“grounds to justify review or intervention by Government”.—[
He set out that view in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on
Do the Government realise that they are defying the wishes of this House? Not one point has been made in their support during the long series of Questions that have been asked about the injustice done to Sir Edward Heath. Do the Government realise that Prime Ministers occupy a prominent position in history and it is their obligation to help establish the truth about the unsubstantiated allegations that have stained a deceased Prime Minister’s reputation, particularly since they subsidised the now discredited Operation Confiner with more than £1 million of taxpayers’ money? Finally, do the Government realise that we the living have a duty to this deceased Prime Minister that must not be shirked? We must have an independent inquiry.
My Lords, I of all people cannot be in any doubt as to the feelings of this House on this matter. I agree that former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath occupied a prominent position in public life, but I think I have outlined on several occasions why the Government do not feel that they should be the body responsible for carrying out a review. Any review or inquiry, should one be carried out, should be the decision of the PCC.
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the Answer of
“The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost”.
Does she agree that it is precisely that sort of information that an independent inquiry would find very pertinent in considering the motivation of the complainants?
The noble Lord is right that an inquiry may well look into such a matter but, as I have just outlined, an inquiry is a matter for the police and crime commissioner.
My Lords, I understand that the review of Operation Midland cost approximately £200,000. That was a review of Nick’s accusations against Sir Edward Heath and others. What does the Civil Service or others estimate it would cost to review Operation Conifer? If Ministers are not able to give us that figure today—I suspect it is available within the department—can we be assured that we will be given it in a Written Answer?
It would be hard for me to give the cost of a review of Operation Conifer, given that a review has not been commissioned.
My Lords, several weeks ago I offered to the Minister a contact who has a great deal of information which would entirely refute every one of these seven allegations. Has she made contact with that person?
My Lords, I am still looking forward to hearing from the noble Countess. If she has sent me an email I have not received it. Perhaps we can catch up on this after this Question.
My Lords, it is not only a question of the opinion of this House—although that is, I hope, valuable and respected; it is also a question of continuity and the web of history. If we allow the slandering of the dead on an unsubstantiated basis to be thrown around and damage our reputation as a nation and how we have been governed, is that not a matter where the Government should use their best offices to put it right? They cannot stand aside on this matter. There must be action.
In terms of slandering the dead, I am not sure that, legally, the dead can be slandered. However, I am not taking away from the strength of feeling that both my noble friend and the House express in this matter. As I say, there is a route open for an inquiry. There have been several levels of scrutiny of Operation Conifer, and I really can say no more about it.
My Lords, an American political scientist once said that the curse of public life in this country is the curse of secrecy. Is this not a classic example of it? The Government are, in effect, colluding with the police and refusing to divulge evidence. The real victims—if you think about it—are the police, whose spokesman so far has been a tittle-tattling chief constable and not someone who is capable of giving a rational and legal view of this grave and dishonourable situation.