Yes Minister (1980) s01e05 Episode Script
The Writing on the Wall
I am still not happy with this report, Humphrey.
Then we shall be happy to redraft it for you.
- You have redrafted it three times.
- That's not absolutely correct.
Yes, it is, I can count.
This is the third draft report.
Therefore it has been drafted once and subsequently redrafted twice.
Don't quibble, Bernard.
We shall be happy to redraft a third time.
And a fourth and fifth.
And a sixth, no doubt.
And it still say what you want it to say.
- Not what I want it to say.
- What do you want it to say? We want it to say what you want to.
Not anything you don'twant to.
Stop wittering! The Think Tank asked us forourevidence on Civil Service overmanning.
I have briefed a group of civil servants in words of one syllable and they've sent back an unintelligible report, saying the exact opposite of what I asked them to say.
With respect, how do you know it says the opposite if it's totally unintelligible? All I am saying is that the Civil Service is grossly overmanned and must be slimmed down.
Quite so.
That is what the report says.
- No, it doesn't.
- Yes, it does.
No, it Look, what I'm talking about is a phased reduction in the Civil Service of about 200,000 people.
Are you going to put that in this report? If you were to take that draft home and study it, you might find that it says what you want it to say.
- And if it doesn't? - Then we can redraft it.
Humphrey, sit down.
Will you give me a straight answerto a straight question? Oh, well, Minister, as long as you are not asking me to resort to crude generalisations and vulgaroversimplifications, such as a simple yes orno I shall do my utmost to oblige.
Is that "yes"? - Yes.
- Right.
- Here is the straight question.
- I thought thatwas it.
When you give yourevidence, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is overmanned ornot? Yes orno! Straight answer! If you ask me fora straight answer then I shall say that, as faras we can see, looking at it by an large, taking one time with another, in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probablyfind that not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way orthe other.
As faras one can see at this stage.
Is that "yes"? Or"no"? Yes and no.
Suppose you weren't asked fora straight answer? Then I should playfortime.
Sir Humphrey.
- Ah, Bernard, do sit down.
- Thank you.
- Good of you to pop in.
- It's my pleasure.
Bernard, you know the Department's report on the Central Policy Review staff? Er, yes, Sir Humphrey.
We haven't had it back from the Ministeryet.
- Er, no, Sir Humphrey.
- Why not? Er perhaps you should ask the Minister.
- No, I'm asking you, Bernard.
- Yes, Sir Humphrey.
You don't seem to be replying.
Yes and no, Sir Humphrey.
- Are you trying to be impertinent? - Oh no.
I would succeed if I tried.
- Scotch on the rocks, please.
- Yes, sir.
One, sir? Yes, just one.
Has the Ministerbeen doing his boxes properly? - Yes, he's very conscientious.
- Then what's going on? - You should ask the Minister.
- I'm asking you.
But as the Minister's Secretary, I'm responsible to him.
But you are also a public servant.
The average Minister's tenure is less than eleven months, but yourcareerwill last until you're 65, won't it? - I hope so.
Yes.
- So do I, Bernard.
However, the choice is yours.
Er, Sir Humphrey Can I ask you a hypothetical question? That's always a good idea.
Well, suppose a Minister, a purely hypothetical Minister, were to be unhappy with a department draft of evidence to a committee.
And suppose that Minister were planning to replace it with his own draftworked out with his political adviser - and his party - I can't believe it.
Oh, no, no.
It's purely hypothetical.
And suppose that Minister were planning to bring in his own draft so close to the final date that there won't be any - Wouldn't - Wouldn't be any time forthe Department to redraft it forhim.
Well? Suppose this hypothetical Minister's Principal Private Secretary were to be aware of this hypothetical draft, in confidence of course, should he pass on this information to the Permanent Secretary of this hypothetical department? Certainly not, Bernard.
Not if this Principal Private Secretary had been given the information in confidence.
That's what I thought, Sir Humphrey.
Have a drink, Bernard.
One more thing, Minister.
The evidence to the Central Policy Review Staff.
- You mean the Think Tank? - Yes, Minister.
Have you redrafted the redraft of yourdraft? - You don'twant it yet, do you? - Yes.
- Why? - So thatwe can redraft it.
- Thatwon't be necessary.
- I think itwill.
Drafting is not a Civil Service monopoly, you know? No, it's a highly specialised skill which few outside the Service can master.
Nonsense.
Drafts is easy.
It's a game anyone can play.
Notwithout getting huffed.
So could I have the draft proposal, please? Certainly, Humphrey.
- When, Minister? - Later, Humphrey.
Yes, but when? You always say we musn't rush things.
I must ask you fora straight answer.
On what day? Tomorrow? Monday? Tuesday? In due course, Humphrey.
At the appropriate juncture.
In the fullness of time.
When the moment is ripe.
When the necessary procedures have been completed.
Nothing precipitate, of course.
Minister, this is getting urgent.
Urgent, Humphrey? What a lot ot newwords! You'll forgive me if I say this, but I am beginning to suspect that you are concealing something from me.
You and I have no secrets from each other, have we? I'm sorry, but sometimes one is forced to consider the possibility that affairs are being conducted in a way which, all things being considered, and making all possible allowances, is, not to put too fine a point on it, perhaps not entirely straightforward.
You're the expert on straightforwardness.
So what about the draft evidence? Well, since you ask, Humphrey, and to be perfectly straightforward, I have redrafted it myself.
I don'twant you to redraft it.
I'm perfectly happy with it as it is.
May I be bold enough to ask what you have said? What I wanted: Phased reductions in the Civil Service.
You have frustrated me overopen government, and the economy drive, this time I'm going to have my way.
The party wants it, the public wants it.
And all we get from the Civil Service is delaying tactics.
I wouldn't call Civil Service delays "tactics", Minister, thatwould be to mistake lethargyforstrategy.
Very droll.
But there is a real desire forradical reform in the air.
The Select Committee on Administrative Affairs, which I founded, it's a great success.
Oh, indeed, what has it achieved? Nothing yet.
But the party's very pleased with it.
Why? Ten column inches in last Monday's Daily Mail.
The government measures its success in column inches? Yes no Yes and no! Minister, the evidence that you are proposing to submit is not only untrue, it is also, which is much more serious, unwise.
Now, we have been through all this before.
The expansion of the Civil Service is the result of parliamentary legislation, not bureaucratic empire building.
So you want me to tell Parliament that it's theirfault that the Civil Service is too big? - But it's the truth.
- I don'twant the truth.
I want something I can tell Parliament.
Humphrey, you are supposed to enact my policies.
Yet, you seem implacably opposed to them.
I must knowwhere you stand on all this.
Where one stands, Minister, depends upon where one sits.
Am I to infer that you will not support me? We will always support you, but as yourstandardbearer not as you pall bearer.
What are you saying? I should have thought is crystal clear.
Do not send this report to a body whose recommendations are to be published! That is exactly why I'm sending it.
I don'twant to hearany more.
- May I say just one more thing? - If it's in plain English.
Very well, Minister.
If you are going to do this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way.
Minister, you'll be late forCabinet.
Oh, yes.
Cabinet.
What are we talking about? Yourproposals to close down the Land Registry.
My proposal? Reducing the autonomous Government Departments.
- Itwas yourproposal.
- You have initialled it.
- Oh, have I? What's in it? - It'll all go through on the nod.
- Got all the stuff? - Yes.
Come on then, mustn't be late.
Humpy Have you written yourevidence to the Think Tank yet? - More or less.
- What do you mean? - The Minister's written it.
- Humpy! Yes, I know.
All very unwise.
But he insisted.
He's been working at nothing else formore than a week now.
You should never let Ministers get so deeply involved.
The next thing you know they'll be dictating policy.
Yes, I know.
- Is this a lengthy Cabinet? - I don't think so.
Ghastly waste of time.
Yes, but if we're not here to hold theirhands, God knows what they might not get up to? Excuse me, Jumbo.
Yes, Minister? I'm recommending to Cabinet to close down the Land Registry.
- Why? - Why? Why are we closing it orbringing it to Cabinet? - What? - What? Why am I recommending it? - Surely you know.
- No, that's why I'm asking.
You said itwould go through on the nod, now the PM's started asking questions.
And I haven't read my proposal.
There was a 9.
75 rise in autonomous Government Departments.
Yes, of course.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, Jumbo Helping to restrict the autonomous departments? That should find favour with the PM policy-wise.
Oh? Why? Veryfashionable simplifying the Civil Service especially with this Think Tank recommendation.
- But they haven't reported.
- Yes, they have, unofficially They haven't taken all the evidence yet.
The Central Policy Review Staff don't sully theirelevated minds with anything as sordid as evidence.
You may take it that they'll be advising the PM to simplify the administration of government.
Well, that'll keep me busy.
Ah, well.
I shouldn't count on it.
You surely don't expect me, the PM's Senior Policy Adviser, to betray confidences.
Not to yourcolleagues, certainly.
No doubt the grapevine would inform you by lunchtime.
Inform? Inform us of what? Your Minister is seeking to reduce overmanning in the Civil Service.
Well, he's going to get his way.
Treasury, the Home Office and the Civil Service have all proposed to abolish your Department of Administrative Affairs and the PM is smiling on the plan.
- That's absurd.
- Clean.
Dramatic.
Very popularpolitically.
No real inconvenience.
All yourfunctions could be subsumed by otherdepartments.
Jim Hackerwill win through with a self sacrificing policy.
The PM will probably kick him upstairs.
Lord Hackerof Kamikaze.
I hardly think that's funny, Daniel or likely.
Why not? He ran the leadership campaign against the PM.
This could be the PM's masterstroke in one fell swoop.
Approbation, elevation and castration.
You know the PM's motto "In Defeat, malice.
In Victory, revenge".
Abolish my Department.
Out of the question.
Simply can't be done.
I'm sure you knowbest.
By the way, there's a job centre in the Horseferry Road.
The No.
19 Bus stops right outside.
- I'm appalled.
- You're appalled? I'm appalled.
I just can't believe it.
I'm I'm appalled.
- What do you make of it? - I'm appalled, Minister.
So am I.
Appalled! It's appalling.
Appalling.
I just don't know how to describe it.
Appalling? Appalling.
But I mean is it true? Sure he wasn't having you on? They can't abolish this entire department.
It rings true, doesn't it? I've just see the joint departmental proposal.
Whitehall's full of proposals.
Daniel Hughes is very close to the PM.
What's going to happen? Where will I go? Well, there is a rumour, Minister Rumour? What rumour? Ministerwith responsibility forlndustrial Harmony.
Industrial harmony? You knowwhat that means.
That means strikes! Every strike in Great Britain will be myfault.
Oh, marvellous.
Have you considered what might happen to me? - No.
What? - I shall be sent to Ag and Fish.
The rest of my careerdedicated to arguing about the cod quota.
And as foryou, Bernard, if your Ministerbites the dust yourreputation as a high flyer will be hit forsix.
You'll spend yourcareer in the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea.
- It's yourfault.
- Myfault? Itwas yourproposal to reduce the autonomous departments.
You proposed phased reductions of the Civil Service.
Don't let's argue about that.
What are we going to do? We could put a paperup.
Up what? - Brilliant! - Have you any suggestions? - I don't know, I'm - Appalled? I do think thatwe should work togetheron this.
- I've heard that before.
- What do you mean? You telling me what to do, me doing it.
- That isn't true.
- You've no suggestions? Bernard could fetch your Political Adviser.
- You want me to consult Frank? - Yes, Minister.
And Minister, with respect Don't use that language to me, Humphrey.
- What language? - I knowwhat "with respect" means.
That anything I suggest is beneath contempt.
Ah, Minister.
I really do mean thatwe should work together.
- I need you.
- Do you mean that? - Yes, Minister.
- Humphrey, how very nice of you.
Minister, if the Prime Minister is behind a scheme, Whitehall on its own cannot block it.
Cabinet Ministers' schemes are easily blocked redrafted, but the Prime Minister is anothermatter.
We need to fight this in Westminsterand in Whitehall.
And Weisel might be able to mobilise the backbenchers.
Yes.
And he might be able to mobilise the Press.
- You've heard the news? - Bernard just told me.
What do you suggest? I can't think of anything I'm appalled.
Mustn't all flap around like a lot of wet hens.
We've got to save this Department.
I want you to get to the backbenchers to put a stop to this thing before it starts.
I'm sorry, but you can't stop something before it starts.
Thank you.
Frank Itwon't be that easy.
Itwill be a very popularmove.
A publicity campaign? You know: "Administration Saves the Nation" "Red Tape is Fun".
Full page ads in Itwas just an idea.
"Red Tape is fun"? What about "Red Tape holds the Nation together"? Well, there's no doubt about it, the writing's on the wall.
The public should think kindly towards Administration, - because of the Europass.
- Quite.
- Europass? - European Identity Card.
You've informed the Minister? Didn't you do yourboxes? No, I was redrafting the redraft of the draft.
Well, Brussels is about to decree that there is to be a new European Identity Card to be carried by all citizens of the E.
E.
C.
The Foreign Office is ready to go along with it as a quid pro quo fora deal overthe buttermountain, the wine lake, and the milk ocean, the lamb war, and the cod stink.
And the Prime Ministerwants you to introduce the legislation.
- Me? - Yes.
You're pro Europe, you see.
And itwould simplify ouradministration.
- So it's a good idea.
- Good idea? - Good idea? - Good idea? - Not a good idea? - Political suicide! Trying to make British people carry Identification Papers? They'll call it a Police State.
Is this whatwe fought two world wars for? It's little more than a sort of driving licence.
It's the last nail in my coffin.
You might get away with calling it "Euroclub Express".
Bernard, eithershut up orget out! Can't the Foreign Office introduce it? Thatwas the Prime Minister's suggestion, but forthe Foreign Secretary itwas a Home Office matter and forthe Home Office itwas essentially and administrative matter, and the PM agreed.
Pass the parcel.
Can you blame them when you can hear it ticking? The identity card bill is planned to be the last action of this Department.
Wonderful ammunition forthe anti Europeans.
Don't the Foreign Office realise the damage to the European idea? That's why they support it.
The Foreign Office is pro Europe, isn't it? Yes and no if you'll forgive the expression.
The Foreign Office is pro Europe because it is really anti Europe.
The Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn'twork.
- That's why we went into it.
- What are you talking about? Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective forat least the last 500 years: To create a disunited Europe.
We have foughtwith the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French and with the French against the Germans and the Italians.
Divide and rule, you see.
Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? That's all ancient history surely? Yes, and current policy.
We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside.
We tried from the outside, but itwouldn'twork.
Now, we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing.
Set the Germans against the French, the Italians against the Dutch The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
Butwe're all committed to the European ideal.
Really, Minister.
Why are we pressing foran increase in the membership? Forthe same reason.
It's just like the United Nations.
The more members it has, the more arguments it can stirup, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
- What appalling cynicism.
- Yes.
We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Howwill the othercountries feel about identity papers? Won't they resist too? The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it, and the Italians and the Irish will be too chaotic to enforce it.
Only the British will resent it.
- It's a plot to get rid of me.
- They'll abolish your Department.
Perhaps the PM wants to make absolutely certain.
- Don't be so paranoid.
- Everyone is plotting against me.
- We're on yourside, Minister.
- Yes, Minister.
- Martin will be on ourside.
- Yes, where is Martin? I think he's in the House, Minister, where you ought to be.
Let's go and see him.
This is appalling, Jim.
- You've done a Samson act.
- Samson? You've reduced the Civil Service bureaucracy.
You've pulled the superstructure down and buried yourself.
- A Pyrrhic victory.
- No ideas? - I'd help if I could, but - But the Europass It doesn't make sense.
Why can't the PM see the damage? Yes, this Europass issue is the biggest disaster since I asked to join the Cabinet.
I don't think you quite mean that.
Everybody knows this Europass thing won't happen.
The PM's got to play along with it because of the Napoleon Prize.
Napoleon Prize? A NATO Award given once everyfive years.
Gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels.
The PM's the front runnerthis time.
It's forthe statesman who has contributed most to European unity.
Since Napoleon.
That is if you don't count Hitler.
So? What? The awards committee sits in six weeks.
The PM isn't going to rock the boat until it's in the bag.
You don't put boats in bags.
- What's that Bernard? - Nothing, Minister.
Once the prize is awarded, the PM will dump the Europasses.
Howmany people know about the winnerof the Napoleon Prize? - It's top secret.
- You mean everyone.
- No, top secret top secret.
- That's it then.
- Humphrey, don't you see? - See what? - Backbenchers.
Leaks.
- The Welsh Nationalist party? No.
No.
No.
Oh, I'll come back later.
No.
No.
Don't go, the very man.
Come on in, Daniel.
- I want to ask youradvice.
- I'll give any help I can.
But if it's about shutting stable doors afterhorses have bolted, even I am powerless to help.
You won't be powerless in this case.
It's really a sort of moral dilemma.
Supposing a backbencher were to put down a question forthe Prime Minister, asking whetherthe Europass Which backbencher? Europass is top secret.
You mean like the winner of the Napoleon Prize is top secret? The Ministermeant a hypothetical backbencher.
Quite so, Bernard.
Thank you.
A hypothetical backbencher.
And a hypothetical question asking whetherornot Britain was going to adopt the Europass.
- Highly improbable.
- Oh, I agree.
Highly improbable.
But suppose the PM were to answeryes, itwould be very damaging in the country? Yes.
And if the PM were to answerno itwould be very damaging in Europe? To the PM personally.
Napoleon prize- wise.
Now, if a hypothetical Minister were to get to hear of this hypothetical question in advance, what should he do? The only course would be to ensure that the question was not tabled.
Serious business, suppressing an MP's question.
There is no othercourse.
The only way to stop him might be to get him to put down a question asking the Prime Minister to squash the rumours about the closure of the Department forAdministrative Affairs.
Oh, but I'm sure whatevermade you think anything but the fullest support You said that a plan to abolish the Department had been put up, and the PM was smiling on it.
No, smiling at it! Smiling at it, not on it.
The whole idea was ridiculous.
Laughable.
Out of the question.
Ajoke.
Ajoke? You didn't imagine So that a minute from the Prime Minister's office confirming this, and squashing the rumour, will be circulated to all departments within 24 hours.
So thatwe can all share it, joke- wise I mean! Do you really think it's necessary? Yes.
Well, I'm sure something can be arranged.
If you'll excuse me.
Checkmate, I think.
Game, set and match.
Can Daniel Hughes fix this? Don't Prime Ministers have minds of theirown? Certainly.
But as President Nixon's henchmen once said: "When you've got them by the balls, theirhearts and minds will follow".
Isn't that right? Yes, Minister.
Then we shall be happy to redraft it for you.
- You have redrafted it three times.
- That's not absolutely correct.
Yes, it is, I can count.
This is the third draft report.
Therefore it has been drafted once and subsequently redrafted twice.
Don't quibble, Bernard.
We shall be happy to redraft a third time.
And a fourth and fifth.
And a sixth, no doubt.
And it still say what you want it to say.
- Not what I want it to say.
- What do you want it to say? We want it to say what you want to.
Not anything you don'twant to.
Stop wittering! The Think Tank asked us forourevidence on Civil Service overmanning.
I have briefed a group of civil servants in words of one syllable and they've sent back an unintelligible report, saying the exact opposite of what I asked them to say.
With respect, how do you know it says the opposite if it's totally unintelligible? All I am saying is that the Civil Service is grossly overmanned and must be slimmed down.
Quite so.
That is what the report says.
- No, it doesn't.
- Yes, it does.
No, it Look, what I'm talking about is a phased reduction in the Civil Service of about 200,000 people.
Are you going to put that in this report? If you were to take that draft home and study it, you might find that it says what you want it to say.
- And if it doesn't? - Then we can redraft it.
Humphrey, sit down.
Will you give me a straight answerto a straight question? Oh, well, Minister, as long as you are not asking me to resort to crude generalisations and vulgaroversimplifications, such as a simple yes orno I shall do my utmost to oblige.
Is that "yes"? - Yes.
- Right.
- Here is the straight question.
- I thought thatwas it.
When you give yourevidence, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is overmanned ornot? Yes orno! Straight answer! If you ask me fora straight answer then I shall say that, as faras we can see, looking at it by an large, taking one time with another, in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probablyfind that not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way orthe other.
As faras one can see at this stage.
Is that "yes"? Or"no"? Yes and no.
Suppose you weren't asked fora straight answer? Then I should playfortime.
Sir Humphrey.
- Ah, Bernard, do sit down.
- Thank you.
- Good of you to pop in.
- It's my pleasure.
Bernard, you know the Department's report on the Central Policy Review staff? Er, yes, Sir Humphrey.
We haven't had it back from the Ministeryet.
- Er, no, Sir Humphrey.
- Why not? Er perhaps you should ask the Minister.
- No, I'm asking you, Bernard.
- Yes, Sir Humphrey.
You don't seem to be replying.
Yes and no, Sir Humphrey.
- Are you trying to be impertinent? - Oh no.
I would succeed if I tried.
- Scotch on the rocks, please.
- Yes, sir.
One, sir? Yes, just one.
Has the Ministerbeen doing his boxes properly? - Yes, he's very conscientious.
- Then what's going on? - You should ask the Minister.
- I'm asking you.
But as the Minister's Secretary, I'm responsible to him.
But you are also a public servant.
The average Minister's tenure is less than eleven months, but yourcareerwill last until you're 65, won't it? - I hope so.
Yes.
- So do I, Bernard.
However, the choice is yours.
Er, Sir Humphrey Can I ask you a hypothetical question? That's always a good idea.
Well, suppose a Minister, a purely hypothetical Minister, were to be unhappy with a department draft of evidence to a committee.
And suppose that Minister were planning to replace it with his own draftworked out with his political adviser - and his party - I can't believe it.
Oh, no, no.
It's purely hypothetical.
And suppose that Minister were planning to bring in his own draft so close to the final date that there won't be any - Wouldn't - Wouldn't be any time forthe Department to redraft it forhim.
Well? Suppose this hypothetical Minister's Principal Private Secretary were to be aware of this hypothetical draft, in confidence of course, should he pass on this information to the Permanent Secretary of this hypothetical department? Certainly not, Bernard.
Not if this Principal Private Secretary had been given the information in confidence.
That's what I thought, Sir Humphrey.
Have a drink, Bernard.
One more thing, Minister.
The evidence to the Central Policy Review Staff.
- You mean the Think Tank? - Yes, Minister.
Have you redrafted the redraft of yourdraft? - You don'twant it yet, do you? - Yes.
- Why? - So thatwe can redraft it.
- Thatwon't be necessary.
- I think itwill.
Drafting is not a Civil Service monopoly, you know? No, it's a highly specialised skill which few outside the Service can master.
Nonsense.
Drafts is easy.
It's a game anyone can play.
Notwithout getting huffed.
So could I have the draft proposal, please? Certainly, Humphrey.
- When, Minister? - Later, Humphrey.
Yes, but when? You always say we musn't rush things.
I must ask you fora straight answer.
On what day? Tomorrow? Monday? Tuesday? In due course, Humphrey.
At the appropriate juncture.
In the fullness of time.
When the moment is ripe.
When the necessary procedures have been completed.
Nothing precipitate, of course.
Minister, this is getting urgent.
Urgent, Humphrey? What a lot ot newwords! You'll forgive me if I say this, but I am beginning to suspect that you are concealing something from me.
You and I have no secrets from each other, have we? I'm sorry, but sometimes one is forced to consider the possibility that affairs are being conducted in a way which, all things being considered, and making all possible allowances, is, not to put too fine a point on it, perhaps not entirely straightforward.
You're the expert on straightforwardness.
So what about the draft evidence? Well, since you ask, Humphrey, and to be perfectly straightforward, I have redrafted it myself.
I don'twant you to redraft it.
I'm perfectly happy with it as it is.
May I be bold enough to ask what you have said? What I wanted: Phased reductions in the Civil Service.
You have frustrated me overopen government, and the economy drive, this time I'm going to have my way.
The party wants it, the public wants it.
And all we get from the Civil Service is delaying tactics.
I wouldn't call Civil Service delays "tactics", Minister, thatwould be to mistake lethargyforstrategy.
Very droll.
But there is a real desire forradical reform in the air.
The Select Committee on Administrative Affairs, which I founded, it's a great success.
Oh, indeed, what has it achieved? Nothing yet.
But the party's very pleased with it.
Why? Ten column inches in last Monday's Daily Mail.
The government measures its success in column inches? Yes no Yes and no! Minister, the evidence that you are proposing to submit is not only untrue, it is also, which is much more serious, unwise.
Now, we have been through all this before.
The expansion of the Civil Service is the result of parliamentary legislation, not bureaucratic empire building.
So you want me to tell Parliament that it's theirfault that the Civil Service is too big? - But it's the truth.
- I don'twant the truth.
I want something I can tell Parliament.
Humphrey, you are supposed to enact my policies.
Yet, you seem implacably opposed to them.
I must knowwhere you stand on all this.
Where one stands, Minister, depends upon where one sits.
Am I to infer that you will not support me? We will always support you, but as yourstandardbearer not as you pall bearer.
What are you saying? I should have thought is crystal clear.
Do not send this report to a body whose recommendations are to be published! That is exactly why I'm sending it.
I don'twant to hearany more.
- May I say just one more thing? - If it's in plain English.
Very well, Minister.
If you are going to do this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way.
Minister, you'll be late forCabinet.
Oh, yes.
Cabinet.
What are we talking about? Yourproposals to close down the Land Registry.
My proposal? Reducing the autonomous Government Departments.
- Itwas yourproposal.
- You have initialled it.
- Oh, have I? What's in it? - It'll all go through on the nod.
- Got all the stuff? - Yes.
Come on then, mustn't be late.
Humpy Have you written yourevidence to the Think Tank yet? - More or less.
- What do you mean? - The Minister's written it.
- Humpy! Yes, I know.
All very unwise.
But he insisted.
He's been working at nothing else formore than a week now.
You should never let Ministers get so deeply involved.
The next thing you know they'll be dictating policy.
Yes, I know.
- Is this a lengthy Cabinet? - I don't think so.
Ghastly waste of time.
Yes, but if we're not here to hold theirhands, God knows what they might not get up to? Excuse me, Jumbo.
Yes, Minister? I'm recommending to Cabinet to close down the Land Registry.
- Why? - Why? Why are we closing it orbringing it to Cabinet? - What? - What? Why am I recommending it? - Surely you know.
- No, that's why I'm asking.
You said itwould go through on the nod, now the PM's started asking questions.
And I haven't read my proposal.
There was a 9.
75 rise in autonomous Government Departments.
Yes, of course.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, Jumbo Helping to restrict the autonomous departments? That should find favour with the PM policy-wise.
Oh? Why? Veryfashionable simplifying the Civil Service especially with this Think Tank recommendation.
- But they haven't reported.
- Yes, they have, unofficially They haven't taken all the evidence yet.
The Central Policy Review Staff don't sully theirelevated minds with anything as sordid as evidence.
You may take it that they'll be advising the PM to simplify the administration of government.
Well, that'll keep me busy.
Ah, well.
I shouldn't count on it.
You surely don't expect me, the PM's Senior Policy Adviser, to betray confidences.
Not to yourcolleagues, certainly.
No doubt the grapevine would inform you by lunchtime.
Inform? Inform us of what? Your Minister is seeking to reduce overmanning in the Civil Service.
Well, he's going to get his way.
Treasury, the Home Office and the Civil Service have all proposed to abolish your Department of Administrative Affairs and the PM is smiling on the plan.
- That's absurd.
- Clean.
Dramatic.
Very popularpolitically.
No real inconvenience.
All yourfunctions could be subsumed by otherdepartments.
Jim Hackerwill win through with a self sacrificing policy.
The PM will probably kick him upstairs.
Lord Hackerof Kamikaze.
I hardly think that's funny, Daniel or likely.
Why not? He ran the leadership campaign against the PM.
This could be the PM's masterstroke in one fell swoop.
Approbation, elevation and castration.
You know the PM's motto "In Defeat, malice.
In Victory, revenge".
Abolish my Department.
Out of the question.
Simply can't be done.
I'm sure you knowbest.
By the way, there's a job centre in the Horseferry Road.
The No.
19 Bus stops right outside.
- I'm appalled.
- You're appalled? I'm appalled.
I just can't believe it.
I'm I'm appalled.
- What do you make of it? - I'm appalled, Minister.
So am I.
Appalled! It's appalling.
Appalling.
I just don't know how to describe it.
Appalling? Appalling.
But I mean is it true? Sure he wasn't having you on? They can't abolish this entire department.
It rings true, doesn't it? I've just see the joint departmental proposal.
Whitehall's full of proposals.
Daniel Hughes is very close to the PM.
What's going to happen? Where will I go? Well, there is a rumour, Minister Rumour? What rumour? Ministerwith responsibility forlndustrial Harmony.
Industrial harmony? You knowwhat that means.
That means strikes! Every strike in Great Britain will be myfault.
Oh, marvellous.
Have you considered what might happen to me? - No.
What? - I shall be sent to Ag and Fish.
The rest of my careerdedicated to arguing about the cod quota.
And as foryou, Bernard, if your Ministerbites the dust yourreputation as a high flyer will be hit forsix.
You'll spend yourcareer in the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea.
- It's yourfault.
- Myfault? Itwas yourproposal to reduce the autonomous departments.
You proposed phased reductions of the Civil Service.
Don't let's argue about that.
What are we going to do? We could put a paperup.
Up what? - Brilliant! - Have you any suggestions? - I don't know, I'm - Appalled? I do think thatwe should work togetheron this.
- I've heard that before.
- What do you mean? You telling me what to do, me doing it.
- That isn't true.
- You've no suggestions? Bernard could fetch your Political Adviser.
- You want me to consult Frank? - Yes, Minister.
And Minister, with respect Don't use that language to me, Humphrey.
- What language? - I knowwhat "with respect" means.
That anything I suggest is beneath contempt.
Ah, Minister.
I really do mean thatwe should work together.
- I need you.
- Do you mean that? - Yes, Minister.
- Humphrey, how very nice of you.
Minister, if the Prime Minister is behind a scheme, Whitehall on its own cannot block it.
Cabinet Ministers' schemes are easily blocked redrafted, but the Prime Minister is anothermatter.
We need to fight this in Westminsterand in Whitehall.
And Weisel might be able to mobilise the backbenchers.
Yes.
And he might be able to mobilise the Press.
- You've heard the news? - Bernard just told me.
What do you suggest? I can't think of anything I'm appalled.
Mustn't all flap around like a lot of wet hens.
We've got to save this Department.
I want you to get to the backbenchers to put a stop to this thing before it starts.
I'm sorry, but you can't stop something before it starts.
Thank you.
Frank Itwon't be that easy.
Itwill be a very popularmove.
A publicity campaign? You know: "Administration Saves the Nation" "Red Tape is Fun".
Full page ads in Itwas just an idea.
"Red Tape is fun"? What about "Red Tape holds the Nation together"? Well, there's no doubt about it, the writing's on the wall.
The public should think kindly towards Administration, - because of the Europass.
- Quite.
- Europass? - European Identity Card.
You've informed the Minister? Didn't you do yourboxes? No, I was redrafting the redraft of the draft.
Well, Brussels is about to decree that there is to be a new European Identity Card to be carried by all citizens of the E.
E.
C.
The Foreign Office is ready to go along with it as a quid pro quo fora deal overthe buttermountain, the wine lake, and the milk ocean, the lamb war, and the cod stink.
And the Prime Ministerwants you to introduce the legislation.
- Me? - Yes.
You're pro Europe, you see.
And itwould simplify ouradministration.
- So it's a good idea.
- Good idea? - Good idea? - Good idea? - Not a good idea? - Political suicide! Trying to make British people carry Identification Papers? They'll call it a Police State.
Is this whatwe fought two world wars for? It's little more than a sort of driving licence.
It's the last nail in my coffin.
You might get away with calling it "Euroclub Express".
Bernard, eithershut up orget out! Can't the Foreign Office introduce it? Thatwas the Prime Minister's suggestion, but forthe Foreign Secretary itwas a Home Office matter and forthe Home Office itwas essentially and administrative matter, and the PM agreed.
Pass the parcel.
Can you blame them when you can hear it ticking? The identity card bill is planned to be the last action of this Department.
Wonderful ammunition forthe anti Europeans.
Don't the Foreign Office realise the damage to the European idea? That's why they support it.
The Foreign Office is pro Europe, isn't it? Yes and no if you'll forgive the expression.
The Foreign Office is pro Europe because it is really anti Europe.
The Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn'twork.
- That's why we went into it.
- What are you talking about? Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective forat least the last 500 years: To create a disunited Europe.
We have foughtwith the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French and with the French against the Germans and the Italians.
Divide and rule, you see.
Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? That's all ancient history surely? Yes, and current policy.
We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside.
We tried from the outside, but itwouldn'twork.
Now, we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing.
Set the Germans against the French, the Italians against the Dutch The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
Butwe're all committed to the European ideal.
Really, Minister.
Why are we pressing foran increase in the membership? Forthe same reason.
It's just like the United Nations.
The more members it has, the more arguments it can stirup, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
- What appalling cynicism.
- Yes.
We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Howwill the othercountries feel about identity papers? Won't they resist too? The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it, and the Italians and the Irish will be too chaotic to enforce it.
Only the British will resent it.
- It's a plot to get rid of me.
- They'll abolish your Department.
Perhaps the PM wants to make absolutely certain.
- Don't be so paranoid.
- Everyone is plotting against me.
- We're on yourside, Minister.
- Yes, Minister.
- Martin will be on ourside.
- Yes, where is Martin? I think he's in the House, Minister, where you ought to be.
Let's go and see him.
This is appalling, Jim.
- You've done a Samson act.
- Samson? You've reduced the Civil Service bureaucracy.
You've pulled the superstructure down and buried yourself.
- A Pyrrhic victory.
- No ideas? - I'd help if I could, but - But the Europass It doesn't make sense.
Why can't the PM see the damage? Yes, this Europass issue is the biggest disaster since I asked to join the Cabinet.
I don't think you quite mean that.
Everybody knows this Europass thing won't happen.
The PM's got to play along with it because of the Napoleon Prize.
Napoleon Prize? A NATO Award given once everyfive years.
Gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels.
The PM's the front runnerthis time.
It's forthe statesman who has contributed most to European unity.
Since Napoleon.
That is if you don't count Hitler.
So? What? The awards committee sits in six weeks.
The PM isn't going to rock the boat until it's in the bag.
You don't put boats in bags.
- What's that Bernard? - Nothing, Minister.
Once the prize is awarded, the PM will dump the Europasses.
Howmany people know about the winnerof the Napoleon Prize? - It's top secret.
- You mean everyone.
- No, top secret top secret.
- That's it then.
- Humphrey, don't you see? - See what? - Backbenchers.
Leaks.
- The Welsh Nationalist party? No.
No.
No.
Oh, I'll come back later.
No.
No.
Don't go, the very man.
Come on in, Daniel.
- I want to ask youradvice.
- I'll give any help I can.
But if it's about shutting stable doors afterhorses have bolted, even I am powerless to help.
You won't be powerless in this case.
It's really a sort of moral dilemma.
Supposing a backbencher were to put down a question forthe Prime Minister, asking whetherthe Europass Which backbencher? Europass is top secret.
You mean like the winner of the Napoleon Prize is top secret? The Ministermeant a hypothetical backbencher.
Quite so, Bernard.
Thank you.
A hypothetical backbencher.
And a hypothetical question asking whetherornot Britain was going to adopt the Europass.
- Highly improbable.
- Oh, I agree.
Highly improbable.
But suppose the PM were to answeryes, itwould be very damaging in the country? Yes.
And if the PM were to answerno itwould be very damaging in Europe? To the PM personally.
Napoleon prize- wise.
Now, if a hypothetical Minister were to get to hear of this hypothetical question in advance, what should he do? The only course would be to ensure that the question was not tabled.
Serious business, suppressing an MP's question.
There is no othercourse.
The only way to stop him might be to get him to put down a question asking the Prime Minister to squash the rumours about the closure of the Department forAdministrative Affairs.
Oh, but I'm sure whatevermade you think anything but the fullest support You said that a plan to abolish the Department had been put up, and the PM was smiling on it.
No, smiling at it! Smiling at it, not on it.
The whole idea was ridiculous.
Laughable.
Out of the question.
Ajoke.
Ajoke? You didn't imagine So that a minute from the Prime Minister's office confirming this, and squashing the rumour, will be circulated to all departments within 24 hours.
So thatwe can all share it, joke- wise I mean! Do you really think it's necessary? Yes.
Well, I'm sure something can be arranged.
If you'll excuse me.
Checkmate, I think.
Game, set and match.
Can Daniel Hughes fix this? Don't Prime Ministers have minds of theirown? Certainly.
But as President Nixon's henchmen once said: "When you've got them by the balls, theirhearts and minds will follow".
Isn't that right? Yes, Minister.