Examination of Witness (Questions 480-499)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q480 Lord Irvine of Lairg: As I say,
the self-denying ordinance would be maintained, you would not
say anything to them about the merit of what was proposed, you
would just explain it to them neutrally and see what their reaction
was.
Lord Truscott: That is right. If you
think about it, my Lord Chairman, the idea of me approaching a
Conservative peer and lobbying them to take a particular position
on something like the Supplementary Rate Bill is a nonsense, they
would have their own position, their own views. The other thing
that is clear from this transcript is the previous pages where
I was describing how the partnership would work, the advice that
I would give, I was saying having looked at Hansard and the committee
minutes and all the rest, it was the Conservatives who were worthwhile
approaching on the Supplementary Rate Bill because they had a
position that they were concerned that businesses should have
a ballot before the Supplementary Rate Bill was imposed, so it
would be logical for the public affairs company to actually contact
Conservative peers on the front bench to see whether they would
be willing to combine in a campaign. But the idea that I could
go to the Conservative front bench and influence their policy—
Q481 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is
not being suggested.
Lord Truscott:—Or lobby them on the
Supplementary Rate Bill. If you just think about it for a minute,
as a former Labour Minister, and I am talking about myself, that
would just be ludicrous.
Q482 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Nobody
is suggesting that you would be going to the front bench meetings.
Lord Truscott: Not a front bench meeting
but even approach a frontbencher, Lord Irvine, and say, "Have
you thought about this amendment; it is a jolly good idea; do
you think you can change Conservative policy?" The idea is
ludicrous, to be frank.
Q483 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
Perhaps you could clarify something for us, Lord Truscott. You
said that you did a bit of work and it was clear that the Conservatives
were in a certain position, and you were advising the company
to approach Conservatives because you thought that was the better
way to get what they wanted. Why then do you say, "I've got
no problems approaching the Tories in the Lords"? What was
the need for you to do so if you could point them in that direction
anyway?
Lord Truscott: To identify the particular
peers who had an interest, not only the frontbenchers but there
could be some backbenchers as well because, as Lord Dholakia indicated
earlier, a lot of backbenchers move a lot of amendments on legislation,
so it would be a question not just of identifying—and indeed
I mention Caroline Spelman in the Commons as the obvious person
to approach because she is the Conservative frontbencher with
the responsibility—and I said that they would have to approach
her and lobby her. It would be obvious for the lobbying company,
the public affairs company to approach the Conservative frontbencher
with responsibility in the Lords, but it would also be worthwhile
to identify other backbenchers, probably Conservatives, who would
be willing to move amendments as well.
Q484 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
Who you are going to approach?
Lord Truscott: To identify those peers
who had an interest in the issue and who might be worth approaching
on the part of MJ Associates to see whether they wanted to work
in the same direction.
Q485 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So this
is a sort of formulaic reply, is it not, that you would only approach
them to identify what their existing views were and not to seek
to influence them at all?
Lord Truscott: Well, it is not just a
formulaic reply; it is the view I had and the boundary that I
thought was appropriate, because I have always operated within
the rules of this House, I have never lobbied, I have never moved
an amendment, I have never got involved in paid advocacy, so I
thought that would be the appropriate reply for me. It is not
only a standard reply for you, Lord Irvine, and the Committee,
but it is the standard reply that I was giving to them.
Q486 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you
say it is the truth. At the foot of page 10 you say: "Then
I think the other thing is identify who could be approached to
put forward amendments at various stages and maybe other bodies
to contact. Then that comes down to, I think it will be a bit
of a mix—you talking to some people, me talking to some
people, sometimes both of us talking to people." I would
read that as both of you talking from the same hymn sheet, but
you say, no, they would be talking to persuade, you would be talking
to identify whether they were candidates for persuasion by the
lobbying company; is that right?
Lord Truscott: That was my intention,
yes. I was talking about them doing it, because, if I may, Lord
Irvine, over the page at page 11, I said—
Q487 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am about
to take you there.
Lord Truscott: "Really you have to feel
your way a little bit because some people like to do it over a
cup of tea in the Tea Room and some people prefer to have a proper
sort of, chat and presentation and feel ..."
Q488 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Pausing
there, you would have a cup of tea with them in the tea room.
The lobbying company does not have access to the Tea Room; that
is right, is it not?
Lord Truscott: I think if they are invited
in, if they make contact with the peer and they are invited in
that they can have access to the Tea Room.
Q489 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Who would
be the peer inviting them in?
Lord Truscott: If they make contact with
a peer, as has happened to me, and probably happened with you
as well, someone contacts you and says, "Can we meet to chat
about such-and-such and can we meet over a cup of tea?"
Q490 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
I know we are going through this in detail but it is in your interests
as well as the Committee doing a proper job that we do that. If
we go to this bit that Lord Irvine had just talked you through,
you say "... sometimes both of us talking to people"
and the woman says, "To people together ..." and you
go on to say in the Tea Room, "to people together to put
something through". What were you meaning by that because
you just said there would be occasions when we will meet people
together, you the lobby company, me and A N Other, "To people
together to put something through"?
Lord Truscott: They would do the lobbying
and obviously their aim was, their campaign was to influence legislation,
so that their aim was obviously to influence legislation.
Q491 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
So you are both going to be talking to people together, which
is how I understand that reference at the end of page 10. Are
you saying that you would never have considered meeting with the
lobbying company with a third party?
Lord Truscott: I think I was suggesting
there that there may be occasions where they met someone and that
they did the lobbying and I would be present.
Baroness Manningham-Buller: Right, thank you.
Q492 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So that
is clear then, when you say to people together, the lady is asking
you whether you can be present with them whilst they lobby peers;
is that right?
Lord Truscott: I was—
Q493 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Is that
right?
Lord Truscott: I was suggesting that
it was a possibility that there would be an occasion where they
would meet peers to chat to them.
Q494 Lord Irvine of Lairg: With you?
Lord Truscott: That is what the text
says but—
Q495 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And that
is also what you say because at the top of the page it says, "To
people together to put something through," and that means
that it will be a joint meeting and the object of it would be
to get an amendment through?
Lord Truscott: I was not saying that
I would be suggesting any amendments or putting any amendments
forward.
Q496 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What do
you mean?
Lord Truscott: It was their aim obviously
to influence legislation.
Q497 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What do
you mean by, "To people together to put something through"?
These are your words; what did you mean by them?
Lord Truscott: I meant that I would identify
people—
Q498 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You are
having a cup of tea in the Tea Room with the lobbyist and you
are there and there is another peer there. What did you mean by,
"To people together to put something through"?
Lord Truscott: I suggested here that
there might be an occasion where the public affairs company and
I sat down with someone over a cup of tea and they would do the
pitch to someone, but I would not be involved in lobbying or suggesting
or putting amendments or suggesting amendments or anything of
that nature.
Q499 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So you
would be there observing their lobbying techniques and that is
the only purpose that you would be there for?
Lord Truscott: I would not be there to
lobby or to suggest amendments.
| 
