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.
| 
