Examination of Witness (Questions 520-539)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q520 Lord Irvine of Lairg: We are
just trying, Lord Truscott, to focus on the words that you actually
used in this meeting that actually took place to find out what
you intended when you said this. Could you go to page 12 where
you say that you are willing to see the Minister, it begins, "What
about the Minister? The Minister in this case would be, I assume,
would be John Healey, is it?" And you reply, "Yeah,"
and then your questioner continues, "Is he someone you know,
or is he ... ?" "Yes, I know John Healey, yeah."
"I mean, is it worth talking to him?" "Erm, yes,
yeah. Certainly I can, er ... yeah. Certainly I can, er ... There's
no problem with me approaching the Minister either at the Commons
stage or the Lords stage and saying ..." and then it drifts
off. Would you be seeing the Minister with a view to ascertaining
whether it would be worth the lobbying company's while to lobby
the Minister? Why would you be seeing the Minister?
Lord Truscott: First of all, it goes
back to the point that Lord Dholakia made about on occasions you
can just ask the Minister, you can talk to the Minister and say—
Q521 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What would
you be talking to the Minister about?
Lord Truscott: The Government's thinking
on the Bill.
Q522 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Generally,
you just go along and have a chat about the Bill in general? You
were being talked to here by the lobbying company about a specific
amendment that they desired. Would you just go and have a chat
with the Minister of a general nature about the Bill or was what
you had in mind approaching the Minister on the very subject under
discussion, namely the amendment?
Lord Truscott: No, I was talking about
talking to the Minister about Government thinking on the Bill.
Q523 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Generally?
Lord Truscott: Generally and then during
the course of that conversation it would be apparent what their
thinking was on all aspects of the Bill. For example, if you take
the Supplementary Rate Bill—
Q524 Lord Irvine of Lairg: They are
not really interested in all aspects of the Bill. There is a specific
amendment that the lobbying company want to achieve and they want
your help in achieving it. I will ask you again, and then I will
not ask you again: what was your purpose in your saying that there
was no difficulty in you approaching the Minister? What were you
approaching the Minister about!
Lord Truscott: In this hypothetical case
I would be approaching the Minister about what the Government's
position was on the Supplementary Rate Bill, and there would be
two issues that I would be particularly interested in knowing
their position on: (i) their position on the ballot; and (ii)
their position on the exemption for new businesses. During the
course of that conversation I would find out what Government thinking
was on that, and then I could advise the public affairs company
on those issues.
Q525 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But it
would not be advice in the air. Would you be advising them to
approach the Minister themselves, to lobby the Minister? What
would your advice be? You go back to the lobbying company and
you say, "Well, as far as I can make out, the Minister is
quite sympathetic to this. I really think you ought to go and
have a word with the Minister." Is that what you had in mind?
Lord Truscott: No, I did not specifically.
What I had in mind, for example, and we are talking about hypotheticals,
is you go to the Minister and talk about the Supplementary Rate
Bill and what their position is on having a ballot and exemption,
and then you find out the Government's position on that, you have
a discussion with the public affairs company, and then they would
have to assess what the position is with the political groupings
in the House of Lords, and whether they are able to try to influence
the process or not, by lobbying political groups or Members—
Q526 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could
I just say so that we have it for the record, you are saying that
you were not agreeing to approach the Minister with a view to
persuading the Minister of the merit of the particular proposed
amendment? Is that what you are saying?
Lord Truscott: That is what I am saying,
and I do not think that that would work anyway in the way that
legislation works, but I am not proposing that.
Q527 Lord Irvine of Lairg: With respect,
the issue is over what you intended.
Lord Truscott: I agree and the main thing
is that I would not do that anyway in terms of trying to influence
the Minister or influence policy formation or the legislation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Can we drop down now in
12 to about two-thirds of the way down, and tell me if you are
with me, and you say, "No no, we can find out now ..."
Are you with me?
Chairman: It is on the same page.
Baroness Manningham-Buller: "I've already
talked to the Chief Whip's special adviser ..."
Q528 Lord Irvine of Lairg: "No
no, we can find out now. I've already talked to the Chief Whip's
special adviser so ... who's a bit hazy on the details, but, you
know, you can go directly to the department or as it progresses
... they do usually offer briefings, and certainly I can ask for
a briefing and use that as a time to say, `Well, have you thought
about this?'" And that means have you thought about an amendment
to this particular effect? That is correct, is it not?
Lord Truscott: No, it is not actually
correct. What I am suggesting here is a form of words to discover
whether an idea had a particular sort of currency at the time
and what the political and departmental views might be.
Q529 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Just pausing
there, you would say to them, "Well, have you thought about
a two-year exemption for new businesses?" Is that what you
meant? You would say, "Has this idea occurred to you?"
Lord Truscott: I would be trying to ascertain
what the political climate was.
Q530 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do not
reply in general words; tell us what you would say to the person
whom you are addressing, "Well, have you thought about this?"
Explain to us what you mean by that?
Lord Truscott: It is similar to the position
with the Minister. I would be trying to ascertain whether there
was a Government view on the ballot or the exemption issue. For
example, if the Government said that they were absolutely determined
that they were going to oppose the ballot and they were going
to oppose the exemption, and you could ascertain that the views
of the House were against it, then you could advise the public
affairs company that they were not going to succeed in their campaign.
However, if you had a meeting and it was clear that the Government
was thinking along the lines of having a ballot or having an exemption,
then, again, that is something that you could refer back to the
public affairs company and something they could work on with their
lobbying process. There was no attempt here, and I never said
there would be any attempt to influence; it is only an identifying
process and it is an exchange of information.
Q531 Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is
just a neutral inquiry?
Lord Truscott: It is an exchange of information.
Q532 Lord Irvine of Lairg: A neutral
inquiry; you are enquiring neutrally whether they have thought
about an exemption?
Lord Truscott: Not specifically, I would
ask about a range of issues and obviously I would try to ascertain
what their view was on the ballot and on the exemption, yes.
Q533 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
If you are asking about a range of issues for which you are being
paid by the lobbying company, in theory at a later stage, why
do you feel it necessary to ask about a range of things rather
than the one thing that you are interested in?
Lord Truscott: I think that it is appropriate
to ask for information but you should not give the perception
that you are lobbying on any particular issue. If I went to a
Minister and said, "Tell me about the ballot; what are your
views are on the ballot? Tell me what your views are on the exemption,"
that would give the appearance that you were lobbying on those
issues. If you went along to the Minister and said, "What
are your views on this Bill?" and they gave you the views
on the Bill, and in the process, because they were quite large
issues and other groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and CBI
were already lobbying on the balloting issue, it would not be
an issue that I would have to push. The Minister could inform
me what the Government's views were on the ballot and exemption
and I would not need to lobby the Minister or flag those up. I
would just say, "What is the Government's view on this?"
If he did not mention the exemption or the ballot you could ask
what were the Government's views on the ballot or exemption.
Q534 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Just pausing
there, if the Minister said, "Yes, I am giving a bit of thought
to the exemption issue," what would you say?
Lord Truscott: I would probably say something
like, "What's the Government's position or is it just under
consideration?" He would probably say, "It is under
consideration, we are thinking about it."
Q535 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you
would abstain at that point from seeking to persuade the Minister
of the merit of it?
Lord Truscott: Yes, because I did not
see my role as lobbying or persuading. That is the job of the
lobbying company. That is what their role is.
Q536 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could
you go over to page 13 where you say, "Again, thinking back
to the Energy Bill, I had meetings with the Bill team, the relevant
Minister and head of policy, actually, at, er, BERR." "Yes.
It's moved to DECC. It's all DECC now, is it?" "Yeah,
it's DECC now. So all that's possible and that's fine, you know,
I don't mind doing that." So that again you would say was
not for the purpose of advocating a case for smart meters?
Lord Truscott: No.
Q537 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Is that
right? It was not for the purpose of advocating the case for smart
meters?
Lord Truscott: That is right, Lord Irvine,
and if I may reply, I said that is possible, that is fine, I do
not mind doing that, and again I was trying to make it clear that
I differentiated talking to people, finding out information; and
lobbying and paid advocacy, which I felt was acceptable—finding
out information, monitoring it—because the man says, "What
was your objective? Was that again, was that to amend the Energy
Bill?" I say, "Well, I was keeping an eye on smart metering
..." "... But also I was interested in, you know, the
general principles of the Bill, energy security, and all that
sort of stuff. But the specific thing was energy, er, smart metering."
I was making it clear that I saw my role as monitoring, finding
out information. I was not in the business of amending or trying
to influence policy. I had not done it before and I was not proposing
to do it on this occasion.
Q538 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
And you did not do it on smart meters?
Lord Truscott: No, I did not do it on
smart metering.
Q539 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then the
woman said to you, this is at the foot of page 13, "Yes,
of course, you were working for the smart metering client,"
and the man adds, "And did you manage to get it amended in
that instance?" "They got the result they wanted, yeah,
in terms of the ... because they wanted a commitment that smart
metering would be in the Bill and that it would be rolled-out,
and both commitments were given." So you abstained from saying
that you got it amended but your clients got what they wanted;
is that fair?
Lord Truscott: It was fair. If I could
just, Lord Irvine, explain very briefly the background to that.
The whole roll-out of the smart meters was not a legislative proposal.
It was merely an indicative timetable. What the smart metering
company was happy about was that the Minister stood up in the
course of the Energy Bill, which I did not take part in the later
stages of, and said the Government would have an indicative timetable
of roll-out of ten years plus two for implementation. That is
what they were happy with. It was not part of the Bill per se;
it was just a Government announcement, and so the smart metering
company was happy with that result.
| 
