Examination of Witness (Questions 360-379)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q360 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What do
you mean by that, "to find out information on the state of
play"? Do you mean the state of progress of the Bill or their
receptiveness to the idea of the amendments being proposed?
Lord Truscott: The state of progress
of the Bill.
Q361 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Not their
receptiveness to the Bill?
Lord Truscott: No.
Q362 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I see.
Lord Truscott: I do not think that would
be appropriate.
Q363 Lord Irvine of Lairg: For you
or for them?
Lord Truscott: For me. I mean I am responsible
for my own behaviour but I would not advise them to go to a civil
servant to propose an amendment.
Q364 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Would
you regard it as inappropriate for you to lobby civil servants?
Lord Truscott: I think it is inappropriate
for me to lobby anyone. It is something I have clearly said that
I would not do, I have never done before and I would not do it
now or in the future.
Q365 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So we
are quite clear in our own minds now about what your understanding
was of the limits of what was permissible. I think I can pass
over what I was minded to ask about the letter to Baroness Prashar,
because you have made your position very clear, and what I would
like you to do, if you would, is to go to the Hansard transcript
of the first meeting. I know you have pored over this and we have
pored over it and it may be a bit wearisome but if you just bear
with me and us. If you go to the top of [Hansard] page 4, you
say, and you will see it, that part of the work you do to advise
people is how to go about influencing Government and legislation
that is going through. There again, I suppose consistently with
what you have said, you have said that you meant how they could
go about influencing Government?
Lord Truscott: That is right. I would
be merely offering advice.
Q366 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then,
if we just pick up the thread, they put to you the cock and bull
story about a Far East client who wanted to allegedly set up 40
retail chains across the UK within the next 18 months. Then they
told you about their supposed concern about the business rate
and that their client was seeking a legislative exemption. Then
if we go to the transcript at page 5, we see there they explain
the possibilities and, in particular, the second one, the exemption.
Then at the top of page 6, the discussion moves to smart metering.
If we see about half way down, "I would manage to get in
Private Eye for doing that so it is an indirect connection.
So I do advise ... One thing I would say, though. If you have
sort of legislation going through, I can advise you on the process.
We can work on who puts the amendments, but I wouldn't put amendments
directly myself ..." Then you go on to say, "Because
if I am paid as a, as a consultant, then I can't be paid for parliamentary
advocacy, as it were". What you are saying is that the amendments
that were wanted would have to be put forward by persons other
than you?
Lord Truscott: That is right.
Q367 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then if
we look at the bottom of the page where we come to the Energy
Bill, just the last three or four lines, ".. but I declared
an interest. I monitored the Bill going through about smart meters
and the amendments that were going through ... and that the amendments
that industry wanted to see put forward were put forward, but
they weren't put forward by me." The one thing that one is
bound to ask you here is this, in relation to that issue, the
smart metering, you wish to see smart metering introduced?
Lord Truscott: The thing is the Government
had made a decision some years before to introduce smart metering,
so the decision had already been taken.
Q368 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In principle,
yes.
Lord Truscott: In principle. When I was
Energy Minister I supported the principle of smart meters being
introduced as an energy saving measure and all part and parcel
of energy security. I have supported smart metering for some time
but as far as the Energy Bill was concerned, although I spoke
in the Second Reading, I took no further part in the Energy Bill.
I moved no amendments, I did not suggest anyone else move any
amendments. I never approached anyone else on the issue of amendments
in the course of the Bill. I think the Second Reading was in something
like May and the Bill was not going through until the autumn,
and I did not take part in any of the discussions. You can check
Hansard, in fact, apart from the time that I was a Minister, I
have never moved any amendments on legislation, I have never spoken
on any amendments on legislation, and I have never suggested anyone
else do so. That fact was endorsed by DECC, the Department for
Energy and Climate Change, which said that I did not take part
in policy formulation.
Q369 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am not
trying to cut you short but the short answer really is you are
saying the one thing you did not do is lobby other parliamentarians
in favour of smart metering?
Lord Truscott: No.
Q370 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you
not take any interest in who actually put down the amendments?
Since this is a subject on which you are something of an expert,
did you not speak to them to encourage them to put the necessary
amendments down?
Lord Truscott: No, in fact the Energy
Retail Association came to me asking whether I would move some
amendments on smart metering to do with the stranding of meters,
which is all to do with what happens to the old meters when they
are left and there is a changeover to smart meters, and who would
pay the cost. I told them that I would not move amendments and
that I was conscious of the fact that I had this smart metering
consultancy so it would not be appropriate for me to move any
amendments, so I declined to do so. I did not talk or discuss
amendments with any of my colleagues or any Members of the House
of Lords but I did follow the issue by reading Hansard.
Q371 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you
go to the top of page 7, there you say, "And then I held
meetings with officials to discuss various issues including the
smart meters, but I didn't stand up and say, `I move an amendment
on behalf of, effectively, smart meters.'" Now, I am not
suggesting to you that you moved any such amendment in the House
but you seem to think it was appropriate that you could discuss
smart meters with officials?
Lord Truscott: There was one meeting
I held with the Bill team in July, the year the Bill was going
through, at which we discussed all the issues of the Energy Bill,
and I was obviously interested in the Energy Bill as a former
Energy Minister.
Q372 Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is
you who picked out smart meters here in your answer.
Lord Truscott: Yes.
Q373 Lord Irvine of Lairg: "...
various issues including the smart meters".
Lord Truscott: Well, that is right. What
I did with the meeting with the Bill team is I asked them again
what the progress of the legislation was and what the state of
play was with smart meters, but that was for information purposes.
After all, because of one of my roles was as a consultant to a
smart metering company I thought I should be informed on what
the state of play was with smart meters, but at no time did I
suggest any amendments, did I put forward any policy proposals,
and this was a general meeting with the Bill team on the Energy
Bill, so that I was informed of the issues. I had one meeting
with them, I had no further contact with them. I felt that as
a result of the meeting I was sufficiently informed on the Energy
Bill and that was that, in effect.
Q374 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You see
what obviously we want to consider, Lord Truscott, although we
are not immediately concerned with smart metering, we are merely
asking you questions in order to determine what you thought was
appropriate behaviour and we would be assisted in that by knowing
what you actually did in relation to smart meters, but since smart
meters were dear to your heart it is quite difficult to accept
that you would not have argued with officials the case for them.
Lord Truscott: I did not need to argue
the case for them because the Government had already decided,
as you said in principle, to have smart meters. Later on there
was a reference to smart meters included in the Bill but as the
Bill team themselves and the Department themselves said, there
was no discussion about policy and I had no influence whatsoever
on the policy as it related to smart meters in the Energy Bill.
Q375 Lord Irvine of Lairg: As you
recall it, what did you say about smart meters to the officials?
Lord Truscott: I asked them what was
the state of play with regard to smart meters. I think the smart
metering company that I was involved with, they were more interested
in not the legislative side of things, because it was not a parliamentary
consultancy anyway, they were more interested in the timetable
for roll-out of smart meters which was not in the Bill anyway.
It was just a question of an indicative timetable. The company
was interested in being informed about how long it would take
to roll-out the smart meters, what would be the regulatory framework,
what would be the technical framework, that was really more a
matter for the Department and for the regulators than a matter
of legislation.
Q376 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think
your short point really is a decision had been taken in favour
of smart meters, therefore there was no need to lobby on that
principle, even if you would have been minded to do so?
Lord Truscott: That is right.
Q377 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you
go half way down the page, you say, "What I am saying is,
there are ways to do these things but you have to be—there's
a degree of subtlety required and you have to work behind the
scenes, to a certain extent. Most people are actually happy with
that because at the end of the day what you want is good advice,
you want results, you want to be able to influence things. Again,
smart metering things, I held meetings ..." I note the plural
"... with officials. I could pick up the phone with officials
and say, `What's happening?'" Were you suggesting that by
seeing officials on the smart metering and other energy issues
you were able to influence things?
Lord Truscott: No, no, again it was simply
for information purposes. Do not forget—
Q378 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Just explain
your reference to "you want to be able to influence things."
I would like you to explain that.
Lord Truscott: "You" i.e. "them",
the public affairs company. Can I explain, this fictional company
came to me and said they were a communications company which were
moving into the area of public affairs. They were talking about
negotiating a 12 month consultancy contract with me to represent
them on a number of issues where I could give advice. They came
across as very ignorant. You can see all over these pages of transcripts
I was trying to explain to them how the process worked, what their
role should be and what my role should be. I was trying to say
to them, well there is a degree of subtlety involved here. I cannot
go moving amendments. I cannot lobby people directly. What you
have to do is do such and such and what they wanted from me, I
was advising, what you want from me in effect is good advice.
You want, the lobbyist, they want good results, and you, the lobbyist,
they want to be able to influence things. My advice could help
them achieve their aims, that is what I was saying.
Q379 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not
want to cut you short obviously, because you can say anything
you want. The understandable distinction you are trying to make
there is that it is for them to exercise influence and not for
you?
Lord Truscott: That is right. The "meetings
with officials"—I have not checked the text on that
but I did have only one meeting with officials, so that maybe—
| 
