House of Lords - Privileges Committee

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

LORD TRUSCOTT CORRESPONDENCE

Letter to Lord Truscott from Baroness Prashar, Monday 26 January 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO RECESS PRESS ALLEGATIONS

In view of the allegations published in the Sunday Times of 25 January, the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests met on Monday 26 January and decided to undertake an investigation, at the request of Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, into the claims made against you, Lord Moonie, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Snape.

I invite you to write to me putting your side of the story in response to the Sunday Times allegations. This is a preliminary step, and you will be given further opportunities to respond. We have asked the Sunday Times to submit to us evidence supporting its claims, and we will wish you to take the opportunity to comment on this evidence once it has been received.

You may find helpful the enclosed guidance for Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint has been made.

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Prashar

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Truscott, Monday 26 January 2009

Dear Baroness Prashar,

First, I would like to profoundly apologise for any of my actions which have caused any embarrassment or affected the high reputation of the House of Lords. For this, I am thoroughly mortified and chastened.

My life until recently was focused on public service, as a councillor, MEP and peer. Only relatively recently, about 12 months ago (some time after leaving Government) did I start working in business and as a consultant.

After leaving office, I was approached by several head-hunters to take on various roles in business and as a consultant. All my interests are properly registered in the House of Lords Register of Interests, and have been approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. In that time, I have never put forward or spoken on any amendments to any legislation in the House of Lords.

Hence when approached by a public affairs company calling themselves Michael Johnson Associates, with a website, office, business cards and history (so I thought) of working in Brussels, this was not an unusual approach. However, I think my relative inexperience as a consultant in this sphere made me more vulnerable to a professional entrapment operation.

After an initial phone call, asking if I was interested in consultancy work for a public affairs company, I met two people apparently from Michael Johnson Associates in the House of Lords at 3.30 pm on Wednesday 14 January. They called themselves David Thompson (Managing Director) and Claire Taylor (Associate Director).

Mr Thompson said he had a Chinese client who wished to open a string of retail outlets in the UK, but was concerned by the implications of the Supplementary Rates Bill, and would like to see it amended.

I immediately said I would not amend legislation; that paid advocacy was against House of Lords rules, and that I would not do lobbying. They explained that they were new to this form of public affairs, and didn't seem to have a clue about how lobbyists worked on legislation. I tried to point out how they would need to build a campaign to persuade Members of the House of Commons and Lords—I could advise them on how this could be done, and even identify Members to whom they should make their case. On the question of fees, I did say that my consultancy fees were £2,000 per day. I also pointed out that the type of consultancy agreement would depend on the work involved, i.e. whether it was a registered as a parliamentary consultancy or general consultancy. I also said all my appointments have to be registered with the Register of Lords Interests, and before that the Advisory Committee of Business Appointments.

They pressed me on whether I had done this sort of work before. I said that I had monitored the Energy Bill, and the impact on Smart Meters. They tried to put words into my mouth to the effect that I had altered the legislation to the benefit of a Smart Meter company which I advised. I refused to be drawn on this, because I had not in fact moved any amendment to the Energy Bill, spoken on any amendments, or encouraged anyone else to do so. I had, however, had a meeting with the BERR Bill team in July 2008 to familiarise myself with all the issues contained in the Bill, including Smart Meters. However, this was for information purposes only, and I never suggested any amendments to the Bill at any time, either to Members, officials or anyone else. I subsequently sent my cv, as is my normal practice when I am approached for potential consultancy work.

During the course of the Energy Bill I did speak in general terms on the Second Reading, and declared my relevant energy interests.

At a subsequent meeting at the St James's Hotel and Club at 4.30 pm Wednesday 21 January, Mr Thompson and Ms Taylor said they were keen to proceed, and again pressed me to say I had amended the Energy Bill. I did not agree, but they were persistent. They again went through how they would run a campaign to amend the Supplementary Rates Bill, and suggested that I would have an annual contract with their public affairs company, covering other issues. I again emphasised I could give advice on how and to whom they could make their case to.

To my mind, this was a second exploratory meeting, where I was trying to ascertain what exactly their expectations were, so I could then decide whether to work with that company or not.

Over the following couple of evenings, I discussed the meetings with my wife, and told her that I was unhappy with the supposed lobbyists approach. For example, after saying that I would not do certain things, they still pressed me. My wife and I both decided that I would have nothing further to do with the company.

On Friday 23 January, around lunchtime, I received a call from Michael Gillard of the Sunday Times, who informed me this had been an entrapment operation by the Sunday Times insight team. In retrospect, I of course understand the journalists were asking leading and repeated persistent questions, trying to entrap me.

I believe I acted within the House of Lords Code of Conduct and rules as they currently exist. I was perhaps naive and too loose with my language, but believe that the hypothetical discussions I had merely offered to inform MJ Associates on the progress of legislation or the predominance of feeling about a particular issue, and that this would form only part of a wider advisory role.

I was not offering to amend legislation, exercise parliamentary influence to do so, or promote their cause to fellow Members. As such, and in offering only advice, I believed I was acting in accordance with well-recognised current practice in the Lords.

I submit myself to the judgement of the Committee and remain ready and willing to appear before you. I do hope this matter is resolved swiftly, so I can start re-building my life.

Lord Truscott

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Truscott, Monday 2 February 2009

Dear Baroness Prashar,

I understand that you have been provided with copies of the audio and video recordings of meetings between me and Sunday Times journalists (together with full transcripts) for the purposes of your Inquiry.

Partial excerpts from the recordings are presently being leaked piecemeal in the press, but a full version has not been released.

Fairness demands that I be should be given copies of the recordings and transcripts, together with other material that you have received from any other source which is relevant to the allegations as soon as possible. I believe this is provided for in the Guidance on the investigation process in any event.

I will of course keep the material in confidence until the Sub-Committee has concluded its business, or longer if directed. I shall not be commenting on the matters in the press before then.

You will of course share my anxiety for the investigation to be dealt with as swiftly as possible, and I hope you will be able to let me have the material within the next day or two.

Yours,

Lord Truscott

Letter to Lord Truscott from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 February 2009

[Similar to that printed to Lord Taylor of Blackburn from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 February 2009, p TaC1-2]

E-mail to Lord Truscott from Mr Keith, Saturday 7 February 2009

Please could Lord Truscott be available at 3.30 pm on Monday 23 February to appear before Baroness Prashar and the Sub-Committee on Lords Interests?

Letter to Lord Truscott from Baroness Prashar, Monday 9 February 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

Thank you for your letter of 2 February.

I believe that by now you will have received copies of the relevant recordings and transcripts. After examining this material the Sub-Committee which is investigating the complaints against you and the other Members of the House decided to commission another and more complete transcript of the recordings. This will be sent to you and to the other Members concerned as soon as possible.

I am aware that the present recordings vary in quality, and I have arranged for better quality recordings also to be provided. These will also be sent to the Members concerned as soon as they are available.

I hope that this meets the point you have raised in your letter.

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Prashar

Letter to Mr Keith from Bindmans LLP, Tuesday 10 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

LORD TRUSCOTT

We have been instructed by Lord Truscott in relation to the article by the Sunday Times "Insight Team" which was published on 25 January 2009. Lord Truscott has passed to us your letter of 4 February 2009 together with your email of 7 February 2009 indicating that Baroness Prashar and the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests wish Lord Truscott to appear before them at 3.30 pm on Monday 23 February 2009.

We confirm that Lord Truscott can be available on the afternoon of Monday 23 February 2009 if the Chairman and Sub-Committee deem his attendance to be appropriate.

We should firstly be most grateful if you would provide clarification on certain issues.

Your letter of 4 February 2009 helpfully enclosed the "Guidance for Members of the House of Lords against whom a complaint is made"("the Guidance"). We understand that the procedure to be adopted by the sub committee follows the document "Description of the procedure for considering complaints against members of the House of Lords" ("the Procedure").

Investigation by other agencies

Paragraph 11 of the Procedure states that:

"The sub committee will not entertain complaints which appear to involve allegations of criminal misconduct and which would more appropriately be investigated by other agencies. Similarly, if the subject matter of the complaint is subject to proceedings in a Court of Law (for instance, an action for libel), the sub committee will not accept jurisdiction over the matter and any investigation already underway will be terminated".

Mr Chris Huhne MP and the leadership of the Liberal Party along with other MPs were reported to have complained to the Metropolitan Police that the article published in the Sunday Times disclosed criminal offences by those named. They have called for the police to investigate the matter. The offences of "Bribery" and "Misconduct in a public office" were widely reported in relation to this complaint. It was later stated that Assistant Commissioner John Yates of New Scotland Yard was considering all the material that had been then submitted to him including transcripts of the meetings.

We are aware that Baroness Royall of Blaisdon made a statement in the House of Lords on 29 January 2009 in which she stated that the police were reviewing the material in relation to the allegations to decide whether such an investigation would be appropriate.

It would seem that where a complaint has been made of criminal conduct and the Police are reviewing material to decide whether there is the basis for a criminal investigation, the sub committee should proceed with their own investigation only once the police have confirmed that no offence has been committed or where the Sub-Committee itself decides that there is "no appearance" of criminal misconduct.

Further, Paragraph 11 of the Procedure is an important protection for the Member complained of, any witnesses, and the integrity of any potential police investigation. We are also aware of the procedural safeguard (Guidance paragraph 25).

The Public Administration Select Committee's enquiry into "cash for honours" 2007) deferred collecting evidence from witnesses until the Police investigation had concluded. The reasoning behind that decision applies as much where the police are "reviewing evidence" to decide whether there are grounds for a police enquiry.

Whenever there is the possibility for a police investigation, the Sub Committee will wish to ensure that any evidential enquiry, or a requirement for witnesses to attend to give oral evidence, does not undermine the integrity of any potential police investigation or the safeguards for the Members concerned.

We would be grateful if you would confirm the view of the sub committee.

The process

We understand from the Guidance that a complaint is dealt with in a staged process. We would be most grateful if you were to confirm the following:

1. The decisions and reasoning of the Chairman and the Sub Committee under paragraph 10 of the procedure ("initial assessment").

2. Most importantly, we would be grateful if you would set out the particular provisions of the Code that are alleged to have been breached and the particulars and circumstances of the alleged breach.

3. We note that after the particulars of the alleged breaches and allegations have been given to a Member, he is then invited to respond in writing. There have been a myriad of allegations in the press and it is plainly inappropriate for Lord Truscott to respond until the particulars of the alleged breaches of the Code and the individual allegations have been set out in detail. We would be grateful if you would confirm that the committee will await Lord Truscott's response until after the alleged breaches have been particularised.

4. The procedure envisages a number of potential resolutions to the complaint before a decision is made by the Sub-Committee to proceed to receive oral evidence (paragraph 23 of the Guidance). Indeed, on one reading, the sub committee cannot decide upon "formal oral evidence" until the Member's written response is received. We would be grateful therefore if you would clarify the process by which the sub committee has decided upon formal oral evidence.

The transcript

Since Lord Truscott has not been provided with the video recordings of the meetings, we presume that the sub committee is in a similar position. So far as the transcripts are concerned, there are material inaccuracies, omissions and mis-transcriptions. Whether these are relevant to the sub committee's enquiry can only be judged once the alleged breaches of the Code are particularised.

Lord Truscott has endured several weeks of relentless press attacks on the back of the newspaper's "sting" operation. He believes that he has not breached the Lords' Code of Conduct and is acutely conscious of the damage that this may cause to the standing of the Lords should matters drag on. However you will understand our concern that the procedural safeguards and the relationship to potential investigation by the police should not be lost sight of.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP

Letter to Bindmans LLP from Mr Keith, Thursday 12 February 2009

This is in reply to your letter of 10 February.

The Metropolitan Police have now announced that they will not be conducting an investigation. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee is continuing with its inquiry.

The Sub-Committee, in its initial assessment, considered that the evidence by the Sunday Times on 25 January was sufficient to suggest a prima facie case that the four Members involved may have breached the Code of Conduct, and that such a breach would fall within the Sub-Committee's remit. The Sub-Committee received an invitation to investigate the Sunday Times allegations which did not particularise the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. Now that the police investigation is no longer proceeding, the Leader of the House of Lords has sent a letter of formal complaint to the Sub-Committee asking it to investigate whether there has been a breach of the House's code of conduct, in particular paras 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12.

The Sub-Committee has received a number of different batches of evidence relating to Lord Truscott's case: audio recordings of his meetings with the journalists and a Sunday Times transcript thereof; Hansard transcripts of those meetings (prepared by the House of Lords Hansard at our request from the tapes provided by the Sunday Times); an audio recording of his phone conversation with Michael Gillard; a Hansard transcript of that recording; and a video recording. These are all being sent to Lord Truscott as they become available. The Sub-Committee has embarked on its investigation by examining this evidence.

The purpose of the Sub-Committee's enquiry is to determine whether the facts apparently disclosed by the tapes and transcripts constitute any breach of the code, in particular paragraph 4 read in the light of paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12. The Sub-Committee will be concentrating on whether any of the four Members concerned can be shown from the material in the tapes and transcripts to have breached in particular paragraph 4(c) of the code. The Sub-Committee will be considering whether a Member who negotiated a fee with a view to agreeing to breach paragraph 4(c) would be acting on his "personal honour" and would thus be in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the code in the light of the Nolan principles.

The Sub-Committee recognises that the material which we are sending you may require you to do further work on preparing a written statement for the Sub-Committee. So the Sub-Committee has extended the deadline for receiving such a written statement to Thursday of next week, 19 February 2009. The Sub-Committee would now also like to postpone its hearing of Lord Truscott by two days, and now wishes him to attend on Wednesday 25 February at 2.00 pm.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Letter to Mr Keith from Bindmans LLP, Friday 13 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

LORD TRUSCOTT

Thank you for your letter of 12 February which we received on the same day by email.

We note that Sub-Committee has embarked on its investigation with the purpose of determining whether the facts apparently disclosed by the tapes and the transcripts constitute any breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to whether a Member who negotiated a fee with a view to agreeing a breach of paragraph 4(c) would be acting on his "personal honour" and would thus be in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code of Conduct in the light of the Nolan principles.

However, the fifth paragraph of your letter does not give sufficient particulars under the Procedure to identify which action(s) or statement(s) of Lord Truscott has been identified as raising a prime facie case of a breach of a Code(s)( and which section), and which part of the evidence is relied on to support such a position. From your letter we presume that the Committee is solely concerned with the alleged discussion with the journalists about a possible relationship with "MJA" but it would be helpful if you would confirm the position. We ask so that we may know the specific allegation(s) that should be responded to.

We note that the Procedure allows for agreement of remedial action with a Member in most circumstances once a response to the particular allegation is received. Would you please confirm such a procedure will be available? Further, paragraph 23 of the Procedure suggests that the Sub Committee will first consider a Member's written response and will only proceed to an oral hearing if the written response is not sufficient. Is this step in the procedure to be considered?

We raise these matters because the Procedure for the Sub Committee recognises the importance of rigorous procedural safeguards. It is important in a case which has a significant impact on a Member's reputation for the Procedure and safeguard to be adhered to.

You have helpfully described the different batches of evidence which the Sub Committee has received. We now have the Hansard transcripts of the meetings with the Sunday Times journalists (thank you for providing them by email) but, at the time of writing, we do not have the audio recording of the same conversation with Michael Gillard, the transcript of that recording or the video recordings of the meeting.

We are assuming that the inaccurate, partial and prejudicial transcripts provided by the Sunday Times have been superseded by the Hansard versions and those newspaper versions no longer require our attention or a detailed note of errors.

In order to assist at this point we attach a note of the corrections to the obvious mistakes in the Hansard versions which we have identified in a first reading. There may well be more. If so we shall notify you as appropriate.

More generally, it is plainly sensible for us to await receipt of all the material before considering a full response to the Sub Committee.

On a practical level, Lord Truscott will be away from London for much of the forthcoming Recess and Mr Neil O'May, who has had conduct of this matter since the allegations were first made in the newspaper, is abroad next week, returning on 23 February. We would therefore hope to have the material considered and, if appropriate, responded to by close of business on 23 February, or at the latest, the morning of the 24. We would be grateful if you would extend the deadline to that date.

Lord Truscott is available on Wednesday 25 February at 2.00 pm if the Sub Committee considers it appropriate for him to attend for an oral interview on that day. However, given the timetable, we would suggest that a postponement of a few more days may be advisable. We will leave that matter for you to consider.

Whilst Mr O'May is abroad, please also copy any correspondence to Ms. Katie Wheatley and Mr Jonathan Dennis at this office.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP

APPENDIX

Corrections to Hansard version of Sunday Times' audio tapes (as identified at 13 February 2009)

1st Meeting

1. p6 Hansard reads : "... one of the companies that I advise is Gazprom ... I don't advise Gazprom directly".

Should read "... one of the companies I advise advises Gazprom ... I don't advise Gazprom directly".

2nd Meeting

2. Page 11. Hansard reads "As I said to you before, I don't think I'd be comfortable moving amendments myself?? because I didn't give notice saying that I had a direct financial interest??

Should read "... I don't think I would be comfortable moving amendments myself ... because people would complain it would be a direct interest".

3. Page 11 Hansard reads "but I think it's probably better to?? get someone else to do it??

Should read "but I think it's better to [indistinct] ... from what I've seen certainly on the ballot issue you're really pushing at an open door as far as the Conservatives and Liberals are concerned ..."

4. Page 13, Hansard reads "crap"

Should read "stuff"

5. Page 14, Hansard says "... I mean, as I say, I was pushing at an open door".

Should read "I mean, so again, it was pushing at an open door".

Letter to Lord Truscott from Baroness Prashar, Friday 13 February 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO RECENT PRESS ALLEGATIONS

Please find enclosed (i) the Hansard transcript of the recorded meetings with the Sunday Times journalists, (ii) audio recordings of the telephone call recorded by the Sunday Times journalists, and (iii) the Hansard transcript of that telephone call. This is the final evidence that the Sub-Committee is admitting (in addition to the audio recordings and transcripts already provided by the Sunday Times and sent to you).

The purpose of the Sub-Committee's inquiry is to determine whether the facts apparently disclosed by the tapes and transcripts constitute any breach of the Code, in particular paragraph 4 read in the light of paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10 and 12. The Sub-Committee will be concentrating on whether any of the four Members concerned can be shown from the material in the tapes and transcripts to have breached in particular paragraph 4(c) of the Code. The Sub-Committee will be considering whether a Member who negotiated a fee with a view to agreeing to breach paragraph 4(c) would be acting on his "personal honour" and would thus be in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code in the light of the Nolan principles.

You have already submitted a statement to the Sub-Committee but I now invite you to respond further in writing if you wish to do so with a full and accurate account of the matters in question in the light of all the material now available. This will be the basis for the oral evidence session to which you have kindly agreed. The Sub-Committee requests that you attend to give evidence on the new date of 25 February at 2.00 pm, and hopes that this will not inconvenience you. It would greatly help the Sub-Committee if this written response could reach us, care of Brendan Keith in the House of Lords Judicial Office, by Thursday 19 February. I draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Committee for Privileges report The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members (4th Report of Session 2007-08, HL Paper 205).

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Prashar

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Bindmans LLP, Monday 16 February 2009

Dear Baroness Prashar

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO RECENT PRESS ALLEGATIONS

Thank you for your letter dated 13 February 2009 and enclosures to Lord Truscott care of Neil O'May.

We refer to Brendan Keith, Registrar of Lords' Interests, letter to Mr O'May dated 12 February 2009 in which he stated that transcripts audio recordings and a video recording would be sent to the Lord Truscott. We note that your letter dated 13 February contains transcripts and audio recordings only. We would be very grateful to receive the video recording on behalf of our client as soon as possible.

You have invited a further written response in the light of the material provided and you have asked the Lord Truscott to attend the Sub-Committee to give evidence on 25 February at 2.00 pm. We confirm that the Lord Truscott is available on Wednesday 25 February at 2.00 pm, if the Committee considers it appropriate for him to attend for an oral interview on that date. Mr O'May, who has conduct of this matter, is on leave and abroad this week and will be returning to the office on Monday 23 February. Therefore we will be unable to provide any further written response until Monday 23 February at the earliest or the morning of 24 February. We attach a copy of our letter dated 13 February 2009 to Brendan Keith (which appears to have crossed with your letter to our client of the same date) in which we explained the position.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact Katie Wheatley or Jonathan Dennis in Mr O'May's absence.

Yours faithfully,

Bindmans LLP

Letter to Mr Keith from Bindmans LLP, Monday 23 February 2009

Dear Mr Keith

LORD TRUSCOTT

Baroness Prashar kindly wrote on 13 February 2009 providing us with Hansard transcripts of the meetings and telephone calls with the Sunday Times journalists and the audio recording of the telephone call with the Sunday Times journalist.

The letter set out the basis of the Sub Committee's inquiry in general terms in relation to all the four members. It did not particularise the prima facie case against Lord Truscott.

We understand this letter crossed with our letter to you of 13 February 2009 in which we requested the specific allegation against Lord Truscott and sections of the evidence which supports the position. We look forward to receiving the response.

Notwithstanding our request in that letter for a detailed statement of which Code and which part of the evidence is relied on to support a prima facie case, we ask that the Committee consider the new material (that is the Hansard versions with the correction to the transcript in our letter of February 2009) to decide whether there is indeed a case to answer for Lord Truscott. At this stage, having considered the new material that you have provided and the purpose of the Sub Committee's enquiry as set out in Baroness Prashar's letter of 13 February 2009 we submit there is no prima facie case of a breach of a Code for Lord Truscott to answer.

We note that "the Sub Committee will be concentrating on whether any of the four members concerned can be shown from the material in the tapes and transcripts to have breached in particular paragraph 4(c) of the Code". On the basis that this relates to the discussion between Lord Truscott and the journalists over a potential relationship with the fictional "MJA", we ask the Sub-Committee to consider the following:

Paragraph 4(c) of the Code of Conduct states:

"Members of the House must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising Parliamentary influence".

It is clear from the transcript that Lord Truscott did not accept a financial inducement from "MJA". There was no money paid, nor any agreement on the terms, nor even a draft contract. There is no evidence in the transcript that Lord Truscott accepted money or intended to breach the Code. Nor can it be said that he exercised parliamentary influence in relation to that fictional Company or that he intended to do so.

Paragraph 12(a) allows Members of the House to enter into a consultancy agreement for "parliamentary advice or services" provided it is registered. It follows that the phrase "parliamentary influence" in paragraph 4(c) cannot encompass "Parliamentary advice or services". Further, paragraph 12(b) allows a Member to be remunerated by a Parliamentary lobbying business provided the Member does not participate in "parliamentary business" on behalf of their personal clients in the lobbying organisation. "Parliamentary business" is conventionally understood to be voting or moving amendments on legislation in the Chamber.

Thus, for a purposive interpretation of the Code, "Parliamentary influence" in 4(c) must relate to "participating in Parliamentary business" (paragraph 12(b) ie voting on or amending legislation, and cannot relate to "Parliamentary advice or services" for a company or indeed a lobby organisation.

Support for this position can be found from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments whereby a former Minister is routinely allowed to become personally involved in lobbying a UK Minister or Crown Servant on behalf of a Company a year after leaving Ministerial Office.

Baroness Prashar's letter of 13 February 2009 further states that "the Sub Committee will be considering whether a Member who negotiated a fee with a view to agreeing a breach of 4(c) would be acting on his "personal honour" and would thus be in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code in the light of the Nolan Principles.

So far as this "allegation" is concerned we would ask the Committee to consider the following:

Sunday Times

a decision

placing himself under any financial obligation

"Personal honour"

"with a view to agreeing

3. In any event "acting always on their personal honour" has a plain meaning which cannot cover hypothetical discussions with a fictional company which come to nothing. If, as is suggested in the letter of 13 February, "personal honour" is interpreted in the light of the Nolan Principles, then none of the seven paragraphs 5(a) to 5(g) give 4(b) a meaning which covers such conversations.

We say that a breach of the Code cannot be sustained on the basis of a hypothetical discussion with a fictional company where no agreement is reached on the terms of a relationship. If the Sub Committee has a different interpretation on the Codes then we should be obliged if you could explain the interpretation and the particular section of the transcript that is relevant.

It is also worth emphasising that a prima fade case cannot be made out by the extraction of certain sections of the evidence without considering the material as a whole. On reading the recent transcripts there are many occasions when Lord Truscott explicitly describes a proposed role which is unquestionable within the codes.

Finally, we are concerned that while the Sub-Committee have the original video recordings, these are not being disclosed to us nor are they being received in evidence. They are undoubtedly the "best" evidence since they demonstrate demeanour over the audio versions. The committee should rely on these rather than the audio-only versions.

We emphasise that Lord Truscott is willing to attend the Committee when required to do so. We note your email at 1.30 pm today. Lord Truscott is anxious to have the matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible and hopes the issues raised can be dealt with as soon as possible at the convenience of the Sub-Committee.

We would ask the Sub-Committee to consider the new material in the light of these observations.

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP

E-mail to Bindmans LLP from Mr Keith, Monday 23 February 2009

This is to inform you that the interview between the Sub-committee investigating the Sunday Times allegations and Lord Truscott arranged for this Wednesday is postponed in view of the procedural issues raised by his legal advisers. We will propose a day and time for the rescheduled interview in due course.

Letter to Bindmans LLP from Mr Keith, Wednesday 4 March 2009

Dear Mr O'May,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO COMPLAINT AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE: LORD TRUSCOTT

I am writing on behalf of the Sub-Committee in reply to your letters of 13, 16 and 23 February 2009. The Sub-Committee has now carefully considered the issues raised in these letters and has instructed me to reply as follows.

The Sub-Committee wishes to emphasise that it is concerned to ensure a fair and just hearing for the four Members of the House who are the subject of the Sunday Times allegations, including Lord Truscott.

The Sub-Committee has examined the points raised in your letter of 23 February relating to the interpretation of the Code and terms used in it. In the Sub-Committee's view, a fair hearing requires that the person whose conduct is being investigated is told the rules under which his conduct is being assessed, is shown all the evidence, and is given a fair opportunity to respond. The Sub-Committee believes that it has already done all of this. We must now proceed with our task of investigation.

The Sub-Committee has noted Lord Truscott's wish for a speedy resolution of the matter, and agrees that it is desirable to proceed expeditiously. The Sub-Committee would find it helpful in any event to hear Lord Truscott in person, and therefore proposes that Lord Truscott attend the Sub-Committee at 10.30 am on Friday 13 March in Committee Room G of the House of Lords. Any final written submission should be received by us not later than Tuesday 10 March.

I confirm that the remedial action procedure remains open provided the conditions attaching to it are met. While the Sub-Committee believes that it would be helpful to them in their investigation to interview Lord Truscott, this meeting could of course be cancelled if Lord Truscott's final written statement showed it to be unnecessary.

I can confirm that the Sub-Committee will rely largely on the Hansard transcripts of the recordings, although the Sunday Times transcripts may also be considered where there is a dispute over transcription. I am enclosing with this letter a copy of the video recording made by the Sunday Times of their second meeting with Lord Truscott.

The Sub-Committee wishes to consider with Lord Truscott whether the Hansard transcript and video recording disclose that he was negotiating with a supposed lobbying company "MJA", with a view to becoming a parliamentary consultant to MJA, which was acting for a supposed Hong Kong client, in return for a fee to "exercise Parliamentary influence" to secure an amendment to the Business Rates Supplement Bill, which would confer a two year exemption for new businesses from the provision in that Bill allowing local authorities to impose an additional 2% charge on the business rate on properties over £50,000 in value, which agreement would have constituted a breach of paragraph 4 (c) of the Code of Conduct; and thereby failed to act "on his personal honour" in breach of paragraph 4 (b) of that Code.

Matters arising out of the Hansard transcript which the Sub-Committee will raise with Lord Truscott are whether he expressed a willingness—

(i) to seek to persuade a Member or Members of the House of Lords that the amendment sought by MJA was "a good idea";

(ii) to lobby the relevant Minister and/or his officials in favour of the proposed amendment;

(iii) to lobby the Head of the Bill Team for that purpose;

(iv) to lobby Tory peers, all of whom he knew, for that purpose;

(v) to see peers on his own, without any representative of MJA being present;

(vi) to find a peer who would move the required amendment, although he would not be comfortable to do that himself;

(vii) to see the Minister in charge personally, to promote the amendment; and

(viii) generally, that he was content to lobby the relevant Minister and officials, but not to move the amendment sought himself.

The Sub-Committee hopes that this is helpful, and proposes now to move on from procedural matters to a resolution of the allegations against Lord Truscott.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Letter to Lord Truscott from Ms Street, Monday 9 March 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES: SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS

INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS PUBLISHED AGAINST CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE BY THE SUNDAY TIMES ON 25 JANUARY 2009

Thank you very much for agreeing to give evidence to the Sub-Committee on 13 March. Baroness Prashar and the other Members of the Sub-Committee welcome the opportunity of this discussion. I am therefore writing to confirm arrangements for your meeting with the Sub-Committee.

The meeting will be held in Committee Room G, near to the Attlee Room. The sign outside the room should read "Baroness Prashar". Your evidence session is due to begin at 10.30 am. Please ensure that you arrive at least five minutes before you are due to appear before the Sub-Committee, and wait outside the room until invited in.

The evidence session will be held in private, but a verbatim transcript will be taken, to which you will have the opportunity to make minor corrections. The transcript may subsequently be referred to in the Report and published, at the discretion of the Sub-Committee and the Committee for Privileges. The transcript will be confidential to the Sub-Committee and the Committee for Privileges unless and until published. There will be no broadcasting and it would be preferable to avoid amplification, so if you need to use a hearing loop (or have any other special requirements) please let me know in advance of the session.

As set out in the report from the Committee for Privileges, The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members (4th Report of Session 2007-08, HL Paper 205), you may be accompanied to the meeting by a colleague, friend or legal adviser, but if you do bring a friend or adviser, you will be expected to answer all questions yourself. Standing Order 67 prohibits the hearing of parties by Counsel except as authorised by the House, so while you may take advice during the evidence session if you feel it to be necessary, any legal adviser will not be able to address the Sub-Committee. The report also says that every effort will be made to keep proceedings informal, and there is no expectation that you should be accompanied.

It is expected that reference will be made during questioning to the transcripts made by the Sunday Times and by Hansard, which have been forwarded to you. Please bring these with you and use page numbers to refer to this evidence, to avoid confusion in the transcript.

You may wish to know that your attendance at the Sub-Committee can be counted as attending the House for expenses purposes.

If there is anything more I can do to assist, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Susannah Street

Clerk to the Sub-Committee

Letter to Mr Keith from Bindmans LLP, Tuesday 10 March 2009

Dear Mr Keith

SUB COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: LORD TRUSCOTT

We enclose:

1. Lord Truscott's letter to the Committee of 10 March.

2. Our submissions to the Committee of 10th March [actually dated 9 March but printed below].

3. Amended versions to the Hansard transcript of the two meetings with amendments in blue [not reproduced].

We have compared the original Hansard transcripts to the tape and video recordings. There are several inaccuracies which are material to the issues to be decided by the Committee. We ask the Committee to use these amended versions for the purposes of their deliberations.

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Truscott, Tuesday 10 March 2009

Dear Baroness Prashar,

I wish this letter to be read alongside my solicitor's letter of the same date, as part of my final submission to the Sub-Committee, together with my original letter of 26 January.

I would also like to place on record my concern that the Sub-Committee has repeatedly failed to adhere to the "Procedure for considering complaints against Members", with the result that I feel the application of natural justice in my case has played second-fiddle to the pressures of the press. In particular, the Committee rushed into inviting me to a formal oral hearing at its first meeting, without considering my response to the material presented by the Sunday Times. No apparent thought was given to other stages in the procedure, namely the consideration of further evidence in writing, to agree remedial action, or an informal interview. My reading of the rules is that a formal oral hearing should be a last resort: the Committee apparently decided it was the first resort.

The Committee took over five weeks to produce specific allegations. It is still not clear who is the complainant (certainly not the Sunday Times). Over the last six weeks, under the Committee's procedure, I was unable to respond to wild press allegations. The Sunday Times has launched attacks against me in five of the last six weeks. They obviously do not feel restrained by paragraph 16 of the procedure. I now learn from the Press that I am to be summoned to a formal oral hearing before the proper consideration of my latest response.

As my lawyers point out, I have no case to answer under the hitherto accepted interpretation of the Codes of Conduct. I have broken no rules and never agreed or intended to do so. The tapes and video make it absolutely clear I would only act within the rules of the House. In fact, in stating I would not undertake lobbying, move amendments or engaging in paid advocacy, I believe I was hypothetically proposing to act in a manner beyond current best practice for conduct in the House. In the event, I decided not to proceed to work with the fictional public affairs company, as outlined in my first letter.

I am therefore at a loss to understand why this case is proceeding to a formal oral hearing, which in my view is quite unnecessary and personally damaging. The Committee has had more than enough information and evidence from me to dismiss this strangely formulated complaint.

If asked to appear I will do so, but would point out that the Sub Committee's procedures are designed to elicit the facts and judge any cases brought before it impartially, having regard to Members having "the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies." I regret that in this instance, it seems to be the Sunday Times setting the political agenda.

Yours,

Lord Truscott

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Bindmans LLP, Monday 9 March 2009

Dear Baroness Prashar

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO COMPLAINT AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE: LORD TRUSCOTT

The Registrar of Lords' Interests wrote to us on 4 March 2009 setting out the allegation against Lord Truscott and the issues that the Sub-Committee "will raise" with Lord Truscott. Mr Keith invited a "final written submission" no later than Tuesday 10 March 2009.

Our submissions should be read in conjunction with the letter to the Committee from Lord Truscott of 26 January 2009.

"Matters arising out of the Hansard transcript"

Mr Keith set out eight paragraphed matters which relate to the Hansard transcripts. We understand the Sub-Committee wish to know whether the sections of the Hansard transcripts suggest a willingness by Lord Truscott to carry out the eight actions and so breach Code 4(b). Whilst the letter does not specifically identify the parts of the transcripts which are said to raise a prima facie case in respect of the eight matters, we have identified the sections which follow the paragraphs (i) to (viiii) chronologically. We have set them out in italics below.

Our submissions, by reference to the numbered paragraphs, are as follows:

(i) To seek to persuade a Member or Members of the House of Lords that the amendment sought by MJA was a "good idea"

"... Would you be looking for people who were already like-minded to do that sort of thing?

PT: Or try to persuade them that it is a good idea. One or other. You'd start off in the Commons ... ... ... ..." (M1p19)

Whether "Would you" is intended by the journalist to mean Lord Truscott personally or someone (including MJA) more generally is unclear. However, Lord Truscott understands it to be in the third person and responds by suggesting what MJA themselves would "persuade them that it is a good idea". Lord Truscott describes the process in the second person "You'd start off in the Commons ...". He is plainly speaking of what MJA would do, not what he himself would do. He continues in the same vein four paragraphs on "You can get the government... ... ... ..." (see (ii) below). There is nothing in the words used to support the allegation that Lord Truscott would himself persuade others.

(ii) To lobby the relevant Minister and/or his officials in favour of the proposed amendment

"PT: You can get the Government to amend its own Bill, provided you can [inaudible] a Minister or his officials [inaudible] they can introduce their own amendments, and they may do that because they prefer to handle that themselves rather than have it imposed on them, even though it is fairly similar [inaudible], and then those cases [inaudible]." (M1p19)

"You" again refers to MJA and the MJA lobbyist. It does not refer to Lord Truscott's own proposed actions. The suggestion that Lord Truscott would "lobby" the relevant minister/officials is unsupported by the text and indeed contradicted by the earlier conversation when the clear basis of any activity by Lord Truscott for MJA was set out. (at Meeting 1 page 11 and 12 (see below))

(iii) To lobby the Head of the Bill Team for that purpose

"PT: [inaudible]. Director of policy responsible ... [inaudible] the Bill team ... Obviously, when it comes, I can advise on procedure and who to deal with in the Commons but obviously when it comes to the Lords it is far more within my ambit to influence it than in the Commons.

[55.00]

Man: Because you know the officials or—

PT: Well I know the officials. I can contact the officials as it goes through the Commons stages, but in terms of, I can contact some of the MPs as well, but in terms of influencing Members and knowing the people, obviously I know the people better up here than in the Commons"(M1p20)

And

PT: 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?".

Man: Yeah, "have you thought about the exemption?", yeah.( M2p12)

In retrospect, Lord Truscott accepts that his language was occasionally too loose and is open to misinterpretation if taken out of context. He had set out the basis of any association with MJA at the beginning of the first meeting (no lobbying, moving amendments or paid advocacy (M1p11&12)) but accepts that the use of the word "influence" here might be misleading on its own. "Obviously when it comes, I can advise on procedure and who to deal with in the Commons but obviously when it comes to The Lords it is far more within my ambit to influence it than in the Commons" was intended to describe Lord Truscott's greater ability in the Lords to assess the predominance of view with the Head of the Bill team and others. He was seeking to explain that it was easier for him to sound out Members and officials because of his knowledge and proximity to them in the House of Lords. "It" refers to the process of ascertaining current opinion on an issue. His intention was then for MJA themselves to undertake the lobbying as he expresses elsewhere.

As to "well I know the officials. I can contact the official as it goes through the Commons stages, but in terms of, I can contact some MPs as well, but in terms of influencing members and knowing the people, obviously I know the people better up her than in the Commons", Lord Truscott was describing his role in contacting the official in the Commons and identifying which MPs might be in agreement with MJAs' client's position. However, it would be easier for him to guide and influence the process by which MJA lobbied individuals in the Lords because he knew those people better. He does not state anywhere that he could influence Members or officials in either House. He states elsewhere (see below) that he would not lobby for MJA.

The extract at page 12 in Meeting 2 (above) is a suggestion of a form of words Lord Truscott might use in speaking with the Bill team to discover whether an idea had currency and what the political and departmental views might be. This has nothing to do with Lord Truscott proposing an amendment or lobbying the Bill team, something Lord Truscott specifically excludes elsewhere in the text.

(iv) To lobby Tory Peers, all of whom he knew for that purpose

PT: Well, as I said to you before, I mean, I can work with you over it, and it is, you know, identifying people and, obviously, following it and identifying people to talk to talking with people to facilitate the amendments and make sure that the thing is drafted. I mean, I think it's got to be a sort of partnership, as it were.

Woman: Yes.

PT: Because I don't think for even two days a month I'm not going to be able to go away and do the whole shooting match on my own, you know. But I think if it's approached in a sort of partnership then I think it's, you know, perfectly feasible (sic).

Man: I mean, do you know Caroline Spelman?

PT: Caroline Spellman? No, No. I know, you know, some of the MPs and I know all the Tories in the Lords, so I've got no problems with approaching them. I mean, I think, as I said, I think it might be worth having a first bite of the cherry in the Commons. (M2p9)

Lord Truscott was describing a partnership whereby Lord Truscott could direct MJA as to who best to talk to, identify the predominance of opinion, advise on the process, follow the course of the legislation, and identify individuals within the process who might have similar views. These individuals would be lobbied directly by MJA, not by Lord Truscott.

As to "I know all the Tories and the Lords, so I've got no problems with approaching them". Lord Truscott was speaking of approaching Members of the Lords to ascertain whether there was a political will or sympathetic opinion which might be useful for MJA themselves to lobby.

None of this can be said to be personal lobbying by Lord Truscott.

(v) To see Peers on his own without any representative of MJA being present

"PT: And also there would probably be a different style maybe in the Commons and in the Lords. I mean, in the Commons, it might be better, I'll identify the MP, but it might be better for you to talk to the MP. That's why, if you know an MP, have a word with them. 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. It may well be a sort of combination that if you set up a meeting and say, you know, we've got Lord Truscott and even in the Commons Lord Truscott would like to come along and talk you about things that [inaudible] representations have been made, then I am also happy to do that".(M2p11)

There is nothing wrong in Lord Truscott meeting Peers on his own. There is equally nothing wrong in Lord Truscott sounding out the opinions of those Peers. That is all he was contemplating here.

(vi) To find a Peer who would move the required amendment although he would not be comfortable to do that himself.

"PT: 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. I am quite happy to talk to MPs, Peers, officials, and to do behind the scenes stuff. As I said to you before, I don't think I'd be comfortable moving amendments myself because people would complain it would be a direct interest.

Man: No, but the question is that you would be able to find someone who could.

PT: Yeah, Yeah, That's right. And there's nothing to—I mean, I can occasionally speak on the subject and just declare an interest, if I feel that to be required, or whatever, but I think it's probably better to ... ... ...[indistinct]. From what I've seen certainly on the ballot issue, you're really pushing at an open door as far as the Conservatives and the Liberals are concerned".(M2p11).

Lord Truscott is speaking about approaching the Minister to ascertain the political climate and for an exchange of information about the government's thinking on a Bill. There is nothing here to say he would lobby the minister or try to promote an amendment.

(viii) Generally that he was content to lobby the relevant Minister and officials, but not to move the amendment sought himself.

Lord Truscott did not say at any point that he would himself lobby a Minister, lobby officials or lobby Members of the House of Lords

Indeed, so far as the extent of any "lobbying" activity is concerned, he explicitly states the basis of any proposed association with MJA as follows.

On lobbying and "pitching"

"So, in terms of the conflicts of interests, everyone is pretty well experienced in handling those sorts of issues. I've got my published Register of Interests here, which is open to the public anyway. So it's all above board. There's nothing that lacks transparency".

Man: How does it work? Would you put us on the register or our client on the register?

PT: No, it would be you, rather than the client. Because it's still only a year since I was a Minister, any job that I want to do has to go before the business advisory appointments committee. Usually what they say is that it's okay to take up a position, providing it's beyond ... if you've not been a Minister more than 12 months before, in that case, you can't directly lobby government or government departments. I have never seen my role as lobbying. I am not personally a lobbyist. I don't actually lobby. What I will do if someone wanted—a client, for example— ... is advise—lobbying companies that lobby. I don't mind advising lobbyists, but I don't personally lobby.

Man: You don't phone up officials and make the pitch yourself?

PT: No, I wouldn't do that. That's the other thing to make clear. I don't lobby myself. I don't mind being employed by them, but I advise the lobbyists rather than doing the pitch myself. I am happy to find out information, but that's a slightly different thing. That's just my view. As I say, then the advisory committee usually gives us advice and says, "Well, yes, there's not a problem with you taking up this position providing you don't lobby". As I say, I'm quite a ...

Woman: Yes. (Meeting 1 Hansard page 11&12)

On Lord Truscott's role with MJA

"PT: Because if I am paid as a, as a consultant, then I can't be paid for parliamentary advocacy, as it were.

Man: I see."

And then:

"PT:... ...What I could do is advise on the process. You know, identify all the people who would be willing to ... who could be approached to put the amendments forward and all that sort of stuff. So I draw a line between sort of advice, consultancy, and actually ... er ... er ... er ... direct advocacy of, you know, particular causes ... like if I was sort of paid by a company or whatever. (Meeting 1 Hansard 6 and 7)

On the suggestion that Lord Truscott would find somebody to move an amendment

Man: You can find somebody else who will do it for you?

PT: Well, I mean, it wouldn't be for me, would it? It would be for you.

Woman: It would be for the company.

PT: All I can do is facilitate the system and advise but I can't get involved in the paid advocacy in Parliament.

Woman: You can't actually do it. (Meeting 1—Hansard page 7)

PT: I might, for example, say that Clare, you know, such and such a person is following this and you really need to chat to them and stick out all their notes, put a briefing note, have a cup of tea with them and say would you move these amendments, Lord Truscott may have mentioned it to you know.

Woman: Yes. That's essentially—without me personally, say, knowing any of these people, it would be quite difficult for me to pick up the phone and say hello, you've never heard of me, I wonder if you could do this amendment for me please.

PT: Yeah, going in cold is difficult. It's knowing [inaudible] I mean that's the thing about why, you know, lobby groups and PR companies, you know, use.... You don't know who to approach, who's interested, and if you approach the wrong person, you're going cold and you could be absolutely wasting your time. (Meeting 1 Hansard page 8)

On how Lord Truscott would deal with officials

PT...... I could pick up the phone with officials and say, "What's happening?"

Woman: Officials at the department—civil servants?

PT: I could say what's happening [inaudible] or, well, there are these issues cropping up in the Bill [inaudible]. So I am perfectly happy with doing that but you just have to be a bit careful about paid advocacy. (Meeting 1 Hansard page 7)

PT: Yes, I mean, again on the BERR thing, the er, the sort of client said, well what's happening about this government decision? We've heard, you know, that it's going to be delayed. You know, what are the things that's sort of holding up, the problems. So I can just ring up someone and chat to them and find out what's going on.

Woman: Yeah. (Meeting 1 Hansard page 9)

"Lobbying" and the Code of Conduct

We have stated that Lord Truscott denies any suggestion that he was proposing or intending to lobby for MJA.

Having said that, we hope, very clearly, several of the matters in the eight numbered paragraphs raise the question of what "lobbying" activity is permissible under the Code of Conduct.

We have the following observations:

1. The Advisory Committee no Business Appointments reports to the Cabinet Office and makes recommendations as to the suitability of appointments and activity in relation to former ministers. The Committee clearly envisages legislator ex-ministers lobbying UK Government Ministers, Crown Servants or Special Advisors on behalf of their employers or organisations with which they have a direct financial relationship. Whilst ACOBA can advise that a proposed appointment is unsuitable, in the vast majority of cases it will prohibit the ex Minister from being personally involved in lobbying UK Ministers, Crown Servants or Special Advisors for only a limited period, routinely 12 months.

ACOBA plainly accepts the practice of ex minister legislators lobbying on behalf of paying companies or organisations.

"Parliamentary advice or services"

"Parliamentary activity"

"exercising Parliamentary influence"

"to Vote ... ask any question ... or promote any matter"(Guidance).

"Parliamentary activity"

"Parliamentary advice or services"

"exercising Parliamentary influence".

"Parliamentary Business"

"Parliamentary influence"

"Parliamentary activity"

"Parliamentary Business"

6. For the ACOBA guidelines and the registration obligations under paragraph 8(a) and (b) and 12(a) to (c) to be meaningful, "Parliamentary influence" and "Parliamentary Business" must relate only to Parliamentary business procedures and so allow lobbying activity directed towards Government, Ministers, Civil Servants or special advisors provided the process is transparent though the register of Interests and the declaration requirements.

The combined effect of the ACOBA registration requirements and the register of Lords' interests provide a system whereby Parliamentary advice or services and Parliamentary activity including lobbying of government and departments can be undertaken provided it is registered and therefore transparent.

Although Lord Truscott was asked to attend a formal oral hearing well before the formal complaint had been made and the allegations identified, the Procedure for Considering Complaints envisages a number of steps before the Sub-Committee decides on the last resort—a formal oral hearing.

Lord Truscott has now answered the allegation and replied to the issues raised by Mr Keith. The original interpretation placed on the transcripts has now been refuted. An oral Hearing where the issues and answers are replayed will serve no purpose. While there are very real issues over the meaning of the Codes, with respect, we suggest that the Sub-Committee is not the forum to clarify or to amend the rules.

We invite the Sub-Committee to consider these submissions and answers and to dismiss the complaint without a formal oral hearing.

Transcripts

We do not accept the accuracy of the transcripts prepared by The Sunday Times. They are incomplete, wrong and partisan. With reference to the letter of 4 March from Mr Keith (at paragraph 6), any dispute over the Hansard transcription should be resolved by listening to the tapes and video.

We have identified several errors also in the Hansard versions. We enclose copies of the amended versions with the amended sections in blue. We ask that the Committee use these as the first reference. [Reproduced as list, appended.]

Friday 13 March 10.30 am

If the Committee decides that it is nevertheless necessary to hear Lord Truscott in person then we can confirm that Lord Truscott is available at this time. Please advise us of the Sub-Committee's decision and the issues that remain unresolved by these submissions.

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP

Amendments to the Hansard transcripts of Lord Truscott's meetings

Meeting 1 p6 of 24: "one of the companies that I advise is Gazprom" should be "one of the companies that I advise advises Gazprom".

Meeting 1 p6 of 24: "I would manage to get in Private Eye for doing that so it is an indirect connection" should be "I would get in Private Eye with even an indirect connection".

Meeting 1 p8 of 24: "Lord Truscott mentioned it [inaudible] you know" should be "Lord Truscott may have mentioned it to you know".

Meeting 1 p9 of 24: "He said, you know, will you move these amendments" should be "They said, you know, will you move these amendments".

Meeting 1 p9 of 24: "it depends on who you're interested in and what" should be "it depends on the degree of interest you've got".

Meeting 1 p9 of 24: "There can be some sort of grey areas" should be "There can be slightly grey areas".

Meeting 1 p12 of 24: "if you've been a Minister more than 12 months before" should be "if you've not been a Minister more than 12 months before".

Meeting 1 p12 of 24: "What I will do if someone wanted—a client, for example— ... lobbying companies that lobby" should be "What I will do if someone wanted—a client, for example— ...is advise lobbying companies that lobby".

Meeting 1 p12 of 24: "employed as a parliamentary applicant or lobbyist" should be "employed as a parliamentary advocate or lobbyist".

Meeting 1 p14 of 24: "Now they employ 200 people and, um, they've got ?fights? over the retail market" should be "Now they employ 200 people and, um, they've got five per cent over the retail market".

Meeting 1 p15 of 24: "whether the Government would block it either on competition grounds or security grounds" should be "whether the Government would block it either on competition grounds or European Energy security".

Meeting 1 p16 of 24: "Usually, with the consultancy thing, it's all parliamentary-led???" should be "Usually, with the consultancy thing, it's all It's for one or two days a month".

Meeting 1 p16 of 24: "generally, it works ??? might call somebody ??? one or two days a month. Time-wise, it varies" should be "generally, it works that the company calls or will use me one or two days a month sort of time-wise, it varies".

Meeting 2 p11 of 24: "I don't think I'd be comfortable moving amendments myself ?? because I didn't give notice saying that I had a direct financial interest??" should be "I don't think I'd be comfortable moving amendments myself because people would complain it would be a direct interest".

Meeting 2 p11 of 24: "That's right" should be "Yeah, Yeah, That's right".

Meeting 2 p11 of 24: "it's probably better to ?? get someone else to do it ??. From what I see, certainly on the ballot issue" should be "it's probably better to ... ... [indistinct]. From what I've seen certainly on the ballot issue".

Meeting 2 p11 of 24: "energy security and all that sort of crap??" should be "energy security and all that sort of stuff".

Meeting 2 p14 of 24: "PT: Yeah. Man: I see. PT: Again, it was sort of pushing at an open door" should be "PT: Yeah, yeah, so again, it was pushing at an open door".

Meeting 2 p14 of 24: "willing to try it out, but essentially get it moving from a position" should be "willing to try it out, [inaudible] getting them from a general position".

E-mail to Mr Keith from Bindmans LLP, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Mr Keith

Has the Sub-Committee made any decision in the light of the representations which were sent to you on Tuesday?

Regards

Neil O'May

E-mail to Bindmans LLP from Mr Keith, Thursday 12 March 2009

We have spent the morning on this, and a letter is being prepared to go from Baroness Prashar to Lord Truscott.

The key point for present purposes is that the Sub-Committees believes that there is a prima facie case for Lord Truscott to answer and wishes Lord Truscott to attend tomorrow as previously notified.

Letter to Lord Truscott from Baroness Prashar, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS: INQUIRY INTO RECENT PRESS ALLEGATIONS

Thank you for your letter of 10 March.

I very much regret that you take the view that you have been denied natural justice in the way in which the Sub-Committee has been conducting its enquiry. The Sub-Committee is committed to procedural fairness, and to being scrupulously fair to the four Lords involved in these allegations.

Brendan Keith's letter to you of 3 [correction: 4] March gave particulars of the specific matters arising out of the Hansard transcript on which the Sub-Committee would principally focus in its investigation. In the Sub-Committee's opinion, the giving of these particulars was a compliance with the rules of natural justice because you then knew the nature of the matters which the Sub-Committee considers could tell against you. These particulars were settled at a Sub-Committee meeting and were unanimously agreed by its members. I cannot accept therefore your suggestion that natural justice in your case "has played second fiddle to the pressures of the press".

Moreover, the Sub-Committee has been careful to avoid giving any details of its investigation to the press and has never felt under pressure from it. The pressure, in so far as there is any, derives from the nature of the allegations and the damage to reputations.

The Sub-Committee considered the whole of the transcripts of your conversations with the undercover journalists, including the passages highlighted in the letter from your solicitors of 9 March, before deciding that there was a case to answer. Your solicitors' letter of 9 March gives notice of what your reply to possible questions is likely to be, but in accordance with paragraph 25 of The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members (4th Report of Session 2007-08 from the Committee for Privileges, HL Paper 205) the Sub-Committee will wish to consider the answers that you give to the questions they put.

The allegations made by the Sunday Times were so serious, and so damaging to the reputation of the Lords concerned and to the good name of the whole House, that we took the view at the outset that the four Lords would wish to have the earliest possible opportunity to explain their position. The Sub-Committee has continued to consider your evidence in writing, and if your submissions were to have shown that an oral interview was not necessary, it would have been cancelled. However, this is not the current belief of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee considers that remedial action is not possible, as our procedure is clear that remedial action may only be agreed if the complaint "is minor and is acknowledged by the Member concerned". Our consideration is that an informal interview would be insufficient, given the gravity of the charges and our belief that the four Lords would wish to put their positions on the record. Furthermore, delay would have been in no-one's interests.

I have to say that I understood your firm initial reaction set out in the final paragraph of your letter of 26 January to be positive. You said:

"I submit myself to the judgment of the Committee and remain ready and willing to appear before you. I do hope this matter is resolved swiftly, so I can start rebuilding my life".

The formal complaint to us was made by the Leader of the House after the police announced on 12 February that they would not be examining the matter further. The Leader had written previously, on the day the newspaper published its allegations, inviting us to begin an immediate enquiry, given the seriousness of the allegations.

Your case is proceeding to a formal oral hearing because in the opinion of the whole Sub-Committee there is a prima facie case for you to answer.

I would be grateful to receive your prompt confirmation that you will be attending the Sub-Committee tomorrow.

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Prashar

E-mail to Mr Keith and Ms Street from Bindmans LLP, Thursday 12 March 2009

Dear Ms Street and Mr Keith

I have passed this letter to Lord Truscott and he has asked me to confirm to Baroness Prashar, through you, that he will be attending the Sub-Committee as requested at 10.30 am.

I shall be accompanying Lord Truscott.

Regards

Neil O'May

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Truscott, Monday 16 March 2009

I would like to thank Members of the Sub-Committee for the opportunity to put my case last Friday. I also repeat my sincere regret for any my actions which have caused embarrassment or affected the high reputation of the House of Lords.

It is still my fervent belief that I broke no House rules as they currently exist, and didn't promise or intend to do so in the future.

I would generally agree with Lord Cope of Berkeley's analysis that there are different levels of influence at work within the House. First, the general influence that all Members of the House possess by virtue of being peers in the second chamber. Second, influencing fellow Members, officials and ministers. Third, parliamentary influence to affect the legislative business of the House (i.e. parliamentary business), including moving amendments, putting down questions, etc.

I believe the transcripts make clear that I would not engage in exercising parliamentary influence or in parliamentary business on behalf of the fictitious public affairs company. Although under existing House rules, Members do speak, move amendments and put questions after declaring the relevant interests at the appropriate juncture.

I also repeatedly stated that I would not lobby fellow peers or anyone else, in an attempt to influence their opinions. In my view, any attempt to do so would also not show respect for Members' own strongly held views.

On the general question of lobbying, this is allowed under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA)' own rules, which allow a former minister to lobby on behalf of commercial interests, providing they left government more than 12 months before. As I mentioned, despite this, I felt lobbying was an inappropriate activity for me personally, and specifically eschewed it in my meetings with the fictional company.

I thus feel that in refusing to lobby, move amendments or engage in paid advocacy, I was ensuring that in any potential future commercial relationship, I would be acting well within House rules. In fact, I would be displaying best practice in terms of my personal conduct.

Finally, I would urge the Sub-Committee to look at my case on an individual and human basis, in what has been a difficult media and political environment.

Lord Truscott

E-mail to Mr Keith from Lord Truscott, Tuesday 24 March 2009

Dear Mr Keith,

I today handed in my amendments to the transcripts, which you should have received by now.

As it is now 10 days since I gave my evidence, I wonder whether the Committee is near to making a decision?

I hope very much that the Sub-Committee will not feel obliged to come up with a single decsion on all of the cases they are looking into, but treat my case individually, since it is clear that this was not a "group action", and should not be presented as such.

Best wishes,

Lord Truscott

E-mail to Lord Truscott from Mr Keith, Tuesday 24 March 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

The Sub-committee is not yet in a position to make decisions. The procedure we are required to follow is set out in the Fourth Report of the Committee for Privileges which you will find at:

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldprivi/205/20502.htm

We are examing each case independently on its own individual merits. There is no question of a group action. But it is likely that the SubCttee will wish to present a single report covering the four cases to the parent Privileges Committee.

You will see from the procedures that before the SubCttee can take any decision it must submit to each of the four Lords subject to the Sunday Times allegations certain factual parts of its proposed report. Each Lord then has a week or so to agree to these factual parts or to correct them. Only then, in the light of the agreed statement of facts, can the SubCttee reach a decision.

So we have some way to go.

Best wishes

Brendan Keith

E-mail to Lord Truscott from Mr Keith, Wednesday 25 March 2009

The Sub-Committee of enquiry met this afternoon.

You may find the following information helpful.

As to timetable, the Sub-Committee is considering each of the four cases separately, on the merits of each case but will probably for convenience produce a single report containing the four cases. The procedures require the Sub-Committee before reaching its conclusions to share with each of the four Lords those parts of its report dealing with issues of fact. This part of the investigation and report is proceeding well, and may be completed by some time next week, in which case the draft of those parts of the report dealing with issues of fact will be circulated by the end of next week. Once the Lord in question has considered these parts, and commented if he so wishes, the Sub-Committee will proceed to reach its conclusions. This last stage seems unlikely before the House returns after the Easter recess. Publication of the transcripts of oral evidence, and other material, is not a matter for the Sub-Committee but for the Committee for Privileges. Each Lord will receive the printed version of his evidence and the report of the Sub-Committee at the same time as it is sent to the Committee for Privileges. I do not know what the Committee for Privileges will do by way of publication into the public arena, or when.

Brendan Keith

Letter to Lord Truscott from Ms Street, Friday 3 April 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES: SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS' INTERESTS

INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS PRINTED BY THE SUNDAY TIMES ON 25 JANUARY 2009

Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the 4th Report of Session 2007-08 from the Committee for Privileges, The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members (HL Paper 205), states:

"If the investigation has uncovered material evidence that is at variance with the Member's version of events, this will be put to the Member, who will have a chance to challenge it. Before reaching its conclusions, the Sub-Committee will also share with the Member a draft of those parts of its report dealing with issues of fact, so that the Member has an opportunity to comment on them.

"If there remain significant contested issues of fact, the Sub-Committee will agree its own account of the facts of the case, while drawing to the attention of the Committee for Privileges and the House any challenge to this account made by the Member concerned."

Accordingly, please find enclosed a copy of the first 36 paragraphs of the Sub-Committee's current draft of its report, setting out the background and basis of the Sub-Committee's investigation, which the Sub-Committee considers to be the "parts of its report dealing with issues of fact". The Sub-Committee would be grateful if you would send us any comments that you wish to make on these issues of fact. Please note that all comments must be received by 6.00 pm on Monday 20 April 2009, and no comments can be accepted by the Sub-Committee thereafter. Please also note that the intention of this stage of the Sub-Committee's procedure is to allow you the opportunity to contest only issues of fact. The Sub-Committee's complete report, so far as it concerns you, will be sent to you when the Sub-Committee has reached its final conclusions, probably (in confidence) in the week beginning 20 April. We are grateful for the evidence you have given us, and it will be for the Committee for Privileges to hear any appeals.

Please also find enclosed a copy of the sequence of events that we have constructed from the Hansard transcripts and original emails relating to your case. The intention is that this sequence will be published alongside the Sunday Times version of the same events, which you already have. Please let us have any comments or corrections you wish to make by 6.00 pm on Monday 20 April. We would be grateful if you would also send us an indication of any personal data that you would wish not to be published; please note that corrections and deletions will be made at the discretion of the Clerks.

Also enclosed is a copy of the oral evidence transcript. Please let us have any final corrections or comments that you wish to make by 6.00 pm on Monday 20 April.

This is your final opportunity to comment upon the matters of fact and the accuracy of the evidence that the Sub-Committee has received relating to your case. Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Susannah Street

Clerk to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests

E-mail to Mr Keith from Lord Truscott, Thursday 16 April 2009

Dear Brendan,

Please find attached my comments on the first 36 paragraphs of the draft report, addressed to Baroness Prashar. I will put the original in the Lords internal post later today. I'll be looking at the final drafts of the transcipts over the next day or so.

I have two questions. Is it necessary to publish the orginal Sunday Times transcripts, given the more accurate Hansard version and the many errors and ommisions of the former?

Secondly, I hope I shall be given some advance notice of the Sub-Committee's conclusions as they relate to my case, so I have time to prepare a press statement and response to any possible media enquiries.

Best wishes,

Peter Truscott

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Truscott, Thursday 16 April 2009

GENERAL

1. I wish to refer to the documents sent to me by the Sub-Committee dated 3 April. I will focus in this letter on the first 36 paragraphs of the draft report, but would like to make two general points on the transcripts. First, I would appreciate it if my London address, telephone numbers and email address were not published. Second, if the Sunday Times, Hansard and Hearing transcripts are to be published, in the interests of transparency, fairness, natural justice and balance I would respectfully insist that all my correspondence with the Sub-Committee, and that of my lawyers on my behalf, is also published (including this letter). For almost three months, under the Inquiry procedure, I have not been able to respond to press allegations, and at the Hearing I was only responding to questions put to me. My case is substantially put by myself in my own letters and those drafted with my solicitor. For my voice to be adequately heard, I therefore request that all the correspondence in my case be published. I have been assured that my case is an individual one, so expect it to be treated as such.

2. On this last point, I am still concerned that much of the correspondence, and indeed the draft report, refers to allegations against other Members of which I have no detailed knowledge and cannot comment. I request that any references to any other Members are excluded from any part of the report which refers to my case. I am not part of a "Gang of Four", The letters to me dated 26 January, 4 February, 9 February, 13 February and 12 March, referred in various forms to the "four Lords involved in these investigations." As I said, my case is an individual one, and I do not wish to be "lumped together" with any other case or individual.

THE DRAFT REPORT, PARAS 1-36

BACKGROUND

Para 1

This states that the Sunday Times published allegations that four Members of the House of Lords were "prepared to accept fees ... to amend legislation in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients". However, it does not say that these specific allegations were a patent lie. The Sunday Times headline on 25 January 2009 ran "Revealed: Labour lords change laws for cash". Again, this was a lie in my case, as was the heading on page 5, "Price for a peer to fix the law". This was not substantiated in the Sunday Times, and in fact undermined by its subsequent report the following week. Gary O'Donoghue, the BBC political correspondent, had rung me late on the night of Saturday 24 January and said "The Sunday Times are saying you offered to move amendments for cash" (their spin), which again, was a blatant lie.

This paragraph also refers to the sum of £120,000, which was not specific to my case, so if this section includes me, it should be removed.

Para 2

No comment.

Para 3

Again, this is a prejudicial, generalised statement. The allegation was not that I (again, please don't lump me together with other Members) was "willing to help undercover reporters ... to obtain an amendment ... in return for payment". The allegation was as expressed above in my para 1. In fact I was offered a 12 month contract with a public affairs company to offer advice on legislative and other matters.

Also, while the phrase "willing to help ... etc" may on the face of it be shocking to members of the public, if "help" means "advice" (as in my case), it is perfectly within the rules and is common practice as part of the "parliamentary consultancy" services offered by Members. The House authorities have it in their powers to ban parliamentary consultancy if that is their wish, but that is not the current position.

The very phrasing of this paragraph, mimicking the hysterical headlines in the Sunday Times, is either badly drafted or suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the current legislative process, and the role of parliamentary consultancy within it.

Para 4 line three

In referring to the Sunday Times story, this paragraph uses the word "said" rather than the more factually accurate "alleged". I would like to make clear that I categorically deny this allegation that I secured any changes to legislation on behalf of commercial clients, which is totally without foundation.

Para 5

No comment.

Para 6

The Sub-Committee's decision at its first meeting (before it was able to see the full evidence) that there was a prima facie case was based solely on the Sunday Times's allegations and newspaper extracts that were edited, fabricated, prejudicial, doctored and part of a political entrapment operation set in the context of the run-up to the next General Election. It was this prima facie case that my lawyers and I tried to ascertain, and answer, over the subsequent weeks.

Para 7

No comment.

Para 8

No comment.

Para 9

The Sub-Committee's letter of 26 January invited me to answer the allegations, but it was not clear which further specific allegations I was supposed to answer.

I had already responded to the allegations, and in my view answered them, in my letter of 26 January.

Para 10

No comment.

Paras 11-12

No comment.

Para 13

The Sunday Times "gave us the transcripts which reproduced what they considered to be the most relevant extracts from the recordings". In other words, the Sunday Times took almost two months after the original allegations to provide the Sub-Committee with edited material.

Para 14

There is a reference here to the "four Lords" which I would like removed.

Para 15

My understanding is that Lord Harris of Haringey was also "interviewed" by the journalists. For unknown reasons, the Sunday Times did not publish the interview in his case.

Para 16

This states that "The oral evidence and all the relevant written evidence is published with the report". That is, with respect, incorrect. Much of my evidence and arguments are contained in my personal letters to the Sub-Committee, and those drafted with my lawyers. As the published material in my case will be in the public domain, it will present a lop-sided account of the allegations against me. The media will focus on the evidence available to them, which on balance, will be prejudicial to my case. To re-set the balance, and in the cause of natural justice, I respectfully insist that all the correspondence in my case is published and put on the record. Under paragraph 16 of the complaints procedure, I have been unable to put my side of the story to the press. My reputation has meanwhile been torn to shreds. Thus for almost three months, there has only been one side of the story told, a story which is highly misleading. I would ask the Sub-Committee not to perpetuate this calumny by only publishing the transcripts and minutes of the Hearing, which do not alone adequately explain the circumstances surrounding my case.

Para 17

No comment.

Para 18

This states that the Sub-Committee's procedures are not adversarial. In fact, despite the best efforts of the Lord Chairman, I found my Hearing before the committee extremely adversarial, and more aggressive than many cases I have witnessed in civil courts.

Para 19

Whilst the conclusions on standards of proof in this paragraph are to be welcomed, I regret the reference to "each of the four cases", which again makes it appear like a job lot.

Para 20

This refers to another Member. I cannot comment on other cases.

Para 21

See below.

Para 22

I cannot comment on other cases.

Para 23

States: "The allegations against the four Lords were so grave that we decided at the outset that there was no question that we would have to interview them in person and on the record". It was at this point that I sought legal advice. Whilst I can understand the concerns of the Sub-Committee, I have several problems with this statement.

1. I was legally advised that this "short-cutting" of the Procedure for considering complaints against Members" was not consistent with the Committee's own procedure. Only after I had received all the evidence, and only after I had responded to it, should the Sub-Committee have considered dismissing the complaint; agreeing remedial action; holding an informal hearing; or a formal oral hearing (procedure for considering complaints against Members, paras 17-23).

2. I only received the detailed and specific allegations against me on 4 March, so the Sub-Committee had no time to consider my detailed response before deciding on a formal oral hearing.

3. The view expressed by the Committee that a formal hearing could be cancelled at a later date, I am advised, in not contained in the procedure.

4. I was willing to appear before the Committee, but became concerned that the process was being driven by political and media pressure, without sufficient adherence to natural justice in my case as an individual.

Sunday Times

Para 24

This again mentions the "four Lords", and I cannot comment on other cases.

I was however informed at one point by the Sub-Committee that the remedial action procedure was still open to me. I had repeatedly apologised (in writing and orally) and continue to do so, for any of my actions which have caused any embarrassment or affected the high reputation of the House of Lords. For this, I remain thoroughly mortified and chastened. A written apology can be sufficient under the procedure, so para 24 is factually inaccurate.

I would like to emphasise that I do not underestimate the damage hostile press coverage has done to the reputation of the House of Lords, and for my part in that, I remain extremely distressed.

Para 25

I have a problem with this paragraph. First, it places my case together with Lord Taylor's, of which I have no specific knowledge. Second, it lists a number of procedural objections that my lawyers did not make, so discrediting my case.

As mentioned in para 23 above, my lawyers' interventions were not based "on a fundamental misconception of our role ...", but because they were concerned the Sub-Committee was not following its own procedures, and so my lawyers were acting to protect my right to natural justice and a fair hearing.

However, this paragraph does highlight another issue, namely that the Sub-Committee is a parliamentary body, made up of representatives of political parties and crossbenchers. As the procedure highlights, the Sub-Committee was established primarily to examine failure to register or declare relevant interests or breaches of the "no paid advocacy role". The Sub-Committee found itself in real difficulty when the original Sunday Times allegations (i.e. moving amendments for cash) were manifestly untrue, and other allegations were non-specific. The Sub-Committee then found itself in the invidious position of having to formulate specific charges. In my view, this is not, and should not be, the role of the Committee, and this led to a great deal of procedural confusion. As the Sub-Committee was not designed to operate in a charged media and political environment, I think the Committee should be replaced by a Lords Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, who would take on the onerous duties and long hours endured by the Sub-Committee in such cases.

Para 26

No comment.

Para 27

I agree that this was a politically-motivated sting operation like that conducted by the Sunday Times in 1994, with a view to destablising the Government in the run-up to the next General Election. In my view, this was a KGB-style entrapment operation, designed to uncover or invent what the Russians call "KOMPROMAT" or compromising material. The difference here is that the Sunday Times's attempt in my case to get me to agree to move amendments for cash failed. Nevertheless the media kept this story running for several weeks, essentially on a false premise.

Para 28

This is factually inaccurate. The Sub-Committee is making the mistake of believing the Sunday Times. Which 10 Members were approached? In my opinion, there was no serious attempt to entrap Conservative or Liberal Members of the House of Lords. However, I believe at least five peers were approached and interviewed in all.

Para 29

No Comment.

Para 30

Again, I object to the "group" approach, which apart from anything else is misleading. The approach to me was based on a consultancy contract, with a potential advisory role over a 12 month period, covering a range of issues. I made it clear I would not lobby (although this is allowed under ACOBA rules), I would not move amendments and I would not engage in paid advocacy.

Para 31

I can only comment that in my case, I offered my services at the rate of £2,000 per day plus VAT, on the basis of a 12 month draft contract, to be negotiated. In the event, I decided not to proceed with the fake company.

Para 32

Again refers to "all four Lords".

Paras 33-34

No comment.

Para 35

I have a major problem with the paragraph and this statement, which is my case is prejudicial and factually wrong. As mentioned, I offered only advice over a potential 12 month period. I was at no time asked, or offered, to exercise "parliamentary influence to facilitate the enactment of such an amendment". However, the dictionary definition of "facilitate" is to "make easy or less difficult or more easily achieved". As a parliamentary consultant, to advise a public relations company on a campaign to make its legislative aims less difficult to achieve, is entirely within House rules and is wholly logical. That is what I meant by facilitate.

If giving advice on a lobbying campaign is seen as a "charge of breach of the Code of Conduct", then that is not my interpretation of the rules nor is it current practice in the House of Lords. Amendments in the House can only succeed if such a campaign is seen as persuasive, and if a consensus is achieved. An individual parliamentary consultant could not change or amend legislation. During my Hearing with the Sub-Committee, I found myself on occasions explaining the legislative process, for example the role of the Bill Team. A parliamentary consultant can advise on this process, but cannot determine outcomes.

An impartial analysis of what I was potentially offering, namely advice, finding out information, identifying people to meet and talk with, and how to build a consensus in the House, would establish this was normal practice and perfectly within the rules. But doing all this would still not guarantee an amendment would be moved, and even if a Member were convinced to do so by the public affairs company, it was not guaranteed a consensus would be achieved. Legislation would only pass if the House arrived at a consensus, and although possible, this outcome was not certain. Success would depend on the merits of the case. My role in this would be to offer advice and guidance on the process; given the nature of the legislative process, I could not guarantee a successful outcome, and properly, nor could or would I do so.

As discussed in my Hearing with the Sub-Committee, I believe there is also a distinction between influence, which all Members have, and exercising "parliamentary influence", i.e. affecting parliamentary business by moving amendments, asking questions, and paid advocacy. Together with lobbying, I find the latter personally unacceptable. Members do currently speak, move amendments and put down questions after declaring the relevant interests at the appropriate juncture. Although I was asked to make the definition at my Hearing, I have not seen the Sub-Committee yet define "parliamentary influence".

According to my legal advice, the Sub-Committee should not make any finding against me on the facts, but there may be overwhelming media and political pressure to do so nevertheless. I fervently hope the Sub-Committee resists any such pressures, and adheres to the principles of fairness and impartially.

Para 36

No Comment.

Lord Truscott

E-mail to Mr Keith from Lord Truscott, Friday 17 April 2009

Dear Brendan,

After sending my letter yesterday, I found a few typos which I have now edited. If possible, could you please circulate the attached clean version to the Sub-Committee? Sorry for any inconvenience. [Letter above is corrected version.]

On publication of the Sunday Times transcripts, I would also like to make the point that the "evidence" was the audio tapes themselves, rather than the Sunday Times's version of the tapes- so I see no reason for the publication of the latter, which were inaccurate and edited.

Best wishes,

Peter Truscott

Letter to Baroness Prashar from Lord Truscott, Sunday 19 April 2009

I am replying to your letter of 3 April. I have already submitted my comments on the Sub-Committee's draft report, and in this letter I will be commenting on the material the Committee is proposing to publish.

Sunday Times'

Sunday Times

2. The Hansard transcripts of the audio tapes do not include the corrections I and my solicitor have made previously. These corrections should be included, and therefore as presented currently, I do not accept this Hansard version as a full and accurate account of the audio tapes.

3. On the minutes of my Hearing of 13 March 2009, I have made some corrections, and they will follow below, at the end of this letter. During proof-reading, I had a chance to re-read the minutes of the Hearing, and would like to make one last submission to the Sub-Committee before their final deliberations.

SUBMISSION

There is a fundamental contradiction within the rules of the House at present. Although there are no specific rules or guidelines governing parliamentary consultancy, current House of Lords rules cover a large range of such activity.

Even the Sub-Committee itself was originally established to deal with Members who fail to declare relevant interests, and to cover the "no paid advocacy rule." This means by definition, that Members are allowed to speak and put down questions and amendments, provided they declare their relevant financial interests at the appropriate time. It is the failure to declare such interests, which can be referred to the Sub-Committee, not the fact of speaking or moving amendments itself.

On the other hand, there is a rule (4c), in the Code of Conduct, which forbids the exercise of parliamentary influence in exchange for payment. Parliamentary influence itself is not defined.

Parliamentary consultancy in the House of Lords has existed for decades. Many Members are either employed by companies, or have (or for many years had) their own public affairs/lobbying companies. I am sure that many of them would welcome clarification on "what peers can and can't do in relation to lobbying companies".

Meanwhile, every Member has to reconcile that contradiction and set their own limits. In my case, I stated clearly on many occasions what my boundaries were, and they were well within the rules. At no time did I promise to break or bend the rules, and I never did.

But the whole approach of some Sub-Committee Members during my Hearing was to suggest that although I "eloquently" expressed my position I was only paying "lip service" to the rules, but really my intentions were quite different.

First, may I respectfully point out that it is not the role of the Committee to act as Thought Police. In any case I did not have such thoughts.

Second, even logically, why would I lobby Members, Ministers or officials, when I had specifically ruled this out, and when my hypothetical role with the public affairs company would be as a paid adviser, paid for my time and not on a "success" basis? Achieving a specific aim was not part of my proposed role, and I would have categorically avoided such a linkage. As a consultant and adviser, my activity would not be related to any particular result. Incidentally, according to ACOBA, lobbying is allowed.

Some Sub-Committee Members found it difficult to believe that it is possible to meet people to find out what their thinking was, and not lobby them. Or even sit in at a meeting with a lobbyist and not intervene. I can again assure Members of the Sub-Committee that this is perfectly possible and appropriate.

I hope I am not made a scapegoat for the current system, and would welcome any clarification of the House of Lords rules.

CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING

I have proposed changing most of these inaccuracies in my previous submission.

1. Q368 (page 13). "apart from the time that I was the Minster" should read "apart from the time I was a Minister."

2. Q391 (page 20) Not "What I will do if someone wanted—a client for example—is advise—lobbying companies that lobby" but: "What I will do if someone wanted—a client for example—is advise—it's lobbying companies that lobby."

3. Q539 (page 70) should read "per se" not "per structure".

4. Q454 (page 42) Lord Truscott: "No", should read "No, I disagree". It was clear I was disagreeing with Lord Irvine, but was interrupted.

Lord Truscott

Letter to Lord Truscott from Mr Keith, Thursday 23 April 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

The Sub-Committee on Lords Interests has instructed me to reply to your two letters of 16 April and 19 April. I am instructed to reply as follows.

In replying to the points you raise, to the extent that the Sub-Committee wishes to reply to these points, I have adopted the numbering system in your letter of 16 April.

Para 1 (16 April)

Para 2 (16 April)

Draft Report Para 1

Sunday Times

Para 4 line 3

Para 14

Para 16

Para 18

Para 23

Para 24

Para 25: (i)

(ii)

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Registrar of Lords Interests

Letter to Lord Truscott from Mr Keith, Thursday 23 April 2009

Dear Lord Truscott,

I enclose a copy of the Report of the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests on your conduct, following the allegations in the Sunday Times on 25 January 2009 which were subsequently the basis for a complaint referred to the Sub-Committee by the Leader of the House.

You will find enclosed those sections of the Sub-Committee's Report which describe the factual background to the complaint, the interpretation of the Code of Conduct, and the Sub-Committee's analysis of and conclusions on your own conduct. The text has been agreed by the Sub-Committee, so while it will be subject to some final proof-reading and technical corrections, there will no further substantive changes.

I have not enclosed those sections of the Report which relate to the conduct of the other three Peers who have been under investigation.

I also enclose proofs of the evidence relating to your case, which will be published alongside the Report itself. This proofed evidence is as follows:

— The Hansard transcript of your telephone calls/meetings/emails with the journalists.

Sunday Times

— The transcript of your oral evidence session, as corrected.

— Part of your correspondence with the Sub-Committee.

— Other written evidence.

This is the first proof of the evidence. Mistakes will have been made by the printers and further non-substantive amendments and corrections will have to be made by the Clerks before publication. Any redactions are yet to be made. Any material redacted from the evidence itself will also be redacted from any correspondence published with the Report.

I also enclose a letter from Lord Harris of Haringey of 26 January 2009 which will be proofed and published with the "other written evidence".

I also enclose a list of the correspondence with you and your representatives that the Sub-Committee proposes to publish. I would be grateful if you would send any comments on this list to Susannah Street, Clerk to the Sub-Committee, by Friday 1 May.

Please send any comments relating to this evidence, including regarding any omissions or any further material that you wish to be redacted, to Susannah Street, Clerk to the Sub-Committee, by Friday 1 May. Please send to the Clerk of the Committee for Privileges any technical points regarding the Report that do not need to be considered by the Committee for Privileges.

Two further appendices will be added, explaining to the reader how to understand the referencing system applied to the evidence, and listing any suggested corrections to the Hansard or Sunday Times transcripts which are not included in the published correspondence. A standard introduction page will also be added, with factual information on the Committee.

I am at the same time forwarding the entire Report and all the evidence to the Clerk of the Committee for Privileges.

The Committee for Privileges will be following the procedure set out in the Committee's 4th Report of session 2007-08, which was agreed by the House on 18 December 2008. This procedure is summarised below.

In accordance with paragraph 19(e) of the Code of Conduct, you have a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges against the Sub-Committee's findings. If you choose to exercise this right, you should submit your appeal in writing to the Clerk of the Committee for Privileges not later than noon on Tuesday 5 May. In so doing you should set out the grounds for your appeal in full, and enclose such supporting material as you think appropriate.

The Committee for Privileges will consider the Report by the Sub-Committee, along with any appeals which have been lodged, on the afternoon of Monday 11 May.

Paragraph 34 of 4th Report states that any Member who decides to make an appeal is "as a courtesy ... given the opportunity to appear in person, if he or she so wishes". Paragraph 35 continues: "the Committee will not normally reopen the Sub-Committee's investigation. Rather the Members of the Committee will use their judgment to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, they endorse the conclusions of the Sub-Committee".

If you exercise your right to appear in person the Clerk will contact you to confirm the time and place. You will be invited to make an oral statement, and this may be followed by brief questions for clarification. However, the Committee will not seek to reopen the Sub-Committee's investigation by means of detailed questioning, and the meeting is likely to be short.

The meeting will be held in private, but a transcript will be taken, and will be published in due course. In accordance with paragraph 25 of the 4th Report, you may bring a friend or adviser to the meeting; this person may sit next to you, and you may consult him or her in the course of the meeting. However, you will be expected to speak and answer any questions for yourself. You are reminded of Standing Order 67, which states that Select Committees "shall not hear parties by Counsel unless so authorised by Order of the House".

Members of the Sub-Committee who also sit on the Select Committee will take no part either in considering the Sub-Committee's Report or hearing any appeal. The Leader of the House, as the complainant in this case, will similarly disqualify herself from considering the Report or hearing any appeal.

The Sub-Committee's Report will not be published by the Sub-Committee: it will be published by the Committee for Privileges as the first appendix to their Report.

The Report and all evidence submitted to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests are privileged, and should remain confidential until such time as the Committee publishes them. I draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the 4th Report, concerning privilege and contempt of the House, particularly in relation to disclosure before publication. For its part the Sub-Committee has made every effort to ensure the confidentiality of its Report.

If you have any questions regarding the procedure that will be followed by the Committee for Privileges, please write to or contact the Clerk, Christopher Johnson, who will be handling the process from this point on. His email is johnsonc@parliament.uk, and his telephone extension is x8796.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Keith

Registrar of Lords Interests