The Downing Street Years (74 page)

I held two meetings with Michael Heseltine, Leon Brittan, Willie Whitelaw, Geoffrey Howe, Norman Tebbit and Nigel Lawson to discuss Westland on Thursday 5 December and the following day. (British Aerospace entered the field between the first and second meetings.) By the time of the second meeting Michael had totally changed his line from the one he had pursued in April. Suddenly the issue had become whether it was right to allow a significant British defence contractor to come under foreign control. But the real issue was whether the Government should reject the recommendation from the NADs, thus leaving Westland to reach their decision whether to accept the Sikorsky offer or that from the European consortium on straightforward commercial grounds. By the end of the second meeting it was clear that for most of us the argument had been won by Leon Brittan: the NADs decision should be set aside. But Geoffrey, Norman and, of course, Michael strongly dissented and so I decided that a decision
should be reached in a formal Cabinet Committee. ‘E’(A)
^*
enlarged as appropriate would meet on Monday 9 December.

Over the weekend the pace quickened and tempers frayed. Michael Heseltine blocked a joint MoD and DTI paper on Westland and had it redrafted to emphasize the risks of a Sikorsky bid. Leon Brittan was furious, but allowed it to go forward to ‘E’(A). This was a mistake. Michael said that the French Defence minister also telephoned over the weekend to place unspecified sub-contract work on the ‘Super Puma’ helicopter with Westland provided it was not sold to Sikorsky. Monday morning’s newspapers covered the row between Michael and Leon.

The main argument of substance which Michael Heseltine advanced was that the attitude of the Europeans to a Sikorsky deal would jeopardize future collaboration between Westland and the European defence companies. Some of this work was certainly important. Westland’s collaboration with Agusta on a large helicopter known as the EH101 was due to become the main basis of its business in later years. By contrast, the projected troop-carrying helicopter known as the NH90 was at a very early stage. In fact these fears were exaggerated. Though the NH90 was abandoned in April 1987, the EH101 subsequently went ahead successfully. Neither decision had anything to do with the ownership of Westland.

But the real sleight of hand was Michael’s suggestion that as a result of the recommendations of NADs two projected European battlefield helicopters — an Anglo-Italian model and a Franco-German one — could be rationalized and that the savings in development costs which for the UK might amount to £25 million over the next five years would become available for extra work for Westland. This would enable additional helicopter orders to be placed by the MoD to help fill the gap in production work. Whether or not one thought that this £25 million was in fact likely to be saved or whether this was the best way to spend it seemed almost beside the point. It appeared that for Michael Heseltine the procurement budget of the MoD and arrangements with other governments were to be manipulated in whatever way necessary to secure his own preferred future for this modest helicopter company. What small sense of proportion Michael possessed had vanished entirely.

At the ‘E’(A) meeting on 9 December Sir John Cuckney, who had been invited to attend and speak, brought matters down to earth. Westland needed fundamental reconstruction and an improved
product range and it was the view of his board that this was best met by Sikorsky. The longer it took to make the decision the greater would be the pressure on the share price. Westland’s accounts were due to be published on 11 December and the company could not maintain market confidence if publication was delayed much beyond that.

There was a majority at the meeting in favour of overturning the NADs’ recommendation, but instead of terminating the discussion and summing up the feeling of the meeting in favour of that, I gave Michael Heseltine (and Leon Brittan) permission to explore urgently the possibility of developing a European package which the Westland board could finally accept. But if this had not been done and a package which the Westland board could recommend had not been produced by 4 p.m. on Friday 13 December, we would be obliged to reject the NADs recommendation.

In fact, the Westland board did not accept the European bid and chose to recommend that from Sikorsky-Fiat. But Michael had now developed another fixation or perhaps tactic. At the ‘E’(A) meeting it was recognized in discussion that the timetable would allow for another meeting of ministers before the Friday deadline. But there was no decision to call a meeting; and indeed none was necessary. What was the point? Westland’s board knew precisely where they stood: it was up to them and the shareholders. Michael had already started muttering. He urged John Wakeham to get me to call another meeting, saying it was a constitutional necessity under Cabinet government. It so happened that officials had rung round to see whether people would be available if a further meeting was called: but that was very definitely not a summons to a meeting, because no meeting had been arranged. This was of little consequence, however, because from this point on Michael became convinced that he was the victim of a plot in which more and more people seemed to be involved. Obviously, it now involved Cabinet Office civil servants. Who might be revealed as a conspirator next?

The next twist came soon. Without any warning Michael raised the issue of Westland in Cabinet on Thursday 12 December. This provoked a short, ill-tempered discussion, which I cut short on the grounds that we could not discuss the issue without papers. Nor was it on the agenda. The full account of what was said was not circulated, though a summary record should have been sent round in the minutes. Unfortunately, by an oversight this was not done. The Cabinet Secretary noticed the omission himself and rectified it without prompting. However, Michael Heseltine was not satisfied with the brief record,
complaining that it did not record his ‘protest’. For Michael the plot was thickening fast.

Michael continued his campaign up to and over Christmas. He lobbied back-benchers. He lobbied the press. He lobbied bankers. He lobbied industrialists. GEC, of which Jim Prior was chairman, mysteriously developed an interest in joining the European consortium. The consortium itself came forward with a new firm bid. Each new development was adduced as a reason to review the Government’s policy. The battle was fought out in the press. There was an increasingly farcical air about the affair, which was making the Government look ridiculous. There was even a completely contrived ‘Libyan scare’. Michael Heseltine suggested that the long-standing involvement of the Libyan Government in Fiat raised security questions about the Sikorsky bid. In fact, Fiat would have owned 14.9 per cent of Westland and Libya owned 14 per cent of Fiat. Fiat already supplied many important components for European defence equipment. The Americans, who were even more sensitive than we were about both security and Libya, seemed quite content for Fiat to be involved with Sikorsky.

I rejected Michael’s argument that we needed now to come down in favour of the European bid. But the public row between Michael and Leon continued over Christmas.

Westland’s board were still extremely anxious about whether they could look forward to British and European government business. In answer to John Cuckney, I wrote to say that ‘as long as Westland continues to carry on business in the UK, the Government will of course continue to regard it as a British and therefore European company and will support it in pursuing British interests in Europe.’ Michael had wanted to include a good deal of other less reassuring material in my reply but I rejected this. Imagine, therefore, my admiration when I found early in the New Year that Lloyds Merchant Bank had sent him a letter which enabled him to make all the points in his published reply about what — in Michael’s view — would happen if Westland chose Sikorsky rather than the bid of the European consortium. It was in response to Michael’s letter that the Solicitor-General wrote to him of ‘material inaccuracies’. The leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter to the press magnified the Westland crisis and eventually led to Leon Brittan’s resignation; but all that lay in the future.

I now knew from Michael’s behaviour that unless he were checked there were no limits to what he would do to secure his objectives at Westland. Cabinet collective responsibility was being ignored and my own authority as Prime Minister was being publicly flouted. This had to stop.

Westland was placed on the agenda for the Cabinet of Thursday 9 January. At that meeting I began by rehearsing the decisions which had been made by the Government. I then ran over the damaging press comment which there had been in the New Year. I said that if the situation continued, the Government would have no credibility left. I had never seen a clearer demonstration of the damage done to the coherence and standing of a Government when the principle of collective responsibility was ignored. Leon Brittan then Michael Heseltine put their respective cases. After some discussion, I began to sum up by pointing out that the time was approaching when the company and its bankers at a shareholders’ meeting had to decide between the two consortia. It was legally as well as politically important that they should come to their decision without further intervention directly or indirectly by ministers or by other people acting on their behalf. That must be accepted and observed by everyone and there must be no lobbying or briefing directly or indirectly. Because of the risks of misinterpretation during this period of sensitive commercial negotiations and decisions, answers to questions should be cleared inter-departmentally through the Cabinet Office so as to ensure that all answers given were fully consistent with the policy of the Government.

Everyone else accepted this. But Michael Heseltine said that it would be impossible to clear every answer through the Cabinet Office and that although he did not envisage making any new statements he must be able to confirm statements already made and answer questions of fact about procurement requirements without any delay. I suspect that no one present saw this as anything other than a ruse. No one sided with Michael. He was quite isolated. I again summed up, repeating my earlier remarks and adding that consideration should also be given to the preparation under Cabinet Office auspices of an interdepartmentally agreed fact sheet which could be drawn upon as a source of answers to questions. I then emphasized the importance of observing collective responsibility in this and in all matters. At this Michael Heseltine erupted. He claimed that there had been no collective responsibility in the discussion of Westland. He alleged a breakdown in the propriety of Cabinet discussions. He could not accept the decision recorded in my summing up. He must therefore leave the Cabinet. He gathered his papers together and left a Cabinet united against him.

I have learnt that other colleagues at the meeting were stunned by what had happened. I was not. Michael had made his decision and that was that. I already knew whom I wanted to succeed him at
Defence: George Younger was precisely the right man for the job, which I knew he wanted.

I called a short break and walked through to the Private Office. Nigel Wicks, my principal private secretary, brought George Younger out; I offered him, and he accepted, the Defence post. I asked my office to telephone Malcolm Rifkind to offer him George’s former post of Scottish Secretary, which he too subsequently accepted. We contacted the Queen to ask her approval of these appointments. Then I returned to Cabinet, continued the business and by the end of the meeting I was able to announce George Younger’s appointment. Within the Cabinet at least all had been settled.

I had no illusion about the storm which would now break. And yet it remained a storm in a teacup, a crisis created from a small issue by a giant ego. Whether Michael Heseltine had come to the Cabinet having decided to resign I do not know. But the speed with which he was able to prepare the twenty-two-minute statement he delivered that afternoon, detailing my alleged misdemeanours, at least suggests that he was well prepared. I knew that, whatever disagreements there might be between me and other members of the Cabinet, they had witnessed for themselves that Michael was in the wrong.

As it happened, the main task of replying to Michael Heseltine fell to Leon Brittan. When the House reassembled on Monday 13 January, at a meeting that morning Willie, Leon, George, the Chief Whip and others discussed with me what should be done. It was decided that Leon, rather than I, would make a statement on Westland in the House that afternoon. It went disastrously wrong. Michael Heseltine trapped Leon with a question about whether any letters from British Aerospace had been received bearing on a meeting which Leon had had with Sir Raymond Lygo, the Chief Executive of British Aerospace. It was suggested (as it transpired quite falsely) that at his meeting with Sir Raymond Lygo Leon had said that British Aerospace’s involvement in the European consortium was against the national interest and that they should withdraw. The letter in question which had arrived at No. 10 and which I saw just before coming over to the House to listen to Leon’s statement had been marked ‘Private and Strictly Confidential’. Leon felt that he had to respect that confidence, but in doing so he used a lawyer’s formulation which opened him to the charge of misleading the House of Commons. He had to return to the House later that night to make an apology. In itself it was a small matter; but in the atmosphere of suspicion and conspiracy fostered by Michael Heseltine — who mysteriously knew all about this confidential missive — it did great harm to Leon’s credibility. I defended his
action on the grounds that he had a duty to respect the confidentiality of the letter. The letter itself was subsequently published with the permission of its author, Sir Austin Pearce, but it contributed little to the debate since the day after that Sir Raymond withdrew his allegations as having been based on a misunderstanding. By then, however, Leon’s political position was all but irrecoverable.

But none of this made my life any easier when I had to reply to Neil Kinnock in the debate on Westland on Wednesday 15 January.