Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure
Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Again, my Lords, there is very little that I wish to add to what the right reverend Prelate has said, although there is of course more meat in this Measure than in the other. Its purpose is to amend the existing Measure of 2003. I draw attention in this case to the care with which these Measures have been prepared by the legislative committee of the Synod and presented to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. That was especially so in this case, where the comments and explanations submitted to the Ecclesiastical Committee extend from page 15 to page 35 of its report on the Measure and are exceptionally thorough. I suspect that the committee and the House generally should be very grateful to the legislative committee for taking so much trouble.
As the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, the Measure deals with four areas which are set out on page 15 of the report. Of these, the one which was potentially the most controversial was Clause 1, which has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, relating to misconduct. There were a number of questions on that, at page 83 of the report, starting with a question from Sir Peter Bottomley—question 10—and then a question from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and finally a question from the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that all those questions were adequately answered by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
The other area of importance was the abolition of the automatic right of appeal; now there needs to be leave to appeal which would come before a court of two. That question was dealt with by Charles George QC, the Dean of the Arches, who made the interesting point that the number of appeals has been extremely small; but he also said that, if minded to refuse leave to appeal, he would always give reasons. Once again, the Ecclesiastical Committee had little difficulty in finding this Measure expedient, so I support the Motion.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I apologise to the House for having jumped the gun. I talked about the expeditious way in which our chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee had enabled us to get through the business very effectively, and perhaps I was hoping that we could expedite the discussion here—but the House, I hope, will forgive me for having jumped the gun on this Measure.
I support strongly what the noble and learned Lord has just said. The Measure was extremely well put forward. The witnesses from the church who appeared before us were extremely helpful and the right reverend Prelate has in his masterful way put very clearly to us the essence of what it is all about.
I think that the House will find it reassuring that some things are being tightened up, and that applies particularly to some of the social issues which preoccupy us a great deal today regarding child abuse and the rest. I am sure that we welcome the stronger provisions which will now be in place.
In the operation of the law, I always hope that there will be a certain amount of space for interpretation, because I do not see the law as being absolutely rigid. Very firm principles are established in the law and the job of those responsible for administering it is to take those principles extremely seriously and apply them, but there is always room for judgment.
One thing about which the church is deeply concerned is racism. The provision to which I am referring makes particular reference to this. It is clear that the church does not wish anyone speaking in its name to endorse the existence of a political party which is regarded by the church as incompatible in its manifesto and policies with its teachings. The provision goes into the very difficult area of distinguishing between what a party stands for, and what its policies and manifesto are, and any particular policy that may come from that background with which it might be quite possible in isolation, taken away from that party’s expression of it, to be strongly in favour. The provision tries to deal with whether a clergy man or woman who was speaking in favour of a policy—it might be to do with housing, for example—would be allowed to speak about their attitude towards that particular proposal as long as they were not endorsing the party.
I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that there is a good deal of ambiguity about that. I do not see how you can have an absolute dividing line. If a political party was getting a great deal of publicity for a particular aspect of its policy and a clergy person was then, understandably, to say, “This policy is absolutely in line with Christian teaching and something that we should take very seriously”, that will be interpreted by an awful lot of people as an endorsement of the political party. I do not for a moment suggest that we need to sort that out further at this stage, but it is important to draw attention to the fact that there will be ambiguity there which will need a great deal of firm interpretation by the church. I see the possibility of disturbing events in future.
Diocese in Europe Measure
Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, there is very little that I can add to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle has said. However, I would like to draw attention very briefly to the evidence given by the current Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe at page 79 of the report. He told us that the diocese has doubled in size since it came into existence in 2008. He meant size not in a geographical sense, because it could not get any bigger than it already is, but in the number of its congregations. So it can be regarded, in many ways, as a success story. It now has, as has been pointed out, a diocesan synod that meets in Cologne, and that makes it possible, therefore, to bring this diocese more into line with the other dioceses of the Church of England. The Ecclesiastical Committee had no difficulty in finding the Measure expedient. I support the Motion.
Lord Judd
My Lords, this occasion should not pass us by just on the nod, as it were. This is a moment to pay tribute to the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has just spoken. He chairs that committee with a certain distinction and cheerfulness which holds everyone together and enables the committee to take a very constructive line towards its deliberations and to be very expeditious in its work.
We should also mention a word of appreciation to all those within the church who put a lot of work into the proposals that have been put before us. I want to make just two observations about their content. First, a tribute is due to the province that we are discussing. I think that it has done some excellent work, and we should put on record that it is recognised by people probably of all faiths that it has done a good job, and I am glad that we are strengthening its position for the future. Secondly, while I wholeheartedly endorse what is before us, one ambiguity should be registered. I am not a lawyer, but I am a little interested by the provision about clergy not advocating support of a political party that is not in good standing and that has specifically been debarred by the church.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I think that we will come to that issue when we deal with the other Measure, which follows immediately after this. I did not mean to interrupt, but I think it will come better at that stage.