Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure

HC Deb 17 June 1982 vol 25 cc1179-84 10.10 pm

The second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William vanstraubenzee)

I beg to move, That the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod 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. As I understand the business motion to which the House agreed earlier today, the maximum of three hours now available to us can be allocated between this measure and the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure which is to follow. If it is the wish of the House to dispose of this measure briskly, the time then available can be used to debate the subsequent measure. I say that because I am well aware that the subsequent measure is the one in which many hon. Members are particularly interested.

I hope that this modest measure will be seen as only one stage in a continuing process. It is neither the first nor the last. For a number of years, the Church of England has increasingly and rightly provided for the retirement of those who have served it very devotedly in a full-time capacity. In a sense, the provision has over the years been almost more generous, as it should have been, than its counterpart in the lay world, because the combination of stipends and what is generally called tied houses makes it more difficult for a man to provide for his retirement.

However, I hope that the House will not underestimate the burden that that places on the Church of England in general and on its members in particular. The 1981 report and accounts of the Church Commissioners have just been published and are available to hon. Members. They show that in that year expenditure on pensions was £17.9 million, or 19.7 per cent. of expenditure. That contrasts with £14.4 million in 1980.

The percentage increase in the Commissioners' general fund income spent on this provision has risen from 14 per cent. in 1971–72 to 28 per cent. in 1981. With effect from 1 April last, the Commissioners have agreed to increase the pension for full service from £2,500 a year to £3,060, and the lump sum payable on retirement after full service from £4,000 to £4,900.

I give those brief figures as a background to the measure and to explain that, although modest in itself, the measure is part of a continuing chain. I have no doubt that as time progresses the House will be asked to approve other measures.

As the proportion of the general fund income of the commissioners devoted to pensions increases, so the proportion devoted to stipends must, self evidently, decrease. That is why lay people are being required to take on an increasing proportion of the burden of the stipend of the working clergy, a burden which they take on splendidly but which progressively will be an increasing charge upon them.

The House will wish me to briefly explain the measures. Clause 1 seeks to extend the powers of the Commissioners, enabling them to make loans to the pensions board. The important difference between loans and grants is that loans are made out of capital, whereas grants are made out of general funds.

Clause 2 extends loans to such persons who have either attained retiring age or will have in three years. The key to that is "within three years". That, as I am sure that the House will understand, is a very helpful provision for the man seeking to make provision for his retirement.

Clause 3 refers to "church workers". The present state of the law excludes clerks in holy orders, but in recent years it has been possible for a church worker who has been admitted to the church workers pension fund to be ordained thereafter, for example to the non-stipendiary ministry. He then finds that, because of the exclusion to which I have referred, his pension expectancy is reduced. That does not seem reasonable in present circumstances and that is why that matter is put right in the clause. Clauses 4 and 5 widen the powers of investment, bringing them into line with the majority of pension fund trustees.

This is a modest measure and I should like to express my appreciation, as did the legislative committee of the General Synod, to the standing council of the eccliastical committee for the suggestions that it made, and which we have incorporated and made part of the measure in clause 2(1). Its advice was very helpful.

The House will no doubt like to know how the General Synod dealt with this matter and I am able to report that final approval, the equivalent of our Third Reading, in February 1982 went through with no votes cast against it. Modest measure though this may be, it is one further step in the pension provision for those who devote themselves so selflessly to the service of the church.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

The hon. Gentleman will recall a point raised by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) in the ecclesiastical committee, relating to the status and rights of the divorced wife of a clergyman and how she would be affected by this measure. Is he in a position to give an answer yet, or will we be receiving an answer after the debate?

Sir William van Straubenzee

I remember the point that was raised. There has been no opportunity for the matter to be incorporated in this measure, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would not have expected that. I appreciate that these are serious matters, but, if the hon. Gentleman casts his mind around the ordinary pension provision in the lay world, he will probably find that the way in which financial provision is made for a former wife in cases of this kind is not generally through the mechanism of the pension. It is by way of financial provision at the time of the divorce, although that is not universally so. The House knows that very real consideration is being given to all those matters. I think, for example, of the proposals for the cut-off procedures, and the rest.

This is part of something wider. I must reply by saying that there has been no opportunity for those matters to be discussed within Church of England circles since the matter was raised. However, I have no doubt at all that this is the sort of matter that must now be looked at. That is why I was so careful to make it clear that this is not the end. There are other matters yet to be considered and this will obviously have to be one of them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

I accept it when my hon. Friend says that this is not the end. I hope that he will agree that people are becoming increasingly concerned about the number of clergy marriages that are foundering. I hope that he will also accept that the analogy that he drew with the lay world is not entirely appropriate in this case. The House would welcome an assurance from him that the synod and the commissioners will turn their attention at the earliest possible date to the whole position of the divorced wives of clergy.

Sir William van Straubenzee

My hon. Friend, who has a detailed knowledge of the Church of England, would not wish inadvertently to give the impression that this is a widespread problem. It is infinitely sad whenever it happens, in the lay world or in the clergy world. There are problems. The days when, without exception, the clergy wife shared her husband's life are somewhat diminished by the large number who, for perfectly proper reasons, now do another job.

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asks for in the sense that this is one of the matters which must now be looked at, although I would rather not be tied to a timetable. These are the sort of matters which, when a further measure comes before the House, must be seriously and carefully considered.

My modest experience in this field is that there is widespread and careful provision, usually through funds that are available at the discretion of, and under the control of, bishops. I appreciate that that is not the same thing as a statutory right.

One should not leave this subject without giving the impression that there is not infinite pastoral care and financial provision where appropriate on a diocesan basis.

Mr. Cormack

I do not want to over-emphasise the matter, but there are far more clergy marriages heading for the rocks and which have foundered than we would have believed possible a few years ago. Although my hon. Friend is entirely right, nevertheless I could produce examples—doublers other hon. Members could—of clergy wives who have been very badly treated. I could give details of one particular case where I had to come to the rescue myself. Had it not been for the fact that I was able to do so and that the woman concerned had private means, there would have been a real human tragedy. I know of at least a dozen similar cases.

Sir William van Straubenzee

That is an important point. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel free to let me have details, if he so desires. I have personal knowledge of one of the cases with which he has dealt. I appreciate the problem. At the moment, I am having to deal with the strict statutory provisions. I have answered as clearly and as directly as I can, but his point is helpful.

Mr. Field

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this is an increasingly important issue. Obviously several hon. Members look forward to his being able to report further on that matter.

However, my concern was not only about the sharing of pension rights. If I understood the point of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), there are also the housing rights of a divorced wife of a clergyman. The difference between a clerical and a lay marriage is, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that many lay people acquire a house during their marriage. Therefore, at the break-up of a marriage the proceeds of that house can be shared. The first provision that we are considering in the measure is earlier mortgage loans for retirement homes. I also understood the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) to be concerned about the rights of the divorced wife to the new benefit or to the spread of the benefit that we are discussing tonight.

Sir William van Straubenzee

I hope to give the direct answer tonight with regard to the benefit that we are discussing. Such a former wife does not have a right. But as we progress—I cannot see into the future—to extend that kind of provision I can see that the possible interest of a former wife becomes a bigger factor. The reason why I cannot foresee such a thing is that this is dependent on expenditures. These are heavy commitments and I must not mislead the House into expecting major advances in a short time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. I do not brush it under the carpet and I shall ensure that it is carefully and sympathetically considered at the appropriate next stage.

10.26 pm

Mr. Frank R. White (Bury and Radcliffe)

May I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) on the manner in which he has presented this amendment measure. The official Opposition welcome the initiative taken by the Church of England to provide more adequately for the retirement of the clergy, deaconesses and lay workers. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Church has always sought to ensure that its employees receive provisions comparable with the secular world, but the provisions of this measure go beyond the normal retirement provisions and can be said to be a positive example to other employers which I hope they will emulate.

I turn now to the divorced wives issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He will recall that in the ecclesiastical committee the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) raised the issue and also agreed that despite the fact that he was not a member of the general synod he had not raised it at the general synod when the debate on this issue took place. I accept at once that the issue had come only recently to his attention. I would say that people reading of our proceedings and recognising the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Wokingham would probably provide a sympathetic ear to the hon. Member for Eye when he seeks to raise the issue at the next meeting of the general synod or at the appropriate time. In return, I am sure that the House would welcome some moves on that basis.

The problems of those required to live in job-related accommodation go far beyond the clergy. With the present cut-back in local authority housing schemes it may be that the Church of England is pointing to the radical way ahead. I welcome its radical approach 'to the problem which will benefit its employees. On behalf of the official Opposition I welcome the measures.

10.29 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

It is a few days now since the House discussed the remuneration of Members of Parliament and the pensions paid to them. It is within the general framework of that debate and following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) said that I shall make a few remarks on this significant measure.

During the past few days it has been announced that clergy stipends are to be raised to £4,900 a year. Therefore, the figure of £3,060 as the pension base is substantially over half the basic stipend now to be paid. If ever there were justice, this is it. What will be the position for clergymen, their wives and families if they are asked to live on such a low stipend? If we add to that the fact that pensions do not become payable in some circumstances until the age of 70, we are asking a great deal of that section of the community which has entered the profession, if I may call it a profession, and accepted God's call to minister in his Church but not for reasons of remuneration. Laymen and others concerned with these matters can push their self-sacrificing attitudes too far.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham will bear in mind, if the matter is raised in synod in future, that surely the age at which a pension is paid should be brought down. That is as important as paying as substantial a sum as possible. I accept that many clergymen today come into Holy Orders at a later stage in life than happened in the past. There are excellent clergymen in many parts of the country who have done other jobs in teaching, manual work, and so on, who come to the Church late in life—sometimes at a very late age. They may have worked in that capacity for only a few years by the age of 70, when they retire on pension. Might I ask my hon. Friend whether at that stage they retire on full pension? Or is there a graduated element to it?

Sir William van Straubenzee

It may be for the convenience of the House if I answer that question by way of an intervention. My hon. Friend is careful and assiduous in these matters. In taking the age of 70, he may have got into his mind the age of compulsory retirement for those to whom it applies—those who are affected by the appropriate measure after the time of its coming into force. However, I am happy to remind him that the pension age is now 65. It has come down progressively. It is another example of the way in which the Church of England has willingly and gladly taken on an increasing burden. It may help my hon. Friend if I remind him of that fact at this stage.

Mr. Greenway

I thank my hon. Friend. I chose to concentrate on those who go on to the age of 70, because they more or less have to do so, and that is a serious situation. Of course, the age of 65 is the age at which Members of Parliament receive their pension. In my opinion, that is a rather late age, and I am sure that those concerned are aiming to lower the age to 60, if possible, which would give parity with other professions. Let it be a voluntary matter. Let it be available from the age of 60. Let us aim at that as a matter of principle.

I want to express my concern for the many clergymen who feel obliged to work to the age of 70 and well beyond, for reasons of deprivation, because their stipends have been so low, and because they cannot take out a loan, even on the advantageous terms which have been mentioned and which are available. We know that many clergymen have to soldier on. They need such stipends as they can get, and the freehold of the house that goes with the job, for financial reasons. That is particularly sad, although I accept that this measure represents a considerable improvement in that respect. Finally, on the subject of the length of service of many clergymen, it was remarkable to read in the Church Times the other day of two clergymen who died within 24 hours of one another—one, I think, was 97 and the other was 95. I do not think that they had been active recently, but one had continued until the age of 93. I do not suggest that he was compelled to do so, I do not know his personal circumstances, but I should like to pay tribute to the devotion that lies behind a life that is given to the selfless service of others.

10.34 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

I shall make two brief points, one of which echoes what my hon. Friend the: Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said. I should hate to think that we ever discourage people from working beyond a specific age. I regret it if there is anything approaching a compulsory retirement age in the Church. One thinks of the splendid work that has been done by Members of this House, in the other place and in the Church by people who are well over three-score years and 10. We may frequently disagree with the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but we admire him as a parliamentarian. That he spent his seventieth birthday talking through the night is a salutary reminder to us all.

I return to the point that I made in an intervention. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) for his sympathetic rejoinder. The synod should turn its attention to the problem of the divorced wives of the clergy soon as a top priority. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has enormous experience of Church politics. He rightly exercises his influence in the synod. We all admire and respect him for what he has done and for what he is. I hope that he will use his real influence to ensure that the matter is brought to the top of the agenda soon. Any marriage break-up is an occasion of great sadmess. The break-up of a clergy marriage can be a profound disturbance to a whole community. It is often found that the wife who is deserted and neglected has nothing to fall back on. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked about the clergy house. He received an honest answer, as we expect from my hon. Friend. However, that answer showed that the position is not good enough.

We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) for raising the matter in the ecclesiastical committee. Several of us have seen tragic cases at first hand. The Church must recognise that this is a problem, even within itself and turn its sympathetic attention to it so that we have a measure that is as sensible as this one to deal with the problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham explained the provisions lucidly. We have come to expect him to be lucid. I welcome the provision and support it but we should regard it as one step along a road which we have not yet reached the end.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Hier Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.