Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-07-Speech-4-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021107.2.4-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the case of the Reverend Raymond Owen raises a number of interesting, not to say esoteric, points. Members may feel that whether a priest is employed by his or her church or by God is a question that must have been decided decades, if not centuries, ago.
In preparing this report, I took informal advice from leading churchmen, but have only received a formal submission from the Archbishop's Council of the Church of England on 4 November 2002. Not surprisingly, there are certain parts of the report with which they do not agree. I will come back to them shortly.
However, the fundamental questions of principle thrown up by this case include whether members of the clergy should enjoy the same rights as other citizens. As I have made clear in the report, while Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework, I accept that certain types of worker must be dependent on definitions in national legislation and implementation. I also accept that Directive 91/533/EEC, while applying to clergy in some Member States, does not apply in the UK, and that the various directives are vague and imprecise in their reference to workers, employees and the working population. Who falls into which category is frequently left to be defined by national law. Members may be interested to note that while our staff and assistants are clearly employees, we are not covered by any of these definitions.
The conclusions of the report accept and include those of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which is the committee with the competence and expertise on most of the issues raised by the petitioner. I have to say that my opinions, and those of my colleagues in the British Conservative delegation, are somewhat at odds with some of the conclusions reached but after exchanges of views, however, it was clear that the report faithfully reflects the consensus of the committee.
The submission presented by the petitioner highlighted prima facie evidence of shortcomings in the Church of England's procedures. In fairness, I must tell the House that since the committee adopted the report, the Church of England has pointed out that the decision taken was not to terminate Reverend Owen's tenure of office. Rather, it was a decision not to grant an extension beyond the 18-month extension allowed in Section 20 of the 1983 Pastoral Measure.
I should remind the House that as the Church of England is an established church, its rules and regulations form part of the canon of the law in England, although not in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is clearly not the role of either the committee or this House to adjudicate in questions of fact. Equally, it is accepted that the Petitions Committee is not a judicial body and nor should it exercise or try to exercise a quasi-judicial function.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the directives in the area of employment, and in particular the aforementioned Directive 91/533/EEC, are confusing and even inconsistent. Accordingly, the report calls for a review to clarify this position. In parenthesis, this only serves to underline the wisdom of the former Conservative government in opting out of the Social Chapter.
Finally, while we accept that where protection is afforded to workers by European legislation, it should extend as widely as possible. It would be quite wrong for the European Union to try to impose a monolithic structure that would not allow for diversity in cultural, religious and social customs in Member States. This is a sentiment that I am sure will be heartily endorsed, not just in Lambeth Palace, but also in the Vatican.
Therefore it is my sincere hope that, as pointed out in paragraph 12 of the report, the Commission works with Member States to find the means of securing for workers with distinct constitutional status all the employment rights consistent with their national policies as soon as possible to avoid further such confusion."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples