MR JOHN MAJOR'S government remained under pressure last night after a series of blistering criticisms in the long awaited Scott Report into the "Arms for Iraq" affair. While exonerating ministers on the key charges at the heart of the three-year inquiry, Sir Richard launched a wounding attack on Whitehall's culture of secrecy.
A recurring theme in the report is Sir Richard's complaint at the "consistent undervaluing by Government of the public interest that full information should be made available to parliament".
The five volume report cleared the government on the allegations repeatedly made throughout the controversy of sending arms to Saddam Hussein of conspiracy to send innocent men to prison in the Matrix Churchill case and of deliberately misleading MPs about the operation of Britain's policy on defence sales following the Iran/Iraq war.
But the report found that three ministers Mr William Waldegrave, Mr Alan Clark and Lord Trefgarne had changed the government's guidelines in 1988 in a policy "tilt" favouring Iraq. According to Sir Richard
. this amounted to a substantive change in policy, and not a re interpretation of it, as Mr Waldegrave (then a Foreign Office minister, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury) had claimed
. the ministers had "deliberately" failed to inform parliament for fear of outraged public reaction
. the failure to reveal the relaxation of the restrictions on exports had "precluded a public debate on this important issue taking place on an informed basis".
However, Mr Waldegrave was last night staking his continued place in the government on Sir Richard's conclusion that he had not acted with "duplicitous intention" when subsequently misleading MPs and members of the public
The report exonerates cabinet ministers who signed Public Interest Immunity Certificates (PIIs), on the advice of government lawyers, in respect of documents crucial to the defence in the Matrix Churchill case. But Sir Richard's report was sharply critical of the Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell's, handling of this controversial issue while clearing him of wrong doing.
The report says the preparation and signing of the certificates the so called "gagging orders" suffered from a number of "defects". And Sir Nicholas is expressly criticised for failing to inform the prosecution of Mr Michael Heseltine's reluctance to sign the PII certificate. On this issue, Sir Richard said he "cannot accept that Sir Nicholas was not personally at fault".
With hindsight, Sir Richard says the Matrix Churchill case clearly should not have gone ahead. But he makes plain that ministers had no intention of sending innocent men to jail, and had acted on the basis that the decision in the matter of the documents requested was for the trial judge to determine.
Referring to the charge frequently and repeatedly made in the media, that ministers were seeking to deprive defendants in that criminal trial of the means to clear themselves, Sir Richard says there is no case to answer "The charges to which I have referred are not, in my opinion, well founded."
Downing Street immediately made it clear that Mr Waldegrave and Sir Nicholas retained the Prime Minister's confidence and would not be resigning from the government.
During angry exchanges in the House of Commons, the President of the Board of Trade, Mr, Ian Lang, claimed the key conclusions of the report as vindication of the government. And he attempted to turn the heat on Labour, declaring "There was no conspiracy. There was no cover up. Such charges were reckless and malicious and should never have been made."
However, Labour's Mr Robin Cook said "I have spent the last three hours studying the report, and I have to tell the House that I do not recognise the report I have just read in the statement (from Mr Lang) we have just heard."
Mr Cook said the report fully vindicated Labour's central charge that ministers had changed policy and consistently failed to disclose the fact to MPs.
He challenged the government to "dismiss those ministers who, in the opinion of Sir Richard Scott, failed to discharge the obligation of ministerial responsibility to this House. Will he take those steps which are now essential if they (the government) are to be trusted in office?