The Modern Commonwealth: Opportunities and Challenges

Debate between James Duddridge and Peter Bottomley

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered opportunities and challenges facing the modern Commonwealth in its 70th year.

It is that time of year when we await the riot of colour of 53 flags representing the Commonwealth opposite Parliament. It is for that reason—the celebration of Commonwealth Day—that I am here today. I wear my own riot of colour: the rather disgusting combination of colours on my tie is that of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK branch, which is not to be confused with the international branch, chaired by Emilia Lifaka, who will be here next week.

I have chaired the UK branch since the rather unfortunate general election in 2017 and very much enjoyed the task. I see in the Chamber my hon. Friends—I think I can use that term—the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson). Without their tireless work, the CPA as it is now would not be in existence.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend, others who serve on the executive committee of the CPA UK branch and those who work for it for the good they do in this country and with our fellow Commonwealth nations around the world. It seems to be one of those things where the work that parliamentarians do is not noticed but is appreciated and could be even better in the future.

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that and extend thanks to Jon Davies and his team of 30 people who work here in the UK, off Westminster Hall, and overseas.

To give an idea of the volume of activity, in 2017-18 there were 15 outbound delegations, 35 inbound delegations and nine multilateral delegations. As I look around the Chamber, I see people who have been involved in inbound and outbound trips in the last month. There have been trips to Fiji, the Seychelles, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The CPA was also very much involved in election observing, particularly in the overseas territories. As a committee, we have formed our strategic priorities. We decided that we could not do everything exceptionally well, so we are concentrating on five key themes: women in Parliament, public finance scrutiny, modern slavery, trade and security.

This debate is about opportunities and challenges facing the modern Commonwealth in its 70th year—“modern” because the Commonwealth existed in various guises before the 1949 London declaration, but it was a free association of independent member countries. Quite how we got away with that as part of the European Union, I do not know. Crucially, the Commonwealth gave an equal say to all its 53 members, regardless of size—at one end is India, with a population of 1.3 billion, and at the other is Nauru, with a population of only 13,000. Of the states, 31 have populations of fewer than 1.5 million and five have populations of fewer than 1 million.

They are nations all around the globe. There are 19 in Africa, which I know and love well, and others are in parts of the world that I know less well, with seven countries in Asia, 13 in the Caribbean and the Americas, three here in Europe and 11 in the Pacific. It is so popular, and it is expanding, to Cameroon, Mozambique and Rwanda—more of Rwanda later. It was good to see the Gambia come back into the Commonwealth in February 2018, and I was able to travel there.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, when he was here at that time, Bill Gates spoke in praise of the value of the Commonwealth, particularly our ability to do something in the health sector. As people are pointing out, it is not just the health sector; it is the education sector, the universities sector and the business sector. The Commonwealth is actually a multiplicity of different organisations, both intergovernmental and external to Government. I apologise to the tens of organisations, if not more, from the Commonwealth that have written to me and said, “Please do mention my bit of the Commonwealth”. We have added them up, and I think at least 80 different organisations with Commonwealth branding are part of this process.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that, as and when Commonwealth parliamentarians get together, they ought to work how to force on to the agenda the scandalous discrimination against pensioners from this country? When they live in retirement in other Commonwealth countries, they do not get inflation increases to their state pensions. Will he try to make sure that this is considered, and will he see whether the Commonwealth secretariat could publish which other Commonwealth countries make the same kind of imposition on people who would otherwise be able to share in the fruits of their retirement?

[James Duddridge]

One of the great advantages of being a Back Bencher, not a Minister, is that one can say, “I am sure the Minister was listening”, and move on swiftly.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the last point I want to make involves trade and Brexit. The Commonwealth is not the solution to any problems or the definition of any Brexit opportunities, but the Commonwealth currently represents 9% of UK exports. By various measures, there is an advantage to it: doing business with the Commonwealth is easier, and there is a shared language, history and legal system. It makes sense, and it is easier, to trade intra-Commonwealth and with the Commonwealth. Overall, Commonwealth trade represents 14% of the global economy, so as we look at trade deals post Brexit, we should pay particular attention to the Commonwealth. Clearly it is not as simple as having one Commonwealth deal, but we should look first to the Commonwealth and then to the rest of the world.

I wish all Members of this House a very happy Commonwealth Week.

Women in the Church of England

Debate between James Duddridge and Peter Bottomley

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (James Duddridge)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Sadly, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) cannot be here today, as she is on other important ministerial duties at the United Nations in New York, but she would have very much liked to reply in person. I hope that you will find me an agreeable alternative.

I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for originally securing the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on taking up the baton, as has been pointed out. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has given a lot of clarity on the Church of England’s case. It has been enlightening to hear about the parliamentary process that we may see in the future.

The Church forms a vital part of our culture and heritage, and the fabric of our nation. Today’s debate is about women in the Church of England. Women already play a vital role at a number of levels, from the top to the bottom. Some of the best vicars in the UK are women. Taking a totally random example—from Southend—Louise Williams, the vicar of St Andrew’s church, does an excellent and inspirational job, not because she is a woman, but because she is good at her job. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) described himself as a reactionary, but went on to say that the issue is about getting the right person for the job. That does not sound reactionary to me. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury say that 50% of people in training now are women.

Moving from Southend, another, somewhat different, example is that of Her Majesty the Queen—a woman at the head of the Church of England. From top to bottom, there are already women operating successfully in the Church of England.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Just to give an anecdote, when the Lord Bishop of London took up his post in November 1995, he was presented to the head of the Church—the Queen—by the Secretary of State, who was also a woman. Of those three, the only one who was allowed to be a bishop in those days, if otherwise qualified, was Richard Chartres, because of his chromosomes. It seems absurd that he could be presented by one woman to another woman for a job that both women were disqualified from.

[James Duddridge]

We are in Lent, and my hon. Friend has his own self-imposed rule. I am rather glad he broke it again; that was a good intervention. He also talked about history. If we look back at the decision-making process, it will seem even more ridiculous than it does now.

I would like to pay tribute to all the men and women in the Church who have been involved in invaluable work. The Church of England and those who serve in it have a special place in this country and in this Parliament, particularly through the representation in Parliament of the 26 senior bishops and archbishops. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) worried me a bit by turning up with a book on the period 1295-1340. That is not something the Minister for Equalities had familiarised me with in my briefing. I will speak to her about that on her return from New York.

As a consequence of the special relationship between the Church and the state, all our citizens, whether members of the Church or not, have a legitimate interest in what the Church says and does. Therefore, it is very appropriate for us to debate such issues here in this Parliament. It is good that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has contributed to the debate, because that demonstrates the issue is not only about the Church of England and Christianity; it is about people of all faiths, and people of no faith or no defined faith.

One of the key issues surrounding the place of women in the Church today is the question of women bishops, which we have discussed significantly. Although I want to say something on that specific question, I would like to point out that just because we have a special place for the Church within the state, it does not mean that the state should on a daily basis be quick or eager to involve itself in every single internal debate of the Church—or, indeed, that it should comment on its doctrines and practices. That very much applies to the question of who should or should not be bishops, and the associated questions of pastoral care for those who take a contrary view to that the Synod appears to be taking.

As we have heard, the direction of travel seems to be one way. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that we will get there in the end. The debate is about the timing of that travel, not the direction. As we have heard, the Church of England is moving forward and away from a position whereby only men can be appointed bishops. I understand and appreciate that the Church wants to consider the feelings of those who disagree strongly with that move, including those who consider it is not possible as a matter of doctrine for a woman to be made a bishop.

That question—how best to provide the appropriate support and pastoral care for those in the Church who cannot accept or are having problems accepting this change—is vital. I recognise that dealing with it is a difficult and sensitive task, but it is not one on which it is beneficial for the Government to intervene. It is for the Church itself to decide whether it will appoint women bishops. We have been given examples by various hon. Members of women bishops elsewhere—Nova Scotia, Rhode Island and, indeed, Cuba. We need to consider what arrangements should be put in place to support those who cannot accept the change.

As has been explained, once the General Synod has finished its work, the matter will come before the Ecclesiastical Committee and then the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for explaining the conversations he has had with the Leader of the House about providing time when necessary on the Floor of the House to deal with the matter appropriately. I will do anything I can to facilitate that process, both from the Leader of the House’s perspective, the Whips’ perspective and the perspective of the Government Equalities Office. We will provide any assistance we can to ensure that things are not unnecessarily delayed.