FOREIGN Secretary Robin Cook was facing a mauling in the Commons today over the so-called Arms to Africa affair - after the Prime Minister's sudden candour appeared to cut the ground from underneath him.

For, after days of smokescreen and denial over whether ministers or Foreign Office officials knew or approved of Britain breaking an UN arms embargo to Sierra Leone by helping to overthrow the illegal military regime which staged a coup there, Tony Blair gives the saga a startling new twist.

He has dismissed the row over who knew what and when as an overblown "hoo-hah." The point we should take on board, he suggests, is that Sierra Leone's democratic regime was returned to power.

The end justifies the means, then.

And this is probably the conclusion that will be reached by most voters, who are already confused by the affair - if they are interested in it at all. Meantime, the Opposition parties will score some small points over whether the Prime Minister has done a U-turn or whether Robin Cook's so-called "ethical" foreign policy has been dumped.

But if the voters also give their approval in support of the just outcome, it does not mean that the Labour government is not harmed by this affair.

To begin with, it is another stain on its squeaky-clean image.

Like the row over Formula 1 racing being exempted from the ban on tobacco advertising, it will stay at the back of voters' minds as an instance of governmental deviousness.

And it will have done Robin Cook no favours - nor will the Prime Minister's remarks.

But was this deliberate?

Mr Cook, after all, is a somewhat wounded figure, having run into diplomatic rows in India and Israel and his personal standing has suffered badly after the revelations over his private life.

If Mr Blair set him up for a damaging mauling in the Commons today, could it be as a overture to demotion in a Cabinet reshuffle?

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.