Lord Levy, Prime Minister Blair’s chief fundraiser and close political ally was questioned for a second time yesterday by police investigating the ‘cash for honours’ scandal.
Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates said the investigation is ‘very serious’ and ‘integral’ to his inquiries and that he will pursue the case wherever the trail leads.
This is taken to mean that prime minister Blair will be questioned under caution.
Yates denied that Levy’s arrest and questioning for six hours on Wednesday was ‘symbolic’ or ‘theatrical and unnecessary’ as the former disgraced home secretary David Blunkett claimed.
Fourteen people have been interviewed under caution and another thirty-five have been questioned.
Three people have refused to be interviewed.
The chair of the House of Commons Public Administration Committee, Labour MP Tony Wright said Met Police investigator Yates had told the committee that police will be making ‘two submissions to the Crown Prosecution Service in the Autumn’.
Referring to the undisclosed loans, Wright added that during an hour-long private session with the committee, Yates had said police were trying to establish ‘whether although it may be dodgy, is it illegal?’
Yates had refused to say whether the prime minister would be interviewed, said Wright, but told the MPs the police ‘will go wherever the investigation leads’.
Wright stressed that the Committee’s own investigation involved all the main political parties.
In a reference to undeclared loans to the Labour Party by businessmen, the MPs’ report published on Wednesday concluded: ‘Political parties have a duty to follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law and ensure that they are open and honest about the information they provide.’
The report adds: ‘We believe that an assessment of whether an individual is of sufficient merit for an award should include not just contributions to party funds but also whether a nominee has contributed to or supported government programmes in a material way.
‘This might include, for example, sponsorship of city academy schools or a contract to supply government services. There may well be good grounds for honouring those who have contributed to government programmes, but the process for the assessment must be transparent.’
