§ 7.37 p.m.
§ The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Power) Act 1919, the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the history of this Measure is similar to that of the one I have just moved. As long ago as 1966 the Convocation of Canterbury, that is to say, the clergy themselves, passed a resolution affirming their confidence in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure for discipline cases, but declared there was a need to provide a means whereby, when it was in the interests of himself or his parish, an incumbent could, after due 107 inquiry, be removed from his benefice, and could be offered a suitable post elsewhere. There were some highly unsatisfactory cases in the late 1960s, and the dissatisfaction arising from such cases led to a request from the Church Assembly that a new procedure should be devised to provide for the dissolution, under certain circumstances, of the pastoral relationship between an incumbent and his cure.
§ My Lords, the present measure is based on proposals presented to the General Synod in 1972. In 1974 it passed all the necessary stages in the General Synod without a division. It is to be distinguished from the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure which remains in force, in that this Measure does not cover legal proceedings against offences of a criminal nature. It has been understood throughout to be legislation of an essentially domestic and pastoral character, while at the same time care has been taken to permit legal representation where required, and not to deny the claims of natural justice, particularly to those whose livelihood may be at stake.
§ This Measure deals in its first Part with those cases of serious pastoral breakdown which may be attributable to faults or disagreements on the side of an incumbent or of his parishioners or both, and to this subject I shall return later on. The second Part covers cases of disability of incumbents, arising from age or infirmity of mind or of body, and since it subsumes the earlier provisions of the Incumbents (Disability) Measure 1945 the latter is thereby repealed. Two other Measures relating to dignitaries, the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure 1949 and the Bishops (Retirement) Measure 1951, since they contain certain special features, were, however, left in force. The scope of this Measure, therefore, applies to rectors or vicars with cure of souls; it does not apply to non-beneficed clergy, such as assistant curates or even curates in sole charge, since in their case a licence granted by the Bishop is also terminable by him at any time.
§ I think it will be evident to your Lordships that the phrase "serious pastoral breakdown" is one that is hard to define with any kind of precision. The General Synod has endeavoured to see that its terms are not drawn so widely as to enable any disgruntled group of 108 parishioners to use this Measure as an instrument for attacking an incumbent whose only offence may be that he is a prophetic Christian, or even that he has shown too much zeal for innovation at the beginning of his ministry in that parish. So it is provided in Clause 1 that the only parties who may make request for an official inquiry under the Measure are the incumbent himself (if he deems himself sufficiently aggrieved by the conduct of some or all of his parishioners), the Archdeacon, or a majority of the lay members of the parochial church council, that is to say, those who have direct responsibility for the affairs of the Church in that Parish. The option is not open to any chance group of disgruntled parishioners, and the Measure further stipulates that the Bishop may refuse an inquiry, if he thinks fit, where the incumbent has held his Office for less than three years. In these ways the Synod has sought to safeguard the Church against a spate of frivolous or hasty charges which might arise, for example, during a time of drastic pastoral reorganisation.
§ It may be asked—and indeed it was asked more than once in the General Synod—whether such a Measure as this is really required at all, and, if so, whether its provisions need to be quite as elaborate as they are. To the first question I would reply very readily that I hope this is a Measure that would very rarely be used. Where cases of serious pastoral breakdown occur, it is often, though not always, the right solution that the incumbent should place his resignation in the hands of the Bishop. Since he has the freehold, he is not obliged to do so, but sometimes the very existence of this Measure and the prospect of an inquiry being set on foot might persuade him that resignation was the best course. In that case, he would still be eligible for another appointment, or, if none were forthcoming, he would be entitled to some compensation in the same way as one who resigns after the result of such an inquiry.
§ The answer about the elaborate nature of the Measure's provisions is that if it is once decided that such a Measure is desirable at all, it is not good enough for it to be the bluntest kind of sledge-hammer for cracking a nut. In order that justice may be seen to be done, and in order 109 that categories of jurisdiction may be kept clear, the Measure has distinguished between diocesan committees of inquiry and provincial tribunals, bodies which have different degrees of legal participation, so to speak, according to the nature of the case. In the less formal cases it will suffice for a diocesan committee of inquiry to be formed, consisting of three clerical and two lay members, and this committee shall have power to appoint a barrister or solicitor to advise it. But, if the incumbent concerned feels that his rights will be insufficiently safeguarded when appearing before such a committee within his own diocese, he will be entitled to opt instead for what is called the provincial tribunal, and the latter body is to consist of five persons appointed by the Vicar-General of the province concerned and is to have as its chairman either the chancellor of a diocese or a Queen's Counsel who is also a communicant member of the Church of England.
§ I shall not weary your Lordships by entering into any greater detail regarding these two options, which are set out clearly enough in the Schedule to this Measure, but I think it proper that I should pay some attention to one point of criticism which was made by the Ecclesiastical Committee concerning Clauses 18 and 19. These clauses give the General Synod power to amend the rules governing the constitution and proceedings of the committees and tribunals to which I have referred. I confess that we were in some difficulty here. The General Synod has often been advised that it should not take up Parliament's time with Measures which deal with comparatively minor points, but that we should confine ourselves to matters of broad principle. We were, therefore, advised that if changes in incidental matters need to be made in future, it should be possible to make them by way of Statutory Instrument subject to annulment in either House.
§ I can say only that we have no present intention of using this power, and I should like to give the House the strongest possible assurance that we shall not seek to use it to limit or curtail the rights of those individuals, whether clerical or lay, who may have to appear before these committees or tribunals. Rather do we see this power as a means of giving added protection and safeguards, should we find 110 that this is necessary, when the committees and tribunals are actually at work; and it needs to be remembered that they have not yet been seen in operation.
§ I hope that I have already said enough in my speech to convince your Lordships that in framing the Measure we have provided considerable protection for the rights of individuals, and I for one shall be surprised if any further protection proves to be necessary. Your Lordships may find it a little strange that a Bishop speaking about this Measure should have made no reference at all to the part which the Bishop may be expected to play in cases of serious pastoral breakdown. Must he not exercise supreme responsibility in the resolution of such cases within his diocese? The answer is that this is indeed his pastoral responsibility, but that he must exercise it, so far as possible, as a pastor and not as an amateur lawyer or as a combination of judge and jury. For this reason, the Bishop in this Measure is kept in the background at the stage of initiation of an inquiry, in order that he may be as free as possible to play an impartial role in the work of reconciliation which may make an inquiry superflous.
§ On the other hand, where an inquiry has taken place and a report has been made by a committee or tribunal to the Bishop, it is clearly improper that he should ignore their findings or simply do nothing thereafter. Clause 10, therefore, sets out in detail the options that are open to the Bishop, which range from the declaring of a benefice to be vacant (but this only if the report so recommends and if four out of five members of the committee or tribunal support that recommendation) to the milder measure of rebuke to incumbent or to parishioners or both. It may be argued that rebuke is not a term of much legal force, particularly where lay persons are concerned who are not for most purposes under episcopal control. Nevertheless, it seemed to us that without this provision the Measure might seem to be weighted excessively against the clergy; for here, as in matrimonial cases, there are very frequently faults to be found on both sides. My Lords, with the reservation about Clause 18 to which I have already referred, the Ecclesiastical Committee found this Measure to be expedient, and 111 I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
§ Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ [The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 p.m. until 8.0 p.m.]