Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Debate between Tony Baldry and Edward Leigh

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

In my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I should like to thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the support they have personally given to this Bill. I should like also to thank the Leader of the House, the business managers and the usual channels for providing an early opportunity for the Bill to have its Second Reading and other stages undertaken, so that, if agreed by this House, it can go promptly to the House of Lords for consideration, ensuring sufficient time for it to be enacted before this Parliament is dissolved at the end of March.

When in 2012 the General Synod failed to agree a measure that would have enabled women to become bishops in the Church of England, I was summoned to this Chamber to answer an urgent question. Shortly after that, we had a half-day debate. The number of hon. Members present on those occasions—from every part of the United Kingdom and from all political parties—who asked questions and made speeches indicated that Parliament was keen for the Church of England to get on and ensure that women could become bishops. When the General Synod did agree the measure, there was genuine rejoicing and happiness that that could now happen, and that sense of happiness was well reflected in the debates on the measure for women bishops in the House of Lords on 14 October last year and in this House on 20 October.

Bishops have been part of Parliament ever since Parliament began. This year, for example, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, and it is worth recalling that the whole idea of Magna Carta had been initiated by Stephen Langton, the then Archbishop of Canterbury who dusted off a 113-year-old proclamation of King Henry I and showed it to the barons, when the idea of a new improved charter, “a great charter” took hold. Indeed, Magna Carta begins, and I translate from the Latin:

“John by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Count of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justices, Forresters, Sheriffs, Reeves, Officers and all his Bailiffs and faithful subjects, greetings. Know that for the sake of God, and the salvation of our soul and the souls of all our ancestors and heirs to the honour of God and the exultation of the Holy Church and of the reform of our Realm, by the advice of our venerable Father, Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church; Henry Archbishop of Dublin, William Bishop of London, Peter Bishop of Winchester, Jocelain Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh Bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William Bishop of Coventry and Benedict Bishop of Rochester”.

So, it is quite clear that archbishops, bishops and abbots took precedence over earls and barons, and that the list of those from whom the King had taken advice was headed by the bishops. Indeed, we rightly remember that Magna Carta has a number of noble sentiments, such as:

“No free man is to be arrested or imprisoned or disseized or outlawed or exiled or in any other way ruined nor will we go or send against him except by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of England”,

and that

“to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

In fact, the opening commitment of Magna Carta, chapter one, clearly states beyond all of those other commitments to the rights of barons or freedoms of individual citizens:

“Firstly, we have granted to God and confirm by this our present Charter for us and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church—

“Ecclesia Anglicana” in the original—

“shall be free and shall have its rights in full and its liberties intact and we wish this to be thus observed which is clear from the fact that before the discord with our Barons began we granted and confirmed by our Charter free elections which are considered to be of the utmost importance and necessity to the English Church.”

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am very disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not read all that out in Latin. I am sure that you would have been happy to let him do so, Mr Speaker.

Earlier, in an excellent intervention, my right hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the established Church represented all our churches. I am a warm supporter of the Church of England and its establishment nature, but—I mentioned this earlier—presumably it has no principled objection to the representation of bishops from other denominations, or leaders of other faiths, in the House of Lords.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That was made clear in evidence to the Wakeham commission, and by the body that set up the Joint Committee earlier in the current Parliament. However, I think my hon. Friend will find that it is said by the Vatican and by the Roman Catholic Church itself—not just in England, but throughout the world—that bishops and cardinals cannot be members of national legislatures. That is entirely an issue of authority. By definition, any Catholic bishop who sat in the House of Lords would have to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, and the Vatican is not willing to allow Catholic cardinals or bishops to take an oath of allegiance that acknowledges the authority of the Crown.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We do not want to become involved in too theological an argument. My right hon. Friend is of course entirely right, but the Catholic Church has absolutely no objection to the appointment to the other place of lay people who can represent the Church. Believe me, I am not trying to talk myself into a job; I am merely making a point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tony Baldry and Edward Leigh

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I suggest that the hon. Lady seeks to intervene in the hon. Gentleman’s Adjournment debate with Ministry of Justice Ministers on Tuesday.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Unfortunately, Richard III did not have much time to plan his funeral. I do not think he would have been very worried about where he was buried, but he did live and die a Catholic, and so at his funeral could there not be some aspect of Catholicism to represent his life’s work?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Every Sunday, I say, “I believe in one holy Catholic Church.” The more serious point is that whatever service takes place at Leicester cathedral, I am sure that the Dean of Leicester will want to involve representatives of the local Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, one wants to try to ensure that an event such as the respectful reburial of an English king is carried out in a way that does not cause controversy and that is respectful and accords with the wishes of the whole community.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Tony Baldry and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

Let me first make one more comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who made a very important point. He represents the Anglican tendency in this House and I represent the Catholic tendency. If someone goes to confession and repents, we should accept them into our fold. We should not turn them away. If the Labour party has changed its mind, it has repented.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Sadly, I do not anticipate my hon. Friend ever repenting.

[Mr Leigh]

Well, there we are. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said, I do not think that this manoeuvre is entirely cynical. We have come a long way—[Interruption.] People can scoff, but the Labour party is sensing a change of mood in the country. It is entitled as an Opposition party to sense that mood and to feel that the patience of the British people is at its limit as regards giving more money to the European Union. It might be cynical—surely Labour is entitled as an Opposition party to use parliamentary tactics if it wishes—but there might also have been a sea change in attitude in the country and in the House. That sea change is also reflected elsewhere in Europe.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said that our proposal was totally unrealistic, but he should consider what is happening in our country. Every single Member of Parliament has police officers coming to all our surgeries every week whose pensions have been changed halfway through their time. They are serving shifts at all hours of the day and night, and they are coming to our surgeries because we are having to make real cuts to our police force. As has been said, we are having to make real cuts to our armed forces. Our own people are coming to us and saying that this is surely the time to make a stand. Given what is happening to the budgets in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and given that great legions of young people in those countries are unemployed, is it so unreasonable just to ask the leaders of Europe to insist in the Council of Ministers on a real cash freeze? Is that unreasonable? I do not think so—I think it is entirely reasonable.

Our friends in Europe take the House of Commons very seriously. As is known, I am happy to be a Francophile and I watch what happens in the Assemblée Nationale. This debate could not be replicated there. It is being watched, however. This is the House of Commons. We were created to guard the nation’s finances and look after the interests of our own taxpayers. Why cannot the House of Commons, on this great occasion, make a stand on behalf of the UK taxpayers? Why can we not say to our taxpayers that we stand with them? We are having to make appallingly difficult decisions about the police, the armed forces, education and health. All we are saying is that there should be a real freeze in the EU. This is not just about EU civil servants, 40% of whom earn more than £70,000 a year.

Somalia

Debate between Tony Baldry and Edward Leigh

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) because we, together with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), are officers of the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia. We have been working very closely on all these issues and very much welcome the initiative being taken by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in organising the London summit later this month.

This is a tale of two countries. In 2004, the Select Committee on International Development, which I chaired at the time, paid a study visit to see how DFID development assistance was being used in Ethiopia. On that trip, we had a free weekend, but ambassadors do not like it when Members of Parliament have a free weekend because they are never quite sure what the MPs are going to get up to, so they like to keep Select Committee teams busy. Myles Wickstead, our excellent ambassador in Addis Ababa at the time said that he had recently been to Hargeisa for Remembrance day for the Somaliland Scouts. We should remember that during the last war many from Somaliland served in the armed forces. There is in Hargeisa a Commonwealth graves war memorial to the Hargeisa Scouts, to which he had been. He said, “Look, no one has been to Somaliland for a very long time. Would you be interested in visiting it?” To be totally honest, with one exception I do not think that any of us on the Select Committee had ever heard Somaliland. We knew nothing about it, so we said, “Yes, of course, we’d be interested in going to Hargeisa,” and we flew there. We were the first parliamentary delegation to have visited Somaliland for many years and the scene at the airport was one of crowds the like of which I have rarely seen, holding banners saying “We love our Queen”, “We want to come home”, and “Support the Commonwealth”. It was amazing. From the airport to the hotel in Hargeisa, the crowds welcoming members of the Select Committee were about 10 deep.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does that ever happen in Banbury?

[Tony Baldry]

Alas, the only time we see such crowds in Banbury is when the Queen comes to visit, and I am glad to say that when Her Majesty came to visit Banbury to celebrate our charter, we had similar crowds.

The people of Hargeisa saw the parliamentary delegation as very much representing the UK, the Commonwealth and this Parliament. They made it clear that they identified with us, and wanted to identify with us. That caused me to look a bit at history.

The crown of the British empire was of course India, and to protect the sea routes to India the British occupied Aden, and to protect Aden we occupied what became the British Protectorate of Somaliland. Interestingly, the British Protectorate of Somaliland, unlike many other countries in colonial Africa, had well defined boundaries that in the last century the United Kingdom negotiated by treaty with Ethiopia, France and Italy, and there has never been any dispute about them. Indeed, some fantastic British Protectorate of Somaliland postage stamps from the reign of the late King George VI show the map of that territory, which is now Somaliland, clearly marked by treaty. Its boundaries are clearly marked and defined.

To the south of the British Protectorate of Somaliland was what was called Italian Somalia, practically the only legitimate Italian colony in Africa. After the second world war and the defeat of the axis powers, responsibility for Italian Somalia fell to the United Nations and a UN mandate. Understandably, the UN was keen to release itself from the mandate at the earliest possible opportunity, and so in 1960 it was agreed that Italian Somalia would be given independence. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has already explained, the Somalis generally hoped to see a greater Somalia, involving Italian Somalia, the British Somali protectorate and Somalis living in Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia. The British Protectorate of Somaliland was given independence on a Sunday, and for a number of days it was an independent de jure state. Later in the next week, what was the British Protectorate of Somaliland, which had been granted independence by the United Kingdom, joined Somalia to become what is now known by the international community, and recognised by the United Nations, as de jure Somalia.

What had been the British Somalian protectorate and Italian Somalia sought to work as a single sovereign state. However, it floundered as a consequence of the activities of the Government of Siad Barre, and things become so desperate that in 1991 the Government of Siad Barre actually bombed Hargeisa. As BBC journalist Mary Harper comments in her recently published book:

“The authorities’ response to the rebellion was extraordinarily vicious; Siad Barre’s ground and air forces carried out such heavy bombardment of the regional capital, Hargeisa, that it was known as the ‘Dresden of Africa’. Barely a wall was left standing and almost every roof of every building was blown off or looted. The city was smashed and stripped; its population eventually left, walking all the way to Ethiopia in a biblical-style Exodus, as described by Mark Bradbury in his book Becoming Somaliland: The flight in 1988 was one of the fastest and largest forced movements of people recorded in Africa.”

If one goes to Hargeisa, one still sees the bomb damage inflicted on the city, which it has been impossible to rebuild.

I also think that it would be impossible to rebuild the trust between the Somalilanders and Somalia, between Hargeisa and Mogadishu. The people of Somaliland want independence. They have now been independent for more than 20 years. They have had contested parliamentary and presidential elections and, in contrast with many other African states, peaceful and democratic transfers of power without any difficulty, as with the recent transition from President Rayale to President Silanyo.

Somaliland is in exactly the same position as the Gambia. For a while the Gambia was part of Senegal, but that did not work and the Gambia decided that it wished to be independent again. It was granted independence and recognised by the international community. I suggest that Somaliland is in exactly the same position in international law. If so, that prompts the following question: why has Somaliland not been recognised as a de jure state? I think that it has been really bad luck for Somaliland that some of the key players in the region, for their own reasons, have not wanted to recognise it.

First, one would have expected the other Arab nations in the region to support Somaliland, because it is primarily a Muslim and Arab nation. However, Egypt has for a long time been in dispute with Ethiopia over the Nile waters, and I think that it has suited Egypt for there to be as much uncertainty, difficulty and turbulence as possible on Ethiopia’s borders. As Egypt has not been prepared to recognise Somaliland for that reason, neither have other Gulf Arab states.

Secondly, I think that many other African Union member states regard Somaliland as being a long way away; it is not a sub-Saharan nation, and they see it primarily as an Arab nation. It really has not been sufficiently high up the agenda in African Foreign Ministries, such as that in Pretoria. One of the things that will be good for the Somalilanders about the London conference, and for others, is that it will for the first time bring together in the same place all the key players, including the senior representatives of the African Union. It is a matter of fact that President Silanyo has so far not met the key players in the African Union, so the conference will be a good opportunity for that.

Having visited Somaliland on a number of occasions, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has, I can report to the House that, notwithstanding the lack of international recognition, it has striven to build itself into a decent country. The banking system does not work, because of course it only has a central bank and the only currency is the old Somali one, which is constantly being devalued, so people have to move around wheelbarrows full of money. What they do have, however, is a sophisticated system of remittances from the very supportive diaspora community here and elsewhere in the world, so this afternoon we could go to various places in London and hand over cash for recipients in Somaliland, who could collect it later on this afternoon. The system is even more efficient than Western Union.

Somaliland is not that far from Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, so its potential to do significant back-office work, if it had the opportunities, is immense, but it suffers from not being recognised by the international community. As President Silanyo said recently:

“We need foreign recognition because that is the only way we will become a fully fledged member of the international community. We cannot attend conferences organised by the United Nations and other organisations. We cannot benefit from programmes of the World Bank and other international bodies. We miss out on a lot by not being recognised. We have been very patient about this and we hope our patience will be rewarded very soon. If we are granted international recognition during my presidency, we would put on the biggest celebration the world has ever seen.”

We have seen other countries, such as Kosovo and states from the former Yugoslav republic, emerge in recent times.

The British Somaliland protectorate, now Somaliland, was part of the empire and of the Commonwealth. It has incredibly strong connections with the UK, and, although I fully understand the Foreign Office’s reticence, feeling that if Somaliland is to be recognised it must be recognised first within Africa, I do not think that we should ever forget, or for a moment be seen to be forgetting, Somaliland.

I am very pleased that, of the development assistance that DFID now allocates to Somalia, a significant proportion goes to Somaliland, which has phenomenal potential. It has a fantastic port, at Berbera, with enormous potential, and its access to the sea could, if it were developed, be used by countries such as Ethiopia. But it has just been incredibly difficult for Somaliland to take forward any such developments without international recognition, and because international companies are reluctant to enter into contracts there, where they could never be sure what status in law, recognition in law and system of law they would experience if there were ever a dispute about an investment or contract.

That makes life hard for Somalilanders, but Mary Harper, whom I quote simply because she has spent much more time in Somaliland than I have and has all the objectivity of being a BBC reporter, says:

“The reason why so many Somalilanders have returned home and have been able to embark on such exciting projects for themselves and for the territory as a whole is that, unlike Somalia, Somaliland has since 1991 been rebuilding its economy, society and government. It has been doing this slowly, in its own way, with a careful progression from a clan-based political system to what should ultimately be a Somali-style multiparty democracy. Because western models of peacemaking and state-building have not been imposed from the outside, Somaliland has in many ways saved itself from the fate of Somalia. The example of Somaliland has demonstrated that, when left to themselves, Somalis can form a viable nation state.”

I am therefore delighted that President Silanyo is coming to the London conference. It is excellent that UK initiatives are being taken by the voluntary and other sectors to set up a Somaliland development corporation, so that we here can give Somaliland whatever help we can with investment and job creation. They are all really good initiatives. However, those on the Treasury Bench need to understand that the Somalilanders are willing to give the London conference their full support, but do not want to prejudice their claim to be an independent state. They support it because they see themselves as neighbours of Somalia. Like Ethiopia, Kenya and other neighbouring states, they see that they have an interest in certain issues, such as in ensuring that piracy off the coast of Somalia stops and that the Mogadishu regime becomes more stable. They are coming to London co-operatively and supportively, but want to make it clear that they, like many others in the past in Africa, wish to assert their right to self-determination. I suggest to the House that they have international law and history on their side.

I will make two concluding comments about the conference. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, one reason the London conference is being held is that the international community and the seas around Africa have been bedevilled by Somali piracy for some time. If the international community is to succeed in bearing down on piracy, it will have to bring prosecutions and imprison people. Someone will have to accept the responsibility for the cost of running those prisons. Understandably, African countries are often not prepared to do so. One reason Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, is being tried for war crimes in The Hague is that no African country was willing to have him tried in Africa, because they were concerned that if he was convicted they would be liable for the lifelong costs of detaining him in prison, notwithstanding the fact that formally he is being tried under the jurisdiction of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. If we expect African states to imprison pirates from Somalia and elsewhere, there must be agreement on the long-term funding of the prisons and on how the prisoners will be looked after. This is not something that we can start and then forget about and abandon once the problem has abated.

My second concluding remark is about fisheries. Fisheries are an essential natural resource for Africa. For many coastal countries, the potential income from their fisheries is greater than that from their oil, minerals or mineral deposits. Tragically, far too often the fisheries around Africa have been raped and pillaged by much more sophisticated countries, and African countries have not had the wherewithal to protect their exclusive fishing zones. It is said that one historic reason Somalis took to piracy is that it was no longer viable for them to make a livelihood from deep-sea fishing. The Foreign Secretary was right to make it clear that one objective of the London conference is to help the Somalis assert their national exclusive fishing zone. If that is to happen, they must be given help with fisheries protection vessels and fisheries management schemes so that they can defend their fisheries. If they can do that, those vessels and systems will help to bear down on piracy.

Everyone will wish the London conference every success. We all want Somalia to cease being a failed state. Far too many people have starved to death there as a consequence of its failures as a state and its ongoing humanitarian difficulties. I hope that in seeking to improve the plight of its people and bring stability to it, we do not lose sight of the considerable achievements of the people of Somaliland, notwithstanding all the difficulties that they have experienced over the past 20 years, in creating a stable and potentially extremely viable state. They wish it to have independence and, I am sure, in due course become a member of the Commonwealth of nations of which we are all so proud to be members.