CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) (MEASURES) (Hansard, 31 July 1961)

§ Sir Hubert Ashton (Chelmsford)
I beg to move, That the Baptismal Registers Measure, 1961, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. I am sure the House will not wish me to enter into a long explanation of this Measure, which is a trifle technical in character. Briefly, its object is to bring the statutory requirements with regard to the registration of baptisms into line with those relating to the entry of the birth of certain classes of persons in the civil registers of birth. It follows logically upon the Legitimacy Act, 1959, and certain of its provisions are also desirable in cases of adoption.
Perhaps in this connection I may be allowed to express a word of appreciation of the good work done by the hon. 1102 Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) in securing the placing of this Act on the Statute Book. Subsequently he has been very helpful in the discussions which have taken place. Throughout its passage in the Assembly the Measure encountered no opposition. No amendments were moved or made. The Ecclesiastical Committee has considered the Measure and reported favourably upon it. In these circumstances, I hope the House will be willing to accept the Motion.

§ Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)
I should like to support what has been said so concisely by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Ashton.)

§ Sir H. Ashton
I beg to move, That the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1961, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. This is a rather longer Measure than the previous one which has just met with the favour of the House. It has been carefully considered by the Church Assembly. It was generally approved at the autumn session of 1960, considered for revision at the spring session, 1961, and finally approved at the summer session this year. A number of amendments were made during the debate, but none of substance, except those which were made by the members responsible for the Measure.
It is, broadly, a consolidating Measure, bringing up to date the manner and method of paying pensions to bishops, clergy and their widows, and also the amounts of the pensions. Payment will be made by the Church Commissioners out of their general fund. The Measure also gives them power to increase such payments from time to time.
Hon. Members will have noted that the Ecclesiastical Committee, having considered this Measure very carefully on 18th July, has reported favourably upon it. There is before the House a fairly full explanation and comments by the Legislative Committee. This is a very important Measure, and the House will be aware of the full details and implications from the papers placed before it. I hope it will be approved.

§ Mr. Driberg
I should like to support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Ashton) has said in commending this useful Measure to the House, and I might add just a few words for the convenience of hon. Members who may read this debate in HANSARD, even though there are a relatively small number of us here at present.
As a result of a letter in The Times of yesterday, it is just possible that hon. Members may receive correspondence from their constituents criticising this Measure because, as will be seen, it has a scale of differential pensions for different classes or orders of the clergy. This was the subject of a very long debate in the Assembly, and the simplest thing is to refer any hon. Members who may be solicited by their constituents about this to page 6 of the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee on the Clergy Pensions Measure. On that page, in the notes and explanations submitted by the Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee, is recorded the actual voting in the Assembly debate on this matter.
The proposal that deans, provosts and archdeacons should receive special pensions instead of the ordinary pensions of the clergy was carried by fairly big majorities in all three Houses. In the House of Bishops, the voting figures were: ayes 26, noes 5; in the House of Clergy, ayes 161, noes 74, and, perhaps most significantly, in the House of Laity, ayes 215, noes 24.
I think that most hon. Members will probably agree with me that, whatever our personal views about these differential pensions may be—and there are probably arguments for and against them—it is not the function of this House to intervene in an internal ecclesiastical question of this kind—at least, not so drastically as to reject the Measure on these grounds.
I am sure that any hon. Members who may receive letters from their constituents about this can satisfy them, more or less, by referring them to those votes in the Assembly. I do not think that this House should overturn a decision so decisively reached in the Assembly.

§ Sir H. Ashton
By leave of the House; I thank the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for drawing attention to the voting figures. I also saw the letter in yesterday's issue of The Times. It contains a point of view which many of us can understand, but the subject was fully ventilated in the Church Assembly on 7th and 8th February—I have a copy of the proceedings in my hand and I was present throughout. There was a division in all three Houses and, as has been said, there were strong majorities in favour of the proposals which I have had the honour to place before the House.