THE JUDGMENT OF OTHERS

Edward Leigh describes how he was

sacked for his principles in last week's government reshuffle

A COUPLE of weeks ago a taxi-driver was taking me home from a radio station in Hull, just across the Humber from my Lin- colnshire constituency.

'Some kind of politician are you?'

'Yes.'

'What's your name?'

'Edward Leigh.'

'Never heard of you!'

I doubt whether even now, following my summary dismissal from John Major's Government for lack of political correct- ness, he has heard of me. The fate of a junior minister is only important to him- self, his family and perhaps his diary secre- tary. But my departure does serve to give an inkling of the style of this Government.

The summons to the Cabinet room in Downing Street came just before lunch last Thursday. Once I arrived, I felt a short burst of panic as I entered the room where, two and half years earlier, I had waited at 6 o'clock in the morning in a vain attempt to persuade Mrs Thatcher to fight the second ballot.

I walked in and went to sit opposite the Prime Minister across the long table, in the seat where the Chancellor customarily sits. However, the Prime Minister asked me to sit beside him, in the long line of empty chairs; perhaps, I remember think- ing, so that he could pat my knee.

He started off: 'A painful business, reconstructing the Government . . '

I knew then: this was it. I was deter- mined to show no emotion at my execu- tion, to behave (in a pre-classless society phrase) like an officer and gentleman. I expected some emollient words, and that that would be that.

Then something extraordinary happened. The Prime Minister's natural honesty took over.

'You're a man of conviction,' he told me. 'I would admire you less if you weren't. You can't change. There's no question of your competence. Quite the contrary. But in the Westminster hot- house your criti- cism of policies and personalities in the Government are well known. It has come winging back. In difficult times it's better to have a united team. Perhaps you can come back later.'

That was it. I was sacked for speaking my mind too loudly to too many people; I was sacked for my principles. I reflected on the irony that, during the Thatcher years, min- isters had survived acts of disloyalty far worse than anything I had ever perpetrat- ed. Some of those ministers now occupy the highest offices of state. Today, though, we have a regime unwilling to tolerate dis- sent, and afraid of views different from its own. There is little respect for the judg- ment of others, and I was one of the oth- ers. As I walked out of Downing Street I heard a hurried whisper from the door- man. They knew I was coming. The door of No 10 opened. Daylight flooded in. A mass of photographers had gathered beyond. I thought not of them, but of my freedom.

Funnily enough, I like John Major even more. I don't feel an ounce of bitterness. His natural courtesy and honesty are enor- mous. It clearly hurt him much more than it hurt me. Of course he was entitled to sack me, to have his own team.

So what had I done to deserve this?

For months I had been thinking of resigning over Maastricht. I consulted my ministerial friends, even some priests. The advice was all the same. 'You'll achieve nothing . . . keep fighting from within . never resign.' It would, they said, look temperamental, quixotic and pointless. So I didn't. At least I had the satisfaction of knowing I didn't walk away from the fight. They walked away from me. Anyway, as a good Catholic, I cannot subscribe to the political equivalent of suicide.

But I know now what suicides feel like. Every morning I wake at dawn with a black miasma of despair sweeping through me. Not at losing my puny job, since I care nothing for that. My despair is at having voted for Maastricht and against my con- science out of party loyalty; because I didn't want to rock the boat publicly in dif- ficult times. I even asked the whips if I could quietly be somewhere else and miss the vote on Third Reading. No one would have noticed. They refused and had me shot a week later instead, having strung me along.

Never again will I vote against my con- science. What Maastricht's cynical protag- onists do not realise is that for us it is a matter of conscience. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that we are betraying our coun- try. That is why I suggested months ago to the Prime Minister that a free vote of a free parliament would unite not divide the party, and not open wounds. But I know now that Sir Thomas More was right. One should always put one's conscience before the interests of government, because ulti- mately nothing, certainly not position, is more important than one's soul.

While I was in the Government, I argued my point of view. I organised meetings of ministers — making sure always that the whips had been informed. Following one such meeting, before the actual negotiations for the Treaty were complete, I went as the spokesman of 14 junior ministers, setting out direct to the Prime Minister our worries over the threat of the European Court and governments eating away our opt-outs. After the first Danish referendum I organised another meeting. The word was passed back to Downing Street that, in our view, legally the Treaty was dead. I wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting a free vote to unite the party. At the paving motion I played for time, suggesting the delay of the Third Reading till after the second referendum. But all along delay was our only weapon. We never had a majority.

My disagreement with Government poli- cy was not confined to the European ques- tion. I expressed my concern that the abolition of the poll tax would erode our ability to control local government spend- ing. I also questioned our abandonment of our traditional role as defenders of proper- ty rights on the Leasehold Reform Bill. I protested about our loosening grip on the public sector deficit. I questioned our defence of existing benefits and rates and opposition to workfare.

Inside the Department of Trade and Industry, I put the dreary Post Office Citi- zen's Charter proposals in the bottom drawer and went for privatisation. I con- vinced — just — Michael Heseltine, then the officials, and finally most backbenchers. Finally I was nagging a cautious Prime Minister. A decision will soon be made. At the time of my going we were working on exciting plans to ensure maximum employ- ee and public involvement in any flotation, and giving sub-postmasters what they have always wanted: the power to compete. If our plans can be fulfilled, they wilt be run- ning thriving financial centres in our vil- lages and on our street corners.

I was trying to break the cosy cartels in telecommunications that artificially inflate the cost of international calls. Competition is the best regulator for British Telecom. Cable companies must be given opportuni- ties in the mobile phone sector. Abroad, I sought to promote free trade. Our firms must be allowed into America in return for AT&T coming here. I hoped it was a grand strategy for telecoms to promote competition and choice — or as Michael Hese!tine kindly told me, 'knocking the civil servants around'.

As Technology Minister I had met 250 companies to work out new programmes competitively delivered locally to small companies, rather than centrally allocated to large companies. I was also trying to interest the European Space Agency in an eventual merger with Nasa, and to per- suade the Russians to create a World Space Agency and to revive Hotol, the long-range ultra-high-speed aircraft. In Europe I had, to Dutch and French fury, resisted a massive £600 million sub- sidy to High Definition Television. Com- missioner Andriessen had actually complained about me, no doubt contribut- ing to my fall.

But those plans and programmes must now be discharged by somebody else. It is a relief that I can now speak my mind, even if no one wants to listen. It is better than people listening but not being able to speak one's mind. The Prime Minister is right. Men of conviction as junior ministers are a danger to themselves and govern- ment. I'm glad to be free.

Meanwhile, the Left of the Tory party has now achieved its ambition to control economic, foreign and industrial policy. The Right sits beleaguered in isolated fortresses in the Home Office, Social Secu- rity and Wales. But we on the Right must fight back. I, at least, can now stand up for what! believe in: a Europe of full indepen- dent nation states co-operating, not bound together in a community structure; a bal- anced budget; a society of opportunity not dependence; sound armed forces; and increasing private sector involvement in the delivery of public services, with the state as enabler, not provider.

In the interests of good government that has some respect from the people, we must try to to these things. My taxi-driver, as he drove off, said to me: 'I'll never bother to vote again. You're all the same. You don't believe in anything.' And I don't believe he Is alone.

Edward Leigh is MP for Gainsborough. He was Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from 1990 to 1993.