Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER JOHN
YATES QPM, MS
CARMEN DOWD
AND MR
ASKER HUSAIN
13 JULY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed
for coming along. As you know we agreed we would do this before
Parliament ended for the summer just so we kept in touch with
what was going on. We did not know you would offer a nice juicy
prelude to the meeting in the way you have, but that is how these
things go! It is just an opportunity to catch up really. You will
know that we have produced today a report. I do not know whether
you have had a chance to see it?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I have not.
Q2 Chairman: We will give it to you
to go away with—
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
That would be very useful.
Q3 Chairman: —it may help you
with your inquiries. It is our account of what some of these issues
are. Presumably you would like to say something, would you, in
opening?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think it might be helpful.
Q4 Chairman: Please do.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Firstly, thank you for seeing me again. I want you to be aware
that we clearly remain committed to providing and carrying out
a thorough and professional investigation, whilst being acutely
conscious of some of the sensitivities that surround these particular
issues. Our aim, as ever, is to establish the facts and follow
the evidence. We remain on course to submit the full file to the
CPS in the autumn, and I would respectfully suggest that a full
judgment around the investigations should be suspended until that
has been done and until the CPS have provided their view on the
weight of the evidence. I would like, if I could, just to reassure
the Committee on a number of points and then provide a full update
about the investigation. Many of the issues that you perhaps require
reassurance on are due to the events of the last 24 hours. Firstly,
can I talk about the balance of the inquiry. As ever, the investigation
will go where the evidence takes us but I would say that the focus
of the inquiry is on the two main parties, and if it helps you
for this private briefing you ought to know that, in fact, we
have interviewed more Conservative lenders than Labour lenders,
although where this takes us I cannot judge yet. Secondly, there
has been much speculation about the use of arrest powers. The
decision to arrest is not one that is taken lightly; indeed, I
sought advice from a number of legal sources prior to doing so.
The final decision to arrest is an operational one, and thus is
mine. It is to ensure the prompt and effective investigation of
the offence or offences, and there are certain matters or certain
legal powers that cannot be exercised unless the power of arrest
is instigated. I would want you, the Committee, to be absolutely
assured that in my professional judgment the decision to arrest
yesterday was the correct one, it was proportionate, it was necessary,
and it will enable us to investigate this offence properly. I
would also say that, in my view, the actual methodology around
the way the arrest was managed was handled as sensitively as possible.
There are of course several ways we can exercise the powers of
arrest. Can I assure you, the Committee, that this was considered
extremely carefully and I chose the option that kept the embarrassment
to an absolute minimum whilst not reducing the opportunity to
achieve its purpose. I was very disappointed to hear Lord Levy's
legal representative suggest otherwise last night. It had been
made absolutely clear prior to the event exactly what process
would be adopted when Lord Levy attended the police station. To
suggest otherwise is wholly wrong and, as I say, very disappointing.
There is also speculation that this was a symbolic arrest designed
to coincide with the meeting this morning. I absolutely refute
this. Of course, the arrest of Lord Levy is symbolic, and I think,
Dr Wright, when I met you on Friday I used that very word. However,
to use the term "symbolic" in the sense that this is
theatrical, in the sense this is making a point, this is police
strutting their stuff, is an allegation I utterly and absolutely
refute. It was a proportionate and necessary response designed
to progress the investigation in a prompt and effective way. It
was certainly not designed to try and influence this Committee
around whether you would take further evidence or not. Indeed,
I was aware from my meeting with you last Friday that you had
no intention of taking evidence until autumn at the earliest.
There can, therefore, in my view, be no inference drawn that in
making this arrest and the timing of same I was attempting to
influence you, the Committee, in your decision-making process.
As you will recall in my opening, I intend to have most, if not
all, of my inquiries done by that October date. There has also
been speculation that matters could have been dealt with on a
voluntary basis. I am bound to say that is the obvious riposte.
My previous experience from other investigations and on this investigation
is that simply does not work, nor would it stand any scrutiny
should matters be reviewed later. I will now, if I may, outline
where we are with our inquiry. To date the investigations involve
the following. There have been two arrests and both subjects are
currently on bail, although I will refer to one subject later.
Thirteen people have been interviewed under caution and these
include Labour lenders and Conservative lenders, party officials
and a civil servant. Thirty-five others have been interviewed;
these include Labour and Conservative lenders, officials from
the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and civil
servants. Three people have refused to be seen; these are all
Labour Party lenders. Two submissions have been made to the CPS
containing approximately 1,500 pages of documents. A further submission
containing approximately a thousand documents is being prepared
as we speak. A request for assistance from the Electoral Commission
has been made regarding their position on possible Political Party,
Election and Referendum Act 2000 offences, and I am awaiting their
reply. There remain a number of suspects and witnesses yet to
be interviewed. Significant material has been and continues to
be gathered from the Cabinet Office, and I would say that the
Civil Service has been fully co-operative in this respect. In
the past few days a number of fresh lines of inquiry have been
identified and are being pursued, and I would specifically say
that is not a reference to Sir Gulam Noon and what he has said
in the papers recently. As I said from the start, our inquiry
will go where the evidence takes us. As each new line of inquiry
is opened up others will naturally follow, so it is difficult
for me to speculate about exactly where we are from an evidence
perspective, but as this is a private briefing I will say to you
now that if the evidential test of the CPS is a 50% or more chance
of a conviction, or they would say a realistic chance of a conviction,
then I would say we are at or around 35-40%. This can, of course,
drop very suddenly or alternatively increase, but I would assure
you that the inquiry remains very focused and very disciplined
and I have recently asked an independent senior officer to review
progress in order to provide that particular check. Lastly, the
issue of the media around this. Operational security around our
investigation has been extremely tight. I am confident that we
have not been responsible for one single leak or any loose talk.
I note in recent days there has been much speculation and talk
about Scotland Yard sources. Some of the material produced or
quoted as a result is not material I recognise; some of it, I
am prepared to tell you, is completely wrong. Finally, the issue
of bail. Lord Levy returns on bail this morning, to be further
interviewed about these matters. That is not something that is
sinister: you may have seen in the papers or media last night
there was a massive fire up in Colindale which required the police
station to be evacuated, so it is simply that; there is nothing
sinister. The best laid plans of mice and men sometimes do not
work out. There were various other processes done yesterday, there
was disclosure given, and he returns today to be interviewed,
and it is simply that. So to dampen any speculation that more
evidence has come to light, it is simply not that. Is that helpful?
Q5 Chairman: That is extremely helpful.
I think you have been as frank as you can be—
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
As I dare.
Q6 Chairman: —about the state
of play. Obviously we are not going to ask questions that you
cannot or will not answer but we want to ask general questions
picking up things that you have said. Could I ask you first how
much of what you have just said to us now are you either going
to say outside this room or are you prepared to have said outside
this room?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I personally cannot say anything at the moment and I think it
would be wrong for me to say anything. This is a private briefing
but there is not much there that I would not be prepared to have
said outside this room, to be honest.
Q7 Chairman: Not much that you would
not be prepared?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Yes. This is all fairly straightforward stuff.
Q8 Chairman: So if Members of the
Committee were asked some of these things and if we said "This
was our understanding" that would not cause you difficulties?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
No. I am particularly concerned around some of the speculation
around the way we have managed this process in terms of the arrest
and those issues. It is simply not balanced, it simply does not
provide the full context, and is not helpful.
Q9 Chairman: Just to clarify things,
because I do not understand, when you say you have already made
two submissions to the CPS and you have another one in the offing,
what does that precisely mean?
Ms Dowd: Essentially that just
means an updating in relation to the evidence that has thus far
been gathered. So there have been two submissions, we have considered
it, we have had full discussions around what that material contains,
and we are waiting for a further submission, and as Mr Yates said,
in the autumn he will be in a position to say, "The investigation
is now concluded; here is a full file which contains everything
we think is relevant to the matters that you now have to consider",
and it will be at that point that we can then make our assessment
in relation to the code tests.
Q10 Chairman: But the two submissions
do not mean two cases?
Ms Dowd: No. It is report containing
material.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
It is a sort of rolling process so you do not dump a huge file
at the end. It allows the CPS to provide on-going advice and counsel
to provide on-going advice on the basis of where we are at that
particular moment in time.
Q11 Chairman: I just want to ask
you about the background again before colleagues ask perhaps more
particular things. We are dealing all the time, as you keep saying
when you make statements, with these two pieces of legislation,
the 1925 Act and the 2000 Act. I still cannot quite get my mind
around, but perhaps you can help, what material you would have
to discover to be able to use those pieces of legislation fruitfully.
Now, presumably the 1925 Act would require you either to get someone
to say: "Oh, I said to someone `You give us a million pounds
and I will give you an honour'", or someone who says "Oh,
he said to me you can have an honour if you give us a million
pounds", and/or corroborative material. Now, that seems to
me, when you state it, to be an unlikely test that you are going
to meet?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I will be careful what I say but if we had the first statement
that you made it would be ideal but we do not expect to get that
type of material. The case builds up in a variety of ways, be
it from documentation, e-mails, what other witnesses are saying
which may dispute what another witness says—there is a variety
in the way a case will build to an evidential test that will either
meet the standard or not.
Q12 Chairman: Yes. We know that you
are more likely to get a peerage if you give large amounts of
money to a political party, that is just a historical fact, so
discovering that would not be a revelation. Finding people who
will say that they engage in transactions of that kind as discovered
by the 1925 Act seems to me not entirely likely, but are you telling
us you are making progress in that direction too?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I do not want to comment on that at the moment. It could be a
very difficult case to prove but we are some way down the line
in terms of the investigations and we have to analyse everything
in the final—
Q13 Chairman: I understand. Let me
ask the same question, then, about the 2000 Act because, again,
it is pretty clear that some pretty dodgy things have been going
on in terms of avoiding disclosure of things that may be difficult,
particularly on the soft loan business, and there have certainly
been offences against the spirit of that legislation, if not the
letter, but it is the letter that you are dealing with and when
I look at the outcome and I look at what we have now done to correct
one of the loopholes in the Act subsequently and I see what the
Electoral Commission have been saying—for example, on 6
April they said: "We believe that the current legal requirements
are not sufficient to ensure that the spirit of full public disclosure
is met, hence we have called the parties to do various things",
so in a sense you have the Electoral Commission saying that the
law does not stack up in this area, so if they say the law does
not stack up in this area, although you can find dodgy stuff going
on, how are you going to make the law bite?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I go back to what I said at the start. We will go where the evidence
takes us; if the evidence produces sufficient weight of evidence
to enable the CPS to make a decision on prosecution so be it;
if it does not, then I think, as we discussed privately, I would
be more than happy to come back to this Committee to lay out what
I think the problems have been and if the Electoral Commission,
if, say, the issues around commercial loans simply is not strict
enough to be able to make our decisions and the CPS to make theirs,
then that is something I would want to bring back to you to say—it
is certainly not my role in life to provide recommendations but
it is certainly my role in life, I suspect, to say: "These
are the problems we uncovered".
Chairman: Yes. We shall certainly ask
you to do that and I am glad you have responded so positively
to it. Let me ask colleagues now to come in.
Q14 Mr Prentice: You told us that
the investigation will go where the evidence takes you and you
have also told us you want to hand the file over to the CPS in
October. How confident can we be that you are going to close the
investigation in October?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I can never be over confident but from the progress we have been
making, where we are at now, and the people I think we still require
to see, it is a reasonable judgment for me to make.
Q15 Mr Prentice: So is it 50% chance?
You have already given us percentages when talking about the evidential
test. Is it 50%, 60%, 70% that you are going to meet this October
deadline, because we cannot have this thing dragging on indefinitely?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I do not want to give a percentage but I am very confident I am
going to make the deadline. If something transpires from a particular
interview, or someone says something that is incredibly interesting
which requires us to go in a different direction, of course I
am going to be knocked off that date, so I am not going to ask
you to try and hold me to it but I am pretty confident I can manage
that.
Q16 Mr Prentice: Can I ask what the
purpose of arresting Lord Levy was, because his lawyer told the
world that he was prepared to give voluntarily whatever information
the police required?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I am not going to go into details of why we arrested him on the
basis of evidence, but it is to ensure the prompt and effective
investigation of this offence. There are certain powers I cannot
use unless I exercise the power of arrest.
Q17 Mr Prentice: That begs the question
what are these powers that you need which can only be exercised
when you arrest someone?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Specifically the power to arrest and search premises, the power
to give special warnings on arrest, as in an interview when you
want to bring something to someone's attention that they must
comment on and inferences could be drawn if they do not; these
are very significant powers which I believe were necessary to
use in this particular case. People will always say: "I would
have done it voluntarily", but my experience going back 25
years is that that is not the case. We have to do it properly,
and in a way that is proportionate and minimises embarrassment,
as we did in this case, but if I was to be in front of you in
six months' time and say "We missed an evidential opportunity
because we did not arrest somebody", then I think you would
quite properly scrutinise me for that. It was my professional
judgment, and absolutely the right course of action to take.
Q18 Mr Prentice: You say you were
disappointed in what Lord Levy's lawyer said last night. Why would
Lord Levy's lawyer say such a thing publicly when you had outlined
the process to him?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I have absolutely no idea.
Q19 Mr Prentice: Now, is there any
comeback? Do you get back to Lord Levy's lawyer and say, "Hang
on a minute, we explained exactly what was in our mind, we explained
exactly what the process would be, and yet you go on television
and you give this completely distorted, misleading account"?
Or do you just shrug your shoulders and say: "That is one
of those things"?
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think that is for me to sort out, to be honest.
|
