All language subtitles for Yes_Prime_Minister_Series_Two-2

Gentlemen, we're here to consider
security clearance

for the publication of my predecessor's memoirs.

- Solicitor General.
- We've already approved chapters 1 to 7.

- I see no reason to withhold approval for 8.
- There is some highly questionable material.

- Such as?
- Well, page 211, for a start.

It only says, "The Administrative Affairs Minister
supported the expansion of Sellafield in Cabinet,

- "but spoke out against it in public."
- That was me. I was the minister.

- The point is it's not a security leak.
- But it isn't true.

The documentation is fairly impressive,
but with respect,

if he's libelled you, it's a matter for the courts,
not for the Security Clearance Committee.

We can't have such accusations spread around.
It's not just page 211 either.

On 224, there's a scurrilous accusation
about my stopping that chemical-plant project

because of a baseless press scare.

Then there's an indefensible passage
about me on page 231.

Oh, 231. "Hacker was more interested in votes
than principles,

"running for cover at the first whiff
of unpopularity.

"He raised the average age of Cabinet
but lowered the average IQ."

Thank you, Humphrey. We've all read the chapter.

As I said, I'm not supporting or defending him,
but it's not an actual security breach.

Chapter 5 got leaked and we took no action.

Oh, well, chapter 5 was very complimentary
about my getting the Kumran contract.

It had as much confidential material
and you never had a leak inquiry.

Well... anybody could have leaked
that chapter to the press.

Anybody.

- I mean, even the title of chapter 8...
- "The Two Faces Of Jim Hacker."

Er, that's not a secret, surely.

I think there are security implications.
Sellafield is nuclear.

The Energy Secretary has seen the chapter
and he says he has no problems.

No! It describes him as the ablest minister
in Cabinet. Another slur on me.

- It isn't actionable.
- Let's be clear.

- We have the right to refuse publication.
- We have.

If they publish anyway, we'll have no hope
of stopping it through the courts.

- Lean on the publishers.
- On what grounds?

- National interest.
- I've already...

It's obscene filth. It cannot be in the national
interest to ridicule the national leader.

I mean... undermine confidence
in the national leadership.

Chapter 8 must not be published, right?

- Well, Bernard?
- No, not very, Sir Humphrey.

Has the PM seen that yet?

They quoted it on "Today".
He'd have listened to it while he had breakfast.

I heard it. They had HIM for breakfast.

They had fun with, "Jim Hacker raised
the average age of the Cabinet...

(BOTH) "...but lowered the average IQ."

- Actually, it is rather amusing.
- Yes, it is. But, er, on the other hand...

I know.
Have you any explanation for this leak?

- It wasn't me.
- Of course it wasn't you!

It's hardly in your interest or mine
to leak THAT chapter.

It's not just chapter 8,
it's the report that he tried to suppress it.

- The leak came from someone at the meeting.
- Good morning.

- What makes him think that?
- Is he... er...? Has he...

Half of Britain's press corps are here
waiting for his response.

- Only half?
- The other half are on the phone.

The foreign press have picked it up.

I've had interview requests from "Le Monde",
the "Washington Post",

and "Women's Wear Daily".

- How do you think he'll take it?
- (INTERCOM BUZZER)

We're just about to find out.

(IMPATIENT CONTINUOUS BUZZING)

Well?

Well? Well, say something.

- Good morning, Prime Minister.
- Good morning, Prime Minister.

Seen this? You're my press secretary, Bill.
It's a catastrophe!

- With respect...
- With no respect at all!

No respect for confidentiality, no respect
for the national interest or the national leader!

- Who leaked it?
- Who can say?

You can say and you'd better say!
I want this traced at once!

- It must've been somebody at the meeting.
- I'll set up a leak inquiry.

I don't want a leak inquiry.
I want to find out who did it.

One normally doesn't want to find out
who's responsible

in case it turns out to be one of the Cabinet.

The Solicitor General and I were the only
ministers present. Law officers never leak.

He had nothing to gain,
it wasn't me and all the rest were officials.

- I will pursue this through to the courts!
- The press are all waiting.

There are four requests for TV interviews
and eleven for radio.

Marvellous. Last week, I was dying to tell them
about my achieving detente with the Soviets.

Now this happens
and they charge in like a herd of vultures.

Not herd, Prime Minister.

(CLEARLY) Charge in like a herd...

Vultures don't herd, they flock.

And they don't charge, they... er...

- What do they do, Bernard?
- They... er...

Sit down, Bernard.

Why can't the press support Britain?

Why do they muck-rake?
Why can't they write about our successes?

- Like... er...?
- Well, like my detente with the Soviets.

There are friendly noises from the Kremlin,
but it hasn't led to anything concrete.

- It's going to.
- I'm sorry.

I have to tell them something about you trying
to suppress your predecessor's memoirs.

Very well. Talk to them off the record.
"Sources close to the Prime Minister."

- Say nothing attributable.
- Right.

Say that what he said about me
is a pack of lies.

Um... you mean about... er... running for cover
and that sort of thing?

- Yes.
- The problem is, it is the author's opinion.

We can't call him a liar for an opinion.

Well, say that it's a pack of lies
about my supporting Sellafield in Cabinet

but speaking against it in public.

- Er, yes, but the thing is, it is sort of true.
- Oh, shut up, Bernard.

How do we say it's a pack of lies?

The PM's recollection is at variance
with his predecessor's.

Then say the Cabinet minutes
vindicate me completely,

but, unfortunately, owing to the 30-year rule,
they can't be disclosed for another 25 years,

which makes his book deeply unfair
as well as untrue.

- What about the smears against you personally?
- Smear him.

Say that he's trying to re-write history to make
his own premiership look a little less disastrous.

- Imply that he's going gaga.
- Fine.

"Passage of time and separation from official
records have perhaps clouded his memory."

- Yeah. What about the gaga bit?
- "One would expect it from a man of his age."

- That do?
- That's OK for the chapter.

- What about your trying to prevent publication?
- Say that's a pack of lies, too.

"Garbled account of a routine meeting.
No question of suppression."

- Do you want to give interviews?
- No.

- Shall I say why?
- Make it a quote.

"Insignificant matter of no national importance.
Typical of the media's trivialisation of politics."

- And who shall I attribute that quote to?
- Close Cabinet colleague.

Thank you, Prime Minister.

- This is a disaster.
- Oh, surely it's not all that serious.

Telling the public
they can't trust their Prime Minister?

They won't believe that.

- Think not?
- Of course not.

They might. Or they couldn't trust
their ex-Prime Minister.

- Yes, thank you.
- They never could trust him.

Thank goodness I've brought back honesty.

- Thank goodness, Prime Minister.
- Now, about nailing that leak.

Sorry to be pedantic,
but if you nail a leak, you make another.

I want to trace the culprit
and I want a prosecution.

- Yes, Prime Minister.
- And I want a conviction.

We can try and trace the culprit,
we can prosecute,

but under our political system,

there are problems about the government
actually guaranteeing a conviction.

Oh, surely. Little drinkie with the judge?

Unthinkable. There is no way any pressure
can be placed on a judge.

- How does one secure a conviction?
- Find a judge who won't need any pressure.

A word with the Lord Chancellor. Find a judge
who's hoping to be made a Lord of Appeal.

Then leave justice to take
her own impartial and majestic course.

- That does the trick?
- Not always.

Sometimes they're so obviously trying to convict,
the jury acquits out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

- You need a judge with common sense.
- Oh, yes.

Won't be as easy as you make out.

- What are you asking me to tell my readers?
- I'm not asking you to tell them anything.

- I'm just putting my side of the story.
- Why the big fuss?

I have not got two faces
and I did not try to suppress that chapter.

- Can I quote you?
- You may not quote me

denying that I have two faces.

It was worth a try.
Dunno why you're so upset, Jim.

The article doesn't exactly flatter you, but it's
part of the rough and tumble of political life.

A responsible newspaper ought not
to print such smears. Why did you?

'Cause it sold us over 100,000 extra copies.

Didn't you realise
how damaging that accusation is?

Here's this damaging accusation.
Are you saying you didn't try to stop it?

Of course I didn't. It's a free country.
Freedom of speech.

- It's damaging to you personally.
- Not that damaging.

- What's the fuss, then?
- It's not the damage to me personally I mind.

- It's the damage to Britain that I worry about.
- Britain?

Undermining the leadership can damage
the nation - with foreigners, the pound.

- I want you to retract that suppression story.
- Hm. I don't see how I can.

- Of course you can. You're the editor.
- I'm not a general commanding an army.

I'm the ringmaster of a circus. I book the acts,
but I can't tell the acrobats which way to jump!

It wouldn't be helpful
to make us think we couldn't trust you.

We'd like to cooperate with the press,
but you're making it difficult for us.

I don't think it'd be helpful if you made it seem
as though you were hostile to our paper.

We like to cooperate with No.10,
but if it's war...

No, no, no, no, no, I... No, I wasn't suggesting...

All I meant was that there could be exclusive
interviews, photo opportunities...

- If I retract?
- If you print the truth.

I have to stick by my story
until I get hard evidence that it's not true.

- Such as?
- The minutes of the meeting.

- I don't see why not. My integrity is at stake.
- Prime Minister...

Bernard, the minutes bear out my version
of the meeting, don't they?

Well, I... er... um...

Well, I... er... yes.

Yes, Derek, you may see them. I know they're
usually confidential, but this is a special case.

- Can I publish them?
- We'll see. I'll have another look at them.

Bernard, show them to me this afternoon.

- (KNOCK AT DOOR)
- Yes?

- Sir Humphrey, have you got a moment?
- Yes, Bernard.

Er... I've got a problem.

- Yes, Bernard.
- You know?

- Yes.
- How?

- Because you've just told me.
- Do you know what my problem is?

Your problem is
that you don't ever come to the point.

Sorry. The PM has just had lunch
with Derek Burnham, the editor...

- I know who he is.
- The PM told him

that the minutes of Cabinet Committee confirm
that he didn't try to suppress chapter 8

and that he'd publish them if necessary.

- So what is your problem?
- Well, the minutes aren't written yet.

- I see.
- So, er, what should I do?

Write them, dear Bernard.

The problem is the PM did try to suppress
the chapter, didn't he?

- I don't know. Did he?
- Don't you remember?

What I remember is irrelevant. If the minutes
don't say that he did, then he didn't.

- So you want me to falsify the minutes?
- I want nothing of the sort!

- What do YOU want, Bernard?
- I want to have a clear conscience.

- A clear conscience.
- Yes.

When did you acquire this taste for luxuries?

Consciences are for politicians, Bernard.

We are humble functionaries

whose duty it is to implement the commands
of elected representatives.

How could we be doing anything wrong if it has
been commanded by those representatives?

- I can't accept that. No man is an island.
- I agree, Bernard.

"No man is an island, entire of itself;

"And therefore

"never send to know for whom the bell tolls."

It tolls for thee, Bernard.

- So what do you suggest, Sir Humphrey?
- Minutes do not record everything, do they?

- No, of course not.
- People change their minds during a meeting.

- Yes...
- So the meeting is a mass of ingredients.

- Oh, like cooking.
- Like... No, not like cooking, Bernard.

Better not use that word
in connection with books or minutes.

You choose from a jumble of ill-digested ideas

a version which represents the PM's views

as he would, on reflection,
have liked them to emerge.

But if it's not a true record...

The purpose of minutes is not to record events,
it is to protect people.

You do not take notes if the Prime Minister
says something he did not mean to say,

particularly if it contradicts something
he has said publicly.

You try to improve on what has been said,
put it in a better order. You are tactful.

- But how do I justify that?
- You are his servant.

- Oh, yes.
- A minute is a note for the records

and a statement of action, if any,
that was agreed upon.

- What happened at the meeting?
- Well, the book was discussed.

The Solicitor General advised there were
no legal grounds for suppressing it.

And did the PM accept
what the Solicitor General had said?

He accepted the fact
there were no legal grounds for suppression...

He accepted the fact

that there were no legal grounds
for suppression. You see?

Oh.

- Is that a lie?
- No.

- Can you write it in the minutes?
- Yes.

- How's your conscience?
- Much better, thank you.

Bernard Woolley?
Your minutes were published today.

- The minutes of Jim Hacker's meeting.
- I know. I've got to go to work.

- Answer a few questions.
- I can't comment.

- But it all looks very suspicious.
- What?

- Why did it take so long to publish them?
- Because they weren't...

Weren't cleared for publication?

- But the PM cleared them last Thursday.
- Yes, but there's the Official Secrets Act.

- So how can they be cleared for publication?
- The PM can clear anything.

Are you saying the PM
is not subject to the Official Secrets Act?

- Well... no.
- No, he is or no, he isn't?

- Yes.
- You're saying that Hacker makes the rules.

- No.
- That's what you said.

- Yes.
- So the Prime Minister is above the law.

- Not in theory.
- But in practice?

- No comment.
- Very interesting.

Look, I'm not sure I've made myself clear.

Oh, you've made it very clear.

Any truth in the rumour
that your minutes took four days to appear

because Mr Hacker
can only type with two fingers?

Excuse me, I must go.

Oh... er... by the way,
I was speaking off the record.

Sorry, a bit late to say that now.

- Prime Minister.
- Yes, Bernard?

- Have you got a moment?
- Yes, Bernard.

Er... I've got a problem.

- Get on with it, Bernard.
- Er... yes.

I've just been interviewed by the press.

- You? You gave an interview?
- Er, yes, I'm afraid so.

- That's not your job.
- I couldn't help it. I just... It just happened.

- They trapped me into speaking to them.
- What did you say?

- Nothing, really.
- Well, what's your problem?

- They were asking me about you.
- What about me?

- About the Official Secrets Act.
- And?

- Whether you were bound by it.
- Of course I am!

Of course you are,
but it... it might not come out like that.

What do you mean?

Thinking back on what I said and what they said
and what I said you said

and what they may say I said you said

or what they may have thought I said
I thought you thought,

they may say I said I thought you said
you thought...

Go on, Bernard.

Well, I think I said you said you thought
you were above the law.

You said that?!

Not intentionally. It's just the way it came out.
They were asking me all these questions.

What makes you think
you have to answer them?

- I don't know.
- You've never answered my questions!

- I know...
- After a lifetime in the Civil Service,

a career devoted to avoiding questions,

you suddenly decide to answer them today
and to the press?!

You must have flipped your lid!

Please don't shout at me! I assure you,
I won't answer questions ever again!

Get Humphrey and Bill in here.

Send Sir Humphrey in and Bill Pritchard.

If this question should ever arise again,
this is how you deal with questions.

If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

Better still, have something to say and say it,
no matter what they ask.

Pay no attention to the question.
Just make your own statement.

If they ask the question again, you say,
"That's not the question"

or "I think the real question is..." and then
you make another statement of your own.

- How's that leak inquiry coming on?
- The wheels will be turning very soon.

I asked you a week ago!
What's the matter with you two?

I'm sorry, I had no idea you were serious.

Leak inquiries are not usually pursued.

I want this one pursued rigorously
and immediately!

- Rigorously?
- And immediately.

- Immediately?
- Immediately.

You mean you REALLY want it pursued?

Watch the lips move, Humphrey.
I want it pursued. Now.

Very well, Prime Minister, if you're serious.

I will arrange a genuine inquiry
if that's what you really want.

- I'll get Inspector Plod of the Special Branch.
- Thank you.

We must do something to improve my relations
with the press, which deteriorated considerably

when my private secretary told them I felt I was
above the law when it came to official secrets.

Yes, you may well hang your head.

- What's the constitutional position, Humphrey?
- Well, in a sense, Bernard was right.

The question, in a nutshell,
is what is the difference

between a breach of the Official Secrets Act

and an unattributable, off-the-record briefing
by a senior official?

The former - a breach - is a criminal offence.
A briefing is essential to keep the wheels turning.

Is there a difference or is it a matter
of convenience and interpretation?

Is it a breach of the act if there is
an unofficial, non-attributable briefing

by an official who's been unofficially authorised
by the Prime Minister?

- Not if it's been authorised by the PM, no.
- That's what I say.

I should decide if it's in the national interest
for something to be disclosed, not officials.

- Last week's leak must've come from an official.
- But what if the official was officially authorised

or even unofficially authorised?

What if the PM officially disapproves of
a breach of the act, but unofficially approves?

Then a leak would be unofficially official,
but officially unofficial.

- Thank you. You've been a tremendous help.
- Thank you.

Now, we've got to do something to repair
the damage you two have done to me.

I'd better have lunch with another editor,
a friendlier one.

- None of them are friendly at the moment.
- Couldn't we offer one of them a knighthood?

That can work for or against you. Do you have
any control over them once you've given it?

Wouldn't they be pleased?

Having got an honour, he may feel free
to say what he likes. Nothing to lose.

You don't get gratitude afterwards.

Gratitude is merely a lively expectation
of favours to come.

May I suggest that instead of trying
to butter up the press, we distract them?

- Let's give them a story.
- Such as?

Start a war, that sort of thing.

- Start a war?!
- Only a small war.

Um... if I might intervene.

Even a small war would be overkill.

Why don't you expel 76 Soviet diplomats?

That's always been our practice when we wish
to ensure the press lose interest in something.

- I can't do that.
- Great headline.

"Government cracks down on red spy ring."
Very patriotic.

- It must be a story that nobody can disprove.
- And which will be believed even if it's denied.

"Soviet ambassador's chauffeur
is Lieutenant General in KGB."

I can't do that.
I've been working at this detente for weeks.

It's the only thing that IS working at the moment.

What do you think, Bernard? You're good
at getting things into the papers.

- What about a royal event?
- Such as?

An engagement, a divorce, a pregnancy.

You can arrange that?

- Has he read the leak inquiry report?
- Yes. How do we handle it?

Very difficult. There is almost no precedent for
handling a leak inquiry which finds the culprit.

- Especially when it's a senior civil servant.
- I think we can save him.

How? He was at the meeting. He's owned up.

- There can't be any doubt that he is the leaker.
- There's going to be.

(INTERCOM BUZZER)

There, Humphrey, you see? Just as I suspected.

I want that press officer
at the Department of Energy prosecuted.

- I think not...
- You think not? Because he's a civil servant?

No, because it is not in your interests.

That somebody should be punished
for undermining government?

The Attorney General

says that a prosecution would not succeed
because there are no security implications.

At least it'd make an example of him.

He advises that if we prosecute, we must
undertake a similar Special Branch inquiry

into the earlier leak of chapter 5 -
your success in Kumran.

Ah... well... that was completely different.

- May one ask why?
- Well, it was harmless.

The Attorney General says that
either both leaks are harmless or neither.

Shall I ask Special Branch
to work on the chapter 5 leak?

Drop the prosecution, but sack the press officer.

That could be difficult. There is evidence
he was not acting on his own initiative.

- Meaning?
- They were his Secretary of State's wishes.

- What?!
- The Secretary was not displeased

at being described as the ablest minister
and he told his press officer

that far from wanting the chapter suppressed,
he wouldn't mind seeing it in the press at once.

With reference to the fact
that it might not otherwise be read

- because of an attempt by No.10 to censor it.
- You sure of this?

I am sure that's what
the press officer's explanation will be

when his case for wrongful dismissal comes up
before the industrial tribunal.

- Wrongful dismissal?
- He'll argue he was following an implied order.

- Carrying out his Secretary of State's wishes.
- So I can't sack him.

- Well, who can I sack?
- Well, if you must sack somebody,

the only candidate is the Energy Secretary
who is responsible for his department.

I can't do that. I lost one minister last week.
I can't sack another this week.

Quite, Prime Minister. To lose one Cabinet
minister may be regarded as a misfortune.

To lose both looks like carelessness.

Thank you, Bernard. Furthermore, Prime Minister,

as the Energy Secretary did not do the leaking,
he might sue for wrongful dismissal as well.

The press is clamouring
for the result of this inquiry.

Well, the press office...
has drafted this statement.

"Communications breakdown...
misunderstanding...

"...acted in good faith...
will be dealt with by internal procedures."

- This is a whitewash.
- Not really. It shares out the blame equally.

More of a grey wash.

Still looks like I tried to suppress that chapter.
What am I to do?

Perhaps we should send the story out,
but smother it.

Smother it? You mean...

Oh, Prime Minister,
I've been meaning to tell you.

There's some very worrying information
on the Foreign Office files about espionage

in the Soviet embassy and trade delegation.

- No?
- Evidence against a lot of diplomats.

How many?

(BOTH) 76.

You know, I think the time has come to be firm.

- Absolutely.
- The defence of the realm is at stake.

- Precisely.
- Expel them. And I want the press told today.

(BOTH) At the same time...

Yes, Prime Minister.