Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will respond, with all due respect, to the noble Lord’s comments about minors. We should bear in mind that this amendment would apply to people who would be subject to the provision as adults, not children, when sent into the prison estate. They would be subject, for instance, to pre-sentence reports and background information being provided if they were young people, but, in essence, they would be adults. They would be at the top level of criminality, because they would be incarcerated in respect of a custodial sentence. In other words, they would have committed pretty serious offences; they would not have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence or for speeding. Therefore, for the noble Lord to conflate the two is wrong. This is something that the British people are looking to the Government to take action on. They look at other jurisdictions and simply cannot understand why other jurisdictions are in a position to take robust action to remove people who have committed persistent criminal offences in their country.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the question was posed by my noble friend Lord Jackson—and touched on by, I think, my noble friend Lord Harper—as to why Irish citizens are not deported. The answer lies in the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed by this Parliament when the Irish Free State turned itself into a republic. The Ireland Act 1949 states that Irish citizens should not be treated as foreign citizens for the purposes of British law, which is why Irish citizens can vote in our elections and why Irish prisoners are not sent to the Republic of Ireland.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, for their amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Jackson, about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He has served his party and Government over many years, and he deserves to be recognised for the efforts that he has put in. I am pleased to endorse those sentiments from the Committee today, not least because I have shared an office with him for the past 13 months of my term in this Government. I will pass on the Hansard reference to him, so he can read the responses himself.

Foreign nationals who commit crime in the UK should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned this in passing, but it is worth placing it on record that 5,179 foreign national offenders have been deported in the 12 months between July 2024 to July 2025—a 14% increase on the previous year.

On a personal note, I am grateful for the comments about my continuing tenure in this job. I am commencing my 15th year as a Minister, 28 years overall as either a Minister or a shadow Minister, which is quite a long time. I have been around this block several times and I can recall, on foreign national prisoners, going to Nigeria in 2008 and negotiating a foreign national prisoner transfer with the Nigerian Government. Because this falls within the MoJ, I will update colleagues in due course about any potential new prisoner transfer agreements being developed.

Amendment 138 seeks to prevent any challenge—this is a key point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to an automatic deportation decision and to prevent a deportation order being made when there is an appeal against a sentence. Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation; I will refer to the circumstances around that in a moment. Both amendments would remove any challenge to deportation and would, if nothing else, be contrary to the withdrawal agreement, which the previous Government negotiated and which requires us to provide a right of appeal against deportation for beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement.

For other foreign national offenders, the right to appeal deportation was removed by statute in 2014 by the previous Government. Appeals can now be made against only the refusal of a human rights claim, the refusal of a protection claim or a decision to revoke a protection status. In any event, the amendments would be contrary to Article 13 of the ECHR when read with other rights. We can have a debate about the ECHR, and I am sure that we will, at the moment, the amendments would be contrary to those rights. It would also be unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR to deny courts the ability to set aside a decision by the Secretary of State when such a decision may be manifestly wrong. This Government take citizens’ rights very seriously and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also undermine the UK’s agreement with Ireland on the deportation of Irish citizens. There is a range of legislation around that, but since 2007, public interest has been the qualifying matter. Irish citizens are exempt from automatic deportation, except in exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State can determine that it is in the interests of the public at large. It would also undermine the protections against deportation afforded to certain Commonwealth nationals. It would set an artificial deadline for the making of a deportation order, preventing any leave being granted to a person who made a successful human rights or protection claim.

Amendment 139 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, mentioned, it would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. In my view, these amendments would not be workable and would be contrary to our international obligations.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say again that the Government are committed to the protection of human rights and to meeting our international obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the ECHR, and these amendments would not prevent persons being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. They would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of deportation considerations to Strasbourg and would slow down the removal of those being deported. The amendments would also undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory.

I hope that noble Lords are getting the general sense that I am not going to be in favour of the amendments. I can continue, should noble Lords wish me to do so.

Immigration: Human Rights

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely important point. Victims of modern slavery should be central to any policy determination. This Government will support the efforts of the previous Government and the previous Home Secretary—who is now a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead—who introduced what is now the Modern Slavery Act. We will ensure that those rights are upheld and that victims of modern slavery have that aspect of their lives taken into consideration when their asylum or refugee status is considered.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the increasing threats to journalists in different parts of the world, are the Government contemplating action to give effect to the recommendation of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK was a founding member, that an emergency visa scheme should be introduced for journalists and other defenders of human rights at serious risk of harm?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, makes. As I said, the Government will prioritise and look at the most urgent cases first. If there are urgent reasons why a journalist’s case needs to be examined over and above anybody else’s, they will be considered. The issue of priority is there for the Government to consider.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

An independent watchdog is vital in ensuring the effective oversight of police complaints and investigating the most serious and sensitive cases involving the police. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is accountable to the Home Office and Parliament for the delivery of its statutory and non-statutory duties. It was independently reviewed in 2023-24 as part of the public bodies review programme. The Government are currently considering the recommendations.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, why, after 18 months, is there no sign of the outcome of this organisation’s gross misconduct proceedings against Mr Steve Rodhouse? Inexplicably, he was made director-general of operations at the National Crime Agency after leading the disastrous Operation Midland, which inflicted immense distress on two distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House—Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan—and many others. Mr Rodhouse is the only officer to be called to account over this catastrophic police operation. As it goes about its leisurely work, does this organisation have any conception of the feelings of Lady Brittan and others who have suffered as a result of Mr Rodhouse’s misconduct? Incidentally, it has not stopped him recently receiving a £10,000 pay rise. Finally, does it come as any surprise that having found Mr Rodhouse guilty on a separate misconduct charge of jeopardising police operations against organised crime, the IOPC kept its decision secret until the Daily Mail revealed it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As ever, I try to be helpful to the noble Lord on these matters, but he will know that there is an ongoing IOPC investigation into the police officer he has mentioned. I am not able from this Dispatch Box to give advice or commentary on that investigation until such time as it is complete.

Operation Conifer

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will appoint an independent legal expert to review the seven allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that four reviews of this operation have found it legitimate and proportionate. This is a complex matter with significant history, which I am approaching with an open mind. To that end, I will listen carefully to any representations that noble Lords make on the issue.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords may recall the debate that we had on this in January. Did that not confirm and strengthen the conviction long held in all parts of this House that the seven unresolved allegations against Sir Edward Heath, to which this Question refers, should be subject to independent review? Do we not owe it to the memory of this deceased statesman to ensure that his reputation is not unfairly and improperly compromised in the eyes of posterity? That could so readily happen if we do not establish the full truth now, while the matter is still relatively fresh. Evidence in police files can be scrutinised carefully and impartially by an independent legal expert attuned to the circumstances of our times.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Lord mentioned, it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of the allegations made against Sir Edward Heath. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasises—and I must emphasise this as well—that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive. I will reflect on the points that the noble Lord has made, as I will on any other points put before the House today.

West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I came slightly late to the debate—for which I apologise—and, because of that, I shall be extremely brief. I have listened to all that has been said. I have looked very carefully at the excellent report by our all-party Select Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in the chair, and I find it quite impossible to suppress feelings of deep disquiet and concern about the way the Home Office has conducted itself in this matter.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has again brought the attention of this House to this difficult issue.

I want to emphasise just three points. First, in this country, we have a noble approach to policing, which is policing by consent. It seems to me that policing by consent should also include policing by consent of our elected local representatives. In this case, that is clearly not there. All the constituent authorities agreed to oppose this merger—this amalgamation—of the two roles.

My second point is about local accountability. We know that the police service in the West Midlands spends a great deal of local public money, and there ought to be local accountability. I live in West Yorkshire, so I know how this will operate. The elected Mayor of West Yorkshire has also taken over the role of the police and crime commissioner and has appointed an unelected person to fulfil the role of what was formerly an elected police and crime commissioner, at a considerable salary.

The only way that local people can call to account the policing of their area is through the police and crime panel, which, as the Minister read out, has some quite limited powers to do so, including looking at the policing plan, which is drawn together by the police and crime commissioner or the mayor and the chief constable, and checking whether they are fulfilling it. That is inadequate, when those people are seeking to reduce crime and safeguard the lives of local people. Policing by consent has failed in this instance and accountability is totally inadequate.

Operation Conifer

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to appoint a senior lawyer to review the seven allegations against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to appoint a senior lawyer to review the outstanding allegations against Sir Edward Heath. It remains for the local police and crime commissioner to consider whether an inquiry, or any other form of further review, is necessary.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I am accustomed to disappointing replies, but I had hoped for something a little more positive on this occasion. I remind the House of the wide cross-party support that has been expressed on numerous occasions for action to address the grave harm done to the reputation of Sir Edward Heath by the failure of the police investigation in Wiltshire to clear up all the foul allegations made against him long after his death. Is it not important to remember that four of the seven unresolved allegations to which my Question refers could not possibly be true, as I made clear in a debate in January? There is good reason to suppose that the other allegations are also groundless, which is why a limited review of these seven unresolved allegations is imperative.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in October 2018, the then Home Secretary, Sir Sajid Javid, wrote to Lord Armstrong following a meeting with him and other Peers to discuss Operation Conifer and related matters. In that correspondence, the then Home Secretary wrote:

“As I think you would agree, the real issue here is not so much Operation Conifer itself, but the inconclusive nature of its findings and what you describe as ‘the cloud of suspicion that … continues to hang over Sir Edward Heath’s memory and reputation’ … it is not clear to what extent a further review of the existing evidence by a judge or retired prosecutor would resolve this. It remains my view that the handling of this is properly a matter for the local PCC and that it would not be appropriate for me to seek to persuade him how he should go about it”.


That largely remains the case, and the current Home Secretary wrote in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 7 February that

“the Government has no plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation … or the findings”.

We are aware of no direct precedent for the type of review that my noble friend calls for. However, I am happy to ask officials to look into this to see whether it is either possible or viable, and I will report back in due course.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider the case for holding an independent inquiry into the allegations against Sir Edward Heath that remained unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, this short debate is on a subject that I have raised many times in your Lordships’ House through Oral Questions and earlier debates. A grave injustice was inflicted posthumously on Sir Edward Heath, a man appointed by Her late Majesty to the highest order of chivalry as a Knight of the Garter. Ted Heath was accused of a number of child sex offences in 2015, 10 years after his death. The allegations were the subject of an investigation, known as Operation Conifer, which was carried out by the Wiltshire police force.

The operation was led by Wiltshire’s then chief constable, Mike Veale. Last July, Veale was barred from policing for life because of his gross misconduct in Cleveland, where he served as chief constable, albeit briefly, after losing his job in Wiltshire. Can it be seriously supposed that a man condemned in Cleveland for gross misconduct is likely to have met the standards required of an officer of the highest rank when he was in Wiltshire? The Independent Office for Police Conduct found him guilty of making a dishonest statement about the destruction of his mobile telephone at the end of the operation.

I will not dwell in detail on Operation Conifer. It had some very troubling features. When the investigation was in its latter stages, Veale was quoted in a national newspaper as saying that he was “120 per cent” certain that Ted Heath was guilty. A statement by Wiltshire Police that followed was notable for its careful wording. Bias against Ted Heath was evident from the start. One of Veale’s senior officers, Superintendent Sean Memory, spoke in front of TV cameras outside Heath’s former home in Salisbury. The incident, totally unprecedented in police history, I think, quickly became notorious. This is what the superintendent said:

“This is an appeal for victims: in particular, if you have been the victim of any crime from Sir Ted Heath or any historical sexual offence, or you are a witness or you have any information about this, then please come forward”.


Could there have been a clearer indication that Veale and his team deliberately set out to obtain evidence against Sir Edward? Note the use of the loaded term “victim” instead of “complainant”, which the police were supposed to use.

A very long official report was produced at the end of Operation Conifer. It has never seen the light of day. A highly abridged version was published in October 2017, much of it leaked in advance to the press. In this way, the country discovered that Veale had not cleared up all the allegations laid against Sir Edward as a result of the unprecedented TV appeal. Seven of them were unresolved. The truncated report stated that if the former Prime Minister had been alive, he would have been interviewed under caution about the seven allegations. Was this decision appropriate and right? The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former Director of Public Prosecutions who is contributing to this debate, condemned it at the time, saying that the police’s objective was to give

“entirely bogus credibility to their investigation ... The bar for interview is low, in most investigations as low as the police want it to be—and in the case of a dead man, virtually non-existent. They are covering their backs at the expense of a dead man. Shame on them”.”

An independent inquiry led by a retired judge should of course have been set up long ago into this shameful state of affairs, but the Home Office said no. It still says no. It has rejected all the calls that have been made for an independent inquiry, paying no attention whatever to the strong support voiced on all sides in your Lordships’ House, for which I and others seeking justice for Ted Heath are profoundly grateful. The Home Office brings a closed mind to bear on this grave issue. I hoped that a Minister might be appointed to the department who would prise open that closed mind. So far, I have been disappointed. May I ask this afternoon for a clear undertaking that the Hansard report of this debate will be given to the new Home Secretary, accompanied by a request that an independent inquiry should now be held? Perhaps the Home Secretary would circulate a letter with his response to this request to all those taking part in this debate.

The Home Secretary’s predecessors dismissed the calls for an independent inquiry by saying that Operation Conifer was

“subject to considerable external scrutiny”

when the investigation took place. There is truth in that statement. Two official bodies, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and something called Operation Hydrant, were brought in to review Operation Conifer at the time. A third body was set up specially by Veale. It was called an independent scrutiny panel. He chose its four members. One of them was paid £2,000 to provide professional advice about two of the complainants, but she insisted that her independence was not compromised as a result. The review by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary was concerned solely with the use of the financial resources—some £1.5 million—with which the investigation was equipped. The Operation Conifer report of October 2017 states that the inspectorate

“was not asked to comment on the decision to investigate allegations against Sir Edward Heath”.

This review therefore has no bearing on the matters which would be the subject of an independent inquiry.

Operation Hydrant, on the other hand, is relevant. It brought together some of our most senior police officers to co-ordinate

“multiple non-recent child sexual abuse investigations around the country”,

and Veale was known personally to most if not all of them. A leading expert in police misconduct cases observed at first hand the camaraderie that existed between them, noting

“evidence of undue favouritism towards Veale by his police peers”.

Doubt is bound to exist in the public mind when reviewers are not totally independent from those that they review, and that was the position here. So Operation Hydrant cannot be regarded as an adequate substitute for an inquiry.

That leaves Veale’s independent scrutiny panel. It produced no report—just a four-paragraph statement tacked on to the end of the October 2017 report. Veale and his team provided the panel with briefings, and panel members offered comments and asked questions. They state that they

“endeavoured as best we could, to contribute to the quality of the process”

of investigation, which their short statement praises. All four members of the panel signed confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. These silent witnesses can therefore provide no help in settling the grave issues to which Operation Conifer gave rise.

What conclusion should be drawn from all this? It could not be clearer. The Home Office should stop using the limited reviews carried out over six years ago, which lacked complete independence, as an excuse for doing nothing today. The department should face up to the fact that Veale, now a completely discredited figure, could well have left the seven unresolved allegations hanging in the air in order to avoid having to admit that a great deal of public money had been spent—some £1.5 million altogether—and much police time employed without achieving anything at all.

The Conifer report of October 2017 states that

“it is critical to stress that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution”.

What sort of world do they think we are living in? Of course people were bound to make just such an inference. The unresolved allegations placed a cloud of suspicion over a dead statesman. It must be removed.

Has the Home Office studied the seven allegations? They are summarised in the Conifer report of October 2017. They are a strange miscellany. Four relate to the 1960s, one to the 1970s, none to the 1980s and two to the 1990s. Two concern adults, not children. The Edward Heath Charitable Foundation has scrutinised them, drawing on Heath’s private papers, information in the public domain and the results of freedom of information requests. Its analysis shows that four of the seven alleged incidents could not have occurred.

The Home Office has tried to give the impression that only the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner could initiate an independent inquiry. That is not so; the Government have the power to set one up. Do we not owe it to the memory of a dead statesman, the only First Minister of the Crown ever to be accused of serious criminal offences, to get at the truth of this grave matter? Sir Edward Heath has now passed into history. His career will be analysed in detail by professional historians, and the truth about this terrible matter must be available to them. Ted Heath’s honour must be restored by a judicial inquiry, having been sullied by a chief constable found to be unfit for public office.

The independent inquiry into the infamous Operation Midland showed how the police had abused their trust in the way they investigated allegations against two great public figures, Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan. The disgusting allegations against them came from a fantasist, Carl Beech, now serving a long prison sentence. Beech also said grotesque things about Ted Heath that were passed on to Veale. The mistreatment of a third great public servant, who is the subject of this debate, must also go before an independent inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to provide my noble friend with that reassurance.

As regards whether I regret that Sir Edward’s memory and legacy have been in some way tarnished, of course I do. I think it is incredibly regrettable, and it is incredibly regrettable that the deranged fantasist was encouraged in the way that he was. However, he is paying the price.

As I have set out, Operation Conifer has been subject to external scrutiny, whether your Lordships agree with that scrutiny or not, and it is the Government’s assessment that there are not currently any grounds for further intervention.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it is normal for a debate of this kind to have any final words from the person who introduced it, but I think there is perhaps an expectation that I should do so. It is important that the new Home Secretary studies this most carefully, reading the Hansard, and I hope that we will have a full and considered reply from him. This debate has not only touched on very difficult events and actions but has contained very considerable scrutiny and critique of the grounds on which the Government have previously rejected an inquiry. We need to bring this matter to a conclusion. We must have an inquiry.

House adjourned at 6.30 pm.

Metropolitan Police Reform

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress of reform within the Metropolitan Police.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, reform of the Metropolitan Police Service is vital and the Government fully support the commissioner’s plan, A New Met for London. It is the responsibility of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to assess force performance improvement and for the Mayor of London to hold the commissioner to account for the progress being made.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I called on the Government exactly a year ago to give Sir Mark Rowley the stronger disciplinary powers for which he was asking in order to root out crime and serious abuse in the Met, which so shocks our country. Instead of taking action, the Government instituted a review. When will Sir Mark finally get the powers he seeks? Must not a thorough clean-up of the Met include calling to account the police officers who failed so grievously during Operation Midland, that infamous investigation that unforgivably hounded two great public servants, Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan? Finally, is it not astonishing that, after several years, the Independent Office for Police Conduct has only now got round to just one serious investigation arising from Operation Midland? That is into the conduct of Mr Steve Rodhouse, the man in charge of the disgraceful operation. On past form, this could drag on for years while Mr Rodhouse enjoys a full salary. Do not those who have suffered deserve better than this?

Asylum Seekers: Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me sight of his Question in advance. I can assure noble Lords that the cornerstone of the asylum consideration process remains the requirement to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 refugee convention and enshrined in last year’s Nationality and Borders Act. There has been no downgrading of the threshold. We do not return asylum seekers to their home countries if their sexuality or gender would place them at risk of future serious harm or persecution. This is of course the principle derived from the case of HJ (Iran), which we discussed during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill. Nor would we relocate someone to a safe third country if there was a real risk of their suffering serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the United Kingdom.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that many LGBT people seeking asylum do not have access to legal advice to help them prepare for interviews in which they must explain convincingly why they fear persecution in their own countries? Has the Home Office made any assessment of the impact that speeding up asylum processing will have on those who lack legal advice as they prepare for their interviews?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Legal advice is certainly an issue we are aware of, and assistance is provided to those making applications. It may be of note to my noble friend that the number of LGB claims in 2022 almost doubled—an 89% increase compared to 2021. Thus, in 2022, 2% of asylum claims in the United Kingdom—1,334 claims—included sexual orientation as part of the basis for the claim. There do not appear to have been any issues concerning representation, given the increase in the number of such claims.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to establish an independent inquiry to review the seven allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

The Government have no plans to establish an independent inquiry to review the outstanding allegations against Sir Edward Heath. It remains for the local police and crime commissioner to consider whether an inquiry is necessary.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I first express sincere thanks for the support that I, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and cross-party allies received from all quarters and parts of this House during the long period before Mike Veale, former chief constable first of Wiltshire and then of Cleveland, was found guilty of gross misconduct and barred from policing for life. In view of that July judgment, is it not imperative to carry out an independent review of the seven allegations made against Sir Edward Heath long after his death, which Veale failed to clear up after a long investigation that one of his officers contemptibly publicised on television in front of Ted Heath’s house in Salisbury? Must there not be a strong suspicion that Veale left these allegations open, neither proved nor disproved, to save face after failing to find a single shred of evidence to support any of the accusations, despite getting his officers to rifle through all of Heath’s private papers, box after box, in the Bodleian Library during an operation that cost over £1 million, paid for by the Home Office?

Finally—I apologise for speaking at some length—do we not owe it to the memory of a dead statesman, the only First Minister of the Crown ever to be suspected of such serious crimes, to get at the truth of this grave matter and settle the doubts created by the disgraced Veale?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend: it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of all the allegations made against Sir Edward. I obviously recognise the House’s desire to find a solution, but the investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny and the Government do not see the grounds for government intervention. The fact that it involved a former Prime Minister does not of itself warrant government intervention. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasised that

“no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution”

had he still been alive.