The Complete Yes Prime Minister

THE SMOKESCREEN

[Some three and a half months after Hacker became Prime Minister he had to face his first Cabinet crisis, and the way in which he overcame it was a tribute to his increasing political skills. The crisis involved many issues simultaneously -- his fight to save his Grand Design, threatened leaks, the threatened resignation of at least one and possibly two junior ministers, and his use of the powerful tobacco lobby in a fight to outwit the Treasury and obtain tax cuts to give him some short-term electoral advantage.

The origins of the crisis may be seen in the notes of a meeting that took place early in May between Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Cabinet Secretary, and Sir Frank Gordon, the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury. There is no reference to this meeting in Sir Humphreys diary but Sir Franks notes were recently found in the Civil Service archives in Walthamstow Ed.]

1 Monday

Lunched with Appleby at the Reform Club. Appleby was concerned because our new Prime Minister wishes to cut either taxes of public expenditure.

This should be resisted. Politicians are like children -- you cant just give them what they want, it only encourages them.

Nonetheless, Appleby should not even have allowed it to get as far as being a Formal Proposal. It should not have been allowed to get past Informal Discussions.

[Sir Frank Gordon could not have been seriously worried. There are nine further preliminary stages after Informal Discussions and Formal Proposals. All eleven stages are as follows:

1. Informal discussions

2. Formal proposals

3. Preliminary study

4. Discussion document

5. In-depth study

6. Revised proposal

7. Policy

8. Strategy

9. Implementation plan circulated

10. Revised implementation plan

11. Cabinet authorisation

Any competent Civil Servant should be able to ensure that if a policy is unwelcome, stage 11 will not be reached until the run-up to the next General Election Ed.]

Humphrey is unduly relaxed about the matter, in my humble opinion. The possible tax cut is contingent upon Hackers fantasy about cancelling Trident and switching to conscription to create large conventional forces. The Services will never wear it because, however much they dislike Trident, they hate conscription.

But my staff are horrified. There are waves of panic running through the Treasury. Giving away one and a half billion pounds of our money is unthinkable. [Hacker was arguing that the money was the taxpayers, and that -- in the event of a tax cut -- the Treasury would merely not be taking it away from them. This has never been the Treasury view Ed.]

I indicated to Humphrey Appleby that Arnold [Sir Arnold Robinson, the previous Cabinet Secretary] would never have allowed such a notion to become a Proposal. Appleby observed, with some justice, that Arnold was not at Number Ten with the present inmate.

As Humphrey Appleby is relatively new to the job I made the following matters clear to him:

1) The entire system depends on the supposition that he can control the PM and that I can control the Chancellor.

2) For this control to be maintained there must be an agreeable mistrust between them.

3) Hostility between them would be preferable.

4) Tax cuts unite them. Politicians win votes with them.

5) Even proposed tax cuts unite them, because they give the promise of votes to be won.

Appleby was confident. One might almost say complacent. He is confident that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will manage their hostility without our help. Eric [Eric Jeffries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer], he believes, will never forgive Jim for winning Number Ten, and Jim can never trust Eric again -- after all, one never trusts anyone that one has deceived.

I have ensured, however, that Eric opposes any tax cuts. I used the usual bait -- told him we needed the money for hospitals, schools and the old people. [This argument was known in the Treasury as the Kidney Machine Gambit. It hardly ever failed. It was followed up with the suggestion that the incumbent would be known to history as The Caring Chancellor. This never failed Ed.]

Appleby still felt that I was overly concerned about a tax cut of a mere one and a half billion pounds. It is true that the amount is not much in itself. But I indicated that some of our senior colleagues are worried that he (Appleby) is not in control. This cut has been proposed far too soon. Is Appleby able to keep up Arnolds tradition -- the iron fist in the iron glove? It would, after all, be a black day for Britain if the politicians started running the country.

[Sir Humphrey Appleby did not seem unduly worried by Sir Franks hints, anxieties and veiled threats. He records his own dry comments into his diary.]

Frank was worried about Hackers proposed tax cuts. They are serious, I know, but if I were in his shoes I should be much more worried about the state of the economy and low productivity. Of course, theres not much frank can do about that. The British worker is fundamentally lazy and wants something for nothing. Nobody wants to do an honest days work any more.

This same afternoon I went to Lords. When I got there England were seventy for four. Another collapse by England. What with the state of the pound and the state of our batting one sometimes wonders whether England has any future at all.

Still, it was a delightful afternoon. Warm sunshine, cold champagne, and the characteristic smack of willow on leather -- occasionally, anyway.

I was there on government business, of course, as the guest of Gerald Baron, Chairman of the British Tobacco Group. The BTG are national benefactors in my opinion. I took the opportunity to ask Gerald for more sponsorship for the Garden. [The Royal Opera House, in Covent Garden, which was more or less run from the Cabinet Office Ed.] Gerald was fairly open to the idea, though he mentioned that the Minister for Sport might also drop in at Lords this afternoon, twisting his arm on behalf of Wimbledon, Brands Hatch or some snooker tournament. I dont know where wed all be without the BTG.

I did notice, however, that Dr Peter Thorn, the Minister of State for Health, was again conspicuous by his absence. Apparently hes been got at by the anti-smoking lobby. Gerald asked me if Dr Thorn has much clout in Whitehall. I was able to reassure him on that score. Dr Thorn is only a Minister, and has no clout at all.

[Appleby Papers WHS/41/DE]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

May 3rd

Humphrey and I had a meeting about a study paper that he had sent me on the subject of cancelling Trident and reintroducing conscription. It was very long, very full, very fat, and completely unreadable.

I showed it to him. He was pleased with it. Ah yes, we cant get enough papers on that, he remarked smugly. We need lots of input. We dont want to make any announcements until we have examined every implication and ramification. Familiar delaying tactics.

This is going to happen, Humphrey, I told him firmly.

Oh yes, Prime Minister. By yes he meant no. Indeed it is, beyond question, at the appropriate juncture, in due course, in the fullness of time.

No Humphrey, I replied sharply. This century. This Parliament, in fact.

He shook his head sadly. This Parliament? Im not sure it would be fruitful. The time may not be ripe. It could turn out to be a banana skin.

Perhaps his doubts are a reflection of the curious obstinacy that I am encountering from Eric. The paper shows that if my plan goes ahead well have one and a half billion pounds available for tax cuts. And the Chancellor, of all people, opposes it. How can he oppose such a chance to win popularity from the voters? The only possibility, according to Humphrey, is that Eric is being advised by the Treasury, which apparently doesnt believe in giving money back.

This is always hard for a non-Treasury man to understand. I explained that the money is not the Treasurys, it is the taxpayers.

That is one view, Humphrey acknowledged. But it is not the view that the Treasury takes. Not once they have got their hands on it.

But if they dont need the money I began.

He interrupted me, puzzled. Im sorry? he asked.

If they dont need it I reiterated, and was again stopped in mid-sentence.

Taxation, said Humphrey loftily, isnt about what you need. The Treasury does not work out what it needs and then think how to raise the money. The Treasury pitches for as much as it can get away with and then thinks how to spend it. If the government started to give money back just because we didnt need it, we would be breaking with centuries of tradition. What would happen to the British Navy, for instance?

I couldnt see any relevance to the question. It would still be there. We still need a Navy.

Humphrey explained that, as we only have four capital ships, we only would need four Admirals and one Admiral of the fleet. Whereas we have a total of sixty Admirals. And tempting though it would be to do away with fifty-six of them, the effect would be to reduce the number of serving officers all the way down, until there was hardly anybody left in the Navy at all.

I felt this was a red herring. My conversation with Humphrey was completely circular. To summarise it: the Treasury is the most important department of government because it controls all the money. Every time you take away some of its money you take away some of its power. Therefore it resists. The only way to get the Treasury to agree to tax cuts is to get the Chancellor to agree. But the Chancellor wont agree unless the Treasury agrees. So how do you force the Treasurys hand? Only by forcing the Chancellors hand. And how do you force the Chancellors hand? Only by forcing the Treasurys hand.

Humphrey suggested that I try to persuade the Chancellor to give me his active support. He is my Cabinet colleague. That, briefly, is the drawback -- I need help from somebody who is on my side.

We got nowhere. Ill have to give this a lot of thought.

May 10th

Today I saw the way to get my tax cuts. And the help is going to come from a most unlikely source: the Minister of State for Health. Not only is he an unlikely source of help, he doesnt even know that hes going to help. And Im certainly not going to tell him!

This is how it happened. Dr Thorn came to see me. He had sent me a paper of cigarettes, apparently, and the power and influence of the tobacco lobby in this country. Unfortunately I hadnt had time to read it. He asked me for my reaction to it, so I asked him to summarise it in his own words.

Those were my own words, he said, slightly nonplussed.

Bernard came to the rescue, very skilfully. The Prime Minister often finds that a brief verbatim summary clarifies the emphasis and focuses on the salient points.

Salient points, I echoed, to encourage Dr Thorn.

So he told me what he had in mind. I was staggered. His idea was for the government to take action to eliminate smoking. He had a five-point plan:

1. A complete ban on all cigarette sponsorship.

2. A complete an on all cigarette advertising, even at the point of sale.

3. Fifty million pounds to be spent on anti-smoking publicity.

4. A ban on smoking in all public places.

5. Progressive deterrent tax raises until a packet of twenty costs about the same as a bottle of whiskey.

It is a drastic scheme. He claims it should reduce smoking by at least eighty per cent. Even ninety per cent, perhaps. He reckons it will drive the tobacco companies out of business.

I had no immediate answer for such radical proposals. Of course, it would have helped if Id read his paper before the meeting, but one cant find time for everything! But he was very serious and I had to keep him happy. So I told him that obviously I agreed with him, basically, that smoking ought to be stopped. No question. And I told him that we would definitely stop it in due course, at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time. I could see Bernard nodding with approval in the background. Im getting very good at Civil Service stalling techniques.

Dr Thorn could see what I was doing, though. You mean, forget it?

I assured him that that wasnt what I meant. And it wasnt! Well, not exactly! But we do have to be realistic. After all, I remarked, we werent born yesterday.

No. He was very tight-lipped. And we didnt die yesterday.

What do you mean? I asked.

Three hundred people did die yesterday, prematurely, as a result of smoking. There are a hundred thousand deaths a year, at least.

I tried to show Peter just how unrealistic he was being. If I took his proposal to Cabinet, the Treasury and the Chancellor would surely say that smoking brings in four billion pounds a year in revenue, and that we cant possibly manage without it.

Peter insisted that he wasnt unrealistic. I know you cant beat the Treasury with financial arguments. But this is a moral argument.

And then my brilliant idea occurred to me! A way to beat the Treasury. With Dr Peter Thorns help, but without his knowledge. And not on the issue of smoking, but as a means of securing the tax cuts that I want.

I was very careful. I didnt exactly tell Thorn that Id support him. But I told him hed made his case, and that we could give his plan a try. I told him Id even read his paper. I added again just in time.

He tried to pin me down on the issue of actual support for him. I explained that I couldnt give him public support -- not yet. It would undermine my position if I took sides at this stage. I have to be seen as the impartial judge who is persuaded by the strength of the case.

He said he saw the sense of that. He is a bit gullible. I must remember that, it could be dangerous. Or useful, come to think of it.

But off the record, I concluded, Id like to see this pushed very hard. Very hard indeed. Id like to see you make some speeches on it.

Bernard looked alarmed, but Dr Thorns face lit up. He flushed with pleasure, and thanked me profusely for my help. I thanked him for his cigarette paper. [Presumably Dr Thorn understood that Hacker meant his paper on cigarettes Ed.]

After Peter Thorn left Bernard asked me if I were serious. He explained that it has been the practice in the past to discourage anti-smoking speeches by Ministers, and not to print or distribute their speeches if they make them. I asked Bernard if there had ever been a written directive on this. He said that it wouldnt be cricket, and that there was just a gentlemans agreement of the matter.

I instructed Bernard to check that Peter Thorns anti-smoking speeches are printed and distributed, and to make sure that everyone knows. It is particularly important that the Treasury gets to hear of it all soon.

Bernard, of course, had no idea of my plan and he asked me if I thought I could possibly win this fight.

I smiled cheerfully. Some you win, Bernard, and some you lose. This one I shall definitely lose.

Now he was completely baffled. Then why ?

I saved his breath for him. Because when I lose theyll have to give me something in return. If you were the Treasury, which would you rather give up -- one and a half pounds of income tax revenue or four billion pounds of tobacco tax revenue?

He smiled. Id prefer the income tax cut.

I nodded. And that, as you know, is what Ive wanted all along.

His face was full of admiration and respect. So youre using cigarettes to create a sort of smokescreen?

Precisely, I said.

May 11th

Humphrey came to see me this morning. He was very tense. Clearly Bernard has been doing an excellent job of making sure that everyone knows about Dr Thorns new policies.

Prime Minister, he began, I just wondered did you have an interesting chat with Dr Thorn?

Yes. He has proposed the elimination of smoking.

Sir Humphrey laughed derisively. And how, pray, does he intend to achieve this? A campaign of mass hypnosis, perhaps?

I remained calm. I leaned back in my chair and smiled confidently at him. No. By raising taxes on tobacco sky high, and simultaneously prohibiting all cigarette advertising including at the point of sale.

Humphrey chuckled confidently, but said nothing.

Dont you think, I asked, that his position is admirably moral?

He was as superior as only Humphrey can be. Moral perhaps, but extremely silly. No one in their right mind could possibly contemplate such a proposal.

Im contemplating it, I said.

Yes, of course, he replied without a moments hesitation, the patronising smile wiped instantly from his face. Dont misunderstand me, of course its right to contemplate all proposals that come from your government, but no sane man could ever support it.

Im supporting it, I said.

And quite right too, Prime Minister, if I may say so. His footwork is so fast that one might be forgiven for not noticing that he totally reversed his opinion with each sentence he uttered.

I gave him the chance to come over to my side. So youll support it? I asked.

Support it? He was emphatic. I support it wholeheartedly! A splended, novel, romantic, well-meaning, imaginative, do-gooding notion.

As I thought. He is totally against it!

The only problem is, he continued, that there are powerful arguments against such a policy.

And powerful arguments for it, I replied.

Oh, absolutely! But against it, he persisted, there are those who will point out that the tax on tobacco is a major source of revenue to the government.

But there are also those who would point out that tobacco is a major cause of death from a number of killer diseases.

[Cancers of the lung, larynx, mouth, oesophagus, pancreas, bladder and kidney; emphesyma and chronic bronchitis; coronary heart disease; strokes; peri-natal mortality; and smoking in pregnancy carries a higher risk of still birth. Also there were about 10,000 fires per annum, in the 1980s, attributed to smoking, causing about 250 deaths a year Ed.]

Humphrey nodded earnestly. Yes. Indeed. Shocking. If its true. But of course, no definite causal link has ever been proved, has it?

The statistics are unarguable, I said.

He looked amused. Statistics? You can prove anything with statistics.

Even the truth, I remarked.

Ye-es, he acknowledged with some reluctance. But 4 billion revenue per annum is a considerable sum. They would say, he added hastily, for fear of it being thought that he was taking sides in this dispute. They were clearly the Treasury.

I remarked that a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths a year -- minimum -- is a hideous epidemic. He agreed that it was appalling. So I went for the kill. It costs the NHS [National Health Service] a fortune to deal with the victims. So the Treasury would be delighted if we discouraged it.

This was a tactical error. Sir Humphrey swung confidently on to the offensive. Now I think youre wrong there, Prime Minister.

I couldnt see how I could be wrong. Smoking-related diseases, I said, referring to Dr Thorns paper which I had in front of me, cost the NHS 165 million a year.

But Sir Humphrey had been well briefed too, by the Treasury and by their friends in the tobacco lobby. We have gone into that, he replied. Its been shown that, if those extra 100,000 people a year had lived to a ripe old age, they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than they did in medical treatment. So, financially, it is unquestionably better that they continue to die at about the present rate.

I was shocked. Ive been in politics a long time and not much shocks me any more. But his cynicism is truly appalling. [Interestingly, Hacker was shocked by Sir Humphreys cynical desire to encourage smoking, but was not shocked by his own self-declared plan to use the smoking issue merely as a way to force the Treasury into conceding income tax cuts. He had no more intention than Sir Humphrey of following Dr Thorns advice. But he was able to convince himself, temporarily, that he was less hypocritical than his Cabinet Secretary. Of such self-deceptions are great political leaders made. Thus Hacker was able to conduct the argument with Sir Humphrey in moral terms Ed.]

Humphrey, I said, when cholera killed 30,000 people in 1833 we got the Public Health Act. When smog killed 2500 people in 1952 we got the Clean Air Act. When a commercial drug kills fifty or sixty people we get it withdrawn from sale, even if its doing lots of good to many patients. But cigarettes kill 100,000 people a year and what do we get?

Four billion pounds a year, he replied promptly. Plus about 25,000 jobs in the tobacco industry, a flourishing cigarette export business which helps the balance of trade. Also, 250,000 jobs indirectly related to tobacco -- newsagents, packing, transport

I interrupted. These figures are just guesses.

No, he said, they are government statistics. He saw me smile, and hurried continued: That is to say, they are facts.

I couldnt resist it. You mean, your statistics are facts, but my facts are just statistics?

Sir Humphrey decided it was time to tell another little untruth. Look, Im on your side, Prime Minister. Im only giving you arguments you will encounter.

I thanked him, and told him that I was glad to know that I should have support such as his. I hoped that would bring the conversation to a close -- but no! He was determined to give me all the arguments I shall encounter.

It will also be pointed out that the tobacco industry is a great sponsor of sport. They give much innocent pleasure to millions of people, and you would be taking it all away. After all, where would the BBC sports programmes be if the cigarette companies couldnt advertise on them? [This was a slip of the tongue by Appleby. Until the late 1980s the BBC maintained the fiction that it did not screen advertisements. Of course, he must have intended to ask where BBC sports programmes would be if cigarette companies could not sponsor the events that are televised Ed.]

I reiterated that we were discussing over 100,000 deaths each year. Humphrey agreed immediately.

Yes, Prime Minister but in a very overpopulated island. And there arent enough jobs for everyone anyway. The benefits of smoking greatly outweigh the ill-effects: cigarettes pay for one-third of the total cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors.

So long as they live, I reminded him grimly.

So long as they live. He nodded. And when they die they save the rest of us a lot of money. And anyway, theres always more coming along to replace them. Not that any direct causal link has been proved, as I said before.

This nonsense about no direct causal link was beginning to irritate me. I reminded Humphrey that the US Surgeon-General says that cigarette smoking is the chief avoidable cause of death in our society and the most important public health issue of our time.

Humphrey dismissed the US Surgeon-Generals report with a patronising smile. In his society, maybe. But do remember, Prime Minister, that Americans do love overstating everything, bless their warm little hearts. He begged me to do nothing rash, to be very sure of my ground, and be very careful before I made any move. Of course, thats what he says about virtually everything.

Bernard interrupted us. It was time for Cabinet Committee, to be followed by lunch at the House -- where the Minister for Sport wanted an urgent word with me.

The news is certainly getting around fast. I stared accusingly at Humphrey, pretending to be angry.

Who tipped him off? I enquired.

Humphrey and Bernard looked at each other. Then they looked at me. They remained silent.

Hes part of the tobacco lobby, I said to Humphrey.

Humphrey pretended he didnt know. A member of your government? he asked, with a feeble pretence of shock-horror.

This ploy was unworthy of Humphrey. Obviously the Minister for Sport has a vested interest in tobacco -- all that sponsorship. Furthermore, this particular Minister for Sport [Leslie Potts MP Ed] is the Member for one of the Nottingham constituencies -- and there are thousands of tobacco workers in Nottingham.

I told Bernard to tell the Minister Id give him ten minutes at 2.30.

With pleasure, Prime Minister.

Not with pleasure, Bernard, I replied, but Ill see him anyway.

At 2.30 we had our meeting. I have inherited Leslie Potts from the previous administration. He really is a dreadfully unappealing, unattractive figure. He is short, very thin, with bulging pop-eyes that seem to bulge even more than nature intended because they are so heavily magnified behind his inch-thick spectacles. He coughs and wheezes, his fingers are permanently stained yellow with nicotine, he chain-smokes and spreads ash all around him like an ancient volcano. His hair is greasy, his teeth are yellow, and he smells like a smokers railway compartment, second class. I can only suppose that when my predecessor appointed him Minister for Sport he must have been giving a rare outing to his little-known sense of humour.

Mind if I smoke? rasped Potts.

I shook my head, whereupon a lit cigarette appeared instantly from inside a half-closed fist. He took a deep drag on it, coughed a bit, and asked about the rumour that I intended making a personal attack on the tobacco industry.

I gave a truthful but irrelevant answer. I havent heard that rumour, I said.

Is it true? asked Leslie, not deceived.

The Minister of Health is considering the matter. No decision has been taken.

Theres no smoke without fire, said Leslie. He should know!

Naturally youd be consulted, I said, in my most consultative voice. As Minister for Sport I realise that you have an interest in the matter.

I dont give a stuff about sport! Ive got 4000 tobacco workers in my constituency. What about my seat?

What about your lungs? I said.

My lungs are fine, he snarled.

And he doesnt breathe through his seat, said Bernard, not very helpfully.

What did you say? wheezed Potts.

Oh, said Bernard. Your seat. I see. Sorry.

I tried not to laugh. I silenced Bernard with a wave and turned back to Leslie.

I am aware, of course, that your constituency has a cigarette factory in it. But sometimes one must take a broader view.

Even broader than your seat, added Bernard mischievously. I didnt dare meet his eyes -- I might have burst out laughing.

Leslie Potts MP was not amused. Its not just my seat, he snapped. There are marginal seats in Bristol, Nottingham, Glasgow, Basildon and Northern Ireland, all with tobacco works. And then theres all the brewery towns, which are owned by the tobacco manufacturers.

I can see theres a problem, I acknowledged. But if something is right for the country, dont you think that the government should do it regardless?

There was no contest as far as Leslie Potts was concerned. Of course the government must do whats right -- but not if it affects marginal constituencies! Theres obviously a limit.

I reassured him that no decision had yet been taken. And of course the decision he fears never will be -- it's a different result that Im after. But he wouldnt let it drop. He told me that, for the good of the party, I couldnt interfere in the smoking issue.

I disliked being told what I can and cant do by junior members of my government! Its no good huffing and puffing at me, Leslie, I complained.

Sorry, he said, waving away clouds of second-hand blue smoke.

Werent you, I went on, a paid consultant for the British Tobacco Group?

He drew himself up majestically to his full height of five foot two and a half, and replied in his most self-righteous tone. The fact that BTG paid me a small retainer is totally beside the point. I managed to keep a straight face. They are a very generous corporation with a strong sense of responsibility toward the community. Look at all the money they give to sports. And now youre trying to stop them!

Id had enough of all this rubbish. Leslie, I said firmly, they only give money to help sell more cigarettes.

No, he insisted doggedly, theyre doing it out of a genuine wish to serve the community.

Thats fine, I answered. In that case, they can go on giving the money anonymously, if they like.

Ah, he said, and hesitated. Well of course, they would be very happy to, provided they could publicise the fact that they were doing it anonymously. He saw no problem there. Tell me, Jim, is it true that Peter Thorn is also trying to change the government health warning?

I didnt want to reply, so I looked to Bernard for help. But Bernard was still not taking the conversation absolutely seriously. I believe, he replied, deadpan, that Dr Thorn is proposing something like Dying of cancer can seriously damage your health.

Leslie Potts was outraged. Its simply not true! he exclaimed. I wonder if he believes it himself. By now I am really coming to believe that we must actually do something about this smoking and health problem -- but not until the time is ripe, I think.

Look, Leslie, I said, if we do nothing therell be a million premature deaths in this country over the next ten years -- minimum. I actually shocked myself as I uttered that statistic.

I agree, he answered desperately. A million deaths. Terrible. But theyll be evenly spread, not just in the marginal constituencies. Listen, Jim, there is no conclusive proof of any causal link between smoking and

I couldnt understand the rest of his sentence. It was lost in another paroxysm of coughing and choking. But I think I got the gist.

[Meanwhile, an anxious correspondence was taking place between Sir Humphrey Appleby and Sir Frank Gordon, Permanent Secretary of the Treasury. Copies of the letters have been found in both the Cabinet Office files and the Treasury files, all now available to us under the Thirty Year Rule. As the discussion was in writing, both gentlemen were grateful to express their enthusiasm for government policy. Their real feelings must be read between the lines Ed.]

70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS

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

May 15

Dear Frank,

We are, of course, agreed that in an ideal world cigarette smoking would be discouraged. And we agree, obviously, that it is our duty to help the Prime Minister achieve his objectives. Nonetheless, we may have to help him understand that we are not in an ideal world and that he might be wise to reappraise not his objectives but his priorities.

He is unfortunately subject to silly pressure groups and fanatics such as the Royal College of Physicians. These fanatics want the Government to have a policy about smoking.

This is wishful thinking, I regret to say. It is not how the world works. Everyone outside government wants government policies. But none of us in government want them including, I venture to suggest, the Prime Minister when he fully understands the risks and the downside.

If you have a policy someone can hold you to it. And although the anti-smoking lobby see the whole matter in terms of black and white, merely preventing death and so forth, we know that the whole issue is much more complex than this.

As in all government, Im sure that you agree that there has to be a balance. For instance the Minister of Health may be anti-smoking, but the Minister for Sport needs the tobacco companies.

It would be easier if the government were a team. But as, in fact, it is a loose confederation of warring tribes, it is up to us to find the common ground.

Comments please.

HA

[The following day a reply was received Ed.]

H M Treasury

Permanent Secretary

May 16

Dear Humphrey,

The Minister for Health wishes the smoking problem dealt with by high taxation. The Chancellor, however, will not let me raise taxes too high -- he is concerned about his own popularity with the electorate.

I must agree with him, for other reasons. The inflationary effect of such a high rise in cigarette taxes would be considerable.

Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there is a moral principle involved. And we at the Treasury fully understand and applaud the PMs concerns. We earnestly believe in the moral principle.

But when four billion pounds of revenue is at stake I think that we have to consider very seriously how far we are entitled to indulge ourselves in the rather selfish luxury of pursuing moral principles.

As you recall, I have been worried about a suggested income tax cut of one and a half billion, and that was in a proposal that may not now happen. A cut of four billion would be a catastrophe!

I suggest we get Noels opinion and advice. I have copied these letters to him.

Frank

[The copies of the correspondence were sent to the DHSS [Department of Health and Social Security] for the comments of Sir Noel Whittington, the Permanent Secretary. Two days later this letter was sent to Sir Frank, with a copy to Sir Humphrey Ed.]

Department of Health and Social Security

May 18th

Dear Frank,

There are several worrying implications raised by this potential cigarette tax increase:

1. It is not just a matter of revenue loss. There is also the question of scrutiny. If we took on the tobacco companies they would put a host of people on to scrutinising everything we do. They would point out, publicly, any errors of facts, inconsistencies of argument, inaccurate or misleading published figures, and so forth. Of course, it is said that our work should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Quite right too! Parliamentary scrutiny and press scrutiny are to be applauded. But not professional scrutiny, which could take up far too much government time. It is therefore not in the public interest to provoke it.

2. The tobacco companies might attempt to embarrass us by threatening to drag up all the times we have accepted invitations to lunches and free tickets at Wimbledon, Glyndebourne, etc.

3. Where would the arts be without tobacco sponsorship? They would be at the mercy of the Arts Council!

4. Above all, and here I speak for the DHSS specifically, we must remind the PM that there is a moral issue here: Government must be impartial. It is not proper for us to take sides as between health and cigarettes. This is especially true in the DHSS, which is the Department of Health and Social Security. We have a dual responsibility. What will happen, if we lose the tobacco revenues, to the extra 100,000 people per year who would be alive and drawing pensions?

It is clear that we must, as always, maintain a balance. We want a healthy nation, but we also need a healthy tobacco industry.

We have a duty to be even-handed: tobacco sponsorship may encourage people to smoke, but sponsored sport encourages them to take exercise.

In my view, the DHSS may already go too far on this anti-smoking matter. We already devote one third of an Assistant Secretarys time and half a Principals time to reducing smoking. Surely this is enough in a free society.

In summation I make two suggestions:

1) that Humphrey Appleby arranges for the PM to meet some of the tobacco people. He would then see what jolly good chaps they are, and how genuinely concerned about health risks. In my view, there cannot be anything seriously wrong with BTG, for instance: they have an ex-Permanent Secretary on their Board. And it has been suggested that they could well need another, in the fullness of time. [This suggests that hints had been dropped to Sir Noel himself Ed.]

2) I think we might raise some questions about our junior Minister, Dr Peter Thorn. He is a highly intelligent, very imaginative Minister. But he is inexperienced, and not at all even-handed. Unfortunately, he comes to his post with severe bias: he is a doctor and, as such, he is unable to take the broader view. His sole point is keeping people alive. Seeing patients die must have, regrettably, distorted his judgement. It is understandable, of course, but emotional responses are a great handicap to cool decision-making.

I look forward to hearing your conclusions. I think it is vital that Sir Humphrey takes some immediate action.

Noel

[Sir Humphrey considered this correspondence very carefully, and made the following note in his private diary Ed.]

Thursday 18 May

I shall be meeting the PM after the weekend, and must have a strategy on this tobacco matter.

I believe that the key lies in Noels comment that we are a free society. Therefore people should be free to make their own decisions. Government should not be a nursemaid. We do not want the Nanny State.

The only drawback to this view is that it is also an argument for legalizing the sale of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, arsenic and gelignite.

My strategy, therefore, is as follows: When Hacker was Minister for Administrative Affairs he accompanied me not only to Glyndebourne as the guest of the BTG, but also Wimbledon, Lords, the opera and the ballet.

At The Sleeping Beauty one might have thought he was auditioning for the title role. He has no interest at all in the arts, which is why using sponsorship to save the arts from the Arts Council is likely to be an unproductive line of argument. At the ballet he kept quiet, apart from his snoring. When Act IV of the Wagner started at the Garden he asked why they were playing extra time. And he referred to Act V as injury time. A total philistine.

But I digress. It seems that he is implicated in receiving tobacco hospitality worth hundreds of pounds, if not thousands, from the BTG. If this were to leak, shocking though a leak might be, it could be a grave embarrassment for him.

[Sir Humphrey overestimated his threat. At the meeting four days later hacker was able to deal with it with an ease that surprised the Cabinet Secretary Ed.]

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

The Prime Minister was in very bullish mood on the morning of 22 May. He informed me that things were going very well, and that he had the Treasury on the run. And the Chancellor.

I asked him if this was entirely to the good. After all, the Chancellor is a member of the Prime Ministers own government.

Of course its good, he told me. Hes got to be brought to heel. Hes got to learn to co-operate.

I asked him what he meant, precisely, by co-operate. He revealed that he defined co-operation as obeying his commands! That, he said, is what co-operation means if you are Prime Minister.

It reminded me not a little of Humpty Dumpty.

[When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I use it to mean -- neither more nor less.

The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master -- that's all. Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter 5, by Lewis Carroll Ed.]

The Chancellor wanted to be Premier, remember? He was the front runner. And I outsmarted him. How well I remember this! The Prime Minister did a little dance of glee in front of his study windows. Now Im outsmarting him again. He knows that if he loses 4 billion of tobacco revenue hell either have to impose four billion more in other taxes, which will make him frightfully unpopular in the country, or cut 4 billion of government expenditure, which will make him even more unpopular in the Cabinet. Theyre all terrified about Peter Thorns policies -- loss of smokers votes, loss of tobacco taxes, loss of jobs -- it's wonderful! So I shall support Peter Thorn until I get the Treasury to stop obstructing me on the income tax cut of 1.5 billion that I want.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

May 22nd

A good meeting with Humphrey. He began it by showing me some impenetrable piece of paper, always a good sign I now realise. He can no longer bamboozle me like that. Its merely an indication of his own insecurity. [A sign of Hackers growing awareness and administrative skill Ed.]

[The piece of paper contained Sir Humphreys comments on a submission concerning Dr Thorns plans, which had been submitted by the DHSS. The entire submission survives. Sir Humphreys comments are reproduced below Ed.]

Notwithstanding the fact that the proposal could conceivably encompass certain concomitant benefits of a marginal and peripheral relevance, there is a consideration of infinitely superior magnitude involving your personal complicity and corroborative malfeasance, with the consequence that the taint and stigma of your former associations and diversions could irredeemably and irretrievably invalidate your position and culminate in public revelations and recriminations of a profoundly embarrassing and ultimately indefensible character.

I asked Humphrey for a prcis. In one short sentence.

He thought for a moment. Theres nicotine on your hands, he said.

I couldnt think what he meant. Im a non-smoker. Then I realised he was speaking not literally but figuratively. All the hospitality you have enjoyed at BTGs expense, he reproached me in a sorrowful voice. Champagne receptions, buffet lunches, the best seats at sporting and cultural events.

He seemed to think that the tobacco companies might release this embarrassing information to the press if I legislated against them.

But I cant see anything embarrassing about that. Ive had drinks at the Soviet Embassy -- that doesnt make me a spy. If thats the best idea Humphrey can come up with to block me, I may have to put Dr Thorns proposals through after all! I think Humphrey may be losing his grip -- it's the feeblest threat I ever heard.

Humphrey realised it himself, because he fell silent. Anything else? I asked, hopeful that hed do better.

Yes, Prime Minister. He was fighting on, but not looking too confident. It has been put to me that since smoking is not a political issue the government should not take sides.

You mean we have to be impartial?

Exactly, he replied with gratitude.

You mean, I enquired innocently, impartial as between the fire engine and the fire?

He hurried straight on. He knows when hes backing a loser. And there is a much graver objection. A large number of people, eminent people, influential people, have argued that Dr Thorns legislation would be a blow against freedom of choice.

I asked why. He rabbited on about how it is a serious attack on freedom to introduce penal taxation and prohibit the advertising of a product which is perfectly legal in itself. I told him this was complete and utter rubbish! We are not talking about prohibiting smoking itself. And I asked him if every tax increase is a blow against freedom?

He hedged. That depends on how big a tax increase.

A fascinating answer. So, I asked, is twenty pence a blow against freedom?

He began to protest. Prime Minister

I brushed him aside. Is twenty-five pence? Thirty pence? Thirty- one pence? Is something a blow against freedom just because it can seriously damage your health?

Rather good that, I thought! He didnt laugh though. He just remarked grimly that it was very droll.

So I took him through the freedom of choice argument. We agreed that advertising is essential if there is to be a free choice because free choice depends on full information. Therefore there should be advertising on both sides. Why, since the tobacco companies spend at least 100 million on advertising and promotion, shouldnt they pay an equal amount to advertise the arguments against smoking? This, I suggested to Humphrey, would be a point of view that would appeal to all those eminent and influential people who favour freedom of choice.

Prime Minister, he said, gritting his teeth. I do have to advise you that this proposal will cause grave difficulties. I foresee all sorts of unforeseen problems.

Such as? I asked.

Humphrey was getting irritable. If I could foresee them, they wouldnt be unforeseen! he snapped.

But you said you could foresee them, I reminded him cheerfully.

He was cornered. He had now reached his last refuge. Look, how about setting up an interdepartmental committee a Parliamentary enquiry a Royal Commission?

I asked the question that Ive been wanting to ask for days now. Humphrey, why are you so keen on the tobacco industry?

He ignored the question. I knew he would, of course. Prime Minister, how about a Treasury Committee in the first instance?

This was my opening. Dont talk to me about the Treasury, I sighed sadly. Theyre blocking my plan for including a one and a half billion tax cut in my new defence strategy. I sighed again heavily, theatrically, wondered if I were overdoing it a bit, then pressed on. Of course, if only the Treasury would show some flexibility

Humphrey saw the point immediately, or even sooner. Oh, he said, brightening up considerably. Er Prime Minister, I dont think theyre fully committed to that other matter yet.

Really? I pretended surprise.

Absolutely not. Oh no. Flexible. Im sure they could find a way.

Could they? I asked with wide-eyed amazement. I should have got an Oscar for this one.

The only stumbling block, said Humphrey, adjusting rapidly to his new negotiating position, would be that if the anti-smoking proposals go through, the Treasury will be too busy working on those to look for a way to help with the other cuts.

We were now talking in a code that we both understood. Well, I said, The anti-smoking proposals dont have nearly such a high priority as defence.

Humphrey now knew what deal Id accept. The quid pro quo was acceptable to him, I could see. Its just a matter of clearing it with the Treasury.

May 23rd

A slight complication developed today.

Peter Thorn came to see me in my room at the Commons. Ive just had some very exciting news, Prime Minister, he began. We have just got full backing from the BMA [British Medical Association], the Royal College of Physicians, and eight other top scientific and medical colleges.

My heart sank into my boots. I hadnt expected him to make so much progress so soon. I told him that this was excellent news, but that his legislation couldnt happen immediately.

No, he said, but their support only requires it to be announced as government policy within three months and a White Paper in a year. So thats bags of time.

His enthusiasm was touching. I was genuinely sorry that I was about to ditch his scheme, particularly as Id argued it so successfully with Humphrey that now I had even begun to believe in it myself.

I told him Id encountered problems with the Treasury. He immediately saw the turn that the conversation was taking.

His eyes narrowed. It cant be anything you didnt know about before.

Its not as simple as you think, Peter. I knew I sounded unconvincing.

Peter took a deep breath. And then he made a threat that was a real threat. Look, Jim, I really am serious about this. Its the one really important and worthwhile thing I believe I can do in politics. If you stall it, I shall have to resign. And say why.

I told him to calm down, but he said he was perfectly calm already. Jim, the medical bodies are even more committed than I am. Perhaps I shouldnt have told them about your support, but they say theyll announce that youve capitulated to the tobacco companies.

His strategy was all worked out. Clearly he was not a bit surprised by my new position on this matter -- in fact, he must have been half expecting it.

I really didnt know what to say or do. But I was saved by the bell. The telephone bell, to be precise.

Bernard answered it. Excuse me, Prime Minister, could Sir Humphrey see you urgently, just for a moment?

I asked Thorn to wait outside. Humphrey came bursting in with good news: hed spoken to the Treasury first thing this morning and, surprise! surprise! they can encompass my income-tax cut. This is on the understanding that no further work would be needed on the anti-smoking proposal.

I briefly filled Humphrey in about the new complication -- Dr Thorns threatened resignation and the ensuing public condemnation of me by the entire British medical establishment.

Humphrey was worried -- but only for a moment. Then he had a brilliant idea, the kind of idea that makes him worth all the trouble he causes me -- well, almost all!

Prime Minister, you still have that government vacancy in the Treasury, dont you?

It was genius, pure genius. It would be a big promotion, a very rapid promotion, for Peter Thorn. But why not, for such an able Minister?

We got him back in.

Peter, I said, I have just remembered that we still have a vacancy at the Treasury. I couldnt think how to fill it -- but your work on this proposal, I have to tell you, has impressed me a lot.

He was suspicious. Well, who wouldnt be? Youre not trying to get rid of me?

Absolutely not. Quite the reverse.

He was tempted. Well its a terrific step up.

But merited, I said in my warmest father-figure voice. Thoroughly merited.

Thorn was torn. I dont see how I can take it if it means dropping the anti-smoking bill.

Peter, let me be absolutely honest with you. The bill would have been will be I think I managed to correct myself without his noticing very difficult to get through. The Treasury is the key place, the true stumbling block, not the Department of Health. It may take a bit longer, but if youre inside there, if you learn the ropes, theres a much better chance of a really foolproof watertight Act when it finally gets on the statute books. Believe me. It sounded so convincing an argument that I almost believed it myself.

Fortunately he bought it. So my proposals arent dropped? he asked, wanting the answer no.

Absolutely not, I said. I wasnt exactly lying -- maybe I will come back to them in due course. In the fullness of time. When the time is ripe.

He only hesitated for a second. Okay, he answered. Ill take the Treasury job. Thanks a lot.

We shook hands and he left, walking on air. The great thing about being Prime Minister is that you can give people so much happiness and such a great sense of achievement.

May 24th

Peter Thorns promotion to the Treasury left me with another vacancy, in the Ministry of Health. Clearly we now want to avoid another Minister who will antagonise the tobacco lobby. So an obvious candidate sprang to mind.

I sent for Leslie Potts this morning. It didnt take him long to drive over from Marsham Street [where the Department of the Environment has its headquarters Ed]. He wheezed into my study enveloped in his usual cloud of pollution, a lit cigarette clamped between his stubby yellow fingertips.

I welcomed him warmly. My dear chap, do come in. How would you like to be the Minister of Health?

He was extremely surprised. Me?

I nodded.

He coughed for a while, a good chesty wet rasping cough. Even I felt better after it.

It is a considerable promotion, he said at last, eyeing me with caution and wondering what I was playing at.

But merited, I said warmly.

He thought for a moment, but could see no signs of a trap. Indeed, there were none. Well, of course, I cant refuse. Thank you, Prime Minister.

I sent for Humphrey and introduced him to our new Minister of Health. Humphrey pretended slight surprise, even though it had been Humphreys idea.

Meanwhile, Leslie thought hed found the catch. Wait a minute, he croaked suddenly. I dont want the job if it means attacking the tobacco industry.

I was able to reassure him completely. No, Leslie, we in government have to be realists. I want you to work with the tobacco industry: theyre nice chaps, caring people, fabulous employers, and they really want to help -- I want you to work with them, not against them. All right?

Leslie Potts looked pleased but, as he tried to reply, he was overwhelmed by a fit of uncontrollable coughing. He went purple, and struggled to say something -- I simply couldnt tell what it was.

I turned to Humphrey. What did he say? I asked.

I think, said Humphrey cheerfully, that he said Yes Prime Minister.