Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JOHN YATES,
MS CARMEN
DOWD AND
MR DAVID
PERRY QC
23 OCTOBER 2007
Q240 Chairman: So who stopped co-operating
with you?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
That would lead me into the evidential barriers that I have said
I do not want to cross; but not only are there those who stopped
co-operating, also further evidence can come to light. It did
in this case. Some crucial evidence came to light in this case
which, in September, then led us down another path. July of last
year is very different. I always said—it will be in the
record—that I cannot guarantee it because I do not know
where the evidence is going to take me.
Q241 Chairman: I am not asking you
for individuals here but you can talk about institutions and structure.
Which bit of the system stopped co-operating with you?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
You leave me in some difficulty there, but I would say who co-operated
with me then: the Cabinet Office. I have always said the Cabinet
Office co-operated in full throughout in my view. Some of the
parties co-operated in full throughout in my view; others did
not. I think it would be quite obvious to everybody who that was.
Q242 Mr Walker: Downing Street. Is
it Downing Street that was not co-operating with you?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Downing Street has a number of meanings to me, I have since found
out, Mr Walker, so I am very careful what I say there.
Q243 Mr Burrowes: The Prime Minister's
office?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
It is a matter of public record who was spoken to in this case
and who was interviewed in this case and who was arrested in this
case, so I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Please, I cannot
be drawn, because that would take me into areas of the evidence
which I think it would be inappropriate for me to go into.
Q244 Mr Prentice: You were investigating
at the very heart of the British Government, and you must have
had meetings with the Cabinet Secretary. You said the Cabinet
Office was co-operative. How many meetings did you have with the
Cabinet Secretary to discuss the way in which your investigation
would impact on the workings of government?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I had one meeting with the Cabinet Secretary, and it was not about
the second part of your question at all. It was purely to set
out the likely time-frames and the co-operation that we were seeking.
Q245 Mr Prentice: Surely the Cabinet
Secretary would have said: this is a legitimate investigation
that the police could carry out but it cannot be a fishing expedition,
because the files in Downing Street would have material which
is highly classified, perhaps about future reorganisations in
the Metropolitan Police, perhaps about bonuses for senior police
officers, all sorts of things. Were there parameters that the
Cabinet Secretary laid down?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I am sure the Cabinet Secretary would answer that question himself,
but he has no remit, nor statutory responsibility around that.
The remit around the police investigation was both for me and
for the team. The Cabinet Secretary never sought to do that; neither
would he.
Q246 Mr Prentice: So you had free
rein to trawl through Downing Street, the records and files of
central government, to see where the evidence would lead? Is that
what you are telling the Committee? There were no constraints,
no parameters, you could just turn up and demand access to files,
regardless of whether they might be relevant or not?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
We had a proper rein to carry out our inquiries within the confines
of legal professional privilege and all those matters. So, we
had the co-operation of the Cabinet Office in that sense, we were
allowed to carry out our inquiries in the way we felt we ought
to and we were bound, quite properly, by the rules of legal professional
privilege, we had independent counsel to review material; so we
did not encroach on those areas that you have suggested.
Q247 Mr Prentice: Perhaps my last
point on this, because other colleagues will want to get in. At
no point did you say to Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary,
that you were being obstructed in any way. Your investigation
moved from the straightforward examination of whether offences
had been committed under the 1925 Act to conspiracy to pervert
the course of justice. At no point did you say to Sir Gus O'Donnell
you are not getting the fullest co-operation from all civil servants,
because he is the head of the Civil Service, and all political
advisers.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I cannot recall the exact date I saw Sir Gus O'Donnell. I think
it was probably in the early autumn. It was way before we went
into the areas that we went into in January. I pointed out that
we required full co-operation and eventually we got that co-operation.
Q248 Chairman: My understanding is,
tell me if I am wrong, that he, as it were, opened up Downing
Street to you.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Within the proper confines and the limits and the investigative
parameters that we required, and that is quite proper and I would
expect that.
Q249 Paul Flynn: Did the Prime Minister
ever lay down any conditions under which he agreed to be interviewed?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Only his diary.
Paul Flynn: Thank you.
Q250 Mr Burrowes: Can I follow that
particular matter up. In all honesty, not just the Prime Minister,
but were there any of those around him who laid down conditions
or warnings that if he was interviewed as a suspect he would be
resigning, hence putting pressure on your method of investigating
him?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I would expect anybody looking after the interests of anyone at
that level to set out a range of consequences to someone like
me in my position, who is managing the entire investigation and
the risk and the impact and the problems beyond. If there was
an improper pressure put on the detective sergeant, for example,
who ran the interview, then that would be wholly improper, but
to say to me, "Mr Yates, there are a range of consequences
you might want to consider here", quite proper, nothing in
doubt about that. Did that pressure cause me to change any of
my decisions? No, it did not. No, it never would.
Q251 Mr Walker: At any stage did
you feel that you were coming under inappropriate pressure from
certain quarters you were being led to? You rather ominously said,
"Mr Walker, Downing Street has a number of meanings."
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Let me clarify that. Downing Street is both government, both party,
both Civil Service; so what I would not want to do is lump all
those into the one mixing pot of Downing Street, because there
is absolutely nothing sinister, it is just that I have learnt
what Downing Street means during the course of this inquiry.
Q252 Mr Walker: But did you, during
the investigation, feel that you were being lent on in an inappropriate
fashion? You do not have to name names or say who it was, but
at any stage of the investigation were you made to feel uncomfortable
as to what you were being asked to do?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think I felt uncomfortable a number of times in this investigation.
This was a difficult investigation, operating under immense public
scrutiny, immense speculation and comments in the newspapers,
if I might say so, some fairly daft comments by politicians, who
should know better, at particular stages of the investigation.
Yes, there was pressure. Improper pressure? No, I do not think
so. Would it have made any difference? No, it would not.
Q253 Mr Walker: Did you ever discuss
your concerns with Sir Ian Blair, for example, in your telephone
conversations and meetings with him as to what was going on?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I would discuss a range of issues both with Sir Ian and other
colleagues, with the Deputy Commissioner as well, who had the
eventual oversight of this case because, as you know, Sir Ian
did not recuse himself, but Sir Ian clearly had almost daily contact
with the most senior members of government, so it would have been
difficult for him to have detailed oversight of this case. A range
of issues, but, as I say, this was a difficult investigation,
I do not refute that at all, and of course there was pressure,
but all I want to assure the Committee and other people is that
at no time did that pressure improperly influence me or any of
my decisions.
Q254 Mr Walker: Did Sir Ian Blair
ever warn you of particular consequences of any actions you had
taken?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
No, he did not and, no, he never would do.
Q255 Paul Rowen: You said that part
of the reason you took so long was obviously resistance to providing
information. Can you tell the Committee when you became aware
of the existence of a separate email server, or certain emails,
that you then subsequently used? Who actually informed you that
that system existed?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think you are going into the evidence, which I have said I cannot
go into, and it is a barrier I will not cross.
Q256 Chairman: One thing that caused
some trouble along the way, and we are not going to look at all
this in detail but I think it has to be mentioned, is that there
seemed to be endless running commentary on this inquiry from various
sources. I have got a dossier here of press cuttings which, as
I say, give a kind of commentary on the proceedings of the inquiry,
all of which refer to police sources, sources close to the investigation.
I know that you assured us robustly that you had taken steps to
prevent this happening. Where were they coming from?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Let me reassure the Committee, or assure the Committee, that I
am as certain as I ever can be that no evidence in relation to
this investigation was ever put into the public domain in an improper
way. We took the matter of leaks very, very seriously. The security
around the operation was incredibly tight. We took unprecedented
and highly intrusive steps around key individuals to actually
prove that they were not responsible. We did some detailed analysis,
Chairman. Let me throw this one back at you. We worked out that
over 90% of that which was written was not written by police-related
journalists at all, it was all written by political journalists
actually, and that was up until January this year. So an awful
lot of the commentary was from political journalists, and I say
nothing more about that.
Q257 Chairman: Can I stop you there.
I really do not want to get detained by this, but I have had respectable
lobby journalists here, people who I have known and can trust
who tell me that you were briefing them.
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I can honestly say I have never met a lobby journalist in my life,
I do not think.[1]
Q258 Chairman: Or spoken on the telephone
to one?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
Do I speak to journalists? Of course I speak to journalists. It
is part of my job. I speak to journalists about a wide range of
issues which I have responsibility for, both in the Metropolitan
Police and for ACPO.[2]
So, do I talk to journalists? Of course I do. Journalists provide
a great deal of perspective on some of these issues, but this
was an investigation that was characterised by a lot of speculation,
a lot of commentary. We would say that there were only two issues
that came into the public domain in what we consider to be an
improper way. That was the Christopher Evans diaries and the Ruth
Turner note, and I am absolutely certain that we were not responsible
for that. In fact, I would say in terms of the Christopher Evans
diaries, we had those diaries for over three months before they
came into the public domain; in terms of the Ruth Turner note,
over six weeks. You need to realise the amount of people who have
access to this type of material. If you interview somebody, you
will disclose the relevant entries about which you are going to
ask the questions to a range of people. Over the course of this
inquiry up to 30 lawyers, legal advisors, suspects and witnesses
would have seen that material. Some of the key material, for instance
the Evans' diaries, was in the hands of the Serious Fraud Office
way before we got them. I have no idea who saw them before that.
So you see the problem we have. Numerous people see that material.
It is not the team who just see it.
Q259 Chairman: I only know what I read
in the newspapers and what people tell me, but there is only one
bit of evidence that we have directly, which is that you wrote
a letter to me on Friday 9 March this year and that letter was
sent electronically by your PA, Karen Boorman, to the Clerk of
the Committee on 9 March. The clerk did not pass that on to any
Committee member, nor to me, until Monday 12 March. Despite that,
the existence of that letter was reported in The Financial
Times on the morning of Monday 12 March. The only certain
thing in an uncertain world is that clerks of committees do not
talk to the press, so how did that information appear in the newspapers?
Assistant Commissioner Yates:
I think it is a pretty unfair question in terms. You are providing
me with a forensic analysis of what you have found. I cannot even
remember what the letter was, what the dates were, who else had
access to it, who else it was copied to within my environment.
I simply do not know, so I cannot answer that. If you want me
to look into it, I will.[3]
1 Note from the witness: Whilst my answer to
this question was accompanied by the caveat that I did not think
I had met a lobby journalist, I was interpreting the term "lobby
journalist" more narrowly than what I have since discovered
is its current parliamentary meaning. I now realise I would have
had contact with some of these individuals during the course of
my career and up to and including the present time. I reiterate
for the record what I said at the time, that I am as certain as
I ever can be that no evidence in relation to this investigation
was ever put into the public domain in an improper way by the
investigative team. Back
2
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Back
3
Ev 63 Back
| 
