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


Examination of Witness (Questions 500-519)

Lord Truscott

13 MARCH 2009

  Q500  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Why would you be there?

  Lord Truscott: I was suggesting that once I had identified someone there might be an occasion where they set up a meeting with someone over a cup of tea, they put forward their case and I would be present, but I would not myself do any lobbying or make any proposals to amend legislation. Obviously in terms of putting something through, that was the aim of their campaign but it was not talking about me putting forward an amendment, or suggesting anyone else puts down an amendment, or to convince anyone that they should do so because I would not be involved in the lobbying process. My own feeling was that it would be within the rules to be present at a meeting with a public affairs company, providing I did not lobby or get involved in paid advocacy, or suggest any amendments, so my presence at any possible meeting with a public affairs company and a Member would not breach the rules or give any indication that I myself would be involved in lobbying or moving amendments.

  Q501  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Would it not suggest to the other peer that you favoured the pitch that the lobbying company was making because you are not going to repudiate them, you are going to sit there silently consenting?

  Lord Truscott: Not silently consenting. I would be there as an observer obviously to hear the discussions, but I would not be there to make the pitch, which I said I would not do, I would not be there to lobby. I understand that it is possible for Members to have meetings with public affairs companies, with colleagues, and that is perfectly in order. What obviously would not be in order would be to lobby a colleague, to suggest particular amendments or anything of that nature. However, if the public affairs company were to do that in your presence and they were pushing a particular line, that would be up to them, and it would be up to the Member how they responded to that.

  Q502  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now then if we go further into page 11 you say that you are quite happy to see peers on your own, do you see that, "And then I see the Lords people on my own, because, you know, I know everyone in the Lords so I'm quite happy to see them on their own." This of course is at the stage, is it not, that the Bill is being progressed?

  Lord Truscott: Sorry?

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is page 11, about a third in.

  Baroness Manningham-Buller: Where you begin, "And also there would probably be ..."

  Q503  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do you have that?

  Lord Truscott: Yes.

  Q504  Lord Irvine of Lairg: "And then I see the Lords people on my own, because, you know, I know everyone in the Lords so I'm quite happy to see them on their own."

  Lord Truscott: I do not see a problem about that because it is also about identifying a Member's views on legislation or on issues. It would be perfectly in order for me to see them on their own to ascertain their views. Similarly, I am referring back to the previous question, I do not see that it would necessarily be wrong on occasion if to ascertain a Member's views or opinions on the subject, there was a representative from the public affairs company sitting in on the meeting, if that was to ascertain their views and their position. If then they lobby—

  Q505  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Forgive me, I interrupted you.

  Lord Truscott: I think I was envisaging a sort of two-stage process. First of all, I would identify the views of a particular Member where they had interests. I could do that on my own or I could do it on occasions with a representative of the public affairs company there. Once you had ascertained whether a Member had a particular interest, then the public affairs company could go away and start a proper lobbying operation, follow up with the Members that were interested, put their point of view, and try to build up a campaign. I was thinking in terms of a public affairs campaign. The way it is being presented by the Sunday Times that I would approach a particular Member to move a particular amendment.

  Q506  Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am not asking you that.

  Lord Truscott: No, no, but I am just saying the way the Sunday Times and the way it can be presented is that I was approaching Members to move a particular amendment.

  Q507  Lord Irvine of Lairg: You must not take out on us your irritation with the Sunday Times!

  Lord Truscott: I am trying not to do that, but I think even the implication of your questions, Lord Irvine, with respect, is that I was meeting Members with the idea of influencing their views and getting them to put an amendment. That is not how I saw it.

  Q508  Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is certainly what we are exploring with you, yes. If you go further into page 11 you will see, "In these sort of situations, what I usually do is I don't do all the legwork myself. I am there to give advice and to talk to people." And you would say, again, to talk to people solely for the purpose of identifying their existing opinions in relation to the proposed amendment but not influencing them? I suppose that is what you are saying.

  Lord Truscott: That is right.

  Q509  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then you say, "I am quite happy to talk to MPs, peers, officials, and to do behind-the-scenes stuff ... I don't think I'd be comfortable moving amendments myself." So does that mean—it could you see—that you are happy to persuade behind the scenes but not be seen to be moving amendments?

  Lord Truscott: Not persuade behind the scenes, merely to monitor the legislation and identify people who could be approached by the public affairs company. My understanding is that the appropriate role for consultancy in the House is to work behind the scenes, and it is only when you try to influence legislation, move amendments, get other people to move amendments, get involved in the legislative work of the House, that consultancy becomes inappropriate.

  Q510  Lord Irvine of Lairg: And then they ask you, "No, but the question is that you would be able to find someone who could," that is to say moving an amendment because you would not be comfortable doing it, and you say, "That's right," so you would find somebody who would move the amendment?

  Lord Truscott: No.

  Q511  Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is what it says.

  Lord Truscott: This is, no, you see, if you look at this in context—

  Q512  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes?

  Lord Truscott: The position here is that they were trying to get me to admit to moving amendments or suggesting someone else do so. If you actually look at the video, when they ask this question.

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: We have done.

  Q513  Chairman: We have the video.

  Lord Truscott: You can see that I was taken aback by the question, I was quite shocked, and I thought, "What is this about? Where is this leading me?" I sort of rolled my eyes a bit, stroked my chin and thought, "Well, what am I going to say to this?" Again, do not forget this meeting was operating at two levels. On the one hand they were saying they wanted to work with me in a consultancy but they were also trying to entrap me. I was trying to think hypothetically about working with these people. What I gave was a sort of politician-type answer, I said "Yeah, yeah," and then moved on to another subject. I did not say, "Yes, yes." I said, "Yeah, yeah," and then I go on to talk about something else. I completely ignore that and then I move on to another issue. I say that I can occasionally speak and then I go on to talk about the ballot issue, "You're really pushing at an open door as far as the Conservatives and the Liberals are concerned."

  Q514  Lord Cope of Berkeley: But you did not say "Yeah, yeah," you said, "That's right," according to this.

  Lord Truscott: I said, "Yeah, yeah, that's right."

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is just recorded that you said, "That's right," not as if you were saying, "Yeah, yeah," as one of your punctuation marks. You say expressly, "That's right."

  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I see, the version we have seen overnight inserts the words, "Yeah yeah."

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Your own version adds it.

  Baroness Manningham-Buller: The Sunday Times has, "Yes, yes."

  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Both versions say, "That's right."

  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Lord Cope's question is about the "That's right".

  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is.

  Q515  Lord Irvine of Lairg: What do you say, Lord Truscott?

  Lord Truscott: Where are we?

  Q516  Baroness Manningham-Buller: We are on page 11 of 24.

  Lord Truscott: I am trying to think back to—

  Q517  Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes, take your time.

  Lord Truscott: I remember my reaction at the time, I was quite shocked by the question and I said, "Yeah, yeah," as a sort of manner of speech.

  Q518  Lord Irvine of Lairg: And then, "That's right"?

  Lord Truscott: When I said, "Yeah, yeah, that's right," what I was talking about was their question was, "So you would be able to find someone who could?" This is about moving amendments. I was talking about working together to develop a process to see at the end of the day if it would be possible to move these amendments. So I was thinking that together in partnership we would be able to identify someone who could move this amendment. Bearing in mind, if you think about it, all throughout I was talking about identifying someone, identifying a Member who had an interest in this subject. I also talked about working with them in partnership. So I was talking about working with them to identify a Member who had an interest in this who could possibly be persuaded by them, on my advice, to move the sort of amendment—

  Q519  Lord Irvine of Lairg: What do you mean by on your advice?

  Lord Truscott: Because I would be identifying someone they should approach. Then this person would move an amendment. It would be in the context of a campaign because, as I said, just identifying an individual who could move an amendment would not be enough. You would have to get political support from the different groups. As you know, in the House of Lords there is no party with an overall majority, so you would have to build a consensus.


 
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