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.