................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 18.2.96
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The Opposition is still
demanding that Ministers resign over the Scott Report - and some Tories are
beginning to join the chorus. The Government says it's the Opposition at FAULT
- and the PUBLIC'S left wondering whether anyone in public life ever takes
responsibility for their actions any longer. I'll be putting that to Michael
Heseltine after the News read by MOIRA STUART.
NEWS
But first the fallout from the Scott
Report. There's been much talking about the detailed content of the report.
But the underlying debate has become a much broader one and seems to have
centred on the question of political accountability. Why, many people want to
know, do politicians seem so reluctant to accept responsibility for what they
do?
The Deputy Prime Minister Michael
Heseltine is on the line - good morning to you.
MICHAEL HESELTINE MP: Good morning to you.
HUMPHRYS: Many people who have listened to how the
Government has responded to the Scott have been left with the impression that
you think the Report gave you as a government a clean bill of health and that's
simply not true, is it?
HESELTINE: Well, that's what a lot of people are
trying to proove. But if you take the issues which persuaded the Prime
Minister to set up this independent, searching inquiry - no holds barred, all
questions asked and answered in public. If you remember the allegations that
persuaded him to do it, the Government has come out of it extremely well. What
were the allegations? That we armed Saddam Hussein - we did not. That we
tried to cover up the truth by denying justice to people facing a criminal
charge - we did not. And what is so distressing is that the media and Robin
Cook in the Labour Party, which for years prejudged the Scott Report, told
constant lies, repeated those lies, commented upon the facts as though they
were facts, when they were lies, has not done anything to right the grave
injustice that has been done to the Government as a result of this process.
I happen to be one of the Ministers who
has been villified by Labour's spokesmen, by media commentators, time and time
again. Not a column inch on the scale of the villification has been devoted to
saying they got it wrong and they're sorry. Tiny paragraphs, asides and why?
Because the Labour Party's trying to move the agenda on.
The fact of the matter is: Robin Cook
persistently told lies about the Government's position - persistently - and
he's the one who should be today in the media dock. He's the one that should
resign. The Government it has been shown in the context of the Iran/Iraq war
behaved better probably than any other government of our sort.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. What you say about Mr Cook may
or may not be true. We're not here to discuss Mr Cook, at the moment. We're
here to consider the Scott Report and its findings. It was Mr Major who set up
the inquiry and the two broad issues that he wanted to address were whether the
guidelines on exporting arms to Iraq had been changed and whether Public
Interest Immunity Certificates had been used improperly. Now, on both of
those-
HESELTINE: You have redefined-
HUMPHRYS: Well, let me just finish.
HESELTINE: You have now redefined to narrow the
issue - what it was all about. The issue - and you say we're not here to
discuss Mr Cook but Mr Cook is critical in this issue. This is what Mr Cook
said in 1992. First, they armed Saddam; secondly, when he used those arms
against a British ally, they covered up the fact that they had provided the
arms and then, thirdly, as the cover up unravelled, rather than own up, they
were willing to see the three executives of Matrix Churchill go to prison.
Now, all of those are lies. That is the background to which the Scott Inquiry
was set up to examine and you should never let the Labour Party move the agenda
onto other issues.
HUMPHRYS: You say other issues. You're surely not
disputing that the two issues that I have just raised were looked into by the
Scott Inquiry at the behest of the Prime Minister. That was part of his remit.
Some would say that was his entire remit but nonetheless it was certainly a
part of his remit, was it not?
HESELTINE: OK. Let us take, therefore, the issue
of the PIIs.
HUMPHRYS: No.
HESELTINE: Now, if suggested- Well, no, that was
about people being sent to prison. I mean, you mentioned the fact that there
was a coverup as one of the issues. The PIIs were the instrument of the
coverup. The fact is that I was one of the ministers so accused, along
with my colleagues and the Scott Inquiry made it quite clear that the charges
against us were unfounded. So what about an apology?
HUMPHRYS: The Scott Inquiry....
HESELTINE: What about the press now admitting that
ministers behaved properly.
HUMPHRYS: The Scott Inquiry was set up to
establish whether those PIIs were used improperly. Sir Richard Scott found
that they had been used improperly.
HESELTINE: Well, that is a very interesting, legal
opinion, which conflicts with other opinions from eminent lawyers and Nicholas
Lyell, who advised me and other colleagues, actually was proved right, in the
circumstances. What he said was, to me and to my other colleagues: sign this
certificate because there are certain things you have to protect. You have to
protect security information, you have to protect advice to ministers. In the
sense that you say to the Judge: you exercise, Judge, a decision as to whether
it is right in the public interest to disclose the information in these
documents or whether the documents themselves do not need to be disclosed
because justice will be done without it.
The Judge - and this is the point the
press don't talk about - the Judge looked at the certificates, looked at the
documents and disclosed much of the documents to the trial proceedings. He
was...two of the Defence Counsel said he had done the right thing - two of the
Defence Counsel. So, Nick Lyell was proved right.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. That is your view. So,
therefore, you reject the Scott Inquiry's findings on that particular issue.
That is to say that those certificates were used improperly. You reject that
part of the findings.
HESELTINE: I certainly reject the idea that they
were used improperly and certainly the trial proceeded; the Judge having
released the documents as Nick Lyell said he had the discretion to do and
the precedents are quite clear. And, what is interesting today - if I may -
because there is an interesting question here what has now happened is that
Robin Cook carried away to try and get this story greater height in the media-
HUMPHRYS: Yes. You see, you want to talk about
Robin Cook. I don't, at this stage.
HESELTINE: Of course, I do because he's the
person...he is the person running the scare stories. Now, what he's now
saying..
HUMPHRYS: I'm not dealing in scare stories, Mr
Heseltine. I'm dealing in the content of the report and I'm trying to talk
to you about the content of that report.
HESELTINE: You are giving currency to the idea that
somehow PII Certificates are not properly used.
HUMPHRYS: I am dealing with the content of the
report. That is expressly what I'm doing. I'm not dealing with any of the -
what you would describe as - wild allegations that Mr Cook has made. I'm
dealing specifically with the content of that report. You have accepted that
you don't accept that part of the Scott findings. Let me turn, if I may now,
to whether the guidelines were changed. Now, Scott found that they were
changed. You believe that they were not changed.
HESELTINE: I do and I have read every word of the
Scott Report on this particular subject. And, it is quite incredible to
anybody who has any knowledge of two things for the Government's case not to be
accepted. Now, I will tell you what those two things are. First, and I can't
expect you to accept this judgment but it is one that influences me. I know
that William Waldegrave would never deceive anybody in the suggestion that has
been made. He is simply not that sort of person. But, I can't expect anybody
who doesn't know him to accept that judgment.
HUMPHRYS: No. I'm not making any judgment myself
but what I'm trying to get at - if I may just move it on.
HESELTINE: Yes. Yes.
HUMPHRYS: What I'm trying..
HESELTINE: What I want to do is to explain to
you why I believe that having read the Scott Report it doesn't substantiate the
allegations against William Waldegrave.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. OK.
HESELTINE: In truth - let's just before I do that,
let me just make this point. Of course, the Scott Report says that William
Waldegrave had no intention to deceive. Nobody ......... his intent. Sir
Richard, himself, having listened to William Waldegrave, comes to the
understanding of the substance of the first point I was making. But, can I
come to the second one: and, that is that the guidelines were changed. What
you'll see, if you read Sir Richard's report, is this: Mrs Thatcher - who as
everyone knew, was deeply concerned in these matters and was someone who was
perfectly prepared to become involved in the detail of matters - had made it
absolutely clear that if there was to be any change in Britain's policy, she
wanted to know about it.
Secondly, the Secretaries of State to
the Departments concerned, as senior Ministers, they didn't know the guidelines
had changed. So, what the Scott Report has to substantiate is that three
junior Ministers in the presence of civil servants - several of whom didn't
want to change the guidelines - actually did change the guidelines and then
didn't tell their Secretary of State and didn't tell the Prime Minister,
despite her express instructions. Now, if you know anything about the workings
of Government, you'd know that is incredible.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. So, you are saying you don't
accept that part of the Scott Report either. What I'm suggesting to you...
what I'm suggesting to you is that you are accepting those bits of the report
which exonerate you; you are rejecting those bits which find the Government in
any way culpable.
HESELTINE: Well what I'm accepting are the bits of
the report which are at the heart of the matter. We did not arm Saddam
Hussein, we did not try to send innocent men to prison.
HUMPHRYS: You see what many people find
extraordinary is that it was the Prime Minister who set up this enquiry, it was
the Lord Chancellor who chose a distinguished judge to head it. He listened to
hundreds of witnesses, to millions of words; he produced thousands of pages in
his report; he took two years examining witnesses, another year to publish the
report and at the end of it all you say - on the critical issues, those issues
which we have raised this morning - he was wrong.
HESELTINE: No - not the critical issues.
HUMPHRYS: Well the issues that we have discussed;
that is the improper use of PIIs and-
HESELTINE: Exactly.
HUMPHRYS: -the changing of the guidelines. On
those issues he was wrong.
HESELTINE: No. No, no. The critical issue is not
about the legality of PIIs it's whether we intended to send innocent men to
prison. That was the issue of major public concern and quite rightly so. We
did not, Sir Richard says we did not. So that is-.
HUMPHRYS: Use that word critical, if you like.
Use that word. You, on two important - you would surely not suggest that they
are not at least important - on two very important aspects of that report - you
say the jJdge after all that effort got it wrong.
HESELTINE: No, he got the substance right. We did
not arm Saddam Hussein, we did not try to send innocent men to prison. Now if
you get onto the other issues, which of course the Labour Party now having had
their allegations, their lies blow up in their face, of course they want to
move the agenda on. But, just take one example, of this question of misleading
Parliament. Now I've totally defended William Waldegrave and I believe
absolutely rightly so. But, there are areas where it is very difficult to know
to what extent when you're trying to balance British self interest against the
accountability of Parliament, you use words one way or the other. There's
nothing new about that. I have here, and it's perhaps something of a surprise
to some of your viewers, what Peter Shore said when he was the Minister dealing
with these issues in 1974. Let me just quote to you: "It has been the policy
of successive governments not to reveal information on the supply of arms to
individual countries." Now I have other quotes from other Labour Ministers.
HUMPHRYS: May I give you a quote.
HESELTINE: But-.
HUMPHRYS: May I give you a quote from one of your
own MPs?
HESELTINE: John, all you will do is to prove the
complexity of the issue.
HUMPHRYS: No, no, no.
HESELTINE: All I'm doing is to show that all
governments have this complexity.
HUMPHRYS: I assure you that I'm not going to do
that. I'm not going to quote from the report. I mean look at it, it's here,
there are millions of words in it and we can all pick bits and pieces as you
yourself have said.
HESELTINE: Exactly.
HUMPHRYS: What I wanted to quote to you was what
one of your own MPs Richard Shepherd said this morning: "There is no question
on any reading of this report that Parliament and the public were misled.
Therefore the inevitable conclusion is that Ministers should resign".
HESELTINE: Well I'm afraid you are building on his
words in a way that I don't accept, quite obviously.
HUMPHRYS: I'm reporting them to you, I'm not
building anything. I'm reporting judgment.
HESELTINE: The judgement we're now on is whether
the guidelines were changed. If the guidelines were not changed and it is our
view they were not changed and as I have explained to you if they were changed
three junior ministers did it-
HUMPHRYS: Yes, you've explained that.
HESELTINE: -kept it secret for years, didn't tell
their Secretary of State-
HUMPHRYS: Yeah.
HESELTINE: -who didn't tell the Prime Minister.
Now that is not plausible. So then you have a situation where the Ministers,
the junior Ministers - William Waldegrade in one particular case - didn't
believe they changed the guidelines. In which case the answers they gave were
accurate. Sir Richard thinks thought they had changed them but they didn't
believe that.
HUMPHRYS: So you're telling me that Sir Richard
got it wrong. Clearly, you've made it very clear that you believe the
Opposition's got it wrong. But, Richard Shepherd, one of your own MPs, a man
greatly respected in Parliament - as I'm sure you'd accept - he believes-
HESELTINE: I totally agree with that.
HUMPHRYS: Thank you.
HESELTINE: You can't-
HUMPHRYS: He believes-
HESELTINE: Yes.. point.
HUMPHRYS: He believes that Parliament was
misled. Now you're telling me that he is wrong as well - Parliament was not
misled.
HESELTINE: I've given you my views. This is
obviously an area which is the subject of discussion and debate and I haven't
the slightest doubt that you can find people who will take one view or whatever
it may be. You've asked for my view, for the Government's view and this is the
one that I have reached and reached only having read the Scott Report in great
detail on this particular subject. I quite deliberately waited until I had the
Scott Report, read it very carefully because I think it is an important issue
and as I've explained to you and I think very carefully: to a Minister reading
that report, the idea that the guidelines were changed by the junior Ministers
is incredible. It could not happen.
HUMPHRYS: Another of your MPs-
HESELTINE: Can I just add to that? Just one thing
on that. Just to amplify it a little bit. Not only did the Ministers have to
change the guidelines but officials in the Foreign Office, who didn't want the
guidelines changed, had to go along with it for this assumption and not to tell
the Foreign Secretary. It is not credible.
HUMPHRYS: One of them of course resigned over
that. But let me turn to another of your MPs: Mr Thurnham. He is threatening
to leave the Party because of the way the Government has been behaving over the
past few years and your response to the Scott Report. Actually talking about
leaving the Whip. Do you have nothing to say to him?
HESELTINE: Don't do it.
HUMPHRYS: Just that.
HESELTINE: I would perfectly well talk to Peter, I
know very well. What I am not prepared to do is to conduct my dialogue with a
member of the Conservative backbenchs through the airwaves of the television
world.
HUMPHRYS: Are you saying he has no grounds to
worry about the way you have dealt with Scott because he clearly believes he
does?
HESELTINE: I think it is fair to observe that the
worries that he have did not arise from the Scott Report. We have known of his
worries for some time and I think they are rather different, perhaps than the
ones you are putting to me but I'm not prepared to get involved in a discussion
with colleagues through the public airwaves. I've always found that the right
way to behave is to do these things in private and to have discussions in that
context.
HUMPHRYS: You were exonerated by the Scott Report,
you yourself, you say that fact wasn't reported. Well it's been reported at
some length. You were exonerated.
HESELTINE: You can find that much about it but I've
waited for three years for the facts to come out.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. I take that point. There were
other Ministers who, in the eyes of many, were not exonerated by the Scott
Report. Now what is interesting is that you're sitting here this morning,
delighted to have you here, as ever answering these questions.
HESELTINE: As ever.
HUMPHRYS: Those Ministers who were not exonerated
by the report, have not made themselves available since Thursday to be
interviewed. Now, isn't that a bit surprising?
HESELTINE: No I don't think it's at all surprising.
Ken Clarke was interviewed.
HUMPHRYS: I'm not thinking here of Ken Clarke. I'm
thinking of Mr Waldegrave and Sir Nicholas Lyell.
HESELTINE: But, sorry, we're talking about PIIs, I
think you're talking about me being exonerated.
HUMPHRYS: No, no. I'm talking about the
Scott Report, as a whole, about misleading Parliament and about the improper
use of PIIs.
HESELTINE: Sorry, John, forgive me. I don't know
which world you live in. I have seen William Waldegrave interviewed.
HUMPHRYS: Yes I said since Thursday. He was
indeed interviewed on Thursday.
HESELTINE: Well fine, so what's the fuss?
HUMPHRYS: I'll tell you exactly what the fuss
is. On Thursday, he-
HESELTINE: He's been interviewed, he's answered the
allegations.
HUMPHRYS: You asked me a question, perhaps I can
answer it. He was interviewed on Thursday. He had had eight days to look at
this massive report here. The people who interviewed him on Thursday had a few
hours to look at it. Now why has he not shown his face since then?
HESELTINE: The fascinating thing is, you know- I
mean, I heard all this stuff about Robin Cook: I've got to have ages to read
this report. He hasn't said anything new since he said it in the House of
Commons. He managed to come out with all the old stuff as he is wont to do.
All the old inaccuracies on Thursday after what he said was an adequate period
of time. The longer he's had, the more implausible his allegations become.
HUMPHRYS: Well you may say that.
HESELTINE: But William-But, the impression you gave
is that William was not available.
HUMPHRYS: No, no, no. I specifically said-.
HESELTINE: I'm sorry.
HUMPHRYS: I specifically said, with great respect,
since Thursday. He was interviewed on Thursday.
HESELTINE: And nothing new, nothing new. Nothing
new has emerged.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you say that. This is a very,
very hefty report indeed. There's a great deal in it. New bits are emerging
all the time. There was another bit in one of the newspapers this morning that
made various allegations, you will have seen them. The fact is that neither he
nor Sir Nicholas Lyell, since Thursday and many other Ministers have appeared.
As I say, we're delighted that you are here this morning, but they have kept
their heads down.
HESELTINE: Well I don't think it's a question of
keeping their heads down. The greater thing that I am doing is to put the
thing in the context of the orginal lies by Labour which we have got to deal
with in the context of the clearance which the Scott Report has given us.
HUMPHRYS: Are you-
HESELTINE: Whereas what Labour now wants, aided by
the media, is to forget the allegations which led to the setting up of the
Scott Report and move onto other grounds.
HUMPHRYS: Are you-Are you-
HESELTINE: You would love to have the opportunity
to concentrate simply one aspect, one aspect. Whereas the public should be
preoccupied with the appalling treatment that Ministers have received
HUMPHRYS: A final-
HESELTINE: And, I have to tell I think with a very
said effect on the esteem in which politicians and Parliament are held because
a lot of people have believed what Labour's been saying until, of course, it's
been blown out of the water.
HUMPHRYS: A final quick question is I may, Mr
Heseltine. Will they still be in office when all this is over, or will they
resign?
HESLETINE: No they won't. There is no case for them
to resign from- in any study of the Scott Report. William Waldegrave had no
intention to deceive, Nick Lyell gave advice-
HUMPHRYS: Right.
HESELTINE: -which turned out to be right. The
Judge released the documents and the trial proceeded and the Defence lawyers,
two of them, have said he was right.
HUMPHRYS: Michael Heseltine, thank you very much
indeed.
HESELTINE: Thank you very much.
|