House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Feb 1990

Previous Section

Home Page

Column 881

Wiggin, Jerry

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker-- forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the Government's outstanding record in supporting the Arts, which means that more people throughout the country are now enjoying the Arts at an unprecedented standard of excellence ; congratulates the Government on increasing its funding of the Arts by 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by a further 24 per cent. over the next three years ; welcomes the increased support of 31 per cent. to the national museums and galleries to restore their fabric and the continuing funding of the new British Library ; reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining support for the Arts while supporting its approach of encouraging arts organisations to become more self-sufficient ; acknowledges the important role of the Royal Shakespeare Company ; and endorses the principle of arm's length funding whereby decisions about the funding of individual organisations are made by the Arts Council.

Column 882

Clergy (Ordination)

Mr. Speaker : I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet.

Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which will last for only an hour and a half. I ask hon. Members to make brief speeches so that as many as possible may be called. As this is not a party political issue but one on which hon. Members on both sides of the House hold views, the Chair may not necessarily go from one side to the other of the Chamber, but it will seek to balance the debate.

Sir Eldon Griffiths : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of seeking to catch your eye, but I should like one piece of advice before the debate begins. Is it not normally the case that a matter on which the House has reached a decision is rarely brought back to the House within 12 months? If, for example, the Government lose a vote, they accept it and that is that. Why is it that in this case, we have to consider again a Measure on which we have already taken a decision less than 12 months ago?

Mr. Speaker : That decision was taken in the previous Session of Parliament. This is the new Session, so the motion is in order. 10.15 pm

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners) : I beg to move

That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament in the last Session.

I am sorry to have to trouble the House with the rather unusual re-run of a Church of England Measure that has already been debated once in the House. On that occasion, it failed to obtain approval. I feel a little like a nervous curate having to call the banns of marriage for the second time and inquiring whether anyone knows cause or just impediment why the motion of the House and the motion of the General Synod may not be joined together in harmony. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)- -

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) rose --

Mr. Alison : I must get on a little.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds jumped the gun even before the banns were called for the second time. An exceptional circumstance arose the last time that the Measure was considered, on 17 July 1989, in that, contrary to all expectations, we reached it only at 2.6 am and the vote was not taken until 3.35 am. That late hour was considered by many inside and outside the House not to do justice either to the great importance-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Greenway rose --

Column 883

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me go first, please. A great deal of private conversation is going on. This is an important measure.

Mr. Alison : I think that you will find that there is a series of mini-debates, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that they will emerge in a consensus at the end of the debate.

Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison : No, as I must get on a little. I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.

That late hour was considered by many inside and outside the House not to do justice either to the great importance attached to the measure by the Church of England General Synod or to the sensitive personal cases involving a number of our constituents whose lives were and are profoundly affected by the measure's fate. Hence the decision taken late last year by the General Synod to ask the House of Commons in this new Session to reconsider the Measure and our earlier verdict on it at a more reasonable and propitious hour. The hour is certainly more reasonable than it was last year.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose--

Mr. Alison : It remains to be seen whether the hour is more propitious.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose--

Mr. Greenway rose--

Mr. Alison : I give way to my hon. Friend who caught my eye first.

Mr. Speaker : I call Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Alison : It may simplify your problem, Mr. Speaker, if I cancel both offers to give way.

As a result of the substantial controversy and constituency correspondence that the Measure has generated--not least because of the hour at which it suffered defeat last July--right hon. and hon. Members of all parties are now reasonably familiar with the issues at stake, so I need not weary the House on this occasion with a long explanatory speech. I shall be brief, in the interests of allowing as many of my colleagues as possible to enter the debate. I hope, by leave of the House, to speak again for a few minutes at the end of our debate to deal with particular points or queries raised by right hon. and hon. Members, which should receive a response.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose--

Mr. Alison : I want to get on further ; I shall certainly give way later.

The issue to which the Measure addresses itself is quite narrow. It relates to the marital circumstances of men and women who decide that they wish to seek ordination as priests or deacons in the Church of England. Under the law as it stands, a previous divorce is no necessary bar to such individuals seeking ordination, but remarriage after divorce constitutes such a bar under certain circumstances. Thus, under existing canon law, there is an absolute bar against a candidate seeking ordination if he or she is married and has a previous spouse still living from an earlier marriage, or if the partner to whom he or she is currently married likewise has a previous partner from an earlier marriage still living.

Column 884

That absolute bar reflects, for Christians at least, Christ's unequivocal teaching about marriage as a lifelong, permanent union, which only death can properly dissolve, and remarriage after divorce, although not after a partner's death, as adulterous if a previous partner is still living, although Christ also taught the possibility of grace and forgiveness.

I hasten to add that the Measure does not seek to question, abrogate or repudiate that fundamental Christian doctrinal position. Indeed, that fundamental position is rehearsed and reasserted as normative in the Measure, in its very first clause. Hon. Members who look at the clause will see that plainly.

Mr. Harry Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend understand and accept that that very point is a bar for almost all of us? How can that bar apply to people who have been divorced, who seek to be remarried in church and who are prevented by the bar from doing so, yet, if the Measure goes through, it will not prevent a man or woman in due course from being ordained? That same individual, having been ordained, will have to enforce the very bar that the Measure seeks to remove.

Mr. Alison : My hon. Friend, for whom I have respect and affection, is misinformed. There is no statute law debarring divorced men and women from being married in the Church of England. Any clergyman who marries a divorced man or woman cannot be proceeded against by any Church disciplinary measure.

The much narrower point at issue in the Measure is whether provision should be made in and by the Church of England to allow occasional exceptions to the absolute bar in specially deserving cases. After long reflection, extending over several years, the General Synod decided by a substantial majority that provision should be made for such occasional exceptions, each case to be individually weighed and determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York themselves, exclusively.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose--

Mr. Alison : I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not giving way to her, so she had better save her breath for when she makes her speech.

It is to legislate for occasional dispensation only that the measure is brought before the House. Our own parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee has likewise by a majority endorsed the position of the Synod, as our report to the House makes clear. It is not difficult to cite cases in which the special dispensation of the archbishops might reasonably be exercised.

The most compelling case of which I am aware is of a mature candidate who decided to seek ordination after an active secular career. It is an actual, not a hypothetical, case. He and his wife have had a long and happy marriage, and have grown-up children. His wife was once briefly married in her teens ; that marriage was never consummated. No full and proper marriage took place and the marriage could have been annulled. However, the parties involved decided that divorce rather than annulment was a quicker and less unsavoury experience in ending the marriage and the girl was divorced. As a result, the husband is debarred on a technicality, so to speak, from seeking ordination, to which he has a strong vocation. If the Measure is passed, it will enable special

Column 885

dispensations to be granted to people in such cases. Other cases can and probably will be cited by other hon. Members during the debate.

I hope that no one will argue that it is improper for Parliament to consider these matters. Marriage in our society is of immense consequence and interest to Church and state alike. I repeat the figures that I cited last July. In the latest year for which figures are available, 1986, 348,000 registered marriages in England and Wales--well over half--were solemnised in religious ceremonies. Of those, one third were solemnised in Church of England ceremonies. Constituents are deeply interested in these matters and in religious matters generally as they affect public policy. Churchgoing is still the most popular voluntary communal activity in Britain, far outstripping--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : It will not be, the way things are going.

Mr. Speaker : Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that her behaviour does not improve her chances of being called?

Mr. Alison : One has only to recall the interest taken during the last Parliament in Sunday trading and in the present Parliament in religious broadcasting, to make the point. The great majority of our population who identify with the Christian religion--probably about 80 per cent. according to surveys--but who are not active churchgoers tend to write to their Members of Parliament about religious matters to express their fears rather than to members of the General Synod. Parliament rightly established the Church of England General Synod so that more time and specialised consideration could be given to matters by that body. But Parliament rightly reserved for itself the last word. Parliament represents a reasonable cross-section of religious interests, commitment and concern in our society.

Column 886

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison : No, I have nearly finished. I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More than one hon. Member has tried to make this into a debate instead of a series of monologues. Is it right for my right hon. Friend to ignore interruptions or is his case so weak that it cannot--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if an hon. Member does not wish to give way--

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : This is a monologue, not a debate.

Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Member said that he is not giving way, so that is up to him.

Mr. Alison : That merely underlines the point that I was making-- that passions run high in the House on matters of religious interest and that it is proper for Parliament to spend time on and occupy itself with such matters, which are of immense interest and concern to our constituents. To adapt an old saying, religion is too important to be left to the bishops and clergy--the professionals, so to speak, who dominate the General Synod.

The General Synod, clergy and laity alike, has given lengthy, responsible and anxious thought to this strictly limited new power of dispensation, as set out in the Measure. They have reached a clear decision by a substantial majority. Our Ecclesiastical Committee endorsed that majority view of the General Synod. It has acted as Parliament was intended to act. Therefore, I commend the Measure to the House.

Column 887

10.28 pm

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton) : I do not wish to detain the House for long, because many hon. Members wish to contribute to this important debate. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to reflect the views of many Anglicans, who are mystified at what the Church is seeking to achieve at present. Their voice is not reflected sufficiently in the Synod, and they look to the Church to provide them with a lead in moral and other matters, but so often they are sadly disappointed.

The measure emanates from the 1978 Lichfield report entitled "Marriage and the Church's Task", the main recommendations of which failed to be accepted, as the House will recall. It has been suggested that the Commons should not thwart the wishes of the Synod, a view that I find extraordinary bearing in mind the writ that has been served questioning the legality of the General Synod's vote. In some people's minds, this may not be the right moment for Parliament to take on the established Church and to give it a boot up the backside, but I genuinely believe that it is the right moment to make a stand against the liberal trends on matters of morality, and to conclude that to allow the ordination of men who have been divorced and have then remarried makes a mockery of the Church's teaching. The Lichfield report stated :

"it seems clear that Jesus made an uncompromising statement about divorce : a man or a woman who remarries after divorce commits adultery."

Of course we understand the pressures of modern day life on families and on marriage. Of course we understand the dilemma faced by individuals who feel that they have been called by God to serve in this very particular way. However, such people could find many other ways in which they could serve God and their fellow man, and they should seek out those alternative ways.

The House must realise that tonight we are being asked to bend the rules to enable a few--240 at present--

Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) rose --

Mrs. Winterton : The hon. Gentleman will have his say in a few moments.

We are being asked to bend the rules to allow 240 people to become priests. These are not necessarily hard cases--there are very few hard cases--and we in the House know only too well that good legislation is never introduced for hard cases. We must take the broader view and decide what is in the best interests of the Church as a whole and of the people of this country as a whole, and not of those hard cases.

Mr. Hayward : Does not the church also teach us to forgive, as well as moral certainty?

Mrs. Winterton : I have never suggested that this should not be about forgiveness. One can forgive, but one must remember that, when someone has married, he has stood before an altar, in his right mind, has decided to take the other person on and has said that the marriage should last "until death us do part". If that is meaningless, I suggest that those who seek to go into the priesthood are forgetting one of the basic tenets of their faith, which would be a great mistake. This is not about forgiveness

Column 888

--of course people forgive--but about something more fundamental. As I have asked, we are being asked to bend those rules.

I do so hope that we shall reject the Measure because we must not dilute even further the influence and the example of the Church at a time when the country is longing for a strong moral lead. I beg the House to overthrow the Measure once again.

10.33 pm

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : I invite the House to support the Measure, for three reasons. The first is that the Church wants it. Secondly, the Church of England, being a state-controlled Church, can at present achieve what it wants only if the House votes for it. Thirdly, in so far as any individual can assess it, the Measure removes the anomaly whereby one can be a priest, be divorced, remarry and continue to be a priest. I also support the Measure because it affects certain people who have a vocation which it is not for the House to deny.

I am totally unimpressed by the arguments used against the Measure, including the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). The House is made up of many faiths and there is no requirement, as once there was, to be an Anglican in order to be elected to the House. The house has no moral authority or mandate to set its judgment above that of the Synod. I challenge any hon. Members to claim that they gave a pledge, whether in a party manifesto or in an election address, that on Church Measures they would vote against those which they did not like. If any hon. Members could assure me that they had notified their constituents that they had such a mandate, they might be in a special position, but I do not believe that to be the case.

The argument about constitutional rights is not a valid one. The Crown has the constitutional right to reject all our legislation but does not exercise it. The Crown has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister at any time without question, but it does not exercise it. Similarly, the Crown has the right to dissolve Parliament at any time, but it does not exercise that right. The argument about constitutional rights should not carry any weight in the House. The arguments used against the Measure rest on double standards, for who liberalised the divorce laws but Parliament? Parliament has liberalised those laws regularly. Hon. Members can be divorced. Sir Anthony Eden was divorced when he became Prime Minister yet under our State Church, as a divorced man he had the power to appoint bishops. It is nonsense that the House should set its judgment on this matter above that of the Synod.

The debate brings into sharp focus the question of Church-state relations. I believe that one of the motives of those who wish to overthrow the Measure is that Church pronouncements on peace, poverty and social justice have greatly angered some Conservative Members. They do not like it, but without being offensive, I will not take lectures on moral standards from those who have enacted legislation which has caused so much social injustice.

I was brought up on the Old Testament, on the conflict between the kings who exercised the power and the prophets who preached righteousness. The story in the Old Testament would have been different if the kings had appointed the prophets. But I do not have much time for churchmen who protect the establishment.

Column 889

I attended the coronation service and I have brought the order of service with me. I remember the occasion well--2 June 1953. One of the few pledges that the Queen gave to the Archbishop of Canterbury was the following :

"Archbishop : Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen : All this I promise to do."

The bishops are part of a privileged group in our society. They sit in the House of Lords and they have a special status. They insist on maintaining the blasphemy laws, which has an element of contemporary importance. For one reason why the Muslims are angry is that they are not protected by those laws, which the bishops insist should protect the Church of England.

This is a time for a fresh look, though I know that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who moved the Measure, does not agree with my reasons for supporting it. A few weeks ago the Soviet Parliament repealed article 6 of its constitution. Article 6 established Marxism-Leninism as the only political faith in Russia. The Russians have disestablished Marxism-Leninism. In this country, there are Protestants, Nonconformists, Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, yet we are told, on the advice of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, that we must preserve Parliament's power to control one church.

Tonight's vote will be a watershed. It is a crowded House. The early moments of the debate did not give me the idea that the House was an appropriate body to deal with such a matter. I did not think that the behaviour of some hon. Members confirmed our right to exercise the powers which, by statute, we have. If we accept the Measure, we are accepting the Church's right to be free. If we reject the Measure, the Church will demand its freedom.

There is no doubt that if Parliament rejects the Measure for a second time, the pressure in the Church of England for

disestablishment will grow. I happen to share that wish, but I do not want to see it brought about by denying justice to people whom the Church, in its wisdom, considers eligible for ordination. Therefore, whichever way the vote goes will be a step towards

disestablishment--de facto if we accept the Measure, de jure if we reject it.

I shall conclude because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. State control of religion is a feudal survival. The sooner we end it, and end the farce of debates such as this, the better it will be for the Church of England and for the House.

10.42 pm

Next Section

Home Page