Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
520-539)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER JOHN
MCDOWALL
MBE AND CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT ED
BATEMAN
23 NOVEMBER 2009
Q520 Mr Howard: You were the person
to whom the investigating officer had delegated the responsibility
of obtaining consent for the search.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Not quite, sir. My role is to bring people together and on the
Wednesday afternoon I did just that, so the investigating officers,
the Detective Chief Inspector and the Inspector, came together
with Jill Pay and they then had that conversation more formally
about consent, and indeed, on the Thursday morning all the conversations
around consent and the signing of the register were done not by
me but by the investigating team.
Q521 Chairman: Were you in the room
at the time?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I was, sir.
Q522 Mr Howard: So are you suggesting
that it was the duty of someone else to have given the clear information
that PACE requires?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I am not abrogating responsibility. I did not do that. Normally,
it would be the investigating officer who would do it, sir, not,
I suppose, the person that brings them together, but certainly
I did not do it.
Q523 Mr Howard: Are you suggesting
that it was someone else? We are looking at PACE. There is no
dispute at all that the warning that PACE requires was not given.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
It certainly was not given by me, sir.
Q524 Mr Howard: Well, I do not think
there is any suggestion that it was given by anybody else. As
the Chairman has just put to you, you were present at the other
meetings; you do not recollect it being given by anybody else,
do you?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I do not, sir.
Q525 Mr Howard: So we can assume,
I think, no-one else has suggested that they gave this warning
and my question to you is, if you do not think it was your responsibility
under the provisions of PACE to give the warning, whose responsibility
do you think it was?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
It would normally be given by the officer investigating.
Q526 Mr Howard: But whose responsibility
was it in this case?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
These are new circumstances. These are unique circumstances. I
would suggest it would be the investigating officer—and
they were there; the investigating officers were there with me,
both the day before and on the morning.
Q527 Mr Howard: Did you then say
to the investigating officer, having regard to your responsibility
to parliament, "Hang on a minute. You have not given the
Serjeant the warning that the law requires"?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Mr Howard, I did not, and I regret that, but I did not, no.
Q528 Mr Howard: Expanding also on
the earlier questions that Ms Coffey put to you in relation to
the basis of the conversation which suggested not that you coerced
the Serjeant but that, not to mince words, you tricked the Serjeant—that
is the allegation that is made—it is true, is it not, that
in all your conversations with the Serjeant leading up to the
search, you emphasised the confidentiality of the conversation
you were having with her?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Undoubtedly—and I was trying, again, to think about this
the other day—I did. I certainly had a number of conversations
with Jill Pay where certain issues were confidential. I cannot
remember the words used. What I would say is that my relationship
with Jill Pay is not exclusive. I know that anything I discuss
with the Serjeant at Arms, as with Black Rod, is never going to
be a personal thing between me and them. It is always likely that
matters will go to either the Speaker or the Lord Speaker. My
relationship with the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod, as I say,
is that I know whenever I give them information, it could always
go elsewhere. I know that.
Q529 Mr Howard: But if you know that,
if you know that in the normal course of business anything you
say to the Serjeant is likely to be shared with the Speaker or
with Black Rod, but you say to the Serjeant at Arms, "Now,
what I am about to tell you is confidential," is she not
then likely to form the impression that what you mean is that
she should not share that information with Black Rod or the Speaker
or the Clerk or any of the other officers of the House?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
As I said, Mr Howard, I cannot recall exactly what I said was
confidential. What I know was not confidential or what I knew
that Jill Pay was seeking advice about was whether she could authorise
consent to search, and that was not confidential; that was something
I knew she would have to go and ask someone about. But I do not
recall the words used or exactly what it was that I asked Jill
not to disclose, because I did not tell Jill Pay very much until
later in the week.
Q530 Chairman: Did you tell her that
it was the Counter-Terrorism Unit that was investigating?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I did, sir.
Q531 Chairman: So she had two pieces
of information: one, it was confidential; the other, it was counter-terrorism,
putting the matter loosely—is that correct?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Yes, sir, but she did not have the Member or the party or the
details of the offence. Jill Pay did know that it was not a terrorist-related
matter. She knew it was the Counter-Terrorist team but certainly
she also knew that it was not a terrorist-related matter.
Q532 Chairman: Had you explained
that distinction to her?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
Yes, I had, and I think it is in my memorandum that I had explained.
Sir, whether it was on the initial meeting or later on I do not
know but it certainly was a conversation I had.
Q533 Ann Coffey: Jill Pay obviously
had a different understanding of confidentiality than you had
because she regarded that the information you gave her was so
confidential that even Malcolm Jack was not aware of it. In fact,
the first time he realised the offices were searched was when
he saw it on Sky News. It is difficult to understand how this
relationship operates when she believes that it is confidential,
you work on the basis that it is not—how does that work?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I do not quite understand. I share confidences with Jill Pay and
Black Rod on a day-to-day basis and it works very well.
Q534 Ann Coffey: I am talking about
the different understanding of the term "confidentiality"
between you. You do not share the same understanding as Jill Pay
does of confidentiality. Clearly, you do not, because your whole
premise is that she must have consulted other people about what
was happening, and that was the premise upon which you had discussions
with her, whereas in fact it is clear that she was not taking
advice from other people because she regarded the conversations
that she was having with you as confidential. It seems a very
difficult state of affairs.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think clearly the Serjeant at Arms would explain that as she
wants to explain it. My understanding was, from my first meeting,
the very reason I went to see the Serjeant at Arms was to ask
her the question could she give consent. Jill Pay—and I
have worked with her now for two years—is incredibly dedicated
and she will always, from my knowledge, seek advice, and good
advice. My understanding of this incident was, I left the room
with a provisional "yes" but a very clear steer: "That
is provisional. I am going to seek advice." That is where
I get the indication that she was going to seek advice, and I
was not surprised because that is how she works.
Q535 Chairman: She must have trusted
you very considerably because she conducted a conversation with
the Speaker, allowing you and colleagues to listen to it.
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
We were actually close enough. Albeit she was in a separate room,
we could hear.
Q536 Chairman: One of your colleagues
stood by the door, but the conversation was conducted in sufficient
terms that everyone in the room could hear—is that right?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
That is true, sir.
Q537 Ann Coffey: Did the Speaker
know?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I do not know. I would be surprised if the Speaker did know. Again,
it is 11 months ago. I do not recall the Serjeant at Arms mentioning
it on the telephone.
Q538 Mr Howard: Did you tell the
Serjeant that you wanted to listen in to the conversation with
the Speaker?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
I think that probably was ... Again, I cannot remember the words
used but we disclosed a certain amount of information to the Serjeant
at Arms, and although it is not in my memorandum, I think it was
as much the officer being there for the Serjeant at Arms in case
there were any questions from the Speaker as it was listening
to the words used. So I think it was as much to support the Serjeant
at Arms for questions as for any other reason.
Q539 Chairman: Do you have any recollection
whether in the course of the one side of that conversation you
heard the Serjeant at Arms say anything about a warrant or consent?
Chief Superintendent Bateman:
No, and if I can just return to my memorandum, clearly, the words
have become more important as I have been listening to the evidence,
because she specifically said ... She definitely said that she
was authorising a search of a private office. This note was made
probably about a week after the incident and she definitely said
that she was authorising a search, and there was no mention by
the Serjeant at Arms of a warrant at that stage.
| 
