Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Debate between Gerald Howarth and John Glen

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Operation Midland and the Henriques report.

I am very grateful to you, Mr Streeter, for chairing this debate today, and to hon. Members from all parties in the House who have come to take part in this important debate.

One of the founding purposes of our Parliament, which was established 751 years ago, was for the redress of grievances. So let me say from the outset that where people—particularly the young and the vulnerable—have been abused by others, however high the alleged perpetrator is, they are not above the law. That was an assertion of the late and great Lord Denning, which is not in dispute. What is in dispute, and the subject of this debate, is the manner in which a number of police forces have chosen to operate and the rules under which they have operated.

Today I make no apologies for seeking to highlight what I and many others consider to be a major miscarriage of justice by the Metropolitan police and indeed by other police forces across the land. I intend to concentrate my remarks on Operation Midland, which involved the pursuit of unfounded claims that sexual offences were committed by the former Home Secretary, the late Lord Brittan; the former Chief of the Defence Staff and distinguished Normandy veteran, Field Marshal The Lord Bramall; and my long-standing friend, Harvey Proctor. Mr Proctor was also accused of murdering three children. I served in this House with both Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor, and I have met the Field Marshal and his late wife, Lady Bramall, a number of times.

Other well-known people, such as Sir Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and even the late Prime Minister, our former colleague Sir Edward Heath, have also been caught up in this scandal of police failure and mismanagement. However, such is the weight of evidence against—

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he just care to reflect on precisely what he means when he refers to the former Prime Minister, because from my perspective—as Salisbury’s Member of Parliament—I see that Wiltshire police have conducted their inquiries perfectly within the guidance set out by the College of Policing and are going where the evidence takes them?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to say that, such is the weight of evidence against the police operations, that time will not permit me to make more than a passing reference to them. I am afraid that I disagree with his view of Chief Constable Veale of Wiltshire. The chief constable’s recent assertion—his bravado—was quite unwarranted. Sir Edward has been dead for 10 years, but I wish to leave that point there, because I think others may well deal with it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able in due course to make his case in defence of Chief Constable Veale.

These people have lost income. Paul Gambaccini told the Home Affairs Committee that he had lost £200,000 in income and payment of legal fees following his suspension from the BBC and other broadcasters. Harvey Proctor lost his income following his sacking by the Duke and Duchess of Rutland, to whom he had acted as secretary. That sacking was largely at the behest of Leicestershire’s constabulary and social services. Loss of the job meant he also lost his home on the duke’s estate and he is now living in an outhouse with no running water and no lavatory facilities. That is the hard effect of this travesty.

In addition, the distress caused is difficult to imagine. During the investigation conducted under Operation Midland and Operation Vincente, Lord Brittan died and Lord Bramall’s wife died, neither of them knowing that the investigations had both been wound up. In the case of Lord Brittan, who died in January 2015, it was well over a year before the Metropolitan police told Lady Brittan that the Operation Midland case had been dropped, and only when they were asked by her lawyers to verify a report in The Independent on Sunday did the Metropolitan police say that they would not have proceeded.

However, the distress was not confined to that aspect of the case. Lady Brittan endured the indignity of the search of her property. As she told me, 10 to 20 officers invaded the house. She said it was like witnessing a robbery of one’s treasured possessions, including letters of condolence and photographs, without ever being told why. The police were insensitive to her circumstances and never told her that she had certain rights during a search. In her Yorkshire house, the police asked if there was any newly turned earth in the garden, again without saying why.

As Lady Brittan says, while it was ordinary police officers who were instructed to undertake the searches, responsibility for the control of this operation rests with senior police officers, whose insensitivity and incompetence has been revealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friends are intervening in such a way that they keep anticipating the next paragraph of my speech. I will be coming precisely to that point, because it goes to the heart of this case.

Sir Richard, in describing the approach as “flawed”, said that use of the word “victim” to describe a complainant

“gives the impression of pre-judging a complaint.”

So confident is Mr Bailey, he countered that by

“asserting that only 0.1% of all complaints were false”—

so, according to the chief constable of Norfolk, 0.1% of complaints were false—

“any inaccuracy in the use of the word ‘victim’ is so minimal that it can be disregarded.”

What an astonishing claim to be made by a senior police officer in this country! Not one complainant with whom Sir Richard discussed the issue felt that the word “victim” should be applied instead. On the issue of searches, Sir Richard concluded that they were simply illegal.

Sir Richard turns next to the question of belief, noting that a 2002 police special notice dealing with rape investigations read that

“it is the policy of the MPS to accept allegations made by the victim in the first instance as being truthful.”

A 2014 report on police crime reporting by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary recommended:

“The presumption that the victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said, that approach represents a fundamental reversal of a cardinal principle of English law, namely that a man is innocent unless and until proved otherwise.

As Rupert Butler, counsel of 3 Hare Court, put it to Sir Richard:

“The assumption is one of guilt until the police have evidence to the contrary. This involves an artificial and imposed suspension of forensic analysis which creates three incremental and unacceptable consequences. Firstly, there is no investigation that challenges the Complainant; secondly, therefore, the suspect is disbelieved; and, thirdly, and consequently, the burden of proof is shifted onto the suspect.”

The second charge against the police relates to the evidence of witnesses. Sir Richard observed that

“prominent people…are more vulnerable to false complaints than others…They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems. The internet provides the information and detail to support a false allegation. Entertainers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations meeting, as they do, literally thousands of attention seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity which may be exaggerated or misconstrued in their recollection many years later. Deceased persons are particularly vulnerable as allegations cannot be answered.”

I emphasise that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen)—the allegations against Sir Edward are allegations that cannot be answered by him.

[John Glen]

If I may respond to that point, very rarely does an individual act alone. When there are victims—I say victims—who are still alive and connected parties still alive, there is a duty to seek justice for those individuals if they exist.

Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill

Debate between Gerald Howarth and John Glen

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend has the capacity for perspicacity and anticipates a point I shall make shortly. I agree with him entirely. My Bill seeks to follow, almost slavishly, the principle set by the 2015 Act. I did that intentionally, to encourage the Government to give this Bill, promoted by a Conservative, the same strength of support they gave to a Liberal Democrat Bill.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

One of the issues that concerns me is the inherent flexibility in the definition of what NATO says is acceptable as constituting part of the 2%. If for the first time this year war pensions, pensions of retired civilian MOD personnel and contributions to UN peacekeeping missions are deemed acceptable, is there not a risk that there will be flexibility in what is included in the 2% and that underlying expenditure on defence capabilities will be unclear?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to address that issue. The Bill involves a number of technicalities, and that is one of them.

I have always accepted that overseas aid has a role to play, but I have consistently opposed the extraordinary increase that the Department for International Development has enjoyed from Government ring-fencing since 2010—up from £8.5 billion in 2010 to £13 billion in 2014—to meet the figure of 0.7% of gross national income.

It may benefit you, Mr Speaker, and the House if I explain the difference between GDP and GNI. I am advised that GDP is the market value of all services and goods within the borders of a nation, the measure of a country’s overall economic output, and GNI is the total value produced within a country, comprising GDP plus the income obtained from overseas through businesses and so on that have foreign operations. GNI is therefore a more generous fiscal measurement, which naturally inflates the amount of overseas aid required to meet the 0.7% figure.