CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 2 May 1957)

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant)
I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
The Bill is mercifully brief and I shall try to be likewise. It has a narrow, limited purpose, namely, to remedy a defect which had been discovered in the Church of Scotland (Property and Endow- 486 ments) Act of 1925. The difficulty with which it deals arises out of Section 36 of that Act, which deals with the reorganisation of church endowments in Scotland. It provides that the property and endowments relating to a particular parish shall be used in the first place to meet the requirements of the parish and the neighbourhood, this redistribution being determined by either the General Assembly or a committee to whom the Assembly may delegate that duty and, secondly, that any remainder of the endowments shall be part of a general fund at the disposal of the General Assembly.
This has, in practice, been a very valuable provision, and it has enabled the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee, under the authority of the General Assembly, to reorganise endowments in various parishes, and to enable more appropriate, more equitable stipends to be provided for the various churches which serve the parishes in question.
There is one limitation in that Section in regard to the reorganisation. That is a proviso which specifies that the power under the Section shall not be used except where a benefice is actually vacant at the time of the passing of the Act in 1925 or becomes vacant at a later date. The intention and the effect of that proviso was to preserve the rights of existing ministers so that their stipends should not be reduced during their incumbency. That safeguard is similar to other safeguards made for existing incumbents in various other parts of the 1925 Act.
This proviso, unfortunately, has had one unintended effect and it arises out of the fact that in certain cases in Scotland we have what we call collegiate charges; that is, two ministers acting in the same church. In the normal case that has presented no difficulty, because in the ordinary way these charges are two separate benefices. That happens, for example, in the Hamilton Old Parish Church. It happens also in Holy Trinity, St. Andrew's. As each charge becomes vacant the endowments relating to that charge can be reorganised under Section 36 of the 1925 Act.
However, there is one case—I think it is the only case, certainly the only one we have been able to discover—where a difficulty has arisen. That is in regard to St. Cuthbert's Church, in Edinburgh. There it has been discovered—and it has meant going back into past history—that this charge, unlike the other collegiate 487 charges, is a single benefice although it has two incumbents. So it is not an ordinary case of two separate charges, but of two ministers holding, as it were, a single incumbency. The result is that under Section 36 of the 1925 Act as it stands it is impossible in practice to deal with the endowments of St. Cuthbert's Church, because for the last thirty years that benefice has never been vacant. There has always been at least one incumbent and unless some very curious coincidence arises, that is bound to continue.
The object of the Bill is to alter that situation and bring St. Cuthbert's into line, as it were. with every parish church in Scotland. This matter was raised by the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee who, with the authority of the General Assembly, approached the Government and represented, very rightly, that this was an anomalous situation and that the anomaly ought to be removed. We have received assurances from the Presbytery of Edinburgh and also from the Kirk Session of St. Cuthbert's, who both unanimously agree that this change ought to be made. So the principle of the Bill, which is designed to overcome the difficulty, has the support of all the church bodies which are directly concerned.
At this stage, I should like to pay a tribute to the late Sheriff Sir Randall Philip, the Procurator of the Church of Scotland, whose assistance and advice were of the greatest help in the preparation of the Bill. It was he who first raised this matter and took a great interest in the subject matter of the Bill. It is a rather tragic coincidence that he should have died on the very day when the Bill in which he took so great an interest came up for its Second Reading. All of us who knew him, and many of us in the House did, will agree that his untimely death is a tragic loss not only to the legal profession in Scotland, but also to the administration of justice there and to the Church of Scotland itself.
The Bill is short, as I have said, and what it does is to provide—we have put it is general terms in case we discover some other case where the same thing would arise—that for the purpose of Section 36 of the 1925 Act a benefice shall be deemed to become vacant on the termination of the last interest of any minister 488 who is an incumbent when the Bill passes into law. That, of course, preserves, as the 1925 Act did, the right of the existing incumbent or incumbents. At the moment in St. Cuthbert's there is only one incumbent, because the other half, as it were, of the benefice is vacant.
In order to make doubly sure, we have to provide for the case not only of the incumbent there at the moment, but of anybody who might be appointed to the other half of the charge before the Bill becomes law. That has been done in the Bill and accordingly existing rights are preserved. The Bill is to bring St. Cuthbert's into line with every other charge in the Church of Scotland.
In these circumstances, I commend the Bill to the House with considerable confidence. It is a Bill of unexceptionable parentage. It puts an end in a common sense way to an anomaly which arose because of an oversight, a very understandable oversight, in the 1925 Act and it has the support of all the bodies in the Church of Scotland which have a direct interest in the matter.

§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
As far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, we have no reason to object to this adjustment being made in the law so far as St. Cuthbert's is concerned. I, perhaps, have a slight personal interest in that I was born in the parish and have had some connections with the area in the years since then.
May I join in paying a tribute to Sheriff Sir Randall Philip? During my term of office as Secretary of State for Scotland, Sheriff Philip performed very considerable services to this House by holding public inquiries, which is a very vital part of our legislation and progress these days. The last time I saw him he was in the House giving evidence before a Select Committee in the manner of the clergy and membership of the House. He represented the Church of Scotland on that occasion. Therefore, he took part, to some extent, in contributing towards the legislation of the House, though he was never himself a Member of it. I am quite sure that all people in Scotland will join with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in agreeing that we have lost a very gallant, learned and honourable gentleman in the passing of Sheriff Philip.
We agree with the Bill, and perhaps it is fortunate that it is not one concerned 489 with another matter which is coming before the Church in the very near future because, otherwise, it might not meet with the same hearty approval from all sections of the House.

§ Mr, John Mackie (Galloway)
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Woodburn
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has, as a matter of fact, already signified at least one opinion of another character. It is indeed fortunate that tonight we are not having to deal with what one might term the shock which has been administered to the history of Scotland, in suggesting that what has existed for nearly 300 years as a fundamental principle of the Church should now be departed from in an entirely novel fashion.
The very fact that so little heat has so far been engendered shows how far the Church has come in leaving the field of political controversy and in enabling the matter that it is now proposing to be considered as one of Church internal discipline instead of one of almost political revolution, as it was at the time of its introduction 300 years ago. Whether it will have as easy a passage as this Bill in the General Assembly, and eventually when it comes before the House, is a matter on which we may not speculate tonight.
However, we hope that whatever may be the outcome of the issue, the Church will not once more become involved in deep political fissures in the community and arouse the passions that existed even up to the early years of our own lives.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that these fissures will not arise on this Bill, which is only to amend Section 36 of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925.

§ Mr. Woodburn
In deference to what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we on this side of the House welcome the Bill and will give it our support.

§ Major Sir Frank Markham (Buckingham)
There is a point in the Bill which I do not like. It is that it removes what is obviously an anomaly which may be of some use. In the Parliamentary life of some use. In the parliamentary life that certain anomalies, such as the office of Lord Privy Seal and other functions, have become of tremendous service to the 490 State or to the Church. This is the last anomaly that is being removed under the terms of the 1925 Act.
I should have thought that there was a great deal of virtue in maintaining this peculiar anomaly of St. Cuthbert's in which there are two positions in the benefices of the church and understandably higher rates of pay which could be given to exceptional men who deserve some form of consideration of that kind. I think that the Bill is unwise, and I am very much in favour of retaining this anomaly so that it can be used, as we have used very similar anomalies in this country, with advantage to the State and the Church.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that the kirk session of St. Cuthbert's is unwise?

§ Sir F. Markham
No, not at all.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
The only question I should like to ask is whether this Bill will go to the Scottish Grand Committee.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised. May I reply to the first one and, with all respect, evade the second?
The suggestion by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) is that the endowment should be used in order to give higher salaries to the better men. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that, and, indeed, without the Bill we could not do that in the case of St. Cuthbert's. The Bill would enable the maintenance of the Ministry Committee to increase the stipend at St. Cuthbert's if this were thought fit. Therefore, I think the point is met in the Bill and I hope, with that in mind, that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
As to what happens at the next stage, I do not think that matter arises on Second Reading; nor is it really a matter for me, but if I may give a sort of off-the-record hint, I think that the answer is "No".