Sir Tony Baldry, Second Church Estates Commissioner, answered an urgent question tabled by Labour MP Diana Johnson on women bishops on 22 November 2012.
Watch a video recording of the ensuing debate (lasts about 34 minutes) via the Democracy Live website here.
The Hansard transcript of the debate is now available here.
Initial media reports:
Yesterday there were also exchanges with the Prime Minister during Question Time, details are below the fold.
From Hansard record, here:
Q11. Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend share my deep disappointment, and that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Church of England yesterday failed to make proper provision for women bishops? It was a sad day for our national Church and our national character, particularly given that 42 of 44 dioceses voted overwhelmingly in support of women bishops. Is the dangerous consequence of that vote not the disestablishment of the Church of England but simply disinterest?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and knowledge. On a personal basis, I am a strong supporter of women bishops and am very sad about how the vote went yesterday. I am particularly sad for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, because he saw this as a major campaign that he wanted to achieve at the end of his excellent tenure of that office. It is important for the Church of England to be a modern Church that is in touch with society as it is today. This was a key step it needed to take.
……. Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): Following the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) a moment ago, and given that the Church of England is the established Church, will the Prime Minister consider what Parliament can do to ensure that the overwhelming will of members of the Church and of the country is respected?
The Prime Minister: I will certainly look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Church has its own processes and elections. They might be hard for some of us to understand, but we must respect individual institutions and the decisions they make. That does not mean we should hold back in saying what we think. I am very clear that the time is right for women bishops—it was right many years ago. The Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme, but we must respect individual institutions and how they work, while giving them a sharp prod.
Several of Tony Baldry’s answers repeat that Parliament will not pass a measure making women second-class bishops. There has to be a proposal before Parliament can act. But these replies are the clearest possible signal that the Church must produce a one-clause proposal.
Meanwhile, I hope that Reform and FiF Synod members are confined to a darkened room with only the speech by Claire Perry for company.
PS (sorry for second bite) – the end of the written transcript has now been uploaded. The following was not on the earlier version. Very telling: (also on audio transcript beginning at 30:18) Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman share my sadness and that of many other people that the Church has made itself appear so out of touch and anachronistic in its decision making? The head of the Church of England is a woman, but in the 21st century we cannot have women bishops. Sir Tony Baldry: I agree. It is a great sadness. I suspect that… Read more »
One questioner referred to a “very stormy meeting yesterday between parliamentarians and the bishops.”
Having now read the Hansard transcript: The debate was brutal for the Church of England. It reflected a great deal of pent-up frustration, among both Government and Opposition. The posters here who say, in effect, “Misogynist? Not at all,” would do very well to read the debate and see how their position is regarded up and down the country and on all sides of the Commons. One MP used the word “contemptible.” Sir Tony Baldry kept emphasizing that no legislation will pass if it makes women second-class bishops. He made that point months ago in connection with the Bishops’ amendment.… Read more »
Sir Tony Baldry keeps stating that 42 out of 44 diocese voted overwhelmingly for the proposed legislation and that the General Synod’s voting figures did not reflect this.
But didn’t the dioceses vote by simple majority?… Maybe Simon can recall the actual voting figures in each diocese – what was majority overall at diocesan level?
Here are all the voting figures from the dioceses
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1385911/gs%201847%20-%20report%20by%20the%20business%20committee%20on%20the%20article%208%20reference.pdf
So the vote in the order of laity, across all 44 dioceses, was 1664 to 489.
That is 77 percent to 23, or more than three quarters in favor.
Oh – a moratorium on appointing/consecrating bishops NOW but not whilst the HoB has had a ban on openly (honest) gay or civilly partnered candidates!
Based on the figures that Simon linked to – 1664 of the laity voted for the motion, 489 against (plus 72 abstentions) – so 75% voted in favour.
Well the knock-on result for gay marriage is to be welcomed. And hopefully the C of E will stop shooting itself in the other foot and learn that the Holy Spirit will blow where she will.
Thanks, Simon, for the link. Looking at the figures and doing the sums it turns out that the percentages in favour were: Bishops 81% Clergy 71% Laity 74% The grand total of all votes gives a winning percentage of 73% Besides London and Chichester, where the motions were narrowly lost, there were very narrow wins in Blackburn (lost in Bishops and very narrow win in clergy and laity), and Sheffield (lost in laity and very narrow wins in other two houses). Winchester and Manchester were also fairly close run things. These apart, the striking thing about the numbers is how… Read more »
I just hope that as those who voted against return to their homes they reflect on the damage they have done to the CoE’s image and mission. But I do not hold out much hope that they have such vision
Shouldn’t Parliament intervene now that the BBC has appointed yet another male Director General? How does this square up with the much vaunted Equalities Act?
“Shouldn’t Parliament intervene now that the BBC has appointed yet another male Director General? How does this square up with the much vaunted Equalities Act?”
Is your theology as bad as your logic?
Admittedly I am an outsider, and from a country without an established church. But it seems like this sort of political pressure over the Church’s government should be highly objectionable to all in the Church of England regardless of whether they support or oppose women bishops. It is easy to imagine the shoe being on the other foot, and a Thatcherite government blocking the appointment of any bishops who do not share their economic program. I would have expected either sort of interference, from the left or the right as the fashion might be, to be the sort of thing… Read more »
If ever the advice of the late Clive Dunn from Dad’s Army needs to be heeded it is surely NOW !
The Established Church seems to be in the grip of mass hysteria and a sense of pandemonium has taken control following the recent General Synod vote. If this is the Church that the Lord promised that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against” then it doesn’t seem to be currently behaving as such!
“An issue, an issue – we all fall down.”
With the BBC, the issue would be *proving* that it was discriminating against women/ethnic minorities etc, i.e. that it had turned down the best candidate for a job because they weren’t a white male. We know that for previous appointments as DG both men and women have been shortlisted, so the BBC aren’t in principle opposed to female leadership. The BBC (and many other organisations) look more like where the Church of England will probably be 20 years after accepting women bishops: in theory all jobs are open, in practice, somehow the best ones always go to men. Prejudice in… Read more »
has the Bishop of London emerged from his sick bed yet? Has he said anything?
My own views as a trad AC to one side, I do wonder why Tony Baldry (my MP)feels that he can pass comment so strongly without resigning his post – whether he likes it or not, as 2nd Church Estates Commissioner, it’s his job to represent Synod to Parliament, not to publically go the other way around, however strongly he feels. Perhaps more interesting are the comments last night from Frank Field. I’ve never quite understood how he could have been so instrumental in securing the previous Act of Synod and yet have recently been so determined the current legislation… Read more »
@Quiet American – is not the Government interfering but the whole of Parliament asking questions about the actions of the established church. Tony Baldry, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, happens to be a Conservative but the debate yesterday was not divided on party political lines. The Church of England is part of the Establishment, and 26 Bishops sit in the House of Lords as part of the legislature. The synod’s powers to pass laws are delegated from Parliament. Parliament therefore has every right to scrutinise what the C of E does. There is a way of avoiding such scrutiny which… Read more »
Quite so, magistra – but there’s a big difference between “in principle” and in practice. Now that we have reached the enlightened and liberated 21st cenury – the list of female Directors General of the BBC is still non-existant. Before Parliament thinks of intervening in the affairs of the Church following the Women Bishops vote – perhaps Mr. Cameron would first like to cast the eye of equality over the make-up of the current Cabinet.
The difference, Father David, is that the BBC has not voted to debar women from even being considered for the post. In an ordinary discrimination case, the issue of fact to be resolved is whether the failure to promote was motivated by legitimate business concerns or discriminatory motive. That issue is not present here.
Religious liberty is a genuinely fundamental social value, and deserves respect. That said, does a church which discriminates deserve the benefits of establishment, benefits denied all other sects?
I don’t get the “42 out of 44 dioceses” maths. Obviously the vast majority of dioceses were in favour of this piece of legislation, but so was the vast majority of General Synod.
If you asked in how many dioceses a 2/3 majority was secured in all three houses, not counting abstentions, thus applying the same rules as to General Synod, would the answer not be 33 out of 44?
“Shouldn’t Parliament intervene now that the BBC has appointed yet another male Director General? How does this square up with the much vaunted Equalities Act?”
Motes and Beams Father David.
“Shouldn’t Parliament intervene now that the BBC has appointed yet another male Director General? How does this square up with the much vaunted Equalities Act?”
Allowing women bishops will not make it illegal to appoint male ones.
Those ‘conservative traditionalists’ on this site who are upholding the legality of parliament intervening in the government of the church don’t seem to understand that those of us who are ‘liberal progressives’ on this issue are not questioning the legality of parliament’s (potential ) action. We are questioning whether a community of followers of Jesus ought to rejoice to see this happen.
After all, next week it might be your favourite theological conviction that parliament decides it doesn’t like.
“@Quiet American – is not the Government interfering but the whole of Parliament asking questions about the actions of the established church.”
Note: here in the States the distinction between the government and the legislature doesn’t apply. When Americans speak of “the government” we generally mean the whole State bureaucracy, not simply the group in control of the legislature or executive. I don’t know how Quiet American meant the word, but I thought it was worth calling attention to this aspect of the common language that divides us.
“[N]ext week it might be your favourite theological conviction that parliament decides it doesn’t like.”
Perhaps conservatives should have borne this caution in mind in 1993.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the cry of “don’t run to Parliament” rings a bit hollow.
Of course Frank Field’s Equality Act (2010) Amendment Bill, which was tabled on Thursday, and which would remove the Church of England’s exemption as to women bishops, will not likely get to third reading.
As of Thursday, however, the following MPs were supporting the bill. It is an interesting list, as it contains two Tories and a Lib Dem.
Frank Field (Labour—Birkenhead)
Diana Johnson (Labour—Kingston upon Hull North)
Natascha Engel (Labour—North East Derbyshire)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru—Dwyfor Merionnydd)
Andrew George (Liberal Democrat—St. Ives)
Nicholas Soames (Conservative—Mid Sussex)
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour—City of Durham)
Eleanor Laing (Conservative—Epping Forest)
Helen Goodman (Labour—Bishop Auckland)