We must devoutly hope that no such leak occurs. Have you any thoughts on this matter?
Yours ever
Humphrey
[A reply was received from Sir Arnold Robinson at the beginning of next week. A copy was found at the Campaign headquarters, but we were fortunate enough to find the original among the Appleby Papers Ed.]
July 9th
Dear Humphrey,
Thank you for your letter. A leak of the sort you suggest would almost certainly result in man overboard.
I cannot see, however, how such a leak can occur. You as Cabinet Secretary cannot be party to a leak. And although, as President of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, I have an undoubted duty to make certain facts available, I do not see in all conscience how I, as a former Cabinet Secretary, can give confidential information to the press.
Yours ever
Arnold
[A reply was apparently sent to Sir Arnold Robinson by return -- delivered by messenger Ed.]
July 10th
Dear Arnold,
I would not dream of suggesting that you give confidential information to the press. It is confidential misinformation to which I refer.
Yours ever,
Humphrey
[Sir Arnold sent a brief and immediate reply Ed.]
July 10th
Dear Humphrey,
I shall be happy to oblige.
Yours ever,
Arnold
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
July 11th
I am now convinced that a dirty little scheme has been hatched behind my back. It is a disloyal, ungrateful and treacherous plot, and I will not tolerate it.
I spoke to the Chief Whip. He said that he had no real evidence but he had suspicions. He said that he would make enquiries! He refused to tell me about them till he had something solid to go on. I regard that as proof positive.
I discussed the matter with Humphrey today. He expressed surprise that Dudley is plotting against me. I would have thought all your Cabinet were loyal. Sometimes I am amazed at how trusting and nave Humphrey reveals himself to be. Loyal? How few people realise what the word loyalty means when spoken by a Cabinet Minister. It only means that his fear of losing his job is stronger than his hope of pinching mine.
So, said Humphrey, wide-eyed, you believe that the Employment Secretary has his eye on the Prime Ministerial chair?
Yes. I sat back. But look what Ive got on it.
Humphrey didnt get my little joke and merely commented that loyalty was a fundamental requirement of collective responsibility.
Hasnt he noticed that collective responsibility has fallen out of fashion? Collective responsibility means that when we do something popular they all leak the fact that it was their idea, and when we do something unpopular they leak the fact that they were against it. This country is governed by the principle of collective irresponsibility.
You were a Cabinet minister once. Humphrey seemed to be admonishing me gently.
Thats different, I reminded him. I was loyal.
You mean, you were more frightened of losing your job than
No, Humphrey, I interrupted him. I was genuinely loyal.
Humphrey asked me why my colleagues want my job so much. The explanation is simple: Im the only member of the government who cant be sent to Northern Ireland tomorrow.
Even so, he remarked, I find it hard to believe that the Employment Secretary is actively plotting against you.
I told him it was obvious. I asked what more proof he would need. He thought for a moment.
Well he began, this proposal to move Defence establishments to the north is bound to be leaked to the press, isnt it?
Bound to be, I agreed. Im surprised it hasnt been already.
Well, if it were leaked as the Employment Secretarys plan, I agree that it would confirm your suspicions. But Im sure it will come out as a government plan.
Hes right. Its a good test. We shall see what we shall see.
July 12th
So much for Humphreys faith in Dudleys loyalty. The Standard today contained the leak we were waiting for. And the proof that that disloyal swine is gunning for me.
The London Evening Standard
HACKER HITS JOBLESS
by Peter Kirkston
Sources in Whitehall report that an imaginative plan, an initiative by Dudley Belling, the Secretary of State for Employment, to reduce unemployment in the depressed areas, has been blocked by the Prime Minister.
How dare he. How dare he??
It was Humphrey who showed me the newspaper. I was very angry indeed. I told Humphrey how Id backed Dudley all along. I told him how I fought for that sodding plan of his. I told him how I gave him his first Cabinet post and how Ive treated him like a son. And this, I said, is how he thanks me. I was speechless, utterly speechless.
Humphrey nodded sadly. How sharper than a serpents tooth it is to have a thankless Cabinet colleague.
What can you say? Nothing. Its envy, I said. Dudley is consumed with envy.
Its one of the seven Dudley sins, said Bernard, trying to lighten the atmosphere. I quelled him with a glance.
Humphrey, a tower of strength as always, suggested a possible course of action: that we draft my letter accepting his resignation.
But there are several disadvantages to that idea. Dudley will deny that he leaked the story, in which case Ive no grounds for sacking him. And if I then sack him anyway, what are the consequences? Hed be even more dangerous on the back benches than in the Cabinet -- sacked ministers dont even have to pretend to be loyal.
So, enquired Humphrey, you intend to go ahead with his plan?
That option is also closed to me now. Once a story in the press says that Im blocking it I cant possibly let it go ahead -- it will look as though he has defeated me. Regretfully, I must abandon the plan, even though its good. At least, I think I must.
I told Humphrey my dilemma.
Prime Minister, youre not being indecisive, are you?
No, I said. He looked at me. He knew I was. Yes, I acknowledged. Then I thought: Im damned if Ill be indecisive. No, I snarled. Then I realised that Id already answered the question all too clearly. I dont know, I said weakly, putting my head in my hands. I felt deeply depressed, enervated. All my energy was sapped by the treachery and disloyalty.
He offered to help. I couldnt see how he could. But he produced some papers from a file on his lap. Technically I shouldnt show you this.
I dont see why not. Im Prime Minister, arent I?
Yes, he explained. Thats why I shouldnt be showing it to you. Its a Ministry of Defence draft internal paper. Top Secret. The Defence Secretary hasnt seen it yet. He passed it over the desk. But as you see, it casts grave doubts on the Employment Secretarys plan.
This was a paper I was keen to read. It is fascinating. Part One pointed out that many of the valuable army buildings that Dudley quoted cannot be sold. Some are listed. [Listed buildings under Section 54(9) of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act, which was replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas) Regulations of 1977, which were further amended by the 1986 Act necessitating changes in the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas) Regulations 1987 (S1 1987, No. 349), are buildings which are of special architectural or historic interest listed since 1 July 1948 (when the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 came into operation) and compiled by the Secretary of State with reference to national criteria, classified into three grades to show their relative importance, namely Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II. It is an offence under Section 108 of the 1971 Act to alter, extend or demolish a listed building unless excepted from control by Section 56, Section 54(9) (see paragraph 73) or Section 56(1)(a) and (b), excluding buildings for ecclesiastical use (see paragraphs 103-105) Ed.] Some are under strict planning controls. Some dont conform to private-sector fire and safety regulations. It all showed that the cost of the move would be prohibitive.