Examination of Witness (Questions 400-419)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q400 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Of course.
Lord Truscott: You are actually, Lord
Irvine, putting in words which are not actually in the text. I
never said there would be an equal division of labour. I have
read out to you quite extensively what I have said about lobbying
and throughout the text I made that absolutely clear. Of course
things can be read into this text, this was the whole point of
the Sunday Times operation. They decided the headlines
before they even met me, they doctored and edited—
Q401 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I know
you are very hostile to the Sunday Times. I completely
understand.
Lord Truscott: I am also trying to give
the facts from my point of view. They doctored and edited the
text and put it in the worst possible light. Of course, the way
this conversation is run, they will try to point to some bits
of the text and say, "You said this but really you were implying
that, weren't you? You were implying you would break the rules".
And that is not actually the word I used.
Q402 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
Can I pick you up on the words you do use, Lord Truscott, which
is this business about, "I can identify people". We
are agreed on that one. "And talk to them and sort of talk
with officials." What did you mean by that? What did you
have in mind?
Lord Truscott: It is quite clear, and
understand my reading of this and what I have also read about
this, it is perfectly in order to discover the predominance of
view in the House on a particular issue and also to monitor the
progress of legislation. That is, it seems to me, what consultancy
in the House is about, if you are looking at it in the parliamentary
sphere. In order to do that, you have to talk to people, because
how can you discover the predominance of view in the House or
monitor the progress of legislation, if you do not actually talk
to people—Members of the House and officials. That is all
I was offering to do. So in identifying people, that is what I
was talking about.
Q403 Lord Dholakia: Lord Truscott,
can I come back again and just follow up the two questions my
colleagues have asked? You talk earlier about, "... normally
be a sort of partnership, as it were, you know." So you are
talking about a partnership. In that particular partnership you
talk about your own role, "I can sort of identify people
and talk to them and sort of talk with officials and all this
sort of thing."
Lord Truscott: Yes.
Q404 Lord Dholakia: What sort of
partnership is it? Is it trying to influence? Is it trying to
advise? What are you doing?
Lord Truscott: No, that was my understanding,
Lord Dholakia, of how a consultancy should work in this area.
Don't forget, one thing I should add here is that I have never
actually done any parliamentary consultancy work myself, so I
was feeling my way whether this was parliamentary consultancy
or non-parliamentary consultancy. So in a way this was new to
me. Don't forget, I had stopped being a minister about a year
before, moved into the private sector largely advising energy
companies and being a non-exec and one or two other things, but
clearly non-parliamentary work. So this was something which straddled,
it seemed to me, the advisory roles I had had and the parliamentary
work. So I was finding my way. I was expressing my opinion of
a relationship like this, if we had proceeded to develop it. Do
not forget at the end of the day there was not even a draft contract
and I decided not to pursue, but I was envisaging how this sort
of consultancy would work. I was saying to them that it should
be a partnership. What did the partnership consist of? It should
be two sides. My side of the partnership would be giving advice,
identifying people to whom the lobbyists could make their case.
Their role would be to act as lobbyists, to actually do the pitch,
to Members, to do presentations, to talk to people, and try to
convince people. All I would be doing is point them in the right
direction and say, "This Member has an interest in this subject,
it is worth you talking to them." But also, bear in mind,
the strange thing about this Sunday Times set up was basically
their premise was, "If a client pays you money, you personally
go away and move an amendment and you change legislation."
We all know, that is nonsense, that is not how it works in the
House of Lords, because to pass anything you do not simply put
down an amendment and then the law is changed, you need to build
a consensus, you need to convince different political groups and
you need to have a campaign. You need to work with other lobbyists.
In this case, the hypothetical Supplementary Rate Bill, already
the CBI, Chambers of Commerce, other bodies, were working on it
and you have to have a campaign. So I was describing from my point
of view how this campaign would work and what my role would be.
Of course what the Sunday Times wanted to report is that
Lord Truscott would go away, move the amendment, or get a mate
to move an amendment, and be paid a fat cheque. That was total
nonsense, it was a total lie. That is how it was presented certainly
in the first week of the reporting. The Sunday Times briefed
the BBC that I would move amendments for cash; Sky Television
picked it up the same way: Lord Truscott is willing to move amendments
for cash, and that was the story, but that was fundamentally a
lie. I was trying to express how it would work and obviously if
you pick out bits, bits of the text, if you take them out of context,
they look bad, there is no doubt about that, but that is what
this sting operation was all about. Don't forget, the Sunday
Times had been working on this for months. They set up a—
Q405 Lord Dholakia: I am aware of
that.
Lord Truscott: They—I think I have
said enough here.
Chairman: Do you want to proceed?
Q406 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
Also on page 8, Lord Truscott, you said you would say, "...
such and such a person is following this and you really need to
chat to them and stick out all their notes, put a briefing note
...". I understand from this bit of text that you are suggesting
to the lobbying company who they should go and approach?
Lord Truscott: Yes.
Q407 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
And you are happy, it would appear, for them to say you have arranged
an introduction, "Lord Truscott may have mentioned it to
you".
Lord Truscott: No, not arranged the introduction.
That is a different thing and that is something else I would not
do. I would not make an introduction to Members. What I was proposing
was that I would chat to Members perhaps who had an interest in
the subject, see whether they were interested in the subject,
then I would suggest to the fictional public affairs company,
"You should talk to this Member". They might be able
to mention my name and say, "Lord Truscott suggested you".
It is as simple as that.
Q408 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
That is not an introduction in your terms?
Lord Truscott: I do not think that is
an introduction. Mentioning my name is not actually fixing the
meeting. I would not fix the meeting. I would not go away and
physically arrange the meeting, they would have to arrange the
meeting themselves. It would be up to Members whether they met
with them, whether they discussed it or not. You know the Members
of this House very well, they are very independent people, they
have their own views, their own interests. I can merely suggest
some people that the public affairs company could approach. They
may be receptive, they may not be receptive. That is really up
to the lobbying company, or public affairs company, to pursue
that.
Q409 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
But you are happy for them to quote your name?
Lord Truscott: It would be pretty obvious,
would it not, if I talked to a Member and said, "Are you
interested in this subject" and then the public affairs company
follows up fairly shortly. I think it would be above board and
transparent for them to say, "Lord Truscott may have mentioned
this to you." The other important thing here is the importance
of transparency. I am actually a strong believer in the system
of transparency. All my interests are registered in the Register
of the House. I always take my appointments through the Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments. If I make any speeches or
any references where interests are involved, I always declare
them. So I think the important thing is being totally up-front
and totally transparent.
Q410 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Were you
suggesting when you said, "They should say Lord Truscott
mentioned it", were you implying to the lobbying company
you could soften up peers in advance to make them favourably disposed
to an approach from a lobby company?
Lord Truscott: No, I was not.
Q411 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you
go to the top of page 9, you say, "For example, there was
an occasion again with the Energy Bill when the Energy Retail
Association approached me and said, you know, will you move these
amendments? I said no I won't, but I know who will. I know the
person that's interested in ... and it was one of my colleagues
that did move the amendment." Now did you speak to that colleague
in advance of his moving the amendment?
Lord Truscott: No.
Q412 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Stating
the merit in your view of the amendment?
Lord Truscott: No. In fact, I have thought
about this subsequently, and what it is, I knew the Members, after
the event, who moved the amendments. I did not approach anyone
in advance of any amendments being put. I did not actually suggest
a name to them either; I did not give them any—
Q413 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But there
would be nothing inappropriate in you pointing them in the direction
of peers who might be minded to be in favour of the amendment?
Lord Truscott: That is true. But actually
I think, on reflection, I probably did not even give them a name.
I just said, "I think there are some Members who might be
sympathetic" and they went off and approached them themselves.
This is the Energy Retail Association. But if you talk to any
of the Members who moved the amendments on the Energy Bill in
relation to smart meters or anything else, I never had a discussion
with them about the amendments; I never approached anyone.
Q414 Lord Irvine of Lairg: When the
lady under-cover reporter says, a little further down, "But
you could smooth the way for us" and you reply, "Yeah"—I
take it "yeah" means "yes"—you were
saying you could smooth the way for them?
Lord Truscott: Well, no. I think you
have to take this in context.
Q415 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What did
you understand she meant?
Lord Truscott: They suggested that a
colleague would take up the amendments because they had seen I
was interested in the subject.
Q416 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing
there, could we focus on the question. What did you understand
you were agreeing to when you said, "Yes" to that question.
Lord Truscott: Are you saying—
Q417 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Let me
finish. When you said, "Yes" to "You could smooth
the way for us", what did you understand you were agreeing
to?
Lord Truscott: Okay—I was looking
at the wrong section.
Q418 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
The middle of page 9. After you had been talking about grey areas.
Lord Truscott: Right. (After a pause)
"Smooth the way". Again I was talking about identifying
people, and I was talking here about facilitating again, identifying
people and facilitating the process of lobbying. Their process
of lobbying.
Q419 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But what
would you be doing which would smooth the way?
Lord Truscott: In relation to—
| 
