|
The Observer
Sunday, 2 April 1989
[Leading article by The Observer's editor, Donald Trelford]
Publish or be damned
We knew when we published our historic mid-week edition last week on the Department of Trade Inspectors' report into the Harrods affair, that we risked being accused of promoting the commercial interests of Lonrho, which owns the Observer, especially by rival newspapers with an axe to grind. The unique circumstances in which this decision was taken are set out factually on page six today, and readers can attempt to make their own judgement as to whether the publication was justified. Such judgements would be much easier to make, of course, if readers could see the contents of the special issue itself. Unfortunately, the Government has decreed that the report should remain secret from the public, at least for the time being.
There is a lack of logic to the argument about the newspaper's independence in this affair. For the special issue was not published to propagate either Lonrho's or The Observer's views on the Harrods affair. It made available the findings of the independent outside report commissioned by the Government itself. Of course, this newspaper had a vested interest in its publication, as did Lonrho, for we believe it must vindicate the long and costly campaign we have fought against the Fayeds for the past four years. But it also raises the issues of wider public importance.
The Department of Trade and the Office of Fair Trading are the chief regulatory bodies for the conduct of business in this country. If their own procedures for the scrutinising of transfers of major British companies are found to be at fault, or major defects found in the quality of the professional advice available to them, then their authority is diminished, and public and business confidence in their efficiency impaired. There may be major implications in the reform of company law and the City takeover code which ought to be acted on before further abuses occur. The facts should certainly be laid before Parliament to see if the public interest requires corrective action to be taken.
The speed at which the DTI moved to stop our publication on Thursday, like the record speed with which they waved the Fayeds' bid through in 1985, is in ironic contrast with the nine month delay in publishing the inspectors' report. The reasons given for this, as virtually every newspaper now agrees, look more and more unconvincing as every day goes by. A cover-up to save Ministers and the DTI from embarrassment is a much more likely explanation.
This is not just a squabble between two tycoons for control of a Knightsbridge shop, as it suits some people to describe it. It is about the business morality this Government is seen to represent and encourage. If, as we firmly believe, the Fayeds' secured the biggest stores group in Europe by criminal lies and deceit, assisted by official negligence, no honest Government could possibly condone the situation by doing nothing about it and covering up the facts. How could a law-and-order regime, pledged to Victorian moral values, justify allowing crime to pay, and cheats to prosper, in full public view?
It would be hard for Lord Young, the Secretary for Trade and Industry, to publicise errors in his own Department, even though they were made before his arrival. Even tougher to acknowledge it if Lonrho and The Observer, which have given him a hard time, turn out to have been absolutely right all along. But he must know that he now has no honourable alternative. As Parliament reassembles this week, the politics of the situation will doubtless make that only too apparent if injunctions, leak inquiries and huffy lectures about the law simply evade the central issue. How much wiser it would be for him to release the report himself rather than allow the accelerating pace of events to push him into it.
|
|
