The Complete Yes Minister

I don’t know how he has the face to make such a remark. Does he really think I’m a complete idiot? At that moment the buzzer went and saved Humphrey from further humiliation. It was the Division Bell. So I had to hurry off to the House.

On my way out I realised that I had to ask Bernard whether I was to vote ‘aye’ or ‘no’.

‘No,’ he replied and began to explain. ‘It’s an Opposition Amendment, the second reading of . . .’

But I had left by then. The man’s a fool. It doesn’t matter what the debate is, I just don’t want to go through the wrong door.

[Meanwhile, rumours about Hacker’s plan to link economies with honours had travelled fast along the two major Whitehall grapevines – the private secretaries’ and the drivers’. It was only a matter of hours before news reached Sir Arnold Robinson, the Secretary to the Cabinet. Sir Humphrey was asked to drop in for a chat with Sir Arnold, and an illuminating interview followed – illuminating not only for Sir Humphrey, but also for historians who learn that although the Cabinet Secretary is theoretically primus inter pares⁶ he is in reality very much primus. It seems that all Permanent Secretaries are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The notes that Sir Arnold made on Sir Humphrey’s report have been found among the Civil Service files at Walthamstow and were of course released some years ago under the Thirty-Year Rule.

Sir Humphrey never saw these notes, because no civil servant is shown his own report, except in wholly unusual circumstances – Ed.]

Told Appleby that I was a little bit worried about this idea of his Minister’s, linking Honours to economies.

Appleby said that he could find no effective arguments against this plan.

I indicated that we would regard it as the thin end of the wedge, a Bennite solution. I asked where it would end?

Appleby replied that he shared my views and had emphasised them to the Minister. He added, somewhat strangely, that the scheme was ‘intolerable but yet irresistible’.

I took a dim view. I informed Appleby that, while I was not in any sense reprimanding him, I wanted his assurance that this plan would not be put into practice.

He looked very shaken at the mention of no reprimand. [Civil Service Code: the mere mention of a reprimand so high up the ladder is severe and deeply wounding criticism. It suggests that the Cabinet Secretary was flying in the face of the ‘Good Chap Theory’ – the theory that states that ‘A Good Chap Does Not Tell A Good Chap What A Good Chap Ought To Know.’ Sir Arnold was implying that Sir Humphrey was not a sufficiently good chap – Ed.]

Appleby was unable to give me the assurance I required. He merely voiced a hope that Hacker would not be acting on this plan.

I was obliged to point out that hopes are not good enough. If honours were linked to economies in the DAA, the contagion could spread throughout government. To every department.

Again I invited him to say that we could count on him to scotch the scheme. He said he would try. Feeble! I was left with no alternative but to warn him most seriously that, although I was quite sure he knew what he was doing, this matter could cause others to reflect upon whether or not he was sound.

The poor chap seemed to take that very hard, as well he might!

Before I terminated the interview I mentioned that the Master of Baillie, our old college, had been on the phone, and that I was sure Appleby would make sure Hacker treated Baillie as a Special Case.

Appleby seemed no more confident on this matter either, although he said he had arranged for Hacker to be invited to a Benefactor’s Dinner.