From the Bishop of Manchester
Sir, - The Revd Peter Hobson's letter (15 May) about
the decision of the Court of Appeal rejecting the claim by the Revd
Mark Sharpe that, as the incumbent of a benefice, he was an
employee significantly misrepresents that decision, not least in
what he writes about the ability of Church of England clergy to
obtain redress against injustice.
Parochial clergy have significant rights, including access to
independent tribunals and courts.
Clergy with the freehold or on Common Tenure can be removed from
office only on grounds of misconduct, incapacity, or (in the former
case) pastoral breakdown, as the result of a decision of an
independent church tribunal or court. Clergy on Common Tenure can,
additionally, be removed on grounds of capability, but if that
happens they have the right to challenge their removal in an
employment tribunal - which has the same range of remedies open to
it as in a case of the unfair dismissal of an employee.
Mr Sharpe made no claim of discrimination, but, as a general
point, clergy in employment, those who hold Crown benefices, and
stipendiary assistant curates are all protected by the Equality
Act. For office-holders where the Act does not apply, the Church is
publicly committed to handling its appointment processes as though
it did.
Mr Hobson also misunderstands the effect of the Court of
Appeal's decision in two other ways. Since the retirement age for
clergy is statutory, he is wrong to imply that, had it found Mr
Sharpe to be an employee, parochial clergy could not be forced to
retire at 70. In any case, clergy are not the only individuals who
are subject to a fixed retirement age: members of the judiciary,
the armed services, and the police are also required to retire at a
specified age.
Mr Hobson's suggestion that the decision in the Sharpe case
shows that the Canons and oath of canonical obedience are
"toothless and unenforceable" takes out of context a point that was
made in the Employment Tribunal judgment. The judge was commenting
on the inability of a bishop to control the day-to-day activities
of a parish priest, provided that the priest stays within the
confines of the doctrines of the Church and obeys the limited range
of lawful instructions that can be given under the Canons. Nothing
in the judgment of the Court suggests that the canons, or the duty
of canonical obedience, are unenforceable.
The majority of parochial clergy themselves said clearly, in the
consultation before the Terms of Service legislation, that they did
not wish to be employees. This decision will be very welcome to
them.
DAVID MANCHESTER
Chair, Remuneration and Conditions of Service Committee
Bishopscourt
Manchester M7 4LE