K Harvey Proctor was MP for Basildon from 1979 to 1983 and for Billericay from 1983 to 1987.
There is a striking irony in the American technology giant Palantir warning Members of Parliament about amplifying falsehoods while employing Tom Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, in a senior position.
Palantir has reportedly sent letters to MPs who have criticised the company in Parliament. Some recipients have described the correspondence as “intimidating”.
The company’s response was emphatic: “When politicians – sometimes inadvertently – amplify these falsehoods, they risk misleading the public.”
I agree.
But before Palantir lectures parliamentarians about the dangers of spreading unsubstantiated allegations, perhaps it should examine the parliamentary record of its own UK Senior Vice President.
For I know, from bitter personal experience, what happens when a politician gives credibility to false accusations.
In October 2012, Tom Watson used parliamentary privilege during Prime Minister’s Questions to allege the existence of a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and Downing Street.
His intervention helped propel allegations of establishment child abuse into the national spotlight. He subsequently became a prominent figure in the controversy surrounding claims of a supposed Westminster VIP paedophile ring.
Among those making such claims was Carl Beech, the liar whose false allegations of rape, torture and murder of children involving prominent public figures were eventually exposed as fabrications.
Beech – who counted Watson as a supporter – was convicted of perverting the course of justice and fraud and sentenced to 18 years in prison.
His allegations contributed to the disastrous Metropolitan Police investigation known as Operation Midland, which cost more than £2.5 million and subjected innocent distinguished public servants to extraordinary public suspicion.
I was one of those men.
Others included former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, a distinguished D-Day veteran, and the former Home Secretary Lord Leon Brittan, who died before his name was cleared.
The consequences were devastating. Reputations built over lifetimes were placed in jeopardy, homes were searched, and families endured public humiliation.
Watson’s involvement attracted substantial criticism, including scrutiny of his interventions in police investigations and his public promotion of allegations that ultimately proved false.
Another chapter should not be forgotten.
In 2020, Jeremy Corbyn nominated Watson for a peerage in his dissolution honours list. His nomination was blocked following scrutiny by the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, amid reported concerns about his conduct in relation to the false VIP abuse allegations.
The Commission did not make its individual deliberations public, but the controversy surrounding Operation Midland and Watson’s role in it was widely reported as central to the objections.
At the time, I vehemently opposed his elevation and campaigned against it.
Yet just two years later, Sir Keir Starmer nominated Watson again, and he entered the House of Lords as Baron Watson of Wyre Forest.
In his maiden speech in December 2022, he apologised to Lady Brittan and her family, but to no one else.
He has never apologised directly to me.
For someone who endured the consequences of those allegations, that matters.
My objections to Watson are entirely apolitical. I have not been heavily involved in active politics for more than 30 years, and this is not an old Labour-Conservative quarrel.
I believe he misused parliamentary privilege to give prominence to false allegations. I believe his interventions in connection with active police investigations, including Operations Vincente and Midland, raised serious questions about the proper boundaries of parliamentary involvement.
Whether his pursuit of allegations involving Conservative MPs and peers was politically motivated is for others to decide.
For me, the issue is accountability.
Parliamentary privilege is sacrosanct. Our elected representatives must be free to question powerful organisations, challenge government decisions and speak on behalf of their constituents without fear of legal intimidation.
But that privilege comes with an equally important responsibility.
It must never be treated as a licence to publicise untested accusations or interfere improperly in criminal investigations.
Lady Brittan, a magistrate for 26 years, expressed the principle with painful clarity:
“It was extremely painful to witness Leon’s good name dragged into the public domain & I feel using parliamentary privilege to publicise opinions that are not based on fact is a serious abuse of public office”.
Her words deserve to be remembered.
And that brings us back to Palantir.
The company is entitled to defend its reputation and correct factual inaccuracies.
But a business that publicly warns about politicians amplifying falsehoods should expect scrutiny of its decision to employ a former parliamentarian whose own conduct in promoting false allegations drew serious criticism.
Watson’s appointment also comes at a sensitive time for Palantir.
Its £330 million NHS contract and Ministry of Defence work are under scrutiny as Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government reportedly searches for British alternatives to the American technology company.
Meanwhile, Palantir has dropped its legal dispute with Sadiq Khan over a proposed £50 million Metropolitan Police contract, just a month after Watson joined the company as a lobbyist.
That timing does not establish any improper influence. Even so, it underlines the importance of transparency when former senior politicians take influential positions with businesses seeking substantial public contracts.
I also question a culture in which serious criticism of conduct in public office seems to pose little obstacle to later advancement.
Watson’s first peerage nomination was blocked amid controversy over his record. He nevertheless secured a seat in the House of Lords and then obtained an influential corporate appointment.
What does that say about the consequences of failure in public life?
I am not suggesting former politicians should be denied employment. Nor should Palantir be held responsible for Watson’s actions before he joined the company.
But the judgment and record of those appointed to represent powerful commercial interests are legitimate matters of public interest.
MPs must be free to scrutinise Palantir’s contracts, question its practices and examine the influence of its lobbyists. They must also exercise that freedom responsibly, with proper regard for evidence and others’ reputations.
One MP has reportedly suggested that Palantir’s senior leadership should appear before Parliament to answer questions in person. Open parliamentary scrutiny would allow it to address contested claims directly.
There is a fundamental distinction between correcting an inaccurate statement and discouraging elected representatives from asking legitimate questions.
Palantir says politicians must avoid amplifying falsehoods.
On that point, the company and I completely agree.
Palantir is entitled to defend its good name. So were Lord Brittan, Lord Bramall and I.
If the company wishes to lecture Parliament about public speech, it should first reflect on the record of the former parliamentarian it has chosen to employ.
K Harvey Proctor was MP for Basildon from 1979 to 1983 and for Billericay from 1983 to 1987.
There is a striking irony in the American technology giant Palantir warning Members of Parliament about amplifying falsehoods while employing Tom Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, in a senior position.
Palantir has reportedly sent letters to MPs who have criticised the company in Parliament. Some recipients have described the correspondence as “intimidating”.
The company’s response was emphatic: “When politicians – sometimes inadvertently – amplify these falsehoods, they risk misleading the public.”
I agree.
But before Palantir lectures parliamentarians about the dangers of spreading unsubstantiated allegations, perhaps it should examine the parliamentary record of its own UK Senior Vice President.
For I know, from bitter personal experience, what happens when a politician gives credibility to false accusations.
In October 2012, Tom Watson used parliamentary privilege during Prime Minister’s Questions to allege the existence of a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and Downing Street.
His intervention helped propel allegations of establishment child abuse into the national spotlight. He subsequently became a prominent figure in the controversy surrounding claims of a supposed Westminster VIP paedophile ring.
Among those making such claims was Carl Beech, the liar whose false allegations of rape, torture and murder of children involving prominent public figures were eventually exposed as fabrications.
Beech – who counted Watson as a supporter – was convicted of perverting the course of justice and fraud and sentenced to 18 years in prison.
His allegations contributed to the disastrous Metropolitan Police investigation known as Operation Midland, which cost more than £2.5 million and subjected innocent distinguished public servants to extraordinary public suspicion.
I was one of those men.
Others included former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, a distinguished D-Day veteran, and the former Home Secretary Lord Leon Brittan, who died before his name was cleared.
The consequences were devastating. Reputations built over lifetimes were placed in jeopardy, homes were searched, and families endured public humiliation.
Watson’s involvement attracted substantial criticism, including scrutiny of his interventions in police investigations and his public promotion of allegations that ultimately proved false.
Another chapter should not be forgotten.
In 2020, Jeremy Corbyn nominated Watson for a peerage in his dissolution honours list. His nomination was blocked following scrutiny by the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, amid reported concerns about his conduct in relation to the false VIP abuse allegations.
The Commission did not make its individual deliberations public, but the controversy surrounding Operation Midland and Watson’s role in it was widely reported as central to the objections.
At the time, I vehemently opposed his elevation and campaigned against it.
Yet just two years later, Sir Keir Starmer nominated Watson again, and he entered the House of Lords as Baron Watson of Wyre Forest.
In his maiden speech in December 2022, he apologised to Lady Brittan and her family, but to no one else.
He has never apologised directly to me.
For someone who endured the consequences of those allegations, that matters.
My objections to Watson are entirely apolitical. I have not been heavily involved in active politics for more than 30 years, and this is not an old Labour-Conservative quarrel.
I believe he misused parliamentary privilege to give prominence to false allegations. I believe his interventions in connection with active police investigations, including Operations Vincente and Midland, raised serious questions about the proper boundaries of parliamentary involvement.
Whether his pursuit of allegations involving Conservative MPs and peers was politically motivated is for others to decide.
For me, the issue is accountability.
Parliamentary privilege is sacrosanct. Our elected representatives must be free to question powerful organisations, challenge government decisions and speak on behalf of their constituents without fear of legal intimidation.
But that privilege comes with an equally important responsibility.
It must never be treated as a licence to publicise untested accusations or interfere improperly in criminal investigations.
Lady Brittan, a magistrate for 26 years, expressed the principle with painful clarity:
“It was extremely painful to witness Leon’s good name dragged into the public domain & I feel using parliamentary privilege to publicise opinions that are not based on fact is a serious abuse of public office”.
Her words deserve to be remembered.
And that brings us back to Palantir.
The company is entitled to defend its reputation and correct factual inaccuracies.
But a business that publicly warns about politicians amplifying falsehoods should expect scrutiny of its decision to employ a former parliamentarian whose own conduct in promoting false allegations drew serious criticism.
Watson’s appointment also comes at a sensitive time for Palantir.
Its £330 million NHS contract and Ministry of Defence work are under scrutiny as Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government reportedly searches for British alternatives to the American technology company.
Meanwhile, Palantir has dropped its legal dispute with Sadiq Khan over a proposed £50 million Metropolitan Police contract, just a month after Watson joined the company as a lobbyist.
That timing does not establish any improper influence. Even so, it underlines the importance of transparency when former senior politicians take influential positions with businesses seeking substantial public contracts.
I also question a culture in which serious criticism of conduct in public office seems to pose little obstacle to later advancement.
Watson’s first peerage nomination was blocked amid controversy over his record. He nevertheless secured a seat in the House of Lords and then obtained an influential corporate appointment.
What does that say about the consequences of failure in public life?
I am not suggesting former politicians should be denied employment. Nor should Palantir be held responsible for Watson’s actions before he joined the company.
But the judgment and record of those appointed to represent powerful commercial interests are legitimate matters of public interest.
MPs must be free to scrutinise Palantir’s contracts, question its practices and examine the influence of its lobbyists. They must also exercise that freedom responsibly, with proper regard for evidence and others’ reputations.
One MP has reportedly suggested that Palantir’s senior leadership should appear before Parliament to answer questions in person. Open parliamentary scrutiny would allow it to address contested claims directly.
There is a fundamental distinction between correcting an inaccurate statement and discouraging elected representatives from asking legitimate questions.
Palantir says politicians must avoid amplifying falsehoods.
On that point, the company and I completely agree.
Palantir is entitled to defend its good name. So were Lord Brittan, Lord Bramall and I.
If the company wishes to lecture Parliament about public speech, it should first reflect on the record of the former parliamentarian it has chosen to employ.