Examination of Witness (Questions 340-359)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q340 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes, by
all means.
Lord Truscott: No lobbying, no paid advocacy
and no moving amendments. I made that absolutely clear in the
first meeting: the ground rules on which I would engage with any
company, even hypothetically. He was quite aggressive in his questioning
but nevertheless you can see by the transcript that I had a full
conversation with him. I think I was pretty frank and I am quite
clear that what I said to Gillard actually stands up. It stands
up if you look at the transcript, it stands up from what I think
I was saying to the company in the first and second meetings and
the ground rules that I laid down and that is why I responded
as I did.
Q341 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think
the way I summarised it you would agree is correct? You thought
this was an allegation that you had agreed to lobby and your view
was that you had not?
Lord Truscott: That is correct.
Q342 Lord Irvine of Lairg: By no
means?
Lord Truscott: That is correct, Lord
Irvine.
Q343 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Thank
you. I think you appreciated that it would be permissible under
a parliamentary consultancy to point them to the right people
for them to approach, is that right?
Lord Truscott: That is correct. My understanding
of the rules is that it is within the rules to ascertain the predominance
of view on a particular issue or piece of legislation and to identify
people that the lobbyists themselves could approach to lobby,
and that is what I thought I was offering to do.
Q344 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You can
point them in the direction of peers or MPs who might be sympathetic
to the desired amendment for them to persuade of its desirability?
Lord Truscott: That is correct.
Q345 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Does that
summarise it fairly?
Lord Truscott: That is correct.
Q346 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But not
lobby them yourself for that purpose?
Lord Truscott: Absolutely.
Q347 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think
that understanding appears from the next section if we go to it
on page 16. You say, at the top of the page, "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." Then a little further down, "...
they would have to identify people to whom they should make their
case ...", but with the benefit of your advice?
Lord Truscott: That is right, that is
what I thought I had made clear.
Q348 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Exactly.
If we go on, on page 16, just beneath the half way mark, you said,
"... 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."
So that shows, do you agree, perfectly clearly that you were well
aware that you should not lobby parliamentarians on their behalf?
Lord Truscott: That is right, my Lord.
Q349 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If we
go over to page 17, and we see what Gillard says, "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." You say, "No, no ...
". So that again shows a clear awareness by you of what you
might and might not do, is that correct?
Lord Truscott: That is correct. I was
clear in my own mind what I thought the boundaries were as far
as they affected the Code of Conduct.
Q350 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Again,
you emphasise the same, "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
..." So there what you are saying is that you would advise
them as to parliamentarians whom they could approach and to whom
they could make their case?
Lord Truscott: That is right.
Q351 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Again,
that is plainly because that is what you thought was the boundary
of permissible?
Lord Truscott: That is correct.
Q352 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What it
comes to is that you were saying that you would not arrange for
anyone to put down an amendment, correct?
Lord Truscott: Correct.
Q353 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But they
would identify, with your advice, people to approach, that is
to say you could point them in the right direction?
Lord Truscott: That is right.
Q354 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If we
go to the foot of the page, "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". You say, "No, no." Again,
I appreciate at this point you were well aware that this was a
sting, of course, did you intend "no, no" to be a denial
that you would identify officials?
Lord Truscott: Well, I think the implication
was that I would lobby to further the aim of MJ Associates.
Q355 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Exactly.
Lord Truscott: So, in that respect I
said no, because I had always made clear in my meetings with them
that my only purpose of contacting officials would be to find
out information, not to lobby.
Q356 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes. That
is the same answer really as in relation to the previous "no,
no", namely that you would not personally lobby?
Lord Truscott: That is correct.
Q357 Lord Irvine of Lairg: To be
clear, you are denying agreeing to speak to civil servants but
I suppose you would have been willing, would you, to speak to
civil servants in order to ascertain whether they would be sympathetic
to an approach from the lobbying company, is that correct?
Lord Truscott: Well, in that case I do
not think it would be appropriate for a lobbying company to approach
civil servants about moving an amendment. I think my feeling there
would be that I would simply find out the information and the
state of the play. The more appropriate place to consider moving
amendments would be in the House.
Q358 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing
there, because I do not want to lose that, do you mean by that,
that you would have thought it inappropriate for officials to
be approached by the lobbying company?
Lord Truscott: I think I was not suggesting
that. I think my intention was that in approaching officials,
it would be to ascertain the state of play of a piece of legislation
and what their reaction might be to the progress of legislation
but not to propose any specific amendments.
Q359 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That would
be you approaching officials?
Lord Truscott: To find out information
on the state of play.
| 
