All language subtitles for Yes Minister S01E05 - The Writing on the Wall

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.