So it should all be plain sailing, but for the vigorous scrutiny of Professor Welsh!
As ever,
H.A.
[Hackers diary continues Ed.
March 29th
I had a most interesting phone call from Dorothy Wainwright this morning. I had asked her to do a paper on the Civil Service pay claim. She wanted to give me an immediate response.
I asked her what her answer was.
I havent an answer, more a series of questions, she told me. Not for you, but for Humphrey. The claim is self-serving and inappropriate, and significant for the questions it leaves unanswered. But please treat my questions as highly confidential, or else youll never catch Humphrey out.
Ive locked the list of questions in my desk and taken the key. So I cant list them here, but I shall come back to this matter tomorrow.
[Fortunately for Sir Humphrey, this phone call was overheard by Bernard Woolley. He was not eavesdropping. It is the Principal Private Secretarys duty to listen in on all telephone calls to or from the Prime minister, in order to minute and witness what was said, to give the Prime Minister an aide mmoire, and to protect the Prime Minister against subsequent misrepresentation. In this instance, Dorothy Wainwright made a tactical error in not calling on Mr Hackers private line. Better still, she could have spoken to him in person.
It is also true to say that Bernard Woolley had a duty to respect the complete confidentiality of the call. It might be argued that he stuck to the letter of the rules -- but it is clear from this entry in Sir Humphreys diary that Bernard Woolley did not stick to the spirit of confidentiality. But then, like all Private Secretaries, he did have a difficult dual loyalty to maintain Ed.]
En route to the Cabinet Room through the Private Office I was halted by an anxious BW.
He informed me that there had been movement. Specifically, movement on a matter on which the Civil Service hoped there would be no movement.
I refrained from pointing out that the Civil Service generally hopes that there will be no movement on any matter.
BW seemed unable or unwilling to express himself with even his usual clarity. He told me that it was in relation to a subject that is normally wholly and exclusively within the control of the Civil Service that developments have developed. I told him that he was speaking in riddles. He thanked me.
Most unusually for me I had been slow on the uptake. I realised that his lips were sealed, and that he must be referring confidentially to minutes that he was duty-bound to make of a confidential conversation between the Prime Minister and one of his confidential advisers.
I asked if this were so. He acknowledged with a nod.
I asked for the name of the confidential adviser. He told me that he was not at liberty to divulge her name. Very helpful.
I questioned him closely, to find out whether the confidential advice concerned the financial crisis or the PMs foolish nuclear strategy. BW hinted that the matter was even more important than either of the above.
I realised at once that he must be referring to the Civil Service pay claim. I asked him, and he refused to confirm or deny it. Quite correctly. [It might be argued that this refusal to confirm or deny was less than correct, since Bernard Woolley had given a clear negative response to all of Sir Humphreys other questions. The inference was therefore unmistakeable Ed.]
I asked BW for his advice. He advised me to consider my position very carefully, perhaps temporarily adopting a middle-of-the-road posture, while keeping my ear to the ground, covering my retreat and watching my rear. A little undignified but I took heed of his warning.
I thanked him for his help. He replied that he had not told me anything. I agreed, for it would have been most improper had he done so.
[Appleby Papers 638/T/RJC]
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
March 30th
I studied the Civil Service pay claim in great detail when I rose early this morning and, armed with Dorothys excellent questions, I was ready to raise hell with Humphrey. I was delighted that her comments were given to me in complete confidence -- because I learned something important about Humphrey today: he is not always on the side of the Civil Service. With no prior knowledge of the awkward questions I raised he performed reasonably and helpfully, and impressed me more than somewhat.
I handed him the very bulky Pay Claim file when he came in. Its incredibly long and verbose -- goes up to Appendix Q, I think. Thank God Dorothys a patient reader. And a quick one.
I asked Humphrey what he made of it. He said that it was too large for an instant judgement. I told him to read the excellent one-page summary at the front.
He did so. Then he looked up at me, and remarked that I was putting him in a very difficult position.
I got heavy with him. Look, Humphrey, I reminded him, I appreciate that you have a loyalty to your colleagues but you also have a broader loyalty to the Cabinet and its policies.
I agree, he said.
I was confused. You agree?
Yes, he said.
I wanted to get this quite clear. You mean you agree with me? I asked.
Yes, I agree, he repeated.
I still wasnt quite sure that he wasnt playing some verbal or linguistic game. I wanted to be quite sure where I stood. Who, precisely, do you agree with?
With you, he replied.
I wanted to be absolutely sure. Not with Sir Frank?
No, he said.
I summed it up. So youre not arguing with me at all?
No, he answered. Perhaps I havent made it quite clear, Prime Minister -- I agree with you.
Well, you can imagine how completely flabbergasted I was. So I asked him for his view of this self-serving pay claim.
Its not excessive in itself, he replied, but at a time of national strigency it is neither wise nor in the national interest. I dont like to criticise my colleagues, but in my opinion Sir Frank, though no doubt acting from the best of motives, should have placed the good of the nation before the narrower sectional interests of Civil Servants. This claim raises serious questions.
How interesting that he should use that phrase. I told him Id made a note of some questions too. I handed Dorothys list over to him.
He stared at it. Good questions, he said quietly. Where did they come from?
I wasnt sure that I cared for the implication of his question. They occurred to me, I said.
He glanced at the paper again. Yes. Well, theyre very good questions.
This was exactly what I -- and Dorothy -- had thought. So I asked Humphrey what we should now do about these questions. He said that we should ask them. I thought I was asking them, but his view was that I should ask them of Sir Frank. I think you should invite him here to discuss them. He may well have answers. Indeed, he should have answers. This is his job, after all.
I realised that he was quite right. I told him to speak to Bernard and arrange a meeting. And I told Humphrey that I genuinely appreciated his impartiality on this subject. After all, theres no doubt that Humphrey himself would do quite well out of this pay claim if it went through.
Humphrey thanked me, but explained that he saw the rewards of his job as the knowledge that one has been of service to the nation. Im sure he was telling the truth. And of course, I see my rewards in exactly the same light. Nonetheless, one must give credit where credit is due -- Humphrey was extremely fair-minded today.
After he left I asked Bernard how the FDA worked. How, if they are all in the Union, can they bargain with themselves over their own pay?
I could have predicted the answer -- Bernard said its not so difficult if they simply wear two hats.
All very well, I said, but what happens when there is industrial action?
[This phrase must be the only occasion on which the Civil Service uses the demeaning word industrial to apply to itself. Though it frequently describes itself as industrious Ed.]