Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

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.

[Mr Frank Field]

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]

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.

[Helen Goodman]

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.

[Mr Frank Field]

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]

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.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Debate between Helen Goodman and Lord Field of Birkenhead

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

That is absolutely right. It is vital that we prevent the poorest people from being exploited in the way they have been. There is a lot of work to be done on this subject.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend had the same experience as I have in my constituency, where the Financial Services Authority is regulating credit unions in the way we wish it had regulated the big banks, thereby putting their future at stake? As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, credit unions play a vital role in giving poorer people an alternative way of getting cheap credit.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not know whether my experience in my constituency has been exactly the same as that of my right hon. Friend, but he reinforces the significant role that credit unions can play, and we urge the Government to maintain support for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

Of course Members from the coalition parties could be elected in those areas, given that they did not say before the election that they would cut the future jobs fund. They promised that they would continue it, and now they have cut it. That is the problem. I suspect that the Government’s real agenda is to make young people do the same work that they were doing under the future jobs fund, but whereas everybody was paid at least the minimum wage through that fund, under the schemes that the Minister and the Government are proposing they will have to live on benefits. What will that do for poverty levels, and where does it leave the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to raise the minimum wage for people under the age of 24?

It is ironic that the one thing the partners in the coalition really cannot agree about is the role of the family. The Tories want to reintroduce the married couples allowance, but that is one of the few matters on which the coalition agreement allows the Liberal Democrats to abstain. Who will benefit from it? Not the widow, the abandoned mother or the woman who has left her husband because of domestic violence. The Liberal Democrats should have the courage of their convictions, and they should vote against it. It is a wholly regressive and retrograde step. As the Deputy Prime Minister said during the election campaign, it is

“a throwback to the Edwardian era”

and “patronising drivel”.

The Secretary of State, who unfortunately is no longer in his place, revealed on 27 May that he was still looking to the Treasury for an extra £3 billion to reform the benefits system. The coalition agreement states that

“initial investment delivers later savings through lower benefit expenditure…based upon the DEL/AME switch”—

the departmental expenditure limits/annually managed expenditure switch. That is obviously based on the work of the Centre for Social Justice, which we examined in some detail when we took evidence on the Child Poverty Bill. The Secretary of State even seemed to be laying his job on the line later on 27 May when he said that he had not taken the job to be a “cheeseparer”, and stated:

“If somebody tells me I have to do something different then I won’t be here any longer.”

I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be telling him to do something different right now, because he says that tackling the deficit is the priority. If Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions can persuade the Treasury that the extra £3 billion is the goose that will lay the golden egg, we shall be extremely surprised.

A further complication in trying to tease out the Government’s strategy is that No. 10 has appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). We have not yet seen his terms of reference—I do not know whether they are to think the unthinkable—but there seems to be something strangely familiar about the situation. Last Saturday The Guardian said that he was going to look again at the definition of poverty. That really would be unthinkable. What is the point of it?

[Mr Frank Field]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Goodman]

I will, because I would like my right hon. Friend to answer two questions. Is the purpose of moving away from the definition agreed in the European Union and the OECD to tell poor people that they are not really poor, or to avoid future embarrassing comparisons?

[Mr Field]

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not know the Labour Government’s record better. If she examines the last publication that we produced, she will see that we said there was a choice of four definitions of poverty. I shall go into them more if I catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that document asked for views on the balance among the four and whether we should add others. By all means let us have a go at each other about this on a personal level, but let us also be clear where the Labour Government left the debate.

[Helen Goodman]

I think my right hon. Friend ignores the fact that it is less than three months since the Child Poverty Act 2010 received Royal Assent. It committed any Government to eradicating child poverty and set out the four measures that will be used to make that judgment, which are of absolute poverty, relative poverty—that is the one agreed in the EU and the OECD—persistent poverty and material deprivation. Everybody in the House supported that Act, and I hope that the Government will not renege on that support.

The main problem with the Government’s position is that it is incoherent. They are divided on family policy and welfare strategy. Everyone knows that worklessness is one of the key drivers of poverty, but the proposals that we have heard from the Government so far will increase unemployment and the north-south divide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I am pleased that you were in the Chair when I rose to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, even though you are about to leave the Chamber, because I can add my congratulations to those of others. It is a particular pleasure to see someone from the north-west in the Chair.

As the debate is rightly dominated by maiden speeches, I wanted to comment on how I felt more than three decades ago when I made my maiden speech, but from what I have experienced in this debate, my recollections will be irrelevant. For days, my insides were chewed up with nerves because I was worrying about making that maiden speech. The good news that I thought I would be bringing to Members making their maiden speech today is that it does not get any better. However, I can see from their performance that their confidence and the quality of their contributions far exceeds that of the intake of 1979.

I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this wide-ranging debate on poverty. I hope the House will forgive me if I focus narrowly on part of the canvas rather than addressing some of the wider aspects that Members have already touched on. A starting point for me is our debate on the Child Poverty Bill before the last election, when I expressed both admiration for what the Government had done and a sense of worry about where we would go from that position of relative success.

If we cast our mind back to the then Prime Minister’s objective to abolish child poverty by 2020, we can only exclaim that it was one of the most audacious targets set by any Government. I happened to be a Work and Pensions Minister at the time, and I learned about the target for the first time when I went into my room at the Department and saw Sky News on the television. That is when I learned that the Government’s objective was to abolish child poverty by 2020, even though I was a Minister with some responsibility for it. Others will have shared my sense of awe about how decisions came down to us—lesser Members—from Mount Sinai.

Had I been consulted beforehand, I hope I would have advised the then Prime Minister that although we should commit ourselves to the objective, the formula was one that no other country in the free world had achieved. We should not set targets for people, nations or Governments to fail; we should set targets they can achieve. It was thus immensely important before we fought the general election that we not only set out attempts to broaden our understanding of how we might measure poverty but put them in an Act of Parliament. That process is being developed and possibly taken a stage further in the review that the Prime Minister has asked me to undertake.

It gives me considerable pleasure that I have been asked to carry out the review, but it would have given me even more pleasure had my own side asked me to undertake that activity. The terms of reference took some time to agree—about seven times as long as the coalition agreement. They are public—they are certainly on my website—and I shall set out what I hope the review will achieve by Christmas.

In interviews, I have cited just one study, although there are many others that we could cite from our constituencies. The study relates to the work of the Prince’s charities in Burnley. It is a wonderful project, where volunteer mothers make sure that children are up in time for school. The children are taken to school. If need be, they are washed at school, fed breakfast and made ready, with all the other children, to start their day’s activities and endeavours.

My plea to the House is that if anyone thinks that those projects will be made irrelevant simply because we increase household incomes, however necessary basic income is, they are doing a disservice to poorer families and to the poor generally. Indeed, one of the great purposes of the review, if it fulfils its ambitions, is not only to run alongside the monetary definitions of poverty considerations of what non-financial aspects push children into poverty but, more importantly, to move the debate on. Until now, it has been obsessed with inputs—what we put in, and how much money is at stake, crucial though that is—and we need to consider outcomes. Therefore, part of the review will consider how we can together construct an index of what determines children’s life chances, how we can extend those life chances and, more importantly, how we can measure that, so that we can report back to our constituents on whether we have been successful during each Parliament.

[Helen Goodman]

I should like my right hon. Friend to be specific. I am not sure whether we were at cross-purposes earlier. My concern is that we do not redefine the poverty level. That is the major concern among Labour Members. We should not say, “Oh, 60% of median income is far too high. We want to go to 40%.” I draw his attention to the full definition that we put in the Child Poverty Act 2010. We now take into account a wide range of things: outdoor space in which to play, celebrations on holiday and at Christmas and swimming at least once a month. Those items are under a continual process of renewal, because that index is based on surveys of the whole population and what the whole population thinks it is reasonable for a child to have.

[Mr Field]

I am happy to give assurances to my hon. Friend. The law is quite clear about the objectives. I have no idea what the report will contain, but those objectives that we have are ones that we should achieve. The primary definition that we used before the 2010 Act was not only difficult to achieve mathematically, but has not been achieved in any country in the free world—hence we asked in the document that we published whether we should use an average of those countries that do best in achieving that definition in setting our target.

Time is scarce, and I obviously do not want to be delayed by a narrowly focused, technical debate on definitions—I hope there will be plenty of time for that—but my hon. Friend says that other aspects of the 2010 Act that are used to define poverty are important. Of course they are important, but I want to focus much more clearly on pathways out of poverty and on increasing life chances. I hope that those Members of Parliament who have views—they clearly have, given today’s maiden speeches—that will add to that side of the review, as well as to the debate on the technical definition of poverty, will contribute to the review.