---

Mr. Cormack : Cannot my right hon. Friend accept that what we are asking is that the provision should state that clerks in holy orders are eligible--not may be eligible or may apply for, but will be eligible--to receive a sum not specified? Should not the provision apply to all ordained clerks?

Mr. Alison : That is implied in the statement on page 35 of our report, which not only refers to missionaries, school chaplains and others who are ordained but goes wider, to include laymen. I cannot see what other category or group of individuals--either lay people or non-lay people--one could possibly include without extending the provision to, for example, the animal liberation movement. One can only be ordained or non-ordained and people in both categories will be eligible for discretionary help.

Mr. Gummer : If it is true that every clerk in holy orders will have the same eligibility as those who are eligible at the moment, why will not the Church say that in the legislation, and go on to say that there are other categories to which it will extend discretion? Does not my right hon. Friend understand that there is a suspicion--I do not want to use the word, but I must--that every time the matter is pressed, the Church refuses to say what we all believe it ought to mean if the discretion is to be extended to all those people?

Mr. Alison : My right hon. Friend seeks a special discriminatory selection of or emphasis on the ordained ministry as such. Why should it be necessary to highlight the ordained ministry given that its members are automatically highlighted by the standard scheme, which can apply only to incumbents? Why should it be necessary to mention both the ordained and the non-ordained in connection with the discretionary scheme? The essential aim is to make the provisions as inclusive as possible and that inclusiveness is secured by the discretionary element, especially in the light of the categories that have been spelt out.

I remind the House that, in that context, votes in the General Synod--from the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity--were very nearly 100 per cent. in support of the whole of the financial provision Measure. The House of Clergy, in particular, felt that the kind of assistance that we are anxious to secure was properly and fully available.

The financial assistance scheme is a generous one by Anglican standards and an extremely generous one by the secular standards applying to our communities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal expressed his anxiety about the future of the Church of England, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). My right hon. Friend made the point that we have no authority to make fundamental changes such as this. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the 39 Articles and I felt that it was somewhat disingenuous of my right

---

Column 1148

hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal --I do not mean to be insulting to him--to refer to the changes that we propose in the Measures while overlooking the changes that were made in the 15th and 16th centuries in the 39 Articles, including the repudiation of transubstantiation, the repudiation of clerical celibacy and the reduction in the number of sacrements from seven to two, all of which were fundamental. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South was especially anxious that the broad base of the Church of England includes as many people as possible and should not be undermined by what we are discussing today. I refer especially to paragraph 3 on page 24 of the report that he joined me in publishing. It says that we hope to

"enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions".

I cannot think of a more comprehensive or promising statement than that made by the bishops at the Manchester gathering in June. It being half-past Two o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 October] :

The House divided : Ayes 215, Noes 21.

Division No. 376] [2.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allen, Graham

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Arbuthnot, James

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashby, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Austin-Walker, John

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Bates, Michael

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Andrew F.

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Berry, Dr. Roger

Betts, Clive

Boateng, Paul

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Boyce, Jimmy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Peter

Byers, Stephen

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Chapman, Sydney

Clapham, Michael

Clappison, James

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coffey, Ann

Cohen, Harry

Colvin, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Ms Jean

Couchman, James

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

Denham, John

Dobson, Frank

Dowd, Jim

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Eagle, Ms Angela

Enright, Derek

Evennett, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fisher, Mark

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Fraser, John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Gale, Roger

Gapes, Mike

Garrett, John

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Gunnell, John

Hall, Mike

Hanley, Jeremy

Hannam, Sir John

Hardy, Peter

---