Friday 10th February 2012 | 13:00

MPs question Bideford Council prayer ruling

By James Dwyer

MPs have expressed their concern over the High Court ruling that it is not lawful for Bideford Council to say prayers before its meetings.

The court ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 in a case seen as the first of many that will take place across the country.

Labour MP Chris Bryant told PoliticsHome that the ruling was "utterly preposterous" but that it would not affect prayers in the House of Commons.

"It can’t affect the Commons because the biggest quibble is local authorities don’t have the power of competency. He [the judge] is saying that people should not allowed to pray; well  in that sense they shouldn’t be able to drink water, even though they do in meetings."

Mr Bryant added he would "consider" tabling a bill to oppose the ruling himself, and that if he did not do so another member was almost certain to.

Secretary of State for Local Government Eric Pickles also expressed his disappointment at the ruling, defending the Christian background of Britain.

“Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation. Public authorities - be it Parliament or a parish council - should have the right to say prayers before meetings if they wish. The right to worship is a fundamental and hard-fought British liberty."

Mr Pickles added that the Localism Act would give local councils a "more general power" of competence which would "to undertake any general action that an individual could do unless it is specifically prohibited by law - this includes prayers".

However, Conservative MP David Jones said that he would "not be surprised" if the ruling led to a challenge to the daily prayers in Parliament, before adding that there was a "lot of resistance" to the practice.

His colleague Andrew Selous said he would "challenge very strongly" anyone attempting to get rid of prayers in the Commons, telling PoliticsHome:

"I’m very disturbed to learn about this ruling I hope it is challenged and i for one would fight very strongly to keep prayers in the House of Commons and I hope no one thinks of a legal challenge to the leader or the House for having prayers.

"People who don’t believe in prayers, they don’t come in or they sit quietly, they don’t stand, they just sit and look at their papers and I think that’s a very good accommodation and everyone copes with that, they’re not compelled to do it, it doesn’t debar them from the House."

The South West Bedfordshire MP also warned against the secularisation of "the public square".

"I’m afraid yet again we have judges getting it spectacularly wrong and this is yet another step in the direction of saying that public space needs to be secular space, which is just very wrong, because secularism is a creed, a belief in its own right. It’s a particular worldview and in a free country we should just be more relaxed about people of faith expressing themselves in the public square."

Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, told PoliticsHome that he found the ruling "peculiar" given the religious traditions found in other aspects of British life.

"It seems to me a peculiar judgement. If you think the legal year starts with a religious service, the Church of England – of which I’m not a member – is the established church, we have Bishops in the House of Lords, prayers before sittings of the Commons and the Lords and the Queen is crowned in a religious ceremony.

"It seems bizarre for it to be unlawful to begin council proceedings with prayer. It will be interesting to see if this case is appealed as a ruling made by a relatively junior court."

Mr Rees-Mogg added that he did not believe the ruling would have an impact on prayers in Parliament.

"The courts have no authority over the House of Commons, and I am glad that is the case. This will have no impact on the House of Commons – and most people in the House of Commons are very happy with the way things are."

In response to the case Colin Bloom, the Executive Director of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, said:

"We're perplexed by this bizarre decision. On at least two occasions the Council voted to keep prayers as part of their meeting and we're pleased that the Judge has not banned the prayers, but has said that Councillors are not required to attend the prayers, something that the ex-Councillor was at liberty to not attend anyway.

"This is a colossal and sad waste of time and money by a group of people who seem intent on dismantling the UK's Christian heritage."