Sir Tony Baldry MP, Second Church Estates Commissioner, has answered questions
about women bishops in the Church of England. Full text of questions and
Sir Tony’s answers are here in context:
Justin Welby, the Bishop of Durham and the next Archbishop of Canterbury, said:
“The Church has voted
overwhelmingly in favour of the principle. It is a question of finding a
way that…is the right way forward.”
It is important for the
House to recognise that there is overwhelming support in the Church of
England for women bishops to be consecrated. The draft Measure rejected
earlier this week was supported by clear
majorities in 42 of the 44 dioceses in England. As I have repeatedly
said, it is impossible for me to explain to parliamentary colleagues how
a Measure that has had the clear support of 42 out of 44 dioceses
failed to pass in the General Synod. Let us take
all the votes passed in the General Synod: 324 members voted for women
bishops, and 122 against; 94% of the bishops who voted on Tuesday
supported the Measure, as did 77% of the House of Clergy; and even in
the House of Laity, 64% were in favour. The Measure
was lost by a handful of votes among the laity, because for the Measure
to pass it had to clear the hurdle of a two-thirds majority in each
House of the General Synod.
Speaking for the whole
House, I am sure, my right hon. Friend and fellow Church Commissioner,
the Prime Minister, made it clear to the House yesterday that the
“Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 579.]
He observed that the Church of England needed a “sharp prod”.
I appreciate that
frustrations exist in the House on this matter—a frustration that I
share—and I think that the following needs to be understood. First, this
is not an issue that can in any way be parked for
the next couple of years or so, while we await another round of Synod
elections. It must be understood that this issue needs to be resolved as
soon as possible. I hope that it will be convenient for the House if I
seek to arrange a meeting in the near future
for concerned Members, together with the Bishop of Durham, the
archbishop-designate, to explore how this matter can be resolved as
speedily as possible.
There have been some
suggestions in the press that it is impossible for the Church of England
or General Synod to return to this issue until after a new General
Synod has been elected in 2015. That is not correct:
the rules prevent the same Measure from being reconsidered by the
General Synod without a special procedure. It is perfectly possible for a
different and amended Measure to consecrate women bishops to be
considered by the
General Synod.
Although this is for the Church of England to resolve, as the Prime
Minister made clear yesterday, I suspect that there will also be those
in the Church of England who will wish to consider whether the election
process to the General Synod is sufficiently representative,
particularly of the laity of the Church of England, as Tuesday’s vote
clearly did not reflect the overall and clear consensus of dioceses
across England in support of women bishops.
It is my earnest hope
that during the time I serve the Queen—whose appointment I am—this House
and the Church of England as Second Church Estates Commissioner it will
prove possible for me to bring before this
House a Measure that will enable women to be consecrated bishops in the
Church of England.
Diana Johnson: I
thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the urgent question, and I
know that he is as disappointed as I am at having to speak on this
matter today. May I also thank you, Mr Speaker,
for the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Floor of the
House today?
It appears to me and many
others that the theological arguments over women priests—and therefore
their position in roles of authority—were settled 20 years ago in the
Church of England. The next natural step,
on which I think there is agreement across the House, is to see some of
the excellent ordained women priests now move into positions of
leadership in our Church as bishops. Just as discrimination in the wider
community is wrong, as it keeps the talents and
abilities of all from flourishing, so it is important in the established
Church that the talents, experience and skills of both men and women
are used and that the Church is led by the very best, not just those who
happen to be male. There should be no stained
glass ceiling for women in our Church.
The Church of England now
stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve and made to
look outdated, irrelevant and frankly eccentric by this decision. It
appears that a broad Church is being held
to ransom by a few narrow minds, but as the hon. Gentleman said, the
vast majority of members of the Church want to see women bishops. He set
out clearly the votes that were cast at both diocesan and General Synod
level. I was pleased to hear him say that there
are questions to be asked about the convoluted decision-making structure
in the Church, and in particular about the representative nature of the
House of Laity, and whether an overhaul of the electoral system needs
to be considered. The decision made by an
unrepresentative minority in the House of Laity means that this
essential modernisation of the Church of England has potentially been
put back for another five years or more, with no guarantee of progress
even then.
In fact, I think
positions will become even more difficult. Many campaigners felt that
they had offered concessions to accommodate those of different views and
will perhaps now take a much less conciliatory
approach, as they feel that the concessions have been ignored, with no
willingness to compromise. As the Church of England is part of the
constitutional settlement of this country, it is important that
Parliament has regard to what the decision means for the
country and the Church’s role in law making. With the decision made, we
now see the entrenchment of the discriminatory
nature
of the 26 places in the upper House reserved for Bishops, who can only
be male. Does the hon. Gentleman agree
that this cannot be right, and that Parliament and the Government have
to consider what we should do, especially in light of the Government’s
decision to abandon any wider reform of the Lords? Does he further agree
that we must also consider whether the exemption
from equalities legislation for the Church of England now needs to be
re-examined?
Finally, I am pleased to
hear the hon. Gentleman’s resolve on the need to sort this out as soon
as possible, as well as what the Archbishop of Canterbury said. I
understand that there will be moves by the Church
to spend some time thinking about how to proceed, but it is imperative
that those in the all-male group of bishops do not talk just to one
another, but work with and alongside senior women in the Church to find a
way forward. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think
Parliament has a role to play and should now look at doing all it can to
support the Church at this time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Sir Tony Baldry: I
agree with almost all that the hon. Lady said. The really important
point is that the whole House wants the Church of England to get on with
this matter. It cannot be parked, and work
needs to be done urgently to try to ensure that it is resolved as
quickly as possible. In fairness, the House of Bishops gave the greatest
possible leadership in the General Synod. However, as I sat there, the
analogy that struck me was that it was a bit like
Government Whips trying to talk to the Eurosceptics; there were those in
the General Synod who, whatever the bishops said to them, were just not
going to listen. So, in fairness, the House of Bishops in an
episcopal-led Church was very clear about the need
to make change. Those bishops work every day with women clergy in their
dioceses and see the fantastic work that they are doing in the Church of
England. That work must be valued and cherished, and we need to ensure
that any changes do not square the circle
by bringing forth proposals for women bishops who would be second-class
bishops. I have made it clear to the General Synod on a number of
occasions that Parliament simply would not approve any Measure that
introduced women bishops as second-class bishops.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con):
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the whole House
has sympathy with his position and great respect for the hard work that
he has done in
trying to resolve this matter. Does he agree that when the
decision-making body of the established Church deliberately sets itself
against the general principles of the society that it represents, its
position as the established Church must be called into question?
Sir Tony Baldry:
The hon. Lady makes a perfectly good point, and it is one that I have
repeatedly made. As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod,
the Church of England no longer looks like
a national Church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect. If
it wishes to be a national Church that reflects the nation, it has to
reflect the values of the nation.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing a wonderful, and rather thankless, job on this issue over the years on behalf of
parliamentarians.
He was
at the very stormy meeting yesterday between parliamentarians and the
bishops. Peers and MPs of all parties were saying with one voice that if
the Church does not get on and do this, Parliament will. Will he
therefore convene an emergency meeting of the Ecclesiastical
Committee, so that we can take legal advice as to what Parliament can do
to help the Church to achieve the will of the people in the Church?
Sir Tony Baldry:
It was because of yesterday’s meeting, and because I am conscious of the
concerns being expressed on both sides of the House, that I would like
to convene a meeting with the archbishop-designate.
Justin Welby has great leadership skills, and it is he who will have to
lead the Church of England in this matter. He needs to hear the voices
from the House of Lords and the House of Commons that were heard in that
meeting yesterday. We need to funnel our
energies into helping him to resolve the matter.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.
Can we all send our
support, love and concern to all women who are ordained or hope to be
ordained in the Church—including your chaplain, Mr Speaker, and all
others? They must feel even more frustrated than
we do, but we are not going to let them down. Given that, over the past
20 years, the Church has managed to sort out how parishes that did not
want women priests could be looked after, does the Second Church Estates
Commissioner not agree that it must be possible
to resolve this issue? Will he invite the Minister for Women and
Equalities to offer the services of the Government, not to tell the
Church what to do but to offer it professional advice on how to deliver
what the majority want, as soon as possible?
Sir Tony Baldry: I
am sure that it must be possible to resolve this issue. The important
thing is to continue to work at it until it is resolved. An increasing
number of ordinands coming into the Church
are women, and we need to have a Church in which everyone is valued. I
am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct is saying that, at
present, a number of women out there in the clergy are feeling
undervalued. That is wrong; they are very much valued and
cherished, and there needs to be a full place for them in our national
Church.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab):
Since I was ordained as a priest in the Church of England 25 years ago,
women have become vicars, rectors, deans, rural deans and even
archdeacons, so it is ludicrous that
they cannot now become bishops. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right
to say that we will have no truck with more concessions to the
hard-liners who want to make women second-rate bishops. We need to speed
this up. Would it not make sense to have a moratorium
on the appointment of any more male bishops until there could also be
women bishops—no nomination without feminisation?
Sir Tony Baldry: Of course, we could have done that if the Prime Minister still had control over the appointment of bishops.
Mr Bradshaw: Take it back then.
Sir Tony Baldry:
It was of course the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr
Brown) as Prime Minister who, without any proper consultation,
renounced the ability of Downing street to have
any influence over the control of bishops. I am encouraged by the
suggestions from Labour Members that the Prime Minister should take back
the power to appoint bishops, but I suspect that might create a few
problems. I think everyone will have heard the point
made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con):
I think my hon. Friend was wrong in what he said about the
Eurosceptics, because the Eurosceptics happen to be right. The important
point, which I hope he will accept,
is that it is not for this House to say how the established Church is
run. We may well have our own opinion, but it is a very dangerous thing
for the House of Commons to tell the established Church how to run
itself.
Sir Tony Baldry: I
say, in all friendship to my hon. Friend, that as I sat through the
debates in General Synod, it struck me that the Eurosceptics and the
conservative evangelicals had quite a lot in
common in their approach. Nevertheless, he makes a serious point on
which the House should reflect. Since 1919, it has been the convention
that although Parliament has the ultimate control over the Church of
England—it is an established Church, after all, and
the Book of Common Prayer is but an annexe to the Act of Uniformity—the
Church of England comes forward with its Measures, and if they are
passed by the Church of England they will be approved or otherwise by
Parliament. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand
that if the Church of England is a national Church and an established
Church, it is right and proper for Parliament to make clear its views
and opinions to the Church of England and for the Church of England to
hear what Parliament is saying.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab):
I am not involved with the Church of England and I am a lifelong
non-believer, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly
admire for the stance he
has taken, that it is simply impossible to understand how on earth it
can be argued that if women are considered appropriate to be deacons and
priests, as they have been in the last 20 years, they are not worthy to
be bishops. It is simply impossible to understand
that. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that, for many of us, this
opposition to women bishops bears comparison with the opposition 100
years ago to women having the right to vote and to sit in the House of
Commons? It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling
that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics—that
I find contemptible.
Sir Tony Baldry: I
agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fairness, if he reads the comments
made by the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday, he will find that the
archbishop said exactly the same as him—that
it is intolerable to have a situation where women can be priests,
deacons, archdeacons and deans, yet not be bishops. In his own way, the
hon. Gentleman is saying almost exactly the same as the Archbishop of
Canterbury about this intolerable situation.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con):
Probably not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the
hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and in disagreement with my hon.
Friend the Member for Wellingborough
(Mr Bone). I think that we are elected on a far more democratic basis
than the House of Laity.
I believe that there is
very strong support for this Measure both in my constituency and in that
of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). We share the
most extraordinary Dean of Salisbury Cathedral,
in the shape of the Rev. June Osborne. May we please urge the bishops to
adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rhondda of a
moratorium? It is in their control. They could do it themselves. I know
that it would be a complicated process, but it would
be less complicated than the fiendish voting structure that we saw
yesterday.
If you will forgive me,
Mr. Speaker, may I add that my heart goes out to those women who will be
standing up on Sunday and doing, in many cases, a superior job of
bringing people to God and bringing the comfort
of Christianity to their constituents? This is disgraceful. Please could
we all share in some sort of message of support? There will be change.
We are behind this change. It has to happen.
Sir Tony Baldry: I
am sure that women throughout the Church will have heard the
encouraging comments of my hon. Friend, and those of, I think, every
other Member who has spoken so far.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab):
I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women in 1976, and I find
it incredible that we are still having this argument 36 years later. I
am very pleased that
the Second Church Estates Commissioner understands our feelings about
the urgent need for this Measure.
May I suggest that too
many concessions have been made to those who are opposed to women
priests? That is what has given them hope, and it is why they have
continued to fight. It is simply unjust to do that
at the expense of women in the Church.
Sir Tony Baldry:
The hon. Lady’s comments demonstrate the difficulty of striking a
balance between various groups in the Church of England, and trying to
ensure that everyone feels that there is a continuing
place for them in the Church. It has always been a broad Church, and as
far as possible we want to keep everyone in that broad Church. However, I
assure the hon. Lady that I know, and the House has made very clear,
that Parliament simply would not pass a Measure
that discriminated against women, squaring the circle by trying to make
them bishops but second-class bishops. Everyone has to understand that.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con):
I think it important for Parliament to express a view, but I also think
that it would be better for us to pass a short Bill requiring female
bishops. We need to put
the Church out of its agony, and to end the antiquated voting system to
which my hon. Friend has referred.
Is my hon. Friend aware
that there is nothing new about female bishops? There is a ninth-century
mosaic in a Roman basilica showing two saints, who are named, the
Virgin Mary, and a fourth woman who is clearly
described as Bishop Theodora: Theodora Episcopa. She was a female bishop. The Church has had them in the past.
Sir Tony Baldry:
The occasions in the past when Parliament and the Church of England have
gone head to head on matters of worship and doctrine—there were
disputes about the prayer book in the late 1920s,
for instance—are not happy precedents. I think it important for the
Church of England to listen very carefully to what Parliament is saying.
Although, in my view, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was
absolutely right to say yesterday that the Church
needed a “sharp prod”, I hope and believe that Parliament will give it
time to sort itself out and get on with the issue, and I assure the
House that we will do so as speedily as possible.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
Speaking as one who is part of the wider Anglican communion, I am
profoundly saddened and disappointed by the Church of England’s failure
to make progress
on the role of women in spiritual and public life. It leaves us with the
continuing anomaly that seats for bishops in the other place are
available exclusively to men. I simply do not believe that that is
sustainable in a modern democracy. Does the Commissioner
believe that we might, in fact, be doing the Church a favour by seeking
to review its constitutional status?
Sir Tony Baldry:
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind us that the Church of
England is part of a wider Anglican communion, and that the whole of the
Anglican communion will be looking at how the
Church of England conducts itself. I agree with the comments that have
been made about the Church reflecting, and I think that everyone in it
needs to reflect on how out of touch it now appears to Parliament—to
every part and every corner of the House of Commons.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD):
I pay tribute to the many women in my constituency who take part in the
formal and informal structures of the Church. They are very important
to rural life, and I know that my
bishop—Peter Price, the Bishop of Bath and Wells—deeply appreciates the
contribution of his large female work force.
I agree with what has
been said about women on boards. Might the hon. Gentleman be able to
explain to newer Members why this particular Church does not have to
observe equalities legislation?
Sir Tony Baldry:
May I correct a point that seems to be getting some coinage? The Church
of England does not enjoy any particular exemption from sex equality
legislation. Obviously, equalities legislation
is entirely a matter for this House, but the legislation that applies to
the Church of England applies to all faith groups in this country. If
Parliament were to seek to change the legislation, it would apply to
every faith group. That is clearly a matter for
the House.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab):
The bishops sit in the House of Lords on the basis of a moral
authority, and they vote on a range of issues, including equalities
legislation. It is now clear that the views
of the established Church do not reflect the views of the British
people, so is it not time that the bishops left the House of Lords?
Is not the real problem that the Church of England is entitled, by right, to places in an unreformed,
unaccountable and unelected House of Lords?
Sir Tony Baldry: I
think it is rather tough that a number of people are taking out their
frustration on the bishops, because the bishops gave clear leadership,
with almost every single bishop who spoke
and voted indicating that they want to have women bishops. They, too,
are very keen to ensure that they are joined in the House of Lords by
women bishops. There could be no clearer leadership in the Church than
that given by the bishops of the Church of England
on the fact that they want to have women bishops.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con):
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and agree wholly with what he was
saying, and I particularly welcome the opportunity of parliamentarians
meeting the archbishop-designate.
May I link two points that my hon. Friend made? Speaking as a
Eurosceptic and as someone who has stood, unsuccessfully, for election
to the House of Laity, may I suggest to him that the House of Laity is
about as representative of opinion in the pews as the
European Parliament is of constituents? May I also urge him to move
forward as quickly as possible with a review of the electoral
arrangements for the House of Laity?
Sir Tony Baldry:
It was my mistake for wandering down the route of commenting about
Eurosceptics. One thing that we were enjoined to do in the General Synod
was live in amity with all our colleagues,
so I hope that I can always do that. My hon. Friend is correct in saying
that a number of questions will continue to be asked about the
arrangements for electing the General Synod, because we simply cannot
have a situation where 42 out of 44 dioceses vote overwhelmingly
for women bishops and that simply is not reflected in the vote in the
General Synod and the House of Laity—that is simply unsustainable.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op):
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all his work on this matter and
thank him for it. I also wish to echo the sentiments that so many hon.
Members have
expressed about the contribution that women in the Church make in all
our constituencies. Does he agree that the reaction that this has caused
in the population as a whole, including on Twitter and in social media,
has shown how important this issue is to the
nation and how important it is that Parliament acts? I include in that
the petition that has been started to raise the question as to whether
there should be an automatic right for bishops to sit in the House of
Lords if there are no women bishops.
Sir Tony Baldry:
The hon. Lady clearly demonstrates that the Church of England has to be a
national Church. It is the Church of the Remembrance day services, it
is the Church of the coronation and it
is the Church of which the Queen is head as Head of State and Head of
the Church. One of the first things the Queen did during her jubilee
celebrations was attend a meeting at Lambeth palace that was attended by
all faith groups. What was very moving was that
all those faith groups said that they felt confident in freedom of
religion for them because of the role of the Church of England as
the national Church. So the Church of England, as a national Church, is failing the whole nation and
other faith groups if it does not reflect our national character.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con):
May I say, Mr Speaker, how much many of us supported the robust
comments your Chaplain made in the media after this announcement was
made? My oldest friend is due to be
ordained in 2014, and the Church will be lucky to have her, as she is
someone of huge talent. But surely the Church sees that it will not
attract women of that calibre if they see that they will not be able to
pursue the full extent of their talents.
Sir Tony Baldry:
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are very fortunate to
have attracted into the Church over the past 20 years many women of
extraordinary talent, leadership, skill and
commitment. Indeed, the Church of England would not manage without their
skill, leadership and commitment. We need to be able to continue to
recruit people of that high calibre and I hope that we will continue to
do so.
Mr Speaker: We are
also all extremely fortunate in our Chaplain and I am most grateful to
the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for what she said.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab):
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and many people will
appreciate the way in which he has put them. It is clearly
unsustainable for us to have
an all-male episcopate. Does he agree that the decision sadly risks
damaging the reputation of the Church in the eyes of many of our
constituents? Will he consider working with the business managers to
find a way for this House to express its will and send
a clear, unanimous and courteous message to the General Synod that it
needs to think again?
Sir Tony Baldry: I shall certainly reflect on that interesting suggestion with the business managers and the Clerks.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con):
Given that a significant minority in the House of Laity have spoken and
said that women are not competent to be bishops, will my hon. Friend,
alongside
me, call on that significant minority to launch an urgent review into
the competence of its own head of the Church of England?
Sir Tony Baldry:
Those who voted against women bishops at General Synod did so because of
their own particular theological convictions. While acknowledging those
theological convictions, the Church now
needs to find a way to move forward as speedily as possible to ensure
that women can be consecrated as bishops in the Church of England.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab):
Does the hon. Gentleman share my sadness and that of many other people
that the Church has made itself appear so out of touch and anachronistic
in its decision making? The
head of the Church of England is a woman, but in the 21st century we
cannot have women bishops.
Sir Tony Baldry: I
agree. It is a great sadness. I suspect that every right hon. and hon.
Member has recently had representations from Church members on same-sex
marriage. If the Church of England thinks
that Parliament will listen to it with considerable attention on moral
issues such as same-sex marriage and so on when the Church of England
seems to be so out of step on other issues of concern to Parliament, it
is simply deluding itself.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con):
I must declare an interest in that my sister is a vicar in the Church
of England in your constituency, Mr Speaker, and I personally own the
living
of a parish in Oxfordshire. Does my hon. Friend think that if Mrs
Proudie had been the bishop rather than her husband, Obadiah Slope would
have had a rather different career path?
Sir Tony Baldry: I
suspect, Mr Speaker, that that is true. It is reassuring to discover
that there are still Members of this House who own livings of parishes
in the Church of England.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con):
I caution my hon. Friend about comparisons between the EU and the
Church of England, as the EU forces people to vote and vote again until
it gets the result it wants.
Clearly, the Church of England has shown itself to be completely out of
touch with the views not only of Parliament but of the country at large.
Is it not time now for the General Synod to review its whole
decision-making process so that it can reflect the
wishes of its members?
Sir Tony Baldry:
The General Synod will have to reflect on the comments made by my hon.
Friend and others about its effectiveness, about how it is elected and
about whether it represents members of the
Church of England, the broader community and society as a whole.
Historically and even today, church wardens have been elected by the
whole community because there is recognition that in every parish church
wardens represent the community as a whole. We will
have to consider how the laity elected to the General Synod can reflect
the broadest range of society—certainly among those who are members of
the Church of England and perhaps among the community as a whole. I am
quite sure that will be reviewed in the coming
months.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con):
As a Church of England believer, I have never understood how a woman
can be head of the Church yet somehow women cannot be bishops. I urge
that we consider bringing in
a short Bill ordering that women should be able to be bishops in the
Church of England.
Sir Tony Baldry:
In the General Synod debate, part of which I sat through, there were
some who argued that it was impossible for women to have headship, and I
just could not understand how they sought
to reconcile that with the fact that Parliament has made the Queen
defender of the faith and that we are fortunate enough to have her not
only as Head of State, but as head of the Church.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD):
This week’s decision reflects very badly on the Church, but also very
unfairly; the Church, after all, is all the people who are part of it,
not just one legislative committee.
Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, given that a large majority of
them have shown that they are as keen to have women bishops as we in
this House are, the problem lies not with the members of the Church of
England, but with the paralysis of its decision-making
structures?
Sir Tony Baldry:
My hon. Friend is right to remind us at the end of these questions that
the overwhelming majority of members of the Church of England want women
bishops. It is now beholden on us all,
whether in the Church of England or outside, to try to ensure that
happens as speedily as possible.