WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE last night refused to withdraw a ''false
allegation'' that Lord Callaghan misled the Commons over devaluation
when he was Chancellor in 1967.
The Prime Minister, who was brought into the row, is expected to give
the former Labour Premier a similar message.
Lord Callaghan was furious that Mr Waldegrave appeared to have accused
him of lying to the Commons, and called on the Mr Major to order his
Minister to withdraw the allegation.
However, Mr Major, who has backed Mr Waldegrave throughout, is
continuing to stand by him, despite Lord Callaghan's plea that his name
should be cleared.
The row began when Mr Waldegrave, Minister with responsibility for
open government, told the Commons Treasury and Civil Service Select
Committee earlier this week that there were specific occasions when
Ministers could tell untruths to the Commons.
One such occasion was, he said, when the-then Mr Callaghan, as
Chancellor, was about to devalue the pound, but in the national interest
could not tell the Commons.
Lord Callaghan immediately called on Mr Waldegrave to clear his name,
telling him: ''You have allowed the impression to grow that my answers
were lies. They were not.
''Your replies have done me an injury that I dare say was unintended.
I now ask you to make clear publicly that it was not your intention to
allege that I lied to the Commons.''
There followed a flurry of letters in either direction.
Mr Waldegrave told him: ''I have at no point made any criticism of you
at all. Indeed, I have repeatedly referred to you as a statesman who did
his duty in the national interest. I certainly had no intention of doing
you any injury.''
The reply led Lord Callaghan to call on the Prime Minister to
intervene. He told Mr Major: ''I note that you said yesterday there is
no justification for being untruthful to Parliament. Clearly, you take
these matters seriously.
''So do I, and in these circumstances I am asking you to ensure that a
Minister who has made a false allegation of this kind should now
withdraw it.''
However, Lord Callaghan was disappointed. Almost by ''return of
post,'' Mr Waldegrave told him again that he would not withdraw.
Later, on BBC TV's Question Time programme last night, Mr Waldegrave
repeatedly refused to apologise.
Mr Waldegrave denied that he had accused Lord Callaghan of lying over
his answers on devaluation in 1967. ''Lord Callaghan was right to say
what he said but it is pushing it a bit to say that that is completely
true,'' he said. ''I do believe that anybody might have been misled by
that answer.
''I don't believe that is anything to apologise for either on his part
or mine. I am not impugning his honour in any way.
''He did the right thing by saying something then which wasn't
strictly in the logical sense quite true -- but it was still the right
thing to say in that extreme situation.''
The issue also was aired in the Commons yesterday.Mr Major told
questioners: ''It is not the case now, nor has it been the case in the
past, that ministers willingly mislead the House of Commons.''
Raising the issue with Mr Major, Mr John McFall, Labour MP for
Dumbarton, said: ''Now that the Minister of open government has given an
entirely new meaning to the phrase 'lying in state', would you agree
that the democratic process is undermined if ministers imply that the
concealing of truth from the House is acceptable?''
Mr McFall added: ''It is a lie that former Prime Minister Lord
Callaghan ever lied to this House, and will you therefore apologise to
that former distinguished Prime Minister for that slur?''
The Prime Minister retorted: ''The way you phrased your question is a
way you may regret on reflection.'' As Opposition MPs jeered, he added:
''If Labour MPs don't regret it, then I believe they should.''
Ian Bell
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