7 MR RENE BARCLAY 8 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Good morning, Mr Barclay, thank you 9 very much indeed for coming. Apologies for keeping you 10 waiting. 11 MR BARCLAY: Not at all. 12 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Can I say again thanks for accepting 13 our invitation to attend the Inquiry, and for giving 14 evidence. We actually have your written submission, and 15 we are very grateful for it. I do appreciate that for 16 some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may 17 seem to be somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be 18 helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to 19 conduct the hearing, but first, let me introduce myself 20 and the other members of the panel. 21 I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General 22 Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. 23 As you can see, I have two other members of the panel: 24 first is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as 25 Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after 71 1 a very long and distinguished career in the police 2 service. Next to me is Miss Anesta Weekes, who is 3 an eminent barrister and sits as a recorder and 4 part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was 5 also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. 6 Mr Barclay, as you know, we have been asked by the 7 Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent 8 inquiry into professional standards and employment 9 matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus 10 is in fact the MPS as an organisation, and not the 11 individuals who make up the organisation. 12 The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial; 13 it is not by nature or character adversarial. We are 14 very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms 15 of reference so that we can make appropriate 16 recommendations for further good practice, rather than 17 concentrating on criticisms of the MPS or the 18 organisation. 19 To help us in our task, we are keen to hear from all 20 our witnesses not just what might be wrong with the MPS 21 but what is right with it, but most importantly, we are 22 looking for suggestions as to how things which are 23 deemed to be wrong can in fact be put right. 24 For the record, let me say that a transcript is 25 being taken, so that we have a proper record of the 72 1 evidence that has been provided to us, and this will be 2 posted on our website later today. 3 At the end of these introductory comments from me, 4 Miss Weekes will lead on the questions to you, followed 5 by any supplementary points that I may have or indeed 6 Sir Anthony may have. 7 At the conclusion of our questions, I will, as we do 8 with every witness, offer you the opportunity for 9 a brief closing comment. 10 In your written submission, which will be posted on 11 our website, you have given us some important 12 information. You have, for example, indicated to us, by 13 way of introduction, the statutory role of the Crown 14 Prosecution Service, the CPS; investigating allegations 15 of police conduct is another area on which you have 16 enlightened us. You have given us a description of the 17 type of quality of cases referred to the CPS by the 18 police service itself, and there are comments about the 19 CPS decision-making process that we find extremely 20 interesting. We would like to ask you some questions 21 about that material. 22 Before we commence the questioning by Miss Weekes, 23 for the benefit of our transcript note, I wonder if you 24 would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry. 25 MR BARCLAY: I am Rene Barclay, the Director of Serious Case 73 1 Work at the Crown Prosecution Service in London. 2 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Thank you very much indeed. As 3 I indicated, Miss Weekes will in fact be leading the 4 questions, and I pass you straight over to her 5 questioning. 6 Questions by MISS WEEKES 7 MISS WEEKES: Good morning, Mr Barclay. Can I deal with 8 perhaps three areas where the Crown Prosecution Service 9 will play a role in relation to cases referred to them 10 by the Metropolitan Police? All three of those points 11 are very helpfully dealt with in your submission. 12 First of all, it is your role, what it is the Crown 13 Prosecution Service does when they receive a request to 14 look at a set of papers; secondly, the issue in relation 15 to the investigation of that case, and procedural delay. 16 MR BARCLAY: Yes. 17 MISS WEEKES: So first of all, can I deal with, as it stands 18 at the moment, the procedure when something is delivered 19 to you, it may well be actually an oral request, or it 20 could be a set of papers, from the Metropolitan Police, 21 in relation to a police officer who they think will or 22 may be prosecuted. 23 There is a service level agreement in existence 24 which will soon change, is that right? 25 MR BARCLAY: There is. I did not originally copy it to you, 74 1 because it is in many ways out of date, because it 2 predates a new structure. Given that caveat, it broadly 3 represents and reflects the position that we aim to 4 ensure that cases are looked at by prosecutors who have 5 no connection with the officer under suspicion, and we 6 achieve that through geographical location and 7 allocation. 8 When a case is received, it will normally be 9 received by one of the professional standards 10 directorates who are responsible for investigating the 11 case, and that will be accompanied by a report, together 12 with the statements and exhibits which have been 13 gathered. 14 Our job then is to review the case and to decide 15 whether there is sufficient evidence in accordance with 16 our code which requires us in every case, not simply in 17 a case involving a police officer, but in every case, 18 requires us to carry out a two stage test. 19 First of all, we have to be satisfied that there is 20 sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of 21 conviction. If there is not, then that is the end of 22 the matter. If there is sufficient evidence, we then 23 have to go on to decide whether the public interest 24 requires prosecution, and if the answer to both 25 questions is yes, then we will -- currently, we advise 75 1 the police, provide advice to the investigating officer 2 to prosecute. 3 The legislation coming through this year will 4 actually provide us with a statutory responsibility for 5 charging, but effectively, for police cases, it will 6 remain the same, because the advice is invariably 7 accepted. 8 MISS WEEKES: Right. Can I just interject there by saying 9 when the changes come about to the service level 10 agreement, one of the main things I suspect that you 11 will want to ensure are kept is the independence of the 12 Crown Prosecution Service personnel, so the person who 13 gives the advice will remain independent by area or 14 knowledge of the policeman at all, because that 15 obviously gives public confidence. 16 MR BARCLAY: Absolutely. 17 MISS WEEKES: Can I ask you just a little bit about your 18 relationship with the Metropolitan Police Service and 19 the getting of the advice? From an officer's point of 20 view, they are concerned about getting the advice 21 quickly, and that the advice is seen to be fair advice 22 given on the basis of what there is on the table. 23 Often it does not filter down to the officer -- this 24 is obviously not your problem, but it does not filter 25 down to the officer what is going on between you and the 76 1 Metropolitan Police at that stage. 2 It is difficult for you, but I think it is helpful 3 that you are joining the debate; is there anything that 4 you might want to comment on about that first stage, as 5 it were? 6 MR BARCLAY: There are cases in which investigating officers 7 have indicated that the suspect officer is particularly 8 concerned about the length of time; I have known that 9 happen. 10 All that we can try and do is do it as quickly as 11 possible; because of the way the legislation is framed, 12 it means that the steps have to be undertaken, and there 13 may well be cases where although there is evidence on 14 the papers, we have to advise the police to pursue all 15 reasonable lines of enquiry, which might mean -- take, 16 for example, a case involving the use of a truncheon. 17 It may well be that in such a case, it would be 18 necessary to get some form of expert evidence about it. 19 There may be other forensic evidence that one might need 20 to get. All that takes time, and I know that 21 investigating officers from the directorates have 22 a heavy caseload, and all that adds to the time. 23 I do not know whether this happens or not, but I can 24 see no reason why the general nature of the 25 investigation cannot be provided in terms of an update 77 1 to the officers under suspicion, or indeed to those 2 representing them, as they invariably will be, at the 3 interview which will have taken place. That perhaps is 4 probably the best method of keeping the suspects' 5 representatives informed, so they can in turn keep them 6 informed. 7 MISS WEEKES: Yes. You serve a general nature, because it 8 is true to say that the majority of your advice and what 9 you do -- "Please go along and get an expert", and the 10 expert is got -- would be disclosable. 11 MR BARCLAY: Certainly, yes. 12 MISS WEEKES: Public interest immunity matters would 13 obviously not be disclosed. 14 MR BARCLAY: No. As a general rule, until a decision is 15 taken finally on whether to prosecute a case, we would 16 not disclose any material to anyone. When a final 17 decision is taken, if it is to prosecute, you are 18 absolutely right, everything is disclosed in accordance 19 with the 1996 Act. 20 If a decision is taken not to prosecute, it will 21 occasionally happen that there may be requests made for 22 material, and that will either be dealt with by the 23 police themselves, or if it is a request to us, then we 24 will deal with it on a case by case basis, depending 25 upon why it is sought. 78 1 MISS WEEKES: One of the suggestions for change to improve 2 on delay is a designated unit within the CPS areas that 3 will deal with referral of cases from the CPS. Will 4 that genuinely speed up matters, do you think? 5 MR BARCLAY: Well, I am fairly confident that it will. 6 Reviewing police cases is slightly different from 7 reviewing very many other cases, because a lot will turn 8 on whether there was reasonable suspicion, and that is 9 often a very difficult issue to grapple with. One is 10 looking in virtually all cases at powers that the police 11 have, intrusive powers which they rightly and properly 12 have. In many cases, the issue is: well, has that power 13 been properly exercised? Or in our case: can we prove 14 to the criminal standard that it has not been applied, 15 or that it has been misapplied, excessive force when 16 only reasonable force is permitted? 17 So they do call for some judgment, careful judgment, 18 which will often turn on a power of arrest or 19 an intrusive power. By centralising the handling of 20 police cases within London, and I can only speak for 21 London, we hope that -- we are confident, in fact, that 22 we will be able to spread the expertise amongst a group 23 of lawyers who we will rotate over a period of time, so 24 that people will come out and go into the unit, and the 25 management of the cases can be more focused; and of 79 1 course information about any case in London can be 2 obtained fairly quickly through one unit. 3 But we have to ensure that however the unit is 4 staffed, it preserves the independent issue which, as 5 you have already pointed out, is quite rightly 6 absolutely crucial to public confidence, and also so 7 that we are in a position to say and confirm that this 8 case has received a proper and independent review. 9 This is particularly important because many 10 complainants will write in to us to disagree with the 11 decision, if it is a decision not to prosecute, because 12 under the current arrangements, we have to let them know 13 in writing, we write to them to tell them what is 14 happening, and they can often respond and want to know 15 why -- will want to know more, and obviously, we need to 16 be very clear, and we will respond. But we need to be 17 absolutely positive and clear that there has been 18 a transparent and independent review of the case, which 19 there will be. 20 So the key to this unit is to ensure that however it 21 is arranged, it is arranged in a way that preserves that 22 independence. 23 MISS WEEKES: You have just described a very important 24 process whereby you write to the complainant to say what 25 has gone on. What would be the criticism or what would 80 1 be wrong with -- and there might be, which is why I am 2 asking you -- an ability for the Crown Prosecution 3 Service to write to the officer direct, after 4 a particular period of time, to say, "It has now been 5 four months, this is where we are at, this is why I have 6 not yet made a decision"? 7 MR BARCLAY: I think I would need to be persuaded that there 8 would be a reason to do it in a case involving a police 9 officer, and a need to do it in every other case; in 10 other words, I do not see that a police officer, albeit 11 that there are obviously serious consequences to 12 an officer in many ways -- but I think there are other 13 suspects who also would be entitled to say, "Well hang 14 on a minute, why is an officer receiving this particular 15 treatment in terms of management update?" 16 So it would partly be a resource issue for me. But 17 also, if it were done for officers, it would have to be 18 done for everyone, and that would be fairly intensive. 19 I mean, the current arrangement is that often, 20 an investigating officer might call and say, "What is 21 happening?" It may well be that we are in the middle of 22 reviewing it, it may well be we need some more 23 information. And we will keep the officer informed, 24 where we are able to give them a fairly precise idea of 25 how long it is going to take. 81 1 If the temperature gets high at the police end, and 2 they will phone up and say, "Well, how long is it going 3 to take, because the solicitors or the officer concerned 4 is worried about it?", we will try and deal with it that 5 way, and give a guesstimate as best we can of when we 6 are going to arrive at a decision. 7 MISS WEEKES: So really, the onus is on the investigating 8 officer, somebody within the Met to keep the officer 9 complained about up to date, really? 10 MR BARCLAY: Yes. 11 MISS WEEKES: Can I move on to the position that will change 12 slightly with the Police (Reform) Act? 13 MR BARCLAY: I am sorry to interrupt, I noticed this morning 14 that I have given the wrong year, I said it was 2003, 15 and it is 2002. I typed it, so it is my fault. 16 MISS WEEKES: That is all right. These typing errors do 17 occur. I certainly took it as a typing error. Will 18 there be a fundamental change at all? I have looked at 19 the statute, and it does not appear to me that it would 20 be, do you happen to agree with that? 21 MR BARCLAY: I do, in actual practice, for police cases it 22 will not, because the position at the moment is that we 23 provide advice, and the police retain the responsibility 24 to charge. The advice that we give in police complaint 25 cases, as in most other cases, will invariably be 82 1 accepted by the police, who will then take that advice 2 on board and charge. 3 Under the new legislation, we will have that 4 responsibility, and therefore it is theoretically 5 removed from the police, that actual power to say, "No, 6 we are not going to accept your advice", so in practical 7 terms, it stays the same. 8 MISS WEEKES: Moving on to the standard of the 9 investigations that you get, I think you commented by 10 saying, in general terms, it is good. 11 MR BARCLAY: Yes. 12 MISS WEEKES: Is there anything about your relationship with 13 the Metropolitan Police, when they come to you for 14 advice, that you think could be improved? 15 MR BARCLAY: I think sometimes, certainly in relation to 16 cases of assault, or allegations of assault, which are 17 by far and away the greatest number that we get, it is 18 always helpful to get a statement from the doctor, 19 rather than providing us with what is called in London 20 a book 83 entry, which sometimes is deciphered, 21 sometimes not. 22 Where the issue is an injury or an assault, it is 23 useful if further information can be sought from medical 24 experts, medical force examiners, that would help 25 a great deal. There are issues about legibility of 83 1 incident report books compiled by officers that we will 2 need to see, and getting that in a format that is 3 readily readable. 4 Also, in terms of the interviews, we invariably get 5 transcribed interviews, and if it is a no comment 6 interview, it perhaps is not necessary to do that, so 7 there are ways in which more focus could be brought to 8 bear on some of the more important issues, and less 9 attention paid to things that are not actually so 10 important. 11 But there are no fundamental consistent issues about 12 the quality of files, just aspects of them, which I give 13 you some examples of. 14 MISS WEEKES: Yes. We have heard some evidence that not all 15 officers, perhaps for good reason, maybe sometimes 16 not -- they do not make themselves available for 17 interviews. So when you receive a set of papers for 18 advice, there is no interview from the person against 19 whom the complaint is made. He is entitled not to 20 subject himself for interview. 21 Would it help generally if you did have the 22 officer's explanation, what his account is, at that 23 stage? 24 MR BARCLAY: It helps because it ties him down or her down 25 to an account which you can scrutinise, and it is 84 1 possible that you might have a case where you have not 2 even got an incident report book account from the 3 officer, and if there is no interview either, you do not 4 know what the issue in the case is going to be. 5 That does not mean you cannot deal with the case, 6 but it does mean that you cannot, in advance, scrutinise 7 to see what the issue in the case is going to be, so it 8 makes it much more difficult if you have not got 9 an interview. 10 In most cases, the officers will produce their 11 incident report book and say, "That is my account and 12 I stand by it", and the interview will consist of 13 questions about what is in the report book. 14 Sometimes officers will give a slightly different 15 account, and sometimes, obviously, no comment, or they 16 may even provide an account which they have never given 17 before. 18 So the answer is yes, it helps a lot to have 19 an interview account, but if there is not going to be 20 one, then, you know, we have to analyse what we have 21 got. 22 MISS WEEKES: I mean, there are times where, if an officer 23 gives an account, it can actually help to a decision in 24 his favour, not to prosecute? 25 MR BARCLAY: Absolutely, and that is particularly so in 85 1 cases where one is enquiring into the state of mind of 2 an officer, as to whether he acted in self-defence, 3 which is a very common issue. 4 MISS WEEKES: Fast track cases, which you will be aware of, 5 because the statute -- certainly the statute in 2004 6 will allow for that. It is a matter for the Met how 7 they use it and how often they use it. 8 How does fast track possibly touch upon your role? 9 MR BARCLAY: We have given general advice to underline the 10 issue that it should not be used except in exceptional 11 circumstances where there is an extant criminal 12 investigation going on, and what we have asked is that 13 if there is going to be a proposal put forward to fast 14 track an officer, in a case where we are involved or 15 likely to be, then we have asked for that to be made 16 known to us, so that we can provide our advice about 17 what effect it might have if a decision to prosecute 18 were made. 19 I have to say, I do not think I have come across 20 such a case personally, although I know other colleagues 21 who have, but the procedure will be that they will let 22 us know. 23 The difficulty that it may give rise to is, of 24 course, that it may be seen as prejudicing the outcome 25 of the criminal investigation if an officer is not able 86 1 to produce character evidence at a trial, but is really 2 in a position of saying, "Well, I have been dismissed 3 from the Force", and that can, in many cases, cause 4 a lot of difficulties to securing a fair trial. 5 MISS WEEKES: I think it is implicit in what you are saying, 6 but one of the obvious difficulties will be where 7 an officer is almost instantly dismissed, upon evidence 8 that the Metropolitan Police considered to be 9 overwhelming, but on an extended investigation by 10 yourself, additional evidence is found which may alter 11 the basis of the decision to dismiss, and that is 12 a possible risk. 13 MR BARCLAY: Perfectly possible, yes. 14 MISS WEEKES: Just finally, is there any particular aspect 15 of your relationship with the Metropolitan Police on 16 these cases that you have very kindly outlined to us 17 that you will want us to bear in mind when we consider 18 our recommendations? 19 MR BARCLAY: I think that there is a need to -- and I do not 20 know whether this would fall within your remit, it is 21 certainly something we would wish to do with the police 22 in any event, is to look again at the minimum file 23 contents of the cases that are sent to us. So that we 24 have no more than we need, and that we try and improve 25 the efficiency with which they can operate by looking 87 1 very closely at the type of documents that we must have 2 and those we do not need to have; and those that we do 3 not need to have in the form that we now have them. 4 It may well be that is a matter that does not fall 5 strictly within your remit; but it is something we will 6 do with the police, and we have done with our service 7 level agreement. 8 MISS WEEKES: Well, it is certainly very helpful to bear 9 that in mind. Thank you. 10 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Thank you very much indeed. Can I pass 11 you across to my colleague, Sir Anthony Burden? 12 Questions by SIR ANTHONY BURDEN 13 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Just one area, Mr Barclay, if I may 14 enlarge upon it; that is around delay. 15 MR BARCLAY: Yes. 16 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: We have heard several examples, and 17 I appreciate that not all of these will be pending 18 criminal decisions, but of officers suspended for seven 19 years, which is just absolutely unacceptable. 20 What part do you as a service play in trying to keep 21 delays to a minimum, if any? 22 MR BARCLAY: Well, we have a general target of trying to 23 return advice cases submitted by the police within 14 24 days of receipt, but in the service level agreement, the 25 target was 14 -- well, the target was five working days 88 1 in clear cases where there is clearly insufficient 2 evidence, and 28 days in cases that require a further 3 review. 4 Now I do not pretend that we meet that target, but 5 it is one that our local managers are generally aware of 6 the need to get the cases dealt with as soon as 7 possible. So we will try and deal with them in that 8 way. 9 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: So using those guidelines, although you 10 very honestly say you do not always hit those 11 guidelines, but you are working around them, in time 12 terms? 13 MR BARCLAY: They are there. And what actually happens is 14 when the cases come from the professional standards 15 directorates, wherever it is in London, they will come 16 to the relevant unit of CPS London which handles those 17 cases, and they will be dealt with by the unit head. So 18 there is a measure of control, so that what needs to be 19 done is known, and they are kept a handle on in that 20 way. As I say, we are not hitting those deadlines as we 21 should. 22 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: No, and please, this has not been 23 suggested to us, but if it is suggested to us that files 24 are languishing on the desks of the CPS for long periods 25 of time, that is not true? 89 1 MR BARCLAY: I cannot answer that one way or another. 2 I would certainly say that in some units, the pressure 3 of caseload does mean that we are not hitting the 4 targets or anywhere near them in some cases, but it 5 depends what you mean by languishing for a long period 6 of time. Certainly I would say that not all of them are 7 done within that period of time, and there will be 8 numbers of them that should have been dealt with some 9 time before. 10 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: But broadening this to the normal 11 criminal case environment, where police officers are not 12 involved, seven or eight years to bring a case to 13 conclusion would not be anywhere near acceptable. 14 MR BARCLAY: No, the delays I am talking about are nothing 15 of that order at all, we are talking about months. 16 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Yes, rather than years. 17 MR BARCLAY: Yes. 18 SIR ANTHONY BURDEN: Thank you very much indeed. 19 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Thank you very much. 20 Questions by SIR WILLIAM MORRIS 21 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Mr Barclay, before I move to my closing 22 words, can I share an experience with you, and perhaps 23 ask a question at the end of it? As part of this 24 Inquiry, one or two of my colleagues and myself visited 25 the Lambeth Borough Command, the Brixton police station. 90 1 As we were walking around the building, I saw a CPS sign 2 on one of the doors, and I thought, "What a good idea, 3 in terms of a little bit of joined up arrangement 4 regarding the prosecution service", and then I started 5 to think about it a little bit more, and reflected; 6 I asked myself how widespread a practice that is in 7 terms of co-operation. My next question is: in the 8 light of that perceived co-operation, how does the CPS 9 maintain public confidence regarding its own 10 independence? 11 MR BARCLAY: The first point to make is that independence 12 truly is a state of mind rather than anything else. 13 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Perception is greater than reality. 14 MR BARCLAY: The perception is also extremely important, 15 I entirely accept that. In relation to the handling of 16 police complaint cases, that is taken on board, and we 17 would not propose, when we have this unit, to be having 18 a procedure involving prosecutors at police stations 19 dealing with these cases, they will be dealt with by 20 a centralised unit which will not be based at a police 21 station, in order to preserve that transparency in those 22 cases. 23 They are particularly sensitive cases because, of 24 course, they do involve police officers and the 25 perception that the lawyer is part of the police 91 1 station, in those kinds of cases, can be particularly 2 unfortunate, and it is the appearance that matters. 3 In more general terms, the advice that we provide is 4 robust and it is dealt with by lawyers who will be 5 coming and going from the police stations; they will not 6 be there all the time. And we believe that those 7 arrangements will provide a better quality service, to 8 the extent that the number of cases that we need to stop 9 because evidence is not there which should have been 10 there will be greatly reduced. That has been the 11 experience of the pilot sites, of duty prosecutors in 12 stations, that the quality of the cases improves, and 13 that those cases that start will finish in the way that 14 they should. 15 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Do I gather from your response that 16 this was a pilot which will be evaluated and probably 17 rolled out elsewhere? 18 MR BARCLAY: It is the intention of the CPS nationally that 19 there will be duty prosecutors in all the major police 20 stations throughout England and Wales. That is a scheme 21 which is necessary in order to support the new 22 legislation which requires us to take decisions on 23 charging. The only way that you can do that is to be 24 there at the station looking at the evidence and taking 25 the decision before the custody PACE clock stops; the 92 1 defendant needs to be charged or released. To try and 2 achieve that kind of responsibility remotely from 3 a police station is pretty difficult, because there 4 would be a question of a telephone. 5 So, that being the position, in London we have what 6 we call a shadow scheme, which involves a greater number 7 of police stations, and you visited one, where there is 8 a duty prosecutor there. We call it the shadow scheme, 9 because it is not until July, the end of July, that CPS 10 London actually starts the statutory scheme, which will 11 involve duty prosecutors at all the major police 12 stations in London. 13 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Does the Law Society have a view on 14 that? 15 MR BARCLAY: I do not know, I am not a solicitor. I have 16 not been made aware of any view that they have, but 17 certainly it has been generally well received, I believe 18 also by the Metropolitan Police, and certainly by other 19 organisations within the system who consider as we do 20 that it is a method of improving the quality right at 21 the outset of cases that are brought against defendants. 22 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Thank you very much. 23 Just moving to my closing words, can I first of all 24 thank you very much indeed for coming along and for the 25 help that you have given to us. We have actually 93 1 finished the questions, but in my opening comments 2 earlier, I said that I would offer you an opportunity to 3 make a brief closing comment, should you so wish. If 4 you do wish, then now is the hour. 5 MR BARCLAY: No, thank you for the opportunity, but I hope 6 I have covered everything that I need to. 7 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: Okay. Well, thank you again, but can 8 I just formally say for our transcript that as with all 9 our witnesses, it may be that once we have heard others 10 and other witnesses, we will want to ask people back for 11 a few more questions, either by writing to them or 12 inviting them back to a further session of hearings. 13 If we do decide to do so, we will obviously do it in 14 a way which causes the least possible inconvenience to 15 yourself, or indeed all our witnesses. 16 For the moment, nevertheless, all that I need to do 17 is to thank you again, on behalf of my colleagues, for 18 your written submissions and your oral evidence, and 19 indeed for the contribution that you are making to our 20 Inquiry. Thank you. 21 MR BARCLAY: Thank you very much. 22 SIR WILLIAM MORRIS: We will adjourn until 2.30. 23 (1.00 pm) 24 (The short adjournment) 25