THE Prime Minister has been plunged into another ''sleaze''
controversy after his Cabinet Minister in charge of open government
declared yesterday that sometimes Ministers have to lie to Parliament.
Mr Major will be forced in the Commons tomorrow to defend his Cabinet
colleague William Waldegrave for what MPs on all sides last night were
describing as a stunning piece of incompetence.
Mr Waldegrave told an all-party Commons committee that Ministers could
find it necessary ''in exceptional cases to say something that is untrue
in the House of Commons''.
He asserted: ''The House of Commons understands that and accepts
that.''
That assertion was immediately challenged and the Prime Minister will
have to face it tomorrow. Mr Waldegrave, who is already under threat for
his role in the highly controversial arms-to-Iraq decisions went
further.
''Much of Government activity,'' he said to the Treasury committee
''is much more like playing poker than chess. You don't put all your
cards up at the one time.''
This is the statement that has caused outrage and again challenged Mr
Major over the honesty of his Government.
Mr Waldegrave claimed later that he said nothing that Parliament was
not already fully aware of. He claimed that his comments had been
inflated by the media to carry more significance than MPs on all sides
would acknowledge.
He quoted in his defence the experience of two Labour Chancellors, Sir
Stafford Cripps and Lord Callaghan,both of whom were obliged to withhold
the whole truth from the Commons for legitimate reasons.
Mr Waldegrave told Channel 4 News: ''I am a little astonished at the
storm that was created.
''I gave absolutely straight answers to straight questions. If people
want to make that into a terrific furore I do not believe they are right
in doing so,'' he added.
But he is judged to have blundered again in a way that puts the
beleaguered Government further on the defensive. The comments arose from
a letter in the Daily Telegraph on February 19 from Sir Robin Butler,
the Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service.
Mr Waldegrave was being challenged on Sir Robin's claim: ''The
questions whether a statement is complete and whether it is misleading
are separate. In the real world it is frequently the case that one
cannot say all one knows. In that situation one should avoid misleading,
if one possibly can.''
Mr Waldegrave told the committee yesterday: ''What Sir Robin was
saying is that in exceptional cases it is necessary to say something
that is untrue to the House of Commons. The House of Commons understands
that and has always accepted that.''
Former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan resigned as Chancellor in the
Wilson government because during a devaluation crisis he had told the
House that there would be no devaluation. He moved to Home Secretary.
It is accepted by Parliament that when a Chancellor is trying to
defend the pound he cannot tell the whole truth and Lord Callaghan lied
in the course of duty but having done so felt he could not continue as
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The House also understands that, in a severe case of national security
which might involve the lives of British spies abroad, the truth has to
be curtailed.
But the performance of Mr Waldegrave yesterday was maladroit and
shocked his fellow Ministers and senior Tory back benchers.
Mr Michael Meacher, Labour's spokesman, was quick to exploit the
Waldegrave gaffe. ''His doctrine that there are a number of exceptional
circumstances in which it is necessary to mislead Parliament exposes
just how relative Ministers' commitment to truthfulness has now become.
''With the single exception of the period before devaluation, there is
no such class of circumstances when Ministers lying to the House can be
justified. Trust and credibility are at the heart of democracy and if
this dangerous and highly damaging doctrine were once accepted,
confidence in Ministers, already at the lowest ebb since the Second
World War, would completely collapse.''
Labour will now intensify its attack on Mr Major over the Lord Justice
Scott inquiry into arms to Iraq and the row about the connection with
arms deals and the #275m Malaysian dam project.
Mr Meacher said last night: ''This doctrine would give the Government
carte blanche to go further still. In all Ministers' dealings truth
should be an absolute. The Prime Minister should repudiate Mr
Waldegrave's accommodation with dishonesty.''
The Waldegrave blunder will put Mr Major under increased pressure when
the Commons demands to know when precisely it is permissible for a
Government Minister to withold the whole truth from Parliament.
It also comes as Labour leader John Smith is complaining vehemently
that a private discussion he had with Mr Major last Wednesday in the
Prime Minister's room at the Commons about the Prevention of Terrorism
Act was leaked.
This is another damning indictment of the Government. It undermines
the claim that Mr Waldegrave was making last night that in certain
circumstances in the interests of the nation special knowledge cannot be
revealed to the Commons.
Private meetings of privy councillors, like the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition, have always been kept secret.
In the Commons yesterday Mr Major was taken by surprise by Mr Smith on
the issue of compensation to the victims of crime, which the Government
is trying to change and thus save #250m by the end of the decade.
Last night, the Prime Minister was demanding to know why he had been
badly briefed on the issue and the full details of Mr Waldegrave's
performance, which was described by Labour MP Giles Radice, who was
chairing the session of the Treasury committee yesterday, as ''a
remarkable statement for a Minister''.
MPs afterwards were saying that Mr Waldegrave's utterances broke with
all precedent. Half-truths to the House of Commons are a particularly
touchy subject and Mr Waldegrave has blundered into an area that causes
the Prime Minister intense embarrassment.
A July Cabinet reshuffle is forecast and after yesterday's performance
by Mr Waldegrave he will be promoted to pole position for retirement to
the back benches.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article