Feature Article

Church 1, State 1

James Freestone

Flushed perhaps with its success in the fight against the Government over faith schools, the Church sought a similar outcome in its battle over gay adoption. This time it failed but what is sure is that the growing clash between faith and Westminster is not going to disappear

It was an act of high symbolism - and, in retrospect, the start of a political row that would engulf the Church and bring a clash between clergy and politicians, believers and secularists. 

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to bring together the Communities Minister Ruth Kelly and Education Secretary Alan Johnson. Mr Blair had hoped that he, Johnson and Kelly would form a small "huddle" after the usual Thursday Cabinet meeting, giving them a chance to discuss with the Prime Minister possible solutions to the controversial equality regulations and their consequences for adoption agencies such as those run by the Catholic Church. Mr Blair himself was hoping for an opt-out.

But, The Tablet has learned, Johnson made it plain that he had no intention of finding a way to ensure that the Catholic agencies might opt out of the anti-discrimination proposals, and, according to a well-placed source, simply walked off, "defying the Prime Minister". There was no deal brokered. Alan Johnson had no interest in Mr Blair's keenness to secure an opt-out for Catholic agencies from forthcoming legislation banning discrimination against homosexuals that would mean they would no longer be able to turn away gay couples. The extraordinary incident, which took place two weeks before it was announced that Catholic agencies would not be exempt from the policy, starkly demonstrates the diminishing power of Tony Blair in his final months in Downing Street.

Exactly one week later, Mr Johnson appeared on BBC's Today programme. It was a seminal moment. As over faith schools, he went out on a limb, effectively announcing that there should be no exemption at a point when Mr Blair still clung to the hope of incorporating just that. He said: "I've never seen the case for an exemption. To me this is legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and you cannot do that and at the same time allow discrimination in one area."

The strength and clarity of Mr Johnson's public position would have been unthinkable last autumn, when Mr Blair slapped him down over his attempts to force Catholic schools to accept a quarter of pupils from other faiths or none. This time, though, Johnson believed he was winning the battle, a win that would now doubt be observed by those monitoring the actions of the various candidates jostling to become deputy leader of the Labour Party. 

The row finally burst into the open when a report in The Independent on Sunday portrayed Ruth Kelly as a block to gay adoption. This was to be followed by dark briefing from "a senior Labour source" that Ms Kelly "will have "to decide between her faith or her job". At Westminster, there was excited talk of "the Catholic tendency", with the finger usually pointed at the weary Ruth Kelly. (Mutterings of this kind also often lead to fingers pointing at the Prime Minister's wife, Cherie, who is in fact "about as liberal a Catholic as they come", according to friends.)

Before the row began, the Equality Bill had already been enforced in Northern Ireland - this time by another deputy-leadership hopeful, Peter Hain, who some priests in Belfast call in their sermons the region's "viceroy".

In England, the bill was first the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, run in the first half of last year by Alan Johnson, who resisted Mr Blair's attempts to ensure a Catholic opt-out. A reshuffle brought the bill under Ms Kelly's overall control, but left Mr Johnson in charge of adoption agencies at Education. Ms Kelly was supportive of Number 10. She was aware of three points about the Catholic agencies: they were renowned to be good at what they do; there were only around 12 Catholic agencies dealing with around 200 children, so homosexual couples had plenty of other agencies to choose from; and this was more about ideology than demand, as there were 3,700 adoptions last year of which 185 were by gay couples.

None the less, Mr Johnson had finally laid down the gauntlet, and - along with Mr Hain - had let it be known that he would consider making this a resigning issue. But on 23 January Westminster was rocked by the news that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor had written to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, effectively threatening that Catholic agencies would close if an exemption was refused, adding: "This outcome is wholly avoidable. We urge you to ensure that the regulations shortly to be laid before Parliament enable our agencies to continue their work with local authorities for the common good."

One person who knows the cardinal well pointed out that Labour's internal power struggles were not the only ones to affect the row over gay adoption. He suspected that within the Catholic hierarchy there is competition among the bishops to be seen as the best candidate to succeed the cardinal in the top job. This is causing certain bishops to assert themselves as strong defenders of orthodoxy so that Rome perceives such an individual as a safe pair of hands when the cardinal retires. Apparently, this pressure in turn leads the cardinal to take a more cautious line himself. This is not to say that he himself is not also concerned about gay adoption, given church teaching and being a man uncomfortable with some of contemporary society's mores.

There was also a difficulty with how major decisions are being taken at Archbishop's House. Since the departure of Austen Ivereigh, his public affairs adviser, the cardinal does not have a full-time adviser (as became apparent after Archbishop's House appeared unable to field supportive voices following up the letter). Instead, the cardinal relies on ad hoc arrangements, occasionally calling lay people he trusts or inviting them in for a chat over a glass of Scotch. Key decisions are also often taken after phone calls between the cardinal, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham and Archbishop Patrick Kelly of Liverpool, rather than depending on debates in person.

The Church's success on the battle for faith schools led to a belief that another high-profile triumph could similarly be seized. But an analysis of that success would have highlighted how the Church's concerns prompted complaints from parents and teachers about the threat to education, leading Labour MPs with vulnerable seats to urge Alan Johnson to back down. But gay adoption has so far not played at the local level in the same way.

Many were taken aback by the supportive intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Some Anglican sources felt this was very "un-Rowan", and speculated that he was "bounced" into the move after the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, made it clear he was going public. This claim is denied by Lambeth Palace. Dr Williams' letter was a powerful intervention, and played heavily on the concept of liberty, declaring: "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning."

While the Churches appeared united in their opposition to the Government, the Conservatives appeared in disarray. Last weekend David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, made it clear that he supported the Catholic adoption agencies. But David Cameron's position remained ambiguous. He is said to have met with the cardinal this week, but equally appears to be sympathetic to the Johnson position.

By the evening of 24 January, however, it was anyway becoming open season within Labour, with Harriet Harman becoming the latest Minister (and, inevitably, deputy leadership candidate), to make her move, reiterating the principle: "You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it. You can't be a little bit against discrimination."

One man remained characteristically silent: Gordon Brown. The Tablet understands that some form of "contact" was made by the Prime Minister's team to ascertain what the Chancellor's position was, but Mr Brown had "put his head in the sand". The Chancellor will have to consider these issues, particularly as in Scotland the row could threaten traditional Catholic support for Labour. In a sign of the scrambling for the new availability of the Catholic vote, the Scottish Nationalists have backed the exemption in advance of regional elections in May (see John Haldane, page 7).

On 30 January, Mr Blair finally tried to announce a solution. There would be no exemption, but Catholic agencies would be given a 21-month period of "adaptation". Johnson and his supporters saw this as a triumph, while the cardinal, acknowledging that Mr Blair had "listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church", didn't seek to hide his disappointment. The Prime Minister was left admitting "It's a difficult situation", before adding: "I think we have found the right balance and a sensible compromise."

Staff at Archbishop's House and the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales were more bullish. As one put it: "This is not about managing closure." But the cardinal voiced concern about the consequences for Catholics in public life. What is clear is that, with Mr Blair's departure, the growing clash between faith and Westminster will not disappear. And neither Mr Brown - nor Mr Cameron - will be able to avoid it for much longer.

Back to the front page