to when it, the roll out would—

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

  LT: Yes, yes. So again, it was pushing at an open door ... Knew as minister that the government was keen on the principal of smart meters ... Getting them from a general position to actually getting them to do it.

  CN: Well of course if they put it in the bill, then it becomes an Act and then they are committed to that in legislation, rather than just potentially.

  LT: In this bill the government will have to make concessions, otherwise they will start losing clauses and their priority is for Crossrail and to use the supplementary rate bill to do it. And they will try and resist amendments but at the end of the day they are going to make concessions to get the bill through. They don't want it voted down but there is clearly a majority from them ... to push it through.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 26 of 36

  JC: Quite interesting your experience with the Energy Bill. Quite instructive to us. Presumably, at some point there has to be a piece of paper with an amendment? How did you actually manage to find the right person to do that in that particular instance?

  (1.26).

  LT: Well it has to be a member that has to move the amendment. So even if its, it can be a frontbencher or an individual member.

  JC: A member of the Commons or Lords?

  LT: Yes.

  JC: So with the smart energy you found a person who was willing to—

  LT: Yes, the amendments were moved in both the Commons and the Lords on that one.

  JC: 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.

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

  CN: There's a far more formal commitment when it's written down ...which is useful. Bash them over the head I say!

  (1.30).

  JC: We were talking to Lord Taylor the other day.

  LT: Yes I know him.

  JC: I wonder about that ... in terms of ... Cantax do gas storage which is something you presumably know quite a bit about. It's not a clash is it with your work that you do for Gazprom?

  LT: No, because they're the retail side ... So they're interested in expanding the retail market ... I think they supply for some commercial customers as well. But they're not into storage facilities as well.

  JC: Is a competitor to Cantax, Wingas?

  LT: They're German though, aren't they?

  JC: I thought they were looking to do some offshore storage in the UK.

  LT: There's a limit to the offshore storage that we have got. There is a bit debate about how we should increase our offshore storage ... I think we have a week's supply ... It was very important when we had North Sea gas. Now the majority of our

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 27 of 36

  gas comes from Norway. But in the future as North Sea stocks decline we will become more dependant on Europe. Storage will become more of an issue.

  JC: It's quite unpopular isn't it. I think Cantax are looking to put a big storage depot in the North West. It's one of those nimby-isms.

  LT: They used to have those big storage things in every town.

  JC: Yes, yes. I guess if we have more gas-fired power stations then we'll need even greater storage.

  LT: Yes. And the whole security of supply debate as well. As you say there is a degree of nimby-ism there. So going offshore is a good thing if you can do it.

  CN: Is it very difficult?

  LT: It's usually more expensive. But it's something we should probably be looking at.

  JC: Does that mean storing it underground, offshore?

  (1.33).

  LT: Well, yes you can sort of ... aquifers and old mines and things.

  JC: So you'd have like an oil rig ...

  LT: I'm not sure about the technical side but there are several different ways you can do it. The CCS, one of the ideas for storing carbon was in old mines, going out into the North Sea ... specialised facility.

  JC: Is there anything else we need to discuss at this point?

  LT: Well, we just need to draw up a contract. Presumably you've done similar sort of consultancy so you don't need a template for me, you have your own. So on the basis of a couple of days minimum ... hopefully you will have further requirements after this client.

  JC: Initially were looking at amending this bill ...in future if we take on Canatxx, we may wish to take on your expertise. That's just a for instance.

  LT: They want to develop storage?

  JC: Yes. I think there were planning and some political issues.

  LT: It depends on the scale. If it's fairly large scale, it can run under the new infrastructure planning commission so it doesn't get bogged down in local planning ... it depends on the level.

  JC: We are talking about a year initially aren't we?

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 28 of 36

  LT: Yes, twelve months initially and then we can decide if both parties are happy. That's what I've done with all of the other.

  JC: That's quite straight forward. We already have contracts we can get run up.

  LT: Once we do that we can have another meeting to talk about tactics. I'm due to take on a researcher in the next couple of weeks so I can get them onto it and all the rest ... and take it from there. How much time are you yourselves ...?

  CN: Quite a lot. We need to give it a big push. We need a researcher and a monitor ... we need to decide who that is ....

  LT: I think on the issues, it should be doable actually. We have got this piece of legislation which does seem to me to be quite onerous for business at the moment and people do seem to be concerned about the implications and it is clearly an issue ... and that really should be saleable. It's not like the impossible. I mean, if it was something else that you'd come to me with ... if the political will isn't there it just may not be possible but what you're talking about should be really very possible.

  JC: All we have to do is get the amendment into the bill and members have to vote on it?

  LT: Yes, you have to take it all the way. Try to get it amended in the Commons and the Lords and try to make sure the government doesn't amend it again. But I should think the government wants this done and dusted by the summer recess.

  (1.39)

  LT: I would have thought their sticking point would be on the ballot rather than on the exemption. You can see the potential to really damage the thing for Crossrail. That may be an area where you just have to give ground and say this doesn't apply to Crossrail. If it's seen as scuppering Crossrail you won't get anywhere. That's a compromise you may have to make. You may have to say, you're ring fencing Crossrail in London but, for the rest of the country ... and then you could stick the new businesses but. I think that would be seen as reasonable and I think you could get that through. I'm not quite sure that the Liberals are 100% signed up to the ballot idea. I think they can be persuaded.

  LT: So what sort of timescale.

  CN: I'd hope, this week, really. Is it ok for us to email it as an attachment?

  LT: So what may come up later in the year? I suppose it depends what clients come forward?

  CN: Yes, it does. Some seem quite keen.

  JC: I think it's about managing expectations. From what you've said it should be doable.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 29 of 36

  LT: So it's Mr Jaing? Where's he from?

  JC: Hong Kong. We know him from our work in Brussels for him on shoe imports ... He is a financier of what will be the consortium under the name Emerald.

  LT: Is it general retail?

  JC: Clothing.

  LT: What's his timescale?

  JC: It's ... we expect to have the first shops opening by the turn of next year.

  LT: Pretty brave in this environment, and that's an argument you can use.

  JC: Actually, I think the business rate supplement will come in around about April next year which is why. So it was identified by these people that they wanted to neutralise if they could.

  LT: Is it so important. in the ...

  JC: It's the uncertainty he doesn't like. It's eliminating one of those areas of uncertainty.

  LT: In the current environment, the government would be mad to create more burdens for business and create uncertainty. It will be a very difficult couple of years.

  JC: Surprising they're going through with it really but I suppose they want to fund Crossrail.

  LT: Apparently, the original idea was to have a Crossrail funding bill. But then they decided the business improvement ... that they thought it would be a good idea to create this bill so it's not only funding Crossrail but other local ... could do a similar thing. Why should it only be London? What happens if Manchester wants a big infrastructure project, well this is the way to achieve it ...

  There are some clauses ... there's no prescribed area that they have to spend it on. So I'm quiet comfortable with...

  JC: Who's in charge of sponsoring the bill?

  (1.46)

  LT: The minister. Hazel Blears is secretary of state but it will be given to John Healey in the Commons and given to his opposite number in the Lords.

  JC: It was Healey who was fielding questions in the second reading.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 30 of 36

  LT: I came across him ... at a by-election again quite a bit when I was minister ... because he was the Treasury man at the time.

  JC: So he might listen to the arguments then?

  LT: Well its worth giving it a go. The department ... strategic back down if they think they're going to lose ... convince the ... in your army.

  ...

  LT: Have a plan for the Commons and ... follow it all the way chasing various organisations all the way.

  Conversation comes to a close.

Following the meeting Lord Truscott sent an email to Calvert and Newell on 21st January 2009

  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

Michael Gillard, a Sunday Times reporter, called Lord Truscott on Friday 23 January

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 31 of 36

  MG: I'm calling you about some discussions you've had over the last week with a company called MJA?

  LT:Yeah.

  MG: Who represent this Chinese businessman Li Jiang?

  LT: Urhuh.

  MG: And I understand that they've been asking you and others to help them in their approach to amend some legislation that is going through the houses relating to supplementary business taxes?

  LT: I have been having talks with them. Why? Is it a scam is it?

  MG: From the outset I'll make sure you are aware they were undercover reporters and the whole conversations were taped.

  LT: Urhuh

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

  LT: How many other people did they interview?

  MG: We will get to that at the end if you don't mind. I wouldn't mind just going through your particular two meetings. It seems to us from the transcripts that you did agree to help MJA 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.

  LT: Urhuh

  MG: You are not denying that?

  LT: Well yes, er, people approached to have that done.

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

  LT: Well yeah I, er, I'm not going to go into details about anything that I thought was er you know was a legitimate transaction. I'm not going to go into any commercial discussion.

  MG: Well the company doesn't exist. There is no Li Jiang. The whole thing was a...

  LT: I was actually suspicious about that yeah.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 32 of 36

  MG: Were you suspicious enough to not do business with them?

  [Silence]

  MG: Obviously not.

  LT: I was suspicious about it. I did actually wonder whether it was a journalistic set up to be quite frank and 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 out from them what sort of work was required and what would be ethical for me to do or not do in those circumstances.

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

  LT: No, no ...

  MG: And said about finding people to put an amendment down; and that you would work behind the scenes was your phrase to influence things?

  LT: No, no that wasn't, that wasn't, that wasn't my understanding of my role at all. My role would be to er assist them from the aims that they had to support their client. I specifically said to them I would not put down amendments myself. What I suggested to them was that there was a number of organisations that were involved in the supplementary rates bill who were lobbying people concerned, ministers and other people that were putting forward amendments and I suggested to them how they could take part in that lobbying process.

  MG: With respect that is not what the transcripts show. What they show is that you did make it clear correctly that you wouldn't put down the amendment yourself ...

  LT: Yes

  MG ...but you said you would find third parties to do it and you would work behind the scenes to influence things. You talked about speaking...

  LT: No, no what I said to them, and I'm sure this is in the transcript, 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 I said to them how they should go about that.

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

  LT: No, no. What I said was they had to present their case to people who were involved in the legislation and [pay or persuade] them to put forward amendments but I would not do that. And I would specifically not lobby people. What I could do was obviously follow the legislation as it goes through the house and keep them informed but I specifically said that I would not put forward the amendments myself and they

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 33 of 36

  would have to identify people to whom they should make their case. It happens all the time in the instance they were talking about the supplementary rates bill, there was the chamber of commerce and the CBI who were putting forward amendments, er, suggestions for amendments of the bill and they were giving evidence to the bill committee as it's going through currently. The two issued they mentioned were the ballot, before that went through, and also there was another thing about exemptions for new businesses. And I said they shouldn't push on an open door as far as the ballot was concerned, from what I could see the CBI was lined up behind that with the exception that the funding for Crossrail should not be affected and they would have to make concessions as far as London was concerned, but they may well be able to persuade, to er ensure that the amendments were moved as far as the ballots were concerned ... but they were pushing at an open door. On exemptions where new businesses were concerned, and they mentioned Mr Jiang who was gong to make a large scale investment in the UK, as far as that was concerned, I said that they would have to make a case for that and they may well be able to persuade people. I said, er, that is something they would have to do. I did actually say to them that I did google MJA and I came up with an operation in er Australia and the US. But they created obviously a fake website, in which it claimed they had been in operation since 2002. I also went to Trafalgar House and I couldn't (laughs) actually find them listed among the companies there, so clearly before actually signing an agreement—as you said there was various sums discussed—before signing an agreement I would have clearly checked them out more thoroughly. Obviously, we didn't get to that stage.

  MG: Well you got to the stage of sending your CV, talking about a researcher to assist in the work, discussing the fee structure?

  LT: Yeah.

  MG: But moving on from that, the point I'm making is that I am not suggesting that you suggested in those two conversations that you would make the amendment, put down an amendment. What I am suggesting is that the transcripts are clear that you suggested it would be done through a third party that you would arrange?

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

  MG: Well I will read you the transcript if you like. It says `As I said before I don't think I'd be comfortable.... I think it is better to.' I don't it can be any clearer that you did say that you would find someone to put the amendment down other than you, ie by proxy?

  LT: No, no, that is not, that was not my intention. If you go through the whole thing it's clear that they had 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.

  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 MJA?

  LT: No, no, that is no my understanding. Can I have your name again please.

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 34 of 36

  MG: Of course you can. You also talked about willingness to speak to civil servants, the head of the bill committee and ministers and you said people would pick up the phone to you because of who you were.

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

  MG: I am.

  LT: And is this with the Insight team or something.

  MG: It is the Insight team.

  LT: Ok, yup, well that's my position. I think I've been frank enough up to now...

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

  LT: Your journalists will recall the story of ... and 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 would help them put their case and their case for their client. But as is the normal practice I would not do anything unethical.

  MG: We did speak to the registrar to understand where the rules are on this issue and we were given a very clear steer 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 for a member of the Lords to in any way affect parliamentary business for money, whether or not that member declares or not his interest with that company. And what I am saying the basis of the transcript of these two meetings show is that you were willing to engage with MJA on behalf of a Chinese company to amend a piece of legislation for money. And regardless of whether you would or wouldn't have declared that, according to the registrar that is a breach of the rules.

  LT: Can I have your number Mr G. [*** **** given]

  The thing is I was not agreeing to amend the legislation myself or to bring that about. All I was going to do was to assist them to make their lobbying case so they could lobby to make amendments and to put their case to parliamentarians who then amend the legislation.

  MG: What is the difference between those two positions?

  LT: I was not personally going to amend the legislation or convince any MP or Peer or minister to amend the legislation. I was merely going to advise them on how they

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 35 of 36

  could go about er having a campaign to amend legislation. And you will find that lots of people give advice on how companies and lobby groups can go about and amend the legislation. I was giving advise nothing more.

  MG: But you did say you had already spoken to the chief whip special adviser on this issue?

  LT: 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 adviser it was someone in the whips office not the special adviser. 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. They informed me and I informed your reporters that the bill was in committee and was going to be coming to the Lords in March. It was really about timetable nothing else.

  MG: Do you accept you said to the reporter 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?

  LT: That would have depended on the nature of the contract, which I hadn't received and obviously there a various consultancies and I explained to them there was parliamentary work and non-parliamentary work and that would have depended on the contract, which I didn't receive, on how I had to register it. That was something for later on.

  MG: You did give other examples of work for other individuals. You talked about an Energy Bill that was changed favourably for a smart metering company. Do you remember that?

  [silence]

  MG: You talked about the client that was involved in the sale of British Energy.

  LT: That was not changing legislation.

  MG: I'm not suggesting that it was. What I was saying was that during the conversation you referred to other work you had done for other consultants, as a consultant for other companies.

  LT: I have mentioned other work, but not in terms of, I did not amend any legislation myself, I merely said that, er, er, that er, a bill had gone through. That I was involved in the Energy Bill.

  MG: That you had met the bill team, that you had met the head of policy and the relevant ministers, as part of the work for the smart company.

  LT: No, that was part of me monitoring the bill overall, that was not ... for the company. As the former energy minister, I followed the Energy Bill, I did not amend any part of the legislation ... did not in any way myself. And if you go through Hansard you will find that this is the case. .

Sunday Times Lord Truscott page 36 of 36

  Conversation ends with Gillard asking about the British Energy sale and his client but Truscott declines to discuss the matter.

  ends

---