2. Attack The Questioner. How many years have you spent in government?
3. Compliment The Question. Thats a very good question. Id like to thank you for asking it. Let me reply by asking you one.
4. Unloading The Question. Most questions are loaded. They are full of assumptions such as A lot of people have said that you consider yourself above the law. There are two possible replies to such loaded questions:
a) Name ten.
b) Surely in a nation of 56 million people you can find a few people who will say anything, no matter how irrelevant, misguided, or ill-informed.
5. Make It All Appear An Act. This approach only works for live TV interviews: You know, Ive come to the conclusion that I dont agree with what you suggested I should answer when you asked me that question downstairs before the programme began. The real answer is
6. Use The Time Factor. Most interviews are short of time, especially live on air interviews. Reply: Thats a very interesting question, and there are nine points that I should like to make in answer to it. The Interviewer will say: Perhaps you could make just two of them, briefly. You say: No, its far too important a question to answer superficially, and if I cant answer it properly Id rather not trivialise it.
7. Invoke Secrecy. Theres a very full answer to that question, but it involves matters that are being discussed in confidence. Im sure you wouldnt want me to break a confidence. So Im afraid I cant answer for another week or two.
8. Take Refuge In A Long Pointless Narrative. If you can ramble on for long enough, no one will remember the question and therefore no one can tell if you answered it or not.
Bernard listened attentively to this lesson in handling the nosey-parkers from the media. As Humphrey arrived I summed it up for him: if you have nothing to say, say nothing. But better, have something to say and say it, no matter what they ask. Pay no attention to the question, make your own statement. If they ask you the same question again, you just say, Thats not the question or I think the more important question is this: Then you make another statement of your own. Easy-peasy.
When Humphrey arrived I questioned him about the leak enquiry. He was evasive.
Ah well, he said, the wheels will be turning very soon.
I asked for it a week ago, I said. I reiterated that I wanted it pursued rigorously. And immediately.
Humphrey appeared perplexed. Rigorously?
And immediately.
He was still perplexed. Immediately.
Immediately, I repeated.
The penny dropped. Oh. You mean you really want it pursued.
I told him to watch my lips. I-want-you-to-pursue-it- now!
Humphrey remained puzzled, but did not say anything to oppose me. If you are serious about it Ill arrange for a genuine arms-length enquiry -- if thats what you really want. Ill get Inspector Plod from the Special Branch. [Sir Humphrey was speaking figuratively when he spoke of Inspector Plod Ed.]
That question settled, I pointed out that we now have to improve our relations with the press. These will have worsened today since my esteemed Private Secretary told them that I put myself above the law when it comes to official secrets.
Humphrey stared at Bernard, deeply shocked. Bernard hung his head.
Yes, you may well look ashamed, Bernard. I was not letting him off lightly. I asked Humphrey to let me know the actual constitutional position. He promised to let me have it in writing later in the day.
[Sir Humphrey kept his word. A memo arrived in Hackers study later that day. We have retrieved a copy of it from the Cabinet Office archives Ed.]
70 Whitehall, London SW1A 2AS
August 14th
Memorandum
To: The Prime Minister
From: The Secretary of the Cabinet
In one sense, Bernard was quite correct. The question you posed, in a nutshell, is what is the difference between a breach of the Official Secrets Act, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an unattributable off-the-record briefing by a senior official?
The former -- the breach -- is a criminal offence. The latter -- the briefing -- is essential to keep the wheels turning.
Is there a real objective difference? Or is it merely a matter of convenience and interpretation? And is it a breach of the Act if there is an unofficial non-attributable off-the-record briefing by an official who is unofficially authorised by the Prime Minister?
You could argue that this is not a breach, if it has been authorised by the Prime Minister. Which is Bernard Woolleys position.
You, Prime Minister, will inevitably argue that it is up to you to decide whether it is in the public interest for something to be revealed or not. This would be your justification for claiming that the leak from your meeting with the Solicitor-General, which must have come from an official, is a breach of the Act.
However, this raises some interesting constitutional conundrums.
1. What if the official was officially authorised?
2. What if he was unofficially authorised?
3. What if you, Prime Minister, officially disapprove of a breach of the Act but unofficially approve? This would make the breach unofficially official but officially unofficial.
I hope this is of help to you.
HA
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
August 15th
We reconvened again. [Tautology is part of Hackers personal literary style, so we have retained it where possible Ed.] Wed all seen Bernards press and the television interview last night. Bernard was the new hot celebrity. He arrived at the office this morning wearing sunglasses and a big hat, in a typically ineffectual effort to avoid recognition.
The press, strange to say, were immediately drawn to enquire about the strange person who would wear sunglasses and a beaver hat on one of the hottest days of the year.
I thanked Humphrey for his helpful memo -- a white lie, I felt -- and we discussed how to minimise the weeks damage. I suggested having another lunch with a Fleet Street editor -- a friendly one this time.
Malcolm Warren had joined us. His comment was that none of them would be awfully friendly at the moment.
Cant we offer one of them a knighthood in the New Year honours? I asked.
He was doubtful of the ultimate value. Giving them knighthoods is a double-edged sword. It can work for or against you. The question is, do you have any control over them once youve given it?
I should have thought, I said, that any editor would be rather grateful.
Malcolm shook his head. You see, having got an honour, he may feel free to do and say exactly what he likes. Nothing further to lose.
I could see his point. You dont get gratitude afterwards. In politics, gratitude is merely a lively expectation of favours to come.
Malcolm thought that, instead of trying to butter up the press, we should distract them. Lets give them a story.
Such as? I asked.
Start a war, he suggested airily, that sort of thing.
Start a war? I wasnt sure Id heard him correctly.
I was just giving an example of a major distraction.
Only a small war, added Bernard.
They were kidding. They must have been. Humphrey joined in. If I may intervene, even a small war would be overkill. But, seriously, why dont you expel seventy-six Soviet diplomats. This has been the practice in the past, when we wished to ensure that the press lose interest in some other matter.
I was shocked. I rejected the suggestion out of hand.
Malcolm persisted. Itd be a great headline for you, Prime Minister. GOVERNMENT CRACKS DOWN ON RED SPY RING. Very patriotic. Goes down excellently with the electorate.
Humphrey nodded. Yes, you see, it must be a story that no one can disprove
And which will be believed, concluded Malcolm, even when its denied.