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.