---

Column 901

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will return to the Measure that we are discussing.

Mr. Rees : The Measure is pushing us along that road. We will vote one way or the other, but it is not our business. That is why I was not here last time. I wish I were not here now. If the House is talking about saving marriages, the quicker I get home, the better. 11.33 pm

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : We have the right to debate the matter ; we also have the right to represent our constituents' fears and concerns. There is a feeling of despair among many lay people. I listened with tremendous sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), but the Church of England has gone wrong. It no longer provides the guidance that ordinary people expect. I give, as one example, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. What is the Church's view on that Bill? I do not know whether it knows what its view is, but it has not told me. I have had many letters from various institutions on the Bill but I have not heard a squeak from the Church of England.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Summerson : I shall not give way.

If the Church trod the path laid down for it nearly 2,000 years ago and preached the timeless gospel of Christ, I should support the Measure that it has introduced today, because I would have trust and confidence that what the Church was doing was right. But I do not. The Church's values today are those of contemporaneous, secular society. I have lost my trust in the Church. I do not believe that its motives are correct, and I believe that the Measure should be rejected.

11.35 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : When the Ecclesiastical Committee first set out on its deliberations two years ago, I presumed--as, I admit, did some of my colleagues on the Committee--that when the Measure came to be voted on, I should vote against it. However, I did not vote against it the last time that it was debated and I shall not vote against it tonight.

The reasons why I shall not vote against the Measure, although various, can be summarised relatively briefly. The Church's teaching on marriage is clear. The Church has specific teaching that the leaders of the Church should set a good example and according to Timothy, should take only one wife. There is clear teaching. However, as the Attorney-General and others have clearly said, the Church has equally preached that, for every individual without exception, there is available forgiveness. If we defeat the Measure, one of the effects would be to deny the sacrament of forgiveness to people who are ordained, while the Church offers, and the holy spirit gives, forgiveness to lay members of the Church.

The Ecclesiastical Committee took a year, spent six sessions, considered evidence and had a joint meeting with the legislative committee of the General Synod before coming to the decision that the measure was expedient. I respect the views of those who have expressed an alternative view this evening. It is clear that, theologically, the matter is difficult, but we should take heed of the

---

Column 902

advice that we have been given by the people who guide us on matters of theology in the Church. They have deliberated and decided by a substantial majority that the matter does not offend against the theology of the Christian Church or against the teachings of Christ. In all three Houses there was a majority. It does not matter what our views are on disestablishment. As an Anglican who is in favour of disestablishment, I too wish that we did not have to do this job. However, we must do our job tonight with the best advice available. The House could reject the Measure, as it did before, but uniquely, the Church is entitled to send it back when it will. When the Church reconsidered the decision of the House last July, it resolved, by a majority of more than two thirds, that the Measure should come back to the House and should be supported by the Church.

As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, the measure applies not only to men but to women. If the Measure is accepted, many women who are waiting to be ordained deacons will be allowed to be ordained, just as the men affected will be allowed to be ordained priests. It would be anomalous if the measure were not accepted. By definition, some people would be prevented from being ordained by faults that were not of their commission and sins not of their making. Some would be prevented by technicalities. Others might be eligible despite the fact that they might have lived with one, two or more partners--just because they had never got married--and some would be prevented because they married somebody who, many years past, had once been divorced. That person would be debarred although he may never have been divorced himself. By the present law, we can allow people to be ordained who have been convicted of murder. Are we to deny that to those whose marriage has failed? Perhaps most importantly, is the Church to say that people who have been married and divorced, who were remarried when they were not Christians, but who became Christians later, like Paul and many other cases in the history of the Church, should then be prevented from starting again, as the Church teaches is available? I advise the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the rule of the Church that allows priests to refuse requests for marriage is not a parallel, and it is therefore not a good precedent. The Church allows that. It will continue to have that provision, and it is up to the individual priest. The fact that someone may find a priest who is willing to remarry that person in church--as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) made clear has happened to him--is not an argument for rejecting the Measure.

Above all, the debate is about whether forgiveness can override the strict interpretation of the law, but it is also about whether this House will leave to the pastors and spiritual leaders of the Church the right to decide that, in an individual case, after close examination, somebody should be allowed to be ordained in spite of what had gone before. If it is a choice between this House barring everybody in all circumstances from being ordained or of leaving it to the Church, I think that we should leave it to the Church.

---

Column 903

11.41 pm

Mr. Alison : With the leave of the House, I should like to make two concluding points--one a very narrow point and the other rather broader. On the narrow point, in his impressive speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to the fact that he thought that the General Synod should have had a two-thirds majority vote on the critical point. He drew attention to the fact that a law suit is now in process outside the House to try to decide whether a two-thirds majority should have been applied. My right hon. Friend complained about costs in the law suit. I should look at that point carefully and, without commitment, shall do everything that I can to help his side. The Church of England has said that, if the law suit is won by the plaintiffs--his side-- it will unequivocally take the canon which will implement the Measure back to the Synod and submit it to the two-thirds majority procedure. There is therefore still a chance for my right hon. Friend's wish to be fulfilled.

My right hon. Friend was eloquent in urging the vital necessity of upholding the Christian view of marriage. Very few, if any, hon. Members would differ from my right hon. Friend on that fact. Indeed, I doubt whether anybody in the country--certainly nobody in the Church--would differ from him about the need to uphold the highest possible Christian view of marriage. It is precisely because of the overwhelming support for that view--almost monolithic as a feeling in the House, the General Synod, the Church and the country at large--that we can run the risk of allowing this very modest limited degree of exceptional dispensation without shaking the fabric of rigorous popular orthodoxy.

I pray in aid the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his eloquent speech--that the debate is about balance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew) hit the nail on the head when he said that the absolute disbarring of remarried, divorced clergy is a disproportionate sanction. We should run the risk of modestly lifting that sanction by endorsing the Measure tonight.

Question put :

The House divided : Ayes 228, Noes 106.

Division No. 87] [11.45 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Allen, Graham

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Beckett, Margaret

Beith, A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Bellingham, Henry

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bermingham, Gerald

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Body, Sir Richard

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Buck, Sir Antony

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Cartwright, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clay, Bob

---

Column 904

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Couchman, James

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Doran, Frank

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Eastham, Ken

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Faulds, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Foster, Derek

Fox, Sir Marcus

Franks, Cecil

Fraser, John

Freeman, Roger

Fyfe, Maria

Gardiner, George

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

George, Bruce

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Golding, Mrs Llin

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gordon, Mildred

Gorst, John

Graham, Thomas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Ground, Patrick

Hanley, Jeremy

Hannam, John

Hardy, Peter

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Harman, Ms Harriet

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Hayes, Jerry

Haynes, Frank

Hayward, Robert

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Heffer, Eric S.

Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Hood, Jimmy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Illsley, Eric

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Key, Robert

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Knox, David

Lamond, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Leighton, Ron

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Madel, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marland, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Mates, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Michael, Alun

Miscampbell, Norman

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Mitchell, Sir David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Nellist, Dave

Nelson, Anthony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Patchett, Terry

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Randall, Stuart

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Rhodes James, Robert

Richardson, Jo

Rogers, Allan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Rowe, Andrew

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soley, Clive

Squire, Robin

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steinberg, Gerry

Stern, Michael

Stott, Roger

Straw, Jack

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Temple-Morris, Peter

---