It can be awkward, said Bernard. The Secretary of our Union was on the Council of Civil Service Unions which planned the last bout of disruption -- and at the same time, as Number Three at Swansea, his duty was to make contingency plans for frustrating the disruption.
I asked what happened. Bernard said he was very successful.
I couldnt see how. He must have known the other sides plans, I said.
Which other side? asked Bernard.
Both other sides, I answered logically. Whichever side he wasnt on at whatever moment he was on the other side.
This presented no problem for Bernard. Yes, he agreed, but he never disclosed the other sides plans.
To whom? I was getting confused.
To his own side.
Which own side? I asked.
Whichever side, explained Bernard patiently, that he was on at whatever moment he wasnt on the other side.
I was now groping blindly through the fog of logic. Yes, but even if he never disclosed the other sides plans to his own side, he knew the other sides plan because he was on the other side too!
Bernard contemplated this question briefly. Therefore I imagine, he replied, that he never disclosed to himself what he knew.
I asked Bernard how such a thing was possible. It seemed all too easy to Bernard. He was a model of discretion, he said.
To me the Number Three man at Swansea sounded like a model of institutionalised schizophrenia. But there remained one vital unanswered question, When there is a genuine conflict of interest, Bernard, which side is the Civil Service really on?
This time he replied without hesitation. The winning side, Prime Minister. And he gave me a winning smile.
Sir Humphrey, having been forced by events to side against the Civil Service pay claim proposed by Sir Frank, was left in something of a dilemma. It had been useful to him to appear more loyal than Sir Frank, and, in any case, since the Prime Minister had found some of the key questions, the claim was inevitably doomed and any wise many would have distanced himself from it. Now, however, he was obliged to find a way to make the Civil Service pay claim seem acceptable -- partly because it would consolidate his position with the PM and with his colleagues in the Service, and partly because he wanted the money.
Accordingly, he consulted his eminent predecessor Sir Arnold Robinson. One of many jobs Sir Arnold had accepted on his retirement was the Presidency of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Strangely, however, Sir Arnold did not report the events described in this chapter to the press, nor to the Campaign. Indeed, his private notes only came to light comparatively recently when, under the terms of his will, his private papers were released from the strongbox of his bank in Woking thirty years after his death Ed.]
We lunched in the Athenaeum. Humphrey was concerned that he had not been able to support Franks case. Deeply distressing, no doubt, but one does not support proposals that are clearly going to be rejected.
The Wainwright female had given Hacker a list of questions, plus the suggestion that the politicians stop letting us handle our own pay claim and let a Select Committee of Parliament decide on them. An appalling notion! The next thing wed have is politicians removing Civil Servants on the grounds of incompetence, which would be the thin end of the wedge.
It is true, doubtless, that some Civil Servants are incompetent, but certainly not incompetent enough for a politician to notice. A better idea might be that Civil Servants could remove politicians on the grounds of incompetence, although that is a sadly improbably notion because it would virtually empty the House of Commons, remove all the Cabinet, be the end of democracy and the beginning of responsible government.
It appears that Frank used the normal formula -- comparable jobs in industry. And they need a rise of 43%. I made the following suggestions:
1. Since virtually all the relevant staff work in London, there should be a big increase in the London Allowance. Allowances rank as expenses. Because they do not count as a rise, they do not show up in the percentage calculations.
2. Introduce a Special Graduate Allowance for those with First Class Degrees, and Upper Second-Class degrees. (Oxford does not give Upper Seconds, so count any Second at Oxford as an Upper Second.)
3. Double the Outstanding Merit Awards, which everyone gets. Awards rank as Bonuses and, like Allowances, do not count as pay rises.
4. Items 1-3 bring the claim down to about 18% for the top grades. Therefore it should be calculated from 1973, which was the high point in percentage increases [not in income Ed.]. And take the calculation to the end of two years from now, i.e. the end of this claim period rather than the beginning.
These four measures bring the percentage increase down to about 6%. But that still means that the Civil Service overall pay bill will be too high. The only option is to reduce the size of the Civil Service. Thus, a comfortable rise for individuals would be a smaller rise in the total bill.
Of course, real reductions in the size of the Civil Service would be the end of civilisation as we know it. The answer is much less worrying: stop calling some officials by the name of Civil Servant.
E.g. Turn all museums into independent trusts. Then all the staff stop being classified as Civil Servants. They will still be the same people doing the same job and still paid by government grants. But grants, like allowances and bonuses, do not count in the pay statistics. It will look like a cutback, a most impressive cutback, unless anyone enquires very closely. [This procedure was followed in the 1980s, leading the British public to believe that the Civil Service numbered 680,000, its smallest size for many years Ed.]
There is only one problem: setting up a sufficient number of trusts. But it may not have to be done at all. It must only be planned for some time in the next two years in order to be reflected in the statistics. If it subsequently does not happen, it will not be anyones fault.
Appleby thanked me profusely. I indicated that I was always happy to oblige. [Especially, we suspect, with the Birthday Honours approaching. Sir Arnold did have the GCB (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath) conferred upon him in June Ed.]
I offered to discuss the matter also with Frank Gordon at the Treasury. Humphrey was adamant that I should not do so. Apparently Frank Gordon has a lot of problems coming up at the moment. He hasnt mentioned them to me. [This was because Sir Frank did not yet know about them Ed.]
Finally I suggested one major reform to Appleby:
Members of Parliament can be very small-minded about Civil Service pay, and there is often a struggle to get an increase past the House. But if MPs pay were to be linked to a grade in the Civil Service, then every time they vote for a civil Service pay rise they will accidentally be raising their own salaries. We could also index-link MPs pensions. This could save much unpleasantness all round. [This provision was enacted in 1983 without any legislation and with the minimum of publicity; it was announced in late July, to coincide with the summer holidays of the few journalists who would have seen its significance Ed.]
This was not done in my time in the Cabinet office because Mr Hackers predecessor as MP felt it might motivate parliament to frequent inflationary increases in government spending. I hope MPs would not be so self-seeking, but politicians are a very mercenary lot and we in the Civil Service must not judge everyone by our own high standards.
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
April 3rd