| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.6 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): I shall make only a brief speech. My speech was to some extent contingent on the way in which the debate went. I declare an interest, at least at this moment, as a lay adviser to St. Paul's cathedral since 1980. The lay body owes its origins to the great late Launcelot Fleming, who, as Bishop of Norwich, was responsible for the creation of lay advisers to that cathedral taken from across the diocese. The chance that Alan Webster came to St. Paul's after having been the Dean of Norwich meant that the idea was then developed at St. Paul's. Launcelot Fleming went on to become the Dean of St. George's, Windsor and thus has a walk-on part in our debate.
The lay body of St. Paul's has had the considerable benefit of the advice of Lady Howe of Aberavon, to whom the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred. It was valuable advice. I understand that the dean and chapter of St. Paul's welcome the Measure. The lay body to which I have belonged for 19 years will cease before the millennium and the new body that will be created under the Measure will take over.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has now left the Chamber. In the context of his references to the Ecclesiastical Committee, I shall simply remark that I have never sought to be a member of the committee and I have suffered no distress to my psyche from the fact that I have not so served.
I could not be unaware, however, of the involvement of certain right hon. and hon. Members in the matter of Westminster abbey. I mention wholly neutrally and without any angst the fact that there were no particular contacts with me at the level of constituency courtesy about those involvements. I feel no angst because I have been long accustomed in my 22 years in the House to the fact that the majority of my colleagues regard my constituency as the equivalent of the district of Columbia--without any democratic representation at all.
Those who would be deeply hurt and offended if I were to appear in their constituency without having sent them a postcard have no hesitation in traversing my constituency in hobnail boots. That is not a reference to the manner in which people have behaved in this matter, but I hope that a brief reference to events at Westminster abbey is in order--events to which allusion has been made by one or two other participants in the debate.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for not pressing the matter in the context of the debate, other than in the references that they have made, but it is fair to say that they have made certain animadversions. The dean and chapter have accepted Lord Jauncey's judgment. The only observation that I would make--I am touching on things that have been said before--is that the dean and chapter in the matter to which oblique reference has been made sought to work within the employment law of this country, not under any special jurisdiction or position that the Royal Peculiar afforded them.
I have only once appeared--I think that this is relevant--in an industrial relations tribunal case. It was, in the light of subsequent developments, a fairly remarkable case to have participated in, as my counsel was the present Lord Chancellor and the pupil whom he brought to the case was the present Prime Minister. It is to the credit of both those right hon. Gentlemen that we won the case.
However, I learned from that experience that one of the most disagreeable features--my brother is a lawyer although I am not--of being involved in any such case is the very firm advice that one receives from lawyers that one must not behave in as open and generous a manner in the ordinary conduct of business as one would naturally wish to do with someone with whom one has worked closely in the past. It is a very disagreeable condition to be in; I have been in it myself.
Mr. Gummer:
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would accept the following: many of us feel that when Christians deal with other Christians, every effort must be made not to go to law. I believe that that is actually a gospel demand. The issue--it was the issue long before the employment rules were reached--is what was referred to in Lord Jauncey's judgment about the rules of natural justice. I want to go further and suggest to my right hon. Friend that perhaps the true concern is that people did not behave as brothers at the beginning, but allowed the situation to develop until lawyers got involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the lawyers get involved, it is very difficult to be charitable.
Mr. Brooke:
I am reasonably sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to follow my right hon. Friend down that--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is quite correct. I think that we are now in danger of having the debate that we must not have.
Mr. Brooke:
I anticipated your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so my right hon. Friend's words will be in the Official Report and no words that I might say in response will be--but then he is a much more shrewd and cunning parliamentarian than I am.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for not seeking to hold up the Measure this evening. In areas outside the Peculiars, it is obviously welcomed by deans and chapters up and down the land, so it is a thoroughly good thing that it should proceed.
As to the commission that has been appointed in connection with the Royal Peculiars, I understand that the dean and chapter of Westminster welcome that; as their local Member of Parliament, I certainly do, too.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said that he had never sought to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. If he had served on it, he would have enriched it. His wisdom and his contributions would have enlivened our discussions. I hope that, even at this late stage in his most distinguished parliamentary career, he might consider expressing a desire to serve on that committee.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and the House will forgive me if I say something that might technically be slightly out of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned Westminster cathedral. Until now, there has been no opportunity in the House to pay tribute to the very great Christian who died last week and who will be buried tomorrow--Cardinal Basil Hume. I should like to do so now. If all those in positions of authority within all the Churches showed his degree of Christian charity and humility, not only would we not be having this debate tonight but we would not need to have many on Church affairs. He has made an outstanding contribution to the spiritual and social life of the country. It is right that that should be on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned my long membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Twenty-eight years is indeed quite a long time, and I believe that I hold the record for serving on it longer than anyone else. It is a most unsatisfactory committee because it has no power to do more than exercise a certain amount of influence. We can never amend any Measure that comes before us. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows too well, we are faced with the stark choice of deeming a Measure expedient and letting it proceed and come to the House, or sending it back to Synod because we do not deem it expedient. To be realistic, it is unlikely that the committee's terms of reference will be rewritten, but it is useful to place on record the fact that, from time to time, it is a very frustrating committee of which to be a member.
I must declare an interest in that I am an elected member of the General Synod. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who spoke with his customary lucidity, is on the General Synod too, ex officio. I am now the only Member of either House of Parliament to have been elected to the General Synod by the most peculiar
system of proportional representation that we were castigating an hour or so ago in the Chamber. That body could be vastly improved, especially if every member of every electoral roll in the country had a vote for Synod representatives, but that is not in order this evening.
When I was on the General Synod, I did not support the Cathedrals Measure because I have always felt that hard cases made bad law. Although I am not suggesting that the Measure is bad law, and I will commend it to the House, it seemed to me that the rich diversity of our ecclesiastical life, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal spoke eloquently, was being to a degree dragooned and made uniform by the Measure, and all because there had been a couple of incidents which, understandably, had given cause for disquiet--especially the events at Lincoln.
I cast no criticism at the work of Lady Howe--a good friend of many hon. Members present--and her cathedrals commission, which went into the matter with great diligence and thoroughness and, I believe, visited every cathedral in the country. I visited almost every cathedral in the country when I wrote a book on cathedrals in 1984, and I was struck by the excellent way in which most of them were managed, their treasures presented and the worship--the most important thing--carried out. They are beacons and centres of excellence in every sense.
I would not want anyone to think that the Cathedrals Measure was in any way a vote of no confidence in the way in which our cathedrals have been organised and managed by their deans and chapters and provosts during the past 50 years. We are very fortunate in the way our cathedrals are managed. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, who has enormous experience of its beautiful cathedral and who spoke eloquently about all the work that the volunteers do, emphasised that.
I hope that the new Measure, which I support, will not put the dead hand of uniformity on the way cathedrals are organised. I support the Measure--I am not suggesting that the House should do anything other than support it--but I hope that our speeches will send a message that, within the House, we do appreciate the rich diversity. We do understand that the way Lincoln is run, when it is run properly, is not necessarily precisely the same way as Exeter or Ripon should be run. I hope that all those who have charge of our great cathedrals, especially those who will be members of the new Bishops Council, will not feel that they have always to consort to ensure that what is done in one cathedral is precisely replicated in another.
It would be wrong not to refer briefly to what has been said about the abbey. I, too, welcome the fact that there is to be an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars although I deeply regret the necessity for it. I do not want to be accused of passing any judgment. Regardless of who has been right or wrong, what has happened over the past year has done enormous damage to the Church of England.
If cathedrals are the beacons of our national Church, the abbey is the supreme lighthouse. It is perceived by many as the embodiment of the national Church. It is tragic--I use the word deliberately--that events should have happened there that have shaken people's confidence in the national Church. I hope that the inquiry will be thorough but not protracted and that when it is complete its findings will be able to be debated both in Synod and in the House.
I hope that everyone who has been involved in the affairs of the abbey over the past year will recognise that there is a great deal of repair work to be done and many bridges to be built if confidence is to be restored. I am not seeking to apportion blame, but the abbey is not a very happy place at the moment for many people who have given a lifetime's service to it. I want that to be remedied at the earliest possible date.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |