Examination of Witness (Questions 540-559)
Lord Truscott
13 MARCH 2009
Q540 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then at
the foot of page 13 you say, "There was some debate about
whether they would be in, and there was certainly no government
commitment to when the roll-out would happen," but then at
the top of the next page the man puts to you, "So you managed
to get that changed so it would be in there?" And you said,
"Yeah"; does that mean yes?
Lord Truscott: No, again it is an unfortunate
sort of mannerism, "Yeah," and then I go on to say something
else. I go on, "... it was pushing an open door because I
know from my time as a Minister that the Government was keen on
the principle of smart meters and willing to try it out."
I was not suggesting that I changed anything. As I said before,
the Hansard record shows that I took no part.
Q541 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Nobody
is suggesting that you moved an amendment.
Lord Truscott: Or influenced policy.
Both the company involved and the department said I did not play
any role in influencing policy. But what I was saying was again—
Q542 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Surely
what you said was if you just look at the top of page 14, you
say essentially you got it moving from a position where the Government
in general supported something to actually getting them to do
it. Is that not an assertion that your persuasion was successful?
Lord Truscott: Lord Irvine, where did
I actually say that?
Q543 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Forgive
me, at the top of page 14 and it is the first complete paragraph
and you say, "Again it was sort of pushing at an open door
because I know from my time as a Minister that the Government
was keen on the principle of smart meters and willing to try it
out, but essentially get it moving from a position where they
in general support something to actually getting them to do it."
[Lord Irvine actually said "got it moving".]
So that sounds to me as if you were claiming that you had achieved
the desired result on smart metering, not by moving an amendment
yourself but by other means.
Lord Truscott: Well, again, if you look
at the video you can see that I was taken aback by this line of
questioning which was clearly a form of entrapment.
Q544 Lord Irvine of Lairg: We know
you said this and you do not dispute that you said it. Would you
tell us what you meant when you said that "you essentially
get it moving from a position where they in general support something
to actually getting them to do it." [Lord Irvine actually
said "got it moving".] All we want to know is what
you meant?
Lord Truscott: Right, okay, I can answer
that specifically. When I say "Yeah," again it is the
style I use because I do not in any of this say, "No, you
are wrong." That is an unfortunate style that if you read
these transcripts; unfortunately there are one or two places where
I do not say, "No, you are wrong, you are talking nonsense."
Q545 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am not
asking—
Lord Truscott: Can I just finish, Lord
Irvine.
Q546 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But I
am not asking about the "Yeah", I am asking about the
complete paragraph.
Lord Truscott: I will come on to that.
On occasions I do have this mannerism where I say, "Yeah,
yeah" or sometimes "yeah, yeah" and then go on
to something else. This is an occasion where I say, "Yeah,
yeah," and then I say, "... it was pushing at an open
door ..." I did not say that I was pushing at an open door.
It was pushing at an open door, i.e., the company got what they
wanted because the Government was moving in that direction anyway.
I do not claim credit for that. I do not say I did it or that
I was pushing at an open door. I said "it was pushing at
an open door". Then there is an inaudible section and then
"getting them from a general position to actually getting
them to do it." That was the evolution of the process of—
Q547 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Who was
doing the getting?
Lord Truscott: It was the evolution of
the policy process where the Government had decided in principle
to have the smart meters, to the Bill going through Parliament,
which I did not have any part in. Members in the Commons were
particularly active in the Commons actually in moving smart metering
amendments, and in the Lords, so when I say getting them, the
Government moved its general position to actually getting on to
do it and making a commitment on the timetable. But it was not
me, it was Members in the Commons and the Lords that were moving
amendments on smart meters, putting pressure on the Government
to come out with an indicative timetable, which they did do, so
the pressure of Members of the Commons and the Lords got the Government
to come out with an indicative timetable for the roll-out the
smart meters. I was not actually part of that process. If you
look at the transcripts I never actually claimed to be.
Q548 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So that
is your answer; you were not claiming any credit for yourself?
Lord Truscott: No, they were putting
in a question saying so you moved this amendment, so you changed
the law so you managed to get it changed. They were asking all
these leading questions. If you look at me on occasions I say
"Yeah, yeah," and then I move on and say something else.
When I thought about this meeting I was unsettled about the second
meeting particularly, because it was clear that I had laid out
the ground rules in the first meeting about lobbying and paid
advocacy and all the rest, and in the second meeting they started
asking leading questions, and trying to get me into a corner,
and trying to get me to agree things that I did not, and trying
to get me to compromise myself. I am an expert on Russia and this
is a classic KGB entrapment-type operation where you say, "I
am only willing to do this; I am not going to get involved in
corruption; I am not going to do these dodgy things," and
then they work on you, there is a second meeting, they put leading
questions to you, they frame it in a certain way, they try to
back you into a corner. One or two of these expressions come across
as unfortunate but at no time did I volunteer to break the rules.
At no time did I volunteer to use influence to amend legislation.
I did not actually volunteer at any stage. On one or two occasions
I was backed into a corner and I said, "Yeah, yeah,"
and moved it on and said something else. Obviously in retrospect
it would have been better if I said no, no, I am not going to
go along with any of this nonsense. Again, you have to think in
terms of the context. The second meeting was in a hotel bar. It
was meant to be quite an informal meeting.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We know that.
Q549 Chairman: We have watched the
video.
Lord Truscott: It was meant to be quite
an informal meeting. In fact, I went back and initially I did
send them an e-mail but when I discussed this second meeting with
my wife over the Wednesday and Thursday evening, I decided I was
not comfortable with what they were trying to ask me to do. I
was not comfortable with the fact that they did not understand
the boundaries and every time I laid down the boundaries, they
tried to get me to cross the boundaries. This is classic entrapment.
Q550 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
Can I just ask a question on that. If you are saying, as I think
you are, Lord Truscott, that you had identified at this early
stage that they were trying to push you into a position in which
you felt uncomfortable, can I ask you why you went on with the
interview as long as you did? And why towards the end when the
man said, "Is there anything you want to raise?" you
said, "What about a contract"?
Lord Truscott: A draft contract, I said.
Q551 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
If your experience of entrapment is such—
Lord Truscott: Well, I am not experienced.
Q552 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
If you were feeling uncomfortable about this, why did you continue
the conversation and why did you, as it would appear, give them
the impression that you had got something moving on the smart
meters, because that is what the text reads? You are telling us
that you did not do anything but you certainly gave them the impression
that you did from what you said.
Lord Truscott: I think you have to look
at it the other way round. They were trying to get me to admit
that I had influenced the legislation on smart meters, so the
whole second meeting was really geared to generate the headlines
that they wanted to present and they were trying to extract from
me that admission. I never actually admitted that or said I did
it because it is simply not true. If you look at the record it
is clearly not true. If I can just carry on, so why did I not
back out of this meeting earlier? It was two exploratory meetings
with what I thought was a public affairs company, to see whether
we could agree to work together and to establish the boundaries.
The first meeting I thought went okay. I laid down the ground
rules and that was that. They more or less sort of accepted them.
The second meeting, some of the questions towards the end I thought
were pretty bad really and made me uncomfortable because they
did seem to be saying, "So you changed the legislation".
It is right that I did not say, "No", I tried to give
a politician's non-answer and move the thing on. I went back home
and I wrote one email to them. We did talk about a draft contract.
This sort of approach—I had just moved into the private
business sector about a year ago, and this sort of approach was
not unusual for me, to be approached by public affairs companies
or head-hunters to work with them. My normal thing was that I
would have an exploratory meeting; I would look at the draft contract;
sometimes I would change the draft contract if I was not happy
with the terms and what they were asking me to do or I would reject
it. What I did on this occasion was to have the two meetings,
and I was uncomfortable and I did send an email after the meeting
talking about the possible future, but over the next couple of
days with my wife, having a glass of wine in the evening, despite
that they were offering quite attractive terms, and I must say
in the first meeting they were virtually saying money was no object—I
decided that I did not like it. I did not dismiss it immediately,
I thought about it. I admit that, I did think about it, but when
I thought about it I thought, "I am not comfortable with
this" and on occasions in the past I have either changed
contracts or I have not agreed to work with people. That was where
I thought I was at.
Q553 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think,
Lord Truscott, we are nearly finished, so you can give shorter
answers I think. If you go to page 19, you are sort of wrapping
it all up at page 19 about a third of the way in, and you appreciate
this is towards the end of that meeting, "But actually, I
mean, I think on the issues, I think, you know, it should be doable
..." Then dropping your eye a little, "... again that
really should be saleable" and then you end up, "...
sometimes the political will isn't there in terms of the political
party [inaudible] then it just may not be possible, but, erm ...
what you're talking about should be really within the bounds of
possible. Very possible I would have thought." So you were
saying to them that what they wanted to achieve was definitely
worth a try because it was capable of being achieved in your judgment.
Lord Truscott: I had an initial look,
Lord Irvine, at the debates in the House of Commons and also the
committee stage.
Q554 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Can you
not answer my question shortly?
Lord Truscott: No, Lord Irvine, if I
may be allowed to, I will try to be more brief but if I can answer
the questions in my own way and use my own thought processes.
Q555 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Very well.
Lord Truscott: I have forgotten what
I was going to say.
Q556 Baroness Manningham-Buller:
You were saying you had read the debates.
Lord Truscott: Thank you, Lady Manningham-Buller.
I looked at the debate and I thought, having made a political
assessment of the position of the Conservative Party I thought
their position on the ballots could be possibly achieved with
political support from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
I think I said to them it should be, but we would have to exclude
London because of Crossrail and the funding implications. If a
ballot was allowed for London then the funding arrangements for
Crossrail would collapse and there would not be political support
for that. I was saying on the ballot it should be achievable at
least to try to build up a campaign to put forward amendments
on that front. On the exemptions it was a bit more tricky but
they could have a go at that campaign, there may be resistance
because people do not think it is necessary, but my assessment
was given the economic climate if there was an investor saying
that they wanted to open a number of retail outlets in the UK
and they were concerned about exemptions for new businesses, they
certainly could have a go at achieving that and seeing whether
there was political support for it. That was what I was saying.
Q557 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I entirely
accept that. If we go to page 20, you see halfway in, "PT:
[inaudible] or Labour support. So that's the compromise that you
may have to make. You are ring-fencing Crossrail in London, but
for the rest of the country ... and then you can still do the
new businesses bit. I think that would be seen as reasonable and
I think you can get that through. I'm not quite sure that the
Liberals yet are 100% signed up for the ballot idea, but, er ...
I feel that they go along with it, that's the feeling I get so
far. But then that's what we need to talk to them about, really
..." Is the "we" you and them, or only them?
Lord Truscott: It is just an expression obviously.
I made clear earlier they would have to do the lobbying part.
Q558 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I see.
Then you go on, "... and, you know, present the issues. But
I think they can be persuaded on that, I would have thought. Woman:
Yeah, you'll soon find out when you get talking to them"
and you say, "That's right". So you are going to find
out whether, what would you say, they are persuadable on this
but not engage in seeking to persuade them yourself, is that right?
Lord Truscott: Yes, that is right. I
think the earlier section that you quoted was what I thought this
hypothetical consultancy would be about, the views of the Conservatives,
the Liberals, what would be the possibilities concerned with approaching
this or that political group. My role would be to advise them
on the process and the political views within the House and who
would be worthwhile approaching.
Q559 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If we
could come to the end of the questions I want to ask you, obviously
I cannot speak for my colleagues, you were asked at the top of
page 23—
Lord Truscott: I have not got 23, sorry.
(Same handed) Okay.
| 
