Report Assails Thatcher Over Copter Dispute

LONDON â€”  A parliamentary report that questioned the truthfulness of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and denounced actions of her senior aides during a controversy over a rescue package for an ailing helicopter manufacturer plunged her government into another political storm Thursday.

The report came as Thatcher was already dogged by her increasingly controversial South Africa policy, her combative, unsympathetic personal image and a series of domestic woes that refuse to go away.

Thursday’s report from the House of Commons Defense Committee, where members of Thatcher’s party hold a majority, stopped short of calling the prime minister a liar in her statements on the controversial “Westland Affair,� as it is called. But the report said that some of her explanations “look flimsy, to say the least.�

Opposition Labor Party committee member John Gilbert said in an interview, “These words ‘flimsy to say the least’--that’s parliamentary language for saying we don’t believe a word of it.�

Former Trade and Industry Secretary Leon Brittan, whom Thatcher staunchly defended until he was forced to resign over the affair, was linked in the report directly to activities described as “disreputable� and “improper,� while two trusted Thatcher aides were accused of deceit in withholding key information.

The damning report resurrected an affair that began last October as a seemingly trivial Cabinet dispute about how best to rescue Westland PLC, an ailing manufacturer of helicopters.

Before the dispute ended, Thatcher had lost two senior ministers and seen her own integrity challenged in what became the most serious domestic crisis of her seven-year premiership.

The report reviewed the government reaction to Westland’s financial difficulties and the eventual Cabinet battle between Thatcher, Brittan and others on one side, advocating a takeover by United Technologies Corp., an American company, and on the other side by backers of a rival European consortium bid promoted mainly by then-Defense Secretary Michael Heseltine.

Glimpse of Decision-Making

The report criticized the actions of both Brittan and Heseltine and presented a rare glimpse of Cabinet decision-making and the petty feuding that in this instance surrounded it.

But the report reserved its harshest judgment for a decision to leak portions of a confidential letter from the country’s third-ranking legal adviser, Solicitor General Patrick Mayhew, to Heseltine, complaining of material inaccuracies in Heseltine’s public statements on the debate.

“The method of disclosure that was adopted, the unattributable communication of tendentious extracts from the letter, was disreputable,� the report concluded. It described the leak as “an outrageous way in which to treat (Mayhew)� and found that the only purpose for the leak was to discredit Heseltine.

The leak was traced to two of Thatcher’s closest aides and to senior officials in the Department of Trade and Industry. Brittan resigned after it became clear that he authorized the leak. Heseltine had earlier resigned as Cabinet opposition to his position mounted, and he complained publicly of Thatcher’s strong-arm tactics.

The unauthorized disclosure of government documents by civil servants is viewed here as an extremely serious act, punishable by imprisonment. Disclosure of the existence, let alone the contents, of a letter between a senior law officer and a Cabinet minister is a major breach of government procedure.

Thatcher Not Involved

Although it found that Thatcher was not personally involved in the leak, the committee appeared unconvinced by her later explanations that it was necessary to publicize Heseltine’s inaccuracies so Westland’s chairman would be aware of them before holding a news conference later the same day.

“Since the information was passed by telephone to Westland in any event, the reason given by the prime minister for releasing the information . . . begins to look flimsy, to say the least,� the report said.

Thatcher’s press secretary and close aide, Bernard Ingham, her personal private secretary, Charles Powell, and the head of the country’s civil service, Robert Armstrong, were all accused of failing to inform Thatcher promptly of details of the leak known to them but only presented to Thatcher two weeks later, together with the results of an internal investigation that she had ordered.

The committee found the absence of any disciplinary action against the officials “extraordinary.�

Disclosures that a prime minister noted for a no-nonsense approach to business was suddenly surrounded by a clumsy attempt to cover up a government leak seriously damaged Thatcher.

Thatcher’s Dominance Eroded

Some argue that subsequent events have proven that her personal dominance, especially within the Cabinet, was severely eroded by the affair.

No one here believes the Defense Committee findings pose an immediate danger to Thatcher’s hold on the government. She enjoys a comfortable majority of 136 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons, so only a major revolt within her party could do that. But recent opinion polls suggest that fewer than a third of Britain’s voters would back her Conservative Party if an election were held today.

However, the report is likely to deepen the stain on her personal image, possibly cost her the services of key assistants and add to the difficulties of the Conservative Party hierarchy in the initial stages of planning her reelection campaign, which must take place before mid-1988.

Facing a barrage of questions from political opponents at Thursday’s question time in the House of Commons, Thatcher promised to reply to the report, expressed confidence in her aides and said there was no discussion of any action against them.

But for long periods, she was overwhelmed by opposition shouting, and veteran parliamentary observers described her performance as one of the worst in years.

Opposition Warning

An exasperated Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, interrupted Thatcher at one point, shouting, “You are in great danger of yourself attracting the reputation of being disreputable and improper.�

David Owen, leader of the Social Democrats, demanded disciplinary procedures against those found to have acted improperly.

The Westland report landed on top of other problems now plaguing Thatcher.

Her hard line in opposing substantial economic sanctions against South Africa has embroiled her in controversy and generated growing domestic opposition.

A decision by many nations to boycott the Commonwealth Games to protest her policy created such anger in the host city, Edinburgh, that the city’s governing council voted Wednesday to withdraw her invitation to the opening ceremonies, held Thursday.

Queen is Upset

Thatcher’s tough stance is also widely perceived to have upset Queen Elizabeth II, whose work to foster Commonwealth unity has formed the centerpiece of her 34-year reign.

Although the queen has few constitutional powers, she is an extremely popular monarch, and the public perception of Thatcher confronting her head-on is a potentially dangerous political liability.

Thatcher’s unyielding stand on the South Africa issue has exacerbated what political analysts believe to be her single biggest drawback: an image of not caring enough for the weaker sectors of society.

Her government’s inability to reduce record high unemployment, seemingly stuck at over 13%, coupled with deteriorating health services and a demoralized public education system have all helped generate this image.