Has not the debate in the Synod on the use of agricultural land been crowded out by the Minister's obsessive attacks on the bishops and archbishops? Is it not about time that he decided whether he wants to be a churchman or a politician?
It is a new doctrine of constitution that one cannot be both a churchman and a politician. As an elected member of the Synod of the Church of England, I say no to the hon. Gentleman, and as a Minister I say that that is not an agriculture question.
Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the General Synod to continue the policy of privatising glebe land, which has been entirely successful in the dioceses that have adopted it? Will he also mention to the General Synod that it would greatly help the social fabric of this country if the dioceses in possession of agricultural land that is surplus to requirements could make it available below the market price for housing projects?
I shall certainly take that opportunity. The Church of England has a good reputation in its handling of both tenants and glebe land.
Is it not the case that the Synod has not made representations because its members have completely lost confidence in the Minister because of his savage attacks on the clergy and his bishop-bashing? Does the Minister understand that tens of thousands of churchgoing people all over the country are tired of the way that he persists in meddling in the affairs of the Church and tries to impose his will—
As an elected member of the Church of England I have more right to comment on those views than has the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman demands the right to be robust in his views. Why does he stop other people from being roboust in theirs?