Church of England (Hansard, 10 March 1993)

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof; and for connected purposes. The main purpose of my Bill is to allow the House to start to consider whether the time is ripe to disestablish the Church of England in England. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to senior figures in the Labour party, including the Leader of the Opposition, as well as my own party colleagues and hon. Members from the nationalist and Unionist parties—are now all discussing constitutional reform. It would be odd if the debate on what would be an appropriate constitution for Britain in the next century did not also address the question whether it is right and appropriate that in England, uniquely among the four countries in the United Kingdom, there should remain a direct and daily constitutional and practical link between the Church and the state—

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
Uniquely? What about Scotland?

§ Mr. Hughes
Uniquely in England in this respect. The position in Scotland is different, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
If I were given leave to bring in my Bill I should seek to draft, carefully and with the co-operation of colleagues from both sides of the House, a Bill which would reflect the important elements of this subject. I seek to achieve maximum agreement and I am grateful to colleagues from other parties who have shown their willingness to support the measure, if leave to introduce it is given by the House this afternoon.
On a brief light-hearted note, I am also encouraged to believe that it is worth introducing a ten-minute Bill by the fact that about two years ago I introduced a Bill in which I proposed that the Queen should pay tax. That produced a result sooner than I had expected. Although I do not expect the disestablishment of the Church of England to be quite as easy a change to achieve, I believe that it is proper that such issues should be put on the agenda so that they can then be considered inside as well as outside the House.
For the record, I declare my interest. I am a member of the Church. I am an Anglican and I was baptised into the Anglican Church in England, although I was confirmed in the Church of Wales. I should add that I do not think I suffered any disadvantage from moving from the established to the disestablished church at the age of 11.
The premise on which I base my argument is that the Church of England should, like the church universal, be a serving Church and not a ruling Church.
The matter has been the subject of regular review. Over 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a commission under Owen Chadwick which in 1970 reported on the relationship between Church and state. Under Lord Callaghan of Cardiff when he was Prime Minister, changes were brought about in the way in which bishops were nominated and chosen by the Prime Minister 952 of the day. It is therefore not unusual to put the matter on to Parliament's agenda; it has been on Parliament's agenda in one way or another for generations.
Ever since Henry VIII set up the Church of England, for a uniquely personal reason, questions have been asked about whether it is appropriate for the Church-state status quo to continue. The Church of Ireland was disestablished more than 100 years ago and we cannot argue that Christianity has suffered in Ireland as a result of that move. More than 50 years ago, the Church of Wales was disestablished and it cannot be argued that Christianity has suffered in Wales as a result of that move. There is an established Church in Scotland, but it does not have the same constraint on it—for example, in terms of the requirement to pass legislation for approval to this place, as the Church of England currently does. Anglican Churches around the world are not normally established or linked formally with the state. In general, other Churches around the world are not established either.
This initiative is not aimed at demoting the role of Christianity or of religion in society. My argument is not that we now have a multicultural and multi-ethnic Britain in which Christianity is less relevant. That is not an argument, because many who have come as immigrants since the war have been Christians, although from other cultures and ethnic backgrounds. If they are not Christians, many of them are people of other faiths. Many have a great commitment to the idea of a Christian or at least a theist moral underpinning of society. The last thing I would argue is that Parliament should undermine the Christian and other theological principles that many in our society hold dear.
I argue that structural changes should take place. My proposals do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian broadcasting. They do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian education. They do not mean that we do not want to keep one day of the week different from the others. Those issues have nothing to do with the established role of the Church and can all be guarded in separate legislation.
Four obvious changes need to be made. The first is timely, as Parliament is about to consider the measure passed by Synod to permit the ordination of women priests. Why should we continue with a legislative form of supervision based on the assumption that we cannot say no to measures from the Church without causing a constitutional crisis? That is a ridiculous state of affairs.
Secondly, as we discuss what reforms to make in the composition of the other place, the second Chamber, the House of Lords, we should ask whether it is any longer justifiable that 26 bishops—two archbishops and 24 bishops by seniority—should have guaranteed places in the legislature of Britain, when neither the head of any other denomination of the Christian Church nor of any other faith has such a place. Lord Soper and Lord Jakobovits happen to be members of the House of Lords, but that is by individual selection and not on any other basis. In addition, Anglican ordained ministers cannot be elected to this House; that may no longer be appropriate either.
Thirdly, it is arguable that it is no longer appropriate for the Prime Minister of the day, if an Anglican or a Christian and even more so if an agnostic or an atheist, to choose the diocesan bishops of the Church of England.
953 Fourthly—I am sensitive to the issue, but I raise it because it is important—one, two or many generations from now it may no longer be thought appropriate that the heir to the throne should have to be not just a Christian but an Anglican in order to succeed to the throne, when that person might otherwise be entirely qualified to do the job.
I seek to move the measure as a serious initiation of a debate which the House has deferred, although a wish to consider it has been expressed in earlier speeches and in early-day motions. I ask that the House allow the opportunity for the Bill to be introduced, printed and considered.
This proposal is not about undermining the Church or the faith in which I and many others believe. There is all the difference in the world between supporting the Church and supporting the Church as part of the establishment. I do not recall that Christ came to argue that the Church should be on the side of the establishment. The establishment of the Church of England is an accident of our history. I think that we can be just as Christian a country and arguably the Church could be much more effective a Church if it were disengaged from the constitutional shackles which so regularly impose themselves on it.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?

§ Mr. Cormack
Yes, Madam Speaker.
I wish to speak briefly about the Bill which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to introduce. I do not for a moment question the integrity of his motives, but I do not believe that it is a subject for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the greatest change of its kind since the Elizabethan settlement of 1558. To do that by means of a private Member's Bill, let alone a ten-minute Bill, seems wholly inappropriate. Although all the subjects which the hon. Gentleman listed deserve proper debate in the House, I think that he has jumped the gun to some degree, perhaps encouraged by his success with his taxation measure of two years ago. Now he is after one of the Queen's titles.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the most important measure ever to come to Parliament from the Church of England—the measure on the ordination of women. Now is not the time to debate that, but it is proper to refer to it, as the hon. Gentleman did in seeking to move the Bill. That measure would introduce a great change. I believe that, if it is effected, the Church of England will have turned itself into a sect and will possibly have forfeited its right to be the established Church anyhow. That may be proper, or it may not, in the view of hon. Members, but it ought to be debated in great detail after the measure on the ordination of women has been dealt with.
Parliament has laid down a procedure for dealing with the measure. First, it should come through the Ecclesiastical Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman and I are members. When that committee has decided whether it deems the measure expedient, there will perhaps 954 be an opportunity for the Synod to reflect again, and perhaps not, and perhaps for the measure to come to the House.
At that stage, it would be wholly appropriate to have a debate on the future of the established Church and touch on all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That time is not now. Therefore it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to persist with the introduction of the Bill now and I hope that he will not be given permission so to do.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Thank you, Bishop, that is enough.

§ Mr. Cormack
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might benefit a little if he went occasionally. Hope springs eternal in my breast, even when I look at the hon. Gentleman, although it takes some doing.
I respect a great deal of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. This is much too serious a move to be left to a private Member's Bill and a private Member, however exalted. Many hon. Members in the House still believe in the established Church. Many of us hope that the Church will come through its present travail and troubles and soon have a more decisive lead than it is receiving at present. I do not say "leader", because the present Archbishop of Canterbury will perhaps assert a leadership which, sadly, has been lacking to date. Now is not the time for this measure. I therefore seek to oppose it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. John Battle.