THE former British Prisons Minister, Ms Ann Widdecombe, yesterday delivered the attack designed to damage fatally the political reputation of Mr Michael Howard, accusing him of misleading the House of Commons.
She claimed the former Home Secretary, now a contender for the leadership of the Tory party, ordered the immediate suspension of the Governor of Parkhurst, Mr John Marriott, after a breakout and then denied to MPs that he had overruled his Prisons Director General.
Last night, aides to Mr Howard said the charge was "categorically untrue".
Ms Widdecombe's detailed attack, while containing little new, will have left Conservative MPs wondering whether they can elect as leader a man at the centre of so public a grudgematch.
The focus of Ms Widdecombe's attack was her concern for the way in which the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr Derek Lewis, was treated by Mr Howard. In a cool, occasionally humorous 35 minute attack, she described Mr Howard as a man whose "first reaction to attack is denial", as someone "looking for scapegoats", and as a man lacking the courage to stick by his key public servants when the going gets tough.
She said: "There is ample documentary evidence that he did indeed personally tell Mr Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended."
She sought to ridicule Mr Howard with humour, chronicling Mr Lewis's achievements and "vigorous leadership", including a cut in escapes of 77 per cent.
She asked if the situation had improved after Mr Lewis himself had been sacked: "No. Only a few months later, approximately 541 prisoners were released before the end of their sentence. They did not even have to break out," she said to gales of laughter a reference to a Home Office technical error which the courts ruled meant that prisoners must be released.
Ms Widdecombe said she had been wrong not to resign herself over Mr Lewis's sacking and she conceded that her own political career was probably over. "I'm aware that I probably won't be forgiven for this by some people on this side of the House until the day I leave Parliament. But I'm also aware that if I hadn't done what I have done today, I wouldn't have forgiven myself until I left Parliament and beyond," she said.
Mr Howard, in reply, categorically denied misleading parliament over the sacking of Mr Lewis.
"At no time did I cross the line between what I was entitled to do and what I wasn't," Mr Howard insisted. The Shadow Home Secretary said Miss Widdecombe had disagreed with the dismissal of Mr Lewis. "She is entitled to her opinion but I believe she is wrong." To Labour jeers, he declared: "Every decision I have taken in my career in government has been taken because I thought it was in the public interest."
The detailed minutes of meetings to discuss the Parkhurst breakout and the fate of the prison governor, Mr John Marriott, in early 1995, released yesterday by the British Home Secretary Mr Jack Straw, reveal how Mr Howard's opinion developed over the course of two days.
The notes of a meeting on January 9th, 1995 six days alter the escape - show that Mr Howard's early view was that decisions should not be rushed, had to be "fair" and were for Mr Lewis to take, on the advice of his deputy Mr Richard Tilt.
He does say, however, that once the decisions have been taken, they must be implemented without delay".
By the next day, Mr Lewis had concluded that Mr Marriott could not continue in view of criticisms of the management. But exactly what to do with the Parkhurst governor - whether to suspend him or move him was undecided.
Nevertheless, by the end of a series of meetings next day, January 10th, Mr Howard's desire for immediate action was apparent - although the former Home Secretary insisted last night he was merely expressing his opinion, not applying undue pressure on Mr Lewis.
The minutes of the meetings are the basis for Miss Widdecombe's assertion that Mr Howard brought pressure to bear on Mr Lewis via the wording of the statement he was to make to the Commons later that day.
During one meeting, Mr Howard pointed out that public confidence had been shaken because of the breakout and that it was conceivable" that Mr Marriott not be suspended.
And the discussion of what should happen to Mr Marriott shows Mr Howard's anxiety to find a form of words which would suggest to MPs immediate decisive action was being taken.
A typed version of verbatim notes taken by Ms Joan McNaughton, Mr Howard's private secretary, demonstrates how insistent Mr Howard was that he should be able to tell the Commons that this action had been taken in relation to Mr Marriott.
The transcript shows that during the meeting the Home Office's most senior official, Permanent Secretary Mr Richard Wilson, asked Mr Lewis whether the proposed form of wording relating to Mr Marriott's move is today being removed as governor was acceptable to him [Mr Lewis].
Mr Lewis replied: "Or tomorrow."
But the Home Secretary immediately, interjected saying: "No, no, no.
Mr Howard insisted that he be able to say that Mr Marriott was being removed that day, and that is what he later told the Commons.
Sources close to Mr Lewis said last night that it was because of Mr Howard's vehement insistence on that wording that Mr Marriott was moved from Parkhurst that very day.
They cited the passage as powerful proof that Mr Howard did, in fact, directly intervene in operational, not just policy decisions, and said they were "totally inconsistent" with Mr Howard's declaration that the decisions taken on January 10th were Mr Lewis's alone and that Mr Howard was not involved.
Meanwhile, a former Tory Cabinet Minister, Mr Tom King, has hinted that he would be prepared to step in as caretaker leader should sufficient numbers of people back a pause ahead of selecting a successor to Mr John Major.