Yates of the Yard is asked questions on phone hacking, and answers with pauses, disputes over chronology, and vagueness
Yates of the Yard returned to parliament yesterday to give more evidence about the phone-hacking scandal. He had asked to appear in front of the culture, media and sport committee to clear his name.
He had been fingered by the Labour MP Chris Bryant, who has accused the police of ignoring overwhelming evidence. Mr Yates was indignant.
Turning up, I fear, might have been a mistake. Often the CMS committee is like a sleepy old labrador, snoozing in the front of the fire. Yesterday its members woke up, bared their teeth and snarled.
Commissioner Yates also investigated the cash-for-honours scandal in Downing Street. It is said that in some countries – Italy has been mentioned – there are detectives whose job it is not to find out anything in cases that might be worrisome for those in authority. There is no suggestion that Mr Yates is one of those. But if such a job ever became vacant, he would be a jolly good candidate.
He was asked a series of quite tough questions, and resorted to various devices to keep the dog at bay. There was the long pause. There was the reply chronological: either something had happened too early for him to know about ("that was in 2003") or else was going on now, part of the fresh investigation.
There was the retort legalistic: apparently no hacking crime has been committed unless the hacker listens to the voicemail before the owner of the phone does. This is difficult to prove, which makes it perfect for officers who don't want to pursue the case too vigorously. The director of public prosecutions does not take the same view. Both sides have accused the other of misleading parliament, though it's hard not to agree with Keir Starmer, the DPP. How does listening to your voicemail make it public property?
Then Mr Yates deployed the reply vague: "You are making the assumption there that he hasn't been interviewed," or: "I am not aware of the timeline." This vagueness reached a new, foggy, Brian Cox walking out of the Andean mists stage when Mr Yates was asked about the amount of evidence the police had been sitting on. Was it a warehouse full, a roomful or just a filing cabinet full?
Mr Yates: "It was in bin bags."
How many?
"Two or three".
Were they full?
"I didn't see."
Blimey, even in Midsomer Murders they have some kind of filing system. Mr Yates made the evidence sound like the old clothes M&S are collecting for Oxfam.
The committee didn't let up. Tom Watson sunk his teeth in. When they found 91 pin numbers in the phone hacker's house, didn't it occur to them that these might be kept for criminal purposes? "I am happy to reflect on that in a mature way …" said Mr Yates.
Mr Watson: "I am asking you to reflect on this now. If you found 91 credit cards in different names in someone's house, wouldn't that be evidence of criminality?"
Finally Mr Yates was freed. He has to repeat the ordeal next week.