The Complete Yes Minister

[It is significant that none of those present thought of telephoning Sir Wally McFarland. But then, he was merely the expert, and the chairman of the Nationalised Industry in question – Ed.]

I grinned, embarrassed, like a naughty schoolboy. ‘We ought to know something about inert compounds, oughtn’t we?’

Humphrey had no sense of humour about this, and he made a brave attempt at bluffing us again.

‘A compound is . . . well, you know what compound interest is, surely?’ he complained. Joan and I nodded. ‘Compound interest is a jolly good thing to enjoy. Well, that’s the sort of thing a compound is.’

I stared at him. Did he really think that would do? I looked at Joan. She was staring at him too. But reduced to silence for the first time. So I plunged in hopefully.

‘Well,’ I said, trying it on in the hope of bringing the discussion to a close, ‘that’s about it, then. To sum up, I think we’re all of the same mind, basically in agreement, broadly speaking, about this. And we are happy to continue with its development.’

Littler spoke up. ‘I’ve said no such thing.’

We were getting nowhere. So I tried to sum it up again. I pointed out that we had established that the only similarity between dioxin and metadioxin was in the name. She didn’t seem to see it.

I searched desperately for an analogy, ‘It’s like Littler and Hitler,’ I explained. ‘We’re not saying that you’re like Hitler because your name sounds similar.’

I realised that I’d been less than tactful, but the words were out. She flared up. ‘That’s hardly the point,’ she said angrily.

‘Then what is the point?’ But I knew already.

‘The point is, this factory is in my constituency.’

Of course I could see why she was worried, but if Humphrey was telling me the truth she was worried unnecessarily. ‘It’s good for the constituency.’ I said. ‘More jobs. More money. The only people who could possibly be upset by this are a few cranky environmentalists. It can’t cost us more than, on balance, a couple of hundred votes.’

‘My majority,’ she replied quietly, ‘is ninety-one.’

I hadn’t realised. She certainly had a point. I don’t want to be responsible for jeopardising a government-held marginal, especially if the sitting MP is PPS to the PM.

She pressed home her argument. ‘And don’t forget that there are three government constituencies bordering onto mine – all marginal, all with majorities of well under two thousand.’

I didn’t know what to say. While I considered the position, Sir Humphrey spoke up again. ‘Miss Littler,’ he began, ‘may I intervene once more?’ She nodded. ‘The case for the BCC manufacturing Propanol is overwhelming – am I right, Minister?’

‘Overwhelming,’ I agreed.

‘It will create jobs,’ continued Humphrey fluently, ‘it will increase income for the Local Authority, and it will secure profitable export orders.’

‘Export orders,’ I agreed.

‘Furthermore,’ he continued, ‘the chemical has been declared safe by the FDA in Washington.’

‘Washington,’ I agreed.

‘We are having,’ he went on, ‘a report prepared here as well. The Minister regards this scheme as being wholly to the advantage of your constituency and the country.’

I chimed in. ‘And if the stuff is dangerous, I promise you I’ll stop it being made here. But if the report shows it’s harmless, that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?’

She sat still for a moment, staring at me, then at Humphrey. Then she stood up. She said she wasn’t satisfied. (I can’t blame her. If it were my constituency, I’m not sure I’d be satisfied either.) She advised me to remember that the party made me an MP – and that I certainly can’t go on being a Minister if our party loses the next election.

She’s got a point there too.

Also, I have a nasty feeling that the PM will hear her point of view before the end of the week.

Humphrey looked at me after she left, obviously asking for a go-ahead. I told him that I would consider the matter further, and told Bernard to put all the relevant papers in my box to take home and study. Then the decision should become clear.

June 8th

I’ve studied all the Propanol papers and I still don’t know what to do.

So I called a meeting with Humphrey to discuss the report on Propanol that we have commissioned. I’ve been wondering if it really will be conclusively in favour of Propanol, as Sir Humphrey and Sir Wally predict.

I asked if I should meet Professor Henderson, who is chairing the report, or writing it himself or something.

Humphrey said that there was no need for such a meeting. He is apparently a brilliant biochemist and was chosen with some care.