---

Ethical Investments

38. Mr. Baker: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the Church Commissioners in respect of ethical investments.[6502]

Mr. Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the Church Commissioners have pursued ethical investment policies for longer than anyone else. Way back in 1948, the Church gave the lead when apartheid became a statutory regime in South Africa, and it banned investment in companies that were dealing with South Africa. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I was at the Synod in York on Saturday where there was a useful and constructive debate on ethical investment. The Church Commissioners are concerned to balance and reconcile their duty to maximise their investments with ethical judgments from within the Church.

Mr. Baker: I am pleased that the issue is apparently being taken seriously by the Church Commissioners. Is the Minister aware that the commissioners are investing a seven-figure sum in a company called Monsanto, which is responsible for the production of the Agent Orange pesticide which led to an out-of-court settlement of $180 million? Is he further aware that the company had to pay a fine in New York because of misleading advertising which claimed that it was environmentally friendly? Is he also aware that the company is responsible for and is at the leading edge of genetic engineering, which some of us regard as playing God with the building blocks of life? Does the hon. Gentleman think that investment in that company is consistent with the tenets of Christianity, and will he take steps to disinvest in Monsanto?

Mr. Bell: The question of Agent Orange goes back to the Vietnam war in the 1970s. It would not be appropriate in the House to go into specific cases, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me on the matter, I shall consider it. There is constant dialogue between companies that are involved in various activities and the Church Commissioners. As a so-called guru of corporate governance in the Labour party, I am interested in looking at various codes of conduct and at ethical investment and in updating them, if that is needed. I want to be sure that we reconcile the Church's ethical criteria with its right and duty to maximise its income.

Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, the Church Commissioners say that they do not invest in companies

14 Jul 1997 : Column 18

that deal mainly in arms. GEC is now the second largest producer of arms in this country and it is expanding its production. What is the cut-off point? What is the precise meaning of "mainly"?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Church of England's ethical investment working group, which includes a number of investing bodies and their staffs, has established contact with GEC, which has given assurances that it is in the business of defence-related equipment that is sold to the Government and to other NATO Governments. All of that is done under licence. The ethical investment working group and the commissioners continue to maintain close oversight on what companies are doing, where they are investing and their proposals. All investment decisions are taken after that close co-operation and in the light of companies' decisions.

Pensions

39. Mr. Flynn: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to improve the finances of the Church of England in relation to pensions.[6503]

Mr. Stuart Bell: We aim to maximise investment income and to secure an appreciation in the value of our assets. That is the best way in which to improve the finances of the Church of England in relation to pensions. That is the short answer to my hon. Friend. The longer answer is that, as he knows, earlier this year, the House approved a new pension scheme, which transfers the liability for future service pensions to dioceses for the majority of clergy. The commissioners will remain responsible for all past service pensions and for pension contributions into the new fund for some senior clergy whose stipends they meet directly.

Mr. Flynn: Recalling the financial turmoil that the Church was in when many clergymen left it because of the recognition of the priesthood of women, has my hon. Friend made any financial assessment of what might happen if there were another large exodus of such clergymen, following weekend reports that up to a third will refuse to take the Loyal Oath if the heir to the throne remarries?

Mr. Bell: We have not considered how many clergy may resign on that basis. A number of surveys were published at the weekend. The bishops declared most of them useless. Such hypothetical questions are not of great interest to the Church in the sense that its investments and the return of income are sound. We hope to continue on that course.

14 Jul 1997 : Column 19

"Yesterday in Parliament"

3.30 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you have on occasion expressed concern at the lack of media reporting of Parliament and, as hon. Members know, the press no longer report our proceedings. I should therefore like to draw your attention--because I believe that it is a matter of serious concern to the House--to the fact that it is widely reported that the BBC intends to drop "Yesterday in Parliament", replacing it, apparently, with some panel discussion. It would be extremely unfortunate if that report were true, and if a decision on those lines were taken soon. Would it be possible for you, as our Speaker, strongly to urge the BBC to reconsider any such move?

Decisions taken in the House affect millions of people outside. Those who listen to the programme--an audience, I understand, of well over 1 million in the morning--are surely entitled to know what went on during the previous day in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. The broadcasting organisations at the time were very keen that this House should have broadcasting facilities, and, as we know, it has been in operation for some 19 years.

The BBC is a public service organisation--at times, of course, it gives the impression that it is nothing of the kind. It has a duty to continue to broadcast not only "Today in Parliament", but "Yesterday in Parliament". The people who run the BBC should not come to the view that what we do here is of no importance, that some panel discussion can take place, and that we should be satisfied with it.

Indeed, it is the public far more than ourselves who should decide whether they should be satisfied or not. There is a strong case that "Yesterday in Parliament", which, after all, a few years ago was drastically reduced in length, should continue. I hope that you agree, Madam Speaker, that that is the view that you would wish to express as the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Several hon. Members: Further to the point of order.

Madam Speaker: My goodness. I will take Sir Patrick Cormack first. We cannot have a debate on these matters. Members must put their point of order to me.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You will, of course, remember that,

14 Jul 1997 : Column 20

last year, you were the guest of honour at the 50th anniversary of "Today in Parliament", which was held in the House. Therefore, would you, on behalf of the House and representing Members on both sides of the Chamber, at the very least express to the BBC how much importance we attach to those two programmes, and how greatly they are valued by our constituents?

Several hon. Members rose--

Madam Speaker: I will take one more point of order from either side of the Chamber. Mr. MacShane.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): Is not the point about "Yesterday in Parliament" that it is the only direct connection between Parliament and the people that is not filtered by the distinguished cohort of scribblers, sketch boys, soundbiters and spin doctors who sit above you, Madam Speaker? Were it to be axed, frankly, I wonder whether the House's support for the continuation of publicly funded broadcasting in the form of the BBC would not take a serious knock. That worries me considerably.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not possible that the BBC's attitude has been influenced by the fact that, as Ministers now come to this House so rarely--and when they do, they do not answer our questions--covering the proceedings of the House, as the BBC has done for so many years, is a waste of its time, of taxpayers' money and, arguably, of the time of the House?

Madam Speaker: That is moving away from a serious point of order.

The concern expressed by hon. Members has been felt in all parts of the House. That concern is shared by millions of people; indeed, I share it myself.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may wish to refer the matter to the Select Committee on National Heritage. Knowing the view of the House, I will certainly make representations to the BBC, on behalf of the House.

---