Police in the cash-for-honours inquiry are examining details of meetings attended by Lord Levy, Labour’s chief fundraiser, at which the question of political honours may have been discussed, The Guardian has learned.
Detectives are investigating whether Levy later suggested to colleagues that they should not draw attention to his involvement in the discussions because of the fevered atmosphere surrounding the inquiry.
Levy has been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, but on Tuesday vigorously denied any wrongdoing.
He had an advisory role in the submission of honours nominations. The shortlists are drawn up before they are presented to the Lords Appointments Commission. Typically, those meetings would include Downing Street staff and senior members of the party. But the final decision about who is to be nominated is taken by the prime minister.
Political sources said on Tuesday it would be legitimate for Levy to attend meetings at which honours were discussed. They said loans or donations given by party members should not preclude anyone from being considered for an honour by the prime minister.
It is understood that Levy did not contribute any names to the lists nor offered honours to any financial backer, but was simply asked for his opinion on potential peers.
The latest twists in the investigation came as it emerged that:
- Detectives investigating whether political parties broke election law by accepting uncommercial loans in the run-up to the last election have run into problems after the Electoral Commission admitted its rules were too vague.
- An injunction against the BBC was lifted, enabling it to publish its story that concerned a note written by Ruth Turner, the prime minister’s director of external relations, to her lawyers about Levy.
- The Metropolitan police and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, expressed their anger that The Guardian had revealed that a meeting last year between Levy and Turner lay at the centre of the police inquiry.
A high court judge permitted the newspaper to go ahead with the publication of its story on Monday night despite a desperate two-hour attempt by Goldsmith to seek an injunction preventing publication.
The Guardian reported that Turner expressed concern in a legal document that Levy was asking her to shape her recollection of events leading up to the nomination of honours to some Labour donors. The document was passed by Turner’s lawyers to the police. There is no evidence that this document recounting her differences with Levy was passed to Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff, although at one point she apparently considered doing so.
It is understood that Levy and Turner met last year at the start of the police inquiry and sources have said the two had a difficult conversation.
Police sources on Tuesday stressed that they did not regard Turner, who is under police bail, as in the clear, and she still had issues to answer about her cooperation with the inquiry.
In an emotional statement this week, Levy protested his innocence, claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign and raised doubts whether he would be able secure a fair trial if a criminal case were ever brought. His rabbi said Levy believed he was being leaked against by the police, and was the victim of anti-Semitism.
Over the weekend Downing Street was accused of being responsible for the leak, something No 10 denied.
The Crown Prosecution Service issued its own robust statement that it was not involved in the leak.
The police have continued to deny responsibility for the various leaks that have marked the inquiry, a claim that is treated with extreme scepticism in parts of Downing Street. — Â