Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The right hon. Lady has the chance to make a speech in just a few moments.

The system of specialist asylum tribunals to consider individual appeals against any refused claim within Rwanda will have one Rwandan and one other Commonwealth co-president and will be made up of judges from a mix of nationalities, selected by the co-president. To the point the right hon. Lady is making about the money spent by the British Government, as is the case with many countries around the world, the Government spend money capacity building with our international partners, and we have been working extensively with Rwanda to build capacity too.

The treaty makes clear that anyone relocated to Rwanda cannot be removed from Rwanda to another country except back to the United Kingdom. It is binding in international law and enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, which will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring. The committee will have unfettered access to monitor the entire relocation process, from initial screening to relocation and settlement in Rwanda. Relocated individuals and legal representatives will be able to launch confidential complaints directly with that committee. It is that treaty and the accompanying evidence pack that enable the Government to conclude with confidence that Rwanda is safe. We will need to be certain that domestic and foreign courts will also respect the treaty, and that is why we have introduced this Bill.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On that point on foreign courts, clause 5(2) says:

“It is for a Minister of the Crown…to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”

Is the advice from the Attorney General that it will be compatible with international law for a Minister to refuse to comply with such an indication?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend, who is an expert proceduralist in this House, will know that advice from the AG to Government is privileged, and I am not going to share it at the Dispatch Box, but he will also know that the Government’s position is clear and unambiguous that this is in accordance with international law. He can rest assured of that.

Legal Migration

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before we go any further, colleagues will recognise that a large number of people want to catch my eye for this statement. We have another statement afterwards, and then we have an important piece of legislation to which a large number of people want to speak, so I urge colleagues to be brief in their questions so that the Home Secretary can be concise in his answers. I will only be calling people who arrived for the beginning of the Home Secretary’s statement. I am trusting those who were late not to be standing.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be a good idea to have a cap on the number coming in?

[James Cleverly]

Although I understand the calls for a cap, in practical terms, managing a cap is difficult. We want to ensure that we are being as generous as possible to the people who contribute to our society and our economy. We also recognise that not every single individual is the same—a child could count as one person against a cap, as would an investor who may bring a huge number of jobs—and we want a difference between the two to be possible.

Migration and Economic Development

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s ideological zeal is blinding and preventing her from taking a rational approach. I am proud of the fact that we have welcomed 450,000 people through safe and legal routes to this country since 2015. I do not think that anyone can claim that we are not forward-leaning on all of this. She and her party need to be honest about their position with the British people: they stand for open borders and uncontrolled migration.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Parliament has legislated, our courts have ruled. We are apparently stopped by a Russian judge, woken from a bar, to issue an injunction. Can this stand?

[Suella Braverman]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Neither the Prime Minister nor I are deterred from delivering on this policy, which is an essential part of our wider plans to break the business model to stop illegal migration. We have a legitimate basis for it. It has been upheld after being rigorously tested in our courts. We will continue to move quickly to honour the will of the British people.

Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Lady will of course know that the full Alcock report is in the House of Commons Library and it sets out very clearly the information regarding the parliamentary question to which she has referred. She also referred to the 3.5 million citizens already in this country: the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Brexit Secretary and indeed myself have been very clear that we want those people to stay, and by opening the EU settled status scheme, which we have done now in private beta testing phase 2, we are already putting in place steps that have enabled in the region of 1,000 people to confirm their status.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is very important that the Government are generous and treat properly everybody who has come here lawfully up until the day that we leave, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also extremely important that, once we have left, we take back control of our borders?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister’s very clear statements on this. As part of Brexit we will end free movement, giving us back control of our borders, which is what I believe people voted for in 2016 and which I know my hon. Friend wants.

UK Passport Contract

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I gently point out to the right hon. Lady that it was in 2009 that the rules were changed to enable the British passport to be made overseas and that 20% of blank passports are already printed abroad—[Interruption.] She refers repeatedly from a sedentary position to taking back control. Yes, we are: we are taking back control by awarding a contract within procurement rules—WTO rules as well as EU rules, which are embedded in UK law—and it is imperative that we have the most secure and up to date passports at the best value for money.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am concerned for the De La Rue plant in Bathford in my constituency, which produces the very high-quality security paper used in Chinese passports, among others. Would it be possible for the Franco-Dutch consortium to buy its secure paper from Somerset, which would of course be De La Rue paper and of very high quality?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend has done well to point out that De La Rue already prints documents for many different countries. Quite rightly, as with any British company, we wish it to be outward looking and global in its perspective. He makes an important point about paper milling in his constituency that I am sure the successful bidders will have heard.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way with regard to his new clause 10, but I wonder whether he has thought through the constitutional implications of allowing a vote in this House to have any formal standing when it is neither a statutory instrument nor primary legislation. Would that not risk bringing the courts into the proceedings in Parliament?

[Philip Davies]

I always bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of constitutional issues. I would never enter into a competition with him on that, because I would certainly lose. However, I do not think there is anything to fear from new clause 10. All it asks for is a debate on the report in Parliament before the Government give a response. It would not even necessarily make the Government beholden to the outcome of that debate, but it would at least ensure the Government were aware of the views of MPs before they responded.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. How would that be tested? If the Government decided not to have a debate in Parliament, it could not be taken to a judicial review, because the courts could not consider a proceeding in Parliament.

[Philip Davies]

There is plenty of evidence of Governments ignoring what Parliament has to say to them on a number of occasions, whether on appointments, Select Committees or whatever. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns and I always take them seriously. I will reflect on what others have to say in the debate; they may be able to persuade me that new clause 10 is not worth pursuing. However, I do not envisage the problems my hon. Friend envisages. I suppose we ought just to leave it at that and perhaps move on from there. My hon. Friend may well have the opportunity to have his say and explain in greater detail why new clause 10 should be resisted. I am sure the House will listen carefully to what he says, as will I. It would be a sad—and rare—state of affairs if I found myself voting in a different Lobby from my hon. Friend. New clause 10 should find favour with campaigners in favour of the Bill and the convention, because it gives Parliament more say over what happens post-ratification.

New clause 11 relates to annual statistics. This is very important. I have heard many assertions from campaigners that we must pass the Istanbul convention to eliminate violence against women, and that if we do not ratify it we will not have any reduction in violence against women. Campaigners say that if we pass the convention there will miraculously be no violence against women. New clause 11 requires the Government to use their

“best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”

The point of that is to allow us all to see for ourselves whether ratifying the Istanbul convention actually makes any difference at all to levels of violence against women and levels of domestic violence. At the moment, we do not really know too much about it.

In preparation for this debate, I tried to get figures on countries that have ratified the convention to ask them if they had seen a reduction in violence since ratification. We should want to test whether it will actually make any difference at all. Unfortunately, the House of Commons Library told me that it did not have any such figures and that these figures did not exist. So anybody who stands up today and says that passing the Istanbul convention will reduce levels of violence against women is doing so in the full knowledge that they have no evidence at all to support that claim—unless, of course, they have done what I did. In the absence of any House of Commons Library figures, I wrote to the ambassadors of all the countries who ratified the convention to ask whether they could supply me with any of the information.

I do not know whether anybody else in the House has actually bothered to find out whether ratifying the convention makes any difference to levels of violence against women. Perhaps anybody who has done so could intervene now and share that information with me. No, I did not think anybody would intervene. I did not think that anyone would actually have any idea of what they were talking about before they came here today, but of course someone coming in on a Friday and knowing what they were talking about before pontificating would be breaking a great tradition. I have done the work for them—again. I contacted the ambassadors of the countries that have ratified the convention and asked for their figures. I am sure everyone will be interested to know what has happened in those countries since ratification. I am sure the Minister will be delighted to know. Maybe the Minister does not know this either. It is quite extraordinary, really.

Sweden signed the convention in May 2011 and ratified it in July 2014. It came into force in November 2014, with reservations. I will come on to reservations later, because I know that is a subject my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch feels very strongly about. From the figures given to me by the Swedish ambassador, the total number of reported offences in 2013, before the convention was ratified in Sweden, was 39,580. When the convention came into force it was 42,217. In 2015, after ratification, it went up to 42,252. The preliminary figures for 2016 show another increase in violence, with reported offences at 43,179. The offences included in this category—I am very grateful to the Swedish ambassador for sending this very detailed information—are all forms of assault, murder and rape, including attempted rape, regardless of the victim’s age. In Sweden, therefore, ratification of the Istanbul convention has not made a blind bit of difference to levels of violence against women. In fact, all that has happened is that levels of violence have continued to increase. What do all those who claim that the convention is essential to reducing violence have to say about that? Absolutely nothing—that is what they have got to say about it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether there might be other factors involved. My hon. Friend will no doubt have heard the President of the United States expressing considerable concern about the dangers now arising in Sweden.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not intend to deviate too much from the matter in hand, but he raises an interesting point about what might be the driving force behind that. I think the point he is getting at is that he thinks the levels and nature of immigration into Sweden might have been a contributory factor—a point made by President Trump last week. There may well be truth in that. I do not know; I did not ask the ambassador for any assessment on that. All we do know is that ratifying the Istanbul convention has not led to a decrease in violence against women in Sweden, and so all the people claiming that that is what is going to happen might want to think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we must move on.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, as the matters we are about to discuss are of the utmost confidentiality and may give succour to Her Majesty’s enemies, I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.

Policing and Crime Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Part 1 of the Leveson inquiry found unhealthy links between senior Metropolitan police officers and newspaper executives. Those links led to high-level resignations. There are also issues around the relationship between the police and the press more locally, as prior information appears to have been provided about particular people who will be arrested or a particular search that will be carried out. All those serious breaches speak to a fundamental need for us, as a nation, to assess the proper relationship between the police, the press, the public and the system of complaints. The proposed second stage of the Leveson inquiry would ask exactly those sorts of questions. Labour has consistently supported it but, sadly, real doubts are emerging about the Government’s commitment to the second stage of the inquiry. No timetable has been announced for it, and the Government have stated that it will not take place until all criminal investigations and trials related to part 1 are concluded.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is not the Government’s position extremely sensible? A succession of criminal trials have looked into this matter. They have proceeded in a proper judicial way, and most of the information that we need is already available. To go on inquiring, inquiring and inquiring is merely adding to the already £50 million cost that there has been to the taxpayer.

[Lyn Brown]

I am really sorry that the hon. Gentleman continues to plough that path. As I have said, the second part of this inquiry was quite clearly in the mind of his Prime Minister when he made statements to this House. If we cannot accept the words of his Prime Minister—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Lyn Brown]

Oh, really.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his concern on record.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is promoting me. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister to the sovereign, not to me.

[Lyn Brown]

I have heard some specious arguments in this place.

I hope that the Lords amendment is acceptable to Government Members and the Minister. It is explicit that the inquiry should not begin until the Attorney General determines that it would not be prejudicial to any ongoing relevant criminal investigations or court cases. To oppose the amendment is therefore tantamount to admitting that the Government are no longer committed to an investigation into corruption between news organisations and the police, and that they are not prepared to investigate how allegations of corruption are dealt with. If the Government block Lords amendment 24 today, the public really can have no option but to draw the conclusion that this Government have no commitment to asking the important and hard questions of our national institutions.

I now turn to Lords amendment 96, with consequential amendment 302, which was proposed in the other place by Lord Rosser. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the principle of parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests involving the police. Many hon. Members have championed this cause, including during the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to the tireless campaigning and personal commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Unequal funding at inquests and the injustice associated with that was highlighted by the sorry saga of the Hillsborough hearings. The scales of justice were weighted against the families of those who had lost their lives. Public money was used not to discover the truth, but instead to defend an untenable narrative perpetuated by South Yorkshire police. The coroner dealing with the first pre-inquest hearings into the 21 victims of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings backed and commended applications for their bereaved families to get legal funding for proper representation, but did not have the power to authorise the funds.

Fees in major cases have attracted considerable public interest, but inquests at which the police are legally represented are not confined to major tragedies such as Hillsborough; far more common are inquests into the deaths of individuals who are little known. Many bereaved families can find themselves in an adversarial and aggressive environment when they go to an inquest. Many are not in a position to match the spending of the police or other parts of the public sector for their own legal representation. In fact, bereaved families have to try, if at all possible, to find their own money to have any sort of legal representation. Opposition Members believe that the overwhelming public interest lies in these inquiries discovering the truth. It follows that public money should be there to establish the truth, not just to protect public institutions, and that must mean equal funding.

In the other place, the Government accepted that many would sympathise with the intention of the amendment. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister commissioned the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, to compile a report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. We are encouraged to wait for his report before considering the issues further, yet we already know that a system of unequal funding at inquests is wrong. Public funds are used to deny justice and hide the truth. The Government need to act now to change a process that appears to be geared more towards trying to grind down bereaved families than enabling them to get at the truth. The Government really should accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Wiggin]

I will not delay the House for long. I want to heap praise on the Secretary of State for not giving in to the pressure of the media moguls, and, although we are putting a consultation out, we are determined that no grass shall grow. I want her to be very clear that we truly appreciate what she has done.

Colleagues who are unhappy about amendment 24 ought to pay more attention to the brilliance of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who has put together a fantastic plan for dealing with this thorny issue. If they gave it their full attention, they would, like me, want to see section 40 implemented.

The Press Recognition Panel is completely independent, and given amendment 24 and the concerns being shown by their lordships—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bill Wiggin]

I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am so sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the Press Recognition Panel is not independent; it is the creation, under a royal charter, ultimately of the Crown and therefore of the state.

[Bill Wiggin]

It is still independent because it does not choose who and what is the regulator; it determines only that the regulator is independent. It is perfectly acceptable. I know my hon. Friend is very keen to defend the press, but this whole instrument does exactly that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) emphasised the point that the local press in particular would be very vulnerable if it was not regulated—[Interruption.] Yes, it would. The regulator will protect it from having to pay the costs. This is why colleagues should really study what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has put together. It is much, much better than they might originally have thought.

EU Asylum Reform Package

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

Merry Christmas everyone.

Before we begin, I will not so briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the decision to refer the documents. The Minister may then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes, and questions to the Minister will follow. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the paper. Debate takes place on the motion, and we must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm.

Before calling a member of the European Scrutiny Committee to introduce the debate on the Government’s opt-in decisions on the European Union asylum reform package, I must inform the Committee that, contrary to the usual and expected order of proceedings, the motion before us this afternoon was put to the House and agreed last Tuesday, in advance of its debate in Committee. I am confident that the Minister will listen carefully to what is said today and that, if there are strong feelings, the House will have an opportunity to reconsider its resolution on the matter in the light of today’s proceedings. The Government will take steps to facilitate that.

Members of the Committee may also like to note that the documents referred to in the motion will remain under scrutiny by the European Scrutiny Committee after the debate has taken place and until cleared by the Committee.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. There is no point to the Committee. Its point is to debate the issues and to refer them to the House. The House has already decided, and as this Committee is merely the servant of the House, it has nothing to debate. We should not be here, but be going off for our Christmas holidays.

[The Chair]

As attracted as I am to the latter suggestion, I am sure that the Minister will clarify the Government’s intentions as to the purpose of the Committee sitting. As I said in my lengthy preamble, in the light of today’s proceedings, should the Minister wish to reconsider the resolution passed last week—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. This is not a matter for the Government to say kindly how they will listen to the House; this is a matter of the House’s Standing Orders, which the Government are obliged to follow. It is not for the Government to play ducks and drakes with the proceedings of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The usual channels are particularly in the frame for this one—although it was not spotted by those who otherwise spot these things.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, even if that pleasure is slightly tempered by the fact that the debate may well serve no purpose. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister one question: can one draw any understanding of the Government’s negotiating position on Brexit from decisions on opt-ins—or not opting in? As those negotiations proceed, is this something that we will see guiding our policy in the areas in which we may seek further commonality with the European Union?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Although I am reluctant to disagree with him on the Committee’s not serving a purpose, I have to say that what is said here could cause the Government to opt into the measure at a later date. However, I rather suspect that the debate will stiffen my view that we have made the right decision.

My hon. Friend tempts me into the area of Brexit negotiations. I suspect you might pull me up were I persuaded to go into that area, Mr Evans. All these matters are under consideration. As I said in my opening remarks, we feel that they are best determined at a national level, which is even more important as we approach the era in which we are no longer members of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I repeat my apology, but I would certainly be interested to learn, perhaps from a supplementary question from the Scottish National party, whether it believes that we should have opted into any of the four measures.

We in this House have the power to pass legislation, so even if we do not opt into measures, we can take our own approach to some of them. Indeed, looking at our successful roll-out of the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme and the other schemes in the area, as well as our long-standing gateway and mandate scheme, I believe that we are stepping up to the mark with our responsibilities. EU legislation would not add anything in that regard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the Minister for his apology. I think he has made the right decision, albeit in the wrong way. I note that the Government are doing considerably better than the last Government, and very considerably better than the coalition Government, in bringing forward debates in European Committees, though I think one debate is still outstanding from a recommendation in January 2013. Although that is not satisfactory, the situation is not as bad as it has been.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend will know that the treaty of Lisbon says a lot about giving national Parliaments more power and more say over these things. It is yet to be made apparent how that will be rolled out across the European Union. In the meantime, this Parliament remains sovereign in the UK, and after Brexit we will have even more sovereignty to exercise on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

We are taking refugees from the region under the two schemes that we have put in place, as well as the long-standing scheme. That does not contribute to the pull factor that results in people traffickers carrying out their business, and indeed, sadly, in fatalities and people meeting a watery grave in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The policy followed by some of our European allies has been absolutely disastrous. The British Government are the one Government who have got it right: they are helping in the region, rather than encouraging people to take extraordinarily dangerous journeys. The Government really deserve to be supported in that.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend, as so often, is absolutely right. Let us not forget that the UK remains one of the largest member state contributors to Greece’s efforts to implement the EU-Turkey agreement. We offered 75 personnel initially and a further 40 this month. The UK has deployed a Border Force search-and-rescue cutter to the Aegean and contributed assets to the NATO mission, including the HMS Mersey, an offshore patrol vessel. We contributed £2 million to the assisted voluntary return project through the International Organisation for Migration office in Greece from January 2014 to 2016. The UK has allocated up to £34 million to the humanitarian response in Greece, including £8 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, £11.5 million to the Start non-governmental organisations, more than £1 million to the IOM, and more than £1.8 million of essential supplies, including more than 3,100 tents for more than 15,600 people, 60,000 blankets, 8,000 sleeping bags, 8,000 sleeping mats, and other basic items. I do not call that not standing up for people in need. We have contributed vessels and resources to Italy to support efforts in the central Mediterranean, including a chartered Border Force vessel as part of Frontex’s Operation Triton, and one officer in the Rome maritime rescue co-ordination centre. The UK has also directly supported the German Government with returns.

The Government recognise that there are problems with elements of CEAS, as has been highlighted by the migration crisis. It is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. However, that does not mean that the Government agree with all the Commission’s suggested policy options, or indeed that they are in the UK’s national interest.

I recognise that there are positive elements in these proposals, but not opting in means that we can retain the flexibility and sovereignty of the UK system and provides the UK with greater scope to continue tackling abuse of that system. The SNP raised the point that the new asylum procedure regulation would provide applicants with a right to a personal interview during the asylum process. That conflicts with current UK practice, which provides for an interview to be omitted when an application is made merely to frustrate a removal decision.

Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does not that fundamentally undermine the bedrock of our justice system—that somebody is innocent until proved guilty?

[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.