The Spectator’s Notes | 19 November 2005

On the face of it, the government would seem to be hypocritical in its attacks on Sir Christopher Meyer’s memoirs. After all, it is said, the Cabinet Office saw the text of DC Confidential and approved it. How can ministers now complain? It turns out not to be quite like that. In the first place, I gather, Sir Christopher could only be persuaded to submit his manuscript when faced with the threat of injunctions. In the second, he ignored all suggestions for changes made by the authorities, and went ahead. Why, then, was no further attempt made to stop him? Really because the government has very little power in these matters. The experience with Lance Price’s The Spin Doctor’s Diary taught that if you try to take bits out you only increase the value of the book. A serialising newspaper can make hay with the difference between the original and final version (‘The Story Blair Didn’t Want Told’) and, even if the law is broken along the way, it is unlikely, in matters that are so political, that a court case would be winnable for the government. Even if it did win, the accompanying publicity would more than nullify the value of the victory. So in the end it has to depend upon the honour of the author. Faced with the choice between the demands of honour and those of a large mortgage, the latter, nowadays, usually wins. One possible solution is to take away the financial opportunity. Could memoirs dependent on experience in the public service be Crown copyright, depriving the author of the money?

There is a further confusion about the Meyer case. I have seen it reported that Sir Christopher is not making any money out of all of this. But what he has actually said is that he is not taking money for the newspaper serialisations, a very different thing.