Editing Arms-to-Iraq affair (section)

==Matrix Churchill==
{|class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:25em;" cellspacing="5"
|style="text-align: left;"|Classified documents released at the trial indicate that Britain violated the embargo in an effort to keep the country's machine-tool industry, including Matrix Churchill, whose managing director Paul Henderson had been working unpaid for British intelligence for 15 years, in business.
|-
|style="text-align: left;"|—''[[The Economist]]'' (1992)<ref name="fan">{{cite news|date=1 January 1992|title=Arms for Iraq: scandal hits fan|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|volume=325|page=64|issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
|}
Matrix Churchill was an engineering company based in [[Coventry]], with expertise in both the design and manufacture of precision machine tools. Established in 1913 by Walter Tattler and his brother in law Sir Harry Harley, the company had its origins in gauge and tool manufacture, the original company being known as Walter Tattler Ltd.

In 1989, as the result of a debt settlement, it was acquired by "Iraqi interests" for nothing. New directors were appointed including two who worked for the Iraqi security services and the company began shipping components for [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme]].<ref>"Hidden assets", ''[[History Today]]''; March 1994</ref> According to the [[International Atomic Energy Authority]], its products found in Iraq were among the highest quality of their kind in the world. They were "[[Dual-use technology|dual use]]" machines that could be used to manufacture weapons including artillery shells and parts for medium range missiles.

As one of the other directors claimed to have been working for the British intelligence services, the [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defence]] advised Matrix Churchill on how to apply for [[export licence]]s of materials that could be used to make munitions in such a way that would not attract attention. When [[Alan Clark]] admitted under oath that he had been "economical with the ''actualité''" in answering questions regarding what he knew about the policy on arms exports to Iraq, the trial collapsed and triggered the [[Scott Report|Scott Inquiry]], which reported in 1996.<ref>{{Cite news|title = The difference between lying and misleading|url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34912959|access-date = 2015-12-06|first = David |last = Edmonds|work = BBC News|date = December 2015}}</ref>

This case also raised the issue of [[public interest immunity]], the process by which information believed to be highly sensitive is kept outside the public domain. In order to prevent information being public the relevant government minister must issue a public interest immunity certificate.<ref name="Anderson">{{cite journal|last=Anderson|first=Paul|date=1 January 1994|title=Long trail of deceit|journal=New Statesman & Society|volume=7|pages=18–20|issn=0954-2361}}</ref>