[Appleby Papers WHS/41/DE]
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
May 3rd
Humphrey and I had a meeting about a study paper that he had sent me on the subject of cancelling Trident and reintroducing conscription. It was very long, very full, very fat, and completely unreadable.
I showed it to him. He was pleased with it. Ah yes, we cant get enough papers on that, he remarked smugly. We need lots of input. We dont want to make any announcements until we have examined every implication and ramification. Familiar delaying tactics.
This is going to happen, Humphrey, I told him firmly.
Oh yes, Prime Minister. By yes he meant no. Indeed it is, beyond question, at the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time.
No Humphrey, I replied sharply. This century. This Parliament, in fact.
He shook his head sadly. This Parliament? Im not sure it would be fruitful. The time may not be ripe. It could turn out to be a banana skin.
Perhaps his doubts are a reflection of the curious obstinacy that I am encountering from Eric. The paper shows that if my plan goes ahead well have one and a half billion pounds available for tax cuts. And the Chancellor, of all people, opposes it. How can he oppose such a chance to win popularity from the voters? The only possibility, according to Humphrey, is that Eric is being advised by the Treasury, which apparently doesnt believe in giving money back.
This is always hard for a non-Treasury man to understand. I explained that the money is not the Treasurys, it is the taxpayers.
That is one view, Humphrey acknowledged. But it is not the view that the Treasury takes. Not once they have got their hands on it.
But if they dont need the money I began.
He interrupted me, puzzled. Im sorry? he asked.
If they dont need it I reiterated, and was again stopped in mid-sentence.
Taxation, said Humphrey loftily, isnt about what you need. The Treasury does not work out what it needs and then think how to raise the money. The Treasury pitches for as much as it can get away with and then thinks how to spend it. If the government started to give money back just because we didnt need it, we would be breaking with centuries of tradition. What would happen to the British Navy, for instance?
I couldnt see any relevance to the question. It would still be there. We still need a Navy.
Humphrey explained that, as we only have four capital ships, we only would need four Admirals and one Admiral of the fleet. Whereas we have a total of sixty Admirals. And tempting though it would be to do away with fifty-six of them, the effect would be to reduce the number of serving officers all the way down, until there was hardly anybody left in the Navy at all.
I felt this was a red herring. My conversation with Humphrey was completely circular. To summarise it: the Treasury is the most important department of government because it controls all the money. Every time you take away some of its money you take away some of its power. Therefore it resists. The only way to get the Treasury to agree to tax cuts is to get the Chancellor to agree. But the Chancellor wont agree unless the Treasury agrees. So how do you force the Treasurys hand? Only by forcing the Chancellors hand. And how do you force the Chancellors hand? Only by forcing the Treasurys hand.
Humphrey suggested that I try to persuade the Chancellor to give me his active support. He is my Cabinet colleague. That, briefly, is the drawback -- I need help from somebody who is on my side.
We got nowhere. Ill have to give this a lot of thought.
May 10th
Today I saw the way to get my tax cuts. And the help is going to come from a most unlikely source: the Minister of State for Health. Not only is he an unlikely source of help, he doesnt even know that hes going to help. And Im certainly not going to tell him!
This is how it happened. Dr Thorn came to see me. He had sent me a paper of cigarettes, apparently, and the power and influence of the tobacco lobby in this country. Unfortunately I hadnt had time to read it. He asked me for my reaction to it, so I asked him to summarise it in his own words.
Those were my own words, he said, slightly nonplussed.
Bernard came to the rescue, very skilfully. The Prime Minister often finds that a brief verbatim summary clarifies the emphasis and focuses on the salient points.
Salient points, I echoed, to encourage Dr Thorn.
So he told me what he had in mind. I was staggered. His idea was for the government to take action to eliminate smoking. He had a five-point plan:
1. A complete ban on all cigarette sponsorship.
2. A complete an on all cigarette advertising, even at the point of sale.
3. Fifty million pounds to be spent on anti-smoking publicity.
4. A ban on smoking in all public places.
5. Progressive deterrent tax raises until a packet of twenty costs about the same as a bottle of whiskey.
It is a drastic scheme. He claims it should reduce smoking by at least eighty per cent. Even ninety per cent, perhaps. He reckons it will drive the tobacco companies out of business.
I had no immediate answer for such radical proposals. Of course, it would have helped if Id read his paper before the meeting, but one cant find time for everything! But he was very serious and I had to keep him happy. So I told him that obviously I agreed with him, basically, that smoking ought to be stopped. No question. And I told him that we would definitely stop it in due course, at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time. I could see Bernard nodding with approval in the background. Im getting very good at Civil Service stalling techniques.
Dr Thorn could see what I was doing, though. You mean, forget it?
I assured him that that wasnt what I meant. And it wasnt! Well, not exactly! But we do have to be realistic. After all, I remarked, we werent born yesterday.
No. He was very tight-lipped. And we didnt die yesterday.
What do you mean? I asked.
Three hundred people did die yesterday, prematurely, as a result of smoking. There are a hundred thousand deaths a year, at least.
I tried to show Peter just how unrealistic he was being. If I took his proposal to Cabinet, the Treasury and the Chancellor would surely say that smoking brings in four billion pounds a year in revenue, and that we cant possibly manage without it.
Peter insisted that he wasnt unrealistic. I know you cant beat the Treasury with financial arguments. But this is a moral argument.
And then my brilliant idea occurred to me! A way to beat the Treasury. With Dr Peter Thorns help, but without his knowledge. And not on the issue of smoking, but as a means of securing the tax cuts that I want.
I was very careful. I didnt exactly tell Thorn that Id support him. But I told him hed made his case, and that we could give his plan a try. I told him Id even read his paper. I added again just in time.
He tried to pin me down on the issue of actual support for him. I explained that I couldnt give him public support -- not yet. It would undermine my position if I took sides at this stage. I have to be seen as the impartial judge who is persuaded by the strength of the case.
He said he saw the sense of that. He is a bit gullible. I must remember that, it could be dangerous. Or useful, come to think of it.
But off the record, I concluded, Id like to see this pushed very hard. Very hard indeed. Id like to see you make some speeches on it.
Bernard looked alarmed, but Dr Thorns face lit up. He flushed with pleasure, and thanked me profusely for my help. I thanked him for his cigarette paper. [Presumably Dr Thorn understood that Hacker meant his paper on cigarettes Ed.]