Same Sex Marriage (Church of England)

As constituency MPs, we have all had experience of the special role played by the Church of England in our nation’s life. In times of tragedy and celebration, the Church’s doors are open to all in our communities. Personally, I value that role, and I believe that most Anglicans and parliamentarians do, too. But when the practice of the Church in how it treats its lesbian and gay members persists in being so out of step with the country as a whole, that established status is bound to be questioned.

Sir Tony Baldry, the former Conservative MP and Second Church Estates Commissioner, recently called for a Bill just like this one to be introduced in Parliament. He noted that when Parliament relinquished most of the responsibility for Church legislation in 1919, it was not envisaged that there would be a major issue of doctrine or practice on which Church and state would diverge. But during the 20th century, as society and attitudes inside the Church changed, differences emerged over the treatment of divorcees, for example, or the role of women in the Church.

On each of those subjects, the Church eventually adjusted to the new reality, but not without a gentle nudge from Parliament. We did that most recently over the decision to allow women bishops when, at the first time of asking, the Synod failed to approve the change. Parliament, through the Second Church Estates Commissioner, made it quite clear to the bishops that that was an unacceptable state of affairs. The following Synod approved the measure, and Parliament legislated to fast-track women bishops into the other place.

Parliament nudged the Church then, and a gentle nudge is what this Bill is intended to give now. It would allow, in certain circumstances, priests and parishes that wish to conduct same sex weddings to do so—a solution similar to the one governing the remarriage of divorcees or whether a parish should be forced to have a woman priest. I have seen some conservative evangelicals and other opponents of equality claim in recent days that the Bill amounts to an attack on religious freedom or to Parliament legislating on doctrine. It is neither. The Bill is deliberately drafted as permissive, so as to allow those who wish to move forward to do so “in certain circumstances”. Such circumstances could include prior approval by the Synod.

Many would like Parliament to go further, including my local priest, a traditionalist who nevertheless said to me after mass—following the heated debates in Synod in February—that, “Parliament should just get on with it.” Parliament could get on with it, but that is not the intention or necessary consequence of my Bill. My preference—and, I imagine, that of most colleagues—would be for the Church to do this itself. A vote at February’s Synod to allow same-sex weddings was very close among the clergy and laity. It is quite possible that, once blessings are allowed and the world does not fall in, things could move rapidly in the next few years. Yet even if the Church of England wanted to conduct same-sex weddings, it is currently prevented from doing so by the so-called quadruple lock to the equal marriage Act. This Bill could, should Parliament wish, simply remove that lock, meaning that the Church would not have to come back to Parliament again as and when it decided to change its doctrine and practice.

Of course, discussion about the potential impact of the Bill is somewhat academic, given that it has no chance of becoming law. The main motivation in introducing it is to encourage the bishops to stick to the commitments and timetable agreed by February’s Synod and resist any delay or backsliding at the next Synod in July. There has been sustained pressure from a vocal minority inside the Church against the very modest proposals on the table.

Some conservative provinces in the global Anglican communion have disowned the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a small number of homophobic parishes here have stopped paying their diocesan contributions in protest. There is a small minority in the Church of England who will never be reconciled to treating gay and lesbian people equally. They are holding the majority back. The Church leadership should stop indulging them and focus on their primary mission to the majority of Anglicans here. That might also make it easier for them to focus on the many important things the Church has to say and offer about the 21st century.

I am immensely grateful for and humbled by the range and quality of the co-sponsors of this Bill. They include the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), my right hon. Friends the Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) and both the Mother and Father of the House. I apologise to those who wanted to be sponsors but did not make the list, but I am only allowed 11.

I hope the Bill serves, if nothing else, to give hope to those still waiting for change, like Susannah and her wife, and sends a clear message to the Church of England leadership about where Parliament stands on these matters. I commend it to the House.

Directing the Church of England on doctrine is not the job of Parliament. It would infringe on settled principles of religious freedom, for which we argue for our sisters and brothers overseas, and it would also call into question the rights and protections of conscience for other denominations and faiths. Several Catholic members of this House came up to me after the urgent question on 24 January and told me how grateful they were that Parliament was not telling their Church what to do.

The Bill is also unnecessary, as should the Synod decide to change the doctrine of marriage in the future, it could do so. It would produce a Measure that would come before Parliament and amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. There is no need, therefore, for Parliament to act independently to change the Act.

Although the Bill is intended to be permissive and not to compel any member of the clergy to solemnise same-sex marriage, it is just not possible to leave it to individual clergy to choose to do things that are clearly contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Doctrine is not determined by local decision varying by parish or diocese, but is decided centrally, not by a small group of bishops, but through the prayerful deliberation and decision of the democratically elected Synod. If the Church lost its ability to require compliance with its doctrine, that would be a breach of the human rights convention as it would be contrary to article 9 read with article 11 for the state to interfere with a religious organisation’s ability to require compliance with its own doctrine. The Bill’s attempt to give individual freedom and choice would be unworkable and would breach the long-standing convention that Parliament does not legislate for the internal affairs of the Church of England without its consent.

I honoured my commitment to tell the General Synod the views of Parliament as expressed in the urgent question on 24 January. I know that the General Synod will continue to listen carefully and respectfully to the views of this House, just as I would ask Parliament to be respectful to the views of the Synod.

That Mr Ben Bradshaw, Margaret Beckett, Hilary Benn, Sir Peter Bottomley, Sir Chris Bryant, Sir Robert Buckland, Daisy Cooper, Ms Harriet Harman, Dame Diana Johnson, Caroline Lucas, Caroline Nokes and Iain Stewart present the Bill.

Mr Ben Bradshaw accordingly presented the Bill.