Operation Conifer: Sir Edward Heath

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I absolutely recognise the strength of feeling from noble Lords, particularly in relation to those who have died and are not here to speak for themselves. Of course, if those individuals are dead, any inquiry that might be conducted would obviously depend on the evidence brought before it. The police are operationally independent of government and we must recognise that. The Government would step in only where all other avenues had been exhausted.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, Operation Conifer spent two years and £1.5 million conducting a range of interviews with those who had known Sir Edward Heath or worked for him, and produced not a scintilla of evidence to support allegations of child abuse. The operation examined 42 such allegations; 35 of them were dismissed out of hand. Seven allegations remained on which those involved said they would have wished to interview Sir Edward Heath had he still been alive; those remain, as it were, open and unresolved. It is now evident that four of those allegations are baseless and it seems highly likely that the other three are equally baseless. One can only speculate on why the Wiltshire Police decided to leave them unresolved. Is it not a reasonable measure of justice that somebody should examine these seven allegations to confirm that there is no reality to them and to clear the suspicion that has been hanging over Sir Edward Heath since the Wiltshire Police publicly instituted its investigation in 1915?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord might have meant 2015 but I absolutely take his point. A review, which of course it would be open to the PCC to instigate, may consider whether any of the allegations that he talks about—the remaining six—would have justified a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. But as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the ability of the reviewer to do this would depend on the evidence that was brought forward.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

That this House takes note of the role and responsibilities of Police and Crime Commissioners.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, the office of police and crime commissioner was created in England and Wales by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The then Government thought that the system of police authorities, established in 1964, was too opaque and conceived of police and crime commissioners, or PCCs, as likely to increase transparency and accountability in policing.

There are 40 PCCs in England and Wales. They are elected for four-year terms and can be re-elected for any number of terms. Their main role and responsibilities are to secure an efficient and effective police force for their area; to appoint the chief constable; to hold the chief constable to account for running the force, and if necessary to dismiss him or her; to set the police and crime objectives for their area; and to set the force budget and determine the precept. Police and crime commissioners are barred by statute from interfering in the operational independence of the police. This system places heavy responsibilities on the shoulders of one person in each area: the PCC. Its success in achieving the objectives hoped for will vary from area to area. It clearly depends upon the relationship between the PCC and the chief constable. On this, there are presumably as many variations as there are PCCs.

I have come to wonder whether it is really sensible to have such important issues depending upon the personalities of, and relationships between, two individuals. There may be a risk that the relationship between a chief constable and a PCC can become too cosy, with the two people too ready to agree with each other for the sake of a quiet life. There is a danger that the chief constable may withhold, or the PCC may fail to require, information or advice that the PCC needs in order to be able to discharge the responsibilities properly. In neither case, it seems to me, is transparency likely to be improved.

On the other hand, if there is a relationship of mutual confidence, the PCC ought to be able usefully to advise, encourage and warn the chief constable without encroaching upon his operational independence. It is a difficult balance to be struck, and I wonder whether it may, paradoxically, have been easier to strike a right balance, and transparency and accountability may have been more easily achieved, when the chief constable was reporting and accountable to a police authority, rather than when he or she is reporting and accountable to an individual PCC.

I propose to concentrate this afternoon on the role and responsibilities of the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon in relation to Operation Conifer, Wiltshire Police’s investigation of allegations of child abuse by the late Sir Edward Heath, an investigation which started in the summer of 2015, lasted for more than two years, and cost some £1.5 million.

Such an investigation would normally be conducted in private and the results reported to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether there should be a prosecution. In this case, there could not be a prosecution, because Sir Edward had been dead for 12 years. On 5 October 2017 when the investigation was concluded, the Wiltshire Police published a summary report on its outcome and the then chief constable made a statement to the media.

That report stressed that the Wiltshire Police had scrupulously complied with official guidance in the conduct of the operation and emphasised the thoroughness and proportionality of the investigation. It reported on a wide range of interviews with Sir Edward’s friends and the people who had worked with and for him for many years, none of which seemed to have revealed any evidence to corroborate allegations of child abuse. Indeed, one of the interviewers admitted to an interviewee that the investigation was a farce.

However, three things happened which marred the process. First, when the investigation began, the senior officer of Wiltshire Police standing outside Sir Edward Heath’s old home in Salisbury made a televised appeal to those who believed themselves to be victims of child abuse by Sir Edward to make themselves known to the police. The immediate effect of this public announcement that Sir Edward was being investigated was to create a cloud of suspicion over his memory and reputation, and continuing public and media interest in the course of the investigation.

Secondly, in January 2017, a newspaper quoted the then chief constable of Wiltshire as saying that he was “120% sure” of Sir Edward’s guilt. If he had said anything of the kind, it would have been a gross dereliction of duty. The Wiltshire Police issued a carefully worded statement reiterating that the duty of the police was to investigate allegations and follow the evidence, but not to express any view as to guilt or innocence. But the damage was done and the effect was to deepen the cloud of suspicion over Sir Edward Heath.

Thirdly, in a report in October 2017, the Wiltshire Police disclosed that it had investigated 42 allegations. Of these, it dismissed 35 but said that had Sir Edward still been alive, it would have interviewed him under oath on the remaining seven allegations. It transpired that one of those seven allegations had already been examined and dismissed by the Metropolitan Police. Two others appeared not to relate to child abuse. We were left wondering whether the other four were equally unfounded but the Wiltshire Police had for some reason decided not to say so and left the seven allegations open.

Research on the internet strongly indicates that there had been a co-ordinated conspiracy to disseminate false allegations of child abuse by Sir Edward Heath and other high-profile individuals. However that may be, the effect of the Wiltshire Police’s report was to leave the cloud of suspicion hanging over Sir Edward Heath’s reputation indefinitely.

This is a profoundly unsatisfactory situation. Many of us are sure that Sir Edward was never a child abuser, that the allegations that he was are completely baseless, and that justice requires that he should be exonerated, just as Field-Marshal Lord Bramall and the late Lord Brittan, likewise subjected to baseless allegations of child abuse, have been exonerated.

The police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire has consistently said that he would like to see an independent review of the operation. The then Home Secretary told us last December that in her view, as this was a local policing matter, it was for the PCC, not the Government, to commission a review. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has told the House, the PCC has the power to commission such a review and he has access to the resources required to fund it.

In January 2018 the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral—who I am glad to see in his place—then the chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation, Mr Lincoln Seligman, Sir Edward’s godson, and I met the PCC to renew our request to him to commission a review. He said that he had been advised that a review could be commissioned either by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse—IICSA—or by himself, and that he was considering that advice. He subsequently wrote a long letter to the chairman of IICSA, urging that body to commission a review. IICSA’s reply said that its terms of reference were to investigate how institutions and organisations had dealt with problems of child abuse; that it was beyond its remit to review the investigation of allegations of child abuse by individuals; and that, even if it was to change its mind about that, it would not be able to take on any additional responsibilities for at least 12 months.

We therefore repeated our request to the PCC to commission a review. He replied that he had concluded that Operation Conifer was a national matter and that IICSA was not only the appropriate forum but the only forum to conduct a review, and he invited us to join him in urging IICSA to do so. We replied on 24 April last that we were surprised that he wished to press IICSA to do something which it had told him and us was beyond its remit and that we saw no point in making a further attempt to persuade it. We represented to him that it was his responsibility—and, indeed, his duty—as the officer to whom alone the chief constable is accountable to commission the review that he as well as we wanted to see set up. The commissioner has not seen fit to reply to that letter. Is he thinking that Sir Edward Heath has been dead for 13 years and left no close relatives, and that, if he does nothing, the whole thing will go away? If so, I am afraid that I have to disappoint him. It will not.

This is simply not good enough. It leaves Sir Edward Heath in indefinite limbo, neither guilty nor innocent. The remedy of judgment in a court of law is not available. The only possible remedy now is an independent review by a retired judge or someone of similar independence and integrity. The reviewer’s primary task would be to examine the validity of the seven allegations on which Wiltshire Police said it would have wanted to interview Sir Edward Heath under oath, had he been alive. But the reviewer would need to be given unrestricted access to all the evidence taken by Wiltshire Police in case he or she needed to go more widely into the matter to come to a clear and satisfactory conclusion.

There is another reason for commissioning a review. Wiltshire Police did not emerge from this business smelling of roses. Public misgivings about Operation Conifer were not dispelled—if anything, they were intensified—by the summary report and the then chief constable’s statement last October. It is clearly right for the police to have operational independence but once an operation is concluded they cannot be immune from being accountable for the way in which they have exercised their operational independence or for the consequences of their operations. An independent review would establish what went amiss with Operation Conifer, help draw a line under the whole affair, and allow the new chief constable of Wiltshire to start with a clean slate.

The police and crime commissioner has said that he is reluctant to divert to this purpose funds which could otherwise be used to improve policing in Wiltshire. Of course, we understand that the police in Wiltshire have had to deal with the Salisbury poisoning, albeit with help from other forces. The sum required for a review would not in fact be very great in relation to the total spending of Wiltshire Police, and it would be non-recurring. But if that is a problem, the Home Office provided most of the funds required for Operation Conifer, and the commissioner could consider asking the Home Office to contribute to the cost of a review.

An independent review is the only way of achieving a measure of certainty and finality in this matter. It is the clear responsibility of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, as the officer to whom alone the chief constable is accountable, to commission that review. Justice requires no less. Justice requires it, not next year nor at the Greek calends, but now: action this day. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate and made a great many interesting contributions.

As to what the Minister said about the Operation Conifer affair, she holds a very straight bat for the Home Office, but we shall be returning to the matter because, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others have said, there are issues of justice in this that cannot be allowed to rest. No doubt we shall need to talk again to the police and crime commissioner, but I do not think we have heard the last of this matter in this Chamber or more generally.

The debate was extremely interesting. I formed the impression that what we think about police and crime commissioners rather depends on the area from which we come; some are better than others. There are still aspects of the system that we have not got right and will need to be examined again.

I thought the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about operational expenditure were very important and need to be considered very thoroughly. The Home Office has been apt to use the doctrine of operational independence to avoid almost any kind of query about police operations. Although I believe that the principle of operational independence is extremely important, once an operation is over—as I said before—the doctrine of operational expenditure cannot absolve the chief constable from having to account for the way in which an investigation has been conducted or for its consequences. It suggests that we need to refine this doctrine a little more than we have done.

Finally, police forces traditionally have been guided that they must believe child abuse allegations. As one speaker suggested, that goes too far. They must take allegations seriously, of course, but they must examine them because this is an area in which false allegations seem to be exceedingly prevalent. People should be taken seriously, but the possibility of falsehood or deliberate conspiracy to make false allegations should never be overlooked. I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

Motion agreed.

Police: Independent Inquiries

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally appreciate my noble friend’s point, but when he talks about this not being natural justice, Ted Heath has not been convicted of anything. Of course he has not; he is deceased. But there is a mechanism to go forward, if an inquiry wishes to take this forward, through the PCC and he is within his powers to do so.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government will not mount an inquiry while there were other ways of doing so. The police and crime commissioner has, regrettably, refused to do so. What other ways are available at present?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There is the mechanism that the PCC is elected, and the people will take a view on how he performs his role when it comes to his future election.

Operation Conifer

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, let us not forget that there has never been any inference of Sir Edward Heath’s guilt, but I totally understand the concern of my noble friend and the House on this matter. We believe that the PCC has the authority to commission such a review, if he considers it necessary or appropriate.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

Is the Minister aware that the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon has consistently said that he would like to see an independent review of Operation Conifer? He has been advised that such a review could be commissioned either by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse—IICSA—or by him. IICSA has declined to undertake the task, making it clear that it is beyond its remit to review investigations of allegations of child abuse by individuals. Would the Minister now welcome a decision by the police and crime commissioner, who is the officer to whom Wiltshire Police is answerable and accountable, to set up an independent review without further delay?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right that IICSA is mainly looking into institutional failures when it comes to historical child sexual abuse. It is also absolutely true that the PCC himself could engineer such an inquiry. I am sure that he will be aware of the views of your Lordships’ House, which time after time has pressed for that to happen. He should also be aware of what his powers are as an elected representative.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am a mere observer of government over quite a long time. Obviously, we all support the 0.7% target and the whole gesture of telling the world that we intend to stick to it. However, you cannot translate a gesture literally into statute like this. The way that it is being done shoots an arrow straight into the heart of good government. The Treasury system of controlling spending is a complicated and sophisticated one but one that, in my view, has done very well.

The last big change to it was in the 1970s. At that time, public spending was based on the old Plowden system of allocating resources, which effectively pre-empted decisions. The House of Commons was, again and again, asked to vote supplementary estimates, which it did with virtually no discussion. The whole thing descended into total chaos and there was a major economic crisis. That was then changed to the present system, with cash limits and proper scrutiny of each proposal, by the great Leo Pliatzky, who was then the Permanent Secretary in charge of spending. That was based on the system of cash-flow management used in the private sector. Until cash-flow management came into force, an awful lot of perfectly good companies went bust because cash flow was out of control. I do not believe we can change the principle of proper control of public spending for one particular thing, however desirable and however much we support it. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, it is 45 years since I walked out of the Treasury, never to return. However, that was after 20 years there, and once a Treasury man, always a Treasury man. For that reason, and for many others, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Like him, I have no difficulty with the commitment to make the target 0.7%. We do not need legislation to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, talks about the signal that the passage of the legislation would send. With great respect to him, I do not believe that the passage of a Bill with this title would set all the flags flying in the capitals of the developing world. Legislation is not the best vehicle for gestures and signals. If you want to send gestures and signals, things like manifestos and Queen’s Speeches are the appropriate means of doing that. Therefore I support wholeheartedly the spirit behind this amendment, that this expenditure, however good and however meritorious, needs to be subject to the same discipline as other public expenditure.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no interest to declare save that some of my best friends are in the Treasury. The argument has been made about a signal. I think that it is an important signal to the developing world and to other countries, which are manifestly failing in respect of the moneys that they spend. It would certainly give us a greater lever to use with regard to that, although I am not so convinced by that argument.

However, I notice—and I will be very brief—that the argument used, very powerfully, by those who have spoken in favour of the amendment is rigour and accountability. They speak as if no accountability is likely. There are a number of accountability mechanisms, one of which is of course the Select Committee. The Select Committee is able to throw a searchlight on mistakes that are made by any government department so that any middle-ranking civil servant or higher civil servant who made the decision knows that at any stage they may be hauled before the committee and asked to justify their action or lack of action, which can be extremely embarrassing. Of course, the proposal then is retrospective, but it has relevance for any future decisions. It is also certainly a corrective for anyone particularly in a ministry such as this, which is more than most subject to pressure groups and non-governmental organisations from outside, and it gives them a degree of rigour.

Equally, of course, one has the NAO. That very powerful report—and I have not heard DfID give a very convincing reply to this—showed the extent to which there was a readiness to spend almost for the sake of spending. All of us, and perhaps most of us, have been in such positions. I recall once having an entertainment allowance; as I had only spent 50% of it by the end of the year, I ensured that I used up the rest of the money very quickly in the last few weeks—so there is that temptation.

Those noble Lords who have spoken thus far seem to ignore the relevant clause, Clause 5, where again there is a mechanism for accountability. There is accountability, and the danger is that if we were to accept this amendment, it would be rather like the French “en principe”. Yes, of course we are all in favour of aid and of 0.7% of GNI in principle, but if this amendment were to be accepted it would effectively drive a coach and horses through the Bill.