Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

House of Commons, 20 October 2014.

Clause 1 — When this Act applies

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

“( ) Nothing in this Act confers on any person immunity from civil liability, nor does it change the relevant standard of care in negligence or breach of statutory duty”.

With all due respect to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, I do not think the House will dignify the Bill with much by way of a debate. It has been comprehensively trashed even by its supporters. I think that of 24 witnesses originally asked by the Government to give evidence in Committee, only five turned up. Most of those, even if they supported the principle of the Bill, said how poorly it was drafted. Even the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, which represents the interests of defendants and insurers in whose interests the Bill is drafted, did not have a kind word to say about it. It was buried on Second Reading by the shadow Lord Chancellor my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and, not least, by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). It was dug up and reburied in Committee, and there are only so many times that its corpse can be paraded around Parliament. Indeed, the only thing the hon. and learned Member for Harborough was wrong about was to say that when the Bill becomes an Act it

“will be the subject of derision and confusion”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1204.]

It is already the subject of derision and confusion.

Amendment 1, and the other amendments we have tabled, reiterates some of what was put forward in Committee. I make no apology for that. We are simply trying to get an answer from the Minister on the points on which he was either vague or contradictory, and, in the last chance before the Bill leaves this House, to see what exact purpose lies behind it.

Amendment 1 states:

“Nothing in this Act confers on any person immunity from civil liability, nor does it change the relevant standard of care in negligence or breach of statutory duty.”

It might seem surprising to need a clarification of that order, but that is exactly what is necessary because the Government have not been clear from day one on whether the Bill seeks to change the law or not. In the pre-publicity, if one can put it that way, the Lord Chancellor said:

“It does not rewrite the law in detail or take away discretion from the courts, but it sends a signal to our judges and a signal to those thinking about trying it on”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1187.]

Whether the proper purpose of legislation is to send a signal to those thinking about trying it on, I leave it to other Members to comment on.

Barry Sheerman (Labour, Huddersfield)

I know that my hon. Friend is a very good forensic lawyer. I have the same dilemma as he does: it is hard to be in favour of the Bill, but it is hard to be against it.

Where does it come from and what was its purpose? Using his forensic skills, can he tell us who was behind its inclusion in the Queen’s Speech?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

As I would expect, my hon. Friend asks a very good question. It comes from the media grid in the Ministry of Justice. There was a vacant slot in The Mail on Sunday and something had to be pushed forward for the weekend. I see the Minister was in charge of spin this weekend. He has obviously been promoted to Lord Chancellor. Not only can the Lord Chancellor not be bothered to come to the House anymore, but he cannot even be bothered to do The Mail on Sunday. How extraordinary! However, I admired the Minister’s performance over the weekend, particularly dealing with questions about whether he had been the subject of abuse himself. I was glad he was surprised by the question. Someone as emollient as him would never be the subject of abuse by his constituents or anybody else’s.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) makes the crucial point. What is the purpose of the Bill, other than as a piece of spin? If we say, “The Bill promotes volunteering and encourages people to intervene where they can be of assistance”, who would not be against sin in that way? But of course that is not the whole purpose, and when we come to the second set of amendments, I will explain that there is an insidious part of the Bill, in clause 3.

Returning to amendment 1, will the Minister clarify—he has tried several times already in Committee—whether the Bill changes the law? This is a key point. After some consideration and umming and ahhing, he said that clause 3, unlike clauses 2 and 4, would change the law. He said:

“We consider that clause 3 represents a change in that it ensures that the court takes into account a defendant’s general approach towards protecting the safety and interests of others when carrying out an activity. It is the general issue that is relevant there.”––[Official Report, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2014; c. 75.]

I cannot see how that is any different from what is in clauses 2 and 4, which he concedes do not change the law.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

It might help the House if I quote from the House of Common research paper:

“The Bill would not change the existing overarching legal framework, or leave victims without protection, and the courts would still be able to find that a person had been negligent or in breach of a statutory duty in relevant circumstances.”

Why are we here? What is this about? What is the point of the Bill?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

Indeed. In responding to this amendment in Committee, in flat contradiction to what I have just quoted, the Minister said:

“Nothing in the Bill suggests that it gives immunity from civil liability. It also does not change the standard of care that is generally applicable… The Bill simply requires the court to have regard to certain factors in deciding what steps should have been taken to meet that standard of care in a particular case.” —[Official Report, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2014; c. 63.]

As was pointed out ad nauseam to the Minister, the doctrine of negligence in common law has been developed

not over years but over centuries. Furthermore, there is already guidance in legislation—the Compensation Act 2006 being the obvious example—insofar as it is needed, but generally the courts do not need guidance in considering all the relevant factors. As I said, however, when we come to clause 3, we will perhaps see what the Government’s ulterior motive is.

I do not wish to labour the point; I simply wish to have an answer from the Minister. Will the Bill—clause 3 or any other part—make any difference to how the law of negligence works in the courts? If so, will he indicate how and explain the motivation? If it does not, what is the purpose of the Bill? I await his response.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The introductory comments by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) are typical of his form. When he was talking about my interviews yesterday in the media about abuse, I thought for a moment that he might be referring to some abuse that he had hurled at me during a debate, but he did not go that far.

I appreciate that the purpose of amendment 1 is to clarify that the Bill does not confer immunity from civil liability on any individual or change the standard of care that is relevant in claims involving negligence or breach of statutory duty. I explained to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Committee why I thought such an amendment was not needed, but I am happy to explain our position on this again. As for whether the law has been changed, I will deal with that substantially when we debate clause 3, which is in the second group of amendments for this debate on Report.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that suggests it will give immunity from civil liability to anyone. Even if a defendant had been acting for the benefit of society, intervening in an emergency or acting responsibly during an activity when he injured somebody, he could still be found negligent or in breach of a statutory duty if the court considered that he did not meet the required standard of care. The Bill is not designed to encourage people to take unnecessary risks with people’s safety, nor does it remove the court’s ability to do justice in an individual case.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the Minister accept that if first aid was made part of the national curriculum, there would be a whole generation of young people coming through who knew what to do in a road crash, for example? The first rule for those going to assist in a road crash is to ensure that they and others are not put at risk; in other words, they have to safeguard the patient or patients. Does the Minister accept that if first aid was taught as part of the national curriculum, everybody would know that?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

It is eminently sensible that everyone should have some education in first aid, but as far as the rule is concerned, I will deal with substantive matters of that sort in the next group of amendments. What I will say now, in a general way, is that there is a change, but there is also a message that the Bill sends out, which I will deal with in due course.

Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether he could define “heroism”, which is in the title of the Bill. What does it mean? What is the definition?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

May I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with amendment 1, not heroism, which will be dealt with subsequently—I will be happy to come that—in the second group of amendments?

Barry Sheerman (Labour, Huddersfield)

The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other a long time. We are good friends and I have a high regard for him, but for the minority of us present who were not on the Committee, will he give a pithy explanation of the guts of the Bill? What does he think is really at its heart? He would probably go to the barricades for the Bill; and if so, why?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are good friends—I hope his Whips will not hold that against him. He made his contribution on Second Reading and he has certainly made his presence felt in this debate, if not in Committee. The Bill outlines a general responsibility, which must be taken into account by the courts. It sends a powerful message to the courts: when somebody is doing the right thing, the courts must take that into account. As for the decision itself, that will be made by the court, given all the circumstances of the case. That will be fact-specific, but the Bill will tell the court that it must take into account those factors.

Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

rose—

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

rose—

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I will give way, but I want to answer the question that was put to me. The Compensation Act 2006 has been referred to; indeed, the shadow Chancellor specifically asked on Second Reading what the difference was between this Bill and that Act. There is a very important distinction, which is that the Compensation Act says that the court “may” take into account certain factors; this Bill says that the court “must” take into account certain factors. We do not have to be lawyers to appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the two.

The other thing that this Bill does is send a powerful message to the members of the public that if they do the right thing, the court will take that into account and they should not be inhibited from doing the right thing in any heroic acts, social activities or whatever.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

rose—

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Order. The Minister is a legendarily diligent and conscientious fellow and among the most courteous of Members. He was on the path of virtue. He was led astray by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), albeit with his characteristic charm and insistence; but the Minister should not persist away from the path of virtue even if it is Members with decades of experience who are naughtily seeking to tempt him in that direction. We must now focus on amendment 1, as we are not having a Second Reading debate. Being the sort of dutiful, law-abiding fellow that the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) is, I am sure his intervention will be entirely in order.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

I am certainly trying, Mr Speaker.

I am not too familiar with this Bill and I was a not a member of the Committee that considered it. One thing strikes me, however. Is not the definition of “self-defence” a factor in the issue? In the past, there have been incidents of people defending themselves yet finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. Is that part of the issue?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall do as guided by Mr Speaker, as self-defence is not an issue I am dealing with in connection with this amendment.

The Bill does not change the relevant standard of care that applies when a court is considering whether somebody has been negligent or has breached a relevant statutory duty. The court will continue to look at what an ordinary and reasonable person should have done in all the circumstances of the case. The Bill simply requires the court to have regard to the factors in the Bill before reaching a decision on liability. It does not tell the court what conclusions to draw or prevent a person from being found negligent if the facts of the case warrant it.

As I said in Committee, if in a finely balanced case the court considers the factors in the Bill and decides that this should tip the balance in favour of a defendant who had been acting for the benefit of society, demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity or intervening to help someone in an emergency, we would welcome that outcome. It will be for the courts to decide how much weight to give these factors on a case-by-case basis, but we do not consider that there is any risk of the clause being misinterpreted by the courts as somehow granting individuals immunity from civil liability or changing the standard of care that is generally applicable. In that light, the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will withdraw it.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I shall not press the amendment to the vote; we can continue our discussion in connection with the second group of amendments. Let me tell the Minister, however, that his explanation has continued to go around in ever-decreasing circles. The two points at the heart of the Bill, raised in a number of interventions, are these. First, is the Minister attempting to change the law or not; and, secondly, is he attempting to fetter the discretion of the judiciary? What he said in respect of the distinction he wishes to make between the Compensation Act 2006 and this Bill suggests that he does wish to do that. Section 1 of that Act says “may”, while this Bill says “must”. If the Minister wants to make that distinction, the only explanation must be that he wants to fetter the hands of the judiciary in dealing with these matters, giving rise to the suspicion that it is entirely inappropriate. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 — Responsibility

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “generally”.

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 13, leave out

“or other interests of others”

and insert “of employees or bystanders”.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, at end insert

“in relation to the circumstances leading up to the alleged negligence”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 1, line 17, leave out from “danger” to end of line 18.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I will deal briefly at the end with the amendment relating to clause 4. It raises the issue posed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) about St John Ambulance and its concerns about the Bill. Amendments 2 to 5 deal with what is effectively the Bill’s only operative clause, clause 3. Again, I make no apology for saying that these amendments were put in Committee.

Amendments 2 to 4 propose ways of improving the drafting of what everyone from the Law Society to legal practitioners and commentators has described as one of the worst-drafted pieces of legislation they have ever seen. Our concern is that clause 3 is drawn very widely. It states:

“The court must have regard to whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.”

That is hedged around with many generalities. What is a “generally responsible approach”? What does the “safety or other interests” of others mean? Our amendment 4 attempts to clarify the clause by adding the words

“in relation to the circumstances leading up to the alleged negligence”.

The Minister was made aware of this point in Committee so I shall not explain it at length, but the purpose of our amendments is to ensure that if material other than that specifically relating to a particular incident is taken into consideration, it should have a direct causal link—through time, location or type—to the incident being complained of. Otherwise, we risk opening up many cans of worms. In relation to an accident at work, for example, the entire conduct of an employer or employee over a long period could be taken into account, as could working practices and conditions, as well as “other interests”, whatever they might be. I suspect that, in trying to keep the ministerial team happy, the parliamentary draftsmen have been scratching their heads and trying to come up with something. Our amendments are meant to be genuinely constructive in trying to improve the drafting of the Bill—if that is possible. But I shall say no more about that.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Amendment 2 proposes leaving out the word “generally”, in the context of the person who might have difficulty showing that they have demonstrated a “generally responsible approach” towards protecting the safety of others. My hon. Friend has rightly focused on the word “generally”. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has said that he suspects the Bill will be the subject of derision and confusion if it is enacted as drafted, but is that not already the case?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

At best, the word “generally” adds nothing to clause 3. At worst, it could mean that everything including the kitchen sink is thrown into litigation by defendants who are desperate to show that they are not liable for a particular tort. That could lead to additional costs and complexity, red herrings, satellite litigation and who knows what? I hope that the Minister will at least go so far as to say that the drafting of the clause could be improved. Having said that, I do not think its drafting could be improved; it simply needs to go. I therefore hope that he will agree to amendment 5 and sacrifice the clause. He would be losing only one clause out of the five. I am sure the Bill would be just as good with four clauses as with five.

I will not repeat what I have said in previous debates on the Bill, but the Minister has said at some stages that this is an attempt to change the law. In more candid moments elsewhere, he and the Lord Chancellor have indeed suggested that this is an attempt to skew the balance in personal injury litigation, particularly between employers and employees. An article in The Daily Telegraph has described the proposals as sending a

“blunt message to the trade union officials who bring thousands of negligence cases against employers every year”.

I do not know whether the Minister has ever been a member of a trade union or whether he is familiar with their work, but much of the unsung detailed work that they do on behalf of their members is exactly in this area of assisting with litigation against employers in meritorious cases, just as any other solicitor might do. Personal injury cases are not brought for fun or to make a political point. They are brought because there has been an injury and there is substantial evidence of negligence. We fear that the clause is designed to weaken the ability of those who have suffered injury at work—or elsewhere, but I suspect that it is primarily directed at injury at work—to take their cases to court, and that they will either not be able to bring those cases or will not succeed with them, despite their merit.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the shadow Minister join me in congratulating all those involved in producing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which celebrated its 40th anniversary this year? An estimated 40,000 lives have been saved in the workplace, and there was not a single fatality during the construction of the Olympic stadium.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Act was a landmark piece of legislation—one of those seminal pieces of legislation—and it could not be more different from this Bill. It has made a cultural change, and has indeed been responsible for saving many hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

I am sure my hon. Friend has noticed that a Labour Government introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Does he agree that this Bill confuses issues of health and safety with issues of negligence? There does not seem to be any real difference that warrants the definition.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

This Government have already been responsible for full-frontal, across-the board assaults on health and safety in the workplace, from the changes

in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to the changes in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 in relation to strict liability in breach-of-statutory-duty cases. This is just another of those assaults, but I believe that it is an ineffective attempt. I have confidence in our courts, and I am sure that even if the Bill is passed unamended, the judiciary will treat it with the contempt that it deserves. They will consider the matters that are dealt with in the Bill, as they would have anyway, but they will not give those matters undue consideration because of what is in the Bill, and they will continue to find for meritorious claims and against unmeritorious ones. Of course, it remains the case that if an employee is on a frolic of his own—if he is, as the Lord Chancellor would say, trying it on—the courts will find that out, because that is exactly what the trial process is about. The Bill does nothing but add confusion.

If clause 3 is intended to change the law—no doubt the Minister will clarify that—for whose benefit is it intended to change the law? It seems to me that the Government can only be seeking to bring in extraneous factors which will allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases. The cards are stacked very much in favour of the employer in such cases. The employer controls the accident site, and the employer, directly or through his insurer, has the weight of finance and advice. The employee is often restricted, first, by nervousness about suing his employer; secondly, possibly by his injury; and thirdly, possibly by a lack of income as a result of the incident.

Why would a Government wish to set out to hobble a claimant in that respect other than because some blind prejudice causes them to consider all claims by employees against employers to be unmeritorious? The same motivation led to the 80% decline in employment tribunal cases that has followed the introduction of fees, and the Government have shown the same attitude to health and safety generally in their cuts to the Health and Safety Executive, as a result of which inspection regimes are not what they were, despite the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Unless the Minister either agrees to amendment 5 or can, very persuasively, show us that it would not have any material effect, I suspect that we will press the amendment to a vote.

Let me briefly deal with clause 4, about which a number of issues were raised in Committee. We have not sought to bring those up again, but one or two of the interventions were about the definitions of “heroic act” and “hero”, and about other poor drafting. I will not address those points this afternoon but, given the criticism from Members on both sides of the House, it is worth asking the Minister whether he will consider withdrawing the final words from clause 4:

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

St John Ambulance has clearly made the point that that is an irresponsible provision. It does not add anything; all it encourages is reckless behaviour likely to put either the putative hero or others engaged in such action at some risk. It is a loose and careless piece of drafting, and the Minister would do himself credit if he simply withdrew it. The brief that St John Ambulance prepared

for us not only made that point clearly, but made the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell).

Bob Stewart (Conservative, Beckenham)

The one thing the person will not think about when he or she sees something that they could help with is any Bill or legislation. They will think, “I’ve got to do something. I’ve got to help this person.” Whatever we legislate on, we have to make sure that someone who really cares is not inhibited from taking such action.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman’s comments undermine the whole purpose of this Bill, which is, supposedly, to exhort the public to do things that they would almost certainly do anyway. I do not think the public need this Bill to be encouraged to volunteer or to be told that they should intervene when situations demand. The practical point, which St John Ambulance makes, is that if there was a much greater emphasis on first aid training and on people being competent to intervene, not only would the outcome of interventions be better, but people would feel more confident about intervening. The evidence shows that the principal reason for non-intervention is that people lack the confidence to know what to do and fear that they may make the situation worse. I do not believe for a moment that people do not intervene because of concerns for their own safety.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have to make sure that this is pushed through under Sewel, because although this is English and Welsh legislation, its effects will cover the whole of the United Kingdom?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

Indeed. The Minister must be picking up, if not from this debate, but from the Bill’s previous stages, that at best there is weariness with more soundbite legislation and littering the statute books—[Interruption.] I believe that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has the brief within the Justice team to stop unnecessary legislation across government. He has taken his eye off the ball, because he cannot stop unnecessary legislation in his own Department.

The Under-Secretary must appreciate that criticisms are not coming just from Opposition Members. Although I do not expect him at this stage to abandon the Bill in its entirety, although he might as well put it out of its misery, he could at least take on board some of these sensible and constructive points. I appreciate that they are coming from me and so he might not want to do that, but other Members on both sides of the House have made the point about the wording of

“person’s own safety or other interests”

and about the poor drafting of clause 3.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on amendment 6, and I would happily vote with him if he put that to a Division. So there is support from Government Members, although I fear that as it is coming from me it may fall on the same deaf ears.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen carefully to everything he says and give it exactly the due weight it should be given. I am very tempted by the thought that we might push our numbers up by one,

but I hope that the Minister may give way on this measure and by the time it emerges from the other place the Bill will be improved at least to that extent.

Clause 3 is quite a dangerous provision. We have not voted against the Bill as a whole, because the Bill on the whole does nothing. Clause 3 will be ineffective if it is passed, but its intention is malevolent. It is harmful to good industrial relations and harmful to health and safety in the workplace, and it is a piece of prejudice that this Government and this Minister should know better than to pursue.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, the issues were debated at length in Committee; indeed, notwithstanding our very thorough debate on the Bill, three sittings were left spare. Given the track record of the Labour Government, the Opposition’s claim that the Bill is unnecessary is extraordinary.

The hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) have tabled several amendments in relation to clauses 3 and 4. Let me respond first in relation to amendment 5, which would remove clause 3 from the Bill, and explain why it is important for the clause as a whole to be retained. I will then deal with the other amendments.

Clause 3 provides that a court, when considering a claim for negligence or breach of a relevant statutory duty, must have regard to whether the defendant, in carrying out the activity in which the alleged negligence or breach occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.

The core aim of the clause is to provide reassurance to ordinary hard-working people who have adopted a generally responsible approach towards the safety or other interests of others during the course of an activity that the courts will always take that into account in the event of something going wrong and their being sued. We also hope that, by showing them that the law is on their side, the clause will give them greater confidence in standing up to opportunistic and speculative claims.

The need for that measure is amply illustrated by the evidence provided to the Committee by, for example, voluntary organisations and the emergency services. The damaging effects of the fear of litigation on people’s willingness to volunteer, and the propensity of some involved in accidents to bring opportunistic and spurious claims, were emphasised.

I am sure that the House will be surprised and indeed appalled by the example given by the Cheshire fire and rescue service, which has been sued by passers-by who have tripped over hoses being unwound by firemen to extinguish a fire. Those rescue workers were clearly acting in an emergency and their priority was to reach anybody who might be inside a burning building—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may smile and laugh, but that case is absolutely true.

The Government believe that it must be right in such cases to require the courts to take into account the general approach of the defendant towards safety during the course of the activity in question.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am both fascinated and amazed by the hosepipe case. Does my hon. Friend know what happened to that claim?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I do not know the outcome, but the fact that those people took legal action in the first place is the issue. People should not feel that they can try something on. My hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished lawyer and will probably know what the outcome would be. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the House in that regard.

The issue was not what the outcome was, but that the Cheshire fire and rescue service was taken to court in the first place. To those who may still have concerns about the possible effects of the clause, I would emphasise that the provisions do not direct the courts to the conclusion they should reach and will not prevent a finding of negligence or breach of statutory duty where that is warranted. I am confident that the courts will continue to take a common-sense approach to these cases, and will exercise the flexibility that the clause gives them, so that in each case they reach a just decision, in light of all the circumstances.

On points of detail, amendment 2 asks courts to consider whether the defendant was responsible, rather than generally responsible, during an activity, and amendment 4 ask courts to focus on the defendant’s approach to safety

“leading up to the alleged negligence”,

as opposed, for example, to their track record on health and safety matters over a longer period. As I explained when the hon. Member for Hammersmith tabled the amendments in Committee, they are unnecessary. Clause 3 already states that the courts should look at whether the defendant adopted

“a generally responsible approach towards…the safety…of others”

during the activity in which the alleged negligence occurred. That makes it perfectly clear that the Bill is concerned with the approach that the defendant adopted in the course of the events that led to the injury, and not with their actions in other unrelated circumstances, or their health and safety record over a number of years. During the activity in which the incident took place, if the person’s actions were risky or careless, and that caused injury, there is nothing in clause 3 to stop them being found negligent.

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

What parameters is the Minister setting for courts by including such a woolly, vague and indeterminate word as “generally”? What if someone says, “A week last Tuesday, I behaved really properly, but on this occasion, I behaved like a nutcase”? Which one is it? This is a ridiculous way to go about legislating.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

It is not for me or this place to dictate to the courts the decisions that they should come to. It is for us to make the law, and for the courts to take account of all the facts that may apply to that case and come to their decision. That is how the constitution of this country has operated for centuries, and will continue to, as far as we are concerned. The clause says that if a person carries out an activity in a way that demonstrates

“a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety…of others”,

and, despite their best efforts, something goes wrong and somebody is injured, the court should take full account of the circumstances. That represents a change,

in that case law does not currently oblige a court to consider whether a person took a generally responsible approach to safety during the activity in question. I believe that it is a desirable and beneficial change that is both fair and proportionate.

Amendment 3 seeks to limit the effect of the clause to people who have been taking a generally responsible approach to the safety of “employees or bystanders”. The hon. Member for Hammersmith indicated that that was intended to prevent the provision from being interpreted as extending to entirely non-safety-related matters, such as protecting shareholders’ profits.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

On a point of clarification, if the Minister is saying that there is a change of law in clause 3 because the “generally responsible approach” is not in case law or statute, is he saying that the provisions in clauses 2 and 4 relating to acting for the benefit of society and acting heroically are in case law or statute?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

As I said in Committee, where we debated this at length, clause 3 does make a change, for the reasons that I just gave. The purpose of the legislation is twofold. First and foremost, it directs the court to take into account certain factors that, at present, it has discretion to take into account under the Compensation Act 2006. Secondly, it sends the powerful message to members of the public who otherwise may not act in certain circumstances that the law is on their side.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) gave the example of a time when she stepped off a bus and saw someone lying on the ground, and was told by people who were standing by that they were worried that they might be sued, and so did not want to do anything, or words to that effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) also gave an example: when he, as a first responder, went to places to give people medical attention, others were standing by, saying that they were afraid of legal consequences and were therefore not taking any risks. The legislation sends out a powerful message to the public that the law will be on their side.

We have deliberately drafted the clause broadly so that it focuses on whether the defendant demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others. This ensures that it will be relevant in a wide range of situations and will enable the courts to take account of all relevant circumstances and apply the provisions as flexibly as possible to achieve a just outcome. The clause is not restricted to personal injury claims and could in principle be applicable in relation to other instances of negligence, such as damage to property or economic loss, where issues of safety may not necessarily be relevant. That is why a broad definition has been used.

Narrowing the clause, as the amendment would, would mean that many bodies such as voluntary organisations, religious groups or social clubs which demonstrate a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of their clients or members would not be able to benefit from its provisions. That cannot be right.

Amendment 6 would remove part of the wording in clause 4 which clarifies what is meant by “acting heroically”. Specifically, it would remove the final words of the clause, which refer to acting

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendment, as we have been considering the issue carefully in the light of similar representations made by St John Ambulance and the Fire Brigades Union during the Committee stage. St John Ambulance indicated that the wording conflicted with first aid practice that discourages first aiders from putting themselves at risk, and the Fire Brigades Union warned that the clause more generally might conflict with advice to the public not to intervene.

After giving this matter further thought, we remain of the view that the courts will interpret the words

“without regard to the person’s own safety”

in accordance with our intended meaning—that a person acts heroically by intervening to assist someone in danger, regardless of the fact that doing so might risk his or her own safety. The example I used in Committee was of a person who sees somebody struggling to stay afloat in a fast-moving current. That person might jump in to help on the spur of the moment, without first deliberating whether he might be putting his own life at risk.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I do not have an objection on the same grounds as St John Ambulance or the Fire Brigades Union. My objection to the wording that the amendment deals with is that it contains an unnecessary additional hurdle. The clause does not state “or without regard”. It states “and without regard”, which introduces an unnecessary extra hurdle. Even if somebody acts heroically, they may well still have some regard for their own safety, but they may go on to ignore that. However, to say that they must have had no regard for their own safety renders the clause, in my view, unworkable.

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify the point, and I regret that fact that I clearly have not been able to do so thus far. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) when he spoke of someone acting spontaneously. If somebody were to witness a situation which required their assistance—for example, if somebody was drowning and it was necessary to jump in and save them—and they were able to do so, I am minded to say that that person would not say, “Well, I need to take account of the law here. If I were to jump in, is account going to be taken of whether I considered this dangerous or not?” If somebody is capable of saving that drowning person, they will jump in and save them. The courts will take account of all the facts of the case and I am confident that the present wording is necessary, the courts will take account of everything, and it will not be held against anybody that they may temporarily have considered danger.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will my hon. Friend indulge me one more time?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Certainly.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I appear to be speaking in a different language. I clearly cannot get through to the Minister so I will try to phrase my objection in a different way.

Can he give us an example of something that would not be covered that should be covered if the wording ended after the word “danger”? What scenario that he wants included would not be included if the wording stopped at “danger”?

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend will appreciate that hypothetical examples are somewhat redundant, given that I mentioned earlier the independence of the judiciary, and that it is for the courts to decide on the facts of each case. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and predict specific circumstances. It is for the court to take account of the specific facts in a specific case.

We do not consider that the clause will be misinterpreted by the courts or the public as somehow excluding people who did in fact have regard to their own safety or other interests, perhaps in the split second before they dived in, but decided to intervene anyway. Nor do we think that it would interpreted as sending a signal that members of the public should recklessly expose themselves to danger. We think that the wording and intention of the clauses are clear, and, on balance, we do not think that the amendment is necessary. I hope that on the basis of my explanation, the hon. Member for Hammersmith will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. In the event that he wishes to press amendment 5, which would delete clause 3, I would urge the House to reject it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

rose—

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Ah, Sir Edward Garnier.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not know whether it is “Ah, Bisto” or just “Ah”, but thank you, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow (Speaker, Buckingham)

Ah, in a state of eager anticipation.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

You should hold your horses, Mr Speaker.

All of us who have practised as lawyers, and my hon. Friend the Minister is one such, have had to pick up a duff brief from time to time, and I am not entirely sure that it is fair to pin upon my hon. Friend the difficulties in which he finds himself in trying to explain this Bill. I was rude enough about it on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend was gracious enough politely to refer to my concerns. Both he and I were fortunate that I was not on the Committee dealing with the Bill, but it is fortuitous that I happen to be here this afternoon to invite those listening to, or reading the debate in due course, to read into this brief set of remarks—for the second time when I speak, I notice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds it convenient to leave the Chamber, but there we are—what I said on Second Reading, because I do not think anything has been done to the Bill since Second Reading to alter my mind about it. I do not take a trade union view. I do not take a cataclysmic view of the sort expressed by the Opposition spokesman that this is a Bill designed to undermine workers’ rights, or whatever it may be. I just think that it is a particularly silly piece of legislation. If I am to be rude, I might just briefly explain why.

I can understand that clauses 2 to 4 provide the basis upon which the court exercises its consideration in clause 1. So when considering a claim that a person was

negligent or in breach of a statutory duty, it can take into account, or, as it says in the Bill, “have regard to” what is set out in clauses 2, 3 and 4. But I am not at all sure, and I wish I was in a position to be convinced by my hon. Friend, that were a court to have regard, as it is required to by the legislation, that it would be in a better position than that of a court dealing with the case now, given the state of the common law and the existing statutory provisions.

Clause 2—I speak generally to the amendments—invites the court to have regard to whether the person, presumably the defendant,

“was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members.”

I would be interested to know whether that is a matter of law or a matter of fact. Sometimes a judge is required to rule as a matter of law that something is or is not in the public interest. Sometimes that decision can be informed by evidence, but by and large it is a matter of law on which the judge is required to make a decision. I appreciate that we are dealing here with judge alone cases; we are not dealing with judges and juries. But the judge will have to separate his or her mind into the fact-finding part of his brain and the law-deciding part of his brain. It is not difficult, but it has to be done. If we are to be clear about what the Bill is meant to do, we need to know whether a benefit of society or any of its members is a matter of law or evidence. Again, how does that really affect the current state of the law?

Clause 3 states that the court must also have regard to

“whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the negligence or breach of statutory duty took place, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.”

We heard a degree of teasing from the Opposition about the “generally responsible approach”, but I am afraid that the issue is a bit too serious for teasing. I want to know—it is not clear—whether evidence of that responsible approach is to be garnered from one’s lifetime as a member of a fire service or ambulance service, or as an individual, a school teacher or whatever it might be, or by and large from the occasion on which the negligence is alleged to have taken place.

I can well understand that there will be such cases. The Cheshire fire service hose pipe case is almost beyond parody—as my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned it, I can only assume that it is a real case—but I cannot believe that it got beyond the issuing of the county court summons or the High Court proceedings before somebody struck it out. That is what the courts do: if they see a vexatious, frivolous or wholly unmeritorious claim, they strike it out. We do not need the might of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill to deal with that. Again, I ask the Minister whether a “generally responsible approach” is to be decided as a matter of law or a matter of fact.

Should someone—an individual or organisation—who has an otherwise meritorious claim lose out against an otherwise negligent defendant simply because on one occasion they were woefully negligent, despite showing a generally responsible approach for 20 years? Let us imagine that an emergency service dug a trench across a highway in order to lay a pipe or cable to assist with protecting the safety or interests of others. Let us also imagine that on this occasion—the first since it started

doing good works—it stupidly forgot to put up lights and warning signs, which meant that I—a member of society, with interests—rode my bicycle into the trench and suffered grievous personal injuries. Because the defendant has generally been responsible, would I be unable to recover damages for my injuries and therefore have to fall upon the state as a welfare beneficiary, or have I misunderstood what the Bill is trying to do? I would really like to know.

Clause 4 states:

“The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger”.

I make my preliminary point again: is an act of heroism something that is found by the judge as a matter of law, or is it a matter of fact that could change from one set of facts to another? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and, it pains me to say so—[Laughter.]No, it does not pain me to agree with my hon. Friend—I do that with relish—but it pains me to agree with our political opponents across the Floor, because I am yet to hear a coherent explanation for the use of the words in the clause

“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

I think that my hon. Friend the Minister said it does not make any difference. Well, if that is the case, then do not stick it in. We are making black letter law, and we should not scribble down the first thing that comes into our heads because it makes us all feel better about ourselves.

We all want people to do dangerous things to assist others. As I said on Second Reading, in some respects it is much braver to take into account one’s own safety and yet then to go on and do the rescuing. If I am diving into the river above the weir, I will think that is not a very sensible thing do, but none the less a child is drowning, and so I go in. Does the court have a different answer to the question if I am a barely sentient creature but can none the less see that a child is drowning and therefore go in?

I really do think that the courts will treat this Bill with derision—I used that word on purpose on the previous occasion—unless we are clear, as makers of the law, that we are doing something to improve the situation in an intellectually sustainable and coherent way. I sincerely regret the fact that so far this Bill does not do that, although I think that the motive behind it is entirely positive and laudable. I am used to bits of Bills sending messages and signals—albeit that that is an improper use of legislation—because that is what we do nowadays. We do not think about what is in the legislation; we just think about the flags we are running the flagpole in order to send a message.

I urge the Minister, between now and the arrival of this Bill—

Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

Bin it!

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Not quite that.

Between now and the Bill’s arrival in the other place, I urge Ministers and the very bright lawyers and policy assistants at the Ministry of Justice to have another think about it. At the moment, it is a silly Bill, and I do not like being party to the passing of silly legislation, no

matter how well motivated it is. Having said all that, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister because he is a decent, honest and great Justice Minister; it is just his bad luck that he was holding the parcel when the music stopped.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I will take one of the hints from Government Members—I am not going to encourage more than one vote in relation to these matters. I do not think I can improve on what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has said, very gently, but very persuasively and firmly, about this Bill. I can see from the Minister’s demeanour that he is as embarrassed by the Bill as almost everybody else in the House.

I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity to look at the Law Society’s briefing, and nor do I know whether that briefing is a retaliation for his slightly ill-tempered treatment of the Law Society witnesses in Committee, but it puts the icing on the cake of what we have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It points out that the Bill will impact not only on the matters that we have been discussing but

“on the selling of financial products, on the rights of children in care, on property transactions, on insurance transactions; indeed, an endless list that will include every sector of industry, every area of public activity and every kind of personal interaction outside marriage and criminality.”

It raises the issue of

“how evidence of heroic state of mind will be demonstrated.”

It says that the Bill

“seeks to influence judicial decision-making which the Society believes is inherently wrong.”

Those are very trenchant and well-made criticisms of the Bill.

I am afraid that the more one examines the Bill, the more it seems, notwithstanding the amendments we have tabled, that it is almost irreparable—that it is, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, a silly Bill that it would be better to strangle before it gets on to the statute book.

Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)

Is not this shambles of a silly Bill a good example of why the person holding the office of Lord Chancellor should be legally trained?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)

I am not going to go down that route today. The Lord Chancellor does not often grace the House with his presence on Justice Bills any more, or take part in these debates, so it is almost as though he has absented himself from the legal world entirely. We wish him good luck with his future career, whatever discipline he chooses next to address.

I take comfort from the Law Society’s belief that

“the Bill has been poorly drafted and will not prevent meritorious claims being made and won where, in any scenario, negligence and/or breach of statutory duty has been proved.”

The Opposition and, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough are of the view that the Bill will be treated with disdain and polite ignorance by the courts and therefore we do not need to fret too much about it.

I do not intend to press amendments 2, 3, 4 or 6 to a vote. However, because we believe that clause 3—in its intent, if not in its execution—is a harmful, misleading

and rather spiteful little clause designed to further attack provisions for health and safety at work, we will press amendment 5 to a vote. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 2.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, page 1, line 9, leave out Clause 3.—(Mr Slaughter.)

Shailesh Vara (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank all hon. Members who served in Committee, and those who have spoken on Report. It has been an interesting and lively debate, although there has been disagreement at times. I also say a big thank you to members of the Bill team and to the Clerks for their advice and support throughout, which have been much appreciated.

Although this is a short Bill, its three substantive clauses are nevertheless important. As I said earlier, the responsibility clause will reassure ordinary hard-working people who have adopted a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during the course of an activity that the courts will always consider the context of their actions in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued.

We do not want people who try to do the right thing to worry constantly that somebody will take them to court. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has been clear from the outset that he wants to reassure owners of small businesses and other employers who live in fear that an opportunistic or disgruntled member of staff may bring an unfounded negligence claim at the drop of a hat. In such circumstances, we hope that the Bill will give responsible employers greater confidence that there is no need to worry about defending themselves in court.

This is not just about protecting employers from negligence claims brought by employees, and in Committee we heard worrying examples of how the compensation culture can affect other organisations. As I mentioned on Report, the Cheshire fire and rescue service talked about members of the public bringing claims after they had tripped over fire-hoses in broad daylight, ignoring the flashing lights and liveried firefighters who were attending the scene of an emergency. It cannot be right that unjustified claims are brought against members of our emergency services who are doing their best in difficult conditions to save the lives of others. The Campaign for Adventure also warned that a litigious climate can produce a culture of fear that inhibits innovation, exploration, learning and altruism. We are committed to defeating that culture of fear.

The Bill will help all those hard-working individuals, organisations and small businesses who do the right thing and adopt a responsible approach towards the safety of others in the course of an activity by ensuring that that is taken into account by the court in the event of a claim. It will help to discourage speculative and opportunistic claims, and give confidence to responsible employers—and others—to resist them.

The social action clause will help to foster an environment of civic-mindedness and promote volunteering by reassuring those who make a positive contribution to society that the law will be on their side in the unlikely event that they are sued. Members of the House might recall that the coalition agreement included a commitment to

“take a range of measures to encourage volunteering and involvement in social action.”

That is precisely what we have been doing through the many initiatives that we have backed to increase participation in civil society, and I am glad that the proportion of people volunteering is steadily rising. The Bill will build on the progress we have already made by tackling the perception of the compensation culture, which can influence the willingness of people to volunteer. We know that worries about liability remain a real issue for some would-be volunteers. In his evidence to the Bill Committee, Dr Justin Davis Smith of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations confirmed that the fear of being sued prevents

“a significant proportion of people getting involved”.––[Official Report, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Public Bill Committee, 4 September 2014; c. 11, Q14.]

We hope that the social action clause will go some way to allaying the fears of people who are deterred from getting involved. Parliament has a significant role to play in highlighting what is valued in society. The Bill seeks to deliver a positive message. It is a message that social action is desirable, a message that responsible behaviour will be recognised, and a message that the law is on the side of those who undertake socially beneficial activities.

The final limb of the Bill, on heroism, addresses another key area of concern. Unfortunately, often people are unwilling to intervene in emergencies because they are worried they might be sued and ordered to pay damages if they try to help. At previous stages of the Bill we heard examples of such behaviour, both from Members and from those giving evidence to the Bill Committee. The Bill therefore seeks to address such concerns by reassuring the public that if they act heroically by selflessly intervening to provide assistance in an emergency, that will be taken into account by the courts should a claim of negligence be brought against them.

As the examples I have given demonstrate, the Bill applies to a wide range of situations and emphasises that the actions of those who seek to serve their communities are valued by the law. It will be relevant to those who act for the benefit of society by engaging in organised voluntary activities, or to those who perform acts of kindness for individual members of the community, such as assisting an elderly neighbour with day-to-day tasks. It will be relevant to those who demonstrate a generally responsible approach to the safety of others, whether in the work environment or in other contexts, and to those who selflessly assist others in emergencies. All of those people will be able to rest assured that full account will be taken of the context of their actions, should something go wrong and they are sued.

I emphasise again that the Bill does not confer immunity from civil liability for those whose actions fall within the scope of the Bill. Those who are injured by negligence will continue to have access to legal redress, and the Bill will not remove the court’s ability to do justice in an individual case. Courts will continue to be able to

consider all the facts of an individual case, and nothing in the Bill will prevent a person from being found negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it.

There has been some criticism of the Bill, particularly from members of the legal profession. I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not a Bill aimed at pleasing lawyers. It is a Bill that gives support and reassurance to ordinary people who act responsibly and for the benefit of society. The Bill adopts a fair and sensible approach, an approach that allays the fears of those who wish to undertake socially beneficial action, reassures organisations and individuals that a responsible approach to safety is recognised, and encourages a culture of altruism, not one of compensation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

I, too, thank all those involved in the passage of the Bill through this House. I will keep my comments, like the Bill, short. Of course we all want to see even more people volunteering. We all want even more social action. We all want even more heroism from the great British public. The Bill, however, will not be the reason for any of that happening.

The Bill received great fanfare from the Justice Secretary. When it was first unveiled, he trumpeted to the press how he would slay “the ’ealth and safety culture”—his dropped “h”, not mine. The media were fed grand promises that the Bill would rid us of the compensation culture, but the reality set in almost straight away. It soon became obvious that the Bill would do none of the things the Justice Secretary claimed it would do. It was soon plain for all to see that it was simply a big public relations stunt. This was squarely in the “spin first, think through the details later” category of legislation.

Those who knew their stuff were quick to round on the Bill. For many, including some of the Government’s own advisers, there is simply no evidence of a health and safety or compensation culture. The Justice Secretary is developing a habit of ignoring, or not even seeking, legal advice on his pet projects, and sometimes he even shoots the messenger. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), advised that the Bill was “utter tosh”—another reason, no doubt, why he was sacked at the last reshuffle.

The Justice Secretary needs to know that any expert—solicitor, barrister or anybody else—worth their salt would have told him that his Bill would have little if any impact on the health and safety or compensation culture. That is precisely what happened when the Bill had its Second Reading, when the Government could not muster a single Member to make a speech in favour of it. The only Government Member who did speak was the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), the former Solicitor-General, who is in his place. On Second Reading, he said:

“I have a horrible suspicion that if the Bill becomes an Act as it is currently drafted, it will be the subject of derision and confusion, or that even if that does not happen, it will fall into disuse.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1204.]

Today, I think he called it a silly piece of legislation, and I am sure he will be speaking shortly. In Committee, the expert witnesses whom the Government invited to give evidence in support of the Bill saw no benefit in attending, and some even made it clear why there was no point: the Bill would make no difference.

The Bill will change little, but we will not oppose it today. We tried in Committee to make something of it, and it will now fall to the other place to attempt to give it purpose, but with prisons in crisis, probation in meltdown and access to justice under threat, it was always the wrong priority for a Government devoid of ideas. It exposes the Justice Secretary’s skewed priorities: he got his favourable media hit, and the rest is irrelevant. This treats the House with utter disrespect. Precious legislative time that could have gone on meaningful measures to change people’s lives for the better has been wasted. Nevertheless, he will receive one major accolade: his Bill will join that select club of the most useless pieces of legislation ever—not an honour of which to be proud.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I beg to move,

That the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (HC 621), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.

It is now nearly a century since Parliament recognised that it should no longer be the body that initiated legislation concerning the running of the Church of England. However, Church legislation becomes part of the law of England, so it requires parliamentary approval and Royal Assent. A Measure such as the one before us has to have been passed by the General Synod of the Church of England. Most Measures require simple majorities in the Synod, but this one falls in that special category of particularly important instruments that need to have achieved at least two-thirds majorities in each of the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity.

A Measure passed by General Synod then comes to Parliament to be considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, a statutory Committee comprising 15 Members of each House, and if after consideration the Committee thinks it expedient to approve the Measure, it then has to be considered and approved separately by each House. The Measure was passed by General Synod in July and considered and approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee on the last day Parliament sat before the summer recess. The House of Lords considered and approved the Measure last week, on the first sitting day after the recess, and for it to proceed to Royal Assent, it now simply remains for this House to give its approval.

The purpose of the Measure is to enable the Church of England, for the first time, to open all three orders of ministry—deacons, priests and bishops—without reference to gender. The process was begun by legislation to enable women to become deacons in the 1980s and to become priests in the 1990s. That process will at last be completed by this legislation, which will enable women to become bishops—and indeed archbishops, as they are not separate orders of ministry in the Church of England.

Women priests now make up over a quarter of parish clergy and around half of priests in training. There are already 23 women archdeacons and six women deans. As a debate last year in Westminster Hall testified, over the past 20 years many women have given outstanding leadership to the Church of England and to our communities as vicars, archdeacons and cathedral deans. Now every type of post will be open to them. It is right to acknowledge the immense patience among many women in the Church who have waited for this day. We acknowledge, as we need to, the pain and hurt that there has often been as a consequence of the delay in arriving at where we are at today.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

As well as recognising the consequences of delay, will the right hon. Gentleman sound a note of joy, in that the Church

will now be able to choose from the other half of the population for its most senior positions, which, all things being equal, must strengthen our hand?

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I hope this whole debate will be joyful, because this is a very joyful day for the Church of England and society as a whole.

The conundrum has been: how to try to maintain the theological breadth and diversity of the Church of England while securing a solution that avoids any appearance of equivocation over the Church of England’s commitment to equality between men and women? Or, as I said in a speech to General Synod in 2010, shortly after I was appointed Second Church Estates Commissioner, the Church of England could have women bishops or not have women bishops, but one thing Parliament would not tolerate was any suggestion of second-class women bishops. As the House will recall, in November 2012, the earlier Measure failed at General Synod. That resulted in my having to answer an urgent question in the House, which indicated the depth and breadth of concern across the House. There was subsequently a half-day’s debate.

I think everyone in the Church of England felt chastened by the failure to reach agreement, and the Archbishop of Canterbury set in place a process of facilitated listening and discussions between all the various groups in the Church to seek a way forward. That process of facilitated listening and discussion led to a much simpler Measure, which is before the House today.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I am not a believer, as I have said on previous occasions. This Measure requires parliamentary approval, and we are all Members of Parliament, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having voted 20 or so years ago for women to become priests, it was very difficult—certainly for me, as well as many others in the House, I am sure—to understand why there should be a glass ceiling? I am pleased that the decision has been reached to have no second-class category in the Church of England as far as women are concerned.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, and I hope that view is shared by everyone and all Members of the House.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Will my right hon. Friend note that the enthusiasm for tonight’s decision is shared in the non-conformist Churches, many of which, like the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church, are accustomed to having women as their leaders, as moderator or president?

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making the point—it was made in the other place and I will comment on it later—that this is a measure that has been welcomed by many other faith groups as well. I am also grateful for his kind welcome for the Measure.

At General Synod, the Measure enjoyed overwhelming majorities at final approval in the three Houses of Synod, with 95% in the House of Bishops, 87% in the House of Clergy and 77% in the House of Laity—majorities that I suspect any party or combination of parties in this House would give their eye-teeth for. At the heart

of the work and discussions on the new Measure was the ambition to do everything possible to maintain unity in the Church of England. This Measure, along with its accompanying instruments and documents, seeks to give expression to that hope of unity in various ways. It is acknowledged in the five guiding principles in the House of Bishops’ declaration that we live in a wider Christian world, where this development—having women bishops—is not accepted by everyone, and we have committed ourselves to maintain a place, without limited time, for those who are of the traditional viewpoint. These commitments are important because they are at the core of what the Church of England is about and how it sees itself within our national life. In the House of Lords debate last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury observed:

“One of the most moving parts of this process has been listening to those who have been willing to go along with something that they feel passionately and deeply is not the right thing for the church to do…I say again that the Church of England is deeply committed to the flourishing of all those who are part of its life in the grace of God. It is not our intention that any particular group should wither on the vine.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 187.]

Indeed, I think we would all hope that every part of the Church of England can now flourish and thrive.

In the same debate last week, the House of Lords was particularly moved by the speech of the noble Lord Cormack, who many will know was for many years a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and who describes himself as a traditional Anglican. Lord Cormack said that he could

“say with all certainty that had I been present in York this year I would have approved of the Measure before us this evening. There has been a real attempt to understand the sincerely held peculiarities of those of us who call ourselves traditional Anglicans.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 175.]

As the Archbishop of Canterbury observed a little while ago on “Newsnight”,

“the biggest change in the last 20 months has been the way we treat each other and the way we are learning to treat people we disagree with.”

This Measures thus comes before us this evening with the overwhelming endorsement of every diocese in England and the overwhelming endorsement of every part of General Synod following a process of listening and reconciliation.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to the noble Lord Cormack. Would he accept that part of the reconciliation has been the generous approach adopted by those of us who would associate ourselves as being within the Catholic tradition, and will he welcome the observations made by Forward in Faith, which represents many of those parishes, and the generous approach by the Roman Catholic Church in England? Will he assure us all that this will in no way undermine the work on greater understanding and dialogue with our Catholic and Orthodox brethren, which is part of the wider scope of Christian understanding that we are seeking to achieve?

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fairness, the Measure has come about because throughout every part of the Church of England, and

in tandem with other Churches—as evidenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and others—generosity has been shown.

The declaration of the House of Bishops, which accompanies the Measure, sets out five principles of non-discrimination, acceptance of diversity and recognition of difference across the universal and Catholic Church, which is enormously important. When the Measure was considered last week in the House of Lords, it was notable that it attracted support from all quarters, irrespective of whether they were members of the Church of England. As the Labour peer, Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall observed, she supported the Measure as

“a representative of the many, many people in this country who are not members of the Church of England, or indeed of any church, but who are none the less, in some curious way, deeply attached to the Church of England. We are people who have grown up in a world in which the ministry of the Church of England has been very important to the social and, indeed, the political fabric of this country.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 177.]

Another Labour peer, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port observed—in a spirit similar to that expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—said that

“as a member and former president of the Methodist Conference, I am determined that it should not simply be Anglican voices that give expression to their delight in this debate; Methodists across the land will rejoice at it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 171.]

In a short and very moving speech, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, a Cross Bencher, explained that he had been brought up in the Catholic Church, but that what really mattered was love:

“what is important is the degree of love… I enormously welcome women bishops…It is correct that we should also show great love to those who find this difficult.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 181.]

If we pass the Measure today, it will enable the Church to proceed to finalise matters at the General Synod next month. That potentially means that from 17 November, each diocesan bishop vacancy considered by the Crown Nominations Commission and each suffragan bishop vacancy considered by the relevant diocesan bishop will be open to women as to men.

One consequence of the Measure is that it will be possible for women to become Lords Spiritual and to sit in the House of Lords. At present, diocesan bishops are appointed to the House of Lords on the basis of seniority, so getting women bishops into the House of Lords could take some time if the normal system of seniority were simply left to take its course. However, I am glad to be able to report to the House that there has been consultation with all the main parties on the possibility of introducing a short, simple Government Bill to accelerate the arrival of the first woman bishop in the House of Lords, and I hope that such a Bill will be able to be taken through during this Session.

I am also glad to report that, in my experience, there has been solid cross-party support for such a Bill. It will have to be approved by Parliament because it goes to the question of who is summoned to attend Parliament. I should like to thank the First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons and the noble Baroness Stowell, the Leader of the House of Lords, for their

help and support with this matter. We all recognise the pressures on parliamentary time, particularly so late in the Parliament, but I very much hope that the Government will be able to find a legislative slot very shortly.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I want to put in an early bid. The Bishop of Hull is leaving his post and moving on, and, as Hull is a pioneering city—remember William Wilberforce and Amy Johnson—I believe that the bishopric of Hull would be an ideal starting place for the first woman bishop in the House of Lords.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I will make sure that the Crown Nominations Commission takes on board the hon. Lady’s bid. I suspect that there might be some competition from around the country, however. The Bishop of Oxford is retiring shortly. There are many excellent women in senior posts in the Church, and I have absolutely no doubt that the first women bishops—and, indeed, all those women who are made bishops—will be excellent candidates. This measure is long overdue. The ability of the Church of England to consecrate women bishops is long overdue. The arrival of women bishops in the House of Lords is long overdue. I commend the Measure to the House.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

It is my very great pleasure, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, to support the Measure to enable the Church of England to consecrate women as bishops. I congratulate all those who have brought us to this place: the Synod, which voted for the change; Archbishop Justin and his staff, who reinvigorated the process; the women in the Church who have ministered and campaigned for change; and those who did not wish to see women consecrated but who have accepted the overriding need for reconciliation.

To some of us, this decision seemed a long time coming. When we are waiting for something and uncertain of the outcome, it feels like an eternity, but when it is done, it feels as though it happened in the twinkling of an eye. I am not sure whether the story began in 1976 when the Movement for the Ordination of Women was set up, or in the 1550s with the Elizabethan settlement for the Church of England. Perhaps it began with those women we read about in the New Testament: Phoebe, the deacon; Priscilla, the teacher; and Lydia, whose house became a home for the Church. Perhaps it began with the Genesis story, which is open to different interpretations.

My mother once stood up in church to give the address, only to be blessed by a priest who prayed to God that women be forgiven, as sin was brought into the world by a woman. I am never quite sure where prejudice ends and firm conviction begins. I prefer to focus on these words:

“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them…God saw everything that he had made and indeed it was very good.”

The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who has fulfilled his role as Second Church Estates Commissioner excellently and whom we will all miss when he leaves the House in May, has laid out with admirable clarity the contents of the Measure. I will not repeat all that he has said, although I do have some questions. Obviously, it is not for Parliament or politicians,

or even the Government, to lay down the theological grounding of any faith or religion in this country. We understand that. However, as the established Church, the Church of England has certain privileges and certain responsibilities. Uniquely, it ministers throughout the country; uniquely, it is guaranteed places in this Parliament. In that context, the Opposition believe that it is right for the canons of the Church to reflect the views and values of the vast majority of members of the Church and of wider society in upholding gender equality. I am delighted that the Synod made the decision that it made in July. I believe that by doing so it avoided what might have been a substantial crunch in the next Parliament.

Let me now deal with the details of the Measure. Clause 2 makes it clear that bishops are not public office holders under the Equality Act 2010. It is a necessary provision, enabling the Church to provide for those who, as a result of theological conviction, do not wish to receive episcopal oversight from a woman.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Lady says that the clause is necessary, but I do not think that it is necessary at all. It is the one element of the Measure that I think is unfortunate: I think it unfortunate that, at a time when we are advancing equality, we have to amend the Equality Act to carve out a chunk of the Church of England.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I am, of course, sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s perspective on this issue, but I think that had the clause not been included, it is extremely unlikely that we would be in this place today. I think it extremely unlikely that the Synod would have agreed to the package.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

While the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is valid, is it not a great truth that out there in the real world no one will understand that difference? When the Measure is passed and women are consecrated bishops, people will see women as bishops, and the small type on the face of the record, which might excite some people who think that it is a terrible injustice, will be lost once the first women are consecrated.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I hope very much that what my right hon. Friend says is correct, but I think that some questions arise about the way in which the Church is intending to handle the situation. I hope that the Second Church Estates Commissioner will be able to answer those questions, some of which were also raised during the discussion in the Ecclesiastical Committee in July.

First, will parochial church councils be obliged to inform all members of the Church who are on the electoral roll in a parish that discussions are about to take place regarding resolutions to restrict the ministry of women, so that hole-in-corner decisions are not made? Secondly, can a parish request oversight from a non-discriminating bishop? The rules allow parishes to request a discriminating bishop. Can they also request a non-discriminating bishop, and can such parishes apply to the new independent reviewer? Thirdly, will the new conservative evangelical headship bishop minister beyond the parishes that specifically request his ministry? Fourthly, will the Second Church Estates Commissioner confirm that clause 2 will not validate any further discriminatory practices?

There is a fifth, and very important, question, which relates not to the Church but to the Government. I am not sure whether the Minister or the Second Church Estates Commissioner will answer it. As the Second Church Estates Commissioner said, bishops are currently appointed to the other place on the basis of seniority. I understand that to change that we shall need primary legislation, because otherwise the advent of women in the other place will come about at some far distant time, and none of us wants that. The Second Church Estates Commissioner said that the Government had not yet found time for that legislation, but why is that? The Clerks inform me that only eight Bills are before Parliament at the moment, whereas in a year we normally have 22 Bills going through the House, so there seems to be lots of time available.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

Clearly, I did not express myself with my usual clarity. The situation is more that the Government are in the process of finding this time. The hon. Lady and I have been here long enough to know what it means when at business questions the Leader of the House gives the impression that time might be found eventually, in the distant future. This is much more about when, not if, the Government find time within the legislation programme. That is very much the impression I have got from my discussions with the Leader of the House and his equivalent in the other place.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I am glad to hear that, because I am confident that such legislation would receive a fair wind from Members on both sides of the House, so it is not as though it will take up a huge amount of time; it is a purely practical thing.

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

I promise not to intervene again. The business is going to collapse three and a half hours early tonight, so if the Government had been prepared, we could have dealt with that measure tonight.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I had thought we were going to do the primary legislation when we came back in September, but it was not to be. I hope the Minister will give us a firm commitment on this tonight.

I urge all hon. Members to support the Measure for the consecration of women bishops. It has widespread support in the Church, in the House and in the country. I am proud to have been able to speak in this debate. The time of crying is past; the time of singing has come.

Sarah Newton (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth)

I do not wish to detain the House, but I join the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) in praising my right hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I have served on the Ecclesiastical Committee for a short time and it is an honour to work alongside him. With great thought and care he undertakes his role and has expedited this Measure so well through the House over the past three months. I say a heartfelt thank you on behalf of all those who will not have the opportunity to speak in tonight’s debate.

I am proud to represent the diocese of Truro—indeed, the cathedral is in my constituency—particularly as I was confirmed there and I have the great privilege of

worshipping there regularly. I was delighted that in May the diocesan synod voted overwhelmingly in favour of the consecration of women bishops, and I want to share with the House the marvellous way in which that debate was conducted. The discussion was heartfelt but measured and considered. I echo the words of the Second Church Estates Commissioner about the great progress that has been made within the Church of England on the way in which people talk to and engage each other. During the debate many people were swayed by the citing of a number of female Cornish saints and the great contribution they made to the early development of Christianity. That was a timely reminder of the significant role that women have played in the Church over many centuries. There was a reflection on the great contribution that ordained women priests have made in the diocese of Truro in the past 20 years, and a recognition of the broad views held in the community for this very positive Measure.

Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)

My hon. Friend has made a number of good points and she is right in all she says about the work of the Second Church Estates Commissioner. Does she agree that there is a fantastic opportunity for a woman to become a bishop very soon in my constituency, as our current bishop, Bishop Michael, retires in only a month’s time, after 10 years’ outstanding service? Does she agree that that great opportunity should not be missed?

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

Order. We have seven speakers to come. I hope that it will work out that they have about seven minutes each.

Sarah Newton (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth)

I thoroughly agree with that bid from my hon. Friend and I can think of an excellent candidate who is sitting with us this evening and whom all of us would thoroughly recommend to be one of the earliest adopted new bishops.

Passing this motion this evening is the right thing to do not only for all the reasons that have already been expressed but because it will help the Church of England reach out and continue in its vital mission of engaging with a whole new generation of people. That will only strengthen the Church so that it continues to contribute to the national life of people of Christian faith and people of none.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

It was an extraordinary Synod of the English Church, taking place as it did on a site of two religious communities—one of men and the other of women—both of which were headed by a female abbess. I am talking not about last summer’s General Synod of the Church of England or even any English Church Synod over the past 1,000 years, but about the 7th century and Abbess Hilda of Whitby.

As we have this debate today, we have to reflect on the leadership of women—some ordained and some lay—in our parishes around England, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. Today also provides us with a moment to reflect on those who have served in ministries in many different capacities, but whose undoubted vocation was never recognised through the institutional structures

of the Church. I think it was the French philosopher Pascal who once said that God made man in his own image, and man returned the compliment. That has been true in the ecclesiastical structures in this country.

You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not English, and I am also not much of a sports watcher. But in the words of a 1990s football song, what we are seeing is the English Church coming home, and we are all the richer for it.

I think it was in 1989 when the first female bishops in the Anglican communion were consecrated in New Zealand. We have had a bit of a wait in this country. The Church in Wales decided to support women bishops last year. Interestingly, as we have the debate about alternative episcopal oversight, it is worth looking at the model that the Church in Wales has taken, which does not go down the flying bishop route. However, such an issue requires a much wider discussion.

I was really heartened by what our Second Church Estates Commissioner said on the subject of the Lords Spiritual and how the process is likely to be accelerated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has made the point many times that if the change does not come down the route of the Church, then it is only right that it comes down a different route, and I hope that that will happen.

The one thing that separates the Church of England from the Church in Wales is the fact that the Church of England is an established church. Most of us laboured under the misapprehension that the Church in Wales was disestablished, but when we had the debate on equal marriage we discovered that what we thought had happened in 1920 had not really happened. Perhaps we can finish off the job before it reaches its centenary.

As long as we have people who are not elected in the second Chamber, I can accept that representatives of the established church should probably be there, but what I cannot accept is an all-male Bench of bishops. I am heartened by what has been said this evening, and I very much hope it happens. Let us see today as that great moment of celebration—of women celebrating their vocation and making our lives all the richer for it.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

May I briefly say that in my 39 years in Parliament, I have shared in part the pain of many good women who could have made the Church even better if they had been able to be ordained as priests and not just as deacons earlier, and if they had been ordained as bishops long before the present time? Too often we have walked in sympathy with the parishes and the people who have found that difficult, and I deeply regret that the whole matter has been so one-sided. If Graham Leonard were here now, I would quote back to him what he said to me: that he was not in favour of the ordination of women as priests because he thought it had not happened before. He was in favour of the ordination of women as deacons because it had happened before. That is the historical negative. If Jesus brought anything into our world, it is justice and righteousness. We should have picked that up, and should have forced this change through far earlier.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has given great leadership, and many others have co-operated; I am glad of that. If, as the archbishop said in another place,

the bishops are a focus of unity, I ask all bishops, whether flying bishops or not, to ask every parish that went for resolution A and B to reconsider. In my constituency, there is a parish that, sadly, is to close. When people asked me whether I would campaign to help it remain a parish, I said, “You do realise that the first time I saw your church, it had a sign outside saying, ‘Be reassured: no woman will offer you Communion here’?” A parishioner said that she did not know that, but people should ask, and if for some reason, 20 years ago, that is what the parish went for, parishioners should ask it to review that decision, whatever the pain or difficulty, to revise it, and to come to the unity that the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked for.

Tribute was rightly paid in the other place to Women and the Church, or WATCH, with which I am associated. I was outside Church House when the ordination of women as priests was agreed. Some of those singing most heartily were Roman Catholic nuns, who said, “For us, it is a matter of when, rather than whether.” We are obviously way behind the Methodists, but we ought to get on, and try to help our brethren and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church to have the same kind of opportunities as us.

Steven Baker (Conservative, Wycombe)

The Church is well behind the Baptists, too, if I may say so. I joined the Church of England a long time ago, but these days, as a Baptist, I wonder what all the fuss is about, and I share my hon. Friend’s resolve. Does he agree that there is scope in religion for people to tolerate genuine differences and to go their own way in peace?

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I agree with that; it is one of the reasons why people are concerned that excluding the Church of England from the Equality Act 2010 may make it possible for the Church to go in for more discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or with regard to the remarriage of divorced people. That works both ways.

I want to end this speech, which is briefer than I wanted, with the words of a woman who wrote to me; she said: “We love the Church of England, and want it to be the best it can.” With this Measure, it can be better.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Anybody looking in on this debate from outside would be rather surprised at how low key and sober it has been, given the momentousness of what we are debating and hopefully approving. I suspect that it is because most people will be rather surprised that this was not done some time ago. They probably thought it had been. Still, that should not detract from the importance and the historic nature of this evening’s debate, or of the approval for this Measure.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who speaks on behalf of the Church of England, will answer the technical questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and by Lady Howe in the other place. However, I do not want to spend my few minutes focusing on technicalities. There have been few moments in the House of Commons that have given me this much pleasure. I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women as a teenager; some may think that rather sad.

Apologies to my Labour colleagues, but I joined the movement several years before I joined the Labour party.

We should pay tribute to all the campaigners over the years who spent a lot of their time getting us to where we are, and who took a lot of stick. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Banbury, because—without sparing his blushes—he has been the most fantastic Second Church Estates Commissioner. He has shown leadership on the issue; after the previous Synod debate, which took us all by surprise and shocked the nation as well as the Church of England, he went back to the Synod, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and made it absolutely clear to them that Parliament would not put up with the situation.

We sometimes underestimate the role that we can play in this place, but the fact that we spoke with one voice, and such a strong voice, in response to that terrible vote two years ago in Synod really made a difference. I was involved in some of the meetings and discussions with the bishops and the archbishop. They were sobered by the vote, and were certainly unnerved by some of the discussions that we had in this place, saying, “If you can’t sort this out yourselves, we will sort it out for you through legislation. You had better watch the Church of England’s established status if you carry on like this.” That did concentrate minds, and it was largely to do with the right hon. Gentleman’s tireless work. I shall miss him in this place, not just because of the role he plays in the Church, but as one of the few sane Tory voices on Europe. I am sorry to lose that from the House as well.

I also pay tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I always said that I thought that it would take somebody coming from his tradition within the Church of England to drag it into the modern age, and I am in danger of being proved right. He has shown real leadership and determination and organisational skills, political skills with a small p, which are essential in that job to get anything done. The majority that was achieved in the Synod last time took my breath away given what had happened the time before.

In response to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) who is no longer in his place and who expressed some concern that what we are doing here tonight might damage our relationships with the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, there are many in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches who wish they were in the same position that we are now moving to in the Church of England. Pope Francis, bless him, had his own difficulties this week in Rome with his own bishops in his attempts to drag the Roman Catholic Church a little further into our century. I urge him to take comfort from the experience of the Church of England during the last two or three years: if at first you do not succeed, just try again. I am sure he will have more success next year in his final Synod. Perhaps they could look at our experience and take some comfort from it.

I also want to thank all colleagues on both sides of the House who have worked very hard on the issue and have made sure that Parliament’s voice has been heard. In particular, I refer to those tireless campaigners, such as Margaret Webster, the widow of the former Dean of Norwich, who, when I was a teenager and she was one of the founding members of the Movement for the

Ordination of Women, nobbled me to join that organisation. It was really my first experience of political activism. I do not know how many other Members’ first experience of political activism was on such an issue, but it taught me about the importance of perseverance, of campaigning, of not giving up, and of making and winning the arguments. Heavens, it has taken us a long time, but it gives me fantastic delight and pleasure that we are getting here tonight. There will be a lot of people out there in the country, not just women themselves, but millions of ordinary Anglicans, who will be celebrating this evening.

Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I very much welcome the Measure before the House. I have had more than my fair share of difficult conversations with the Church of England during recent months, but I have always found that it listens closely, and when it comes to women bishops, it has acted swiftly. I certainly pay tribute to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), for his work in bringing this about. I also echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) in support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has shown tremendous leadership.

Perhaps it is the extraordinary simplicity of the Measure that has made it succeed where others have not. Many of us will remember sitting in this Chamber back in November 2012 with feelings of anger and disappointment at what had happened. It is very good news indeed and a moment for celebration that, as a result of today, women bishops can be appointed. That is very much a point of celebration. In too many areas women are still under-represented in British society. In the Church of England, the stained glass ceiling, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has termed it, was enshrined in law. Today we have the opportunity to ensure that that is no longer the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) noted the contribution of women in our communities through the Church, and my community is the same as hers. We are much the richer for the work of people such as the Rev. Cannon Jo Stoker in St Michael’s church, and in my parish, in Mapledurwell, the Rev. Jane Leese, who does an incredible job in leading our community.

I will end my remarks with two simple points. First, during the discussions in the summer, the Archbishop of Canterbury made the important point that women bishops, and, indeed, women in the Church of England, would now be on an equal footing with men, and that in no sense would that not be the case.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing about that statement of equality is that other young women contemplating coming into the Church will be looking closely to see that that equality goes the whole way through to representation in the Lords?

Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to get the brightest and best wanting to go into the Church, that has to be the case. We have to respect

all views, of course, but it is important that we send a clear message, today and in future, that women will have that equal status and equal footing in the Church.

Secondly, perhaps the Church can look at this place and take away some positive and not so positive messages. We are still working very hard to get more women in Parliament and public life. Despite very good measures introduced by both the Labour and Conservative parties to encourage more women, only by having the pathway of encouragement can we get women to achieve their potential at all levels. I gently encourage the Church to consider what pathways it will put in place. It is very encouraging to hear about the work being done with regard to the Lords Spiritual, but one swallow does not make a summer. We must ensure that it is more than simply one or two individuals who go forward and that women in the Church are supported to achieve their potential at every level.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have just been reading that it was in 1988 that the first female bishops were elected in the US and New Zealand—the Right Rev. Barbara Harris and the Right Rev. Penny Jamieson. I am very pleased that we are about to agree to this Measure, hopefully unanimously. I feel far happier now than I did when I rose to speak on 21 November 2012, when for the first time the Church of England was called to the Chamber to answer an urgent question in response to the vote in the General Synod that had taken so many right hon. and hon. Members aback.

I want to make a few short comments. First, I want to pay tribute to all the women and men who over many years have campaigned on this issue: to bring the full extent of women’s ministry into the Church of England so that they can rightly take their places as deacons, priests and now bishops, and hopefully as archbishops. When I went to university—many years ago now—I had the great privilege of being a student at St Benet’s chaplaincy at Queen Mary university, which was were the Movement for the Ordination of Women had its headquarters. In fact, the chaplain got into a lot of trouble by allowing a communion to take place with a women priest, and unfortunately had to leave the Church and go elsewhere as a result. I was very struck then, as a young student, by the inequity of these very good women being denied the opportunity to become priests in the Church of England. When the ordination of women as priests took place over 20 years ago, I naively thought that we were all reconciled to the fact that women would now go on to become bishops, so it was a great shock when the vote went against us two years ago.

Barry Sheerman (Labour, Huddersfield)

As a fellow Yorkshire MP, my hon. Friend will know that last Friday we were privileged to have two new bishops made in York Minster—the Archbishop of York presided and the sermon was given by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That was the day we got a Bishop for Huddersfield, so it was very historic. Is she, like me, looking forward to getting a woman bishop in the Church of England soon?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I do not think my hon. Friend was in his place earlier when I made a bid for the position of Bishop of Hull—the current one is moving on to a new

role—to be considered for one of the first woman bishops. However, there is a queue, because this has already been raised in Oxford and other parts of England.

We should particularly recognise the contribution made by Women and the Church, or WATCH, whose members, including Sally Barnes and Hilary Cotton, have campaigned on these issues for many years. Because of their perseverance—they have kept on going and kept on arguing—we are finally having this debate today.

I want to hear what the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has to say about the technical questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I am very concerned about clause 2 and would prefer it not to be there. We are talking about the established Church of England, and it is very wrong that we are allowing it through legislation to opt out of the Equality Act 2010.

Will the right hon. Member for Banbury also comment on whether any time limit should be considered regarding the special provision to deal with people who struggle with this issue? Surely we must get to a point where it is clear that the Church has made a decision, and perhaps after a certain length of time that provision should be set aside.

I am delighted that we are finally here today—it has taken a very, very long time. I hope that Ministers will be able to give some indication of when legislation will be brought before this House so that matters can be expedited to ensure that we have a woman bishop in the House of Lords as soon as possible.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Two themes have emerged in this debate. First, we pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) for bringing this Measure forward and really pressing the issue via all aspects of Parliament; and secondly, we all feel a lot happier than we did when we last discussed the matter in December 2012. It gives me great pleasure to see this debate taking place.

This is a historic moment that we should note, because it gives the Church a real chance to look more like the society that it seeks to serve. A Church with women in office at the highest levels of authority will better reflect British society today. As the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) said, we want women to contribute at all levels and across all fields, and we think that society at large is better for it. That relates to the Church as well. In the debate in 2012, we were all hoping that the Church would expedite matters in seeking to revisit its decision, and we should pay tribute to it for doing so. I am particularly pleased that the Church itself has come to the decision to have women bishops.

This is a particularly important matter for my constituency because we have a strong Anglican communion around Durham cathedral, with lots of very strong women who have campaigned for this Measure over the years. I thank them for the fantastic work they have done on this, and for not giving up but carrying on and keeping the issue alive, which was often not very easy for them. We have a training college, Cranmer hall, attached to St John’s college, that trains priests. The young women training to be priests there are very pleased that this issue is now being resolved, because they did not want

to feel that they were going into a vocation where they were treated like second-class citizens, and now they know they can go on to the very highest levels in the Church. On Saturday morning, I spoke to a young woman vicar in my constituency, Miranda Holmes, who told me just how much this Measure means to her and to other women in the Church. She asked whether I was going to come to this debate and I said that I would because I really support this Measure.

Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that some issues remain to be resolved and assurances need to be given on them. The bishops’ declaration allows for parishes to request a male bishop, but there seems to be no comparable provision for non-discriminating parishes finding themselves under a bishop who declines to ordain women priests who request a woman or, indeed, a male bishop who is supportive of women.

Fast-tracking is also an issue. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, women could not be ordained priests before 1994, so the length of their priestly service has historically been restricted. As such, there is an urgent and important need for selection criteria to reflect the full range of women’s experience. Finally, I agree with colleagues that we will need to push for a change to clause 2, which declares that the office of bishop is “not a public office”.

Unlike other hon. Members, I am not going to make an immediate bid for a woman bishop in Durham, because we have been through considerable change over the past few years and probably need a period of stability. In future, however, I am sure we would really welcome a woman bishop in Durham.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

God, this has been a long time coming, hasn’t it? Sometimes, hymns suddenly seem relevant. A couple of weeks ago I sang the hymn “God is working his purpose out as year succeeds to year”, but in this case it seems to have been “decade succeeds to decade” or even “century succeeds to century”. Finally, however, God is working her purpose out.

I, too, pay tribute to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who has done a fabulous job. He has led on our behalf and I think he has done so admirably, as has the Archbishop of Canterbury. Given that Rochester is in the news at the moment—we are all taking a keen interest in it—I think we should also pay tribute to the Bishop of Rochester, who has played a really important role in driving forward the process.

But so many bruised hearts there have been. The former Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, has been mentioned. He once said that a woman was no more ordainable than a potato, yet he managed to rise to one of the highest offices in the Church—undoubtedly because of his tact, diplomacy and care for others. Seriously, though, we need to remember the bruised hearts of so many people.

I think I am the only Member of the House who has had a bishop lay hands on them to ordain them. When I went to theological college in Cuddesdon in the 1980s, it was the first year that more than one woman was in training there. The women could no longer be treated as honorary chaps, but the vitriol to which they were regularly subjected—I have to say that it was nearly always by gay men—was beyond the pale of Christianity.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

They were in the closet.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Those gay men were all in the closet. The situation caused those women pain and many of them cried themselves to sleep on many nights during their ordination period. They believed that some people believed that they had no vocation and those people were prepared to use every means in the book to ram that home.

It is particularly ironic that, as one gay man walked in to be ordained bishop, he wore a mitre with the first word of the first Latin hymn on it—“Gloria”—because that had been his nickname at theological college, but he was not prepared to support the ordination of women priests or women bishops. That really rankled with me, because the battle for decency and the rights of all within the Church is a seamless garment—it does not distinguish between the rights of gay men and those of women in the Church.

So much time in so many ministries has been wasted when we could have had wonderful women ministers working in our churches. Did Teresa of Avila have no spiritual insight? Did Josephine Butler have no leadership or political acumen in the 19th century? Did Julian of Norwich have no felicity with language or theology? Of course these women had something phenomenal to offer, and it is extraordinary that people might think that those three aspects—spiritual insight, political leadership and theological insight, which are the foundation of the episcopacy—should not be recognised in women.

How bizarre it is that that should not be recognised in England. England had mitred abbesses sitting in Parliament in the 13th century. It of course had a succession of women monarchs, who were heads of the Church and who appointed bishops. For that matter, it has had a woman Prime Minister who also appointed bishops. It is a country in which women could be elected as a sexton or a church warden long before they could be elected to Parliament, yet we still thought that women could not be bishops. That flies in face of Galatians 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

I resigned my orders in 1996 to be able to stand for Parliament. For that matter, I resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Falconer—Charlie Falconer—because I wanted to advance the cause of women bishops, but was told that that was part of his area of responsibility and that I therefore could not introduce such a Measure in the House. I pay tribute to all Members of the House who have taken part in the debate. It is almost inevitable that my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) should do so; they have a semi-episcopal role, given there are Prince Bishops of Durham.

Anyone who ever doubts the Church’s ability to change should remember Cardinal Martini, a very senior Roman Catholic cardinal, who when asked in 1999 whether his Church would ever have women priests, said, “Not this millennium.” I am certain that it will happen in the Roman Catholic Church, just as it has happened in the Anglican Church. I want to end—

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

My hon. Friend has heard the word “end”, I suppose. Yes, of course I will.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I remember a Catholic priest telling me that he was opposed to Anglicans turning away from their Church to become Catholics because of women priests, saying, “I wonder where they’ll go when there are Catholic women priests.”

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Indeed. I want to end with two quotes from Dame Julian of Norwich, a 14th-century anchoress who played a very important part in the establishment of the Anglican spiritual tradition. She wrote:

“Our Saviour is our true Mother in whom we are endlessly born”.

We should never forget the spiritual insight of the feminine aspect of God, which runs all the way through the Old Testament and the New Testament. Secondly, in words that she could have said in the debate today, she wrote:

“But for I am a woman should I therefore live that I should not tell you the goodness of God?”

Of course she had the right to do so then, and of course women have the right to be bishops in the Church of England.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

This is a very short piece of legislation, but it has been a very long time in coming: 21 years on from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, the Church of England has finally come of age by admitting women for consecration as bishops. Those 21 years of delay have occasioned enormous pain—they have impaired the mission of the Church in the world by rejecting the leadership of half our population—and that is now to be put right. Given that this is without doubt the shortest speech I have ever made in this House, I suspect all my colleagues will find it doubly within their hearts to say, “Hallelujah”.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

With the leave of the House, I will respond to a number of the points that have been made.

I endorse some of the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because one of the important things that has come out of this process for the Church of England is a much better way of disagreeing. The difficulty with Churches is that people have very set views about things. For a long time, all that happened was that people reflected sometimes rather entrenched positions. One of the early contributions of the Archbishop of Canterbury was to encourage a culture in which people could disagree better and then reconcile. I hope that that will be reflected in other areas.

A certain amount has been said about clause 2. I want to help the House on this issue, because I do not want there to be any misunderstandings. This evening, the House is considering a Measure to enable there to be women bishops. Within the context of providing for women bishops, the purpose of clause 2 is to enable the House of Bishops’ declaration and the five guiding principles to work without the risk of litigation.

There will be occasions when bishops—men as well as women—have to ask another bishop to exercise some of their functions in relation to a particular parish.

However, if episcopal posts were public offices, as defined in the Equality Act 2010, appointing to them in the expectation that the person concerned would observe that self-denying ordinance would constitute discrimination in the terms in which the appointment was offered. We do not believe that episcopal offices currently fall within the definition of a public office. Interestingly, it came out in the House of Lords debate last week that membership of the House of Lords does not fall within the definition of a public office in the Equality Act either. However, it is unclear what view the courts would take if the matter were ever tested. Clause 2 therefore puts the matter beyond doubt.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked whether parochial church councils will be required to consult their congregations and wider parishes before they pass a resolution. The answer is absolutely yes. The arrangements by which PCCs will pass resolutions is set out in paragraphs 16 to 22 of the House of Bishops’ declaration. The importance of the decision is respected by the fact that at least four weeks’ notice has to be given of the time and place of the meeting, and of the motion to be considered. In addition, the motion will pass only if it achieves an absolute majority of all members of the PCC or a majority of those present at a meeting of at least two thirds of the members of the PCC who are entitled to attend.

On non-discriminating bishops, we must all recognise that in future every diocese will have a bishop who ordains women and who will be a champion for their ministry. There should be no part of England where it is not possible to have a bishop who ordains women. A headship evangelical bishop will be a bishop in the Church of England and a bishop in the Church of God, not just a bishop in a particular constituency, so he will be a bishop for the whole diocese.

The Bill to enable women to become Lords Spiritual will be introduced in due course and will be very short. We could probably have taken it through in the time that was available this evening. It will be a two-clause Bill. I will continue to do my best, through the usual channels, to ensure that we find time for it.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

One question that has not been raised this evening, but was raised in the House of Lords, where the Archbishop of Canterbury’s answer was delphic, is whether the archbishops will consecrate other bishops when they are physically able to do so or whether they will opt out.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

The Archbishop’s answer was very clear; it was not delphic at all. I commend Lords Hansard to colleagues. He set out the circumstances very clearly. He made it clear that, in the normal course of events, archbishops will consecrate all bishops, but that there will be circumstances when an archbishop is ill or overseas. His point was that there is no great issue about that, and none intended.

In response to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I hope that in one, two or three years’ time, we will all wonder what the fuss was about. We will see women bishops in the Church of England in the same light as we now see women vicars, archdeacons and deans doing fantastic work as part of the normal course of ministry.

I thank all hon. Members who have said nice things about my role. It has been a privilege to serve as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and to serve the Church and this House, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,,

That the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (HC 621), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.