Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Heseltine feared Iraq cover-up

David Connett
Monday 28 February 1994 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

MICHAEL HESELTINE refused to sign a 'gagging order' witholding Whitehall documents vital to the Matrix Churchill defendants because he did not want to appear to be part of a government cover-up, the Scott inquiry was told yesterday.

The President of the Board of Trade believed the case for releasing the documents was 'overwhelming'. He agreed to sign a Public Interest Immunity certificate (PII) only after 'significant amendments' and Sir Nicholas Lyell, the Attorney General, had told him he had a duty to sign and could not refuse.

Mr Heseltine also received assurances that his concerns would be relayed to the trial judge. Sir Nicholas told him the unusual drafting of his certificate would alert the judge and jury and that the point could be reinforced orally, if necessary, by counsel for the prosecution. He later learnt the trial judge was not informed.

After the trial collapsed he found it 'incredible' when the Attorney General, contrary to previous advice, said ministers did not have a duty to claim PII in every case where documents were sought.

Last night, Sir Nicholas sought to pre- empt any attempt to make him a scapegoat. A statement from his office said: 'The Attorney General's advice on PIIs has remained consistent. The fact that it is for the court to determine the balance of the overall public interest was pointed out in Mr Heseltine's PII certificate.' The PII shown to the judge was 'expressly amended' after consultation with Sir Nicholas and counsel for the prosecution.

Mr Heseltine told of his growing unease when first asked to sign a PII. He thought it odd the defendants were not being prosecuted for exporting equipment contrary to government restrictions but because they had lied about it. He learnt the Government failed to revoke export licences despite knowing equipment was destined for Iraqi munition factories, and had granted new licences. There were also close links between the security services and Matrix Churchill.

Mr Heseltine felt he was being asked to prevent such information being used legitimately by the defence.

Concerned at not being given sufficient time to consider the implications, he called senior officials to an emergency meeting. There he refused to sign the PII, which stated the documents' disclosure would be 'injurious to the public interest'. One concern was if the PII was overruled by the judge, making it look as if he had been part of a cover-up. 'As far as I was concerned, I had read enough to satisfy myself these documents were relevant and should not be withheld.'

Quoting Winston Churchill, he told officials: 'Up with this I will not put.'

He discussed his refusal with the Attorney General, who told him he had a duty to sign to protect a class of government documents. He said he supported the principle of protecting officials' advice to ministers, but insisted his PII be altered to 'flag up' his worries to the judge.

After the trial collapsed he urged John Major not to answer any more parliamentary questions. He warned that ministers were on 'shifting sands' and matters should be left to the Scott inquiry which it had just announced.

The inquiry resumes tomorrow.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in