Original subtitles

I am still not happy with this report, Humphrey.

Then we shall be happy to redraft it for you.

- You have redrafted it three times. - That's not absolutely correct.

Yes, it is, I can count. This is the third draft report.

Therefore it has been drafted once

and subsequently redrafted twice.

Don't quibble, Bernard.

We shall be happy to redraft a third time.

And a fourth and fifth. And a sixth, no doubt.

And it still say what you want it to say.

- Not what I want it to say. - What do you want it to say?

We want it to say what you want to.

Not anything you don't want to.

Stop wittering!

The Think Tank asked us

for our evidence on Civil Service overmanning.

I have briefed a group of civil servants in words of one syllable

and they've sent back an unintelligible report,

saying the exact opposite of what I asked them to say.

With respect, how do you know it says the opposite

if it's totally unintelligible?

All I am saying is that the Civil Service

is grossly overmanned and must be slimmed down.

Quite so. That is what the report says.

- No, it doesn't. - Yes, it does.

No, it... Look, what I'm talking about is a phased reduction

in the Civil Service of about 200,000 people.

Are you going to put that in this report?

If you were to take that draft home and study it,

you might find that it says what you want it to say.

- And if it doesn't? - Then we can redraft it.

Humphrey, sit down.

Will you give me a straight answer to a straight question?

Oh, well, Minister, as long as you are not asking me to resort

to crude generalisations and vulgar oversimplifications,

such as a simple yes or no I shall do my utmost to oblige.

Is that "yes"?

- Yes. - Right.

- Here is the straight question. - I thought that was it.

When you give your evidence, are you going to support my view

that the Civil Service is overmanned or not?

Yes or no!

Straight answer!

If you ask me for a straight answer

then I shall say that, as far as we can see,

looking at it by an large, taking one time with another,

in terms of the average of departments,

then in the final analysis it is probably true to say

that at the end of the day, in general terms,

you would probably find that

not to put too fine a point on it,

there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other.

As far as one can see... at this stage.

Is that "yes"? Or "no"?

Yes and no.

Suppose you weren't asked for a straight answer?

Then I should play for time.

Sir Humphrey.

- Ah, Bernard, do sit down. - Thank you.

- Good of you to pop in. - It's my pleasure.

Bernard, you know the Department's report

on the Central Policy Review staff?

Er, yes, Sir Humphrey.

We haven't had it back from the Minister yet.

- Er, no, Sir Humphrey. - Why not?

Er... perhaps you should ask the Minister.

- No, I'm asking you, Bernard. - Yes, Sir Humphrey.

You don't seem to be replying.

Yes and no, Sir Humphrey.

- Are you trying to be impertinent? - Oh no.

I would succeed if I tried.

- Scotch on the rocks, please. - Yes, sir. One, sir?

Yes, just one.

Has the Minister been doing his boxes properly?

- Yes, he's very conscientious. - Then what's going on?

- You should ask the Minister. - I'm asking you.

But as the Minister's Secretary, I'm responsible to him.

But you are also a public servant.

The average Minister's tenure is less than eleven months,

but your career will last until you're 65, won't it?

- I hope so. Yes. - So do I, Bernard.

However, the choice is yours.

Er, Sir Humphrey...

Can I ask you a hypothetical question?

That's always a good idea.

Well, suppose a Minister, a purely hypothetical Minister,

were to be unhappy with a department draft

of evidence to a committee.

And suppose that Minister were planning to replace it

with his own draft worked out with his political adviser

- and his party... - I can't believe it.

Oh, no, no. It's purely hypothetical.

And suppose that Minister were planning to bring in

his own draft so close to the final date that there won't be any...

- Wouldn't... - Wouldn't

be any time for the Department to redraft it for him.

Well?

Suppose this hypothetical Minister's Principal Private Secretary

were to be aware of this

hypothetical draft, in confidence of course,

should he pass on this information to the Permanent Secretary

of this hypothetical department?

Certainly not, Bernard.

Not if this Principal Private Secretary had been given

the information in confidence.

That's what I thought, Sir Humphrey.

Have a drink, Bernard.

One more thing, Minister.

The evidence to the Central Policy Review Staff.

- You mean the Think Tank? - Yes, Minister.

Have you redrafted the redraft of your draft?

- You don't want it yet, do you? - Yes.

- Why? - So that we can redraft it.

- That won't be necessary. - I think it will.

Drafting is not a Civil Service monopoly, you know?

No, it's a highly specialised skill

which few outside the Service can master.

Nonsense. Drafts is easy.

It's a game anyone can play.

Not without getting huffed.

So could I have the draft proposal, please?

Certainly, Humphrey.

- When, Minister? - Later, Humphrey.

Yes, but when?

You always say we mustn't rush things.

I must ask you for a straight answer.

On what day? Tomorrow? Monday? Tuesday?

In due course, Humphrey.

At the appropriate juncture.

In the fullness of time.

When the moment is ripe.

When the necessary procedures have been completed.

Nothing precipitate, of course.

Minister, this is getting urgent.

Urgent, Humphrey? What a lot of new words!

You'll forgive me if I say this,

but I am beginning to suspect

that you are concealing something from me.

You and I have no secrets from each other, have we?

I'm sorry, but sometimes one is forced to consider

the possibility that affairs are being conducted in a way

which, all things being considered, and making all possible allowances,

is, not to put too fine a point on it,

perhaps not entirely straightforward.

You're the expert on straightforwardness.

So what about the draft evidence?

Well, since you ask, Humphrey, and to be perfectly straightforward,

I have redrafted it myself.

I don't want you to redraft it.

I'm perfectly happy with it as it is.

May I be bold enough to ask what you have said?

What I wanted: Phased reductions in the Civil Service.

You have frustrated me over open government,

and the economy drive, this time I'm going to have my way.

The party wants it, the public wants it.

And all we get from the Civil Service is delaying tactics.

I wouldn't call Civil Service delays "tactics", Minister,

that would be to mistake lethargy for strategy.

Very droll.

But there is a real desire for radical reform in the air.

The Select Committee on Administrative Affairs,

which I founded, it's a great success.

Oh, indeed, what has it achieved?

Nothing yet. But the party's very pleased with it.

Why?

Ten column inches in last Monday's Daily Mail.

The government measures its success in column inches?

Yes... no...

Yes and no!

Minister, the evidence that you are proposing to submit

is not only untrue, it is also, which is much more serious, unwise.

Now, we have been through all this before.

The expansion of the Civil Service

is the result of parliamentary legislation,

not bureaucratic empire building.

So you want me to tell Parliament that it's their fault

that the Civil Service is too big?

- But it's the truth. - I don't want the truth.

I want something I can tell Parliament.

Humphrey, you are supposed to enact my policies.

Yet, you seem implacably opposed to them.

I must know where you stand on all this.

Where one stands, Minister, depends upon where one sits.

Am I to infer that you will not support me?

We will always support you,

but as your standard bearer not as you pall bearer.

What are you saying?

I should have thought is crystal clear.

Do not send this report to a body

whose recommendations are to be published!

That is exactly why I'm sending it.

I don't want to hear any more.

- May I say just one more thing? - If it's in plain English.

Very well, Minister.

If you are going to do this damn silly thing,

don't do it in this damn silly way.

Minister, you'll be late for Cabinet.

Oh, yes. Cabinet.

What are we talking about?

Your proposals to close down the Land Registry.

My proposal...?

Reducing the autonomous Government Departments.

- It was your proposal. - You have initialled it.

- Oh, have I? What's in it? - It'll all go through on the nod.

- Got all the stuff? - Yes.

Come on then, mustn't be late.

Humpy...

Have you written your evidence to the Think Tank yet?

- More or less. - What do you mean?

- The Minister's written it. - Humpy!

Yes, I know. All very unwise. But he insisted.

He's been working at nothing else for more than a week now.

You should never let Ministers get so deeply involved.

The next thing you know they'll be dictating policy.

Yes, I know.

- Is this a lengthy Cabinet? - I don't think so.

Ghastly waste of time.

Yes, but if we're not here to hold their hands,

God knows what they might not get up to?

Excuse me, Jumbo. Yes, Minister?

I'm recommending to Cabinet to close down the Land Registry.

- Why? - Why?

Why are we closing it or bringing it to Cabinet?

- What? - What?

Why am I recommending it?

- Surely you know. - No, that's why I'm asking.

You said it would go through on the nod,

now the PM's started asking questions.

And I haven't read my proposal.

There was a 9.75 rise in autonomous Government Departments.

Yes, of course. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Jumbo...

Helping to restrict the autonomous departments?

That should find favour with the PM policy-wise.

Oh? Why?

Very fashionable simplifying the Civil Service

especially with this Think Tank recommendation.

- But they haven't reported. - Yes, they have, unofficially...

They haven't taken all the evidence yet.

The Central Policy Review Staff don't sully their elevated minds

with anything as sordid as evidence.

You may take it that they'll be advising the PM

to simplify the administration of government.

Well, that'll keep me busy. Ah, well.

I shouldn't count on it.

You surely don't expect me, the PM's Senior Policy Adviser,

to betray confidences.

Not to your colleagues, certainly.

No doubt the grapevine would inform you by lunchtime.

Inform? Inform us of what?

Your Minister is seeking

to reduce overmanning in the Civil Service.

Well, he's going to get his way.

Treasury, the Home Office and the Civil Service

have all proposed to abolish your Department of Administrative Affairs

and the PM is smiling on the plan.

- That's absurd. - Clean. Dramatic.

Very popular politically. No real inconvenience.

All your functions could be subsumed by other departments.

Jim Hacker will win through with a self sacrificing policy.

The PM will probably kick him upstairs.

Lord Hacker of Kamikaze.

I hardly think that's funny, Daniel or likely.

Why not? He ran the leadership campaign against the PM.

This could be the PM's masterstroke in one fell swoop.

Approbation, elevation and castration.

You know the PM's motto

"In Defeat, malice. In Victory, revenge".

Abolish my Department.

Out of the question.

Simply can't be done.

I'm sure you know best.

By the way, there's a job centre in the Horseferry Road.

The No. 19 Bus stops right outside.

- I'm appalled. - You're appalled?

I'm appalled.

I just can't believe it. I'm... I'm appalled.

- What do you make of it? - I'm appalled, Minister.

So am I. Appalled!

It's appalling.

Appalling.

I just don't know how to describe it.

Appalling?

Appalling. But I mean is it true?

Sure he wasn't having you on?

They can't abolish this entire department.

It rings true, doesn't it?

I've just see the joint departmental proposal.

Whitehall's full of proposals.

Daniel Hughes is very close to the PM.

What's going to happen? Where will I go?

Well, there is a rumour, Minister...

Rumour? What rumour?

Minister with responsibility for Industrial Harmony.

Industrial harmony?

You know what that means. That means strikes!

Every strike in Great Britain will be my fault.

Oh, marvellous.

Have you considered what might happen to me?

- No. What? - I shall be sent to Ag and Fish.

The rest of my career dedicated to arguing about the cod quota.

And as for you, Bernard,

if your Minister bites the dust your reputation as a high flyer

will be hit for six.

You'll spend your career

in the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea.

- It's your fault. - My fault?

It was your proposal to reduce the autonomous departments.

You proposed phased reductions of the Civil Service.

Don't let's argue about that. What are we going to do?

We could put a paper up.

Up what?

- Brilliant! - Have you any suggestions?

- I don't know, I'm... - Appalled?

I do think that we should work together on this.

- I've heard that before. - What do you mean?

You telling me what to do, me doing it.

- That isn't true. - You've no suggestions?

Bernard could fetch your Political Adviser.

- You want me to consult Frank? - Yes, Minister.

And Minister, with respect...

Don't use that language to me, Humphrey.

- What language? - I know what "with respect" means.

That anything I suggest is beneath contempt.

Ah, Minister.

I really do mean that we should work together.

- I need you. - Do you mean that?

- Yes, Minister. - Humphrey, how very nice of you.

Minister, if the Prime Minister is behind a scheme,

Whitehall on its own cannot block it.

Cabinet Ministers' schemes are easily blocked... redrafted,

but the Prime Minister is another matter.

We need to fight this in Westminster and in Whitehall.

And Weisel might be able to mobilise the backbenchers.

Yes. And he might be able to mobilise the Press.

- You've heard the news? - Bernard just told me.

What do you suggest?

I can't think of anything... I'm appalled.

Mustn't all flap around like a lot of wet hens.

We've got to save this Department.

I want you to get to the backbenchers

to put a stop to this thing before it starts.

I'm sorry, but you can't stop something before it starts.

Thank you. Frank...

It won't be that easy. It will be a very popular move.

A publicity campaign? You know:

"Administration Saves the Nation" "Red Tape is Fun".

Full page ads in...

It was just an idea.

"Red Tape is fun"?

What about "Red Tape holds the Nation together"?

Well, there's no doubt about it, the writing's on the wall.

The public should think kindly towards Administration,

- because of the Europass. - Quite.

- Europass? - European Identity Card.

You've informed the Minister?

Didn't you do your boxes?

No, I was redrafting the redraft of the draft.

Well, Brussels is about to decree

that there is to be a new European Identity Card

to be carried by all citizens of the E.E.C.

The Foreign Office is ready to go along with it

as a quid pro quo for a deal over the butter mountain,

the wine lake, and the milk ocean,

the lamb war, and the cod stink.

And the Prime Minister wants you to introduce the legislation.

- Me? - Yes.

You're pro Europe, you see.

And it would simplify our administration.

- So it's a good idea. - Good idea?

- Good idea? - Good idea?

- Not a good idea? - Political suicide!

Trying to make British people carry Identification Papers?

They'll call it a Police State.

Is this what we fought two world wars for?

It's little more than a sort of driving license.

It's the last nail in my coffin.

You might get away with calling it "Euroclub Express".

Bernard, either shut up or get out!

Can't the Foreign Office introduce it?

That was the Prime Minister's suggestion,

but for the Foreign Secretary it was a Home Office matter

and for the Home Office it was essentially

and administrative matter, and the PM agreed.

Pass the parcel.

Can you blame them when you can hear it ticking?

The identity card bill is planned to be

the last action of this Department.

Wonderful ammunition for the anti Europeans.

Don't the Foreign Office realise the damage to the European idea?

That's why they support it.

The Foreign Office is pro Europe, isn't it?

Yes and no... if you'll forgive the expression.

The Foreign Office is pro Europe because it is really anti Europe.

The Civil Service was united in its desire to make sure

that the Common Market didn't work.

- That's why we went into it. - What are you talking about?

Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective

for at least the last 500 years:

To create a disunited Europe.

We have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish,

with the Germans against the French

and with the French against the Germans and the Italians.

Divide and rule, you see.

Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

That's all ancient history surely?

Yes, and current policy.

We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside.

We tried from the outside, but it wouldn't work.

Now, we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing.

Set the Germans against the French,

the Italians against the Dutch...

The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.

But we're all committed to the European ideal.

Really, Minister.

Why are we pressing for an increase in the membership?

For the same reason. It's just like the United Nations.

The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up,

the more futile and impotent it becomes.

- What appalling cynicism. - Yes.

We call it diplomacy, Minister.

How will the other countries feel about identity papers?

Won't they resist too?

The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it,

and the Italians and the Irish will be too chaotic to enforce it.

Only the British will resent it.

- It's a plot to get rid of me. - They'll abolish your Department.

Perhaps the PM wants to make absolutely certain.

- Don't be so paranoid. - Everyone is plotting against me.

- We're on your side, Minister. - Yes, Minister.

- Martin will be on outside. - Yes, where is Martin?

I think he's in the House, Minister, where you ought to be.

Let's go and see him.

This is appalling, Jim.

- You've done a Samson act. - Samson?

You've reduced the Civil Service bureaucracy.

You've pulled the superstructure down and buried yourself.

- A Pyrrhic victory. - No ideas?

- I'd help if I could, but... - But the Europass...

It doesn't make sense.

Why can't the PM see the damage?

Yes, this Europass issue is the biggest disaster

since I asked to join the Cabinet.

I don't think you quite mean that.

Everybody knows this Europass thing won't happen.

The PM's got to play along with it because of the Napoleon Prize.

Napoleon Prize?

A NATO Award given once every five years.

Gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels.

The PM's the front runner this time.

It's for the statesman who has contributed most to European unity.

Since Napoleon. That is if you don't count Hitler.

So? What...?

The awards committee sits in six weeks.

The PM isn't going to rock the boat until it's in the bag.

You don't put boats in bags.

- What's that Bernard? - Nothing, Minister.

Once the prize is awarded, the PM will dump the Europasses.

How many people know about the winner of the Napoleon Prize?

- It's top secret. - You mean everyone.

- No, top secret top secret. - That's it then.

- Humphrey, don't you see? - See what?

- Backbenchers. Leaks. - The Welsh Nationalist party?

No. No. No.

Oh, I'll come back later.

No. No. Don't go, the very man.

Come on in, Daniel.

- I want to ask your advice. - I'll give any help I can.

But if it's about shutting stable doors after horses have bolted,

even I am powerless to help.

You won't be powerless in this case.

It's really a sort of moral dilemma.

Supposing a backbencher were to put down

a question for the Prime Minister, asking whether the Europass...

Which backbencher? Europass is top secret.

You mean like the winner of the Napoleon Prize is top secret?

The Minister meant a hypothetical backbencher.

Quite so, Bernard. Thank you.

A hypothetical backbencher.

And a hypothetical question

asking whether or not Britain was going to adopt the Europass.

- Highly improbable. - Oh, I agree. Highly improbable.

But suppose the PM were to answer yes,

it would be very damaging in the country?

Yes.

And if the PM were to answer no

it would be very damaging in Europe?

To the PM personally.

Napoleon prize-wise.

Now, if a hypothetical Minister were to get to hear

of this hypothetical question in advance, what should he do?

The only course would be to ensure

that the question was not tabled.

Serious business, suppressing an MP's question.

There is no other course.

The only way to stop him might be to get him

to put down a question asking the Prime Minister

to squash the rumours about the closure

of the Department for Administrative Affairs.

Oh, but I'm sure... whatever made you think...

anything but the fullest support...

You said that a plan to abolish the Department had been put up,

and the PM was smiling on it.

No, smiling at it! Smiling at it, not on it.

The whole idea was ridiculous.

Laughable. Out of the question.

A joke.

A joke?

You didn't imagine...

So that a minute from the Prime Minister's office confirming this,

and squashing the rumour, will be circulated to all departments

within 24 hours.

So that we can all share it, joke-wise I mean!

Do you really think it's necessary?

Yes.

Well, I'm sure something can be arranged.

If you'll excuse me.

Checkmate, I think.

Game, set and match.

Can Daniel Hughes fix this?

Don't Prime Ministers have minds of their own?

Certainly.

But as President Nixon's henchmen once said:

"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

Isn't that right?

Yes, Minister.