HL Deb 21 July 1975 vol 363 cc102-6

7.15 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it is now some four and a half years since I began my connection with work upon this Measure, as also upon the next Measure which follows upon the Order Paper, as chairman of the Terms of Ministry Committee of the General Synod. The terms of reference which that Committee inherited from the Church Assembly included the words: To provide for an age beyond which the continued employment of a clergyman shall be by mutual consent.

I think it is important to make clear at the outset that these words form the moral basis of this Measure and that they relate specifically to the tenure of freehold offices within the Church of England.

The ministry of a priest is not a profession from which retirement is, or can be, mandatory, and to describe this Measure as a compulsory retirement measure for clergy would be to commit a serious inaccuracy. Those who are obliged to relinquish freehold offices at the age of 70, which is the age prescribed in the Measure, still have the possibility of continuing to minister (though not of course in the same place) under the Bishop's licence or with his permission to officiate. Indeed, there are not a few who already do so, and I think it is true to say that many of them—and certainly many of their wives—are glad that it is possible to lay down the burdens of administrative responsibility in diocese, cathedral or parish and to devote the remaining years of their ministry to a freer exercise of those spiritual functions for which they were ordained. The point, however, lies in those words "by mutual consent". The occupant of a freehold office is by definition sole judge of his fitness or otherwise to continue in that office until death or serious infirmity do them part. It is this unfettered right which the General Synod has clearly indicated its wish to curtail.

It should not be thought that this constitutes a major problem for the Church in terms of numbers. At the 31st December, 1973, the number of clergymen holding offices listed in the Schedule to this Measure were: age 70 and over, 295; 75 and over, 71; 80 and over, 28. We are not, of course, speaking today of those particular clergymen either, since the rights of "sitting tenants" are in any case protected under Clause 1(4)(d) of the Measure. I simply quote these figures in order to show that the percentage of those clergymen likely to be affected is a very low one and, indeed, probably it will have diminished further by now. For the reduction to 65 of the age at which retirement on full pension is permissible has meant the great majority of clergymen are retiring in fact between the ages of 65 and 68, and that comparatively few are perservering in offices of major responsibility to the age of 70 or beyond.

My Lords, it is not necessary for me to speak at length on the various clauses of the Measure already submitted to the Ecclesiastical Committee, and found expedient. I simply draw attention to the scope of the Measure, which is comprehensive; that is, it includes all dignitaries of the Church from Archbishop downwards, as well as incumbents of benefices, vicars in team ministries and vicars of the London guild churches. Two exceptions to the provisions of the Measure are those who hold office in Royal Peculiars, or those who hold a professorship in a university in conjunction with a deanery or residentiary canonry, as at Christchurch, Oxford. I am advised that no serious problem of excessive longevity in office is likely to arise in either of these cases. The greatest exception is of those actually holding office at the date of commencement of the Measure. In this respect, the General Synod followed the normal constitutional practice in respecting the rights of existing holders of office, and sought to legislate for the future rather than for the present of the Church's ministry.

My Lords, I also drew the attention of your Lordships to the possibilities of extension of office by mutual consent, which are listed in Clause 3 of the Measure. Of course, it was urged in the General Synod that there are exceptions to the rule, men who on their 70th birthday resemble Moses in that "their eye is not dimmed, nor their natural force abated". The General Synod while maintaining the general principle, did not wish to make the date of retirement absolute and inflexible, and therefore provided for a possible extension period, with the agreement of the authorities concerned in each case, of one year maximum for a dignitary and two years maximum for an incumbent. In the latter case, the consent of the parochial church council concerned is to be obtained. This seemed to us an important condition.

In the process of careful scrutiny which this Measure has received hitherto, one objection has appeared the most weighty, and has received much sympathetic consideration from the General Synod and the relevant authorities, which in this case means the Pensions Board and the Church Commissioners. I refer to the question of housing for the clergy on their retirement which, in days of inflated prices, is bound to be a serious matter for those who have spent all the years of their ministry in tied houses and have had little chance of saving against their retirement. This is a matter on which continuing care and forethought are required of the dioceses as well as of the clergy themselves. It is one in which the sympathy of lay people may well be engaged.

Meanwhile, it is important to say that the conditions for loans to obtain mortgages have been steadily improved by the Pensions Board, with the help of the Church Commissioners, during the years in which this Measure has been under discussion. We are not aware that any considerable number of clergymen, though no doubt there are a few, could be held back from retirement at the age they desire through lack of housing available to those of their financial capacity. But in any case we do not think a proper solution of this difficulty lies in the extension of permission to live, very often, in large and unsuitable vicarages without regard to the health of the clergy or, indeed, to the rest of their ministry. The proper remedy lies along the line of providing as generous terms as possible, whether financial or in actual provision of housing, so as to render retirement feasible at an age which on other grounds is deemed to be the right one. To this not insuperable task, when we consider the numbers of those affected, the Church of England is continuing to give careful attention. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)

Lord HAWKE

My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate whether he can confirm a point for me? The Report of the Legislative Committee says that any incumbent retiring under this Measure would be eligible to be the priest in charge. Would the right reverend Prelate confirm that the incumbent could be made the priest in charge, although he had just relinquished the incumbency? This is of some importance to some of the country parishes. In the future they may only get an elderly clergyman to be their incumbent. They may well feel that the ancient one knows is better than the ancient in the bush. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate could confirm my point.

The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER

My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, we were not anxious to encourage what might be called episcopal sharp practice in this matter. The question is really whether the priest in question is deemed to have retired or not. Unless he has retired he will not be in receipt of retirement pension.

My Lords, the other question which arises concerns the patronage of the living. Obviously it would be a question for the patrons of the living, an incumbent having resigned, as to whether they wished to present someone else for the incumbency. If these two conditions were satisfied, there is no objection under the terms of this Measure to the possibility of a former incumbent becoming priest in charge, provided he did so as a retired clergyman.

On Question, Motion agreed to.