Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
500-519)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER JOHN
MCDOWALL
MBE AND CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT ED
BATEMAN
23 NOVEMBER 2009
Q500 Chairman: Is that by regular
arrangement or is it ad hoc, as and when issues arise?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Both, Chair. You are in quite a complex working environment and
there are an awful lot of events or incidents to deal with. Probably
two or three times a day it is not unusual for me to talk to the
Serjeant at Arms or indeed Black Rod. Formally, I meet on a weekly
basis, so with the Serjeant at Arms and her deputy I meet on a
Thursday morning, and again, the same with Black Rod on a Monday,
where I am formally held to account about what is going on and
what is going to happen. Finally, through one of your parliamentary
committees, bi-monthly, I go and input and am asked questions
from the parliamentary side. So there is a number of levels that
I attend to.
Q501 Chairman: Who holds the post
of Parliamentary Security Co-ordinator at the moment?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
It is a member of the Security Services, sir.
Q502 Chairman: I see. So effectively,
you may talk to the Serjeant at Arms two or three times a day
but you meet her once a week on a formal basis?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
That is correct, although again, on various committees across
the House I will see Jill Pay two or three times at other meetings
as well, and I have a very effective relationship with her.
Q503 Chairman: That, no doubt, is
a relationship based on confidentiality.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
And trust, sir, yes.
Q504 Chairman: What I am surprised
about is the fact that Mr Green's name had to be wreathed in mystery
right up until the very last minute. Why was it that you were
not informed of that, since you are the senior police representative
on the parliamentary estate?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Following it through from the beginning, sir, which is from 20
November, when I had a first meeting with the investigating officers,
it is quite normal that they will disclose certain things to me
that I can disclose, and I think it protects a lot of parties.
I was asked to go and speak to the Serjeant at Arms and ask the
question around search. So "Serjeant at Arms, would you give
the authority to consent to search?" It was not until, I
think, the Wednesday afterwards, when I myself was informed of
the name of the Member and the party. I do not think that is unreasonable.
I did not need to know it at that stage. It could well be the
CPS may have come back and said no further action would be taken
at that stage. I was not close enough to the investigation, in
which case it would have been, I suppose unhelpful to share that
with the Serjeant at Arms when on the Wednesday I may be saying
to her, "Well, actually, nothing is going to happen."
Q505 Chairman: But if the relationship
is as close as you describe, that could have happened without
any prejudice to the relationship, could it not?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
It could have done, sir, and I do share a lot of things with the
Serjeant at Arms, appropriate things, but in this case I had an
investigation. It is their investigation, not mine. My role is
to facilitate the relationship between the Police Service where
possible and the officials of the House, and I was unable—I
think probably rightly unable—to share that information
with Jill Pay. At the most appropriate time, which was on the
Wednesday ... Sorry, on the Wednesday the police officers came
and explained more, and on the Thursday morning we disclosed the
name of the Member, the party and the offence.
Q506 Chairman: I do not want to get
into the 2 December conversation for the moment, but did you conceive
of yourself as having, as it were, a dual responsibility, first
of all to your line manager, whoever that is—who is your
line manager, by the way?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Commander Michael Wood, who is, again, part of the Special Operations.
Q507 Chairman: And also to the House
of Commons?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I do. I have not ever found a time where that relationship has
changed. Indeed, it is interesting a previous witness here I do
not think questioned my loyalty or duty but made mention of it.
Q508 Chairman: Yes, he did. That
is why I am putting the point, so you can have a chance to respond.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Had the metropolitan Police on the Thursday morning, on the 27th,
turned up at Parliament with a warrant for the Member's office,
I would fully expect officials to say to me, "Mr Bateman,
why is this the first time we are being told?" I went to
the Serjeant at Arms a week beforehand and did what I would say
is my duty, which is bringing the House and police together to
work it through. I have a lot of other examples, whether it is
expenses or lots of other issues, on which I have brought the
two together, and that is my role.
Q509 Ann Coffey: Going to the meeting
on 2 December, Malcolm Jack, Lord Martin, Angus Sinclair and Michael
Carpenter all said that they felt, although they used different
language, you put pressure on the Serjeant to consent to the search
of Damian Green's office. Why do you think they were saying that?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
First of all, it is grossly unfair.
Q510 Ann Coffey: Why do you think
they were saying it? Why were four people saying that, not one,
not two, not three but four people?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Just following the evidence given to the Committee, I have not
yet heard why they think that. I have given no reason for them
to think that. From the beginning, my first conversation with
the Serjeant at Arms was saying, "This is the situation.
Will you please ask the people you work with and come back to
us with how you want to go ahead." So I have gone to the
House right from the beginning, been very open—as open as
I could be, should I say—and Jill Pay has come back to me.
At no stage, and it is not my role to influence or coerce Jill
into doing anything.
Q511 Ann Coffey: I think the point
was, and it has been referred to before, and you say it yourself
in your own memorandum, "I do not recall advising Jill Pay
that she did not have to consent." I think some of the concern
about it is that she was not told that she did not have to consent,
and clearly, you cannot recall telling her she did not have to
consent.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
No, I am sure I did not. At no stage did I say to Jill Pay "You
do not have to consent."
Q512 Ann Coffey: Do you not think,
in your relationship with her, in your dual responsibility, and
in order to keep the delicate balance of that relationship, you
should have, as a Metropolitan Police Officer, with your duty
to the House, informed her very clearly that she did not have
to consent? This is the basis of the difficulty here.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think she would probably have thought I was patronising her.
If I said to Jill Pay, after all the conversations we have had—we
had had a conversation where I had explained why I was seeking
consent, I had had a conversation explaining that "This isn't
a problem. We will get a warrant. If you don't consent, we can
get a warrant"—I think she would have thought I was
... If I then said, "Jill, do you understand what the word
`consent' means?" I think she would have looked at me—
Q513 Ann Coffey: Excuse me. It is
not a question of her not understanding what the word "consent"
meant. It was a question of her understanding that she did not
have to give consent and that indeed, you would go and apply for
a warrant. It is nothing to do with patronising her. It is simply
informing her of the facts, which clearly you did not do, as you
just said, for whatever reason.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
My understanding—perhaps I am not being very clear—is
that Jill Pay fully knew; she knew that she did not have to consent.
Every conversation we had led me to believe that.
Q514 Ann Coffey: Led you to believe
it but you did not at any stage tell her that she did not have
to consent.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
At no stage did I say, no.
Q515 Ann Coffey: So it could have
been based on a misunderstanding on her part, that because you
did not have the conversation, that was not clarified.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Everything Jill Pay said to me in a series of conversations over
the seven days led me to believe that she knew what consent meant.
Q516 Ann Coffey: You did not explicitly
have that conversation, did you?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
At no time did I say to Jill Pay that she did not have to consent,
no.
Q517 Chairman: It is not just understanding,
Mr Bateman, is it? If we look back at paragraph 10, you say "My
presumption was, knowing the alternative, she knew she didn't
have to consent." Now, there is a difference in meaning,
is there not, between understanding and presumption?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think, sir, it is 11 months ago and, as I have followed the
evidence, I have tried very hard to think back as to what were
those conversations and what was said, but I had a series of conversations,
as I say, with the Serjeant at Arms that led me to believe—it
is a presumption, sir, and I cannot give direct verbal evidence
from the Serjeant at Arms to say exactly why I formed that assumption,
but I was certainly left with a very strong assumption that Jill
Pay was aware of the meaning of consent, although at no stage
did I say to Jill Pay "You don't have to consent."
Q518 Mr Howard: Mr Bateman, it is
not merely, is it, a question of your duty to the Serjeant or
your duty to the House; it is your duty under the law? The PACE
Code says as clearly as it possibly could that the person concerned
must be clearly informed they are not obliged to consent and that
anything seized may be produced in evidence. That is what PACE
requires, is it not?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
It is, sir.
Q519 Mr Howard: And you did not fulfil
that requirement.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I did not. I did not. I am not the investigating officer but I
did not, no.
| 
