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.
| 
