HC Deb 03 August 1926 vol 198 cc2961-8
Sir JOSEPH NALL

I beg to move, That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. In moving that this Measure be presented for Royal Assent, I would ask the House to appreciate that this is a matter of legislation applying to the clergy of the Church of England, but it does not apply in any way to diocesan Bishops. It has been before the Church Assembly for three years. It has been a subject of long deliberation and considerable revision, and, during that process, the Church Assembly has gone through a general election, so that those who object to its provisions have had adequate opportunities of bringing those objections forward in the proper place, in the Church Assembly. The Measure has been carried in the Church Assembly by quite a considerable majority—in the House most concerned, the House of Clergy, by 130 to 20; in the House of Bishops, no votes were recorded against it; and in the House of Laity only 11 votes were recorded against it.

The object of the Measure is to provide pensions of £200 a year in the case of clergy who attain the age of 70 and have 40 years' service. It is provided that those over the age of 55 at the date appointed for bringing the Measure into operation will be exempted from the scheme, and this is perhaps a matter of regret. The provision of £200 a year for those clergy who will ultimately benefit is on a generous basis when compared with the rates of contribution which the clergy are required to make towards this scheme. The contributions which the clergy will make could not possibly purchase a pension of that sum. I hear it is urged in soma quarters that this Measure ought not to be proceeded with, but my opinion is that this objection comes from a very small minority. In putting this Motion down to-night, I do so for the reason that, if this Measure is not presented for Royal Assent now, the result will he that some 200 clergy will be prevented from benefiting. I do not want to press the Measure if the House feels that it should not be proceeded with, but I think it would be a great injustice to two or three hundred clergy if, in response to some quite negligible opposition, the House were to hang up this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I gather that the general sense of the House is that the reasonableness of the proposal is appreciated, and that the House will present the Measure for assent.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I beg to Second the Motion.

I only wish to add that, at the present time, there is no satisfactory system for providing pensions for aged clergy who are unable to continue their work. We have introduced contributory pensions into every part of public life, the Civil Service, for teachers, and so forth, and, if we are to have a, scheme at this is the most equitable which could be devised. It has been for three years before the National Assembly, and if it is adjourned to-night on some minute technical objection, it will mean that some three or four hundred clergy will be definitely and permanently excluded from the scheme. It has received the assent of another place, and I hope, therefore, that this House will to-night give it the final authority.

Major HILLS

I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I hope the mover and the seconder of the Motion will listen to what I have to say. I am not at the moment opposing the Measure, but I do want to put before the House very strong reasons why we Should not be rushed in the way we are being rushed. Let me tell the House the facts as they came to my knowledge. I had never heard of this Measure at all until three days ago, and I am quite certain that many hon. Members are in the same position as I was in. I then heard from constituents of mine who objected very strongly to the Measure. I looked on the Order Paper to see when it was coming on. I saw no notice that this Motion was to be moved. I could not believe that a Measure of this importance would be moved without notice, and thought it would go over till the Autumn. I looked on the Order Paper yesterday again. There was not a word about it then. Not until this morning did it, appear, and it is to-day, the last day of the Session, when we are asked to consider it.

Now I will say a few words about the Measure from the point of view of asking the House to postpone the consideration of it. It is a Measure of 39 Clauses—the same number of Clauses as there are Articles: ii is a highly complex Measure, which lays a tax upon beneficed clergymen it repeals an Act of this House. This is the complicated Measure we are asked suddenly to pass when I am sure many hon. Members listening to me have not read it. I know the Noble Lord opposite and the Noble Lord below me took a very great interest in passing the Act under which this Measure comes before us. Do they think they are doing a good service to the Church Assembly in rushing the House of Commons like this? We do not know anything about the Measure. No explanatory statement has been circulated.

HON. MEMBERS

Yes!

Lord HUGH CECIL

It is in the Vote Office.

Major HILLS

I never knew a word about the Measure till I read it to-day. When the approval of this House is necessary before Measures are sent up for the Royal Assent, how can that approval mean anything if we are asked to take without examination a long, intricate and important Measure of this sort? 1 have a feeling, which is very deep in me, that we ought not to relax Parliamentary control over Measures passed by the Church Assembly. I do not think the House thinks we ought, and I am sure the country does not. But what does that control amount to if, on the last day of a busy Session, hon. Members come down and ask us to pass en bloc,without reading it, a Measure of this sort? I had hoped my hon. Friend would not press this Motion, and I do not believe he is doing a good service to the cause he supports by pressing it, but since he is pressing it, I am moving that the Debate stand adjourned.

Mr. BARR

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am well aware that when the Enabling Powers Act, 1919, was passing through this House the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) received an assurance from Mr. Speaker that this business could be taken after Eleven o'Clock, and therefore it is quite in order. That does not prevent me emphasising what has so well been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). This Measure of 39 Clauses and three large Schedules has encountered a good deal of opposition among clergy affected. I have myself received a good many letters on the subject. The figures which have just been quoted in one of the Divisions, that is, 130 to 26, show by no means a negligible difference of opinion. In another document, which I received, I find that a comparison is made between this Measure and the Pensions Measure, 1926, and that a priori,and looking at it hurriedly there seem to be a good many points of divergence which operate against the inferior clergy, the rank and file, as compared with the superior.

I desire to give an intelligent vote on these Church questions, and no one can accuse me of having been factious on these questions in the past. We did oppose the Measure for the creation of a new Bishop of Shrewsbury, but in that we were confirmed in another place, and that is always gratifying to anyone who sits on the Labour benches. When the 1919 Enabling Powers Act of the Church of England was passing through the House, it was emphasised by the promoters that there would be the fullest Parliamentary consideration and control in this House, and I think we should abide by that. I would point out that under this form of procedure we are in quite a different position from that occupied in the promotion of a Bill which comes before Parliament time and again. Under this special procedure when the Measure only comes before us once, it is hurriedly taken in nearly every case. The result is that at the last moment we have to run and get papers of various kinds and therefore we came here imperfectly prepared. The Church of England loses rather than gains by that procedure. I only wish to add—I cannot refrain from saying it—that I do wish that the church of England would take the great step that would put her in these matters in the same position of freedom already enjoyed by other churches in the land.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) that there is really no difference of opinion about the principle which should govern our action in these matters. No one desires to prevent this House from exercising in the fullest and most deliberate way its control over the Measures that are from time to time in pursuance of the Enabling Act laid before it. The position as regards the exigencies of Parliamentary time, is not to be regarded from the point of view of the Measures of the Church Assembly, but from the point of view of the Government. There is no reason why these Measures should not be debated for hours. If my hon. and gallant Friend wished, he could go to the Prime Minister and urge him to give more time for these discussions, and no one would be more pleased than I, but we are obliged to take what time is offered. I do not want the House to suppose that there is any difference of opinion as to the right and duty of the House to supervise legislation that is laid before it, but I want the House to act in a spirit both of justice and of common sense towards this Measure because of the peculiar circumstances of the case.

This Measure has been debated at great length. It obviously does not raise any question of great controversial principle one way or the other; it is a matter of technical detail, actuarial calculation, and the like. There have long been among the clergy some who have opposed this Measure at every stage, but their opposition has produced no effect at all upon their colleagues. Had it produced any such effect this Measure would have been rejected over and over again, for the procedure of the Church Assembly is very elaborate and carefully constructed so as to present the fullest opportunity of rejecting any Measure or any part of any Measure. It goes through stages modelled on the procedure of both Houses of Parliament, and there is the fullest opportunity for any opponent to raise any issue he pleases. Nothing can pass which has not the assent of all three Houses—bishops, clergy and laity. Having been discussed in that way it comes down to us.

I should be quite in favour of adjourning the Debate if there were no loss, and if it were merely a matter of convenience. The only reason why I venture rather warmly to appeal to the House on this occasion to pass the Measure is because failure to do so will throw out of the benefits of the pensions scheme some 200 or 300 clergy. We are told that it is no benefit, but anyone who looks into it will see that it is a beneficial Measure to the whole of the clergy and they have accepted it as such. When it is compared with the Episcopal Pensions Measure which is to come on in the autumn, the answer is quite simple. That Measure means that the Bishops will give up terms immensely more advantageous which they now enjoy in order to take on worse terms in the interest of the Church.

This present Measure gives the clergy something which they never had before. There really, therefore, is nothing except prejudice in the comparison between the two Measures. I venture earnestly to say that it would be almost cruel for this House, merely because of a matter which. I agree, is one of Parliamentary propriety—

Major HILLS

It is not propriety; it is principle.

Lord H. CECIL

Does my hon. and gallant Friend really think that if the Measure be delayed until the autumn the House will reject it then? I am quite sure it will do nothing of the kind. What does it mean? It means throwing the whole question of pensions for the clergy back for 10 years. This is the best scheme arrived at after infinite deliberation by very competent and able men, supported by the laity, the clergy, the Central Board of Finance. The utmost attention has been given to the subject, and it may be taken for granted that a better scheme than this cannot be obtained, if you are going to carry out pensions for the clergy at all, I am sure the House, if they deliberated it for ever, would always come to the same conclusion about the matter. Are we to throw these 200 or 300 people out of the scheme—

Major HILLS

Surely that point can be met by a very small Amendment to the existing Measure. Pensions start from the appointed day, and the appointed day—

Mr. SPEAKER

We must not discuss the merits of the Measure on this Motion. The only Motion before the House is "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Lord H. CECIL

We cannot amend it; we must either reject it or adopt it.

Major HILLS

You can amend it.

Lord H. CECIL

No. Parliament cannot amend a Measure; it must either be accepted or rejected. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the matter, in view of the injury it would do to a large number of perfectly innocent people, while he would gain nothing.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER

I wish so put one point on behalf of many of my constituents who have written to me. I think my Noble Friend has given overwhelming arguments why we should not accept this Motion for the adjournment, and should proceed with the matter. It is not right to represent, and my Noble Friend did not represent, the fairly large number of clergy throughout the country as a merely ignorant or obstructive minority. They are nothing of the kind. With their interests very much in my mind, and arguing with myself as to whether I should vote for the Motion or not, I comfort myself with the reflection that it will all depend upon how the Measure is administered. I hope that in its administration there will be no sort of wooden interpretation of the Measure, and that the largest sympathy will be shown in every direction, having regard to the undoubted ways in which to some extent the shoe will pinch with certain of these people. T should not be doing right if I did not say this, and I believe in saying it I shall have a very large majority of the House with me.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Resolved, That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1926, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock Mr. SPEANER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.