Undercover Policing

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I would love to give the right hon. and learned Lady that assurance from the Dispatch Box, but I cannot. [Interruption.] There is no point trying to shout down a Minister. Ultimately, there may be reasons for that. I was a counter-terrorism Minister in Northern Ireland, where there had to be redactions. I will make sure that as much as can be released is released. I give that assurance to the right hon. and learned Lady and I will write to her.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I have two questions for my right hon. Friend. My preliminary question is: will he, the Leader of the House or someone else tell us before I leave this place what has happened to the concept of Privy Counsellors exchanging information on Privy Council terms? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that all of us need to have confidence, as do our constituents, in the integrity of the police, and that every part of every police force needs to be democratically accountable and to carry out their actions lawfully? If the inquiry finds that police officers have not acted lawfully, can they be referred for possible prosecution for misconduct in public office?

[Mike Penning]

On the latter point, that option remains open, but it is for others to decide. We have changed the law so that officers who have left or resigned during an investigation can be brought back. As far as I am concerned as a Privy Counsellor, Privy Council undertakings are intact and should stay so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is so unprecedented as a typical Tory rip-off that it is a very similar approach to the one taken by the Labour party when it set up the flexible new deal. Sometimes its hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

For public accounting purposes, many of the charities and new social enterprises that are coming into being to help with managing ex-offenders will be considered to be private contractors. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how he will measure the performance of these charities and social enterprises so that we can demonstrate that it is possible to have payment by results and to get better support for ex-offenders?

[Chris Grayling]

The mechanism for monitoring the performance of all our providers in the private, voluntary and social sectors is very simple: are they successful in bringing down reoffending? This is not a payment by results programme as ambitious as the Work programme because we have to fulfil the orders of the court over which there is no discretion. But they still represent good value for the taxpayer as they ensure that we pay when we get results. That is the way that Government should operate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now better informed. We are grateful to the Minister.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

As the Minister said, Richard III was the King of all England, not just of York or Yorkshire. Is he aware that the Dean and Chapter of Leicester cathedral see it as their responsibility to rebury the remains of King Richard and to commemorate his memory on behalf of the whole nation, and not just for Leicester or York?

[Simon Hughes]

I have every confidence that the Dean and Chapter of Leicester cathedral will do that job for the nation. I understand that they intend to apply for an extension so that it may be done in the spring of next year. I believe that it will be a great credit to Leicester and will bring great joy to the people of Leicestershire that a King of England is buried in their county.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The Government have introduced various measures, one of which, on whiplash, is to have an accredited panel of medical experts. We want to make sure that there are proper experts who deal with this issue. The AA has reported that, as of October this year, the average comprehensive insurance for motor vehicles has gone down by £80.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to reduce the use of cautions for repeat offences.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

Cautioning for repeat offenders is unacceptable and does not deliver justice for victims. That is why we have acted to ensure that criminals should no longer receive a second caution for the same, or a similar, offence committed in a two-year period.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In addition to stopping the use of repeat cautions, does he agree that there are some offences for which, in any event, the use of a caution is simply not appropriate?

[Damian Green]

I do agree; my right hon. Friend makes an extremely important and valid point. That is why we concluded after the simple cautions review that cautions should not be used for any offence that can be tried only in the Crown court. Indeed, going further than that, certain offences that can be tried either in the Crown court or in a magistrates court are also not suitable for cautions, including, in particular, possession of a knife.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, because the matter came up during last night’s debate, that the national probation service will carry out a risk assessment for all short-sentence prisoners. It will then decide whether to retain them because they are high-risk offenders or to pass them to community rehabilitation companies. So I cannot give him a figure, because each case will involve a judgment for the national probation service.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T6. Are the Lord Chancellor’s proposed reforms on judicial review intended to reassert the primacy of Parliament over the courts, or to save money, or both?

[Chris Grayling]

First and foremost, those reforms are about ensuring that the justice system in this country is there for those who need it, and not used for purposes other than genuine redress. My view is that judicial review is being used at the moment as a delaying tactic and as a PR exercise. It does indeed undermine the will of Parliament and the will of the Executive, and it costs the taxpayer money. It should be used only when it is appropriate to do so, and not for trivialities.

Transforming Legal Aid

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. In my very first contribution to this debate I said that I have to achieve the financial savings set out in our spending review settlement. I am not wedded to any exact way of doing so; if somebody has a better idea, I am happy to look very closely at it. That is what I have done, and this is the agreement we have reached, and it is just a shame that the Opposition do not understand that.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

First, may I declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not sustainable in the long term if some legally aided members of the Bar are earning substantially more than the Lord Chief Justice or the Prime Minister? One simply cannot continue to have such a system.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right; we have focused the majority of our changes relating to the Bar on those at the upper end of the income scale. I know that this is difficult and that these are painful decisions for some people, but there will be a limit to what we can afford to pay someone who is living off public funds entirely or almost entirely.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

For my own information really, can the hon. Lady say how much consultation she has had with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches on this amendment and its possible implications?

[Kate Green]

I think that it is fair to say that the Churches are not displaying tremendous enthusiasm for this proposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not easy for the official Opposition to carry out extensive consultations, but the issue was raised in Committee, when we took evidence from some of the Churches, and I detected no great appetite or enthusiasm from them for further discussion of this kind of proposal.

Of course, we would like the Government to adopt this proposal and take it forward wholeheartedly and in a way that delivers a robust and settled legal right to humanist weddings. In the absence of that, we simply need to take the evidence of the number of people who are coming forward asking for a humanist ceremony, the number of humanist ceremonies that are taking place and the very high popularity they enjoy both among those who participate in them and those who attend them.

Let me read the remarks of one couple:

“A humanist wedding offered us the chance to make the wedding ‘ours’, it enabled us to construct our own vows and create a ceremony that felt immediately very personal to both us and our guests, it also portrayed exactly what marriage meant to us and how we see our marriage growing in the future.”

We should be celebrating that in the context of this Bill, and I greatly regret that a sense of celebration is being lost as a result of the way that this afternoon’s debate is proceeding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I will not, as I am just coming to a conclusion.

If during this afternoon’s debate the Government can provide undertakings that they will put before us that full, reasoned legal opinion and give us the time properly to test and explore it, so that the concerns can be taken forward appropriately when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, we will of course be happy to take that time to ensure that the legislation is wholly fit for purpose. Without those detailed explanations, it is difficult for us to accept that there is some endemic objection in principle to introducing humanist marriage into English law, and that I is why I have tabled new clause 15.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Let me start by saying that I have great admiration for humanists. My mother was a Quaker and I was brought up and educated at a Quaker school. I often think that Quakers are simply humanists who believe in God—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is going to heckle throughout my speech, he will just indicate the discourtesy he shows for the views of anyone who disagrees with him. If we heard a little less from him, we would all do a lot better.

As the House will know, when the Bill was introduced the Church of England and other faith groups did not greet it with unalloyed joy. However, we sought to engage constructively with Ministers and officials and they constructively engaged with us. Ministers and the Government made it clear at the outset that they wanted to ensure that faith groups that did not wish to perform same-sex marriages would not be obliged to do so. The legislation therefore has at its heart protections for faith groups such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims and others who do not wish to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages. That is enshrined in the quadruple lock for the Church of England, because of canon law, and in the other locks for other faith groups. Those locks are essential to ensuring the freedoms that the Government made clear at the outset would be there to protect faith groups.

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but may I finish the point?

Those locks are based on the assumption enshrined in English marriage law: English marriage law is based on buildings and not on celebrants.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am going to give way to the hon. Lady, but let me finish the point because it is important.

In Scotland, there is celebrant-based marriage, whereas the protections in marriage in England are based on buildings. If new clause 15 is passed, it will in effect unpick all the protections in the Bill that relate to the locks and to the protections for other faith groups.

The Speaker acknowledged earlier that he was an anorak. There are degrees of anorakism in the House, and I too am a bit of an anorak, in the sense that I believe that if public Bills that will make substantial changes to public law are to be introduced, there should be proper consultation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) honestly and properly acknowledged, there has been no consultation with faith groups on the proposed provisions, which would completely unpick the protections in the Bill that Parliament has sought to give to faith groups.

[Kate Green]

I do not see why faith groups should be singled out for consultation. If there is to be consultation, it should include those of no faith, and other organisations too. I do not understand at all how this proposition unpicks locks which are intended to protect religious institutions and individual celebrants within those institutions. I simply do not understand that, and I do not accept that marriage under English law is confined to religious institutions that have premises. As I say, English law also provides for Jews and Quakers to conduct marriages according to their own rites.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My point is that no one has been consulted. I was not praying in aid just faith groups. The hon. Lady has not consulted anyone, but she might at least seek to consult those faith groups for which there are protections enshrined in the Bill—unless she is saying that she is not impressed by the protections to ensure that faith groups are not compelled to perform same-sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. When the debate first started, many of the representations that I received were from people of faith who were concerned that this was a slippery road which would lead to their being obliged at some time in the future to undertake same-sex marriages in churches even if they did not want to do so, and I do not think it helps if the hon. Lady gives even a scintilla of a suggestion that that might be the direction of travel.

The protections are very important. There are historic reasons why Quakers and Jews are treated differently, but they are faith groups. Indeed, Quaker marriages are not celebrant-based, because there are no celebrants in the society of friends. In a sense, the hon. Lady wants to have it both ways. The new clause relates to non-religious organisations, yet it seeks to apply the protections that refer to religious organisations. We therefore have a sort of bolt-on, whereby the hon. Lady is claiming for the humanists, who are clearly not in a religious organisation, the protections in the legislation for religious organisations.

[Dr Huppert]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has now accepted that he was not correct to say that all marriage in this country is tied to place, because as has been discussed, that is not the case for Jews and for Quakers. He has consistently made the case that the Church of England and other groups should be able to produce ceremonies in their way. Can he explain why, while believing that the Church of England should be protected and allowed to have its ceremonies in its way, humanists should not be allowed to have their ceremonies their way? I can assure him that humanists—the British Humanist Association—are not seeking protection from same-sex marriage; they very much welcome it.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is wrong. I have made it quite clear throughout that English marriage law is buildings-related, except, for historic reasons, where it relates to Quakers and Jews; it has never been celebrant-related.

Let us consider the Scottish example. In Scotland we have seen pagan weddings celebrated, spiritualist weddings celebrated, and weddings celebrated by the White Eagle Lodge. That is a question on which our constituents should properly be consulted. I cannot speak for other Members of the House, but I have had enough problems in my constituency with same-sex marriage. If I go back to the shires of Oxfordshire and tell constituents that Parliament is about to endorse pagan marriage in England, they will think that we have lost the plot completely. If they think that the Opposition support pagan marriage and masonic marriage, they really will think we have lost the plot.

[Kate Green]

The new clause would not allow pagan marriage to take place. It would allow humanist marriage to take place, and the Bishop of Chester supports it.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is a lawyer so, with the greatest respect, she has no excuse for not listening to the advice of the Attorney-General. He made it clear to the House—any hon. Member would follow the logic very straightforwardly—that it would not be possible in the Bill to give privileges to one non-faith organisation, the humanists, without its being challenged by other similar non-faith groups, such as the pagans or the secularists, who have had weddings celebrated in Scotland. Pagans would say, “We are allowed to have marriages north of Hadrian’s wall. Why cannot we have marriages south of Hadrian’s wall?”

[Pete Wishart]

I strongly object to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—that we in Scotland could not care less about marriage. We have had 2,500 humanist weddings per year. Marriage is important to people in Scotland. The only thing we want to do is extend it to people who love each other.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Nothing that I have said could possibly be construed as implying that Scotland is not concerned about marriage. The fact is that under a celebrant-based system, pagan marriages take place in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asks what is wrong with that. There has been no consultation in England as to whether or not the people of England would wish to have pagan marriages celebrated in England. I am afraid that, if he cannot understand that, there is a great deficit in democracy so far as he is concerned.

[Stephen Williams]

The new clause as drafted, which has been exhaustively considered by the advisers of the British Humanist Association and passed by the Department, has its own version of a triple lock, one part of which states that the organisation in question, such as humanism, must be registered as a charity. I do not believe that the charity commissioners of England and Wales would register as a charity Jedi knights, white knights, druids, pagans or anyone else whom the hon. Gentleman wishes to conjure up, so they would not come under the provisions of the new clause.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The House will know, because it is a matter of record, that I am a freemason. Freemasons are registered as a charity. I do not know whether people in England want to see the introduction of masonic weddings. As the new clause has not been properly consulted on, and there has not been time for proper consideration of all its ramifications, it leads the hon. Gentleman into all sorts of areas that have not been properly construed. There has been no proper opportunity for the House to take the advice of the Attorney-General.

I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda that during the past couple of days I have been a bit confused as to which are wrecking amendments and which are not. I am still trying to work out whether the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment. I am really not quite sure whether this new clause is a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment, because it is difficult to see how Parliament, and certainly the other place, could allow the Bill as amended by the new clause to go forward without a serious delay while there was proper consultation to think through the ramifications.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I think the hon. Gentleman united the House in confirming that he is confused. We all agree with him; he is clearly confused. If he thinks that the new clause would lead to pagan weddings, can he explain why the Bishop the Chester—the Anglican, Church of England, Bishop of Chester—supports it? Would it not make sense for us to allow this to go forward to the House of Lords so that the Bishop of Chester can speak on the matter?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

First, the only point that I am confused about is whether this is a wrecking amendment. Secondly, in this House I speak for the Church of England, not the Bishop of Chester, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, with 44 diocesan Bishops, it is usually possible to find at least one Bishop who will have a view contrary to the other 43. Let me put it on record, lest there is any scintilla of doubt, that the Church of England is strongly opposed to the new clause, not because we do not love or like humanists, but simply because it would unpick the locks in the Bill, which, when we started, were important to ensuring the protections of faith groups in the context of this legislation.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the Bishop of Chester, does my hon. Friend agree that some very clear problems arise from the new clause, which could indeed turn out to be a wrecking amendment? Is it not therefore inconsistent for the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen yesterday to have promoted a review on extending civil partnerships, but on an apparently similarly problematic amendment such as the new clause before us not to mention such a review? Surely on that score it is a wrecking amendment.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I want to conclude by making a further and serious point.

Those of us who were opponents of the Bill and who voted against it on Second Reading have taken on good faith—and it has been delivered in good faith by the Government and the proponents of the Bill—that there would be protections for faith groups and that they would not be compelled to carry out same-sex marriages if they did not wish to do so. My understanding was that that approach was supported by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen as well. With legislation of this kind it is important that people feel confident that it will not in some way be unpicked in the future, and that the protections for faith groups will endure, irrespective of any change of Government.

The Opposition Front Bench’s approach this afternoon causes me concern. I point out that the Church of England has been wholly approachable to the Opposition—of course it would be—throughout the Bill’s passage. It is a matter of some concern that at no time have the official Opposition, who have adopted the new clause—it has not been moved by a Back Bencher; it has been proposed by a member of the shadow Front-Bench team—sought to consult the Church of England or other faith groups, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has acknowledged and admitted, on the import or impact of the new clause.

In every way, this is a bad new clause. It is bad because it has not been properly consulted on; it is bad because it will unpick the protections—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Sir Tony Baldry]

No, I am about to finish. [Interruption.] I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. I am sure that he can make his own speech in his own time.

The new clause is bad, because it will unpick the protections enshrined in the Bill, and it is bad because it will lead to unforeseen consequences, upon which no one in this country has been consulted. If Opposition Front Benchers really believe that the new clause is tenable, I challenge them to consult their constituents and ours on whether people in England want to see the prospect or possibility of pagan marriages taking place in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his interesting comments.

I rise primarily to support new clause 15, which would allow people to have humanist marriages if they so choose. Members will know that that is an established option in Scotland, chosen by about 2,500 couples a year. About 600 couples in Wales and England choose to have a humanist wedding without it becoming a legal marriage.

Religions do not have a moral monopoly on marriage. Different religions have different moral views linked to their faith, and the humanist tradition has its own secular but moral conception of what is right. The members of the humanist community want to be able to join in moral partnerships in which they may express and celebrate their personal ethics, and for those bonds to be recognised in law. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many Members, I have been lobbied by people in my constituency on this matter. Brian Cainen, who conducts various humanist ceremonies, including funerals, is very concerned and passionate about this, as are many people who approach him to ask about the options that are available.

I was drawn into this debate by my interest in the issue, but I was disappointed by the level of emotion expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who seemed to suggest that humanist ceremonies were some sort of pagan ritual, whereas we are talking about moral, ethical people who want to pursue their own ethics.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I did not say that. Those of us who oppose the Bill have tried hard, so far as is possible, to make it work within the context of the protections that we have sought. When the Bill was introduced, faith groups were promised protections. It seems to me that we should finish the passage of the Bill where we started and ensure that those protections are still in place. That is all that I am asking for, no more and no less.

[Geraint Davies]

I accept that the assurances that have been offered to faith groups should be delivered and guaranteed, but what we are talking about is widening the franchise of equality so that people can be married whether they are of different sexes or the same sex and whether they are humanists or people of faith. As I said, faith groups do not have a moral monopoly. A quarter of people say that they have no religion—obviously, the situation is changing over time—and there is no reason why such people should not be embraced within the fraternity of marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

If the Attorney-General’s advice is correct, there is a slight problem because existing laws are already discriminatory in that respect and vulnerable to challenge by the European Court of Human Rights. As I said earlier, it is preposterous to make the point that extending human rights and the right to marry to a group of people will somehow fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights, if our existing laws—which are more restrictive—do not already fall foul of that Court and would be challengeable in that regard. That is why I have a problem with that point. Humanists have a proper belief system and deserve protection under the charter and our laws, just like anyone else.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

rose—

[Mr Blunt]

I am just about to conclude, but I cannot resist taking an intervention.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That is characteristically generous of my hon. Friend. He said that there were no principled objections to the new clause, but may I try him on this one? He supports the Bill and wants there to be same-sex marriages, which is its purpose. I am sure that he also wants to ensure that no faith group that does not wish to conduct same-sex marriages is obliged to do so. The Bill sets in place a number of protections, and moving from a buildings-based system of marriage to a celebrant-based system, which the new clause would introduce, would simply unpick all the protections that have been built up through the course of the proposed legislation. If the protection of other groups is not a principled objection, I am not sure what is.

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend speaks for the Church of England in this House and his principled objection is that it should have special protections. I frankly do not think that a quadruple lock is necessary; for me a single lock ought to be perfectly satisfactory. He and I will therefore differ on the practicalities of the protections that need to be given to religious organisations. He does not object to the principle that humanists ought to be allowed to carry out marriages—I have not heard him say that—but he is concerned that the consequences might pose a risk to protections for other religious groups to carry out marriages in the way that they want. I hear and understand that argument, but I think that it is probably technically deficient.

In the time that the Bill will take to be considered in another place, and before it returns to the House, it is perfectly possible for all of us who want the Bill to proceed to test these propositions and see whether they undermine the protections that we seek to put in place. I do not believe that they do, and simply asserting that they would does not satisfy me. I want to understand that such arguments have merit. I do not believe that they do, but I am open to considering the arguments further, which is what we should do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We believe our proposals strike the right balance. They are proportionate and targeted, and do not restrict access to justice, the rule of law or the right to a fair hearing. Our proposals also encompass a number of safeguards to help vulnerable people.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the principle that public power should not be exercised to abrogate fundamental common-law values, at least unless abrogation is required or those concerned are empowered by clear primary legislation? If we have better and clearer primary legislation, we are likely to have less judicial review.

[Mrs Grant]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an astute and sensible point.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I support wholeheartedly the argument for women bishops and believe strongly that it will happen; the question is not if, but when. The recent decision was a great disappointment. It is a great honour and privilege to follow three of the finest speeches that I have heard in some time, by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy).

I was a lapsed member of a religion. It was well and truly bred out of me by having to go twice a day and three times on Sundays as a child. It may have also been assisted by the fact that I discovered horse racing, and my talent as a bookmaker did not endear me to the local vicar where I went to school. When I became a jockey—a very poor one, I admit—many people prayed that I would improve, because I kept losing on favourites, which upset them tremendously.

I have now reverted to the faith and am an enthusiastic member of the Church of England. I rise to speak not because I believe that I have a great deal to contribute to this debate, but because I want to address one specific issue. I urge that the Church be allowed to resolve this matter—I strongly endorse this—of its own volition and in its own way. It concerns me desperately when the state starts to interfere with matters of the Church. I accept entirely the points made by the right hon. Member for Exeter and endorse the comments made by some of those who intervened on him. It is accepted that this place has a role to play, by reason of its statutory controls, in overseeing and ultimately endorsing the Church’s actions. However, we would take a large and significant step—in this I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—if we attempted to mandate, order or empower the Church to take any action that it could manifestly resolve itself.

It is self-evident that rights are often won very slowly. Some parties to the argument wish the debate to move speedily and for the matter to be resolved. I am one of them, but that does not mean that I should tell the Church how it should behave such that it would not be able to resolve its own difficulties itself. In that respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who said after a previous debate:

“This is not an issue which can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so, waiting for another round of synod elections…This has to be an issue that has to be resolved as soon as possible.”

That implies that Parliament should get involved, but I disagree.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

That was certainly not the implication. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, he has misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the Church has to get on with it, and I am very glad that it is getting on with it, as evidenced by this week’s meeting of the House of Bishops and the programme of work that it set out.

[Guy Opperman]

I am happy to take that guidance and clarification, because some people will have interpreted some of our debates and the questions that have been asked over the past month or so as giving the impression that we wish to get involved, rather than allowing the Church itself to make those decisions. I endorse entirely my hon. Friend’s point that the Church has bravely taken the step to expedite matters as fast as possible. Tomorrow, some of us will meet Bishop Justin Welby, who I understand is anxious to resolve the matter as quickly and efficaciously as possible.

It is right that we discuss this issue. We should take this opportunity to celebrate the role of women in the Church. It is patently obvious in my constituency that their presence has transformed the Church and improved it immeasurably. The Church is much more open and is much enlivened by the presence of females leading the congregation. That can only be a good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cox]

I will come to that, because I intend to tackle the specifics in a moment. First, it is important that I set out the background to the remarks I intend to make, because I am approaching this, a matter relating to the Church, as beyond political propaganda and the crudity of political discourse; the things we are dealing with are precious to us all. They are part of our common bond of spiritual inheritance. For those who believe in the Church as I believe in the Church—an essential part of the fabric of our constitution that I cannot envisage ever being without—the fate of the Anglican Church is a crucial issue. We need to approach it in a spirit that tries to unite people, not divide them. The rules by which the decision of the Synod was reached the other day were created for a reason. Constitutionally weighted majorities are invariably introduced around the world, not only in the Church, but in countries, to protect minority opinions. That is why the Synod introduced the rule. People may argue with it now. They may say, “It is too high. It is unrealistically high. It puts into the hands of those who do not seek agreement too powerful a weapon”, but two-thirds majorities—weighted majorities—are there for a reason.

So fundamental a change after 2,000 years of tradition should receive a weighted majority. We cannot complain. We should not point the finger of accusation at the Church because those who conscientiously could not agree exercised their right not to do so. The rules were put in place by the Church so that decisions of this magnitude and gravity should be taken only with the overwhelming support of the Church; just because it failed to reach that threshold and the bar was not passed according to that majority, we should not complain. We should not say to the Church, “You have failed to do your duty.” The constitutional threshold was there for a reason: to ensure that when this change or any similar change on so fundamental a matter was introduced, it carried the overwhelming weight of the Church.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who spoke a moment ago and is no longer in his place, that it is inevitable that we shall have women bishops. The question is only how and when, but we must entertain the patience to allow the Church to make that decision on its own, for it will surely do so. We should not bully it or exert pressure on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will forgive me for saying that although he says he did not do so, when I listened to him in the urgent question the other day, he seemed to go perilously close—I will not say to bullying, because that would be unfair—to putting pressure on the Church. We have 2,000 years of tradition and we have been discussing the question of women bishops for 40. That is not long set against 2,000 years.

We should have the patience and the compassion to allow the Church to work this out on its own. For my part, I daily see the extraordinary devotion and dedication of women priests in my constituency. I am humbled by their dedication. I see them serve remote rural parishes and fight for their communities. I see the good that they do and I grapple with this question of whether we should have had women priests and have women bishops. I try to persuade myself that we should and I am acquiescent in the inevitability that it should happen—resigned. Perhaps I acknowledge too that the doubts I have on that score are wrong, but I simply ask that those who are so fortunate as to have such conviction on this subject to understand that this conflict is serious. It is perhaps more serious than anything in politics, because it affects one’s Christian faith. That is why I urge the House to pause before it takes the step of weighing in to determine this issue on behalf of the Church. Let us allow the Church, guided we must believe by God, to reach this decision on its own in its own time. I believe it will do so.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Cox]

No.

If we have to wait until 2015, will it be so bad a thing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cox]

I accept that those women will have to wait for another two or three years, but I cannot bring myself to believe that that is the presiding imperative set against the harmony and unity of the Church. Although I respect the work that they do, I repeat that I do not seek to hold out—

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Cox]

No, I will not.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

rose—

[Mr Cox]

No, not now.

Let me make it clear that I do not seek to prevent this step, but merely to argue that we should allow the Church to reach this conclusion and to heal itself on its own.

I repeat: it is no use complaining because a constitutional majority threshold was not reached. The liberals in the House and those in the House who believe in constitutionalism have no right to point the finger at the Church and say that somehow its systems are defective. That constitutional majority was not reached. It was set in place for good reason, to ensure that the whole Church, or as much of it as possible, was taken with the decision.

In 1998, the Lambeth conference resolved that those who could not bring themselves to accept the existence of women priests or bishops should nevertheless have rules created for them that allowed them to exist in the highest degree of communion with the Anglican Church. In 1993, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Exeter serves, accepted that rules should be created in perpetuity for those who took that view. We cannot break those promises but, equally, I agree with him that those who are on the conservative side must negotiate with sincerity. They must not set the bar so high that it is unacceptable to the majority. I appeal to those who have the good fortune to be in the majority to be tender towards those who are in the minority.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Before my hon. and learned Friend concludes may I redirect him to answer the question that was put to him by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)? What was it about the Measure, which had the overwhelming support of the archbishops and the House of Bishops, the vast majority of the House of Clergy and a clear majority in the House of Laity, that my hon. and learned Friend found objectionable?

[Mr Cox]

The Measure had the overwhelming support of the House of Bishops, the overwhelming support of the House of Clergy, but not the two-thirds majority required, in the laying down of which my hon. Friend must have participated. He cannot complain—

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That does not answer my question.

[Mr Cox]

I will come to my hon. Friend’s question. He cannot complain, and he certainly, in a genial and bluff manner, should not, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, kick the Church into adopting a view that he represents when, in fact, the constitutional majority was not reached. That is the rule by which the Church agreed that the decision should be made. To begin to bully the Church into taking action to follow his convictions is wrong and unrepresentative of the Church as a whole.

To come to my hon. Friend’s question, first, the code that is supposed to exist was never written. How on earth can we vote something through, expecting protective measures to be written in future? Why did the Church not create the code, in draft at least, so that members such as me would be able to read it? It was not written. Secondly, there is an existing protection for Church councils to be consulted, including councils that have taken the view that they ought to be excluded from the jurisdiction in which women priests celebrate the Eucharist. The priest must consult the Church council before an invitation is extended to a woman to celebrate the Eucharist. That protection is to be removed under the current provision. How can we expect those on the other side, already feeling bruised as a minority and feeling that the Church does not necessarily want them—that may be the case, but it is certainly not the publicly professed view of the Church—to have confidence in Measures that are not written and which remove existing protections?

My hon. Friend asked for another example. As I understand it, if a Church council writes a letter of request asking to be excluded from the dominion of a particular bishop, a priest is able to veto that request. That does not give confidence to those parishes where a majority feel that they do not wish to be ministered to by a woman bishop. It cannot give confidence that they will be able to live according to their consciences.

I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury three examples, and I hope that he will deal with them. First, the code was never written, so one is asked to accept a series of protective measures that have not even been given proper detail. Secondly, an existing protection is removed—these are only examples—and thirdly, the priest in charge can veto the Church council’s view on the dominion of the female bishop.

I say again that I have no wish to engage in expressing divisive or entrenched views. I accept that women bishops will come. As for my doubts on this score, perhaps I will find that I am wrong when I see the good that they do and the astonishing devotion of some that I know. I hope that I am wrong. I am willing to be wrong, and willing to accept that I am. I profoundly hope that others of my persuasion will come round to the idea, and that the Church’s unity can be maintained. I simply ask my hon. Friend for some patience. I know that he and others have been patient for a long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

I think that the whole House will be very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, and to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for the way in which he introduced it. We owe a debt of gratitude to all who have spoken today, genuinely and with integrity and honesty, expressing a strong desire to ensure that we can collectively find the best solution for the Church.

The Church of England is a national Church. It is a Church for the nation, or it is nothing. It is a Church that exists in every parish in the country. It is a Church to which everyone can look for spiritual and pastoral guidance. It is the Church of Remembrance Sunday, it is the Church of funerals and bereavement and of joy, happiness and celebration, and it is also the Church that marks disasters when they occur. Because it is a Church for the whole nation, it needs to reflect the values of the whole nation.

I think that everyone within the Church of England recognises that until we can resolve the issue of women bishops, we will not be able fully to fulfil our role as a national Church, and we will not be fully able to concentrate on mission and growth, which must surely be the fundamental purpose of the Church. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), there are many issues that the Church must address, such as justice and poverty, from which we will continue to be distracted as long as we focus on the issue of women bishops.

After the vote in General Synod, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:

“a Church that ordains women as priests but not as bishops is stuck with a real anomaly, one which introduces an unclarity into what we are saying about baptism and about the absorption of the Church in the priestly self-giving of Jesus Christ.”

Earlier this week, the House of Bishops met at Lambeth palace and considered the implications of the recent rejection by General Synod of the legislation to enable women to become bishops. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and others who perfectly properly have said that women should be involved in the further deliberations, that it was absolutely appropriate that at those discussions with the House of Bishops, the House of Bishops benefited from the participation of Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, Christine Hardman who chairs the House of Clergy, Dr Paula Gooder and Mrs Margaret Swinson, all of whom are senior women in the Church of England who had all previously served on the steering committee or a vision committee for the legislation.

The House of Bishops rightly started—as almost every contributor to this debate has done—by expressing gratitude and appreciation for the ministry of ordained women in the Church of England. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to women priests, deacons, archdeacons, canons and deans in the Church of England for what they do in rural areas, inner cities, hospitals and prison chaplaincies throughout the realm. Without them, the Church of England would have considerable difficulty in reaching, and ministering to, every part of the nation. The House of Bishops recorded its sadness that recent events should have left so many women in the Church feeling undermined and undervalued. I hope that if nothing else results from this debate, a message will go out to all women clergy in the Church of England that they are valued and appreciated by Parliament for the work they do for us all and for our community.

The House of Bishops acknowledged the profound and widespread anger, grief and disappointment felt by so many in the Church of England and beyond. I suspect that many Members will have been surprised by the wider resonance General Synod’s decision had in the community as a whole. In our constituencies, people who one would not normally have expected to take an interest in the Church of England came to us to express concern and disappointment at the decision.

The House of Bishops clearly agreed that the current situation was unsustainable for everyone, whatever their convictions. I was grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for making it clear that the view of everyone from all parts of the Church is that the current situation is unsustainable, because I think everyone acknowledges that in due course there will be women bishops. Indeed, General Synod agreed in 2008 that there should be women bishops.

The House of Bishops expressed its continuing commitment to enabling women to be consecrated as bishops and, I am glad to say, it intends to have fresh proposals to put before General Synod at its next meeting in July. This is not an issue that can be parked. This is not an issue that, as we lawyers would say, can just be adjourned generally to some other time in the future. It has got to be worked at until a solution is found.

I am glad to say that early next year the House of Bishops will be organising meetings, at which it intends to involve large numbers of lay and ordained women, to discuss how women might more regularly contribute to the Church, and further action will be taken in order to avoid any delay in proposing new legislation. The House of Bishops has also set up a working group drawn from all three Houses of Synod. Its membership, which is to be determined by the archbishops, will be announced before Christmas. That group will arrange facilitated discussions with a wide range of people of a variety of views in the week beginning 4 February next year, when General Synod was due to meet. I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members in the House tomorrow will take the opportunity at 9.30 am of going to the Moses Room in the other place to listen to the Bishop of Durham, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, because they will hear directly from him, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, his clear and determined commitment that the Church of England will resolve this issue itself as soon as it can.

The House of Bishops will have an additional meeting in February, immediately after those discussions, and expects to settle at its May meeting the elements of a new legislative package to come to Synod in July. There has been, on occasions, some criticism of the bishops, so may I just say that the House of Bishops voted overwhelmingly in support of there being women bishops in the Church of England? The bishops have sought to give the greatest possible leadership in what is, after all, an Episcopal Church, where the bishops are meant to lead. The House of Bishops has been doing all it can, with God’s good grace, to give that leadership and will continue to do so.

The House of Bishops also made a number of observations that have been reflected in this evening’s debate. It concluded that in future for a Measure to succeed and command assent it will require much greater simplicity. If I may, I will write to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon; I do not want to have a fight now, because that is not in the spirit of this evening’s debate. I can say, however, that the draft code of practice was published earlier this year and there are very good reasons for the provisions to which he drew attention. However, his point illustrated that the whole thing had become so complicated on the protections that nobody was quite sure who was being protected, against what and by whom. I thought, as a member of General Synod, that one of the most moving speeches there was made by a female member of the clergy from the diocese of Oxford, who asked, “Why is it that the Church needs to be protected from me? What is it about me?” That went to something of the heart of some of the issues we had to resolve. Some of the protections had become so complicated, so I think that much greater simplicity will be required.

However, I think it was genuinely helpful that my hon. and learned Friend spoke in this debate, doing so with great sincerity, because I agree that it is also important, as the House of Bishops made clear, that there needs to be a clear embodiment of the principle articulated in the 1998 Lambeth conference that those who dissent from and those who assent to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are loyal Anglicans. No one is saying that one form of Anglicanism is better than another; in so far as it can be achieved, everyone needs to be involved in this.

However, an important point made by both Front-Bench teams, and by many in this debate, is that we cannot square the circle by creating second-class women bishops. If we are going to have women bishops—everyone has agreed that we are going to have them—they have in every regard to be treated the same as, and have the same powers, rights, privileges and disciplines as, their male counterparts. One cannot have a category of second-class women bishops or in some way create a church within a Church to accommodate this matter. When I was first appointed as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I went to General Synod at York in 2010 and said, “I need to tell General Synod that if and when a Measure comes to Parliament, it will not get through if it is creating second-class women bishops. This is not whipped business and there is no way in which we will get a Measure through Parliament if there are to be second-class women bishops.” Although of course we need to recognise and seek to involve and include all the traditions, we cannot square the circle in that way.

The House of Bishops also agreed that there must be a broad-based measure of agreement about the shape of the legislation in advance of the beginning of the actual legislative process. The House of Bishops endorsed the view of the Archbishops Council, which had met the week before, that the Church of England must now resolve this issue through its own processes as a matter of great urgency. Some voices this evening, quite understandably, have suggested that if the Church of England does not act, Parliament might need to. It is my earnest prayer that over the coming months the Church of England can and will demonstrate that it can resolve this issue itself.

I have no doubt that there are those in the Church of England who will have heard the voices of people who are not just senior Members of this House but senior churchmen. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is a very distinguished member of the Church of England and chairs a number of relevant committees and when he finds it necessary to present Bills to the House on the nomination of bishops to the other place, the Church of England should take account of that and listen. These are not enemies of the Church of England—everyone who has spoken in the debate is a friend and supporter of the Church of England who wants it to succeed. I am quite sure that it will listen to what Parliament has said collectively, which will ensure that the Church of England, House of Bishops and General Synod will address the issue with urgency.

If any right hon. or hon. Lady or Gentleman has any concerns about that, I invite them to come and listen to the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate tomorrow. They will hear from the Bishop of Durham a very clear message that there is determination to ensure that there are women bishops in the Church of England at the earliest possible moment.

Leveson Inquiry

Tony Baldry Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I hope that there will be no votes on the issue, because what we need is consensus. We need to move forward with something that we can all agree on.

We should remember that the Leveson report is not just about statutory underpinning, although I think that, as a result of the debate thus far, we could be forgiven for thinking that it is. To reduce it to that does a disservice to Leveson. There are other recommendations that we need to consider carefully. I hope that in today’s debate, hon. Members will discuss the role of Ofcom as set out in Lord Justice Leveson’s report.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

One of my constituents was not reappointed as director general of the Office of Fair Trading because he refused to carry out a political instruction from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake an inquiry, the only purpose of which was to give the Labour Government cover when they increased fuel duties. As a consequence, he lost his job as director general of the OFT. The simple fact is that if Secretaries of State appoint statutory regulators, they will always be subject to some political pressure from Secretaries of State.