HC Deb 08 June 1992 vol 209 cc13-4
29. Mr. Harry Greenway

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen are (a) owners of the parson's freehold and (b) licensed priests in charge; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison

As at 31 December 1991, there were some 6,500 rectors and vicars with freehold office and nearly 1,300 priests in charge and team vicars.

Mr. Greenway

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the gradual reduction in the number of parsons who own their freehold, and does he agree that the authorities probably intend that that should be so? Does he further agree that we do not want a bunch of vicars who are all yes-men, which we shall have if the freehold is abolished as it appears that it will be?

Mr. Alison

I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the clause relating to parsons' freehold, although he will understand that the General Synod is considering the terms and conditions of the incumbent's basis of work. Part of the difficulty is that frequent requests have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House for some way of estimating the productivity of parsons, which can be done only if the freehold is abolished.

30. Mr. Simon Hughes

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy who are not yet retired (a) hold the living of their parish with no required retirement age, (b) hold the living of their parish, with a required retirement age, (c) are not instituted to any benefice, but only to a limited contractual term of office and (d) minister by virtue of other arrangements.

Mr. Michael Alison

In the parochial stipendiary ministry, of the the approximate 6,500 vicars and rectors with freehold office, nearly 6,000 must retire no later than age 70, although the pensionable age is 65, whereas the remainder have no required retirment age. There are about 1,200 team rectors and vicars with leasehold office and 2,800 priests in charge, assistant curators and parish deacons.

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that this is a rather technical matter. Would I be right in suggesting that, contrary to the view suggested by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), it would be cheaper and would offer better value for money—not for individual priests, but the Church of England as a whole—to move to a system whereby everyone has a contractually fixed period, as opposed to the traditional system whereby people are inducted for life and cannot be moved? If so, is that not the right way for the Church of England to proceed so as to avoid unnecessary expenditure based on historical arrangements?

Mr. Alison

I do not honestly think that there would be measurable financial advantage in changing the basis of the freehold purely in terms of the cost of pensions, partly because the flexibility which already exists between the ages of 65 and 70 gives a continuing option to a number of clergy to do what they want and partly because if there were no freeholds the determination of their retirement age would fall entirely into the hands of the bishops who had licensed the clergy. Also, each case for retirement will be determined on its merits, probably with a good deal of flexibility.