The Complete Yes Prime Minister

THE TANGLED WEB

[The day after Hacker, Dorothy Wainwright and Sir Humphrey Appleby agreed to postpone democracy until the twenty-second century, Hacker answered questions in the House of Commons. This was a twice-weekly event: Prime Ministers Question Time. The Prime Minister was likely to be asked about almost anything at all, and was given no notice of the questions. To be more precise, the first question from an MP was likely to be: Will the Prime Minister list his official engagements for today? The supplementary question could be about absolutely anything: e.g. Will the Prime Minister find time to consider rising interest rates? Or Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the scandal of Agnes Moorhouse creating no-go areas for the police of the London Borough of Houndsworth? Or Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the scandal whereby 25% of the Honours go to less than 1% of the population, most of whom are in government?

The Prime Minister can react any a number of ways: honestly, dishonestly, with a mass of figures. He can counter-attack, flatter, or make jokes. The latter is the most dangerous and least recommended response.

Hacker, like all Prime Ministers, would prepare for Prime Ministers Question Time with great care. Bernard Woolley and the Parliamentary Questions Secretary -- a Principal from the Private Office -- would meet for a briefing from 2.30 to 3.10 p.m. in the Prime Ministers room at the House. They would be armed with a three-volume book which lists what each MP on the Order Paper has asked before, what are that MPs special interests, and -- most important -- what have been the previous answers.

The Prime Minister is obliged to give an answer to a question about policy. However, if the question demands a purely factual answer, the Prime Minister may be able to give a written reply.

The burden can be lightened by planting some of the questions. Questions come from alternate sides of the House, and a government backbencher hoping for preferment may well inform the Prime Minister of a potential question question -- "I always like to be of service, Prime Minister -- or even offer: What would you like me to ask, Prime Minister?

Furthermore, the mob of the Prime Ministers Parliamentary Private Secretary is to nobble an MP: The Prime Minister would like you to ask this question. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister can confidently expect two-thirds to three-quarters of questions to be hostile. And the most awkward questions of all frequently come from the government side -- from disappointed, disaffected and sour senior backbenchers who have either been overlooked or sacked from office.

Thus it is that, as a result of Prime Ministers Question Time, a tornado may suddenly appear in what has been a cloudless blue sky Ed.]

Prime Ministers Question Time from Hansard

Oral Answers, 15 November, pp. 727-728

Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the nature of the curriculum.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Tyler asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Hacker): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings today.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Prime Minister aware of the disgraceful shortage of prison officers caused by the Home Offices present policy?

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech I made in this House on 26 April last.

Q2. Sir Fred Broadhurst asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fred Broadhurst: Will the Prime Minister assure me that the Department of Employment does not periodically re-structure the base from which unemployment statistics are derived, without drawing public attention to the fact?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have found no significant evidence of it.

Q3. Mrs. Huxley asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Huxley: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Cabinet is unable to agree on the Department of Energys plans for the disposal of nuclear waste?

The Prime Minister: That is not so. My Cabinet took a unanimous decision. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]

Q4. Mr. Allgrove asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Allgrove: Will the Prime Minister find the time today to consider why, despite all the money spent on the new anti-missile missile, it was scrapped as obsolete the day before the first one came off the production line?

The Prime Minister: Our policy has not been as effective as wed hoped -- [Interruption.] -- as wed hoped, and clearly we got it wrong. [Laughter.]

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. George Hedley): So when will the Prime Minister request the resignation of the Minister responsible?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that I will ask for my right hon. Friends resignation when he makes a mistake that could have been seen at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Many Hon. Members rose and cheered --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order in their usual place.

Q5. Mr. Gill asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government is not and has not been tapping hon. Members telephones?

The Prime Minister: Much as I respect and value the opinion of this House, I must confess to having no desire to listen to the words of hon. Members for any longer than I actually have to. [Laughter.]

The Leader of the Opposition: Is the Prime Minister really saying that the hon. Member for Aintree (Mr. Halifax) has not had his phone -- [Interruption.] -- has not had his

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

Jim Hacker had been asked whether he had been tapping MPs telephones. He had given this excellent answer: Much as I respect and value the opinion of this House, I must confess to having no desire to listen to the words of honourable members for any longer than I actually have to, and he got a big laugh. [The MPs who laughed would have been largely from his own party, those hoping to be promoted or those afraid of being sacked. This amounts to virtually all of them Ed.]

But on our return to Number Ten later that afternoon Sir Humphrey buttonholed me in the narrow twisting corridor that led to the Cabinet Office. He asked me how our great statesman was that afternoon.

Very cheerful, I replied. He did very well at Question Time this afternoon.

Indeed? In whose opinion?

His, I said. In fact I was joking. Everyone had been really impressed with his answer on tapping MPs phones.

Everyone except Humphrey. Indeed, he seemed so very concerned that I began to fear that there was more to this than met the eye. He ticked me off for not warning him of the question -- as Cabinet Secretary, Humphrey co-ordinated all government security. I explained that it was an unforeseen supplementary, but he remarked disagreeably that it was a foreseeable unforeseen supplementary.

It was more than clear from Sir Humphreys demeanour and agitation that, although the Prime Minister denied that he ever authorised bugging an MPs phone, this answer was not the truth!

The idea of British Prime Minister deliberately lying to the House of Commons was deeply shocking to me. It was hard to believe. But Humphrey held a fat file under his arm, and informed me that it contained a mass of incriminating information -- including the transcripts.

Humphrey asked to see Hacker immediately. I wondered if we might not leave it a little longer, as the Prime Minister was basking in his success and didnt get many moments of unalloyed pleasure. But Humphrey took the view that Hacker got more pleasures than he deserved, and adamantly insisted on an immediate meeting.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

November 15th

I gave some brilliant answers in Question Time today. I was on absolutely top form. So I wasnt a bit surprised when Humphrey unexpectedly appeared in the Cabinet Room later that afternoon.

Prime Minister, I want to talk to you about Prime Ministers Question Time this afternoon.

Thank you, I said, with suitable and becoming modesty. I accept your congratulations. Wasnt I brilliant, Bernard?

Bernard replied without hesitation. I believe, Prime Minister, that your replies this afternoon will not be quickly forgotten.

Humphrey tried to speak but I wouldnt let him. From his manner I might have detected storm clouds on the horizon, but I didnt. Foolishly I insisted on recounting my triumphs. Let me tell you what happened, Humphrey, I crowed. The first question was about the Home Office cock-up over the shortage of prison officers. My reply was masterly. I refer the Honourable Member to the speech I made in this House on April the 26th.

Did he remember what youd said? Humphrey asked.

Course he didnt. Nor did I, come to that. But it was the perfect evasive blocking answer, and as he couldnt remember what I said any more than I could we went straight on to a question about unemployment and whether the Department of Employment fiddle the figures.

Bernard corrected me. You mean periodically re-structure the base from which the statistics are derived without drawing public attention to the fact?

Exactly, I repeated, fiddle the figures.

Humphrey, in spite of himself, was interested. Of course they do, he said.

I know that, I said. But I gave a great answer. I said that Id found no significant evidence of it.

Bernard said, Thats because you havent been looking.

And because we havent shown you, Humphrey added.

I know, Humphrey. Thank you. Well done. So then we went straight on to a googlie about the Department of Energys looming plans for the disposal of nuclear waste. The question was trying to get me to admit that the Cabinets divided.

It is! remarked Humphrey.

I know it is, I said. So I said, My Cabinet took a unanimous decision.

Humphrey smiled. Only because you threatened to dismiss anyone who wouldnt agree.

He was right, of course. But it certainly made them agree unanimously. Anyway, by this time my backbenchers were cheering my every word. Then there was a question about why, despite all that money weve spent on the new anti-missile missile, it was scrapped as obsolete the day before the first one came off the production line.

Humphrey was curious as to how I wiggled out of that one.

This was my master-stroke. I didnt! My reply was sheer genius. I simply said, Our policy has not been as effective as wed hoped, and clearly wed got it wrong.

Humphreys mouth fell open. He was profoundly shocked that Id made such an admission. But it was a brilliant answer. It took the wind right out of their sails. A completely honest answer always gives you the advantage of surprise in the House of Commons.

Bernard was enjoying it in retrospect too. There was actually a supplementary, Sir Humphrey. The Prime Minister was asked when he would request the resignation of the responsible Minister.

That one was too easy. A full toss. I hit it straight to the boundary. I will ask for his resignation when he makes a mistake that could have been seen at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight. My side of the House were on their feet, cheering, stamping, waving their order papers. It was a day to remember!

But unfortunately, it turned out to be a day to remember for other reasons too. Of course I should have detected that something was up from the way in which Sir Humphrey had slunk into the Cabinet Room. I had mistaken his funereal air of impending disaster for simple envy at my brilliance in handling the House so well without any assistance from him. But there was more to it than that.

I understand, he remarked casually, that there was a question about bugging an MP:

Stupid question, I said. Why should we bug Hugh Halifax? A PPS, a member of my own Administration, I cant think where he got such a daft idea. With hindsight I realised that this reply may sound foolish, but I had no reason at all to suspect the truth. Humphrey tried to interrupt me but I didnt listen. After all, how could I have known that I didnt know?

Can you imagine? I said, brushing Humphrey aside, metaphorically that is. Why should we want to listen in on an MP? Boring, ignorant, self-opinionated windbags, I do my best not to listen to them. And Hughs only a PPS, I mean, I have enough trouble finding out whats going on at the Ministry of Defence, what could he know? Its my idea of Hell. Thats how God will punish me if Ive led a wicked life -- he'll make me sit and listen to tapes of MPs talking.

I must admit I was pretty pleased with myself. Humphrey was not amused. So I gather you denied that Mr Halifax has been bugged?

Yes, I said. It was the one question today to which I could give a simple, clear, straightforward, honest answer.

At which point Humphrey ranted for some considerable while. And I simply couldnt understand him, try as I might.

Fortunately, Sir Humphrey made a note of his comments in his private diary that very day Ed.]

I explained to the Prime Minister that unfortunately, although the answer was indeed simple, clear and straightforward, there was some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets he had applied to the statement [honest Ed.] inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information he had communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be requested to bear.

[Appleby Papers TK/3787/SW]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

I realised that he was wrapping up whatever he was trying to say in the hope that it would be less hurtful or embarrassing or something. But I had to ask for a translation.

He nerved himself up for his reply. He looked at the floor, the ceiling, out of the window -- and finally his eyes met mine. You told a lie, he said.

I couldnt believe my ears. A lie?

A lie, he repeated.

What do you mean, a lie? I simply couldnt understand what he could be referring to.

I mean, Prime Minister he hesitated, apparently searching for a way to explain himself, you lied!

I didnt know what he was talking about. I stared at him blankly. He tried again. Uh I know that this is a difficult concept to get across to a politician, but you did not tell the truth.

Could he mean, I asked myself, that we are bugging Hugh Halifax? I didnt know the answer, so I asked him.

He nodded. We were.

We were? I was appalled. When did we stop?

Humphrey glanced at his wristwatch. Seventeen minutes ago.

I was hurt, and upset that my integrity had been impugned in this manner. You cant call that lying, I complained.

I see. Humphrey inclined his head to one side and stared at me hopefully, like a Bearded Collie that is eager to learn. What would you call the opposite of telling the truth?

There was no intent. I didnt mean to deceive them. I would never knowingly mislead the House.

[Hacker, in his state of outraged innocence, had clearly forgotten that he had proudly admitted to misleading the House several times that day. Nonetheless, it is almost certainly true that he would never intentionally have lied to the House, for fear of the consequences. Indeed, for reasons that are quite unclear to the historian, lying appears to be the one offence that the House does not forgive, trivial though it is in comparison to the many great calamities that our politicians inflict upon us Ed.]

Nonetheless, said Humphrey, you did tell them an untruth.

But its not my fault! He couldnt seem to understand. I didnt know he was being bugged.

Bernard coughed quietly to attract my attention. Prime Minister, he explained sympathetically, its not enough to say you didnt know. You are deemed to have known. You are ultimately responsible.

Now I was getting angry. So why the hell wasnt I told?

Bernard looked at Humphrey. They were both pretty embarrassed. The Home Secretary, mumbled Humphrey, might not have felt the need to inform you.

Why?

Perhaps because he was advised that you didnt need to know.

This is ludicrous. But I did need to know, I pointed out.

At this point Bernard took refuge in Civil Service gibberish. Hes spending too much time with Humphrey. I havent the foggiest notion of what he was trying to say.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

I recall what I said only too well. Briefly I explained that the fact that Hacker needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known and therefore those who needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether or not to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not at this time known. Or needed.

I should have thought that my explanation was crystal clear but, alas! Not to Hacker. Perhaps he couldnt assimilate what I was saying because he was in such a blue funk.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

I needed a translation. I turned to Humphrey, of all people! He provided it.

Perhaps the Home Secretary didnt know either. And we assumed that, if you were asked a question in the House, you would stall, or youd say you had no knowledge, or that you would look into it. We didnt know, we couldnt possibly have known, Prime Minister, that you would take the novel step of actually answering a question.

I could see his point. But Id evaded and stalled on the previous four questions. I had to give a straight answer to this one. And this seemed safe.

Humphrey was sympathetic. Yes, but we couldnt know youd answer it. And that in the House you would actually deny all bugging.

Obviously I would, if I didnt know and I were asked.

Humphrey said: We didnt know you would be asked when you didnt know.

An idiotic argument. I explained that I was bound to be asked when I didnt know if I didnt know. But he didnt seem to understand. Sometimes old Humphreys a bit slow-witted. Its lucky hes not in politics.

Humphrey continued trying to justify his totally unjustifiable position. And in an impatient tone that I did not altogether care for. Prime Minister, it was thought it was better for you not to know. Mr Halifax is a member of your government team and as such it was felt that it might be better not to create distrust. We only tell you if you should be aware.

Whens that? I asked.

Well you should now be aware because youve just denied it.

It would have been somewhat better if Id been aware before I denied it.

Humphrey didnt see it that way. On the contrary, if youd been aware before you denied it, you wouldnt have denied it!

But, I exclaimed passionately, I needed to know!

That is not the criterion. Humphrey was stubbornly insistent that he was right. We dont tell you about bugging when you need to know, we only tell you when you know you need to know.

Or when you need to know that you need to know, said Bernard.

Or when we know that you need to know, said Humphrey.

You see, added Bernard helpfully, at times it is needed for you to need not to know.

Thats enough! I shouted. Startled, they fell silent at once, staring at me, puzzled. Why? I shouted at Humphrey. Why did you decide that I shouldnt know?

I didnt, he said, sounding rather offended.

I was baffled. Then who did?

Nobody.

I was getting desperate. Then why didnt I know?

Because nobody decided to tell you, Humphrey said.

Thats the same thing, dammit!

Humphrey had now resorted to his icy-calm-Im-dealing-with-a-dangerous-lunatic voice. No, Prime Minister, its not. To decide to conceal information from you is a serious burden for any official to shoulder, but to decide not to reveal information to you is routine procedure.

I told Humphrey that I wanted to know everything.

Everything, Prime Minister?

Everything!

Very well. He consulted one of his files. Stationery deliveries this week to the Cabinet Office comprise four gross packets of size two paperclips, 600 reams of A4 cut bank typing paper, nine dozen felt-tipped

He was being silly. Important things! I snarled.

So who should decide what is important? he asked with deceptive innocence.

I should, I said, and then realised that I was about to be given a list of stationery supplies again. No, you should, I said, and then realised the pitfalls there. There seemed to be no answer. Angrily, I asked him to tell me, very simply, how he could possibly excuse this cock-up.

As you said in the House, he replied smoothly, clearly we got it wrong.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but this was flattery that I could do without. I got it wrong is an inadequate excuse for dropping the Prime Minister in the shit.

I am merely a humble servant, continued the least humble servant whom Ive ever encountered. A lowly official. It was the Home Secretarys decision.

Was it indeed? I might have guessed. Hes never liked me. Can you think of any reason why I shouldnt ask him to resign?

Impudently he replied, With respect, Prime Minister, perhaps you should not ask him to resign until he makes a mistake that could have been seen at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight. Besides, the trouble today has arisen as a result of your own error of judgement in making this denial.

I was shocked by his brazen impertinence. What? I said. I was literally speechless. [We refrain from further comment Ed.]

You should not have denied something about which you were not informed, he lectured me self-righteously.

I couldnt believe my ears. But its your fault! I shouted. Youve just admitted keeping secrets from the Prime Minister.

Now he was indignant. Not at all. The system works perfectly well as long as the Prime Minister tells the Civil Service anything he intends to say before he says it. But if precipitately he says something without first clearing it with his officials he only has himself to blame. You should never say anything in public without clearing it. With respect, Prime Minister, you must learn discretion.

Ive never heard such an incredibly circular argument. But I didnt know, Humphrey, that there was anything to be discreet about!

In government, Prime Minister, there is always something to be discreet about.

A new question suddenly occurred to me. I cant think why I never thought of it before. But Humphrey why were we bugging Hugh Halifax? Was he talking to the Russian Embassy?

No, said Humphrey. The French Embassy. Which is much more serious.

Why?

The Russians already know what were doing, said Bernard.

But the French are our allies, whatever we think of them -- and who doesnt!

[It is well for the readers to remember that the Foreign Office has three national groups that it loves:

a) The Arabs

b) The Germans

c) The Americans

And three nationalities that it hates:

a) The Russians

b) The Israelis

c) The French

It hates the French most of all. This is why talking directly to the French is regarded as prima facie an act of treason by the FO. This also explains why the Suez invasion was such a diplomatic trauma for the Foreign Office: the cabinet sided with the French and Israelis against the Arabs and Americans Ed.]

Who authorised it? I asked. Which officials authorised this bugging?

The Foreign Office. I just said! He hadnt just said! And Id never realised they had the power to authorise buggings. I suppose they can, since they control MI6, but they cant officially authorise surveillance since MI6 does not officially exist. I suppose Foreign Office official officials unofficially authorised MI6s unofficial officials.

Humphrey wanted to bring the discussion to a close. Prime Minister, the less said the better, wouldnt you agree?

I was confused. About what?

About everything.

[Sir Humphreys wish to say no more about the Hugh Halifax bugging was not to be fulfilled. Shortly afterwards he received a letter from a House of Commons committee, asking him to appear before it to discuss the matter. Sir Humphrey sent the letter to Jim Hacker, with a note asking for Hackers advice on how to handle it. Hacker sent the following reply, which was released under the Thirty Year Rule Ed.]

10 Downing Street

The Prime Minister

November 21

Dear Humphrey,

You can hardly refuse to appear before a Committee of the House. And obviously you must tell them everything that you must tell them. [Sir Humphrey would understand this to mean everything that the Committee could find out from some other source Ed.] Im sure you will find something appropriate to say.

Yours truly

Jim

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

Sir Humphrey called me into his office and showed me the Prime Ministers letter. Of course it offered no answer. Sir Humphrey was concerned with how a loyal public servant should reply if the Committee were to ask him if the Prime Minister had ever authorised the tapping of an MPs telephone. And it was highly likely that the question would indeed be asked.

I suggested that he say it was not a question for him, but for the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the Foreign Office.

Or the British Telecom Service Engineers Department? he enquired sardonically.

Clearly I had not given him the answer he wished to hear. So I suggested the usual safety-net catch-all reply: that its a security matter, and therefore Im not at liberty to divulge, confirm or deny, et cetera.

Humphrey sighed. Bernard, do you think I am unaware of these options?

Naturally he was aware of them. But he explained that it was a trap: if he dodged the question about the Prime Minister authorizing telephone tapping, the follow-up question was bound to be Why will you not give the same clear denial that the Prime Minister gave the House yesterday? To which there was no safe answer.

I made a suggestion to Humphrey: You could say that the Prime Minister knows more about it than you do.

Then theyd know I was lying, said Humphrey. This was unarguable.

Im ashamed to admit that, in my eagerness to help, I even suggested that Humphrey simply deny the accusation. Like Hacker had done.

Humphrey, to his credit, was rather shocked. You mean lie?

No one can prove its a lie, I said.

Humphrey appeared to be very disappointed in me. So anything is true, so long as one cannot disprove it? Youre talking like a politician, Bernard.

Indeed I was. And I must tell you that if Humphrey had been sure that his statement could not have been disproved, he too would have talked like a politician and denied that the phone had been tapped. My suggestion was bad not because it was misleading but because it was dangerous.

Still, after that reproof from on high I felt disinclined to offer any further suggestions.

At that uncomfortable moment the phone rang. It was the BBC. But it wasnt about the phone tapping. Of all things, they wanted to interview old Humphrey for a Radio 3 documentary on the structure of government. He seemed quite ridiculously pleased. He wanted to accept! Now it was my turn to be shocked. A Civil Servant giving a public interview? How could he? And he seemed to have no qualms.

I felt obliged to remind him of the risk. They might want you to say things.

Thats quite normal on radio. A facetious, evasive and misleading reply. He knew that it was against all the traditions of the Service to speak on the radio. For a start, one might make a slip and find oneself saying something interesting. Or even controversial.

But times were changing. Civil Servants were beginning to come out of the closet (is that the phrase?). He claimed that he had an obligation to do it because of his duty to put the record straight. I, for my part, was not aware that the record was crooked.

Its not for oneself! He was protesting too much, methinks! I have no inclination to become a celebrity. Thats just petty vanity. But one can be too self-effacing.

I didnt see how. I told him that my understanding of the Civil Service was that we were supposed to be faceless.

They dont show your face on radio.

I was tiring of this self-serving, dishonest claptrap. I could well see how he would fall for such a dangerously seductive offer as a discussion programme on Radio 3, but I really did feel he ought to know better. Anonymity, I reminded him. Service. Discretion.

Embarrassed, he poured himself a glass of Tio Pepe [It must have been after 6.00 pm Ed.]. Bernard, they said that if I couldnt do it, Arnold [Sir Arnold Robinson, Sir Humphreys predecessor as Secretary of the Cabinet Ed.] has said that he would.

Perhaps that would be better, I said. Humphreys eyebrows shot up. But I wasnt being rude. Its just that Sir Arnold was retired, and could therefore not reveal anything much any more, certainly not about current events. Furthermore, he was now President of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and fully committed to opening up government -- so long as it was in the national interest!

Humphrey had never got over his jealousy of Arnold, and he yearned for public recognition. But he would rather die than admit it. Ill never forget his lame excuse: For myself, Bernard, Id rather not do this interview, of course. But I think ones sense of duty compels one to ensure that Arnold is not held up as an example of a top Civil Servant.

I pointed out to Humphrey that he would need the Prime Ministers permission. He was momentarily concerned about this. But I took pleasure in adding that in my view thered be no problem with the Prime Minister because, as it was for Radio 3, no one would be listening anyway.

[It must have been very galling for Permanent Secretaries at this period of British history. A meritocracy of brilliant men who occupied forty-two of the most powerful jobs in the country, although highly paid and festooned with honours, were nonetheless deeply deserving of sympathy -- for by tradition and to their own advantage, they were virtually unknown. To most British people a Permanent Secretary was the opposite of a temp, at best a senior clerical assistant. This is perhaps the reason that Sir Humphrey was quite unable to resist the invitation to speak on the radio, a boost that his ego undoubtedly needed Ed.]

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

November 26th

Humphrey popped in to see me this morning, looking incredibly tense and nervy. At first I thought some new crisis was about to hit me, but then I remembered it was the day of his radio interview.

I told him not to worry, and he pompously denied that he was anxious. I have some experience in dealing with difficult questions.

Yes, I agreed, but if youre too evasive or confusing on radio they just edit you out. You actually have to say something.

He looked blank. Say something? He didnt understand.

Something simple and interesting, I explained.

His hand started shaking. Simple and interesting, he repeated, then licked his dry lips. Well er, if you have any advice especially if the questions are aggressive.

I explained that dealing with an aggressive question is like dealing with fast bowling -- unless its deadly accurate you can use its own momentum to help you score. The more aggressive the questions are, the better. Theyll put the listeners on your side.

But nonetheless I may have to answer them.

Why? I asked. Youve never answered my questions.

Thats different, Prime Minister, he replied. I may be asked some perceptive questions.

I glared at him. Humphrey, I asked rhetorically, why are you doing this interview? To explain the Civil Service point of view, presumably. So you must do what I do -- go in with something to say, and say it. Simply ask yourself whatever question you want to reply to.

Fearlessly and honestly, agreed Bernard encouragingly, who had clearly taken to heart the lessons Id given him a few months ago.

Oh, I continued, if you want more control you say, Thats really two separate questions. Then, fearlessly and honestly, ask yourself two questions you want to answer, and answer them.

Humphrey dried his wet palms on his handkerchief. Their researcher mentioned that a lot of people want to know about why so much power is centralised in my hands.

A lot of people? I tried not to smile. Most people have never heard of you, Humphrey.

He didnt look awfully encouraged by that insight.

Perhaps they mean a lot of Radio 3 listeners, Bernard wondered.

Thats a contradiction in terms, I said amiably. But if they do ask that question, what should he reply, Bernard?

Name six of them, answered Bernard promptly. Hes a good student.

Thats right, I said. Because then youve got him. Hell never think of more than two, see?

Humphrey smiled for the first time. I see, Prime Minister. Bernard, how did you know that?

Bernard said, The Prime Minister taught me a few tricks of the trade after my unfortunate talk with those reporters last August -- the time I inadvertently said that when it came to official secrets the Prime Minister was above the law.

I see. He turned to me. Any other tricks, Prime Minister?

I turned to Bernard. Yes, he said. Attack one word in the question. You know: Frequently? What do you mean, frequently? Or you can attack the interviewer: You obviously havent read the White Paper. Or you can ask a question back: Thats a very good question. Now let me ask you one: when did you last visit a decentralised government department, such as the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea? And if youre desperate you can always use security as an excuse for not answering.

Well done, Bernard! I congratulated him. Youll go far.

But something else had just come to Humphreys mind. That reminds me, Prime Minister -- I'm afraid that I must appear soon before the Committee to answer questions on the alleged bugging of Hugh Halifax MP.

I knew that. Bernard had already told me. Youll just have to confirm what I said in the House.

He feigned incomprehension. But that would be lying.

I shrugged. No one would know.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave Hes so mealy-mouthed!

Come off it Humphrey, I snapped.

He had assumed his butter-wouldnt-melt-in-my-mouth choirboy face. Im sorry, Prime Minister, I cannot tell a lie.

I couldnt believe that he would do this to me. But Humphrey! I found to my horror that I was pleading with him! If you dont, it will look as if I was lying.

He pursed his lips and remained silent. Clearly he didnt feel that was his problem. I lost my temper. Humphrey! I thundered. You have a loyalty!

To the truth, he agreed primly.

I was up from my chair now, pacing up and down the full length of the Cabinet Room. But I was lost for words. But you cant just go in there and shop me in front of all the press and the Opposition. When it wasnt even my fault. You must back me up. You must!

He refused to meet my eye. You make it very hard for me, Prime Minister, was his totally unsatisfactory response.

Humphrey, I said firmly, I am ordering you to confirm what I said in the House.

He stared at me insolently. Very well, Prime Minister, I will tell them that you have ordered me to confirm it.

That was hardly what I meant! Humphrey, I order you not to tell them I ordered you.

He was implacable. Then I shall have to tell them you have ordered me not to tell them you ordered me.

I glowered at him. I was bloody furious. He was icy and superior as only he can be. Im sorry, Prime Minister, I cannot become involved in some shabby cover-up.

Treacherous, disloyal bastard.

[Sir Humphrey drove from Number 10 Downing Street directly to Broadcasting House, where he gave his first-ever radio interview. Only one copy of the recording now exists, not at the BBC itself but in Sir Humphrey Applebys own private archive. With the kind permission of Lady Appleby, his widow, we gained access to the strongroom of the Midland Bank in Haslemere, and we made a transcript of the recording, the relevant portion of which we print below Ed.]

Sir Humphrey: Whereas there must inevitably be some element of shared responsibility for the governance of Britain as between the legislators on the one hand and the administrators on the other, the precise allocation of cause to consequence, or agency to eventuality, in any particular instance is invariably so complex as to be ultimately invalid, if not irresponsible.

[It seems that Sir Humphrey was not able to keep his answers either simple or interesting, as Hacker had correctly advised him Ed.]

Interviewer: Yes. If I could press you for a more precise answer or a concrete example, how much blame can the Civil Service take for the present level of unemployment?

Sir Humphrey: Well, of course, unemployment is a single name applied by the media to what is in effect a wide range of socio-economic phenomena whose most political viable manifestation happens to be

Interviewer (interrupting): But to be precise, how much blame

Sir Humphrey: One moment. Happens to be a current frequency of weekly registrations on the national unemployment register which is deemed to be above what has historically been held to be an acceptable level. But even separating out the component causes, let alone allocating the responsibility for them, is a task of such analytical delicacy as not to be susceptible of compression within the narrow confines of a popular radio programme such as this.

[Sir Humphrey Applebys notion that a Radio 3 talks programme was popular suggests a very slight acquaintance with the listening figures. Alternatively, Sir Humphrey may have used the word popular to suggest that it was heard by those outside the top ranks of the Civil Service. One wonders, if that was a popular programme, what an unpopular programme would have been like Ed.]

Interviewer: Sir Humphrey Appleby, thank you very much.

[At this point, when the interview apparently ended, it is possible to hear the bored but polite voice of the Producer Ed.]

Producer (over studio intercom): Thank you very much, Sir Humphrey. Absolutely splendid.

[And now the conversation continues, the tape still running even after the interview is finished Ed.]

Sir Humphrey: Was that all right?

Interviewer: Couldnt you have said a little more? At least about unemployment?

Sir Humphrey: Such as?

Interviewer: Well, the truth.

Sir Humphrey laughs.

Interviewer: Why do you laugh?

Sir Humphrey: My dear chap, no one tells the truth about unemployment.

Interviewer: Why not?

Sir Humphrey: Because everyone knows you could halve it in a few weeks.

Interviewer: How?

Sir Humphrey: Cut off all social security to any claimant who refused two job offers. There is genuine unemployment in the north, but the south of England is awash with layabouts, many of them graduates, living off the dole and housing benefit plus quite a lot of cash they pick up without telling anyone.

Interviewer: You mean moonlighting.

Sir Humphrey: Well, its cheating really. Theyd need to earn nearly 200 a week to be better off working full time. But there are thousands upon thousands of unfilled vacancies and most employers tell you theyre short-staffed. Offer the unemployed a street-sweeping job and a dish-washing job, and theyd be off the register before you can say parasite. Frankly, this country can have as much unemployment as its prepared to pay for in social security. And no politicians have the guts to do anything about it.

Interviewer: I wish youd said that before.

Sir Humphrey: Im sure you do.

[The tape ends at this point. Sir Bernard Wooley recalls the tapes progress Ed.]

The following day Sir Humphrey had asked me to obtain a cassette player, so that he could listen to a cassette that the BBC had sent to him. He was rather excited, because he felt that he had given a thought-provoking, dynamic and thoroughly exciting interview, albeit couched in his usual low-key language.

I had borrowed a ghettoblaster from one of the Garden Room Girls [the upper-crust members of the typing pool in the basement of Number Ten Ed.]. Sir Humphrey had not heard the word ghettoblaster, and enquired if it was used in the demolition industry. How true -- the demolition of hearing!

There had been a note attached to the cassette. [We reproduce it below Ed.]

BBC Radio 4

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Cabinet Office

70 Whitehall

London SW1November 27th

Dear Sir Humphrey,

Here is a copy of the off-the-record part of your radio interview. We found it particularly interesting. I will contact you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Crawford James

(Producer, Talks)

The letter struck me as suspicious, for several reasons. First, it seemed to be less than straightforward. What could he mean by particularly interesting? Secondly, I have always had an instinctive distrust of people whose Christian names and surnames are reversible. But when I expressed surprise that his interview could be described as interesting, Sir Humphrey took umbrage -- though I dont know why, because his stated intention had been to say nothing, as always.

I had doubted his ability to say nothing on the radio, and the letter had prepared me for a surprise. But not for a surprise of the magnitude that I then encountered. For we switched on the ghettoblaster and I heard a voice that sounded horribly like Humphreys saying, My dear chap, no one tells the truth about unemployment.

Why not? came the question.

Because, said Humphreys voice, everyone knows you could halve it in a few weeks.

I looked at Humphrey in horror. He looked at me, poleaxed.

How? continued the implacable tape recording.

Cut off all social security to any claimant who refused two job offers.

Humphrey lunged at the ghettoblaster. I think he was trying to switch it off but he pressed fast forward by mistake. His voice mickey-moused forward at high speed until he let go of the switch -- at which point we heard the fatal words: And no politicians have the guts to do anything about it.

I leaned forward and switched it off myself. We gazed at each other for a long time, in total silence. For the first time I was aware of the distant hum of traffic on the Mall.

Finally I spoke. I had to be sure. Sir Humphrey, I asked quietly, that was you, wasnt it?

Yes, Bernard.

Not Mike Yarwood? [A well-known impressionist of the 1980s Ed.]

A faint ray of hope crossed his haggard visage. Do you think I could say it was?

I shook my head gloomily. No, they could prove it was you, I said. I could hardly believe that he had said those things. I asked if there was more. He nodded mutely.

As damaging as we just heard?

He nodded again. He seemed unable to speak. But I waited patiently and eventually he croaked, with the voice of a broken man: More damaging. I believe I referred to parasites.

I was incredulous. I asked him how he could have been so indiscreet. He explained pathetically that the interview was over -- so he thought! -- and that they were just chatting harmlessly. Harmlessly!

It was off the record, he said.

Maybe -- but its on the tape, I remarked.

Suddenly, uttering an anguished cry of My God!, Humphrey smote his forehead and leapt to his feet. Oh my God, oh my God! he moaned desperately. Ive just realised. Its blackmail! And he grasped the letter and shoved it into my hand.

I re-read the ominous document. It certainly looked like blackmail. My suspicions appeared to have been well-founded.

Humphrey stared at me, hollow-eyed, his tie crooked, his hair -- usually so immaculately brushed and neatly parted -- standing up on end as if he had been awoken at 3.41 am by the ghost of Stanley Baldwin.

What do they want of me? he moaned.

I pondered the question carefully. What did the BBC want of Humphrey? What did it want of anyone? This was one of the abiding mysteries of the twentieth century, not to be solved at such short notice by such a one as I.

I tried to think politically, always difficult for someone like myself who has spent a lifetime in the Civil Service. Perhaps, I wondered, The BBC wanted the licence up fifty per cent? Or maybe it was a private blackmail by the Producer/Talks, to ensure that the Producer didnt talk.

Humphrey was crumbling before my eyes. A piteous sight. He sank into a Chippendale armchair an leaned forward, his head in his hands. Doesnt he know Im a poor man? he cried.

I wondered. It occurred to me that the Producer/talks may not have read that Sir Humphrey lived n Haslemere in abject poverty on seventy-five thousand a year.

Whatll I do? Sir Humphrey, wide-eyed and terrified, was staring ruin in the face.

Keep your mouth shut in future, I advised him.

I mean now! he snapped, staring me in the face instead.

I didnt see what he could do, except wait and hope. Wait to see what they demanded. Hope that they hadnt yet distributed cassettes to every national newspaper. I had private visions and horrid imaginings of horrific headlines. CABINET SECRETARY CALLS UNEMPLOYED PARASITES, or GOVERNMENT HAS NO GUTS, SAYS SIR HUMPHREY.

I shared my visions with him. He sat there, stunned, begging me not to breathe a word about it to anyone.

I was perfectly willing not to spread it around Whitehall generally, even though I could have dined out on it for months. But Humphreys anyone appeared to include the Prime Minister, and I was forced to point out that my duty to him was paramount.

Humphrey tried to regain his authority. He stood up, and faced me squarely. Bernard, I am ordering you!

Very good, Sir Humphrey, I replied. I shall tell him that you have ordered me not to tell him.

Hoist by his own petard, he acknowledged defeat, sat down, leaned back and asked the ceiling what he was going to do.

Although he did not appear to be addressing me, hesitantly I offered the only suggestion that I could think of: that he put out a press statement expressing sympathy for the unemployed. After all, he was likely to be joining them at any minute.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

November 28th

I was sitting in the Cabinet Room, all alone, thinking, when Bernard interrupted me.

I asked him what he wanted.

Excuse me a moment, Prime Minister, but as you dont appear to be doing anything I wondered if I might have a word.

I gave him an unwelcome stare. As a matter of fact, I replied curtly, I am busy. Im wondering whether to tell the Cabinet about this bugging business. Do I tell them what I told the House, or do I tell them the truth?

Bernard did not hesitate. Prime Minister, may I venture to suggest that perhaps you should behave to the Cabinet as you would expect them to behave to you?

Youre absolutely right, I told Bernard. Ill tell them what I told the House.

I returned to the mass of papers on the table and was just starting to read an eighty-page briefing about possible replacements for the anti-missile missile when I heard Bernard cough. He was still there, obviously wanting to get something off his chest.

Whats the matter now, Bernard?

Yes, there is a matter, that you need to know.

Suddenly I was on the alert. Need to know?

I didnt quite gather what he said next. Why is it that both Bernard and Humphrey are pathologically incapable of making themselves clear whenever were talking about need to know matters? They seem bent on telling me things in such a way that they havent actually told me at all.

SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:

I was certainly not intending to be oblique in my speech, though I was fairly highly strung. I have looked up my own diaries. All I said was that Hacker needed to know, particularly because Sir Humphrey had particularly asked me to be discreet about the particulars of this particular matter. I reminded Hacker that he [Hacker] knew that Humphrey was very particular, particularly about what Hacker needed to know and what Humphrey needed Hacker to know, which he thought he didnt. Need Hacker to know, that is.

I should have thought that was perfectly clear.

[Hackers diary continues Ed.]

It appeared that my Private Secretary was talking about Sir Humphreys radio broadcast. Was it boring?

Initially, yes, said Bernard. But then it livened p immensely as he became more and more indiscreet.

I could hardly believe my ears. Humphrey? Indiscreet? On the air?

Well, he thought the broadcast was over, so he was just chatting. Unofficially. But the tape was still running.

I began to have a sinking feeling in my stomach. And my heart was literally in my mouth. [If so, Hacker had a uniquely mobile anatomy Ed.] He fell for that old dodge?

Bernard nodded.

You always treat an open microphone as a live one. Doesnt he know that?

Bernard tried to defend him. I dont think hes done a lot of broadcasting, Minister.

It sounds as if hes done too much, I complained. Have you heard the tape?

A copy, yes.

What did he say?

Something about it being possible to halve unemployment tomorrow, only the government hasnt got the guts.

I was so horrified that I wasnt even angry. I just sat and stared.

Bernard tried to explain. He didnt know it was being recorded.

The hideous implications were racing through my head. If the BBC kept the original, which Bernard seemed to believe as theyd sent Humphrey a copy, it meant that the story would be all over the papers tomorrow. Yet Bernard didnt seem at all concerned. He simply remarked that Humphrey had not given much thought to the newspapers -- yet. He was more worried about the blackmail threat.

Blackmail threat? This was news to me.

There was an accompanying letter, saying the sender would be in touch shortly. They sent the cassette to Sir Humphrey -- which means they have kept the original reel-to-reel tape.

I had visions of private pirate copies all over Broadcasting House by tomorrow. Bernard! I said decisively, you must do something.

Actually, Prime Minister, Ive done it already.

I was not wholly surprised. He was so calm that Id known that he had it under control somehow.

I was at Oxford with the producer. When I rang the BBC he reminded me of this. I had not remembered him at all, but it appears that we had mutual friends and he had vivid memories of one of my speeches at the Union -- I spoke eloquently in favour of the status quo one night. Apparently he was the unobtrusive little chap who used to record the debates. Anyway, it transpires that he never had the slightest intention of releasing the tape. So I got him to give it to me.

Whereupon Bernard produced a spool of tape from his pocket.

Is that the original? Bernard nodded. There are no other copies? He nodded again. And does Humphrey know youve got it? Bernard shook his head. A slow smile of deep content spread across my face. And Bernards.

Shall I tell him? he asked innocently.

Why? I enquired.

I think Bernard was stepping carefully that hed like to know.

Im sure he would, I countered. But does he need to know?

Ah, replied Bernard. There was a gleam in his eye. He thought for a moment. Then he said -- and I know because I got him to repeat it -- "You mean somebody needs to know, but if you now know then Sir Humphrey doesnt need to know and you need to know Sir Humphrey doesnt know, and he doesnt need to know you know or that you know he doesnt need to know?

I stared at Bernard, marvelling at the uselessness of an education in logic. I couldnt have put it less clearly myself, I said.

Bernard asked me if Id like to hear the tape. Of course I was dying to -- but then I got a great idea. I think it deserves a wider audience, dont you? I think Humphrey should hear it too. Ask him to join us, would you, Bernard?

He didnt need to be asked twice. He hurried to the phone. Tell Sir Humphrey the Prime Minister wants him straight away!

He hung up and scurried out of the room gleefully to fetch the tape-recorder. On his return, as he threaded the tape from reel to reel, he reminded me that he had told me all this in confidence. It was unnecessary -- I always respect confidences.

By now he was grinning from ear to ear. I tried to arrange my face into a solemn expression and told Bernard that this was a very serious matter.

Yes Prime Minister, he said, the corners of his mouth twitching.

There was a knock. Humphreys head appeared round the door. You sent for me, Prime Minister?

Ah yes. Come in, Humphrey, come in. How did the broadcast go?

Hes not a bad liar. Very well. Very well.

Good, good, I murmured amiably. Do you remember what you said?

Sir Humphrey appeared to have only the vaguest recollections. Oh, nothing in particular, he drawled. I think I pointed out some of the difficulties in allocating responsibilities as between politicians and civil servants.

But were you discreet?

He cleared his throat. Why do you ask?

Were you or werent you?

A slight pause. Yes.

Yes you were or yes you werent?

Yes.

Humphrey!

He challenged me. Wouldnt you expect me to be discreet?

Yes, I would, I said.

There you are then, he retorted, neatly begging the question.

I see, I said. Then thats all right. And I treated him to one of my piercing stares.

He wriggled about in his chair, crossed his legs, uncrossed them, and cleared his throat again. Why do you ask, Prime Minister? His voice sounded higher-pitched than usual.

Because the BBC has just sent me a tape. He flinched. I showed him the tape-recorder, set up on the table near the door. He hadnt seen in when he came in.

He swallowed. A tape? What tape?

I pretended unconcern. Just a tape, Humphrey. Of you. I thought it might be fun for us to listen to your broadcast together. And I walked towards the tape-recorder.

No. He stood up. No. No.

I turned, as if surprised. Why not?

It it wasnt at all interesting.

I chuckled. Humphrey, you carry modesty and self-effacement too far. Not interesting? The Cabinet Secretary talking to the nation about government?

His eyes were shifty. Well, not very interesting.

You mean, I suggested, that you were too discreet?

He was silent. He knew I knew. And I knew he knew I knew. And Bernard knew I knew he knew I knew. [Hacker was spending too much time with Bernard Woolley Ed.] I switched on the tape.

I must say that even I was unprepared for the astounding remarks I heard. Sir Humphrey saying that no one tells the truth, that unemployment could be halved in a few weeks, talk of layabouts, moonlighting, and parasites.

I switched off the tape. And I stared at him in silence.

Never have I seen a more woebegone figure than the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Home Civil Service. He stared at me, unable -- apparently -- even to excuse himself. So I just waited. And finally he blurted out: Prime Minister, Im terribly sorry. I had no idea, they didnt tell me. You see, wed finished the broadcast and

I held up my hand for silence. Humphrey! The irresponsibility! Is there any more?

No, said Humphrey.

Yes, said Bernard.

I said, Wed better hear it.

No, said Humphrey.

Bernard restarted the tape. Frankly, said Humphreys cheerful, complacent voice, this country can have as much unemployment as its prepared to pay for in social security. And no politicians have the guts to do anything about it.

The tape stopped. Silence reigned supreme. I couldnt believe that Humphrey had been foolish enough to talk like that in public, even though I knew that it would never be broadcast.

How could you say that? I asked finally.

I I it was Mike Yarwood, he explained in a strangled voice.

Was it? I asked.

No, said Bernard.

I wandered from the table over to the window. The afternoon November sky was black and heavy with rain. I really dont know how to handle this, I mused. I shall have to take advice.

Advice? whispered Sir Humphrey.

Yes, I said, turning the knife in the wound. I think Id better play it to the Cabinet. Get their reaction.

He seemed on the verge of falling to his knees. But Oh please was all he could say.

Or the Privy Council, I suggested.

Oh please, he begged.

Or Her Majesty, I said lightly.

Oh God! he groaned, and collapsed into a chair again.

I walked across the room and stood over him. Suppose this were to get into the papers? How much damage do you think it would do me? And the government?

Humphrey, of course, still believed that it would get into the papers. I shall say I was wrong. That Ive checked the figures and its not true.

But it is true! I hissed.

But I can say its not. Nobody can prove it. Its never been tried.

I pretended shock. You would deny the truth? In public?

Yes Prime Minister. For you! For me indeed!

He had other ideas. We could issue a clarification to the press.

I indicated the tape. I think your views are quite clear.

Prime Minister, in government a clarification is not to make things clear, it is to put you in the clear.

I dont think even a wizard such as yourself could do that here, I said. But Im touched that you would be willing to lie for me -- and Ill take a raincheck on that. And now Ive got something to tell you. And I put him out of his misery. Bernard, give Humphrey the tape. Humphrey, this is the original. The master.

It took him a moment or two to assimilate the news. You mean

There are no other copies, I reassured him. It has been retrieved from the BBC.

How? By whom?

Bernard flashed a desperate, wide-eyed remember your promise look at me. But he neednt have worried.

Intelligence, I said calmly.

Bernard visibly relaxed.

So -- you mean its all right? asked Humphrey, hopeful but very subdued.

I didnt want to let him right off the hook. I had an important trade-off to offer. It depends what you mean by all right, I said.

Nobody will ever know? Thats what he meant. But I thought about his question, as he waited on tenterhooks.

I suppose, I answered eventually, that depends on whether I choose to tell them. I mean, I could just hand you the tape or I could hold on to it while I consider the security and disciplinary implications. I certainly cant become involved in some shabby cover-up.

He was waiting for the verdict of the court. So I offered him my deal, casually. Oh Humphrey, one other thing. When do you appear before the Committee?

Tomorrow, Prime Minister.

And have you decided yet what to tell them? About my authorising the tapping of MPs phones?

Oh. Yes. Yes. Ive er he tried to focus on his vague memories of that other problem, the tape recording having temporarily driven all else from his mind. Ive been thinking about it a lot. Very hard.

I asked him for his conclusions. They were not wholly surprising. I have concluded, Prime Minister, that in the interests of National Security the only honourable course is to support your statement in the House.

I prompted him. Youll say that Hugh Halifaxs phone was never bugged?

Ill say that I have no evidence that --"

I stopped him mid-sentence. No, Humphrey. Youll say that the Government has never authorised any tapping of MPs phones.

He breathed deeply. And Ill say that the Government has never authorised any tapping of MPs phones.

I smiled. He whispered: What happens if they ever find out the truth?

I couldnt even see a problem there. Youll have to say that nobody told you. Because you didnt need to know. Agreed?

He nodded. I handed him the tape. Is that settled then?

Yes Prime Minister, he muttered, and clasped the spools of tape close to his heart.