There were clashes at the Bloody Sunday tribunal in London yesterday when Sir Edward Heath condemned as "obscene" the suggestion that he was more interested in Europe than in murders in Northern Ireland.
Mr Michael Lavery QC, representing many of the families of the 13 men who were shot dead by paratroopers in Derry, questioned the former Tory prime minister about his statement, in which he had said that his principal preoccupation in January 1972 was Britain's entry to the Common Market.
Mr Lavery put it to Sir Edward that his statement implied that security meetings could take the form: "Only seven people killed this week, let us get on to the next item on the agenda." A furious Sir Edward responded: "No, that is putting the whole thing in an obscene way. That bears no relation to what we did and reasons we did it, and I strongly object to your offensive language and attitude."
Sir Edward insisted that he had "two splendid ministers" - defence secretary Lord Carrington and home secretary Reginald Maudling - dealing very competently with Northern Ireland and referring only really important matters to him. Mr Lavery replied: "You don't think there is anything inappropriate in the prime minister in the United Kingdom delegating the most important matters of life and death in Northern Ireland?"
Sir Edward agreed with Mr Lavery that Catholics in Northern Ireland had been discriminated against by the Stormont government for 50 years. He insisted that his government had attempted to change that situation, saying: "I was delighted when, under my government, in November 1973 we had the first all-party government in Northern Ireland."
Sir Edward rejected allegations that he had tried to influence Lord Widgery's 1972 public inquiry. He had told Lord Widgery, then lord chief justice, that Britain was "fighting not only a military war but a propaganda war" in Northern Ireland. To counteract the likely bad feeling the British army would provoke, he had suggested that the soldiers should give evidence first. In a memo to a private secretary, Sir Edward suggested this was something the army's legal team could consider and propose to the inquiry.
Mr Christopher Clarke QC, counsel for the Saville inquiry, asked Sir Edward: "Did it ever cross your mind that it might be inappropriate for you to seek to influence the method of procedure of an independent judicial inquiry?" Sir Edward replied: "When there is an inquiry, anyone can put their points to them."
Mr Clarke asked if Sir Edward, as the prime minister, had tried to warn Lord Widgery that anything he said could be "interpreted as critical of the army" and could be "seized" upon and used as propaganda. Sir Edward replied: "No, not at all, because the lord chief justice's independence and strengths were so great and recognised. That is why we were pleased at having him do the inquiry."
The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow. Sir Edward is expected to be in the witness-box for at least two more weeks.