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.