Demands for an independent inquiry to review seven allegations of child sex abuse against the late Sir Edward Heath have been levelled at the Government after the former police chief who led the investigation was found guilty of gross misconduct.

Mike Veale was indefinitely barred from serving in July after a disciplinary panel found him to have made unwanted sexual remarks to a colleague during his time as head of Cleveland Police in 2018.

The disgraced former chief constable, who resigned in 2019, previously led a controversial inquiry into historical sex abuse claims against the former prime minister when he was in charge of Wiltshire Police.

The investigation, named Operation Conifer, was not able to conclusively resolve the allegations against Sir Edward, who died in 2005.

Its closing statement said that Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive, but that guilt should not be inferred from this.

The Government has rejected calls to establish an independent inquiry, arguing that it is for the local police and crime commissioner to decide whether one should be set up.

However, Home Office minister Lord Sharpe told peers he agreed that the allegations were “patent rubbish”.

SEE ALSO: Closure of popular country road shortcut to continue into next week

Lord Lexden, the official historian of the Conservative Party, argued that Mr Veale’s guilty verdict means it is “imperative” to carry out a review into allegations which the former police chief “failed to clear up, after a long investigation, in which one of his officers contemptuously publicised on television in front of Ted Heath’s house in Salisbury”.

He added: “Must there not be a strong suspicion that Veale left these allegations, neither proved nor disproved, to save face after failing to find a single shred of evidence to support any of these accusations, despite getting his officers to rifle through all Heath’s private papers, box after box in the Bodleian Library, during an operation that cost over a million pounds paid for by the Home Office?

“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?”

Former Labour justice minister Lord Bach said that peers on all sides of the House believe it is “vital” to have a review of the “shockingly unresolved allegations against Sir Edward Heath”.

Salisbury Journal: 1992 photo of Edward Heath standing outside his home Arundells in Salisbury.1992 photo of Edward Heath standing outside his home Arundells in Salisbury. (Image: Newsquest)

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Randerson added that the issue “needs to bring closure to both the alleged victims and to the family of Sir Edward Heath”, calling it a “damaging situation”.

Former Tory cabinet minister Lord Howell branded the outstanding allegations a “stain on British justice”, accusing the Government of allowing “foul-mouthed accusations from a totally unreliable source” to “drift in the wind with no attempt to tidy it up and bring closure”.

Former Tory minister Viscount Hailsham said: “Many of us simply don’t comprehend how a relatively senior police officer could have given credence to allegations with such patent rubbish.”

Lord Sharpe responded: “With hindsight, of course we can call them patent rubbish, but at the time I think all of these allegations had to be investigated, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”

He added: “It is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect to all the allegations against Sir Edward.

“I obviously recognised the desire of the House to find a solution, but the investigation has already been subject to considerable external scrutiny and the Government does not see the grounds for intervention from Government; and the fact that it involves a former prime minister does not of itself warrant Government intervention.”

The minister said that “we all regret” that the situation arose in the first place, but that the investigation has been scrutinised by an independent review, which found it to be “reasonable and proportionate”.

He concluded: “The Government is of the opinion that the original investigation has been scrutinised to a very high degree and that no further Government action is therefore necessary.”

Regarding the inquiry into Mr Veale’s conduct, he said: “It perhaps took too long, but it was appropriately investigated along the way,” adding that the public “should have faith” in the system, given that he has now been held to account.