HL Deb 16 July 1993 vol 548 cc508-12

4.35 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of St. Albans rose to move, That this House do direct that in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this legislation, in the form in which it is before the House today, was something which the General Synod was able to accept as entirely non-controversial—unlike some other legislation which has been going through—so much so that, in the final stage of its progress through the Synod, there was not a single vote against it. It is also a significant and much needed piece of legislation from the Church's point of view, and your Lordships might therefore find it rather surprising if I go on to say that it will need to be used only in rare cases—indeed, the fewer cases where it as needed, the better pleased we will be.

Despite the hour, I feel I owe it to your Lordships to explain briefly the nature of the Measure and the amendments it contains. It deals with situations where a major problem arises in a parish, not because of grave misconduct on the part of the rector or vicar—because the Church has its own disciplinary procedures for dealing with those—but because either the rector or vicar has a serious health problem and may need to be removed from office, or there is a serious breakdown in the relationship between him and the parishioners. In that type of case, where it is clear that the work of the Church cannot go forward effectively, the Church needs to be able to take some action to solve the problem, and the Synod attempted to set up a mechanism for doing so by a Measure in 1977. That laid down a carefully worked-out procedure and provided for a judicial body to investigate the situation and to recommend to the bishop what should be done to resolve it, with the possibility, as a very last resort, of recommending that the rector or vicar should be required to leave the parish, even though he held the freehold of the living, though with generous compensation.

Unfortunately, that 1977 Measure, like many new attempts to tackle problems which have not been dealt with before, was found to have some drawbacks. Some of the procedures It laid down were not entirely satisfactory, and the whole question of compensation also created serious difliculties. Above all, the 1977 Measure did not lay sufficient emphasis on trying to achieve a reconciliation between the rector or vicar and his parishioners in cases where the relationship between them had broken down, and that is the first thing the Measure now before your Lordships sets out to do.

In particular, it provides that before the legal process is set in motion there should be a carefully structured reconciliation process, following a code of practice laid down by the House of Bishops. The bishops have already published a draft of the code, which is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report but which the bishops have now expanded a little to take on board some suggestions from the Ecclesiastical Committee itself; among other things the code provides for a third party who is acceptable to both "sides" to act as a conciliator, and for the parties to have a trial period of working together again where that seems desirable.

The Measure also improves the procedure under the original 1977 legislation in a number of important ways. I will not weary your Lordships with describing all of them; but one example is that in ill-health cases the tribunal will now have power to direct that the rector or vicar concerned should have a proper medical examination, and can draw the appropriate inferences if he refuses to have one. Another example is that in cases of the breakdown of the relationship between the rector or vicar and the parishioners it will now be possible to withdraw the proceedings even after they have started, and we will no longer have the problem which exists under the 1977 Measure that once the procedure has reached a certain stage the only thing which can stop it is the rector or vicar resigning.

These are all very helpful and positive changes. However, I think it is only right that I should deal briefly with three points which concerned a small minority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The first is that a few members of the committee thought we should change to a system more like the law on unfair dismissal which applies in secular employment, and that the clergy should have clear performance criteria, with dismissal as the penalty if they failed to meet up to those requirements. It is most important that the Church should do everything it can to help and encourage the clergy to work effectively, and that we should not hesitate to adopt ways of doing that which are used in the secular world where they would be helpful. We are already making progress on that front—for example, a group has already been set up to begin considering the terms and conditions of service which apply to the clergy.

But the work of a clergyman in a parish is a special kind of calling which takes special qualities and needs the active co-operation and support of parishioners. The parishioners themselves are not employees of the Church but partners with the clergy in carrying forward the Church's mission. Cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with cases where an employee is deserving of dismissal. What we are talking about in the Church is human relationships, and what is needed is a procedure for putting the relationship back on its feet and only as a very last resort putting it to an end and requiring that the clergyman concerned leave the parish.

A few members of the Ecclesiastical Committee were also concerned about the compensation provisions in the Measure. In cases of ill-health where a rector or vicar has to resign, he receives the same pension and other benefits as any other member of the clergy who retires because of ill health. This Measure does not change that. But the original Measure also provided for very generous compensation in cases of a serious breakdown of relationships—so generous in fact that many dioceses could not afford it and the clergy who received it had no incentive to try to find any other work. That was clearly not a satisfactory situation, because it is inconceivable that a clergyman would be removed from office under the 1977 Measure on the grounds of a breakdown of the relationship between him and his parishioners unless there was some degree of fault or failure on his part.

What the new Measure and the amendment proposed today set out to do is to strike a balance between treating the rector or vicar concerned justly and fairly and doing what is reasonable in the interests of the Church and of the lay people who have to contribute to the Church's finances. It has done that by providing that the rector or vicar and the diocese are free to agree whatever compensation terms they wish—and we would certainly wish to encourage dioceses to be generous where the clergyman concerned has special needs, for example, for retraining—but that if they fail to agree he should receive compensation in the form of reasonable financial support and help with housing costs for a reasonable period. The details of that are spelt out in Schedule 2 to the Measure. The clergy in the Synod, as well as all the other members, accepted that that did provide a reasonable level of compensation and struck a proper balance between the interests of all concerned, and a large majority of the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee agreed with them.

Finally, a few members of the Ecclesiastical Committee felt that the new definition of a serious breakdown of a pastoral relationship which appears in the new Measure was too wide and would leave almost any rector or vicar open to attack. In point of fact, the original 1977 legislation contained no definition at all, but simply spoke about "serious breakdown", which made it very difficult to interpret. What the Synod has done now is to tighten that up considerably by providing that the breakdown of relationship provisions are to apply only, where the situation is impeding the whole mission of the Church of England in the parish". That means, for example, that the legislation cannot be invoked for a trivial dispute or for a disagreement between the rector or vicar and a small minority of the parishioners.

The new definition also highlights the real purpose of the Measure, which is to further the mission of the Church of England in the parishes. As I have already explained, the Synod wholeheartedly accepted it as something which would help to achieve that aim, and I would invite your Lordships to do the same.

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

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel at a quarter-to-five in the afternoon, I apologise on his behalf. I believe that he has also made this known. As noble Lords are aware, he takes a deep interest in these matters and has authorised me to say that he has not only no objection to the Measure but warmly supports it.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I was strongly in support of the majority view of the changes suggested by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Albans. I hope that they will be accepted without any further quibble.

On Question, Motion agreed to.