Correspondence from the Metropolitan Police
Service
Letter to the Chairman from Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, dated 27 March 2006
RE: HONOURS
(PREVENTION OF
ABUSES) ACT
1925
I refer to our telephone conversation of Friday
evening concerning the above. For the record, in that conversation
I registered my concerns in relation to the proposed Public Administration
Select Committee meeting commencing on Tuesday 28 March 2006.
I indicated to you that many of the individuals that you wished
to hear evidence from may be the very people that could be central
to our criminal inquiry, either as witnesses or suspects. My concerns
were that your scrutiny could be viewed as an abuse of process
in terms of fairness in any future potential criminal trial. I
have consulted closely with senior lawyers from the Crown Prosecution
Service about this matter. They share my concerns and are happy
for them to be articulated in this letter.
I do, of course, recognise that our enquiries
are at a very early stage and that charges are not imminent. I
therefore concede that these matters cannot be considered sub-judice
at this stage. I also recognise the authority of Parliament to
consider and scrutinise these matters under Article 9 of the 1689
Bill of Rights.
I would however ask you to take into account
the recommendations contained in the report by the Joint Committee
on Parliamentary Privilege dated 9 April 1999 (HC 214 1998/1999).
In this report, the Joint Committee concluded that "corruption,
a serious and insidious offence, could only be dealt with effectively
by using the police and the courts. Prosecution through the courts
is the only credible remedy and the only credible deterrent for
any briber". Whilst it may be too early for us to widen our
investigation into the arena of corruption, I certainly have not
ruled this out. I would argue, therefore, that the principle articulated
in the Joint Committee report remains a valid one for you to consider.
I am more than happy to assist you personally
on these matters and would be content, if necessary, to provide
a briefing around the structure and Terms of Reference of my investigation
to the Committee if you thought this would be helpful.
I would be very grateful if you could inform
me, at your earliest convenience, whether and to what extent you
intend to continue with your inquiry.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there
are any other matters that require clarification.
Letter to the Chairman from Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, dated 13 November 2006
Thank you for your letter of 7 November 2006.
I have now had the opportunity to consult with
the CPS on this matter and I am working to provide you with some
further information that I hope will go some way to meeting the
needs of you Select Committee.
Before I go into any detail, I thought it appropriate
to comment on some of the publicity surrounding this investigation
in recent days. Speculation about the outcome and progress of
this inquiry is not something we welcome. It would seem perverse
to suggest (as some commentators have) that it is the police inquiry
team who are responsible for placing matters in the public domain.
I say this in view of the very significant time invested by us
in persuading you and your Committee to do precisely the opposite,
firmly believing, as we do, that this may undermine the investigation.
I have, however, conducted a further review
of our own operational security. I am confident that this remains
very tight. This is endorsed by the fact that the major developments
in this inquiry are not in the public domain. You can be assured
that I will continue to monitor matters very closely. You can
also be assured that this case is being closely monitored at the
most senior levels of this organisation.
I will not turn to the further information required
by your Committee. I would emphasise that what may appear to be
the lack of detail I am able to provide at this time is purely
a consequence of the overriding need to keep confidential operational
matters which may be the subject of future criminal proceedings.
I intend no discourtesy to either you or your Committee and, as
I have indicated to you previously, I will be prepared to discuss
all relevant details of the investigation when I am in a position
to do so.
The inquiry continues to work within the parameters
I outlined to you when I appeared before your Committee in May
2006. That is we are focusing on the 2005 Working Peerages List
and any offences in that period relating to the 1925 Honours (Preventions
of Abuse) Act and PPERA 2000 Act. This, you will recall, was in
order to keep the inquiry in manageable proportions and is where
the best and most recent evidence is likely to be found. These
parameters are also set in the interests of timeliness. There
is clearly a great public interest in resolving these matters
as soon as possible. By keeping the parameters narrow and focusing
on where the evidence, if it is available, is likely to be, we
will than be best placed to report our findings to the CPS at
the earliest opportunity. None of the above prevents us from widening
the scope of the inquiry should this be necessary or considering
any offences under other legislation should these come to light.
We continue to liaise with the Electoral Commission
in relation to the PPERA 2000 and that we have also received excellent
co-operation from both the Cabinet Office and the House of Lords
Appointments Commission in relation to our enquiries.
To date, my investigative team have conducted
090 interviews. They can be broken down as follows:
— Labour Party—35 interviews.
— Conservative Party—29 interviews.
— Liberal Democrats—4 interviews.
— Non-Party—22 interviews.
It is my view that considerable progress continues
to be made. The investigative team have and continue to adopt
a thorough, methodical and impartial approach to the investigation.
This has resulted in the acquisition of significant and valuable
material in relation to the development of the inquiry.
Due to the possibility of future criminal proceedings
and the need for further inquiries to be undertaken, I do not
believe it would be appropriate to comment further on the current
status of the inquiry.
As I enter what I consider to be the final stages
of the investigation, I understand fully the Committee's desire
for a timescale. Assuming the co-operation of the Parties and
individuals involved, then I hope to be able to forward a file
to the CPS in January 2007. I would emphasise that this is dependent
on a number of factors that are beyond my control. It will also
be subject to any additional lines of investigation that may result
from the inquiries I am about to undertake.
I would also emphasise that any submission to
the CPS will then involve careful consideration by them of what
are likely to be complex and sensitive legal issues. There may
then also be the need to undertake further inquiries as proposed
by the CPS.
I remain available to you should you wish to
discuss any issues regarding the investigation.
Letter to the Chairman from Assistant
Commissioner John Yates, dated 13 November 2007
Thank you for providing me with the draft, uncorrected
transcript of my evidence to the Committee on 23 October 2007.
There are several matters that need to be addressed as a result
of my appearance.
Firstly, attached is a letter addressed to the
Chair that deals with what I consider, on reflection, was an ambiguous
answer I provided to a question he posed. The contents of the
letter are self-explanatory.
Secondly, in terms of amendments, I can only
see one and this is on page 26 and my response to Question 140
from Mr Prentice. I think I said which took about 2½ years
to investigate (is the addition).
Thirdly, the Chair raised at Question 259 an
issue about a letter to you as Clerk of the Committee, sent by
my PA, Karen Boorman, from my E-mail account. The Chair, in essence,
suggesting that we had been responsible for leaking information
to The Financial Times. I have now had the opportunity
to look at that letter and where it was sent to, including yourself
as Clerk. It was copied to several people internally, as well
as externally to the Police Authority. As I stated in my evidence,
I remain as certain as I ever can be that no information was passed
by the investigative team to journalists. I am unable to account
for how this information reached The Financial Times. However,
having reviewed the content of the letter and considered it in
terms of any damage done to the inquiry, I do not consider it
either necessary or proportionate to investigate these matters
any further.
Fourthly, I referred in evidence (Question 283)
to an earlier inquiry about similar matters from 1997. I am researching
these matters further and am in the process of preparing a short
note for the Committee to outline the relevant details. This will
be forwarded to you in due course.
Supplementary note received 29 November
2007
INVESTIGATION INTO
MR DEREK
LORD
The only previous allegation made to the MPS
in respect of the "sale of honours" related to a complaint
made by an Observer journalist in 1997.
This was based on an investigation by the Observer
newspaper into an individual connected to the Conservative
Party who was alleged to be "endeavouring to procure"
honours for two named individuals using his contacts within the
Conservative Party who were at that time in power. The newspaper
passed all the material gathered to the MPS who conducted an investigation.
The investigation was initiated in April 1997
and concluded in January 1999.
The case was referred to the CPS who concluded
in January 1999 that "there is insufficient evidence to provide
a realistic prospect of convicting any person".
There is no record of any other such allegations
being made to police (with the obvious exception of the Maundy
Gregory case).
I trust that you find this helpful.
| 
