|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is good and encouraging to see the Minister bringing her experience to this new role. Does she agree that one of the most important elements in the distinguished history of CDC is that it has had a hands-on approach in which a priority is building up local talent to manage genuinely locally based enterprise? Is it not terribly important to ensure that CDC is not now tempted to go along the road of becoming just another financial institutionanother merchant bank?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords. I thank my noble friend for that question. He is absolutely right to talk of the respect for CDC's responsible handling of business development in developing countries, particularly in poorer developing countries. He should have confidence in the fact that when investments have been sold, this was done responsibly. When CDC sells businesses, it seeks to sell them to companies that are better placed to take them on to the next stage of their commercial development. I refer, for example, to
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, as the Minister is new to her responsibilities, I wonder whether she is aware that investments made by the new management, CDC Capital Partners, which are expected to earn a full risk-adjusted return, cost the British taxpayer £61 million on capital of £406 million two years ago and another £162 million on capital of £521 million last year. At the same time, the traditional agricultural investments, which are being run down, actually made a profit of £11 million. Why is CDC's sole shareholderthe British taxpayergambling on mobile phone networks and Internet ventures? She referred to Rwenzori in Uganda, which is being sold. It is investing in a shopping mall to which ordinary Ugandans cannot afford to go.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I do not agree with the premise of the noble Lord's question. I believe that investments by CDC in services such as telecommunications and energy and in its property portfoliothe noble Lord talked about shopping mallsare very important, particularly so far as concerns energy. That is of benefit to poor peopleboth the rural and urban poor. Telecommunications is also important if we are to enable people to go from a position of simply being sustained in rural agriculture, for example, to medium and long-term economic development for their countries.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I state my interest. I am a member and former official of the union, MSFnow Amicusto which a number of clergy belong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, DTI officials have met Church authorities from different faiths and representatives of the clergy from the Amicus union to discuss the employment status review. We are aiming to publish a discussion document on employment status, which will include the issue of the status of the clergy, before the end of July.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. However, does he agree that in the 21st century it is unacceptable for any group of employees to be outside the provisions of employment law, perhaps with no remedy against
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the faiths take the view that being in the clergy is a vocation. It is a spiritual vocation rather than employment and, therefore, office-holder status is more appropriate. Of course, these issues will be debated in the discussion document. However, conformity with the Sex Discrimination Act will not be covered by the discussion document because exemptions relating to the clergy appear in that Act.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have received a stipend and have some responsibility for the clergy and their posts. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept, as I believe he already has done, that it may not be appropriate to extend statutory employment rights to clergy if, for example, it can be demonstrated that to do so would be incompatible with their vocational character of ordained ministry? Is he also aware that the Church of England has already taken significant steps to improve the working conditions of the clergy and that it continues to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as one office-holder to another, I acknowledge what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol says. Indeed, it is the view not only of the Church of England but of other Churches and other faiths that office-holder status is more appropriate. But, of course, under those circumstances, there is a certain responsibility on the Churches to provide their own protection for their clergy. I understand that there is some movement towards that in the clergy discipline measure, which will go to the Ecclesiastical Committee shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if clergy receive stipends from religious bodies, can the Minister clarify whether they are regarded as employees, although some may consider that they are working directly for a superior entitytheir Creator?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those who receive stipends are not considered to be employees but office-holders. Of course, some clergy, such as chaplains in the Prison Service or the Armed Forces, are employees in the conventional sense and are serving Mammon rather than God.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the Church may be legally exempt from the terms and conditions of the Equal Pay Act, not providing equal pay is not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation? Would it not be better if the Church were open about its conditions so that we could all see that it was working towards equal pay and equality between the sexes?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, could it be that part of the confusion arises from the distinction between the words "employee" and "worker"? Can the Minister say what stage the review of that distinction, promised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the Second Reading of the Employment Bill on 27th November, has reached? It was promised that the review would take place in the early part of this year but we are now in June. It is a very important issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that that is quite the same issue. The distinction between a "worker" and an "employee" is important but it does not involve the clergy. If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is referring to the review of Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999I believe that she is because she has shown a great interest in this matterthen I can say that we shall be undertaking the review as we agreed.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the clergy's interpretation is that these jobs have a spiritual aspect. But does the Minister agree that they are still jobs and therefore should be subject to the coverage explained by my noble friend? The fact that the Sex Discrimination Act exempts such people means that that Act is lacking in its provisions. Therefore, coverage should be given, regardless of what the clergy say and of what the present Act says. It is inadequate and wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was asked when the discussion document would appear. I answered that it would appear before the end of July. It will cover exactly the points raised by my noble friend Lord Ashley and others. They are legitimate points and they should be responded to properly. It would be wrong for me to pre-judge now from this Dispatch Box what the results of the consultation will be.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government considered the fact that the clergy are taking certain cases to the European Court? It would be rather sad if decisions relating to the clergy were decided by the European Court rather than by
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|