Dimly I began to perceive what he was saying. ‘But . . . you only reduced the
Sir Humphrey furrowed his brow. ‘Of course.’
‘Well,’ I explained patiently, ‘that was not what I meant.’
Sir Humphrey was pained. ‘Well really, Minister, we are not mind-readers. You said reduce the figures, so we reduced the figures.’
This was obvious nonsense. He knew perfectly well what I’d meant, but had chosen to take my instructions literally. It was because of this sort of Civil Service foolishness and unhelpfulness that this country is literally bleeding to death.
[
‘How did it get out?’ I demanded. ‘Another leak. This isn’t a Department, it’s a colander.’ I was rather pleased with that little crack. Sir Humphrey ignored it, of course. ‘How can we govern responsibly,’ I continued, ‘if backbenchers are going to get all the facts?’ There was another silence. Naturally. There was no answer to that one. ‘Anyway,’ I concluded, ‘at least an enquiry gives us a little time.’
‘So does a time bomb,’ observed my Permanent Secretary.
So I waited to see if he had a disposal squad up his sleeve. Apparently not.
‘If only you’d said we’d have a departmental enquiry,’ he complained, ‘then we could have made it last eighteen months, and finally said that it revealed a certain number of anomalies which have now been rectified but that there was no evidence of any intention to mislead. Something like that.’
I allowed myself to be diverted for a moment. ‘But there
‘I never said there wasn’t,’ Sir Humphrey replied impatiently. ‘I merely said there was no evidence of it.’
I think I was looking blank. He explained.
The job of a professionally conducted internal enquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence. If you say there was no intention, you can be proved wrong. But if you say the enquiry found no
This is a most interesting insight into one of the Civil Service’s favourite devices. In future I’ll know what is
However I had to deal with the matter in hand, namely that I had agreed to an independent enquiry. ‘Couldn’t we,’ I suggested thoughtfully, ‘get an independent enquiry to find no evidence?’
‘You mean, rig it?’ enquired Sir Humphrey coldly.
This man’s double standards continue to amaze me.
‘Well . . . yes!’
‘Minister!’ he said, as if he was deeply shocked. Bloody hypocrite.
‘What’s wrong with rigging an independent enquiry if you can rig an internal one, I should like to know?’ Though I already know the answer – you might get
‘No, Minister, in an independent enquiry everything depends on who the Chairman is. He absolutely has to be sound.’
‘If he’s sound,’ I remarked, ‘surely there’s a danger he’ll bring it all out into the open?’
Sir Humphrey was puzzled again. ‘No, not if he’s sound,’ he explained. ‘A sound man will understand what is required. He will perceive the implications. He will have a sensitive and sympathetic insight into the overall problem.’
He
‘Ah,’ I said. ‘So “sound” actually means “bent”?’
‘Certainly not!’ He was too quick with his denial. Methinks Sir Humphrey doth protest too much. ‘I mean,’ he tried again, ‘a man of broad understanding . . .’
I decided to short-circuit the process by making some suggestions.
‘Then what about a retired politician?’
‘. . . and unimpeachable integrity,’ added Humphrey.
‘Oh I see.’ I paused to think. ‘What about an academic or a businessman?’
Sir Humphrey shook his head.
‘Okay,’ I said, knowing that he had someone in mind already. ‘Out with it. Who?’
‘Well, Minister, I thought perhaps . . . a retired civil servant.’
I saw his point. ‘Good thinking, Humphrey.’ It’s wonderful what years of training can do for you!
‘Sir Maurice Williams could be the man,’ he went on.
I wasn’t too sure about this. ‘You don’t think he might be too independent?’
‘He’s hoping for a peerage,’ said Humphrey quietly, with a smile. He appeared to think he was producing an ace from up his sleeve.
I was surprised. ‘This won’t give him one, will it?’
