| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as office-holders the clergy do not have contracts of service and so fall outside the scope of employment protection legislation. The Government currently have no plans to change the position, but Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the coverage of certain employment rights to individuals not currently covered by it, and the Government are committed to publishing a discussion document on employment status.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. Is he aware that there has already been an internal review by the Archbishop's Council which recommends that stipends should become salaried and part of a remuneration package for clergy? Does my noble friend agree that that is a substantial step on the way to acknowledging their status as employees? Is it not right, surely, that other employment cover should follow from that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as a simple Minister for Science I am rather nervous about coming between God and the Bishops and clergy. While technically the clergy are employed by God, I believe that in this context God would want to be a good employer. The issue is one that we are likely to want to discuss with the Bishops and leaders of other faiths in producing the discussion document.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that the office-holder status of the clergy is more suited to the particular nature of ordained ministry than employed status with contracts of employment and self-employed status, neither of which is entirely appropriate in this particular case? Is the noble Lord also aware that all clergy are more than welcome to join the MSF union if they choose to do so? Does the Minister realise that the Church of England is presently engaged in a study of these matters to see whether it can find a better balance between security of tenure and employability for all clergy to enable them better to carry out their mission and ministry? While we are grateful for the Minister's reference to the discussion paper, can he say when that document will be forthcoming, because I understand that it will enable these issues to be taken forward in relation to all faith communities?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the review will start at the beginning of next year. We shall discuss with leaders of all faiths the issues to be covered in that review. I believe that that is the place to set out some of the issues to which the right reverend Prelate refers in order to obtain the views of everyone on these important issues.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, are the Government prepared to pay attention to the proposed clergy discipline Bill to ensure that when subject to discipline the clergy are given the same civil rights as any other employee? In other words, will the Government take note of that particular matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of employment rights will be taken into consideration in the discussion document. I do not believe that that would necessarily extend to all questions of disciplinary rights, but we shall consider that point as we formulate the document.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that there are some exemptions from the Equal Pay Act, one of which is the clergy. Bearing in mind that many women are now entering the clergy, and will I am sure do so in future, does my noble friend believe that this is an opportune time to reconsider that Act particularly in relation to its exemptions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the discussions progress, I am sure that all such issues will
be raised and that we shall look carefully to see whether it would be productive to take them forward at this time.
Lord Newby: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a clergy spouse. Once the discussions are under way, will they include an examination of the entire raft of long-established and, in some cases, outdated principles which apply to the employment of the clergy, not the least of which is the system of the vicar's freehold?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only reiterate that such issues are those which we shall consider. In the light of the views expressed by the House, we shall obviously give a great deal of time to the preliminary discussions.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I refer to Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act, which the Minister has also mentioned. The section gives the Secretary of State powers to define those persons who are entitled to rights under the Act. However, subsection (5) of the section states that the Secretary of State can do that either by amending Acts of Parliament or by amending statutory instruments, or Xotherwise". Can the Minister tell the House what the word Xotherwise" means in this context? Does it mean that the Secretary of State would be able to bypass Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that this point was debated at great length between the noble Baroness and myself at the time when the Bill passed through this House. I cannot remember exactly what Xotherwise" referred to in that context. However, I undertake to write to the noble Baroness to remind her of the interpretation.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, with regard to the general attitude of the Church of England to the role of employee representation, is my noble friend aware that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury gave wider recognition to the role of the trades union movement in his address to the Trades Union Congress held in Brighton four years ago? That address was greatly appreciated and very well received.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am glad that on that occasion it was possible to pay such a compliment to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Afghan Women's Rights
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What consideration they have given to ensuring that women have full civil rights in a future Afghan state.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, one of the most appalling features of the Taliban regime has been its treatment of women, including restrictions on women's access to healthcare and education. Afghan women have participated in the talks held in Bonn, which today have led to agreement on the framework for the establishment of an interim administration in Afghanistan. We welcome the agreement and expect any future government to respect internationally acknowledged norms of behaviour towards their own citizens including, of course, women.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can she give any further information as regards the progress being made in relation to the main claims that I believe the women of Afghanistan want to make; namely, the right to receive an education, the right to work and the right to participate in public life in their own country, as they enjoyed before the time of the mujaheddin? Can the noble Baroness further tell the House when those claims will be considered and in what context?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a United Nations-sponsored conference is to be held in Brussels tomorrow under the auspices of UNIFAM. It is extremely important that we consult the women of Afghanistan themselves about their priorities. We have heard a little about those views, but they have tended to come from Afghan women in the diaspora or those living overseas from Afghanistan at the moment. The conference, which is being held on 4th and 5th December, will include some 50 women's groups from Afghanistan, the refugee camps and neighbouring camps, and further will provide an important opportunity to gather together what exactly are those women's real priorities. I suspect that not only will issues surrounding education, the right to work and public participation in the life of Afghanistan be raised, but also matters such as the supply of clean water, food for children—one in four of whom die before the age of five—and basic healthcare, which most of us would think of as basic human rights.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in 1977, 15 per cent of all the legislators in Afghanistan were women? On 2nd November, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, stated that:
- XIt is the responsibility of the entire international community to ensure that the women of Afghanistan are fully involved".—[Official Report, 2/11/01; col. WA 186.]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have reasonable grounds to believe that a new broad-based government will respect the basic human rights of women. I think that it is important to remember that
three out of the 28 participants in the talks held in Bonn have been women. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether any members of the interim government are likely to be women, but that too is possible. When I left the Foreign Office today, the names of the representatives for the new interim government had not been announced. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend Clare Short, along with other women development Ministers from Europe, have made it clear that we expect and hope that women will become involved in the public life of Afghanistan.
One of the basic building blocks to put in place is to ensure that the education of girls goes ahead. We should not forget that since 1996, as a matter of public policy rather than through poverty, girls have been excluded from the Afghan education system, such as it is. Those fundamental building blocks have to be put into place. However, of course I agree very much with the purport of the noble Baroness's comments.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page