INSPECTION OF CHURCHES (Hansard, 3 February 1955)

§ Sir John Crowder (Finchley)

I beg to move, That the Inspection of Churches Measure, 1954, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. This Measure is the direct result of the recommendation of the Commission appointed by the Church Assembly in 1951 to advise on the problems connected with the repair of churches. The Commission recommended that every church should be inspected by a qualified architect at least once in every five years, and pointed out that if this had been done in the past considerable sums of money could probably have been saved. Hon. Members will appreciate that it was impossible to do anything of this sort during the war, so I suggest that it is, therefore, all the more necessary to do it now.

The good work done by archdeacons in carrying out the duty laid upon them by the constitution and canons of 1603 to survey the churches under their jurisdiction once in every three years was acknowledged, but it was pointed out that few, if any, of them had the necessary technical qualifications for carrying out a full inspection as an architect would be able to do.

The Assembly accepted this recommendation and a Measure was prepared to give effect to it. During the course of its passage through the Assembly the ultimate object of the Measure was never disputed, but there was considerable discussion as to the best method of attaining it and as a result the Measure underwent substantial changes of detail. It finally 1409 emerged in the form in which it is now before the House.

Every diocese is required to establish within three years of the passing of the Measure a scheme which will provide for the regular inspection of the churches in the diocese, but it is given considerable latitude as to the details of the scheme itself. It is hoped that in this way every diocese will be able to solve the problem in the best way suited to its own particular requirements and can make arrangements both as to finance and the appointment of architects which will prove workable and effective.

Although there was some criticism of the Measure, particularly on the part of one bishop who felt that it would be extremely difficult to administer in rural areas, the objections were never at any time pressed to a division. Full details of the effect of the various Clauses are given in the Report of the Legislative Committee of the Assembly, which is published as an appendix to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I hope the House will feel that this Measure is one to which it can give assent, because if these churches are inspected from time to time it will be possible for the diocese to get repairs done before greater damage occurs from beetle and other pests which do so much harm to our churches.

§ Mr. Tom Driberg (Maldon)

I beg to second the Motion.

This is really a practical and economical Measure. Enormous sums are being asked for, rightly and inevitably, for the repair of our historic churches, which are a national treasure and appreciated by many people other than those who worship in them. If this Measure is put into effect, as it is believed that it can be, within a very few years, there could be enormous savings in the amount of money that would otherwise ultimately have to be spent on repairing damage that has perhaps been overlooked and neglected.

The hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) has already indicated that it is a Measure of economy and I gather that assurances have been given that it is in every sense practicable. There are in most dioceses at any rate, enough architects to go round—which some people 1410 might have questioned—and the expense will not be so very great. It will be quite reasonable.

Perhaps I might enter one slight caveat: it is only the Preamble to the Measure and not Clause 2 itself that makes it clear that the architects are to inspect only the actual fabric of the church. This is, however, a point which should be borne in mind by the diocesan authorities and the architects. Not all architects are experts on ecclesiastical architecture as such, and we certainly do not want architects who are not experts in ecclesiastical affairs meddling with the interior decorations or the liturgical ornaments of our churches. I have pleasure in seconding the Motion.