| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.6 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I very much welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He struck exactly the right note, and reflected many of the Select Committee's anxieties as well as our enthusiasm for the Church Commissioners and the confidence that we now have in them.
I pay tribute to Sir Michael Colman. He took on the difficult task of repairing the procedures and the management of the assets under the charge of the Church Commissioners and--perhaps much harder--the task of repairing the commissioners' reputation.
It should be well understood that our most recent report reveals a switch in emphasis from our previous report, which strongly criticised the way in which the Church Commissioners had handled their affairs. That switch in emphasis may have caught some other participants in the debate about Church affairs a little off guard.
I can well understand why the Synod, having been frustrated year after year in its investment policy and by the lack of support for projects that it considered important, should feel that the mismanagement of the assets should herald complete reform and change of the Church Commissioners. That is not the Committee's view. The Committee strongly feels--I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) would endorse this--that the commissioners have repaired themselves effectively and can once again become a firm financial anchor for the Church of England, to the benefit of the Church of England and the whole nation.
The role of the Church Commissioners depends principally on capital. The Church Commissioners are the capital of the Church--the two are indivisible, which is why that capital has such a peculiar status in the minds of those who serve on the Select Committee and, I hope, of those who serve in the House. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby of what he said at the press conference about our report. He said that he would regard any Measure that significantly depleted the capital of the Church Commissioners--apart from the current pension
position--as "inexpedient", and that it would be so regarded by the Ecclesiastical Committee of this House. It is not for me to prejudge any Measure that may come before that Committee, but my right hon. Friend's use of the word "inexpedient" reflected widespread concern in this House.
I endorse the warnings issued by the hon. Member for Birkenhead about going for a major single transfer to try to relieve the commissioners of the pensions obligation. Anyone who has been involved in occupational pensions knows that it is impossible accurately to measure what that obligation is. Moreover, if such a transfer is made, who will be responsible for any resulting deficit, and who will own any surplus? This applies especially to the sort of closed fund that has been mooted to deal separately with historic pension liabilities, while new liabilities are taken on by a different fund.
I also endorse what the hon. Member for Birkenhead said about the type of pension that should be available to clergymen. Traditional occupational pension schemes are a legacy of a more paternalist age when pensions were designed to attract people to certain forms of employment and to keep them there. The idea of portable pensions is relatively new, as is the idea of the personal ownership of pensions.
Public confidence in pensions is not strong at present, so we should not be surprised to find that the clergy worry about their pensions, given the recent history of the Church Commissioners. We want the enthusiastic support of the laity to help to provide the funds for these pensions. That is why I think it would be better to come up with some sort of group personal pension scheme that allowed parishes to see exactly what they contribute to their clergymen's pension funds. It will be much easier to attract the funds if people can see the purposes for which they are used--easier, for instance, than asking parishes to contribute to a general fund of indefinable liabilities that is not owned by anyone in particular.
We are presented here with a huge opportunity to open up new forms of giving to the Church of England, to attract new funds that allow parishes and parishioners to see that they are contributing to the pension of a particular individual. We also want to give clergymen a heightened sense of security. Given the size of their stipends, it may be inappropriate to ask them to contribute to their own pensions, but there should be no obstacle to giving clergymen and women more control over the contributions made on their behalf. That is a more realistic way of controlling liabilities. I refer to an individualised money purchase scheme that enables people to benefit from what they have put in, instead of building up an undefinable liability that may eventually end up on the books of the Church Commissioners, thereby reducing their ability to pay for the work of the Church throughout the nation and especially in poorer parishes.
I reiterate the point about the 1919 settlement and to place on record the assurances given when the Bill was passing through Parliament. Introducing the Bill to the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
I dare to intervene briefly, first to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the way in which he introduced the debate. I join others in thanking him for the tremendous service that he has given to the role of Second Church Estates Commissioner over the years.
I hope that the cardinal objective of those managing the Church of England's investments will always be to maximise those investments. Of course the Church cannot be amoral; it will not want to invest in certain companies or places. But I hope that it will not reduce its property portfolio on the grounds that it wants nothing to do with property. Rather, it should reduce it so as not to depend entirely on one sector of our economy.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that we cannot divorce any discussion of the clergy's pensions from other Church matters. I very much hope that those who allocate the national lottery funds will recognise the importance of conserving the splendour of our ecclesiastical architecture. By that I mean not just our great and wonderful cathedrals but our glorious parish churches--including churches that do not belong to the Church of England.
I have been immensely informed by this debate, but it has brought me once again to the realisation that parishioners must make whatever financial contribution they can to their church. It cannot just be left to the Church Commissioners. I recognise the difficulties: while there may be money in the leafy suburbs, it is hard to come by in city centres. But I would like much more twinning of churches between the leafy suburbs and city centres. I hope that that can be encouraged, although it is obviously a matter of personal priority and commitment in the individual parishes.
"does not take away from Parliament any power which it at present possesses . . . Although there is an increased power of doing work better, I am by no means anxious to suggest that it is freeing us from State control in its proper place. It does not do so."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June 1919; Vol. 34, c. 989.]
17 Jul 1996 : Column 1096
Subsequently, in 1935 a report from the Archbishops' Commission summarised the impact of the Act--I quote from paragraphs 36 to 39 of our report--as follows. The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act
"left constitutional relations of Church and State substantially unaltered. The sole legislative authority after, as before, its passing is the King acting by advice of the two Houses of Parliament. What the Enabling Act did was to offer an alternative process by which Parliament could determine the advice which it should give the King. The Church Assembly"--
the predecessor of the Synod--
"is entitled to 'frame legislation'; if it does so, Parliament considers whether or not it shall advise the King to give effect to the legislation so framed."
Now comes an important assurance:
"Moreover, the old power of legislating by Parliamentary Bill without any reference to the Church Assembly remains unimpaired."
It is of course unlikely that Parliament would initiate Church legislation without the consent and involvement of everyone in the Church of England. The quotation dates from 1935, long after the 1919 Act had been passed. At the very least it legitimises the discussion between parliamentarians and members of the Church of England about the appropriate role of Parliament in Church affairs.
12.17 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |