Examination of Witness (Questions 420-439)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q420 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Apart
from naming a peer, what would you be doing which would smooth
the way?
Lord Truscott: I would be identifying
people that they could approach. I would be advising on the progress
of legislation and I would be giving advice. That is my understanding
of what consultancy is about. I go on to explain. Sometimes I
have a mannerism and say "Yeah" and then I go on to
say something contrary to that, or I give more facts; it is just
a mannerism I have. I go on, a couple of paragraphs down, to qualify
what I am talking about, the sort of role I envisage. For example,
I say, "Yes ... Again on the BERR thing" relating to
the Department, "... the client said, well what's happening
about this government decision? We've heard, you know, that it's
going to be delayed. You know, what are the things that's sort
of holding up, the problems. So I can just ring up someone and
chat to them and find out what's going on."
Q421 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing
there, was that with a view to breaking the log-jam and persuading
the person you are speaking to that the delay should not continue?
Lord Truscott: No, it is not, it is about
finding out what is going on, being informed, and presumably if
you are a consultant it is because people actually think you have
some knowledge or information which is useful to them. So I would
ring up and do exactly what I said, find out what is going on.
That seems to me pretty clear.
Q422 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think
it is fair to draw your attention to the passage at the top of
page 12, where you have set out the position in principle, as
you see it, perfectly clearly. You say in answer to the question,
"Would you put us on the register or our client on the register?",
"No, it would be you, rather than the client." Then
you say at the end of this, "I have never seen my role as
lobbying. I am not personally a lobbyist. I don't actually lobby.
What I will do if someone wanted—a client, for example—
... is advise lobbying companies that lobby. I don't mind advising
lobbyists, but I don't personally lobby." The man says, "You
don't phone up officials and make the pitch yourself?" You
reply, "No, I wouldn't do that. That's the other thing to
make clear. I don't lobby myself. I don't mind being employed
by them, but I advise the lobbyists rather than doing the pitch
myself." So that, if you like, is a clear statement of principle?
Lord Truscott: That is right.
Q423 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you
would say, if that is all you were doing, pointing the lobbying
firm in the direction of peers who might be sympathetic to the
interests of their clients, that would be entirely unobjectionable?
Lord Truscott: Yes.
Q424 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What I
want to explore with you next, Lord Truscott, is whether in fact,
having stated the general principle in an unobjectionable way,
in a correct way in fact, whether you would actually behave in
a rather different way. So can we go forward to page 19 of the
transcript. Could you look at this? I am almost at the half way
mark on page 19. The man says, "Yes, a Commons Second Reading.
In practice, if one were to try and amend it, say, with an amendment
which said, for example, that you can, you were exempt for a certain
period, would one have to ... Would you be looking for people
who were already like-minded to do that sort of thing?" Then
you reply, "Or try to persuade them that it is a good idea.
One or other." It would unquestionably, would it not, be
lobbying if you tried to persuade a peer that it was a good idea?
Lord Truscott: Yes, but I was talking
about them persuading somebody.
Q425 Lord Irvine of Lairg: The man
says, "Would you ..."
Lord Truscott: Yes.
Q426 Lord Irvine of Lairg: May I
finish. "Would you be looking for people who were already
likeminded to do that sort of thing?" and your reply is,
"Or try to persuade them that it is a good idea." That
is emphatically not something that you were suggesting that they
should do, you were being asked what you would be doing and in
addition to looking for people who were already likeminded you
added, "Or try to persuade them that it is a good idea. One
or the other".
Lord Truscott: Obviously I have looked
at this very closely with my lawyers, and can I put on record
here my thanks to Neil O'May, who is a partner in Bindmans, who
has given me a lot of advice on this issue and written a number
of letters.
Q427 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I appreciate
that, but we want your answer to this.
Lord Truscott: You will have it. And
also Sir Ken Macdonald QC, who has given me advice. I will refer
to our letter, although drafted by Neil obviously we went through
it together, and I will put on the record my position on this.
Q428 Lord Irvine of Lairg: This is
something that has been drafted for you by a solicitor?
Lord Truscott: We drafted it together.
We went through this text together and drafted it together.
Chairman: Could I just make one thing clear.
We want to establish facts from you as to what you meant and it
is important that we hear from you as to what is your understanding
of what you meant to say.
Q429 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not
think you should just read out to us the text of something that
has been settled between you and your solicitor. What would be
more helpful to the Committee, and to you, Lord Truscott, is if
you were to tell us what you meant, because this is an addition
by you when you were asked, "Would you be looking for people
who were already likeminded to do that sort of thing?" and
you added, "Or try to persuade them", that is the people
that you would be looking for, "that is it a good idea. One
or the other". What I would like to hear, and I think what
the Chairman would like to hear, is your answer to us as to what
you meant by that.
Lord Truscott: You will have it, and
you will have my answer in my own way, if I may be allowed to
do so.
Q430 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Of course.
Lord Truscott: Certainly in my own words.
Q431 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Of course.
Lord Truscott: When the fictional lobbyist
said "would you", my understanding was that this was
a reference in the third person.
Q432 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Sorry,
to them, not you?
Lord Truscott: Yes.
Q433 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You understood
that "you" meant "them"?
Lord Truscott: Yes. I understood that
"you" meant "them" and this was about MJA
themselves persuading someone that it was a good idea. It was
not about me. The use of the words "you" and all the
rest, there is this point, this separation. Here when the word
was "you" I was talking about MJA themselves would have
to persuade them that it was a good idea. When I said "You'd
start off in the Commons", again I was indicating to them
what they would have to do as the public affairs company.
Q434 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing
there for a second. You say that, although on the face of the
transcript, and there is no issue that this is what you said,
they asked you whether you would be looking for people who were
already likeminded to do that sort of thing and you replied, "Or
try to persuade them that it is a good idea". Now, as a matter
of language it is unquestionable that these were things that you
were going to do.
Lord Truscott: No.
Q435 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If that
is not so, what would assist the Committee, I am sure, is if you
explain to us how it is that "you" means "they".
Lord Truscott: Look at the language.
The man says: "Yes, a Commons Second Reading. In practice,
if one were to try and amend it, say, with an amendment ...",
"if one were to try and amend it", not me but "one".
"... for example, that you can, you were exempt for a certain
period, would one have to ..." and then he switches to "you",
"Would you be looking for people who were already likeminded
to do that sort of thing?" and then I reply, "Or try
to persuade them that it is a good idea. One or the other".
I go back to, "You'd start off in the Commons ..." I
am making it clear that his reference—He talks about "one"
and then "would you be looking for people", then I turn
it back and say, "You'd start off in the Commons" so
I am making it clear they would have the persuading role, not
me. Then I go on about, "if you think ..." et cetera,
et cetera.
Q436 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Sorry,
this has got to be noted down, Lord Truscott, so speak distinctly.
Lord Truscott: Right, okay. I will go
back and try to speak more clearly and slowly. The man says, "In
practice, if one were to try and amend it, say, with an amendment
which said, for example, that you can, you were exempt for a certain
period, would one have to ..." Because I had made it clear
before that I would not move the amendment or suggest an amendment,
my understanding was that they were talking about them, the public
affairs company. "Would you be looking for people who were
already likeminded to do that sort of thing?" and then I
said, "Or try to persuade them that it is a good idea",
i.e. you would have to persuade them that it was a good idea.
Then I come back in my next sentence to say, "You'd start
off in the Commons", not me. I did not say, "I would
work in the Commons or the Lords to persuade people or to move
amendments", I said, "You'd start off in the Commons
because it's easier to amend things here". It is quite clear
I was not talking about I. I never at any stage said I would move
amendments or I would start off in the Commons or I would start
off in the Lords or that I would persuade people. It is clear
that I was talking about them, not me.
Q437 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could
we move on to the top of page 20. You say, and it is not a perfect
transcript obviously, but right at the top of the page, "Director
of policy responsible ... the Bill team ... Obviously, when it
comes, I can advise on procedure and who to deal with in the Commons
but obviously when it comes to the Lords it is far more within
my ambit to influence it than in the Commons." What influence
were you suggesting that you had greater in the Lords than the
Commons and how were you going to exercise that influence?
Lord Truscott: It comes back to our earlier
debate about influence and parliamentary influence.
Q438 Lord Irvine of Lairg: No, no,
but it is not a debate. I just want to know, and I am sure my
fellow Members of the Committee want to know, what you meant when
you said, "to the Lords it is far more within my ambit to
influence it than in the Commons". What did you mean when
you said that at the time?
Lord Truscott: I will come on to that.
What I was talking about was influencing the process of lobbying.
I was not talking about directly influencing Members or their
views but I was talking about influencing the process of their
lobbying. What I was really talking about was my ability in the
Lords is greater to ascertain the predominance of view with the
head of the Bill team, with Members of the House of Lords, than
it is in the Commons because of the very fact that I am in the
House of Lords, so I have a greater ability in the House of Lords
to sound out Members and officials on their views.
Q439 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That was
what you meant by "influence" then, a greater ability
to sound out Members and officials about their views?
Lord Truscott: That is right.
|
