'What Byers did was immoral and illegal'

GEOFFREY Howe is one of the toughest lawyers in Britain. And like that other toughie, The Untouchables' Eliot Ness, he is on a moral crusade. Except in this case it's not the Mob, but Transport Secretary Stephen Byers and the Government that are in his sights.

It was Howe's reputation as one of the most formidable operators in his field that made him the unanimous choice of headhunters (and, coincidentally, Britain's most powerful financial institutions) to take on the job of chairman of the Railtrack Group.

His job will not be to run a railway or have anything to do with cracked tracks, but simply to win £1.8bn in compensation for angry shareholders by suing Byers for putting Railtrack into administration. But in taking on Byers, who admitted that he lied on TV about his role in the sacking of Transport Department Press chief Martin Sixsmith, Howe will find himself taking on a fellow churchgoer - the Prime Minister. The Blairs and the Howes used to attend the same Roman Catholic church in Islington, north London.

So is Howe losing any sleep over the battle ahead? He laughs and says: 'If you have been a partner in a major law firm for 20 years, you don't worry too much about who is on the other side of the table.'

Howe, a 52-year-old former pupil of Manchester Grammar School, clearly lives well - his passions include fine wine and opera. But it's obvious that money is not the motivation for taking on one of the most high profile legal actions shortly to entertain the nation - though £150,000 for a two-day week is some compensation. It is more a strong sense of right and wrong that drives him.

Howe has even forfeited a success fee, which could be based on how much he recovers on behalf of the shareholders.

Just seconds into our interview in Railtrack's bleak serviced high-tech offices on Euston Road in central London, Howe launches an impassioned blast against Byers' decision last October to put the company into administration. 'I just think - we all think - it is wrong,' he says. 'It is immoral, certainly immoral, and illegal. Unless you are a diehard ''renationalisationwithoutcompensation'' person, all sensible people think that something wrong has happened here.'

It is the absolute conviction that Byers acted wrongly that seems to be fuelling Howe's anger. And former colleagues at Clifford Chance, the law firm where he was managing director for nine years, are not betting that he will lose against Byers and the Government.

Of course, Howe is at pains to point out that this is not a personal thing with Byers. 'The events that led to the decision to put Railtrack into administration are history,' he says. 'Byers may be here or he may be gone when this matter is resolved. I certainly will be here. I am here for the long term.'

But having repeated that he is 'anxious not to make this a personal thing with Mr Byers', Howe wants to see the Transport Secretary in the witness box, justifying his decision to put the rail network into administration.

'This is something the Government will have to think about when it addresses this,' he says. 'It is one thing to say it is OK and (involves) no taxpayers' money or whatever. But people have to live with the consequences of their actions and ultimately they will have to defend themselves in court.'

Legal action could start as soon as next month when Howe attempts to force Byers to hand over all the documents relating to his decision to put Railtrack into administration. A letter detailing all the documents required will shortly be passed to the Treasury Solicitor, the Government's lawyer.

If Byers - as expected - refuses to comply, legal action is expected in May.

At that stage, the millionaire lawyer, who racked up huge fees in the City for decades before choosing the less stressful life of a serial non-executive director, will be plunged into the spotlight.

But what about the argument that Railtrack was a commercial firm that went bust and whose shareholders must bear some of the pain? At this stage, Howe becomes genuinely agitated. 'Of course, we know now that when this company was being put into administration, its first-half profits had doubled to nearly £300m - hardly an insolvent company,' he says.

'But the reason that Railtrack was insolvent was because the Government reneged on an agreement it had entered into and said that it would change the regulatory environment. Everyone believed that the game of a regulated company was that there was a limit on the profits, but equally the regulator has a responsibility to ensure that the railways are properly financed.

'What did Byers do? He said that if the regulator threatened to help the company, he would pass a law preventing the regulator from doing that. So, effectively, Railtrack became insolvent because Byers threatened to change the law to make it happen.'