5 The Police Investigation
15. As we began assembling witnesses for this inquiry
in March 2006, the police asked for an urgent meeting. On 27 March
we reported to the House that we had agreed to a short pause in
our inquiry into Propriety and Honours to allow the police to
make progress in their investigation, and report back to us.[10]
On 15 May, the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) updated
us, in private, on the progress of their investigations. The police
and CPS invited us to delay our inquiry once again. They suggested
that not only might Committee hearings prejudice any eventual
trial, the Committee's inquiry could potentially undermine the
current investigations being carried out by the police.
16. We made it clear to the police that our inquiry
does not cover the same ground, or serve the same purpose, as
theirs, although inevitably there is some overlap in witnesses.
The police wish to discover whether there have been breaches of
the law, in particular, we understand, of the Honours (Prevention
of Abuses) Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000. Our concern is whether the current arrangements for
ensuring the integrity of the honours system are both robust and
fair.
17. The police and CPS consider that our inquiry
may prejudice their investigations for a number of reasons, amongst
which are that:
§ witnesses
could be asked to appear before the Committee in a different order
from that in which the police wish to interview them and so disturb
the order of the investigation;
§ witnesses
could be prejudiced if questioned without the usual police caution
being administered or without access to necessary documentation;
§ witnesses
could be consciously or unconsciously influenced by the evidence
of other witnesses;
§ the
inquiry would give witnesses an opportunity to rehearse their
evidence before appearing in any subsequent trial.
18. The police and CPS identified a further possible
danger to any possible trial, should it take place, namely, that
publicity generated by the proceedings could result in an abuse
of the process of the court and could lead to an application to
stay the proceedings.
19. These are serious points, and we reflected carefully
before responding to them. We believe it is essential that allegations
of criminal activity are properly investigated and, if prosecuted,
result in a fair trial. However, these important principles must
be balanced against the ability of the House and its Committees
to investigate matters of direct concern to Parliament. This inquiry
began before any police investigations were contemplated, and
concerns matters on which Parliament may be asked to make decisions
before any proceedings are concluded. We do not believe that the
nature of our inquiry need pose any danger to the investigation
or trial process. But we recognise the point made by the police
and CPS that there may be a possibility that parts of our inquiry,
if conducted in public, could jeopardise the investigation and
the integrity of any trial process, not least because of the likely
nature of the associated reporting and publicity.
20. It became our intention therefore to proceed
in ways which minimised the risks identified by the police while
still exploring the policy issues involved. For this reason we
announced that we would hear evidence in public from the Cabinet
Secretary and members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission
and produce an interim report on our findings so far. We would
take further evidence and produce a further report in due course.
21. Although the observance of propriety over the
award of peerages and honours is overseen by non-statutory bodies,
enforced by their own standing and reputation and governed by
convention and good practice, the current police investigation
is a firm reminder that impropriety can also be subject to the
criminal law. In the 19th Century, legislation was
introduced to prevent the sale of public offices. The Honours
(Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 extended similar principles to
the honours system. There has only ever been one successful prosecution
under the 1925 Act. It is too early to explore the legal safeguards
and remedies which should govern propriety in this area, and this
report does not attempt it, since we do not know what the outcome
of the current police investigation may be, nor how the way the
1925 Act is framed may affect that investigation. We
will review the law as it affects public life and corruption as
part of a further report, once the police investigation is complete
and the lessons from it are available. We have invited the police
to contribute to this review.
10 Public Administration Select Committee, Third Special
Report of Session 2005-06, Inquiry into the Scrutiny of Political
Honours, HC 1020 Back
| 
