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


Examination of Witness (Questions 440-459)

Lord Truscott

13 MARCH 2009

  Q440  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing there. For what purpose would you be sounding out Members and officials as to their views? You would ask them what their views were and then you would be studiously silent after that and not seek to affect their views or persuade them as to the merit of the amendment, is that it?

  Lord Truscott: I made clear, Lord Irvine, many times, and I can quote at length, that I do not lobby Members. I do not think it is appropriate to lobby Members. I think Members would resent being lobbied, and I am not going to attempt to persuade Members to change their views or to adopt any opinions or views. That would not be appropriate for me.

  Q441  Baroness Manningham-Buller: You can see our problem, Lord Truscott, with the word "influence" which you used twice because influence, as I understand it, is not just getting information, it is actually taking some action to change something. You used it on two occasions, which is obviously what concerns the Committee, that you would influence.

  Lord Truscott: I do agree that in retrospect, and looking at this out of context, it does not look good, as I said earlier about one or two parts of the transcript. I did use loose language open to misinterpretation, but if you put it in context it is quite clear that the sort of influence I was talking about related to my position in the House of Lords and it did not relate to lobbying other Members. I had already laid down the ground rules quite clearly in terms of lobbying, moving amendments or paid advocacy. It was an unfortunate use of the word "influence", but—

  Q442  Lord Irvine of Lairg: But "influence" is an ordinary word in the English language, the meaning which Baroness Manningham-Buller attributed to it is a common, ordinary meaning, namely that you would be trying to effect some change through personal influence. You say that is not what you meant, but do you accept that at least is how it appears?

  Lord Truscott: Taken out of context I understand that it can be misinterpreted. If I had known I was on the record I would have been more careful about my language and I would not have used that word. I think there is a distinction between "influence" and "parliamentary influence" and I think I made clear during the course of the meeting that at no stage would I try to exercise parliamentary influence, i.e. influencing the business of the House on amendments or speaking or whatever. We have to recognise by our very nature Members of the House of Lords do have influence.

  Q443  Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not think there is any issue about that at all.

  Lord Truscott: The point is whether that influence is used appropriately and whether it is used to promote commercial interests. I was trying to say in the earlier part of the transcript that I would not use influence to influence parliamentary business or legislation or lobbying.

  Q444  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Just pausing there for a second, you do see that a legitimate concern is that you were, as it were, paying lip service to the rules, setting out what they were with very great clarity, but then giving them an indication that you, in fact could do much more than in practice, as it were, behind the scenes. You understand that is a legitimate concern for us to explore.

  Lord Truscott: I can see if taken out of context, which was the point of doing the exercise from the Sunday Times' point of view, it can be misinterpreted. I think you can see from the rest of the text that I was absolutely clear about the ground rules and even if I did use that word inappropriately in that section, I was absolutely clear in my own mind where the boundaries were, what the rules meant and I was absolutely clear in my own mind that I would not break the rules, I would not promise to do so, and I had no intention of breaking the rules. Probably there is an issue with consultancy and lobbying where, according to the ACOBA Rules—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—ex-Ministers are allowed to lobby on behalf of companies or other businesses that they actually work for. I think there is a contradiction in the Code and in the rules which is not very helpful and—

  Q445  Lord Irvine of Lairg: That may be very interesting but your position is you were not lobbying.

  Lord Truscott: That is right. Actually, I thought by saying that I would not lobby, and by not lobbying, which I have never done, that I was ensuring not only was I abiding by the rules but I was more than abiding by the rules because there was a discussion about whether lobbying is allowed or not, but from my point of view I would not go there because I thought it was inappropriate.

  Q446  Lord Dholakia: Can I come back and express my concern following the two questions that have been put to you. If you were not lobbying, you then went on to say, "I can contact the officials as it goes through the Commons stages". Why would you want to contact the officials when it goes through the Commons stages when if you were not lobbying you could find out precisely what goes on by looking at the minutes of their committee, what amendment they had reached, et cetera? Why did you want to contact the officials? Can I just take it further. You then go on to say, "I can contact some of the MPs as well ..." Why would you want to contact Members of Parliament in the Commons, "but in terms of influencing Members and knowing the people, obviously I know the people better up here than in the Commons." How would one interpret all this?

  Lord Truscott: Well, it is quite simple. In terms of the officials, you are right, one can look at the committee minutes and Hansard and certainly that was what I was hypothetically proposing to do.

  Q447  Lord Dholakia: But you are talking about officials.

  Lord Truscott: Yes, I am coming on to that, Lord Dholakia. One can also contact the officials, for example the Whips Office, and say, "What is the timetable for this Bill?" and I think there is a reference in the transcript to me contacting an official and saying, "What is the timetable for this particular Bill?" Again, that is what I am talking about, contacting officials for information purposes. As I talked about doing in the Lords, similarly in the Commons. As for the contacting Members of the House of Commons, it would be to undertake the same role that I was hypothetically proposing in the Lords, i.e. to identify those Members who may be sympathetic to the proposals of this hypothetical public affairs company that they could contact. I think this comes back to why I used the phrase "in the Lords", because I do know some Members in the Commons and their views on various issues and I could make some suggestions, but I would be in a stronger position to make suggestions in the House of Lords and that was what I was talking about. I was only talking about contacting officials for information, particularly on timetabling and other matters, where we are at with a particular piece of legislation, which you cannot always gather from Hansard or committee minutes. Similarly, contacting Members in terms of identifying those who could be worth approaching.

  Q448  Lord Cope of Berkeley: You speak about context but the context here, at the bottom of page 19, is about getting the Government to amend its own Bill.

  Lord Truscott: Yes.

  Q449  Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is why you wish influence to be exerted on officials.

  Lord Truscott: Sorry, where are we?

  Chairman: Bottom of page 19.

  Lord Cope of Berkeley: "You can get the Government to amend its own Bill, provided you [inaudible] a Minister or his officials ..." I noted when we were looking at the transcript and I believe the word missing there is "convince".

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: We listened to it and it was.

  Q450  Lord Cope of Berkeley: When we listened to the tape, yes. "... provided you can convince a Minister or his officials ..." Presumably the reason for talking to officials in that context is to get them to introduce an amendment or to encourage them to introduce an amendment?

  Lord Truscott: There are a number of things about that. "You", again, I am not talking about me, I am talking about the lobbyists. I am not saying I can get Government to amend its own legislation. Also, if you—

  Q451  Lord Irvine of Lairg: So the persuasion exercise has to be by them exclusively and not by you at all?

  Lord Truscott: That is right. The other thing is anyone who knows anything about legislation and how Government work knows if you have a meeting with officials they are not going to go away and say, "That's a jolly good idea, so we are going to change the legislation", because there is a lot of resistance to that. They will only usually change legislation if there is a campaign, a build-up, a feeling, they feel there is a majority against and then they may take it on board. It is nonsense to say that I could go to officials, go to a minister and say, "This is perhaps not a jolly good idea and you should change the legislation" and that was not what I was talking about anyway because, again, that would be lobbying. Can I go back to this question that you mentioned earlier about the interest so, therefore, that seems to contradict earlier what I was saying about lobbying. I would have to be pretty schizophrenic to lay out in such detail that I would not do lobbying and all the rest and then a bit later on in the same meeting say, "Oh, by the way, you can forget all that, I'm quite happy to do it". That was not my intention at all.

  Q452  Lord Irvine of Lairg: I appreciate you saying that, but you would not have to be schizophrenic, you would simply have to be setting out accurately what the rules are but then with a sort of nod and a wink suggest in practice you can go further than the rules permit.

  Lord Truscott: I do not think that is supported by the text with respect, Lord Irvine.

  Q453  Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am just giving you—

  Lord Truscott: I can understand. Of course things can be taken out of context and that is what helped the Sunday Times produce their story.

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Looking at the whole context, if you go again to page 20, "... obviously when it comes to the Lords it is far more within ..."

  Baroness Manningham-Buller: This is at the top.

  Q454  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes. "... but obviously when it comes to the Lords it is far more within my ambit to influence it than in the Commons". Pausing there, that is you speaking about yourself and that you have a greater opportunity to influence the content of the legislation than you would have in the Commons. It cannot mean anything else, can it?

  Lord Truscott: No, I disagree.

  Q455  Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you go to the next paragraph, "... but in terms of influencing Members and knowing the people, obviously I know the people better up here than in the Commons". Is that you not saying that it is easier for you to influence people here, that is peers, in favour of the amendment?

  Lord Truscott: No, I do not think so because "influence it than in the Commons", I was talking about the process of lobbying, I was not talking about influencing legislation. I never said that. I did not mean that.

  Q456  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing there, when you say, "but in terms of ... influencing Members and knowing the people, obviously I know the people better up here than in the Commons", is that not to say you are in a better position to influence peers here than you are Members of the House of Commons?

  Lord Truscott: On influencing Members, they were meant to be doing the influencing. I was talking about them influencing Members, not me influencing Members. I do not say I will personally influence Members or their opinions. There is always this division in the text between what I was saying I would do and what they were saying they would do and "I" and "you" and "one". In the second section, when I talk about "influencing Members", I am talking about them influencing Members and then I go on to say, "... and knowing people, obviously I know the people better up here than in the Commons". That is just a fact. Yes, I do know people better in the Lords than in the Commons. At the time of this meeting obviously I did not know it was being tape-recorded and all that. I did not say at any stage, "It's not a problem for me to influence Members in the Lords because I know them all, I can swing that", I never said that because I did not mean it and in my own mind when I talked about lobbying in that long piece about me not lobbying, not being a lobbyist and all that, in my own mind I had laid down the ground rules.

  Q457  Lord Irvine of Lairg: You have explained that to us a number of times and we understand that.

  Lord Truscott: In my own mind I was clear where the boundaries were and the rest of the text in large measure was me trying to describe what I would do and what they would do and what was appropriate under the rules.

  Q458  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I just wanted to press you a little further, Lord Truscott, on the meaning of "influence" because there seem to be three different levels, as it were, that we have been discussing. One is parliamentary influence which you interpret as moving amendments and taking parliamentary action of one sort or another on the floor of the House or in committees or on the Order Paper. The second is influence, but not parliamentary influence. You seemed to be saying that it was alright for you to influence peers just by being a peer and talking to them about something. The third layer was influencing the process of lobbying. You have made clear that influencing the process of lobbying is in order under the rules and clearly parliamentary influence in the sense of moving amendments and all that is out of the rules, but what about influencing peers, which you also seem to use and in some respects, at any rate on the reading of this, seem to be suggesting here.

  Lord Truscott: I did not see that as my role, influencing peers. I did not think it would be appropriate. I have never tried to do it before. I think Members in this House are independent and experienced enough not to be influenced by me having a chat to them about a piece of legislation. They have their own views and they are either interested in something or not. I think it would be treating Members of this place with contempt, and that I certainly do not do. I have an extremely high regard for the Members of the Lords and this House; I would not attempt to influence their views or opinions. I do not think I could do, to be quite frank. The second thing about influencing peers, I did not see it as my role, I did not think it was appropriate. When I talk about "influence" I simply mean the influence that we all have as peers, Members of this House. Yes, I have a certain degree of influence. If I pick up the phone an official will talk to me. If I contact a colleague and say, "Have you thought about this? What is your view on this piece of legislation?" in many cases they will talk to me. That was the sort of influence I was talking about. Okay, it was not expressed very well and clearly if I had known I was on the record I would not have used that phrase because it can be misinterpreted. I think this is a problem with the rules. For as long as I am a Member of this place I will never touch anything which has any whiff of parliamentary consultancy because I think the danger with the way the rules are currently laid out is not only do you have to be careful about abiding by the rules, which I thought I was doing, but the perception of abiding by the rules as well. It is clear that with this sort of sting operation where you can extract a few phrases there can be a perception that you have not abided by the rules, or the intention was not to abide by the rules. I came away from this meeting, particularly the first one, thinking, "Well, I've made that clear. Even though I'm not going to work with this lot I made my position absolutely clear". I thought I had covered myself and made myself absolutely clear but, of course, when you see it in black and white there are things that can be used against you.

  Q459  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Would you look at page 21. You see halfway down you say: "But in reality a lot of it comes down to me" and you go on, "Because I know the people we are talking about". "The head of the Bill team is not going to talk to a researcher. Woman: No, that is true." That is you suggesting, is it not, that the head of the Bill team will talk to you because you are Lord Truscott whereas the head of the Bill team is not going to talk to a mere researcher. That is right, is it not?

  Lord Truscott: I think it goes back to the debate that we were having about influence.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009