The Golden Rules of the Civil Service
1. Never believe anything until it is officially denied.
2. Do not let a Minister know what everybody else knows.
3. Never set up an inquiry unless you know what the final results will be.
4. Many, many things must be done, but nothing must be done for the first time.
5. You can’t write a communique after you’ve had the meeting.
6. Life is so much easier, when Ministers think they have achieved something. Stops them fretting. No tantrums.
7. A good speech is not when we can prove he is telling the truth. It’s one in which nobody else can prove he is lying.
8. Ministers’ speeches are not written for the audience, delivering a speech is just a formality you go through to get into the papers.
9. A Minister's absence is a godsent. You can do the job properly for once. No silly questions, no bright ideas, no fussing about the papers.
10. The public doesn’t need to know anything on wasting public money, we are the experts.
11. There has to be some way to measure success in the civil service if we have to – by the size of our staff and our budget. By definition the big department is more successful than the small one.
12. When a Minister starts running his department things are not going pretty well, actually they are going pretty bad. If we allow a Minister to run a department, in the first place there will be chaos, naturally, and second, which is much more serious, there will be innovations, changes, public debate outside scrutiny.
13. Principal secretaries who can’t occupy their ministers are threatened species.
14. If a document is never to be found out then file it.
15. If ministers get a grip on the job there is a real danger they might be right. One tells them that something is impossible and they dig out an old paper in which one had said it was easy - very tedious.
16. When we want ministers to sign something without asking questions, we have to wait until they are in a hurry and their concentration is weakest.
Standard Vocabulary and Best Administrative Practices
Justification on why things should not be done - The time isn’t right, the climate is unsuitable, the atmosphere is unfavourable.
If the message is to be positive and encouraging and imply on possible activities the following phrases should be used: in due course, 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.
All views will be taken into consideration at the appropriate time.
The matter is under consideration and if we feel so inclined, under active consideration, the difference being ‘under consideration” means we have lost the file, and “under active consideration” means we are trying to find it.
Approach for suppressing damaging reports and avoiding publication
In Stage 1 you give your reasons - you are pointing of the public interest and security considerations. You point out the report could be used to put pressure on the government and be misinterpreted. You say it would be better to wait for a more detailed study over long-time scale.
In Stage 2 you go on to discredit the evidence you are not publushing. You say it leaves some important question unanswered, much of the evidence is inconclusive, the figures are open to other misintepretations, that certain findings are contradictory and that some of the main concusions have been questioned.
In Stage 3 you state this is not a basis for a long-term decision - not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment. Not really any need for a fundamental rethinking of policies. 'Broadly speaking endorses current practices'.
In Stage 4 you discredit the man who produced the report - say he is harbouring a grudge against the government or that he is a publicity seeker or that he used to be a consultant to a multiinternational company.
Standard excuses to deal with allegations
- Excuse, used in Anthony Blunt case
There is a perfectly satisfying explanation for everything but security forbids its disclosure.
- Excuse used for the comprehensive schools
Because of budget cuts, supervisory resources went beyond their limits.
It was a worthwile experiment, now abandoned but not before it had provided much valuable data and employment.
- The excuse for the Munich agreement
It occurred before certain important facts were known and couldn't reoccur.
- The charge of the light brigade excuse
It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual, which is now being dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures.
How to explain that documents are missing
This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967 and the normal withdraw of papers, whose publication would have caused accusations of libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments.
When in situations where you can neither do something nor ignore it, apply the Rhodesia solution:
My attention has been drawn to information, which suggests possible irregularities under the X Act. (You suggest someone to do something) Evidence suggests there may be a case for further investigation to establish whether or not inquiries should be put in hand. (Then you smidge it all over) Nevertheless, it should be stressed that available information is limited and relevant facts could be difficult to establish with any degree of certainty.
The 5-step approach on dissuading a Minister from pursuing innovations
1. Your administration is very new and there’re a lot of things we are getting on.
2. (If he persists with the idea) Yes, minister, I quite appreciate the intention, certainly something has to be done, but are you sure this is the right way to achieve it?
3. (If he is still undeterred, shift your ground from how to do it to when to do it) - Now, Minister, this is not the right time for all sorts of reasons. We have tried this before and we have run into all sorts of difficulties – technical, formidable administrative problems, legal problems.
4. But minister, there will be a need for extra staffing, are you sure you will ever get it through the cabinet and the party?
5. (And finally) Now, minister, we are getting very close to the run up for the next general elections, are you sure you want to get this policy through?
Breaking grave news (leaving the office)
The relationship, which I might tentatively venture to…. has been not without some degree of reciprocal utility, and even occasional gratification, is approaching a point of irreversible bufurcation, and to be brief, is in the propinquity of its ultimate regrettable termination. I am on my way out.
Talking about security question marks
There are certain items of confidential information, which while in theory might be susceptible of innocent interpretation, do nevertheless contain a sufficient element of ambiguity, so that were they to be presented in a less than generous manner to an uncharitable mind, might be a source of great embarrassment and even hazard, were they to impinge upon the deliberations of an office of more than usual sensitivity.
The 4-word trick
There are 4 words you have to work into a proposal for the minister to accept it:
Quick, simple, popular, cheap
Equally, there are 4 words to be included in a proposal if you want it thrown out: complicated, lengthy, expensive, controversial. And if you want to be really sure that the minister doesn’t accept it you must say “the decision is courageous”.
Tips for addressing superiors
Minister, you are a striking genius!
Very polished performance, minister, gracious and said absolutely nothing, very professional.
When you are asked for a straight answer – Well, minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I should say that as far as we can see, looking at it, by and 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’d probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there wasn’t probably much weight in it in one way or the other (as far as one can see at this stage).
Was this Yes or No? Yes and No, minister!
When you mean No - I am fully seized of your aims and I will try to put them into practice. To that end I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we will be in a position to think through the various implications rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and ill-conceived actions which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
Blurring the issue is one of the basic ministerial skills. Others are delaying decisions, didging questions, juggling figures, bending facts anbd concealing errors.
You are strongly advised not to ask a direct question. It might provoke a direct answer.
How to respond to the media when asked if you are planning to stand
On previous occasions, general acceptable answer has been “While one does not seek the office, one has pledged oneself to the service of one’s country and if one’s friends were to persuade one that was the best way one could serve, one might reluctantly have to accept the responsibility, whatever one’s private wishes might be.”
Standard reply for a TV appearance
I’m glad you asked me that question because it is a question a lot of people are asking because a lot of people want to know the answer. And let’s be quite clear about this without beating about the bush – the plain fact of the matter is that it is a very important question indeed and the people have the right to know.
A possible promotion in a ministerial reshuffle calls for a particular combination of talents – lots of activity but no actual achievement.
Definitions and Interpretations
Brussels – a place full of dedicated men, all bearing the heavy burden of travel entertainment.
Confidential – classification that means the document won't be in the papers until today.
Controversial decision - a decision that alludes votes.
Courageous decision – one, which might cost the re-election.
Cover up – it is a responsible discretion exercised in the national interest to prevent unnecessary disclosure of eminently justifiable procedures, in which untimely revelation could severely impact the public confidence.
Cynic - what an idealist calls a realist.
Diplomacy – a word we use as euphemism for ‘appalling cynicism’.
Elbows - the most important thing in the politicians’ armoury.
Ministers – people who have a lot of dazzling qualities, including enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuvrability. Unlike civil servants, ministers are selected completely at random by prime ministerial whim in recognition of dubious services rendered or to avoid appointing someone of real ability.
Original and imaginative - two of the most damning criticisms in the civil service.
Restricted - classification that means the document was in the papers yesterday.
Right away – Rome wasn’t built in a day, these things take time.
Tiny mistake – spending 75 000 pounds on a roof garden. Big mistake - letting people know about it.
How can a 7-storey building be a top secret?
Answer: When there is a will, there’s a way.
Elena Karadjova
A compillation based on the BBC’s “Yes, Minister”
