This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7056533.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Honours officer defends inquiry Honours officer defends inquiry
(about 3 hours later)
The Metropolitan police chief who led the cash-for-honours inquiry said he received "less than full co-operation" from some people involved in the probe.The Metropolitan police chief who led the cash-for-honours inquiry said he received "less than full co-operation" from some people involved in the probe.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates said he did not believe this was deliberate but said some people treated them as a political rather than criminal problem. Assistant Commissioner John Yates also told MPs "political pressure", but not improper pressure, had been put on him.
He told Public Administration Committee MPs no "improper pressure" had been put on him during the 16-month inquiry. He denied that the 16-month inquiry which ended in no charges being brought had been a "wild goose chase".
No charges were brought after the probe into the alleged sale of honours. During a two hour grilling he said such allegations were difficult to prove as they were "bargains made in secret".
The MPs' committee is looking at the "lessons learned" from the investigation, such as whether the law needs changing. The Commons Public Administration Committee is looking at the "lessons learned" from the investigation, such as whether the law needs changing.
The police studied claims peerages were offered in return for loans or donations. The police studied claims that peerages had been offered in return for loans or donations.
'Not misled'
The MPs questioned Mr Yates, Carmen Dowd, head of the special crime division of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and David Perry QC, advisor to the CPS.
Mr Yates said the £1m probe took a long time because the subject was "necessarily quite complex and difficult".
There was a sense they thought that we would ask questions get some answers and simply go away Assistant Commissioner John Yates Key points: Honours hearing Timeline: Cash-for-honours
"There were, however, instances when we received less than full cooperation," he said.
"I don't say that now in a sense that it was deliberate in its intent. But I think there was a sense they thought that we would ask questions get some answers and simply go away. That is not how police investigations work.
"I don't think people deliberately misled us, but I do think in retrospect and with hindsight we were treated as a political problem, not a criminal problem."
He said he had only discovered in January this year how the relevant honours list had been put together.
He said the Cabinet Office co-operated in full throughout the investigation, but asked who did not co-operate, he replied: "I think it would be quite obvious to all people who that was."
Asked if Downing Street co-operated, he said he had learned that "Downing Street" has a number of meanings.
LeaksLeaks
The MPs are questioning Mr Yates, Carmen Dowd, head of the special crime division of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and David Perry QC, advisor to the CPS. Tory MP Charles Walker pressed the police chief to say why it was necessary to beat down the door of former Number 10 aide Ruth Turner in a "6am raid".
Mr Yates said the probe took a long time because the subject was "necessarily quite complex and difficult". Mr Yates said, in general, people under investigation for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice could not be put "on notice" by the police in advance.
There was a sense they thought that we would ask questions get some answers and simply go away Assistant Commissioner John Yates class="" href="/welsh/hi/newsid_7050000/newsid_7058600/7058644.stm">Key points: Honours hearing "People under suspicion for this sort of case will try to hide evidence," he said.
"There were however instances when we received less than full cooperation," he said. Mr Walker asked if anyone on his team had leaked to the press details of the people involved in the case or when raids on their homes would occur.
"I don't say that now in a sense that it was deliberate in its intent. But I think there was a sense they thought that we would ask questions get some answers and simply go away. That is not how police investigations work."
Tory MP Charles Walker pressed the police chief to say why it was necessary to beat down the door of one suspect in a "6am raid".
He also asked if anyone on his team had leaked to the press details of the people involved in the case or when raids on their homes would occur.
"It seemed the press knew where and when to turn up," he said."It seemed the press knew where and when to turn up," he said.
'Beat down the door' 'Cavalier' attitude?
Mr Yates said this was "absolute nonsense", asking: "Have you got proof of that?"Mr Yates said this was "absolute nonsense", asking: "Have you got proof of that?"
"The comments simply do not merit a response. We have people working for us who we completely trust," he said. He said the police in this case did not "beat down the door" and he had looked at the "least intrusive way" of dealing with some "extremely high profile" people.
Asked why it was necessary to carry out dawn raids on those suspected of perverting the course of justice, he said: "People under suspicion for this sort of case will try to hide evidence." He denied he had a "cavalier" attitude towards suspects and witnesses in the investigation.
He said the police in this case did not "beat down the door" and he had looked at the "least intrusive way" of dealing with "extremely high profile" people. "Throughout this inquiry I worked, from day one, very closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and very closely with counsel. We sought their advice throughout," he said.
'Sensitive information' "We challenged ourselves and I challenged them - do we continue? Is it right? Is it proper? Is it proportionate? So it's not just me going off on a wild goose chase thinking this is great fun because it wasn't great fun at all, it was bloody difficult."
Earlier, Mr Yates said he was limited by what he could tell the MPs. 'Vested interest'
It was his view that it was neither appropriate nor fair for him to "reveal any sensitive information gleaned during the course of the police investigation", he said. Mr Yates was asked whether a prosecution could ever be successful under present legislation - the 1925 Honours Act - and whether the standard of proof required was too high.
"I can't divulge the actual details of the evidence against individuals - I can talk about the case in a generic sense," he said. "These type of cases are very, very difficult to prove because they are bargains made in secret," he said.
Among issues the committee is expected to ask about is whether a prosecution could ever be successful under present legislation - the 1925 Honours Act - and whether the standard of proof required was too high. "Both parties have an absolutely vested interest in those secrets not coming out."
Asked if he believed there was a "trade in peerages", Mr Yates replied: "I think I've done my job. I followed the evidence. I provided that evidence to the CPS and they made their decision. I don't think I should comment further than that."
The MPs began a general inquiry into "propriety issues" relating to the honours system in March last year.The MPs began a general inquiry into "propriety issues" relating to the honours system in March last year.
But they had to suspend it just a week later when the separate police investigation was launched.But they had to suspend it just a week later when the separate police investigation was launched.
'Thorough and exhaustive''Thorough and exhaustive'
The police investigation, during which more than 130 people were interviewed and four people were arrested, focused on allegations that peerages had been offered in return for loans to Labour and the Conservatives ahead of the 2005 general election.The police investigation, during which more than 130 people were interviewed and four people were arrested, focused on allegations that peerages had been offered in return for loans to Labour and the Conservatives ahead of the 2005 general election.
Figures questioned by officers included the then Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Tory leader Michael Howard.Figures questioned by officers included the then Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Tory leader Michael Howard.
All involved in the investigation denied any wrongdoing and the CPS said in July that there was "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual for any offence".All involved in the investigation denied any wrongdoing and the CPS said in July that there was "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual for any offence".
The MPs decided to resume their inquiry after the CPS announced in July this year that no charges would be brought in response to the inquiry. The MPs decided to resume their inquiry after the CPS announcement that there would not be any charges.