What do you propose?
HA
SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]:
I was summoned to an urgent private meeting with Humphrey, shortly after that nurse was rescued from Qumran.
He knew that the Foreign Office had been against the Dean of Baillies mercy mission, and he knew that I knew.
But in order to forestall hostile press coverage of the FOs passive role in the proceedings, Sir Richard Wharton had proposed that the FO tell the press that it was Hackers initiative to send the Dean. The PM would enjoy taking the credit. (And incidentally, there would be no danger of Hacker denying a favourable story just because it was not true.)
Then for the Sunday papers, the Foreign Office would leak the idea that they had suggested this course to the PM when they found the diplomatic channels were blocked. Thus no one would get the blame and everyone would share the credit.
It was a sensible plan. As the PMs Principal Private Secretary my co-operation was needed. I gave it without hesitation.
After his meeting with Bernard Woolley, Sir Humphrey received a phone call from the Master of Baillie College. The meeting with Woolley is only referred to en passant in the diary, but there are brief notes about the phone call and about a subsequent meeting with Peter Harding, the Appointments Secretary Ed.]
Tuesday 13 June
2.30 Successful meeting with BW about FO press plans.
2.45 Master of Baillie telephoned, excited that the news of Fiona McGregors release might help our friend towards preferment.
I was able to inform him that we might not have a wait for a vacancy in another Bishopric. The battle of Bury St Edmunds is not over. My intention is to get the Dean up to the starting gate as a late entry.
3.00 Peter Harding came to discuss Bury St Edmunds. The Crown Appointments Commission is meeting tomorrow morning.
He was put out that a further candidate has to be submitted to the PM now that he has seen fit to break with tradition by insisting upon a bishop who believes in the Resurrection.
Peter promised me a possible candidate, Stephen Soames. He was regretful because Soames was being saved up for Truro. [Truro is very remote. It is to the Church what the Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea is to the Civil Service Ed.]
Soames has been waiting for a bishopric for years. Long time, no See? He is rather a nuisance. He keeps on about his duty to God and that sort of thing. The Church really wants him out of the way. But if the PM wants a religious bishop he is about the only candidate around.
I told Peter that there is a snag. The PM wants two more names put up to him. Actually, the PM does not yet know that he wants two more names, but he will realise it as soon as the idea has been put to him. After all, it is only right that the Prime Minister should be given the feeling that he is making a choice.
Therefore, Peter is obliged to put up a second candidate. I encouraged him to find someone plausible but unacceptable. Peter was concerned. He had only till tomorrow morning to think of yet another candidate.
I suggested the Dean of Baillie College. Peter felt he was too implausible even to be suggested, on the grounds that he is unbelievably vain and hopelessly incompetent.
I explained to Peter that the PM doesnt think its silly to appoint people who are vain and incompetent. Look at the Cabinet. Furthermore, as the Dean has just had some good publicity he must be a plausible second choice.
This made Peter more concerned. This time he was worried at the danger that the Dean might therefore get the job.
I was able to smooth ruffled feathers by telling him of the PMs stated view that a devout Christian should be appointed. As the Dean is known to believe only in Islam, the MCC and steam engines, Peter felt relaxed about making him the second name on the list.
I shall have to smooth more ruffled feathers when Hacker recommends the Dean for the bishropic. However, tomorrow is another day.
Prime Ministers envoy secures nurses release
JIMS DEAN SAVES FIONA FROM LASH
The Daily Telegraph
Imaginative diplomacy
IT DOES the Prime Minister great credit that he has not let himself be bound by the shackles of orthodox diplomacy
[Hackers diary continues Ed.]
June 14th
The morning newspapers were a triumph.
I was given full credit for it all on the news last night as well. Im not quite sure why. I suppose it must have all been my doing, really. After all, it says so in the papers. I did stop the Foreign Office from stopping the Dean, which comes to the same thing.
Still, its strange. One normally has such a battle in public life to get the proper credit for anything good one has achieved. Yet here the glorys being handed to me on a plate, when my role in it was peripheral to say the least.
Anyway, theres no point in asking for corrections when the story has come out so thoroughly to my advantage. I suppose I should count my blessings.
I had a final meeting first thing this morning, to discuss the vacant bishopric. Apparently the Palace is now waiting. When Humphrey and Bernard came in, though, I first asked why -- in their opinion -- the Foreign Office press office gave me the credit for the rescue.
Humphrey took the view that they couldnt take any credit themselves because of their protest. But by giving me the credit, it looks like a government achievement instead of a church achievement.
I suppose that must be it! The first sentence of the Telegraph leader reinforces that view.
We moved on to the question of the new Bishop of Bury St Edmunds. I was initially in favour of Stephen Soames. Peter likes him too. And although the Dean of Baillie did a pretty good job in Qumran he is said to be fairly eccentric. In fact, Ive heard hes barking mad. But when I asked for Humphreys opinion, his response really frightened me. Im sure Soames is the choice the Crown Commissioners are hoping youll make, Prime Minister.
An ominous warning sign. Peter hasnt been levelling with me. I asked Humphrey what the problem is with Soames.
Ive heard it said that hes an extremist.
What, I wondered, is extremist the code word for. You mean that he believes in God? I was groping wildly.
Bernard tried to explain. Hes very religious, Prime Minister.
I was still groping. Thats all right for a bishop, isnt it?
Well yes and no, said Humphrey carefully. He tends to raise issues that governments often would prefer not to be raised. He is a trenchant critic of abortion, contraception for the under-sixteens, sex education, pornography, Sunday trading, easy divorce and bad language on television.
Quite a catalogue. This is serious. I dont want some loud-mouth, self-righteous cleric challenging the government on all these subjects.
It wouldnt be so bad if we had a policy about any of them. But they are all matters about which the government is trying to avoid having a policy. Our policy is not to have a policy.
I went over this with Humphrey. Quite, he replied. He is against your no policy policy.
Bernard, presumably in the interests of clarity, piped up. He would demand that you ban abortion, Sunday trading, contraception for the under-sixteens, sex education
Thank you, Bernard, Ive got the gist, I said.
Humphrey said he had more bad news about Soames. Hes also against oppression and persecution in Africa.
I saw no problem with that. So are we.
Yes, he agreed. But Soames is against it when practised by black governments as well as white ones.
So hes a racist! [This curious leap in logic is explained by the fact that Hacker had been a Guardian reader when in opposition Ed.]
I really didnt know what to do. Sympathetically, Humphrey murmured that I could still choose Soames if I wanted to. Obviously I didnt want to -- but how could I turn down another two names?