Are you sure Hacker's the man for this?
Yes.
He's the best choice to bring in an integrated transport policy?
- Yes. - But he knows nothing about it!
No.
You've sounded out the Transport Secretary
He won't touch it.
Yes. This could turn out to be a bed of nails.
A crown of thorns.
A booby trap.
It has to look like something’s gong to be done.
It calls for a particular combination of talents,
lots of activity but no actual achievement.
I see.
Then Hacker is the man!
So how do we go about him?
You're the PM's Chief Special Advisor. You know the form.
We make it seem like a special honour.
A promotion. A present.
But Sir Humphrey will tell Hacker he'd be crazy to do it.
Yes. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,
I can hear him say.
"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts," roughly translated.
Humphrey would have put it in English for Hacker's benefit.
Hacker went to the LSE.
- So did I. - Oh, I am sorry.
We must get an immediate commitment from Hacker
before he talks to Humphrey.
- Today? Now - Don't you think it’ll work?
Flattering a politician? When's it ever failed?
We'll offer to call him Transport Supremo, shall we?
Yes, much more attractive than Transport Muggins!
Ah, Jim!
Hello, Mark.
- Arnold. - Drink?
Yes, thank you.
- Everything all right? - Everything’s fine.
We wanted...
That is, the Prime Minister wanted
the Cabinet Secretary and me
to sound you out about something...
something of an honour, I may say.
Honour? You don't mean kicked up there?
No, no. A real honour.
A significant increase of responsibility.
Now, what are your views
on the integrated National Transport Policy?
Er... I... I...
Well, er... I...
Go on.
The PM has decided we need a national transport policy.
Yes. Well. Why not?
You're in favour?
Public dissatisfaction with the nationalised transport industries
Is now at a high enough level to worry the government, as you know.
Can you go on?
- No, we can't go on, not like this. - We need a policy.
Not just blame the management if there's an R in the month
and the unions the rest of the time.
Unfortunately, they've got together.
Their line is It's the government's fault.
Everything that goes wrong is the result of not having an integrated policy.
- We did have a policy before. - Did we?
Yes, it was our policy not to have a policy.
Well, now the PM wants a positive policy.
Oh, the PM. Yes, well, er...
I couldn't agree more. I've always thought so.
Good.
Surely it’s a Ministry of Transport matter?
No.
Obviously the Transport Secretary would love the job,
but he's too close to it all.
- Can't see the wood for the trees. - It needs an open mind, uncluttered.
So the PM has decided to appoint a supremo
to develop and implement a national transport policy.
- Supremo? - A supremo.
And...
Exactly.
It was agreed you had the most open mind.
And the most uncluttered.
Of course it’s a great honour and a responsibility.
Er, but what... What sort of... Er... I mean...
You mean what is required of an integrated transport policy minister?
- it’s to help the consumer. - Very popular with the public.
- Not that that would... - No, of course not. it’s my duty.
The motorways were planned without reference to the railways,
so there are great stretches of motorway
running alongside already existing railways.
- While other areas aren't served at all. - Quite. We knew you'd understand.
- it’s really quite simple. - Yes.
- Then there's through tickets. - Through tickets?
If you want to commute from Henley to the City,
you need one British Rail ticket to Paddington
and then an Underground ticket to the Bank.
Have you ever seen
a combined bus and railway timetable?
Or ever seen a bus timetable in a railway station?
Has a bus driver ever seen a bus timetable?
There's a British Rail Western Region line
running less than a mile north of Heathrow,
but no link line.
Bus and train services don't connect, all over London.
And outside London there are problems.
Probably. But we don't know about them.
It's full of possibilities.
You'd like me to discuss it with Humphrey and come back?
There is much to discuss with Sir Humphrey,
but we need an indication of your response now.
The PM's car leaves for the airport in 30 minutes.
The Ottawa conference.
- Then the UN speech in New York. - Then Washington.
Gosh, what a long trip. Who's gong to run the country
Sorry, Arnold. Silly question.
- So we can give the PM the good news? - There's a lot to put in hand.
- Oh, yes. I'm on. - Splendid! Have another drink.
- Ah, Minister. - Sorry I'm late.
- Got some splendid news. - Indeed, Minister?
- I have a new job. - The department will be sorry to lose you.
No, I mean an extra job.
I've been asked to develop
an integrated national transport policy by the Prime Minister.
I see. And what was the good news?
That was the good news.
Oh. Then how, if I may be so bold as to enquire,
- would you describe bad news? - What?
Do you realise what this job would mean if you accept it?
- I have accepted it. - You've what?
- I have accepted it. - Minister, you're not serious!
Yes, it’s an honour. We need a transport policy.
If by “we” you mean Britain, that's quite true.
But if by “we” you mean this department,
we need a transport policy like an aperture in the cranial cavity!
It is a bed of nails!
I know it may cause extra administrative duties.
Minister, that is not the point.
The reason there's no integrated transport policy
Is that it’s in everybody's interest except the minister who creates it.
Why?
How can I put it in a manner which is close to your heart?
- It is the ultimate vote loser. - Vote loser?
Why do you think the Transport Secretary isn’t doling it?
Why did he suggest the Lord Privy Seal?
Why did the Lord Privy Seal suggest
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
who suggested the President of the Council?
I didn’t know this.
And why did they invite you to No. 10 behind my back?
This hideous appointment has been hurtling round Whitehall
for three weeks like a grenade with the pin taken out!
If I pull it off, It'll be a feather in my cap.
If you pull it off, Minister, It won’t be in your cap any more.
Thank you, Bernard.
If you pull it off, no one will feel the benefits for ten years.
Long before that, you and I will have moved on.
Or up.
- Or out. - Out?
In the meantime, formulating policy means making choices.
Once you do that, you please the people that you favour,
but infuriate everybody else.
One vote gained, ten lost.
If you give the job to the road services,
the rail board and unions will scream.
Give it to the railways, the road lobby will massacre you.
Cut British Airways Investment plans,
they'll hold a devastating press conference that same day.
But I'm gong to be Transport Supremo!
I believe the Civil Service vernacular Is Transport Muggins!
No, the Prime Minister has asked me
to undertake this task, this necessary duty.
After all, we must all endeavour to do our duty.
Furthermore, Sir Mark thinks there may be votes in it.
I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.
You're looking a Trojan horse in the mouth!
If we look closely at this gift horse we'll find it full of Trojans?
If you'd looked a Trojan horse in the mouth,
you'd have found Greeks inside.
It was the Greeks who gave the Trojan horse to the Trojans.
Technically, it wasn’t a Trojan horse but a Greek horse.
Hence the tag Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes,
which, you'll recall,
Is usually and somewhat Inaccurately translated,
"Beware Greeks bearing gifts,"
or doubtless you would have recalled had you not attended the LSE.
Greek tags are all very well, but can we stick to the point?
- Yes... - Sorry, Greek tags?
"Beware Greeks bearing gifts."
The EEC equivalent would be,
"Beware Greeks bearing an olive oil surplus"!
- Excellent. - No, the point is, Minister,
just as the Trojan horse was Greek,
what you call a Greek tag Is, in fact, Latin.
The Greeks wouldn't suggest bewaring of themselves,
if one can use such a participle,
and it’s clearly Latin not because "Timeo" ends in "o",
as the Greek first person also ends in "o".
No, there is a Greek word "Timao" meaning "I honour",
but the "os" ending is a nominative singular termination
of a second declension in Greek and an accusative plural in Latin,
though actually Danaos Is not only the Greek for Greek,
It's also the Latin for Greek.
Yes, I take your point, Humphrey, but is it really as bad as that?
Minister, perhaps...
Perhaps you will allow me to prove it to you.
I will arrange a preliminary conference for you
with three Under-Secretaries from the Department of Transport,
from the roads, rail and air transport divisions.
What will that prove?
It may illustrate some problems you will encounter.
You may be right.
But if I succeed, this could be my Falkland Islands.
Yes.
And you could be General Galtieri!
With respect, I feel constrained to point out
the proposal is deeply misguided.
- So what do you suggest? - It should be government policy
to designate road haulage as its principal means of freight transport.
If I might crave your indulgence for a moment,
I think such a policy would be, not to put too fine a point on it,
unacceptably short-sighted.
Rail transport must surely be the favoured carrier
under any sane national policy.
With the greatest respect,
both those proposals are formulae for disaster.
Long-term considerations mandate the increase of airfreight.
If the minister wants a massive budget increase...
If the minister accepts a long, bitter rail strike...
If the minister can tolerate a massive rise in public discontent...
Hold on!
- We are the government, aren’t we? - Indeed you are, Minister.
- So we're all on the same side. - Indeed, no question.
Doling what's best for Britain.
Is the end of the airfreight business best for Britain?
How is Britain served by the destruction of the railways?
How does Britain benefit from a deterioration of the road network?
I want to examine policy options for the government's freight transport needs.
I thought a preliminary discussion,
a few friends around the table, a few positive suggestions...
- An expansion of rail transport... - An expansion of motorway construction...
- An expansion of airfreight capacity. - I need to achieve a reduction in costs.
Then there is only one possible course.
Indeed there is.
And there's no doubt what it is.
I always like to end on a note of agreement.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Minister.
Perhaps we could discuss a date for our next meeting. This way, please.
That was a very frank meeting.
More than frank, Minister. Frank bordering on direct.
The cleaners will mop up the blood tomorrow.
Bernard, can you help me?
- How, Minister? - Under-Secretaries are civil servants.
But they behave like counsel briefed by the transport interests
to defeat the government.
- That's right. - No, Bernard, that's wrong.
That's how it works.
Each department is controlled by the people it’s supposed to control.
How do you mean?
Why do we have comprehensive education?
- Who wanted it? Pupils, parents? - Not really.
The National Union of Teachers,
the chief client of the Department of Education,
so the DES went comprehensive.
Departments act for the powerful interest
with whom they have a permanent relationship.
The Department of Employment lobbies for the TUC.
The Department of Industry lobbies for the employers. it’s a nice balance.
Energy lobbies for oil companies,
Defence for the armed forces, the Home Office for the police.
So the system alms to stop the Cabinet carrying out its policies?
Well, somebody's got to!
So formulating a national transport policy
means fighting not just the transport industry
but the entire Civil Servlce as well?
Shouldn't the Civil Servlce help the government carry out its wishes?
Well, as long as the government's wishes are practicable.
Meaning?
As long as the Civil Servlce agrees with them!
Useful meeting, Minister.
All right, Humphrey.
You win.
- What do I win? - We must get out of our commitments.
Clearly the title Transport Supremo Is not worth having.
We must change the Prime Minister's mind.
Is that "we" plural,
or do supremos now use the royal pronoun?
I mean both of us, Humphrey,
unless you want the DAA saddled with this.
So, what are you suggesting?
Bernard, find a map of the PM's constituency.
- Humphrey, I need some advice. - Yes, Minister?
Could the formulation of a national transport policy
have unwanted local repercussions?
Er, yes, indeed, Minister.
Even in a constituency represented
by a very senior member of the government,
the most senior member of the government?
Deeply embarrassing!
Here's the street map and the directory.
Splendid.
This is the Prime Minister's constituency, isn’t it?
Oh, look, a park!
Near the station.
One requirement of a transport policy
Is to bring bus stations nearer to railway stations.
But that would mean building on the park.
Alas, yes.
Somebody has to suffer in the national interest.
Take a note, Bernard.
Bus station to be moved into Queen Charlotte's Park.
Oh, Minister, there's a big bus repair shop.
Isn't it economic to amalgamate the bus and train repairs?
Absolutely. Big saving.
Bus repair shop to be closed, Bernard.
This is commuter country, what about that?
Commuter trains run at a loss.
They're only really used at rush hours.
So commuters are, in effect, subsidised.
- Isn't that unfair on the others? - it’s a great injustice.
Commuters to pay full economic fares, Bernard.
Mind, that'll double the price of tickets.
Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs!
There are quite a few railway stations in this area.
- British Rail and Underground. - Yes?
One view is that areas with reasonable rail services
don't need an evening bus servlce too.
Avery persuasive view, to my mind.
All bus services to cease after6.30pm.
What about this space
when the bus station’s moved to the park?
Well, the area's very short of parking space for container lorries...
especially at night.
Container lorry park on bus station site, Bernard.
Won't that mean widening this access road?
Yes, indeed.
We'll have to take away the western half of the swimming baths.
I'm afraid so.
These are just the local implications of a broad national policy.
Exactly, Minister.
Even so, I ought to write a paper to the Prime Minister personally.
He'd like to know the constituency implications.
As a loyal Cabinet member,
I owe that to the PM amongst other things!
Mind you, it would be awful if the press got hold of this.
With so many other boroughs threatened,
there'd be a national outcry.
Is there a danger of them getting hold of it?
They're very clever at getting hold of things.
- Especially if there are lots of copies. - Oh, dear!
I shall have to make copies for my Cabinet colleagues.
Their own constituencies will be affected in due course.
And if it were leaked, with so many copies,
no one would ever discover who leaked it.
It so happens I'm having lunch today
with Peter Maxwell of The Times.
Excellent!
Don't do anything I wouldn't do.
You can trust me, Minister!
I'm sure you've heard rumours, Peter,
of this integrated transport policy.
- That old chestnut coming up again? - Yes, but in an interesting form.
The policy may have unwelcome side effects.
Such as?
Job loss from integration of bus and rail terminals,
job loss from joint repair shops,
job loss from streamlining of buses and trains,
and reduction of services, causing job loss.
That's just for starters.
If this is being seriously proposed, It's quite a story.
- Even more interesting than you think. - How's that?
One of the areas to suffer most
Is the Prime Minister's own constituency.
Have you any hard facts?
Dear Peter, what a question!
Newspapers aren't like the government.
If we make statements, we have to prove them.
Got something in writing? There always is in the Civil Servlce.
Only a confidential note from my minister to the Prime Minister
and a similar note from my minister to all 22 of his Cabinet colleagues.
Oh, that's all right, then.
Will you show it to me or shall I get it from one of the others?
Peter, it’s a confidential document.
It would be grossly improper of me to betray it to anyone
- let alone a journalist. - Of course.
The only way you'd get hold of a copy
Is if someone were to leave it lying around by mistake.
I see.
Oh, well, back to the grindstone.
Well, nice to talk, Peter. Thank you for the lunch.
- Thank you. - Goodbye.
Oh, Humphrey, you are so careless!
Ah, Jim. Thanks for dropping in.
I thought I ought to tell you that the PM isn’t very pleased.
- Oh, not pleased? - Not pleased.
- This story in last Tuesday's Times. - Yes, terrible. I'm not pleased either.
- There's obviously been a leak. - Obviously.
- Can't even trust Cabinet colleagues. - What are you suggesting?
Well, it might not have been one of them.
I sent a copy of my paper here to No. 10.
You don't think there's a leak here, do you?
- The PM's office does not leak! - Of course not. Perish the thought!
It wasn’t just the leak that was disturbing.
It was the misleading Implications of the proposals.
No, not misleading. Have you read my paper?
Have you read mine?
This is the paper from the PM's constituency.
I believe it is.
"PM steps in to stop transport reorganisation proposals.
Rumours that services and jobs were threatened
in this constituency were scotched today.
Apparently the PM has given a firm direction
to Transport Supremo designate Jim Hacker."
- I haven't heard from the PM. - You have now!
I'm afraid this leak, wherever It comes from, is a verbatim report
of a confidential minute dictated by the PM in Ottawa.
So, the national transport policy will need some re-thinking!
It will be difficult.
The PM feels it’s the difficult jobs that the ministers are there for,
assuming they wish to remain as ministers.
Yes, well, of course.
- If it needs, er... - Rethinking.
Rethinking, then of course I shall rethink.
Good.
But how did this get into the PM's own local paper?
I don't know. But the PM's office does not leak.
Shocking, though, isn’t it? You can't trust anyone nowadays.
Back to square one. Well, that's all right.
It is not all right.
I'm still stuck with this ghastly job.
No, Minister, it is excellent news.
We now present our other kind of non-proposal.
- What other kind? - The high cost, high staff kind.
We now propose a British National Transport Authority
with a full structure, regional board, area council,
local office, liaison committee, the lot.
80,000 staff, billion-a-year budget.
The Treasury will have a fit!
The whole thing will go back to the Department of Transport.
Great. Could you do me a paper on this, Humphrey,
with full staff and costing details and a specimen annual budget?
There's a one-page summary on the front.
- Humphrey, you're marvellous. - it’s nothing, really.
I say, what if the press should get hold of this!
They'd have to have another leak enquiry.
Will they really set up an enquiry
- Bound to. - Won't that be embarrassing?
No, no, no. That's what leak enquires are for.
Setting up. They don't actually conduct them.
Members may be appointed, but they'll never meet,
and certainly never report.
How many leak enquires can you recall that named the culprit?
- In round figures. - If you want it in round figures...
- None. - They never report.
If the culprit is a civil servant, It'd be unfair to publish.
Politicians take the rap.
If it’s a politician, you can't publish
or he’ll disclose other leaks by his colleagues.
But chiefly they can't publish
because most leaks come from No. 10.
The ship of state, Bernard,
Is the only ship that leaks from the top.
So, if the problem is a leaky PM,
as in this case, the facts are difficult to get at
and impossible to publish if you do!
May I remind you, a gentleman from the press is waiting.
- Ah, yes. - I'll leave you, Minister.
- Oh, er, Humphrey... - Minister?
Have you got another copy of these new proposals?
Of course!
- There. - Because I'm awfully absent-minded.
I'm always leaving documents lying around...
forgetting where I've put them.
I do understand, Minister!
Another leak. This is extremely serious.
Yes, indeed.
This is almost approaching a disciplinary level.
- I so agree, don't you, Humphrey? - Indeed, Minister.
If only we could find the culprits.
It would be a most serious matter.
Perhaps I can help there.
I think that if I were to use my influence,
I could achieve a disclosure from The Times
of how they got hold of your original plan.
- Oh? - Really?
- I might be able to help there, too. - Indeed?
- Are you sure, Minister? - Oh, yes.
I'm confident I can find out where the press got the leak
about the PM's opposition to our plan.
If it transpired the leak came from the Prime Minister's own office
that'd be even more serious than a leak from a Cabinet Minister's office.
I mean, the security implications alone...
Perhaps we should call in the police or MI5.
MI5, good idea, Minister.
A leak from the Prime Minister's office Is very serious.
Nevertheless, our first priority must be to investigate the original leak.
Surely we should first investigate a possible leak from No. 10.
In all events, the inevitable public outcry after all these leaks
will make it awfully difficult for us to formulate
an integrated national transport policy in the DAA.
The time is unripe, the cellmate is unsuitable.
The atmosphere is unfavourable.
Our only avenues of approach are now blocked.
I wonder...
If it might not be wiser to take the whole matter
back to the Department of Transport?
- That, Arnold, is a brilliant idea. - I wish I'd thought of that.
- There remains the question of the leaks. - Indeed.
I feel we ought to treat this with the utmost gravity.
- I think I have a solution. - Indeed?
Will we recommend to the Prime Minister
that we set up an immediate leak enquiry
Yes, Minister!