The Complete Yes Prime Minister

MAN OVERBOARD

July 2nd

The Employment Secretary has clearly been thinking hard during Wimbledon. Straight back from the Centre Court he came to me with a fascinating proposal.

In a nutshell, his plan is to relocate many of our armed forces to the north of England. He has come to the realisation that, although we have 420,000 service personnel, only 20,000 of them are stationed in the north. Almost everything and everyone is here in the south. The navy is in Portsmouth and Plymouth. The Royal Air Force is in Bedford and East Anglia, barely north of London. The army is in Aldershot. There are virtually no troops in Britain north of the Wash. And yet -- here's the rub -- virtually all our unemployment is in the north.

Dudley [Dudley Belling, the Secretary of State for Employment] is not concerned about the military personnel themselves. Many of them come from the north anyway. No, what he sees is that if we move two or three hundred thousand servicemen from the south to the north we will create masses of civilian jobs: clerks, suppliers, builders, vehicle maintenance the possibilities are immense, limitless. Three hundred thousand extra pay packets to be spent in the shops.

There is really no good argument against this proposal, and I defy the Civil Service to provide one. [A rash challenge Ed.] They should underestimate me no longer. Im getting wise to their tricks.

[Hacker, after eight months in Number Ten Downing Street, was clearly much more intelligently aware of the likely Civil Service response to any alteration in the status quo. Even so, he seems to suffer from overconfidence here, and left the door open for a good argument against this plan. New readers may interpret this attitude as reasonable, moderate and flexible. But those students who are familiar with Hackers earlier career will know that Sir Humphrey Appleby could conjure up very good arguments out of thin air. Hacker, unshakeably confident though he was that he was wise to Sir Humphreys tricks, apparently forgot that he was dealing with a master magician.

As soon as the Employment Secretarys relocation proposal was circulated, an emergency meeting was convened at the MOD. The minutes record total approval for the plan, with a note that minor reservations were expressed about the feasibility of certain peripheral details concerning the actual execution of the proposal. Sir Humphreys private notes, recently released under the Thirty Year rule, tell a rather different story Ed.]

Meeting today at the MOD with Alan [Sir Alan Guthrie, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence] and Geoffrey [Field Marshal Sir Geoffrey Howard, the chief of the Defence Staff].

Geoffrey was late. Not particularly soldierly, I thought, but Alan explained that this proposal by the Employment Secretary has put the whole of the Ministry of Defence into a state of turmoil.

Alan, whos new, was taking it very badly indeed. I tried to explain to him that this wretched proposal emanated from the Department of Employment, and defence was none of their bloody business. I corrected him: the plan emanated from the Secretary of State for Employment -- the Department itself had nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, as I could see civil war between the two Departments looming here, I indicated that all work on the proposal was done by the Employment Secretarys political advisors.

[Sir Humphrey, a circumspect man, probably did not say that the proposal came from the Secretary of States political advisors. He merely indicated it. He would have been most concerned not to tell lies, even if he was not telling the truth. His distinguished predecessor Sir Arnold Robinson described this process as being economical with the truth on one famous occasion, though he was in turn quoting Edmund Burke Ed.]

I pointed out to Alan that we should all stay quite calm, and that we were only dealing with a relocation proposal, not a Russian invasion. Alan said: Id be less worried if it were a Russian invasion -- the Ministry of Defence is prepared for that.

We were all more than surprised to hear this. So he clarified the statement: what he meant was that the MOD knows what it would have to do to repel a Russian invasion. I was even more surprised, and asked if we could repel it. He said no, of courts not, but at least the MOD dont have to do any more thinking about it.

It was up to me nominally to defend the Employment Secretarys proposal, since the Prime Minister has publicly supported it, so I reiterated that, although the armed forces contain a lot of men from the north, they are not the ones who are unemployed now. And the Employment Secretarys scheme is designed to help those who are currently unemployed.

Alan felt that we were doing quite enough already. Many of our troops from the north were unemployed, thats why they joined up. This argument wont wash with the PM, who is concerned about jobs in the north, whereas the troops who have joined up in the north are spending all their money in the south where they now are.

Alan said that this was logically inevitable, since there is nothing to spend it on in the north.

Field Marshal Sir Geoffrey Howard joined us. He went straight on to the attack, informing me that this proposal must be stopped. He told me that you cant just move hundreds of thousands of men around the country like that.

I thought thats what you did with armies. It sounds a feeble argument to me. But upon closer examination it was the permanent of the move to which he objected. Quite reasonably.

He conceded that some servicemen could be stationed permanently in the north of England: other ranks perhaps, junior officers possibly. But he made it clear, very properly, that we really cannot as senior officers to live permanently in the north.

I asked for a list of reasons. He obliged.

1. Their wives wouldnt stand for it.

2. No schools. [There were schools in the north of England at this time, but perhaps Sir Geoffrey meant that suitable fee-paying schools were not accessible Ed.]

3. Harrods is not in the north.

4. Nor is Wimbledon.

5. Ditto Ascot.

6. And the Henley Regatta.

7. Not to mention the Army and Navy Club.

In short, he argued that civilisation generally would be completely remote. This sort of sacrifice is acceptable to the forces in times of war but if the move were made in these circumstances, morale would undoubtedly plummet.

I was impatient with these arguments. The matter is to be discussed in Cabinet this afternoon, and more serious arguments are required than senior officers being three hundred miles from the club, however disturbing, however true!

Geoffrey could think of nothing more serious than that. He remarked indignantly that chaps like him and me might have to move up there.

I pressed him for objective reasons against the plan. He insisted that these were objective reasons. I decided against showing him the dictionary, and enquired if there are any strategic arguments against it.

He said there were. Several. My pencil poised, I asked him to list them. He was unable to do so. He said that he hasnt had time to think about it yet, but that strategic arguments can always be found against anything. Hes absolutely correct in that.

So when Alan and Geoffrey have had time to find some strategic arguments, we must ensure that if they cannot stand up to outside scrutiny we will make them top secret. This is in any case customary with all defence matters, and is the way in which we have always managed to keep the defence estimates high. We will make the strategic arguments For The Prime Ministers Eyes Only, which certainly means that they will not be subject to expert scrutiny.

However, the strategic arguments might not be sufficient to deflect the Prime Minister from the Employment Secretarys plan. So I proposed that, for additional safety, we play the man instead of the ball. This is always a good technique, and the man in question is -- and deserves to be -- the Employment Secretary, whose dreadful idea this was.

The plan we devised involves appealing to the Prime Ministers paranoia. All Prime Ministers are paranoid, this one more than most. It should be childs play to suggest to the Prime Minister that the Employment Secretary is plotting against him.

Geoffrey asked if this were true. Soldiers really are awfully simple people. The question is not whether there is a plot (which, so far as I know, there is not) but whether the Prime Minister can be made to believe there is.

Geoffrey asked if there were any chance of getting rid of him completely. At first I thought that he was referring to the PM, and I indicated that it would be an awful pity to get rid of him after all the effort weve put into getting him house-trained.

But it transpired that Geoffrey meant getting rid of the Employment Secretary. The man is dangerous. If hes moved from Employment he might get Industry -- in which case he might try to sell the RAF. Or privatise the army. Or float the navy.

In view of the presence of one or two junior MOD officials at the meeting and the consequent risk of ponting, I expressed appropriate horror at Field Marshal Howards notion that humble civil servants should presume to try and remove a member of Her Majestys Government from the Cabinet. I explained that it was out of the question, that only a Prime Minister can remove Secretaries of State.

Nonetheless, any Prime Minister would be forced to consider such drastic action if he were to suspect the loyalty of a member of his cabinet. And since only someone in an advanced state of paranoia would suspect the Employment Secretary of a plot were in with a chance.

Before the meeting broke up we ensured that the minutes reflected our enthusiasm for the Employment Secretarys proposal to relocate substantial numbers of our armed forces, at all levels, in the north of England and Scotland.

[Appleby Papers 36/17/QQX]

[Sir Humphreys comment about the discretion of the junior officials reflects the growing concern about freedom of information at this time. An Assistant Secretary by the name of Ponting was one of those officials who had taken it upon himself to leak information to Members of Parliament and other totally unqualified and unsuitable individuals, in what was claimed to be the public interest. Ponting became the participle from the verb to pont used to describe such leaks, and many junior officials were concerned with the problem of to pont or not to pont, the alternatives being loyalty and discretion in the job or resignation from it. Ponting was clearly an attractive temptation, carrying with it the improbability of conviction, the certainty of notoriety and the serialisation of ones memoirs in the Guardian .

The day following the secret meeting at the MOD, the Employment Secretarys proposal came up for discussion in Cabinet Committee. Hackers diary continues Ed.]

July 4th

We discussed Dudleys proposal today in Cabinet Committee and I encountered opposition, just as I expected. Sir Humphrey was present. So were Max [Sir Maxwell Hopkins, Secretary of State for Defence] and Dudley and several others. Bernard was there too, of course.

Dudley, at my prompting, asked for reactions to his paper.

Max spoke first. He was bound to be against it. Well, Prime Minister, I know that on the face of it this plan looks as though it might benefit the employment situation in depressed areas. But this is to be achieved, as I understand it, but relocating most of our defence establishments. I suggest that it affects the Defence Department at least as much as the Department of Employment and I need time to do a feasibility study.

I looked around the table. Nobody else spoke.

Anyone else have an opinion? I asked. Quickly. Brian [Brian Smithson, Secretary of State for the Environment], Eric [Eric Jeffries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer] and Neil [Neil Hitchcock, Secretary of State for Transport] all looked rather doubtful.

Brian said: Well, I dont really know much about it , but it sounds like a bit of an upheaval. Hes right on both counts.

Eric murmured: Rather expensive.

And Neil commented carefully that it was rather a big move.

Having had my little bit of fun, I gave my opinion. Im thoroughly in favour of the proposal, I said.

So am I, agreed Geoffrey [Geoffrey Pickles, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry] without hesitation.

Absolutely first-rate, said Eric, and Neil commented that it was a brilliant scheme. Sometimes being surrounded by yes-men is rather irritating, though it certainly has its compensations. And, after all, since Im usually right on matters of government strategy it does save a lot of time when they all agree with me right away.

I smiled at my colleagues. I think the Secretary of State for Defence is in a minority of one.

Max stood up for himself. He was grimly determined. I have to admire that, even though he cant win this one. Nonetheless, Prime Minister, he said, I am the responsible Minister and this cant be decided till Ive done my feasibility study. The defence of the realm is in question. We must have a further meeting about this, with time allotted for a full discussion.

A reasonable request. I agreed that we would have a full discussion of it at our next meeting, in two weeks time, after which we would put it to full Cabinet for approval.

The rest of the Committee agreed with me again. Hear hear! Hear hear! they all grunted vociferously.

Dudley added: May I request, Prime Minister, that it be noted in the minutes that the Cabinet Committee was in favour of my plan, save for one member?

I nodded at Humphrey and Bernard, who made notes. But Max refused to accept Dudleys request without comment. The one member, he remarked stubbornly, is the member whose department would have to be reorganised. Its quite a problem.

I began to feel impatient with Max. May I urge the Secretary of State for Defence to remember that every problem is also an opportunity?

Humphrey intervened. I think, Prime Minister, that the Secretary of State for Defence fears that this plan may create some insoluble opportunities.

We all laughed. Very droll, Humphrey, but not so. I dismissed them and, as they trooped out obediently, I remained behind to catch up on the details of Dudleys proposal. I hadnt had time to read much of it before the meeting.

Er Prime Minister. I looked up. To my surprise, Sir Humphrey had remained behind. I gave him my full attention.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

Not as I recall. And I do recall this conversation very well, as I dined out on it for some months. It went rather like this. Sir Humphrey did indeed say: Er Prime Minister. Thus far Hackers account is accurate but no further.

Oh, still here, Humphrey? said Hacker, reading.

Yes, said Humphrey. I wanted to have a word with you about the Employment Secretarys scheme.

Hacker was now engrossed in whatever he was reading. Terrific scheme, isnt it? he replied without looking up.

Humphrey did not think so. Well the Service Chiefs werent entirely happy with it, I gather.

Good, said Hacker cheerfully, then looked up. What? He hadnt heard a word.

Humphrey was getting pretty irritated. He never much cared for the proverbial brush-off unless he held the brush. Prime Minister, he said testily, do I have your full attention?

Of course you do, Humphrey. Im just reading these notes.

Prime Minister, theres been an earthquake in Haslemere, remarked Humphrey, by way of a small test.

Good, good, murmured Hacker. Then something must have penetrated, albeit slowly, because he looked up. Sir Humphrey, well aware that the Prime Minister had the attention span of a moth, confined himself to repeating with unusual clarity of speech that the Service Chiefs didnt like the plan.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

Humphrey kept batting on about how the Service Chiefs didnt like the plan. Of course they didnt! One could hardly expect them to appreciate the prospect of moving their wives away from Harrods and Wimbledon.

Sir Humphrey responded snootily to this suggestion. Prime Minister, that is unworthy. Their personal feelings do not enter into it. Their objections are entirely strategic.

Oh yes? I leaned back in my chair and smiled benevolently. He didnt fool me. Not any more. I spoke with heavy sarcasm. Strategic? The Admiralty Ships Division needs a deep-water port so it obviously needs to be in Bath -- thirty miles inland. The Marines job is to defend Norway so we station them in Plymouth. Armoured vehicle trials are conducted in Scotland so the military engineering establishment clearly needs to be in Surrey.

These are just isolated examples, replied Humphrey unconvincingly.

Quite, I agreed. And theres another seven hundred isolated examples in this paper. And I waved the report at him. He gazed back at me, unsmiling, cold, totally unshakeable, his piercing blue eyes fixed upon me as they stared down his patrician nose. I hesitated. [And we all know what happens to he who hesitates Ed.]

Why are you against it, Humphrey? I felt I had to understand.

I, Prime Minister? I assure you, I am not against it. Im simply trying to furnish you with the appropriate questions. Like the question of cost.

He has completely missed the point. But thats the whole beauty of it, Humphrey. It makes money! We sell all those expensive buildings in the south and move into cheap ones in the north. And there would be hundreds of thousands of acres of high-priced land in the Home Counties to sell too.

So you think the Employment Secretary has done well?

Yes, hes a good chap.

To my surprise Humphrey agreed wholeheartedly. Oh, I do agree with you there. Absolutely brilliant. Outstanding. A superb intellect. Excellent footwork. Strong elbows. A major figure, without doubt.

I didnt think he was that good. In fact, I was rather amazed that Humphrey went overboard for him lie that. I said as much.

But he is a good chap, insisted Humphrey. Wouldnt you say?

Yes, I said. Id already said it.

Yes indeed, mused Humphrey. Very popular, too.

This was news to me. Is he?

Oh yes, Humphrey told me.

I wanted to know more. Not that popular, is he?

Humphrey was nodding, eyebrows raised, as if slightly astonished by the extent of Dudleys popularity. Oh yes he is. In Whitehall. And with the parliamentary party, I understand.

I considered this. I suppose hes right. Dudley is very popular with the parliamentary party.

And with the grass roots, Im told, Humphrey added.

Are you?

He nodded. I wonder who tells him these things.

And he seems to have quite a following in the Cabinet too.

A following in the Cabinet? How is that possible? Im supposed to be the only one with a following in the Cabinet. Tell me more. I was curious. Sit down.

Humphrey sat opposite me, but seemed unwilling to say more. Theres nothing to tell, really. Its just that people are beginning to talk about him as the next Prime Minister.

I was startled. What? What do you mean?

I mean, said Humphrey carefully, when you decide to retire, of course.

But Im not planning to retire. I only just got here.

Exactly, he replied enigmatically.

I had a little think. Why, I asked eventually, should people be talking about a next Prime Minister?

Im sure its just general speculation, he drawled casually.

Its all right for Humphrey to be sure. But Im not sure. Do you think he wants to be Prime Minister?

Suddenly Humphrey seemed to be on his guard. Even if he does, surely you have no reason to doubt his loyalty? Hes not trying to build up a personal following or anything, is he?

Isnt he?

Is he?

I thought about that for a few moments. He spends a hell of a lot of time going round the country making speeches.

Only as a loyal minister. Why was Humphrey so keen to defend him? Im sure he pays personal tributes to you in all of them.

We looked at each other. And wondered. Does he? I asked. Id never thought of checking. I told Bernard to get my copies of Dudleys last six speeches. At once.

We waited in silence. And it occurred to me, once I started thinking about it, that Dudley also spends a considerable amount of time chatting up our backbenchers in the House of Commons tea room.

I mentioned this to Humphrey. He tried to reassure me. But you asked ministers to take more trouble to communicate with the party in the House.

True enough. But he has them to dinner parties as well.

Oh. Humphrey looked glum. Does he?

Yes, he does, I replied grimly. This starts to get worrying.

There seemed no more to say. Bernard returned and said that Employment had phoned to let us know that we wouldnt be able to get copies of Dudleys speeches till later today or tomorrow. Ill read them as soon as I get them. Meanwhile, I wont worry about it. Its lucky Im not paranoid. And Im also fortunate to have someone like Humphrey as my Cabinet Secretary, someone who doesnt shrink from letting me know the truth, even if it is a little upsetting.

July 5th

I couldnt sleep. This business with Dudley is really worrying. I told Annie about it, and she said airily that shes sure theres nothing to worry about. What does she know?

Today, first thing, I went through copies of Dudleys six most recent speeches. As I suspected, and feared, there was nothing in them by way of a personal tribute to me. Well, virtually nothing.

I called Humphrey in for a confidential word. Like me, he could hardly believe that Dudley had said nothing suitable about me.

Surely, asked Humphrey, evidently puzzled, surely he must have talked about the new Prime Minister bringing a new hope to Britain? The Dawn of a New Age. You know, that leaflet you told party headquarters to issue to all MPs and constituencies?

I shook my head. Not a word.

That is odd.

Its more than odd, I remarked. Its suspicious. Very suspicious.

Even so, Prime Minsiter, he surely isnt actively plotting against you?

I wasnt so sure. Isnt he?

Is he?

How do I know hes not?

Thoughtfully, he stroked his chin. You could always find out.

Could I?

The Chief Whip would be bound to know.

Humphrey was right, of course. Why didnt I think of it? I told Bernard to send for the Chief Whip right away. And we were in luck. The Chief Whip was in his office at Number Twelve. [No. 12 Downing Street, two doors up from the Prime Minister. A half-minutes walk away Ed.] We told him to drop everything and come right over.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

It was my duty to meet the Chief Whip and show him into the Cabinet Room. So when Sir Humphrey left the Prime Minister, who by now was chewing the Bokhara -- figuratively, of course -- I hurried out after him. I was anxious for more details of this apparent plot.

I stopped Humphrey in the foyer outside the Cabinet Room, where I could also keep my eye on the front door of Number Ten.

Sir Humphrey, I said, Im very troubled by what Ive just learned.

He looked at me with detached amusement, and asked what that was. I explained that I felt that Id been walking around with my eyes shut. Id never realised that there was a Cabinet plot against the Prime Minister.

He raised his eyebrows. Is there? he asked. How interesting.

You said there was, I said.

He said: I said nothing, Bernard. Nothing at all.

Rapidly, I put my brain into rewind search, and realised that he had indeed said nothing. So what had he been saying? Something, certainly, even if it was nothing. But it couldnt have been nothing, or why was he not saying it?

I owed it to Hacker to get to the bottom of this. I decided to ask a straight question. After all, though rare, it was not entirely unknown for Humphrey to give a straight answer. So you mean do you know if there is a plot?

No.

This appeared to be a straight answer. But no. I sought elucidation.

No there is a plot or no there isnt?

Yes, replied Humphrey helpfully.

I decided to try a new tack. Sir Humphrey, I said carefully, what has the Employment Secretary actually done?

Nothing, as yet, Bernard. And we must keep it that way.

I could see that he was referring to the plan, not the plot. Or non-plot. Then, suddenly, the penny dropped. I had been bemused as to why Sir Humphrey had been so forthcoming about the Employment Secretarys popularity. I now saw that he was playing the man and not the ball.

So I played the ball. Isnt the Employment Secretarys plan actually a rather good one?

For whom?

For the country.

Maybe. But thats hardly the point.

Why not?

Humphrey stared at me, irritated. Bernard, when you move on from here, where do you plan to go?

I thought it was one of his threats. Cagey, I replied that I didnt really know.

How would you like to be Deputy Secretary in Charge of Defence Procurement?

This suggestion surprised me. Dep. Sec. Is pretty high. Ones K [knighthood] is guaranteed. De. Secs are top people, their names are in Whos Who and everything. Normally, if Humphrey were trying to threaten me, hed suggest the War Graves Commission or the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea. So, if he wasnt threatening, what was he driving at? I waited.

You could find yourself doing that job in Sunderland. Or Berwick-on-Tweed. Or Lossiemouth.

He was threatening me. I instantly saw the major drawback to the Employment Secretarys plan. I certainly wouldnt want to leave London for Sunderland or Berwick-on-Tweed. Theyre up north somewhere!

And I didnt even understand the reference to Lossiemouth. Is that a place? I asked Humphrey.

What did you think it was?

A dogfood.

Humphrey smirked menacingly. If the Employment Secretary has his way you may have a three-year diet of Lossiemouth yourself. You see?

I saw.

I also saw that the plan cannot possibly be good for the country. It is not possible for a plan to be good for the country and bad for the civil Service -- it's a contradiction in terms. But I still didnt understand why Humphrey had suggested sending for the Chief Whip to confirm a plot that didnt exist.

We were still standing in the lobby of Number Ten, a fairly public place. Humphrey looked around cautiously, to check that we were not being overheard. Then he explained something that I have never before understood.

The Chief Whip, Bernard, is bound to hedge. He dare not categorically state that there is no plot against the Prime Minister, just in case there is one. Even if the Chief Whip has heard nothing, he must say that he has suspicions, to cover himself. He will also say that he has no solid evidence, and he will promise to make urgent enquiries.

At that moment the Chief Whip himself, Jeffrey Pearson, bustled through the front door like a ship in full sail and surged along the wide corridor towards us. My eyes indicated his presence to Humphrey, who swung around and gave him a warm greeting. Ah, good morning, Chief Whip.

Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Good morning, Bernard.

I asked Pearson to wait in the Private Office. [The office of the Private Secretary, i.e. Bernard Woolleys office Ed.] I wanted to be sure that Sir Humphrey and I were now fully in tune.

Humphrey instructed me to go into the meeting with Jeffrey -- which, in any case, I would have done -- and inform Sir Humphrey of everything that was said -- which I may not have done.

Im not sure I can do that. It might be confidential.

Humphrey disagreed. The matter at issue concerns the defence of the realm and the stability of government.

But you only need to know things on a need to know basis.

Humphrey became impatient. Bernard, I need to know everything. How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?

Id never have thought of that. Hitherto, Id thought that others might have been the judge of the Cabinet Secretarys need to know. I decided to get this straight.

So that means that you need to know things even when you dont need to know them. You need to know them not because you need to know them but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. And if you dont need to know you still need to know so that you know that there was no need to know.

Yes, said Sir Humphrey. A straight answer at last. And he thanked me for helping him clarify the situation.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

Jeffrey Pearson, the Chief Whip, was in the Cabinet Room within ten minutes. He was evasive but during the meeting he made it perfectly clear that there is indeed some sort of leadership challenge, either led by Dudley or using Dudley as the figurehead. His problem is a lack of concrete evidence. So he cant make a move to stamp it out.

I was magnanimous. After all, one wants ambitious men in the Cabinet, one needs them. Just as long as they dont get too ambitious

Im grateful to Humphrey for drawing my attention to it. He really is a good man and a loyal servant.

[Jeffrey Pearsons account of this is somewhat different. We reprint this extract from his stylish memoirs Suck It And See Ed.]

I had a sudden urgent call from Number Ten. Hacker wanted to see me right away. Bernard Woolley, his Private Secretary, refused to give me a reason.

Naturally I thought Id done something to upset him. So it was with some caution that I entered the Cabinet Room, with Woolley in attendance. The morning sun shone brightly through the windows, creating patterns of intense light and deep shade.

Hacker sat in the shadows. How are things going, Chief Whip?

Naturally I was cautious, though I had nothing to hide. I told him things were going quite well really, and asked why.

You mean, you noticed nothing?

So I was supposed to have noticed something. What, I wondered, had I missed? I couldnt think of anything in particular, though it was a slightly difficult time with a little unrest on the back benches. But then its always a slightly difficult time with a little unrest on the back benches. Unless, that is, its a very difficult time with lots of unrest on the back benches.

[A slightly difficult time with a little unrest on the back benches was what fortune-tellers call a cold reading: something that is always true and always safe to say. A fortune-tellers cold reading might be: You went through a slightly difficult time round the age of thirteen. A doctors cold reading, if he cannot diagnose an illness would be: I think it might be a good idea for you to give up smoking and lose a little weight Ed.]

Is there anything you havent told me? asked the Prime Minister.

I racked my brains furiously. He prompted me. A plot? A leadership challenge?

I hadnt heard a thing. But I couldnt say so, because Hacker obviously had suspicions. Perhaps he even had evidence. I played safe, avoided giving a direct answer, and told him that I had no real evidence of anything.

But you have suspicions?

I couldnt say I hadnt and anyway, I always have suspicions of one sort or another. Its my job to have suspicions, I replied carefully.

Well, what are they?

This was tricky. Jim, I replied with my frankest manner, it wouldnt be right for me to tell you all my suspicions, not unless or until theres something solid to go on.

But you know who Im talking about?

I had no idea. I think I can guess, I said.

Hacker remained in the shadows. I couldnt quite see his eyes. He heaved a sigh. How far has it got? he asked finally.

I was still searching for a clue as to the identity of the pretender. One thing I knew for sure -- it hadnt got very far or I would certainly have known about it. At least, I think I certainly would.

He was waiting for reassurance. I gave it. Only to a very early stage. So far as I can tell. I was still being strictly honest.

Do you think you ought to have a word with him? the Prime Minister wanted to know. Tell him I know whats going on? I dont want to lose him from the Cabinet. I just want him under control.

I didnt see how I could possibly have a word with him until I knew who he was. Perhaps you should have a word with him yourself, I replied carefully.

He shook his head. No. Not at this stage.

I waited.

Who else is involved?

I saw my chance. Apart from ?

The Prime Minister was getting irritable. Apart from Dudley, obviously.

Dudley! Dudley? Incredible! Dudley!!

Oh, apart from Dudley, its a bit early to say. After all, Prime Minister, there may not be anything to it.

The Prime Minister stood up. He stared at me over his reading glasses. He looked thin, tired and drawn. This job is taking a toll on him, and hes only been at it less than a year. Jeffrey, Im not taking any risks, he said quietly.

I could see that he meant business. I left the Cabinet Room, and assigned all the Whips to make some enquiries. Top priority. After all, if there is a plot I need to know its full potential.

[Jeffrey Pearson certainly wanted and needed to reassure himself that the plot, if plot there was, could be nipped in the bud. If it could not, he would have wanted to reassure himself that it was not too late to change sides. Ed.]

[Two days later Sir Arnold Robinson, Applebys predecessor as Secretary of the Cabinet, received a note from Sir Humphrey. It has been found in the archive of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, of which Sir Arnold was the President. Naturally the letter was confidential and has been kept under wraps, but the archive of the Campaign for Freedom of Information was recently made available to historians under the Thirty Year Rule Ed.]

Cabinet Office

July 6th

Dear Arnold,

You will have heard on the grapevine about the Employment Secretarys plan to move many of our armed forces establishments to the north. There are three reasons why the PM is in favour of this plan:

1. It will reduce unemployment.

2. Alternatively, it will look as though he is reducing unemployment.

3. At the very least, it will look as though he is trying to reduce unemployment.

The reality is that he is only trying to look as if he is trying to reduce unemployment. This is because he is worried that it does not look as if he is trying to look as if he is trying to reduce unemployment.

Curiously, the P.M. has come to suspect that the plan may be the start of a leadership bid by the Employment Secretary.

This is, of course, a ridiculous notion. But the higher the office, the higher the level of political paranoia. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly in the national interest that this plan does not proceed, and the Prime Ministers paranoia would undoubtedly be fed (and the Employment Secretarys chances of survival in high office much reduced) if a leak occurred in the press which suggested that this brilliantly imaginative plan by the Employment Secretary was being blocked by the Prime Minister.

We must devoutly hope that no such leak occurs. Have you any thoughts on this matter?

Yours ever

Humphrey

[A reply was received from Sir Arnold Robinson at the beginning of next week. A copy was found at the Campaign headquarters, but we were fortunate enough to find the original among the Appleby Papers Ed.]

July 9th

Dear Humphrey,

Thank you for your letter. A leak of the sort you suggest would almost certainly result in man overboard.

I cannot see, however, how such a leak can occur. You as Cabinet Secretary cannot be party to a leak. And although, as President of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, I have an undoubted duty to make certain facts available, I do not see in all conscience how I, as a former Cabinet Secretary, can give confidential information to the press.

Yours ever

Arnold

[A reply was apparently sent to Sir Arnold Robinson by return -- delivered by messenger Ed.]

July 10th

Dear Arnold,

I would not dream of suggesting that you give confidential information to the press. It is confidential misinformation to which I refer.

Yours ever,

Humphrey

[Sir Arnold sent a brief and immediate reply Ed.]

July 10th

Dear Humphrey,

I shall be happy to oblige.

Yours ever,

Arnold

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

July 11th

I am now convinced that a dirty little scheme has been hatched behind my back. It is a disloyal, ungrateful and treacherous plot, and I will not tolerate it.

I spoke to the Chief Whip. He said that he had no real evidence but he had suspicions. He said that he would make enquiries! He refused to tell me about them till he had something solid to go on. I regard that as proof positive.

I discussed the matter with Humphrey today. He expressed surprise that Dudley is plotting against me. I would have thought all your Cabinet were loyal. Sometimes I am amazed at how trusting and nave Humphrey reveals himself to be. Loyal? How few people realise what the word loyalty means when spoken by a Cabinet Minister. It only means that his fear of losing his job is stronger than his hope of pinching mine.

So, said Humphrey, wide-eyed, you believe that the Employment Secretary has his eye on the Prime Ministerial chair?

Yes. I sat back. But look what Ive got on it.

Humphrey didnt get my little joke and merely commented that loyalty was a fundamental requirement of collective responsibility.

Hasnt he noticed that collective responsibility has fallen out of fashion? Collective responsibility means that when we do something popular they all leak the fact that it was their idea, and when we do something unpopular they leak the fact that they were against it. This country is governed by the principle of collective irresponsibility.

You were a Cabinet minister once. Humphrey seemed to be admonishing me gently.

Thats different, I reminded him. I was loyal.

You mean, you were more frightened of losing your job than

No, Humphrey, I interrupted him. I was genuinely loyal.

Humphrey asked me why my colleagues want my job so much. The explanation is simple: Im the only member of the government who cant be sent to Northern Ireland tomorrow.

Even so, he remarked, I find it hard to believe that the Employment Secretary is actively plotting against you.

I told him it was obvious. I asked what more proof he would need. He thought for a moment.

Well he began, this proposal to move Defence establishments to the north is bound to be leaked to the press, isnt it?

Bound to be, I agreed. Im surprised it hasnt been already.

Well, if it were leaked as the Employment Secretarys plan, I agree that it would confirm your suspicions. But Im sure it will come out as a government plan.

Hes right. Its a good test. We shall see what we shall see.

July 12th

So much for Humphreys faith in Dudleys loyalty. The Standard today contained the leak we were waiting for. And the proof that that disloyal swine is gunning for me.

The London Evening Standard

HACKER HITS JOBLESS

by Peter Kirkston

Sources in Whitehall report that an imaginative plan, an initiative by Dudley Belling, the Secretary of State for Employment, to reduce unemployment in the depressed areas, has been blocked by the Prime Minister.

How dare he. How dare he??

It was Humphrey who showed me the newspaper. I was very angry indeed. I told Humphrey how Id backed Dudley all along. I told him how I fought for that sodding plan of his. I told him how I gave him his first Cabinet post and how Ive treated him like a son. And this, I said, is how he thanks me. I was speechless, utterly speechless.

Humphrey nodded sadly. How sharper than a serpents tooth it is to have a thankless Cabinet colleague.

What can you say? Nothing. Its envy, I said. Dudley is consumed with envy.

Its one of the seven Dudley sins, said Bernard, trying to lighten the atmosphere. I quelled him with a glance.

Humphrey, a tower of strength as always, suggested a possible course of action: that we draft my letter accepting his resignation.

But there are several disadvantages to that idea. Dudley will deny that he leaked the story, in which case Ive no grounds for sacking him. And if I then sack him anyway, what are the consequences? Hed be even more dangerous on the back benches than in the Cabinet -- sacked ministers dont even have to pretend to be loyal.

So, enquired Humphrey, you intend to go ahead with his plan?

That option is also closed to me now. Once a story in the press says that Im blocking it I cant possibly let it go ahead -- it will look as though he has defeated me. Regretfully, I must abandon the plan, even though its good. At least, I think I must.

I told Humphrey my dilemma.

Prime Minister, youre not being indecisive, are you?

No, I said. He looked at me. He knew I was. Yes, I acknowledged. Then I thought: Im damned if Ill be indecisive. No, I snarled. Then I realised that Id already answered the question all too clearly. I dont know, I said weakly, putting my head in my hands. I felt deeply depressed, enervated. All my energy was sapped by the treachery and disloyalty.

He offered to help. I couldnt see how he could. But he produced some papers from a file on his lap. Technically I shouldnt show you this.

I dont see why not. Im Prime Minister, arent I?

Yes, he explained. Thats why I shouldnt be showing it to you. Its a Ministry of Defence draft internal paper. Top Secret. The Defence Secretary hasnt seen it yet. He passed it over the desk. But as you see, it casts grave doubts on the Employment Secretarys plan.

This was a paper I was keen to read. It is fascinating. Part One pointed out that many of the valuable army buildings that Dudley quoted cannot be sold. Some are listed. [Listed buildings under Section 54(9) of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act, which was replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas) Regulations of 1977, which were further amended by the 1986 Act necessitating changes in the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas) Regulations 1987 (S1 1987, No. 349), are buildings which are of special architectural or historic interest listed since 1 July 1948 (when the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 came into operation) and compiled by the Secretary of State with reference to national criteria, classified into three grades to show their relative importance, namely Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II. It is an offence under Section 108 of the 1971 Act to alter, extend or demolish a listed building unless excepted from control by Section 56, Section 54(9) (see paragraph 73) or Section 56(1)(a) and (b), excluding buildings for ecclesiastical use (see paragraphs 103-105) Ed.] Some are under strict planning controls. Some dont conform to private-sector fire and safety regulations. It all showed that the cost of the move would be prohibitive.

Part Two showed that the move would create massive unemployment in the Home Counties and East Anglia, with far fewer new jobs created in the north-east than would be lost in the south.

And then, in Part Three, which I read in bed tonight, there are pages and pages of objections on grounds of military strategy.

Tomorrow Ill question Humphrey about this further.

July 13th

At a meeting with Humphrey first thing this morning I questioned him closely about the MOD paper. Is it quite honest and accurate?

Humphrey was evasive. He said that everything is a matter of interpretation. And if we were to look at the conclusion of the report we would see that all of the objections to the scheme were known to the Employment Secretary before he produced his plan. He added one other rather telling point: that the whole plan may not be completely unconnected with the fact that Dudley represents a Newcastle constituency.

This had not escaped me either. [In which case, it is strange that Hacker had never mentioned it Ed.]

The public, I commented, has a right to know this.

Humphrey shook his head. Its a top secret document. I simply stared at him, and waited. On the other hand, he continued, the Service Chiefs are notorious for their indiscretion.

Notorious, I agreed.

It could well find its way into the hands of an irresponsible journalist.

Could it? I asked hopefully. Or several irresponsible journalists?

Humphrey felt that such an eventuality was not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I made it quite clear, however, that I could not be a party to anything like that, even though it would at least give the public the true facts. Humphrey agreed wholeheartedly that I could not be party to such a leak.

We agreed that we would defer discussion of the plan until an unspecified future date [i.e. abandon it Ed.], and that meanwhile Sir Humphrey would attend to the plumbing.

After he left, Bernard, who lacks subtlety sometimes, turned to me. Whens he going to leak it? he asked.

I was shocked. Did I ask for a leak?

Not in so many he hesitated. No, Prime Minister, you didnt.

Indeed not, Bernard, I replied stiffly. I have never leaked. I occasionally give confidential briefings to the press. That is all.

Bernard smiled. Thats another of those irregular verbs, isnt it? I give confidential briefings; you leak; he has been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.

July 18th

Everything went like clockwork -- until today. Two days ago a story appeared in several newspapers, attributed to various non-attributable sources, effectively torpedoing Dudleys plan.

All the important points were covered -- the fact that the MOD cant make a profit on many of the valuable buildings in the London area; the fear of huge unemployment in the south without creating enough new jobs up north; and the military and strategic arguments against the plan. At least two of them ran the story reminding readers that Dudley himself represented a constituency in the north-east.

All of this was picked up by the TV news. [Television news in the 1980s hardly ever originated a news story Ed.]

But today it all came to a head. I was horrified when I saw the front page of The Guardian.

Employment secretary denies leaking

Dudley Belling alleges conspiracy

By David Tow

Dudley Belling, the Secretary of State for Employment, yesterday denied leaking the details of his plan last week, in which it was revealed that the Government was considering moving some of our military bases to centres of high unemployment.

Mr. Belling also claimed that the Cabinet supports his plan, including Prime Minsiter Jim Hacker. But the leak has caused a succession of other leaks and done considerable damage to his credibility and to his policy. Last night he spoke angrily to reporters and demanded a public enquiry.

The day began with Cabinet Committee. Humphrey and Bernard were waiting for me in the Cabinet Room. They wished me good morning. I told them it was not a good morning.

They knew anyway. Theyd read the papers.

Dudley has been answering back to the press about that new leak, I said.

Shocking, said Sir Humphrey.

Hes demanding a public equiry!

Shocking! he murmured again, with real feeling. Bernard was strangely silent.

Youd think hed know better, I went on. Anyway, leak enquiries never find the true source of the leak.

But we know the true source, Prime Minister, intervened Bernard. Just between ourselves. You asked us to

I quelled him with a look. Bernard, youre not saying I authorised this leak, I hope?

Bernard hesitated. No, I that is yes but I mean, I remember now. Sorry.

I had to be sure. What do you remember, Bernard?

Um -- whatever you want, Prime Minister.

What I want is to show the public that there are no divisions in the Cabinet.

But there are divisions, said Bernard.

I dont want to multiply them, I explained.

Prime Minister, if you multiply divisions you get back to where you started. I couldnt see what he was driving at. Undeterred, he continued to explain. If you divide four by two you get two and then if you multiply it you get back to four again. Unless, of course, you multiply different divisions, in which case

Thank you, Bernard, I said firmly. He is too literal-minded for this job. And we were in a hurry. The members of Committee would be arriving any minute and we had to consider our strategy. I explained my plan.

Humphrey, I want to keep the Employment Secretary in the Cabinet. And the Defence Secretary, Max. But I cant allow this row to go on any longer and I wont allow the Employment Secretary to be seen to defeat me -- I cant risk it. Therefore, we must see that his plan is stopped.

Humphrey stared thoughtfully at his shoes for a moment, then came up with a three-point plan.

I suggest you ask the Committee to agree to these three points: First, that they agree to accept Cabinets collective decision. Second, that there is a cooling-off period with no further discussion. And third, that all further speeches and press statements are cleared with the Cabinet Office.

Well, that seemed a pretty good plan to me. I instantly understood it. But when the meeting began Dudley immediately challenged the agenda.

Excuse me, Prime Minister on a point of order, I see that my plan for defence establishments relocation is not on the agenda.

I told him that was correct. He asked why. I explained that because of all the leaking thats been going on and the very damaging press consequences, the government looks divided.

It is divided, said Dudley.

Hes very dense sometimes. Thats why it mustnt look it, I explained. I added that its a very complex issue and that was why I was deferring consideration of it until a later date.

Dudley was baffled. I cant understand it. You were in favour of my plan last time.

I couldnt allow Dudley or anyone to make such a claim, even if it were true. No, I wasnt, I said. Perhaps I should have acknowledged that I had been in favour, even though I am now against it. But a simple denial seemed easier.

Dudley stared at me, as if I were lying. [Hacker was lying Ed.]

You were in favour of it, he repeated. And so was everyone except the Secretary of State for Defence.

No they werent, I said, committed now.

Yes they were! Dudley would not let go. And you promised further discussion.

This was perfectly true. I was completely stuck for a suitable reply when Humphrey stepped in. I cant remember what he said, but his gobbledegook interpretation of the minutes of the previous meeting saved the day.

But then we went on to Humphreys three-point plan and, somehow, I dont know how, I simply cant understand why, we reached a point of no return with Dudley. What I had hoped would be a compromise scheme somehow turned into an ultimatum, and I found myself telling Dudley that he must consider his position. [This means co-operate or resign Ed.]

I fear well lose him. I still dont quite know how this happened. Sir Humphrey seemed as baffled as I.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

That meeting was a total triumph for Sir Humphreys strategy. All along he had been seeking to remove the Employment Secretary from the Cabinet, because he saw this as the only way to save thousands of senior officers and MOD officials from exile in the Siberia north of Birmingham.

Humphrey was not baffled at the outcome, for it had gone exactly to plan. I was not party to his scheme, but I marvelled at the brilliance of both its conception and execution.

Before the meeting he suggested the three-point plan as a compromise, knowing full well that it would be the coup de grace. Hackers claim that he instantly understood the plan was manifestly false: first, if he had understood it he would have seen the full implications and rejected it outright. Second, he was so confused that he couldnt even remember it. As the members of the Committee were entering the room Hacker was trying to remember it.

Your three-point plan, Humphrey, remind me.

You ask them, Prime Minister, to agree to three points. First, that they agree to accept Cabinets collective decision. Second, that there is a cooling-off period with no further discussion. Third, that all further speeches and press statements are cleared with the Cabinet Office.

Excellent, said Hacker. That should do it. Point one, they cool off and discussions and, what was the second? Collective press statements and sorry, Humphrey, I dont think Ive quite got it yet.

He really was in a frightful state. He could remember nothing. He was flapping around pathetically, the proverbial headless chicken. Humphrey offered to write down the three-point plan for him, and Hacker accepted with gratitude.

Well, the agenda was immediately challenged by Dudley Belling, as Hacker correctly remembered. Dudley reminded the Prime Minister that he had supported the proposal last time, and that Hacker had acceded to Dudleys request to discuss the matter again at this meeting.

Hacker was on the ropes when Sir Humphrey intervened.

There was no such promise, Sir Humphrey said, being economical with the truth again. And the Prime Minister did not support the proposal. If he had it would appear in the minutes. And it doesnt.

Dudley was floored. Doesnt it? And he glanced hurriedly through the minutes, which we had all agreed -- on the nod -- to sign as accurate. Careless of him not to have read them more thoroughly.

He looked up, angrier than ever. Sir Humphrey, why was my request for a further discussion, and the Prime Ministers reply, not minuted?

Sir Humphrey was ready for that one. His reply was an object lesson. I recall it perfectly. While it is true that the minutes are indeed an authoritative record of the Committees deliberations, it is nevertheless undeniable that a deliberate attempt at comprehensive delineation of every contribution and interpolation would necessitate an unjustifiable elaboration and wearisome extension of the documentation.

Hacker stared at him. The Committee stared at him. The Foreign Secretary told me later that he wished he was at the UN where hed have had the benefit of simultaneous translation. What he had said would have been crystal-clear to most people, but politicians are simple souls.

Finally Hacker said hopefully: Does that mean you dont recall the discussion?

Sir Humphreys reply was masterly. It is characteristic of committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every members recollection differs violently from every other members recollection. Consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions were those and only those which are officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it follows with an elegant inevitability that any decision officially reached will be officially recorded in the minutes and any decision not recorded in the minutes was not officially reached even if one or more members believe that they recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded by the officials in the minutes. And, he finished with triumphant simplicity, it isnt so it wasnt.

There was another pause. Dudley was smouldering. Its a fiddle, he snarled.

Hacker intervened firmly. This must stop!

Yes it must, snapped Dudley, though I suspect that they were talking at cross purposes.

Hacker took charge. I have drawn up a three-point plan which we must all agree to. Point one er, what did you say, I mean what did I say was point one, Humphrey?

Humphrey silently unzipped his slimline document case that lay on the floor between the chairs and slid his handwritten, three-point plan a few inches along the Cabinet table till it rested in front of the Prime Minister.

Thank you, said Hacker. Point one, everyone will accept collective decisions, Dudley.

Im perfectly willing to, Dudley responded with caution. How are they defined?

He was a good man. He knew the right questions to ask.

I define them! said the Prime Minister brusquely. Point two, there will be a cooling-off period on the subject of defence relocations. And point three

He hesitated. We all waited expectantly. Then he leaned towards Sir Humphrey and muttered that he couldnt quite read point three. Cleaning what?

Clearing all speeches whispered the Cabinet Secretary.

Ah yes, said the PM loudly. All speeches and press statements must in future be cleared with the Cabinet Office.

On the face of it point three looked like a sensible way of preventing members of the Cabinet making embarrassingly contradictory statements. But it had one other major virtue -- it put Sir Humphrey in charge of all relations with the press.

Dudley spotted it. I cant accept point two, we cant cool off discussion on something that hasnt been discussed yet because the officials refused or neglected to minute my request for further discussion -- even though it was agreed by you, Prime Minister -- and which has consequently been left off the agenda. As for your third point, I cannot in principle accept that anything I say in public must be cleared by him. He pointed at Sir Humphrey, refusing to dignify him further by mentioning him by name. I have no confidence, Dudley concluded, that he will clear what I want to say.

Hacker was now committed. Well, thats my decision and I must ask you to accept it.

I dont accept it. Dudley was implacable.

Oh, said Jim. He looked at Humphrey for guidance. Humphrey whispered something to him. Jim nodded sadly, and turned to his Employment Secretary.

Then, Dudley, he pronounced solemnly, I must ask you to consider your position.

Everyone present knew that Dudleys career was over.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

July 19th

I was sitting in my study this morning, hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Bernard knocked and entered.

I have news for you, Prime Minister.

I looked at him. But I could tell nothing from his face. I waited.

Do you want the bad news first? he asked.

I perked up. You mean, theres bad news and good news.

No, Prime Minister -- there's bad news and worse news.

It was all very predictable. Dudley has resigned. He sent the usual letter, rather more curt than usual. Bernard gave me a draft letter of acceptance to sign. Humphrey and the Press Office were working on a draft press statement for me.

I wanted to have words with Humphrey. I told Bernard to fetch him. But first Bernard told me the worse news: apparently Dudley has made a resignation speech on the steps of the Department of Employment, accusing me of being dictatorial and running a Presidential style of government.

At first I thought Bernard was right to be gloomy. But in fact its not so bad: I think that Dudleys accusation may do me more good than harm. The people like to feel they have a strong leader. I explained this to Bernard.

He saw the point at once. Oh yes indeed. Moreover, strong leadershipll be a new pleasure for them.

No it wont, I replied shortly.

No it wont, he agreed without hesitation.

Humphrey arrived at that moment. I didnt mince words with him. I reminded him that I had sought to avoid this resignation, and I now realise -- too late -- that it was his three-point plan which provoked it.

Humphrey had other, surprising news for me. He agreed that the three-point plan had been the last straw. But, he added, I understand that in any case the Employment Secretary was planning to resign in a couple of months.

Was he? I was astounded. Why? When?

On the day of the Autumn Budget, Humphrey revealed. On the grounds that the budget is expected to give him insufficient money to deal with unemployment.

I was shaken. A resignation over the Autumn Budget would have been really damaging. And it could have made Dudley extremely popular. In fact, the more I think of it, Ive handled this whole crisis pretty well. Brilliantly, in fact. I have forced Dudley to resign on an obscure administrative issue of my choosing instead of an important policy issue of his choosing. No one, either among the voters or the backbenchers, will support him, because no one really understands why hes gone.

I explained all this to Humphrey, who readily agreed that Id handled the whole affair in a masterly fashion.

[It is interesting that Jim Hacker never questioned Sir Humphrey Applebys revelation that the Employment Secretary was planning to resign a few weeks later. Presumably this was because it enabled him to think of his defeat as a victory.

Bernard Woolley did notice that there was something altogether too convenient about the information and wondered from whence it came.

Later that day he had a private word with Sir Humphrey about it, the gist of which was noted in Applebys private diary Ed.]

Thursday 19 July

B.W. questioned me further about the rumoured resignation of D.B. on A.B.D. [Autumn Budget Day].

He told me that he had not known that the Employment Secretary was thinking of resigning over the Budget. I told him that I had not known this either.

He seemed surprised, and asked me if it was not true.

I attempted to clarify the matter for him. I explained that I had not said it was true. I had said that I understood it to be true. The possibility always exists that I could have misunderstood.

BW tried to pin me down. So you dont know its true?

I explained that, equally, I do not know that it is not true. It might be true.

Bernard said that anything might be true. I congratulated him on seeing the point at last. But I was premature: Bernard still didnt understand why I had told the PM that Dudley Belling would have resigned anyway. I should have thought the answer was obvious: to make the PM feel better.

[And also, Sir Humphrey might have added in the privacy of his personal diary, because the Prime Minister would no longer criticise him over the resignation of a minister he wanted to keep Ed.]

Bernard remarked that it was a pity that Dudley Belling had to go. How true! But there was simply no other way to stop his dreadful plan.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

July 20th

Today I had a wonderful idea!

I was sitting in my study going over my conciliatory press release, designed to counter Dudleys angry resignation speech in a way that would make me appear strong, caring, wise and statesmanlike.

I had redrafted Malcolms [Malcolm Warren, the Press Secretary] wording, so that it read: His plan was being studied but there was a danger of much greater cost than was first thought without necessarily achieving the employment objectives. So I am puzzled and sadden by his sudden resignation.

Humphrey and I were having a morning coffee, and a couple of chocolate digestives, looking out over Horseguards Parade sparkling in the morning sun, feeling cosy and safe and warm inside Number Ten. I was still sad that Id lost a good man, and a terrific plan, a plan that would actually have helped unemployment. And then I had my inspiration!

Humphrey, I said quietly, now that the Employment Secretarys gone we can recreate his plan.

At first he didnt seem to see the beauty of it. Nor did Bernard. They looked almost horrified, though clearly they must have been as delighted too -- I think they just found it galling that I had had the brilliant insight and not them.

Dont you see? I explained. I can go ahead with it now. It wont look like weakness any more, itll look like strength.

But the whole point was began Humphrey, and then stopped. He gets confused, poor chap.

Was what? I asked. It wasnt to stop the relocation plan, was it?

No! No, indeed no, it was to, er, was to establish your authority.

Exactly! I said.

Hed figured it out at last. Sometimes hes a bit slow, but he gets there in the end.

So its all ended perfectly. By reinstating the plan I can prove that I wasnt against it. And it will demonstrate to the world that Dudleys resignation was pointless. And having got rid of that bastard who was plotting against me, Ive given a warning to others and shown that I can repel boarders with ease. Put defence relocation on the agenda for the next Cabinet, I told Humphrey with quiet confidence.

Yes Prime Minister, he replied, staring at me thoughtfully.

OFFICIAL SECRETS

July 27th

Its only a week since I was forced to fire Dudley, a man I had always thought of as an old friend and a trusted ally. Imagine my bitterness and pain when Sir Humphrey revealed that hed been plotting against me.

And now, only one week later, Im facing another challenge to my authority -- and this time its from an even more unexpected quarter. My predecessor, the former Prime Minister, has submitted the latest chapter of his memoirs for security clearance -- and publication must be stopped.

First thing this morning, at Cabinet Committee, we were joined by the Solicitor-General [Sir Robin Evans], a couple of junior officials from his department, plus Humphrey and Bernard.

[The Solicitor-General was one of the two senior law officers of the Government, the Attorney-General being the other. Sir Robin was famous, some would say notorious, for adopting a legalistic holier-than-thou attitude towards his political colleagues, and in so doing he acquired the nickname Good Evens Ed.]

Robin was at his most proper and pious this morning. As you know, we have already approved Chapters One to Seven, and I see no grounds for withholding approval of Chapter Eight.

Hold on a minute, I said hastily. It seems to me that it contains some highly questionable material.

Robin looked surprised. Such as?

Id been up half the night with it. I had all the page references at my fingertips. Page 211 for a start.

I handed the offending page across the Cabinet table to Robin. He stared at the section Id marked through his half-moon gold-rimmed reading glasses, then stared at me coldly over the top of them. It only says that the Minister for Administrative Affairs supported the proposal to expand the Sellafield nuclear fuel plant in Cabinet, but spoke out against it in public.

I was amazed that he couldnt see the problem. But that was me! I was the Minister.

The point is, Prime Minister, its not a security leak.

The point is, I responded indignantly, its not true!:

The documentation is fairly impressive, he replied dispassionately. [Fairly impressive is Whitehall code for irrefutable Ed.]

His cold blue eyes seemed to twinkle with amusement. But I couldnt see anything funny. With respect, Prime Minister, he continued insultingly, if he has labelled you, thats a matter for the courts after publication, not for security clearance before it.

I disagreed flatly. Its not as if the only problem is on page 211. Page 224 has a scurrilous accusation about my stopping that chemical plant project because of a baseless press scare. Then theres an indefensible passage about me on page 231.

Humphrey took the opportunity to read that bit aloud -- needlessly, I now feel. Hacker was more interested in votes than principles. He ran for cover at the first whiff of unpopularity. He raised the average age of the Cabinet but lowered the average IQ.

Thank you, Humphrey, weve all read it, I said tartly. I couldnt help feeling that around this table there was more than a little pleasure at my discomfiture.

Robin hesitated, then spoke again. He expressed himself carefully. Well, as I say, Prime Minister, Im not in any way supporting or defending him, but its not an actual security breach. After all, Chapter Five got leaked to the press and we took no action.

Hed missed the point. Chapter Five was very nice about my getting the Qumran contract, I explained. And about my computer security guidelines.

But, Robin persisted, it had just as much confidential material. And you never even had a leak enquiry about it.

They all stared at me. Did they know? Anyone could have leaked that chapter to the press, I remarked, with as much innocence as I could muster.

Anyone! agreed Humphrey emphatically.

Chapter Five had been in no way comparable. I turned back to the beginning of the manuscript. Look at the title of this chapter, I exclaimed in anguish.

Humphrey read it aloud again. The Two Faces of Jim Hacker?

Thats not a secret, surely? Bernard was trying to make me feel better -- I think! He caught my eye and fell silent.

I returned to the attack. Im sorry, I think that there are security implications. Sellafield is nuclear.

The Solicitor-General shook his head. But the Energy Secretary is responsible for Sellafield, he has seen the chapter, and he says that he has no problems.

Of course he has no problems. It describes him as the ablest minister in the Cabinet. Which in itself is another slur on me. I pointed this out to Robin, who replied legalistically that he didnt think it was actionable.

I was tired of all this obstructionism. Lets be clear about this. We have the right to refuse publication, dont we?

Robin nodded. We do. But if they ignore us and publish anyway, my legal opinion is that we shall have no hope of stopping it through the courts.

This was a blow. I suggested that, in that case, we lean on the publishers. The Solicitor-General wanted to know on what grounds. I told him the national interest.

Again he defied me! But Ive said that theres no grounds

I cut him off. Listen, I said sharply. This is obscene, scurrilous filth. It cannot be in the national interest to publish it and undermine confidence in the leader of the nation. This chapter must not be published. Right?

They all gazed at me bleakly. The meeting broke up. They hadnt said yes and they hadnt said no. But they know what they have to do.

[Events moved fast. Only a week later a report appeared in the Daily Post , Londons newest morning newspaper, that Hacker was trying to suppress a chapter of his predecessors memoirs. And the story quoted freely from the chapter, printing verbatim the sections that Hacker had found most objectionable Ed.]

Daily Post

Friday 3 August

HACKER ATTEMPTS TO SUPPRESS MEMOIRS

Foiled by Solicitor-General

by our political staff

Prime Minister Jim Hacker, in a secret meeting at Number Ten Downing Street last week, tried to suppress the eighth chapter of the as yet untitled memoirs of former Prime Minister Herbert Attwell. The manuscript was sent to the Cabinet Office for security clearance in the usual way.

[An anxious meeting took place in Bernard Woolleys office at 9 a.m. on the morning the story hit the streets. Present were Bernard Woolley, Sir Humphrey Appleby and Malcolm Warren, the Press Secretary at Number Ten Downing Street. A note of the meeting appears in Sir Humphrey Applebys diary Ed.]

Friday 3 August

B.W., M.W. and I conferred about the story in the Daily Post. We knew that even if the P.M. had not yet read his daily press digest, he would have heard it quoted on the Today show, to which he always listens while he has his breakfast. B.W. remarked that he had listened too. The presenters had chewed up Hacker for breakfast!

We all regarded it as a somewhat amusing and trivial embarrassment of no particular consequence. The only problem, other than the P.M.s discomfiture (which was not a problem), was that the leak not only quoted from Chapter Eight but revealed that Hacker tried to suppress it, which means that the leak must have come from someone who was at the meeting.

Malcolm had an immediate problem: half of Britains press corps were in the press office waiting for Hackers response, and the other half were on the phone. The foreign press have also picked it up, and there have been interview requests from Le Monde, the Washington Post, and the Womens Wear Daily -- which, Malcolm tells me, is an important newspaper across the pond. Thank God we do not live in a matriarchy.

[Appleby Papers 1540/BA/90077]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

August 3rd

Humphrey, Bernard and Malcolm trooped in as if they were in mourning. Grave faces. Eyes lowered. I stared at them angrily.

Well? I asked.

There was a silence.

Well? I asked again.

They stared intently at their shoes. Say something, I snarled.

There was a pause. Finally Bernard spoke up. Good morning, Prime Minister, he mumbled.

Good morning, the others echoed, apparently grateful to Bernard for having thought of something safe to say.

I banged the Daily Post. Youve read this?

They all produced copies of it from under their arms or behind their backs.

You realise what this is? I asked. I pointed at the story.

Its the Daily Post, said Bernard unnecessarily.

Its a catastrophe! Thats what it is!

Humphrey cleared his throat. With respect, Prime Minister

I let him get no further. With no respect at all, Humphrey. I was very curt. No respect for privacy. No respect for security. No respect for the national interest. No respect for the elected leader of the nation. This is unforgiveable! Who leaked it?

More silence. I waited. Who can say? was Humphreys eventual and feeble response.

You can say, I said. And youd better say -- or else! I want it traced. At once. It must have been somebody at the meeting -- I want to know who.

Humphrey nodded. Ill set up a leak enquiry straight away.

I lost my temper. I dont want a bloody leak enquiry! I shouted. Didnt you hear me? I want to know who did it!

[Hackers anger at Humphreys suggestion was caused by his knowledge that leak enquiries are merely for setting up, not for actually conducting. The purpose of a leak enquiry is to find no evidence. If you really want to find the cause of a leak you call in the Special Branch. Those appointed to a leak enquiry seldom meet, and only report if it is absolutely unavoidable Ed.]

Prime Minister, said Humphrey gently, apparently in an effort to calm me down, when there is a leak, normally one doesnt really want to find out who is responsible, just in case it turns out to have been one of your Cabinet colleagues.

For once I wasnt worried about that. The Solicitor-General and I were the only ministers left there by then. It cant have been him, he had nothing to gain, and anyway law officers never leak. And I know it wasnt me. Therefore it must have been one of the officials. I told Humphrey, there and then, that we would take this right through to the Courts.

Malcolm interrupted. Im sorry, Prime Minister, but I really have to have a statement for the press. Theyre all waiting. And there are four requests for TV interviews and eleven for radio.

Bloody marvellous! I was decidedly bitter. All last week I wanted to go on the air and talk about my successes in achieving dtente with the Soviets, and they didnt want to know. Now this happens and they charge in like a herd of vultures.

Not heard, Prime Minister, said Bernard inexplicably.

I told him Id speak louder. Then I realised Id misunderstood. Herd, he said, not heard. Vultures, I mean, they dont herd, they flock. And they dont charge, they

Yes? They what? I turned to him, absolutely furious, and waited. More silence. Well, what do they do, Bernard?

He could see that he was dicing with death. They he faltered. And he flapped his arms a bit. Nothing, he said, and returned to staring at his shoes again. I have had enough of Bernards pedantry!

I turned back to Malcolm. Dont the press believe in Britain? I asked rhetorically. Why must they always go trouble-seeking and muck-raking? Why cant they write about our successes?

Malcolm chewed his lower lip. Like ?

I stopped to think. Like like like my dtente with the Russians, I suggested with relief, thinking of it in the nick of time.

Malcolm considered this idea. Well, there are more friendly voices coming from the Kremlin but it hasnt actually led to anything concrete though, has it?

Its going to, I explained. People are so picky!

Malcolm glanced at his watch. Im sorry, Prime Minister, but I do have to tell them something about this allegation.

He was right. We had to say something. I told him to talk to them off the record, attribute his remarks to sources close to the Prime Minister, and be sure to say nothing attributable.

He waited, pencil poised.

I began: Say that what he says about me is a complete pack of lies.

Bernard interrupted, worried. Um, do you mean, um Prime Minister, about, well, about running for cover and all that sort of thing? He went pink.

Yes, I said. What was his problem?

Um Bernard persisted, the only problem is, it is the authors opinion. We cant call him a liar for expressing his opinion.

I didnt see why not, but generously I modified my instructions to Malcolm. Well, say its a pack of lies that I spoke in favour of Sellafield in Cabinet but against it in public.

Um ! Bernard appeared to have another problem. I narrowed my eyes at him. Well, the only thing is, it is sort of true, isnt it?

Shut up, Bernard! I explained.

He wouldnt. How do we say its a pack of lies? he asked with determination.

Malcolm knew. He was already writing it down in the appropriate language. The Prime Ministers recollection of events is significantly at variance with his predecessors.

Bernard relaxed. Oh, I see, he said, crossed his legs and sat back in his Chippendale armchair.

Then say, I told Malcolm, that the Cabinet minutes vindicate me completely, but unfortunately under the terms of the Thirty Year Rule they cant be disclosed for another twenty-eight years. Which makes his book deeply unfair as well as totally inaccurate.

Malcolm got all that. His shorthand is excellent. Its always a good idea to have an ex-journalist as Press Secretary -- poacher turned gamekeeper.

And what about the smears against you personally? he wanted to know.

Smear him, I replied promptly. Say the old fool is trying to rewrite history to try to make his premiership look less of a disaster. Imply hes gone ga-ga.

Malcolm chewed his pencil for a moment. Passage of time and separation from official records have perhaps clouded his memory?

Fine, as far as it goes. How about the ga-ga bit?

Malcolm smiled. Though no more than one would expect for a man of his age? he offered.

It seemed all right to me. Will that do? I asked them all.

Malcolm seemed to think so. Its okay for refuting whats in the chapter. But what about the story that you tried to prevent publication?

I could see no problem with that. Say thats a pack of lies too.

Malcolm was perfectly happy. A garbled account of a routine meeting. There was never any question of suppression.

I looked round the table. Humphrey and Bernard were raising no objections. I told Malcolm that I would give no interviews on the subject, and I allowed him to make it a direct quote: An insignificant matter of no national importance, typical of the medias trivialisation of politics.

Do I attribute that quote to you, Prime Minister?

Of course not! Sometimes I wonder if Malcolms all there. A close Cabinet colleague.

After Malcolm left we discussed the crisis, and I found that they viewed it far too lightly. My view is that its a disaster, but Humphrey thinks its not all that serious.

Not serious? I was incredulous. Telling the British people they cant trust the word of their own Prime Minister?

Humphrey was calm and confident. They wont believe that, he asserted. I was tempted to believe him when Bernard piped up.

They might, you know. He is so discouraging. Otherwise, logically, it would mean that they couldnt trust the word of their own ex-Prime Minister.

Humphrey thanked Bernard. [In other words, Sir Humphrey indicated to Bernard Woolley that he had said enough Ed.]

It seemed to me that there was a good chance that, given the choice between my word and my predecessors, the British public would believe me. They never trusted him, thats for sure. Thank goodness Ive been able to bring back a little bit of honesty into British political life. [Hackers capacity for self-deception was, as with most politicians, one of the essential ingredients of his success. Unless one takes the phrase a little bit of honesty at face value Ed.]

We had discussed our rebuttal of the Daily Post story for long enough. Now, I said, moving right along, about nailing that leak. [We have preserved Hackers mixed metaphors whenever possible, for the insight that they give us into the unusual mind of this great political leader. Bernard Woolley, however, was unable to ignore them Ed.]

Im sorry to be pedantic, Prime Minister, but if you nail a leak you make another leak.

I glared at him. He shut up again. I want the culprit. I was implacable.

Yes, Prime Minister, replied Humphrey, without argument.

And I want a conviction.

Humphrey seemed puzzled. Prime Minister, we can try to find the culprit. We can prosecute. But under our current political system there are problems, as Im sure you must be aware, about the government actually guaranteeing a conviction.

Of course I knew that. But its been done often enough, God knows! I suggested a quiet drinkie with the judge.

Unthinkable! Sir Humphrey was playing Goody Two-Shoes. It was one of his least convincing performances. There is no way, Prime Minister, of putting any pressure on a British judge.

Who does he think hes kidding? So what do you do to ensure a conviction? I enquired.

Simple, replied Sir Humphrey promptly. You pick a judge who wont need any pressure put upon him.

I hadnt thought of that. Its always simple when you know how.

A quiet word with the Lord Chancellor, continued Humphrey. Find a judge whos on the government side.

And who dislikes the Daily Post? I asked.

They all dislike the Daily Post. We need a judge whos hoping to be made a Lord of Appeal. Then we leave justice free to take her own impartial and majestic course.

I asked if that always does the trick. Humphrey explained that it wasnt foolproof. Sometimes theyre obviously trying so hard for a conviction that the jury acquits out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

So, I summed up judicially, the judge has to have some common sense as well.

He nodded. I can see that its not so simple as he makes out.

August 6th

Lunch today with Derek Burnham, the editor of the Daily Post. Its no pleasure to have lunch with such a person, but he is a representative of the fourth estate and I kept a metaphorical clothes-peg on my nose.

We lunched in the small dining-room at Number Ten. Its a panelled room, a sort of ante-room to the big state dining-room, aadjoining the yellow pillared room. Its an impressive place, yet small enough for intimate luncheons. Sometimes I lunch there with Bernard and other officials if Annies out and I cant be bothered to go upstairs and make lunch for myself.

Bernham is a nondescript, sandy-haired Scotsman of indeterminate middle age, with dandruff liberally scattered across his collar and lapels.

So what are you asking me to tell my readers? he asked me over the tomato soup.

Im not asking you to tell your readers anything, I replied carefully, not neglecting to turn on the charm. Im just giving you my side of the story.

Derek pretended to be puzzled. But its not that important, is it?

He wouldnt like to have lies written about him in the newspapers! [Hacker appears to have forgotten that it was truth that was written about him in the papers. Or perhaps he did not really forget, for the truth can be even more painful to read than lies Ed.]

Why the big fuss? persisted Derek.

Because, I was indignant, I do not have two faces, and I didnt try to suppress the chapter.

May I quote you? he asked mischievously.

I was very specific in my reply. I told him that he may not quote me denying that I have two faces.

He grinned. It was worth a try. He slurped his soup. But Jim, I really dont know why youre so upset. I agree the chapter doesnt flatter you, but its just part of the normal rough and tumble of political life, isnt it?

I told him that I really didnt think that a responsible paper should print that kind of smear. He gave a non-committal nod. So I asked him why he did.

Because it sold us over a hundred thousand extra copies.

But didnt you see how damaging these accusations are?

Id created a trap for myself. Thats my point exactly, he grinned. Heres this damaging accusation and its up to you to clear it for publication, and you are asking me to believe that you didnt try to stop it?

Of course I didnt.

Why not?

This is a free country, Derek, I said grandly. Freedom of speech will always be protected while Im in Number Ten.

He wouldnt let go. But if its seriously damaging to you

Its not all that damaging, I replied irritably.

He sat back and smiled. Fine, he said. So whats all this fuss about?

I could see that it was difficult for me to have it both ways. I tried a new tack. I explained that I didnt care about the damage to me personally, its the damage to Britain that worries me.

He couldnt see, at first, how Britain could be damaged. Patiently I explained that undermining the leadership seriously damages the nation with foreigners. The pound, that sort of thing.

He didnt buy it. Because when I followed up by asking him to retract the story that Id tried to suppress chapter eight of that damn book, he said that he couldnt.

Wouldnt Id understand, but couldnt? I challenged him. Youre the Editor, arent you?

He took a bread roll. Bernard immediately passed him the butter. Prime Minister, an Editor isnt like a General commanding an army. Hes just the ringmaster of a circus. I can book the acts, but I cant tell the acrobats which way to jump. Nor can I prevent the bareback rider from falling off her horse.

Cajoling had clearly failed. It was time to try Pressure. Derek, I said carefully as I filled up his glass of Aloxe-Corton (his favourite, according to Malcolm), I dont think it would be helpful if you forced us to the conclusion that we couldnt trust you. Obviously we like to co-operate with the press, but you really are making it hard for us.

Derek was made of sterner stuff. He sniffed the bouquet, swirled the Burgundy around in the glass to let it breathe, and then looked me squarely in the eye. I dont think that it would be helpful if you made us think you were hostile to our paper. Obviously we like to co-operate with Number Ten, but if its war, then

I let him go no further. I assured him that war was the last thing we wanted, it wouldnt be helpful to either of us. I was merely suggesting merely thinking there could be exclusive interviews and photo opportunities

If I retract? he enquired sharply.

If you print the truth, I corrected him.

He sighed. Jim, I have to stand by my story until I get hard evidence that its not true.

I couldnt think what evidence there could be to disprove the story. [Perhaps because the story was true Ed.]

Such as? I asked.

The minutes of the meeting.

I dont see why not, if my integrity is at stake. I turned to Bernard. Bernard, the minutes bear out my account of the meeting, dont they?

Bernard stammered incoherently. The eyes of all three of us -- Derek, Malcolm and myself -- were upon him. He said something like Well I er um but well er yes but

Good, I said. Derek, you may see them.

Bernard was looking apoplectic. I thought he was about to have a brain seizure. But Prime Minister he spluttered.

I put him at his ease. Yes, yes, I know theyre usually confidential, but this is a special case.

Derek was not content with seeing the minutes. May I publish them?

I told him we could talk about that -- I havent seen them myself. I told Bernard to show them to me this afternoon.

[Bernards discomfiture had two origins. It is anybodys guess which fear was causing him the greater panic. First, there was the breach of the Official Secrets Act: the idea of showing minutes of a Cabinet Committee to the press was absolutely without precedent. And even if the breach of the Official Secrets Act was made legal by the instructions of the Prime Minister (by no means a certainty), there was the additional problem that Hacker had sworn to prosecute the official who had leaked the discussion about the offending chapter eight -- which was undoubtedly less secret than cabinet minutes.

But Bernard had a greater problem still, which he revealed to Sir Humphrey Appleby immediately he was able to get away from the Prime Ministers lunch with Derek Burnham. Sir Humphreys personal papers contain a detailed report of the ensuing conversation, followed by a rare and valuable insight into his views on political memoirs and the need for secrecy in government Ed.]

B.W. arrived in my office in a state of advanced dither. His problem appeared to be that the Prime Minister has told the press that the minutes of the Cabinet Committee confirm his story that he did not try to suppress chapter eight of the book.

But, Bernard told me, the minutes are not yet written. I felt that this simplified the problem -- all he has to do is write them.

Bernard did not feel that this was the answer. He was concerned that, according to his recollection, the Prime Minister did try to suppress the book. And he expressed surprise when I expressed surprise at his recollection.

So I explained to him that what I remember is irrelevant. If the minutes do not say that he tried to suppress the book, then he did not.

B.W. went into a greater dither, and said that he didnt see how he could falsify the minutes. He wanted, he said, a clear conscience. I found myself wondering when he acquired this taste for luxuries and how he got into government with it.

Consciences are for politicians. We are humble functionaries whose duty is to implement the commands of our democratically elected representatives. How could we be doing anything wrong if it has been commanded by those who represent the people?

B.W. does not accept that view. No man is an island, he said. I agreed wholeheartedly. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Bernard.

Apprehensively, he asked for my suggestions, and their rationale. I gave him these thoughts to ponder:

1. Minutes do not record everything that was said at a meeting.

2. People frequently change their minds during a meeting.

3. Minutes, by virtue of the selection process, can never be a true and complete record.

4. Therefore, what is said at a meeting merely constitutes the choice of ingredients for the minutes.

5. The secretarys task is to choose, from a jumble of ill-digested ideas, a version that presents the Prime Ministers views as he would, on reflection, have liked them to emerge.

Later today Bernard returned to my office, still confused. He had considered all I had said and likened the question of ingredients to cooking. A dangerous analogy. It is better not to use the verb cook in connection with either books or minutes.

Once again this raised the question of truth (whatever that may be) and Bernards erroneous belief that minutes must in some way constitute a true record.

Patiently, I approached the matter from an alternative point of view. I explained the following points as clearly as I could:

1. The purpose of minutes is not to record events.

2. The purpose is to protect people

3. You do not take notes if the Prime Minister says something he did not mean to say, especially if this contradicts what he has said publicly on an issue.

4. In short, minutes are constructive. They are to improve what is said, to be tactful, to put in a better order.

5. There is no moral problem. The secretary is the Prime Ministers servant.

In short, the minute is simply a note for the records and a statement of action (if any) that was agreed upon.

So, we returned to the meeting in question. What happened? The Solicitor-General had advised that there were no legal grounds for suppressing chapter eight. The Prime Minister accepted that there were no legal grounds for suppression. [Our italics Ed.] That is all that need be minuted.

It is not a lie. It can go in the minutes with a clear conscience. B.W. departed with his conscience feeling less bruised.

These two conversations with Bernard about this storm in a teacup have prompted in me some fundamental thoughts about its origin:

There is no doubt that the real cause of all this trouble is this business of publishing ministerial and Prime Ministerial memoirs.

When I entered the Civil Service in the 1950s it was still possible for a man of intelligence and ingenuity to defend the thesis that politics was an honest and honourable profession. Ministers did not divulge Cabinet proceedings. Leaking to the press was regarded as a breach of confidence, not an instrument of government. And if a Department fell down badly on a job, the minister resigned.

Equally, members of the Civil Service preserved a cloak of anonymity and a tradition of discreet silence which concealed from the rest of the country the fact that they were running it.

Thus Prime Ministerial memoirs and diaries are, I believe, deeply reprehensible. The uninstructed may gain pleasure, and believe that they are being vouchsafed privileged insights, by reading distressingly frank accounts of how politicians reach their main political decisions (or, more frequently, indecisions). Most politicians have a certain lively style, often achieved by those without the reflective profundity to appreciate, or the intellectual apparatus to communicate, those qualifications and modifications which may make their accounts less readable but which could render them reliable.

Leaving aside the poor quality of literature of most ministerial memoirs, the more important caveat remains: revelations of this sort should never be published at all.

In such books the old tradition of the responsible minister and his obedient servant is generally misrepresented as a totally misleading portrait of scheming officials manipulating innocent politicians. Although those at the heart of government are aware that this is an absurd travesty, there is a danger that ordinary simple-minded souls may be deceived into believing there may be some truth in it.

The rot began with the Crossman diaries. And once one Minister reveals the secrets of the Cabinet, the others rush in to set the record straight, which means, of course, to show themselves in a favourable light.

After reading a succession of descriptions of the same period from opposed ministers of the same government, all of whom were by their own account uniformly honourable in their dealings and right in their judgements, it is hard to see where to lay the responsibility for decades of unprecedented and unrelieved political squalor.

The only scapegoat available must therefore logically be the Civil Servant. This has culminated in a distressing and regrettable change in public opinion, so that the necessary role of the Civil Servant in advising caution, taking soundings, consulting colleagues, examining precedents, preparing options and advising ministers on the likely consequences of their proposals if they reached the statute books is perceived as ingrained bureaucratic obstructiveness rather than an attempt to translate narrow political expediency into broad national benefit.

Of course, there is an argument that by maintaining secrecy we would be simply defending the narrow interests of the Civil Service against the greater benefits of more openness about government. Paradoxically, this has not proved to be the case.

When I first attended Cabinet as a Private Secretary in the 1960s, members were irritated at the stultifying boredom of the proceedings and would interrupt with diverting outbursts of truth which would cause much conflict and dissent. Now that I have returned to the cabinet as Cabinet Secretary over twenty years later, all members of the Cabinet are peacefully occupied making notes for their memoirs and will only make the statements that they want others to record in theirs.

This has been enormously beneficial to the Civil Service, for an interesting reason: the fact is that the movement to open up government, if successful, always achieves a gratifying increase in the level of secrecy. Once a meeting -- in Parliament, local council, Cabinet -- is opened up to the public, it is used by those attending as a propaganda platform and not as a genuine debating forum. True discussions will then take place privately in smaller informal groups.

In government these smaller groups often contain one or more senior civil servants, so that some element of intelligence and practicability can be built into proposals before they become public and have to be defended with arguments which represent a victory of personal pride over common sense. So the move to greater openness in public affairs has greatly strengthened the level of secrecy and therefore the quality of decision-making in the higher echelons of government.

This is now jeopardised by Hackers extraordinary, foolish and unprecedented decision to show Cabinet Committee minutes to a newspaper editor, with the consequent risk -- nay, certainty -- of publication. It is because Bernard and I were present at the meeting that the damage can be contained, and it is for these reasons that Bernards minutes should take the form that I instructed him to take.

[Appleby Papers PU/12/3/86/NCH]

[Bernard Woolleys fears as to the unprecedented release of minutes that he had written were soon to be fully realised. The minutes were indeed published in the Daily Post Ed.]

Daily Post

Monday 13 August

CABINET COMMITTEE MINUTES PUBLISHED EXCLUSIVE

Brief reference confirms Hackers claim

by our political staff

For the first time ever, and with the permission of the Prime Minister, the Daily Post publishes an extract from the minutes of a secret cabinet committee. They reveal

Quote:

The Solicitor-General advised that there were no legal grounds for suppressing chapter eight. The Prime Minister accepted that there were no legal grounds.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

I had lost my cloak of anonymity. For the first time in my life I became a public figure -- almost the worst fate that can befall a civil servant, in my view. Other than being sent on gardening leave, of course.

It meant that I myself had to answer questions from the press, questions that I was not free to answer, nor able to -- questions that required a degree of prevarication and economy with the truth that I, as a non-politician, was ill-equipped to evade.

The morning those minutes appeared in the Daily Post I was accosted in Downing Street on my way to work. No doubt you can find it all by looking up the archives.

The Times

Tuesday 14 August

Woolley says Prime Minister is above the law

Official Secrets Act not applicable to Hacker

By our Chief Political Correspondent

Bernard Woolley, the Prime Ministers Principal Private Secretary, today admitted that the Official Secrets Act does not apply to the Prime Minister.

His replies turn an interesting light on the unwritten British Constitution

[All the newspapers carried essentially the same story. The full verbatim conversation is to be found on the BBC Nine OClock News filmed report, and we reprint the transcript here Ed.]

BBC TV

British Broadcasting Corporation

The attached transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script. Because of the risk of mishearing the BBC cannot vouch for its complete accuracy.

NINE OCLOCK NEWS NEWSNIGHT

TRANSMISSION: AUGUST 14th

ACTUALITY:

SHOT OF BERNARD WOOLLEY APPROACHING THE CAMERA IN DOWNING STREET

KATE ADAM: Can we have a word with you, Mr Woolley, about the minutes of Jim Hackers meeting with the Solicitor-General which were published in the Daily Post today?

BERNARD WOOLLEY: Look, Ive got to go to work.

ADAM: Just a few questions.

WOOLLEY: Im sorry, I cant comment.

ADAM: But youd agree it all looks very suspicious?

WOOLLEY: What?

ADAM: The Prime Minister offered to publish them last Thursday. Why did it take so long?

WOOLLEY: Well, because they werent

HE HESITATES, AND LOOKS AROUND ANXIOUSLY

ADAM: Werent cleared? Werent cleared for publication? Didnt the Prime Minister clear them last Thursday?

WOOLLEY: Yes, but, well, theres the Official Secrets Act.

ADAM: Thats what wed like to understand, Mr. Woolley. How can they be cleared for publication if theyre subject to the Official Secrets Act?

WOOLLEY: Well, the Prime Minister can clear anything.

ADAM: So you are saying that the Prime Minister is not subject to the Official Secrets Act?

WOOLLEY: Um, no.

ADAM: No he is or no he isnt?

WOOLLEY: Yes.

ADAM: So when it comes to the Official Secrets Act, the Prime Minister is above the law?

WOOLLEY: Not in theory.

ADAM: But in practice?

WOOLLEY: No comment.

CUT TO:

KATE ADAM TALKING TO CAMERA

ADAM: What Bernard Woolley seems to be saying is that the Prime Minister makes the rules. He would not be drawn further about the content of the minutes, though he denied the rumour that the minutes took four days to appear because Mr Hacker can only type with two fingers.

[That final comment by Kate Adam resulted in a complaint from Number Ten Downing Street to the Chairman of the Governors of the BBC. The BBC hotly denied that the comment showed any sign of bias against the government Ed.]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

August 14th

This morning Bernard told me that he had been interviewed by the press. I was not pleased. It is not his job to give interviews.

He explained that he had not meant to do so, but had been trapped into speaking to them.

I asked him what he had said.

Um Nothing really.

This answer did not have the ring of truth. If hed said nothing, he would not have come to confess it. And his eyes were decidedly shifty.

So whats the problem? I asked.

Well he hesitated, they were asking me about you.

Not very surprising. What about me?

About you and the Official Secrets Act, Prime Minister. [When Hacker wrote this entry in his diary he had not yet seen the TV news or the morning papers. This conversation with Bernard Woolley took place immediately after he spoke to the press Ed.] They asked me whether you were bound by the Act.

Of course I am, I confirmed.

Yes, of course you are, he agreed.

I waited. Nothing. He stared at the wall unhappily. So? I pressed him.

Well, it, er, may not come out like that.

What do you mean? I asked with menace in my voice.

Well, um, thinking back on what I said, and what you said, and what I said you said, or what they may say I said you said, or what they may have thought I said I thought you thought, or they may say I said I thought you said I thought

He petered out. Grimly, I told him to go on.

He took a deep breath. I think I said you thought you were above the law.

I was aghast! You said that??

Not intentionally. But thats how it seemed to come out. Im terribly sorry. But they were asking all those questions.

I couldnt believe it. Bernard, I asked with real curiosity, what made you think that, just because someone was asking you questions, that you had to answer them?

He said he didnt know. Nor did I. It was hard to believe. Hes never answered my questions just because I asked them. I was furious. After a lifetime in the Civil Service, an entire career devoted to evading questions, you suddenly decide to answer questions today? And from the Press? You must have flipped your lid, Bernard!

He begged me not to shout at him. He was near to tears. He assured me that he wouldnt ever answer any more questions, ever again, ever!

I calmed down. I told him to get Humphrey in at once. And while we waited for Humphrey to arrive, I gave Bernard my eight ways to deal with difficult questions:

1. Attack The Question. Thats a very silly question, how can you justify the use of the words, above the law?

2. Attack The Questioner. How many years have you spent in government?

3. Compliment The Question. Thats a very good question. Id like to thank you for asking it. Let me reply by asking you one.

4. Unloading The Question. Most questions are loaded. They are full of assumptions such as A lot of people have said that you consider yourself above the law. There are two possible replies to such loaded questions:

a) Name ten.

b) Surely in a nation of 56 million people you can find a few people who will say anything, no matter how irrelevant, misguided, or ill-informed.

5. Make It All Appear An Act. This approach only works for live TV interviews: You know, Ive come to the conclusion that I dont agree with what you suggested I should answer when you asked me that question downstairs before the programme began. The real answer is

6. Use The Time Factor. Most interviews are short of time, especially live on air interviews. Reply: Thats a very interesting question, and there are nine points that I should like to make in answer to it. The Interviewer will say: Perhaps you could make just two of them, briefly. You say: No, its far too important a question to answer superficially, and if I cant answer it properly Id rather not trivialise it.

7. Invoke Secrecy. Theres a very full answer to that question, but it involves matters that are being discussed in confidence. Im sure you wouldnt want me to break a confidence. So Im afraid I cant answer for another week or two.

8. Take Refuge In A Long Pointless Narrative. If you can ramble on for long enough, no one will remember the question and therefore no one can tell if you answered it or not.

Bernard listened attentively to this lesson in handling the nosey-parkers from the media. As Humphrey arrived I summed it up for him: if you have nothing to say, say nothing. But better, have something to say and say it, no matter what they ask. Pay no attention to the question, make your own statement. If they ask you the same question again, you just say, Thats not the question or I think the more important question is this: Then you make another statement of your own. Easy-peasy.

When Humphrey arrived I questioned him about the leak enquiry. He was evasive.

Ah well, he said, the wheels will be turning very soon.

I asked for it a week ago, I said. I reiterated that I wanted it pursued rigorously. And immediately.

Humphrey appeared perplexed. Rigorously?

And immediately.

He was still perplexed. Immediately.

Immediately, I repeated.

The penny dropped. Oh. You mean you really want it pursued.

I told him to watch my lips. I-want-you-to-pursue-it- now!

Humphrey remained puzzled, but did not say anything to oppose me. If you are serious about it Ill arrange for a genuine arms-length enquiry -- if thats what you really want. Ill get Inspector Plod from the Special Branch. [Sir Humphrey was speaking figuratively when he spoke of Inspector Plod Ed.]

That question settled, I pointed out that we now have to improve our relations with the press. These will have worsened today since my esteemed Private Secretary told them that I put myself above the law when it comes to official secrets.

Humphrey stared at Bernard, deeply shocked. Bernard hung his head.

Yes, you may well look ashamed, Bernard. I was not letting him off lightly. I asked Humphrey to let me know the actual constitutional position. He promised to let me have it in writing later in the day.

[Sir Humphrey kept his word. A memo arrived in Hackers study later that day. We have retrieved a copy of it from the Cabinet Office archives Ed.]

70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS

August 14th

Memorandum

To: The Prime Minister

From: The Secretary of the Cabinet

In one sense, Bernard was quite correct. The question you posed, in a nutshell, is what is the difference between a breach of the Official Secrets Act, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an unattributable off-the-record briefing by a senior official?

The former -- the breach -- is a criminal offence. The latter -- the briefing -- is essential to keep the wheels turning.

Is there a real objective difference? Or is it merely a matter of convenience and interpretation? And is it a breach of the Act if there is an unofficial non-attributable off-the-record briefing by an official who is unofficially authorised by the Prime Minister?

You could argue that this is not a breach, if it has been authorised by the Prime Minister. Which is Bernard Woolleys position.

You, Prime Minister, will inevitably argue that it is up to you to decide whether it is in the public interest for something to be revealed or not. This would be your justification for claiming that the leak from your meeting with the Solicitor-General, which must have come from an official, is a breach of the Act.

However, this raises some interesting constitutional conundrums.

1. What if the official was officially authorised?

2. What if he was unofficially authorised?

3. What if you, Prime Minister, officially disapprove of a breach of the Act but unofficially approve? This would make the breach unofficially official but officially unofficial.

I hope this is of help to you.

HA

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

August 15th

We reconvened again. [Tautology is part of Hackers personal literary style, so we have retained it where possible Ed.] Wed all seen Bernards press and the television interview last night. Bernard was the new hot celebrity. He arrived at the office this morning wearing sunglasses and a big hat, in a typically ineffectual effort to avoid recognition.

The press, strange to say, were immediately drawn to enquire about the strange person who would wear sunglasses and a beaver hat on one of the hottest days of the year.

I thanked Humphrey for his helpful memo -- a white lie, I felt -- and we discussed how to minimise the weeks damage. I suggested having another lunch with a Fleet Street editor -- a friendly one this time.

Malcolm Warren had joined us. His comment was that none of them would be awfully friendly at the moment.

Cant we offer one of them a knighthood in the New Year honours? I asked.

He was doubtful of the ultimate value. Giving them knighthoods is a double-edged sword. It can work for or against you. The question is, do you have any control over them once youve given it?

I should have thought, I said, that any editor would be rather grateful.

Malcolm shook his head. You see, having got an honour, he may feel free to do and say exactly what he likes. Nothing further to lose.

I could see his point. You dont get gratitude afterwards. In politics, gratitude is merely a lively expectation of favours to come.

Malcolm thought that, instead of trying to butter up the press, we should distract them. Lets give them a story.

Such as? I asked.

Start a war, he suggested airily, that sort of thing.

Start a war? I wasnt sure Id heard him correctly.

I was just giving an example of a major distraction.

Only a small war, added Bernard.

They were kidding. They must have been. Humphrey joined in. If I may intervene, even a small war would be overkill. But, seriously, why dont you expel seventy-six Soviet diplomats. This has been the practice in the past, when we wished to ensure that the press lose interest in some other matter.

I was shocked. I rejected the suggestion out of hand.

Malcolm persisted. Itd be a great headline for you, Prime Minister. GOVERNMENT CRACKS DOWN ON RED SPY RING. Very patriotic. Goes down excellently with the electorate.

Humphrey nodded. Yes, you see, it must be a story that no one can disprove

And which will be believed, concluded Malcolm, even when its denied.

SOVIET AMBASSADORS CHAUFFEUR IS MAJOR-GENERAL IN KGB, declared Humphrey imaginatively. He was getting quite carried away.

I told them that the whole preposterous notion was completely out of the question. I have been working towards dtente for months. Its the only thing thats working for me at the moment.

They all seemed somewhat disappointed. I turned to my Private Secretary. What do you think, Bernard? I enquired ironically. You seem to be good at getting things into the papers.

He blushed. Well what about a royal event? he offered.

I couldnt think what he meant. Such as?

Well, an engagement pregnancy divorce?

You can arrange that? I asked.

He hadnt thought of that little snag. Oh. Well, no, I

Humphrey had had enough. I know, he said. What about PMS PRIVATE SECRETARY IN DOLE QUEUE?

[Five days elapsed, and the Leak Enquiry actually reported. The culprit was named. A press officer in the Department of Energy who had been present at the meeting with the Solicitor-General. The Enquiry had no difficulty in finding that he was the source of the leak because (a) there were so few suspects, (b) he owned up immediately. Bernard Woolley and Sir Humphrey Appleby received copies of the Leak Enquiry on the same day. Bernard must have telephoned Sir Humphrey for instructions or advice, because this letter was received from Sir Humphrey dated the day of the report. We reprint the full texts below Ed.]

70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS

from the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service

August 20th

Dear Bernard,

Yes, I have read it. This is a potentially difficult situation, as there is no precedent for handling a leak enquiry that actually finds the culprit.

Although the victim is a mere press officer he will undoubtedly be labelled a Senior Civil Servant by the press, simply because he works in Whitehall.

I think we can save him, however.

H.A.

[A reply from Bernard Woolley Ed.]

10 Downing Street

From the Principal Private Secretary

August 20th

Dear Humphrey,

How can we save him? Theres no doubt he did it.

Bernard

[And a reply from Sir Humphrey Ed.]

70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS

from the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service

August 20th

Dear Bernard,

There will be!

H.A.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

August 21st

A difficult meeting this morning -- but with the help of my able and loyal staff I was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

The Leak Enquiry reported yesterday. I read it last night. The Press Officer from the Department of energy did it. The evidence is irrefutable. And nobody denied it either.

So when we met this morning I asked for the immediate dismissal of the man, and for a prosecution under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

Humphrey was cautious. I think not, Prime Minister.

I mocked him -- foolishly, it turned out. You think not? Because hes a Civil Servant, I suppose.

He was not amused. Certainly not, Prime Minister. Because it is not in your interest.

Not in my interest to punish people for undermining the whole fabric of government? I enquired icily.

Bernard said: Um, you cant undermine a fabric, Prime Minister, because fabric hangs down so if you go underneath you He tailed off abruptly as I stared him down.

Humphrey, anticipating my every whim, had already consulted the Attorney-General. The Attorney-Generals advice is that a prosecution will not succeed, because there are no real security implications.

I said that I didnt care if it succeeded or not. At least it will make an example of him, I added.

Humphrey continued, as if I had not spoken. He also advises that if we prosecute we must first undertake a similar Special Branch enquiry into the earlier leak of Chapter Five.

I didnt like the sound of that at all. Furthermore, I couldnt see why! The leak of Chapter Five was completely different! It was absolutely harmless!

Humphrey took a different view. The Attorney-General says that either both leaks were harmless, or neither. He gazed at me, wide-eyed, innocent. So shall I ask the Special Branch to work on the Chapter Five leak?

He knew perfectly well that only one person whod read Chapter Five stood to gain anything from leaking it -- and I was not about to have myself prosecuted under Section 2.

On second thoughts, Humphrey, I told him, I think the Attorney-General is right. Forget that prosecution. Just sack the Press Officer concerned.

Humphrey shook his head sadly. That could be difficult. There is some evidence that the Press Officer was not acting on his own initiative.

I hadnt noticed that bit. Meaning?

He was carrying out the wishes of his Secretary of State.

Appalled, I asked for a full explanation. According to Humphrey, the Press Officer had not leaked Chapter Eight out of hostility to me. The truth is that the Secretary of State for Energy was delighted at being described by the former Prime Minister as the ablest man in the Cabinet. He had mentioned to his Press Officer that, so far from suppressing the chapter, he would not mind seeing it in the press at once. Otherwise the public might never get a chance to read it, because of the attempt by Number Ten to censor it.

I asked Humphrey if he were sure of this.

He nodded. Im sure that this will be the Press Officers explanation when his case comes up for wrongful dismissal before the Industrial Tribunal. He will argue that he was following an implicit instruction, doing what his Secretary of State wanted done.

I was bitterly disappointed. The upshot is that we have found the leaker, and I can neither prosecute him nor sack him!

Humphrey obligingly offered an alternative. But not a very practical one. Im afraid, Prime Minister, that if you must sack somebody, the only candidate is the Energy Secretary. He is responsible for his Department.

But I cant, I wailed. I lost one Cabinet Minister last month. I cant sack another this month.

Quite. He agreed wholeheartedly. To lose one minister may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness. Furthermore, as the Energy Secretary didnt do the leaking and denies that he asked for it to be done, he might sue for wrongful dismissal as well!

I couldnt see how to save my neck. The press were clamouring for the result of the enquiry. Humphrey offered up a press release that Malcolm had drafted, but it was hopeless. Phrases like Communication breakdown misunderstanding acted in good faith will be dealt with by internal procedures

Its a whitewash, I complained. And not even a very effective whitewash.

More of a greywash, really, agreed Bernard.

Humphrey was not of the same opinion. Its no whitewash. It shares out the blame equally.

Thats the last thing I wanted. It would have made it seem as if I really did try to suppress Chapter Eight! [Which was true Ed.]

Humphrey thought for a moment. Perhaps he volunteered cautiously, perhaps we should let the story go out -- but smother it.

I saw instantly what he meant.

You mean ? I asked.

He nodded.

Silence filled the Cabinet Room. We could all see that there was no alternative. After some moments Humphrey put the plan into action.

Ive been meaning to tell you, Prime Minister -- there's some very worrying information on the Foreign Office files. About espionage in the Soviet Embassy and Trade Delegation.

No! I said in a horrified voice.

Im afraid so. Evidence against a lot of diplomats.

How many? I asked.

Seventy-six, he replied.

I wasnt surprised. You know, Humphrey, I think the time has come for firm action. After all, the security of the realm is at stake.

Precisely.

So it was done. Expel them, I ordered. And we dont want to keep this secret. Tell the press today, at the same time as we tell them the result of the leak enquiry.

Yes, Prime Minister, said Sir Humphrey. Good idea, he added deferentially. Were quite a team!