INCUMBENTS (VACATION OF BENEFICES) MEASURE (Hansard, 2 May 1977)

§ The Lord BISHOP of LONDON said
My Lords, I beg to move 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. Those who take note of the Measures which from time to time reach your Lordships' House from the General Synod may be surprised at our dealing with this 809 particular Measure today, since, with certain significant amendments, it is the same Measure as that to which on 21st July 1975, without any debate, this House gave an affirmative assent.
It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to go into the details of the Measure, but the House is entitled to be reminded, in broad principle, of what it attempts to do and why, having come before your Lordships' House in 1975 and received your approval, it comes to you again two years later. The Measure is roughly divided into two parts. Part II replaces the Incumbents Disability Measure 1945, whereby power is already in existence to remove from office, with compensation if necessary, an incumbent who has a freehold and who, through age or infirmity, is incapable of discharging his duties and who cannot be persuaded to retire. There is, therefore, nothing new in that part of the Measure. But it is thought desirable that we should have two Measures rather than one, and, therefore, the earlier Measure is repealed and the substance of it is brought into this Measure.
The rest of the Measure is designed to deal with the situation when, for one reason or another, relationships between an incumbent and his parishioners have completely broken down and it has become impossible for anyeffective pastoral care to be exercised. These cases are, I am thankful to say, exceedingly rare but when they occur they cause deep hurt and widespread scandal.
Generally, in the exercise of his pastoral oversight the Bishop examines the situation, sees all those who are involved in it, and by his pastoral council seeks to find a peaceful solution. But there are the occasional cases when all these efforts fail, when the incumbent refuses to resign and rests upon his freehold, and at present nothing can be done to remedy this unhappy situation. If a clergyman commits an offence he can be charged under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure. If he fails by reason of physical disability, he can be dealt with under the Disability Measure. But if for other reasons things go wrong and pastoral advice proves to be of no avail, nothing can be done.
So far as I know, most of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion—certainly the Church in America—have 810 machinery to bring about what is called a Dissolution of Pastoral Relationships. This Measure provides the Church of England with similar machinery. Under this Measure, when a complaint has been properly laid it is, under careful safeguards, to be investigated by a diocesan committee of three clergymen and two laymen who are chosen from a panel. If the committee so advises, the bishop must execute a declaration of avoidance and the clergyman must vacate his benefice and receive compensation. This is purposely a gentle and a pastorally-directed Measure. The cases with which it is designed to deal are generally very distressing and they need sympathetic handling, and that is what the Measure provides.
The origins of this Measure go back 11 years when, in 1966, the Convocation of Canterbury, representing the clergy of the Southern Province, asked for a Measure of this nature. In 1967 a commission on the deployment and payment of the clergy failed to gain general acceptance, but a proposal along the lines of this Measure gained substantial support throughout the Church. A subsequent committee on the terms of ministry brought forward proposals similar to those in this Measure, and its basic proposals were approved in 1972. A Measure was given general approval in February 1974. It passed through its revision stages in July 1974 and it received final approval in November 1974. On that occasion a Division was dispensed with by leave of the chairman and the Motion was carried by an overwhelming majority; therefore that Measure came before this House and was given approval. The Measure had its critics, but they carried little weight.
Your Lordships, therefore, may be surprised that the Measure comes before you for a second time. The reason is that when it reached another place certain flaws were discovered which had eluded the careful scrutiny given to the Measure both in the General Synod and in your Lordships' House. Mr. Patrick Mayhew, who declared himself generally in favour of the Measure, pointed out in the other place four shortcomings. He reminded the House that under the Measure the clergyman had a right to make written submissions but no absolute right to give oral evidence to the committee; that the clergyman could object only to two 811 members of the diocesan committee; that there was provision for a quorum of three but no requirement that they should be present throughout the hearing; and that all proceedings were to be in private.
Consequently, the Measure failed to receive the necessary resolution in another place. It was recognised that there was considerable substance in those criticisms and, since there is no machinery for amending a General Synod Measure once it has received final approval, it was necessary that a new Measure should be prepared and passed through all its stages in the General Synod, incorporating the matter that had been criticised. Mr. Mayhew's criticisms have now all been met in the Measure. His right to give oral evidence is rectified in paragraph 13(1) of the Schedule; under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the present Measure the incumbent may object to as many members as he likes and appeal to the chancellor of the diocese until the point is reached where there are only sufficient members left on the panels to constitute the diocesan committee. There is also a right of objection to members of the provincial tribunal which allows appeal to the vicar general of the other Province. In the new Measure there is no provision at all for a quorum, which means that all members must be present throughout the hearing. Finally, the Measure gives the incumbent the right to ask for oral evidence to be heard in public, according to paragraph 14(2) of the Schedule.
While the Measure was being reexamined, it has also provided for an objection that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, in the Ecclesiastical Committee sitting on the first Measure. He criticised that earlier Measure because it gave the Synod power to alter the composition and procedure of committees and of tribunals by Statutory Instrument using a Negative Resolution procedure. This point is remedied in this Measure in Clause 18(3) where such rules require an Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament. The new Measure passed through all its stages of the General Synod—general approval, revision and final approval—in February, July and November 1966, and comes before your Lordships' House again for an Affirmative Resolution.
812 There is, however, an unusual feature of the second appearance of this Measure to which I must, in fairness, draw the attention of your Lordships. The earlier Measure passed through all its stages—admittedly it had its critics, but no Divisions were demanded —and it received overwhelming support on final approval. The second Measure—amended, and admittedly an improvement on the first Measure, in that it increases the safeguards for the clergy —was generally approved without serious challenge. On the revision stage, the one Amendment which was moved on the Floor of the House failed to receive the necessary support and so lapsed; yet, when it came up for final approval in November 1976, there was a considerable minority in the House of Clergy against the Measure. The House of Bishops carried it by 26 votes to 6, a majority of 20; the House of Laity carried it by 131 to 43, a majority of 88; but the House of Clergy carried it by 93 votes to 87. a majority of only six.
It is difficult for me to comment on this unusual state of affairs. It is strange that a Measure, which was the outcome of a demand by the clergy themselves in 1966, which was required generally by the Church in 1967, which was recommended by a committee in 1972, which passed through all its stages in 1974 and which was agreed on general approval and revision stage in its amended form in February and July 1976, should have provoked such a strong reaction in November 1976. Possibly it was due to the fact that it was a new Synod which considered the second Measure and its members were unaware of the volume of thought and discussion which had preceded the Measure. Possibly it was thought to be a challenge to the parson's freehold. Anyway, I can only say to your Lordships that I believe that these misgivings have no substance.
As in all ecclesiastical legislation, the Measure contains many safeguards, and I do not believe it would or could ever be used to persecute a clergyman or to remove him improperly from office. But I think your Lordships should be reminded that when an impasse has arisen in a parish—when, through incompatibility or other reasons, relationships between parson and people have irremedially broken down, despite every pastoral effort to mend them —the people who have to carry the burden 813 of distress and scandal are mainly the bishop and the laity; the bishop because he finds himself impotent to put right a situation in which he shares, since every parish is his cure as well as that of the parish priest, the laity because they are deprived of the ministry of their parish priest. The House of Bishops and the House of Laity voted strongly in favour of the Measure.
I do not believe for one moment that the Measure will affect the parson's freehold. If anything, it will commend it, for I cannot think it is to the credit of the Church or of the clergy that, when, for one reason or another, pastoral work in a parish has virtually come to a standstill, there should be no means to remedy the situation in the last resort. In a pastoral setting, this Measure provides the remedy that is so greatly needed, and I ask your Lordships' House to give it an Affirmative Resolution.

§ Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR
My Lords, after that powerful speech in favour of the Measure by the right reverend Prelate, I feel that it would be unfortunate if, for a second time, the Measure were to go through the House without debate. I should like, as a temporal Lord, to give my strong support to the right reverend Prelate for this Measure and for the necessity of the Church being armed with some procedure by which a situation such as the right reverend Prelate has described can be tackled.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the Measure has been greatly improved in the two-year interval and, indeed, I feel that I myself carry some sort of guilt in that, two years ago, the original Measure went through the House without notice being taken that there was no right of personal appearance guaranteed to the clergyman whose conduct was in question. We owe a good deal to another place for having taken action which required the General Synod to rectify that.
814 I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the cases in which this Measure may need to be used are few, but it is most important, in my judgment, that there should be adequate machinery within the Church to ensure that the situation within such a parish is not allowed to fester any longer. In the average case I am sure that non-official action should suffice to clear up the difficult ties but, as the right reverend Prelate said, there are cases when the difficulties have gone on for so long that opinion on both sides has hardened, and it is impossible under existing law for anybody to take effective remedial action.
The result of a breakdown of the pastoral relationship is not confined to the parish in question. In that parish, it will lead to an empty church, but the sorry situation will become known a long way beyond the boundaries of that parish, and people, whether or not they be churchmen, will repeatedly ask themselves why it should be that the Established Church appears to have no power to rectify an unhappy situation of that kind. That, I am sure, is part of the scandal to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
Not only that. A breakdown of the pastoral relationship means that, in a parish consisting of a village or a small town, not only do the people not receive the pastoral care which is their due, but they will also suffer from a sad lack of leadership. In my submission as a layman—though perhaps I am trespassing on other people's ground here—it is important that, in a village or a small town, the vicarage should be giving positive support to all local projects which appear to be for the good of the community, whether it be that the village should take seriously its efforts to win the best-kept village competition, or whether it be that the place needs a new village hall which can be obtained only if there is united support for the idea throughout the parish. The secular as well as the spiritual life of the village as a whole suffers handicap if a situation such as the right reverend Prelate has described is allowed to continue indefinitely. That is why I am certain it is right that Parliament should support the General Synod in making a change in the law.
In my former local government days, there was a story of a newly elected 815 councillor who, by way of conversation, asked the mayor, "How long has the town clerk been with us?" The mayor replied gloomily, "He is not with us; he is against us!" That is a clash which under the law can be resolved because the council will have power to terminate the town clerk's appointment if there seems to be no other way. However, in the case of the Church, in parishes where this lamentable situation has arisen, as the right reverend Prelate has explained, there is no power anywhere to enforce some change or improvement.
Your Lordships must not imagine that the difficulties are always the fault of the incumbent. In the case of the town clerk, it may have been the fault of the town clerk or of the mayor, and very likely it was a hit of both. This is not a Measure aimed against the clergy; it is a measure aimed at the good of the place as a whole. That is why I feel that your Lordships should not treat this as exclusively a matter of interest to the Lords Spiritual or the clergy. It concerns us all and I, who during my lifetime have had the experience of living in a parish which has been through this very sad trouble, should like most strongly to support what the right reverend Prelate has said.

Viscount MONCK
My Lords, may I join my noble friend in supporting very strongly the Measure so ably proposed by my very old friend the right reverend Prelate. I happen to know a parish not far from where I live, though not, thank God! my own, where the existence of such a Measure could be a godsend, and I trust that your Lordships will pass this Measure without dissent.

§ Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH
My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate whether there would be any right of appeal from the decision of the five-member committee?

§ The Lord Bishop of LONDON
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, this is a matter that concerns not only the incumbent himself but also the laity and the welfare of the whole parish. As 816 regards the question put by the noble Baroness, there is no appeal from the decision of the Committee. However, the noble Baroness will remember that, before the matter can even come to the Committee, it will have had to be subjected to an inquiry by the Archdeacon, for the Bishop is directed to tell the Archdeacon to take such steps as he considers approppriate to promote better relations between the incumbent and his parishioners and to remove the causes of their estrangement. If he fails, then it is a committee of three clergymen—three fellow parish priests—and two laymen which has to examine the situation. It was thought right that there should not be an appeal to, say, the Bishop, because he would be able to override the opinion of a committee that had most carefully and pastorally gone into the situation. Therefore, we felt that this was the right way in which this matter should be dealt with.