March 15th
Only five days have elapsed since I instructed Humphrey to ensure that no more papers were bounced through Cabinet. On that very day we decided that MPs were not going to get their pay rise, and that the Treasury would be cancelling half our spending plans.
But what did I find on my desk today? A plan for a Civil Service pay rise!
Humphrey has had the temerity to suggest that because spending cuts mean a lot of extra work for the Civil Service, they deserve a pay rise for coping with them.
Ridiculous! And even if that were legitimate, how dare he try to get it through Cabinet tomorrow, after I told him to make sure that all Cabinet papers come through forty-eight hours in advance?
Humphrey claimed it was not his fault. Prime Minister, it is not for me to speak for Sir Frank.
Speak for yourself, I retorted. Youre Cabinet Secretary. Youre also Head of the Civil Service.
Am I? Humphrey smiled. How gratifying.
At the moment, I said significantly, regretting my momentary slip of the tongue.
As Cabinet Secretary, said Humphrey, I am most eager to reduce public spending, but as Head of the Civil Service I am responsible for the very real problems that will arise administratively if a pay rise does not come through soon. This is a difficult matter for me because Im wearing two hats.
Isnt that rather awkward? I enquired.
Not if one is in two minds, he replied smoothly.
Or has two faces, intervened Bernard, and I could see he instantly regretted it.
Perhaps I should relieve you of one of them, I suggested.
Humphrey panicked. Oh, no. No. Im very happy with both of them.
Faces? I asked with amusement.
Hats, he snapped.
But, I reminded him, you said you have very real problems.
The problem is low morale, which inevitably leads to the danger of a strike. Think of the effect of a strike of the computer men on the social services. Furthermore, we are already experiencing difficulties of recruitment.
This was news to me. I thought you had about ten applicants for every place.
Yes, he acknowledged with reluctance, but we are getting applicants of a very low quality, with very few first-class degrees. Most of them have lower seconds.
Ridiculous intellectual snobbery! I got a third, I remarked.
Humphrey hesitated, aware that hed been less than tactful. Bernard tried to cover for him. A thirds all right for a Prime Minister, but Sir Humphreys talking about Civil Servants.
Humphrey stuck to his guns. Non-cooperation by the Civil Service Unions brings government to a standstill. Presuming that it was previously moving, I suppose. The FDA [First Division Association, the Union that represents the top Civil Servants in Whitehall] has a huge membership now.
Including yourself? I asked.
Humphrey assured me that even though he is a member of the union he will always cooperate with me to the same extent as usual.
Which is roughly what Im complaining about.
I reiterated to him that I cannot possibly get this through, even if I want to. With the backbench revolt looming over the cuts, MPs will never okay a pay rise for the Civil Service. And the Cabinet is bound to resist.
Humphrey saw the point quickly. He suggested that we merely ask for Cabinet to agree, in principle, to look at the application. Then the matter could be put before an independent group of assessors to consider the claim in detail.
This seems a reasonable compromise. The only thing that puzzles me about it is that Humphreys suggestion for chairman is Professor Welsh. Ive heard hes a silly old buffer!
[The Cabinet, the following day, did agree to look at the matter in principle, but made no other commitments. There the matter rested until the pay claim was worked out in detail. This was done in considerable haste, and only eleven days later the following letter was sent by Sir Frank Gordon to Sir Humphrey Appleby. Sir Frank was slightly less careful than Sir Humphrey about what he was prepared to put in writing. We found this personal, handwritten note in the Cabinet Office ourselves. Presumably it was carefully preserved by Sir Humphrey Appleby in case it should prove useful in his fight with Sir Frank for control of the Service. In the event, it was never shown to Hacker, but it reveals much about the way Civil Service pay claims were prepared in the late twentieth century. The complete note is reprinted below Ed.]
H.M. Treasury
March 27th
Dear Humphrey,
I enclose the working papers. I am sure that you will agree that, in all fairness, the most senior grades of the service who really bear the heat of the battle should receive the greatest increase.
This means that there is a significant percentage increase for Under Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries, and those two jobs which bear the greatest burden of all. [The two jobs being Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, which, coincidentally, were held by the sender and the recipient of this letter Ed] It comes to about 43%, alas!
The enclosed papers are not for submission. The submission papers, which follow shortly, go up to Appendix Q, so there is little chance that the Cabinet will read them all. The one-page summary for the Cabinet [known in the Civil Service as The Janet and John Bit Ed.] is more or less the same as last time. It is headed Comparable Jobs in Industry, and is also enclosed.
You will recognise that the salary comparisons are based on directors of BP and IBM. I think that there is no risk of their being challenged because, in line with our usual custom and practice, we do not mention them by name. They are referred to as typical industry firms.
Then we take our own new examples of increase from the lowest point of the incremental scale,
e.g.: 3.50 a week rise for a Messenger
4.20 a week rise for a Registry Clerk
8.20 a week rise for a Scientific Officer
For the most senior grade [Sir Frank and Sir Humphrey only Ed.] in the Service it would be a rise of 26,000 per annum. It hardly seems necessary to mention that in the Janet and John Bit, firstly because it can be calculated by the Cabinet Members themselves should they desire to do so, and secondly because it only applies to the two top jobs mentioned above. If there is criticism it is, as we said, just another cross we have to bear.
Sincerely
FG
[Sir Humphrey sent a carefully worded reply Ed.]
70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS
From the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service
March 27th
Dear Frank,
I was glad to hear of your proposals for the Civil Service pay claim. Thank you for keeping me informed.
Thank you also for not showing me the full details. It would be most improper if I had full knowledge, since pay is within your purview. Do you think we should volunteer to forego some of the pay rise ourselves? And you have not mentioned pensions.
Are you quite sure that the Cabinet will not want to go through the proposals in much greater detail than the summary?
As ever,
HA
[Sir Frank replied to Sir Humphrey Ed.]
March 27th
Dear Humphrey,
If our own pay rises are brought up we can volunteer to defer the rise. And get it back later, when the fuss has died down.
I have not mentioned pensions. I find it is better not to, ever since we got the inflation indexing through. It creates animosity, confuses things, and pensions are so difficult to put a real value on.
I see no likelihood of Cabinet Ministers going into this matter more deeply. Ministers are briefed by their own officials, and we all know where their loyalties lie.
Frank.
[And Sir Humphrey replied to Sir Frank Ed.]
March 28th
Dear Frank,
I shall put the matter on the agenda last item before lunch. The agenda is full, so with careful management there will only be about five minutes left.