PASTORAL MEASURE

HC Deb 09 May 1968 vol 764 cc727-44

8.19 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

I beg to move, That the Pastoral Measure, 1968, 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. I should say that Her Majesty has given informal approval to the proposal that the appointments to the Redundant Churches Fund to be set up under this Measure should be Crown appointments, and that the Prime Minister is content with the proposed arrangements outlined in Clause 42 of the Measure.

This is the longest Measure ever to be brought before the House for its assent, and it is largely a matter of consolidation. It is based upon two very distinguished Commissions' deliberations. The Ilford Commission, which was chaired by a former distinguished Member of this House, was set up in 1954 by the Church Assembly to attempt to find solutions for the problems caused by the great changes in the population of parishes and other ecclesiastical areas which have taken place in the last 50 years. The Second World War gave immense impetus to developments of this kind. The trouble was that there were parallel and often conflicting procedures for dealing with these matters, and it was felt that there was a need to rationalise and clarify the structure of the legislation in the framework of which these changes might take place. It was also felt that improvements suggested by the Ilford Commission should be made.

Then there was the Bridges Commission on Redundant Churches. In 1963, the Church Assembly decided that its proposals should be incorporated in the draft legislation suggested by the Ilford Commission. In 1964, there was the report of Mr. Leslie Paul, making far-reaching proposals for parochial reorganisation. In particular, it recommended the setting up of team ministries for large parishes and of group ministries for groups of parishes. Finally, the Bishop of Thetford's Committee was appointed to consider these recommendations. In 1965, the Church Assembly instructed the Revision Committee of the Pastoral Measure to incorporate them in the Measure, with certain suggested modifications.

That is how this Measure came into being. I make it plain that it was exhaustively debated in the spring and summer sessions of the Church Assembly in 1966, in the spring session in 1967 and in the summer session of 1967 when final approval was given to it by the Church Assembly without a division and with only one dissentient voice. When the Measure came before us, the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses, as Members can read on page 8 of its Report, pronounced that the Measure was "expedient".

As befits a creature of the magnitude and importance of this Measure, its period of gestation was long. But I hope that the House will feel that the labour was not in vain and that this is a real attempt by the Church of England to fit itself for the duties which lie upon it in the second half of the 20th century.

Parts I and II of the Measure deal with the procedure to be followed where pastoral reorganisation is necessary. This is to be effected by pastoral schemes, or, in cases of less importance, by pastoral orders. The main difference between the two is that in the case of a scheme, for the more important matters, the Privy Council is required to give its consent, whereas orders, for the less important matters, can be made by a bishop.

But both schemes and orders are launched in the first place by the Pastoral Committee and the bishop of the diocese concerned in consultation with all concerned—incumbents, pastoral church councils, patrons and planning authorities. The Measure is so designed that this consultation shall take place in the most early formative stages and will be continued throughout the proceeding.

I have said that this is mainly a matter of consolidation, but there are certain important changes, and I am sure that the House would expect me to draw attention to the more important of them. There is a shortened procedure for holding benefices in plurality. In future, benefices so held will continue to be held even when there is a vacancy unless either the bishop or the pastoral church council, by notice, terminates the plurality. Then the team and group ministries to which I have referred are to be set up.

In the former, the cure of souls in the parish or parishes of a single incumbency will be shared by a team consisting of the incumbent, to be known as the rector, and as many vicars as are necessary who, however, will also have the status of incumbent. In the latter, there is a group of benefices where the incumbents are obliged to help each other so as to make the best possible provision for pastoral care.

It will be possible for a scheme, although not an order, to come into operation without the consent of the incumbent affected by it. It is felt that an incumbent who refuses his consent ought not to be allowed to hold up a scheme thought by the Pastoral Committee and the bishop to be necessary in the interests of the pastoral care of the area. In other words, one man should not be allowed to block a scheme which is generally thought to be beneficial from a pastoral point of view.

If an incumbent loses his office by reason of reorganisation of this kind, he is given most generous compensation, which includes compensation for the loss of his free house. He has the right to state his objection right at the start to the Pastoral Committee. Later, he can object to the Church Commissioners and, finally, he can appeal to the Privy Council. On the amount of compensation, he has the right to appeal to an entirely independent tribunal presided over by a judicial authority.

There is a new power in the first two parts of this Measure to which I should refer. It will be possible in future to authorise a suitable use for a church yard or burial ground where the church is not redundant. Part III deals with a subject in which I know many hon. Members take a deep interest, namely, the subject of redundant churches. How right they are to take that interest, having regard to the wealth of the heritage, artistic, architectural and historic, which so many of these buildings have brought down to us.

Two new bodies are to be set up to ensure that the right thing shall be done. An Advisory Board for Redundant Churches is to be set up. The Members are to be appointed by the two archbishops, after consultation with the Prime Minister. Their duty is to give authoritative advice to the Church Commissioners on the historic or architectural qualities of a church which it is proposed to make redundant, or to advice about its use, preservation or demolition. The House will note that the manner of the appointment of these members to the Advisory Board is calculated to attract the confidence of the Church, the Government and the people.

Secondly, there is to be a Redundant Churches Fund, a body corporate, whose duty it will be to hold and preserve for the Church and the nation the redundant churches committed to its care. Its ministers will be appointed by Her Majesty—hence my opening remarks, that Her Majesty has given informal approval that the appointment of Members to the Redundant Churches Fund shall be Crown appointments—after advice from the two archbishops has been submitted through the Prime Minister. It is understood that the Government will contribute a sum of £200,000 to the Redundant Churches Fund during the first five years of its existence and that the Church Commissioners will contribute a like amount.

Before a church can be treated as redundant, there must be a pastoral decision to declare it so by a pastoral scheme. The church is then vested in the Diocesan Board of Finance, which is responsible thereafter for its upkeep. The future of the church is decided after an interval of between one and three years in a redundancy scheme of the Church Commissioners. In the interval every effort will be made to find a suitable use for that redundant church. After the interval the redundancy scheme must authorise either a lease or sale of the redundant church for some suitable purpose, or its vesting in the Redundant Churches Fund for preservation, or its demolition and the disposal of its site.

There is one other very interesting proposal, that in special circumstances a church which is declared redundant, but which is of special architectural or historical merit, may be taken over by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. But, whatever happens, in no case can a redundant church be demolished without the advice of the Advisory Board.

In my submission to the House, this Measure reflects the determination of the Church to deal not only with redundancy in churches and with the problems brought about by the shifts in population away from churches, but also with the need for pastoral care in large and sometimes growing new communities hitherto inadequately cared for. It may well be that, after considering the painstaking work with which this Measure has been produced and perfected, the virtual unanimity of the Church Assembly in its favour and the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses, this House will feel that, as regards those who have laboured to bring the Measure thus far, it too should wish them well and godspeed in their further endeavours.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I too, welcome the Measure in general and have no intention, of course, of opposing it, but there are one or two points which I should like to put before the House and I hope that the Church Assembly and its professional advisers will take note of the sentiments I am going to express.

This Measure, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has told us, is the largest Measure so far laid, a fat little volume. As we all know, this House can neither amend nor alter, it can only pass or reject. Therefore I deplore the fact that it is a fat little volume. I would have preferred it to have been three or four smaller volumes. The Measure falls into four separate parts, which I freely admit lead one from another, but I believe that this habit of laying before the House omnibus Measures, however praiseworthy, which one would feel an awful cad to say anything against, immediately puts hon. Members who have any doubts in a grave difficulty. Therefore, I hope that this fat little volume is not going to be looked upon as a crafty precedent by the professional advisers to the Church Assembly. I hope this is the last Measure of these dimensions that we shall ever see.

I would say in passing that I do not believe that the Measure which the hon. and learned Member slipped through a year or so ago in such a learned manner would have got through this House had other hon. Members been aware of some of the extraordinary experimental services that are being tried up and down the land today. I believe that the man in the pew is very disgruntled by that Measure, which Parliament whistled straight through without any dissident voice. I would be out of order if I dealt at length with this, but I say to the hon. and learned Member that I very much deplore the passage of Measures which are only partly under-stood by the man in the pew.

This Measure is, in general, unexceptionable, but I see it as seeking to impose an urban ecclesiastical pattern on the Church of England. It is right that the Church of England should move itself, and be able to move itself, as the centres of population move, but until today the Church of England has been organised administratively primarily on a rural basis. I hope that this urbanisation will not have an adverse effect on rural parishes, which are by no means all scattered, because it is in the rural areas that the great bulk of ordinary simple Christian people who go to church regularly are to be found. There is a far higher percentage of regular communicants in the rural areas than in other areas, and I hope that this urbanisation pattern will in no way militate against their wellbeing.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention briefly the effect which this Measure will have on my constituency. Maidstone is about nine-tenths in the Diocese of Canterbury, and one-tenth in the Diocese of Rochester, which is administratively and pastorally most inconvenient to our clergy. The so-called vicar, who is in fact a curate, in charge of that part of the town which is in the Diocese of Rochester looks forward keenly to the passage of this Measure so that there can be the reorganisation of diocesan boundaries which it will bring about.

I must, however, look back about 18 months to what happened in Maidstone. The Archbishop sent us a high-powered committee, the Brown Committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) served. The learned commissioners, including my right hon. Friend, produced some very good points. They also produced some which some of my constituents thought were not so good, but during the year since the Committee reported to the Archbishop and made certain clear recommendations the Archbishop and his minions have taken a number of specific steps which fly in the face of the Committee's recommendations.

It does not encourage distinguished churchmen of any sort, whether they are laymen or clergy, to serve on committees to work hard to put up schemes if their schemes are then rejected. I accept that there was some cause for alteration, but there are some recommendations of the Committee which cannot be brought into effect for some years because of subsequent acts. I therefore deplore this habit of setting up committees and flying in the face of their opinions. This is one of the risks that I see in this Measure.

I spent enough of my childhood in the lowlands of Scotland to be fundamentally suspicious of bishops. I believe that it is bad to move power, if one can call it power, away from this House into the hands of the episcopate—because that is where it is. It is not in the parochial church council and diocesan council, because few people except the very militant ever dare like saying "No" to the dear vicar, and even more do they dislike saying "No" to the dear, dear bishop. One of the unfortunate habits of church people is that if they disagree fundamentally, they go home and grumble, and then become Nonconformists or Roman Catholics.

On this question of giving power to the episcopate, one of the most notable examples is patronage. I apologise for the fact that the statistics which I have are about 10 years old, but they show that there were about 840 livings in the gift of the Crown and its various officers, including the Admiralty which had eight at that time. The diocesan bishops had about 3,000 livings, the deans and chapters about 700, the parochial clergy about 1,200 and diocesan boards of patronage 200. Thus, the purely ecclesiastical patrons about 10 years ago presented to over 5,000 livings. Universities, colleges and schools presented to about 850 livings and about 7,000 of the remainder were in the hands of private patrons.

It is my experience and that of most hon. Members that non-episcopal patrons take far more trouble in selecting prospective incumbents. The bishop tends to send down the only lame duck on his list and one has to have him, but a private patron will go to endless trouble. I do not mean only lay patrons, but the universities, colleges, schools and officers of the Crown. Those who exercise the selection on behalf of the officers of the Crown do a splendid job and act as private patrons.

Lest the House think that I am a rabid Presbyterian because of my attitude to the episcopate, I must make it clear that I am not. But bishops are slapdash and idle in their presentation to livings and I hope that the power given to them by this Measure to deal with benefices will not in future encourage them in bad ways. I hope that private patronage, in the best sense, will not decline.

I hope also that the provisions for redundant churches will enable them to be offered for sale freely to other Christian denominations. They were founded and endowed by Christian men over the centuries who would not like their endowment and effort to go astray, but it has been represented to me that there are areas in which churches are almost certainly redundant where there have been difficulties in offering them either to Roman Catholics or to Non-conformists because of local lobbies. I hope that we may be assured that, provided it is a Christian denomination and the church is genuinely redundant, it will be on offer to them.

Referring again to redundant churches, because the donors of the past and those who have laboured through the centuries to maintain beautiful buildings, the Church of England has a great difficulty in that so much money is spent, on providing museum places rather than on the cure of souls as we should like. About half the money in the redundant churches' fund comes from the Government, but half still comes from the Church Commissioners. When redundant churches become purely places of architectural interest removed from the worship of God, they should be more largely secularised and I question the wisdom of financing this fund on a 50–50 basis. I apologise for dealing with a constituency point and reiterate that I am not a rabid Presbyterian.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has struck, as he is entitled to do, a somewhat critical note over this Measure, I should like to enter a brief word of support for it. I do so as one who, a year or so ago, as my hon. Friend said, had a small and insignificant rôle in the work of reorganisation, to part of which this Measure is directed. For a few months, I had the honour to be on one of the Archbishop's Commissions under Sir Thomas Brown. By some strange coincidence our work, which led us into the very town represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, provided me at least with a little in-sight and perspective over Parts I and II of the Measure.

This is simply that, in many places, the physical structure of the church and the parish boundaries no longer conforms to the whereabouts of our population. This is especially true of new communities and of those in which there has been rapid expansion since the war. It was certainly true of the single area in which I have had experience of this work. Most of our churches were built a long time ago and most of our major changes in population have occurred very recently and rapidly. Therefore, in many areas, parish boundaries have become meaningless.

The town, part rural, part urban, in which we worked illustrated very well some of the difficulties and some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). My hon. Friend is entitled to say that Maidstone is typical of many places in England. In this regard, it faces a great dilemma, as do many other places of like history and structure. The boundaries of a dozen churches are situated some-where in the centre of the town, which once—but this is no longer true—was the main centre of residential population. Nearly all these churches are supported by congregations of differing sizes but all are devoted to their particular church and its needs and are willing to give freely and undergo great sacrifices to sustain their own church.

This is not the least of the difficulties confronting those who ordain these changes and they will provide not the least of the difficulties as these changes are gradually brought into being. There is a faithful laity as well as a faithful clergy and my experience is that, on balance, they can prove almost as tenacious.

Then, on the fringes, we have very large estates. In many of the new creations, the church of the former village constitutes a natural centre, but more often than not these new communities are not so endowed. I do not think that this is a situation which the Church can accept with complacency. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said something about a pattern of urbanisation emerging from the Measure. What else can we expect in this island? As a countryman, I must acknowledge that we are an urban and urbanised nation and that, therefore, many of our areas such as those I am discussing will become urbanised.

This is also not simply a matter of realigning boundaries, controversial though that may be. There may be a case—indeed, this is one of the principal provisions of the Measure—for establishing one principal church as a focal point and equipping it or its leader with incumbents who constitute a team, so making it possible or the team to work from the centre under the direction of their leader. In this instance we have provided that. Behind that lies the thought that a team or group can be directed from one centre. It follows that not only will boundaries have to disappear but that benefices and parishes will have to suffer dissolution.

I am aware that a great deal of heart-break is involved in this. Many loyalties and many strong associations, some going back for more than a generation, are involved, often with the same family having made sacrifices to maintain them. Family ties will have to be broken up as a result of what is being done. Nobody likes doing this and, in the circumstances, those who are responsible and who do the work on the Commission are frequently confronted with a feeling that they are being required to act ruthlessly. Yet sometimes it has seemed to me that it is essential to be, if not ruthless, then, at least, decisive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone said that the Archbishop had already countermanded some of that work. If so, far be it for me to question the wisdom of Lambeth. It does not alter the principle, which is that hard decisions must be made and that compromises must often be set aside. This will inevitably produce hard feelings and a great many objections in detail. Otherwise, I fail to see how the Church will shape itself to the needs of the community, not in accordance with the needs of 1868 but of 1968, assuming that a Measure of this kind will not often be before us. We may not have another for a generation or more. This is an important aspect to bear in mind. We are now discussing a pattern which must be established and hailed until the end of the century, or beyond.

While I speak of compromise, I should, perhaps, refer to delay. It is possible for individuals to delay proposals indefinitely—or it might be possible if Clause 24—to which some exception has been taken, but which I believe is needed—were not included. On the other hand, there is need for safeguards and these seem to be contained in the Measure. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg adumbrated some of these.

There are certain matters of great importance for which safeguards are provided. However, where particular changes are proposed, it is inevitable that there will be criticism and bitterness in certain places. There are bound to be misgivings about some provisions. However, the main objective of the Measure and the thinking behind it is sound.

I have no doubt that we must accept the new physical pattern of the country and the need to conform to it. This is, in a sense, the Church doing what countless other institutions have had to do or will have to do. It is the need to conform to the need of a rapidly changing population. In my insignificant experience of these matters, the Measure accentuates the need for change and that is why I give it my unqualified support.

9.4 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson (Clitheroe)

I wish to make only a brief intervention on this highly important Measure. It is worthy of note that possibly one of the most important Church Measures that have come forward in recent years is being debated at this hour in an almost empty House. I cannot think that would have happened 20 or 25 years ago. There would have been far more debate about it. It is a matter for some sorrow that so important a Measure as this should be passing through the House with so little comment.

I pay tribute to all those people, within the Church and outside it, who have guided this Measure through its many stages. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) I am certain that this Measure is absolutely necessary.

I rather regret the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells) in regard to bishops. If he reads the Measure I think he will find that, either by the guidance of diocesan committees or in one way or another, we can rely on the fact that where a decision is taken which may check the rights of individuals, whether incumbents or patrons, those powers will be used with full responsibility and used rightly.

Of the necessity for those powers I have no doubt at all. As my right hon. Friend said, we are living in a rapidly changing world in which old parish boundaries are no longer valid, a world where the urban explosion has to be catered for, where churches and parishes are not in the right positions. Tribute should be paid to the Church and lay authorities concerned for the fact that they have faced the great difficulties inherent in this basic problem.

I give the Measure my support. I hope the House will send it on its way for, only by incumbents and patrons surrendering up to a point their vital and basic interests in the interests of the Church as a whole, shall we ever find a solution to this problem. When we work out the provisions of this Measure I am certain that we shall find there is very little hardship and no injustice involved. I give the Measure my fullest support.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) I shall address the House briefly. I want to speak on the section of the Measure relating to redundant churches. I wish to say how much I agree with the words, and the spirit behind them, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) The Church has a great task in front of it. It needs this Measure as the machinery to carry out that task. Society changes very quickly. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells), it changes as quickly in the countryside as in the town. The motor car causes more and faster change in the countryside than in the town. The motor car is making an enormous difference to the whole pattern of rural life and that will be reflected in the sort of changes made under this Measure.

I also welcome the Measure because it provides for different forms of parochial experiment. We have a changing society and we need to be able to use different techniques. The fact that we can do this under this Measure is of the greatest value. Many of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone referred not so much to this Measure, which in general he welcomed, as to the broader question of patronage and deployment which is under discussion in the Church at the moment and which will ultimately be in a Measure consequent on this one.

I know my hon. Friend would disapprove more than anyone else had that been part of this Measure. Nevertheless, this Measure will not be complete until there is also adequate provision for deployment and patronage. When that is debated, I shall be agreeing with him in trying to fight against an over-centralised appointment system. I have already expressed my view on that in the Church Assembly.

I greatly welcome the provisions in the Measure relating to redundant churches. A few years ago, I had the honour to be asked by the Archbishop of York to chair a Commission to consider the problems of redundant churches in the City of York, where there are many magnificent medieval churches in areas from which the population has wholly or partially gone. We found, in our consideration, that a Measure of this sort was essential—I put it as strongly as that—to enable our suggestions to be carried out.

We need the flexibility and powers to deal with redundant churches which the Measure introduces but which do not exist at present. There can be argument about whether these powers should be introduced in this Measure. For my part, I think that it is all part of a pattern, and I stress the absolute necessity for machinery such as is laid down here, with safeguards, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said, and with the right sort of advice. It is essential for this part of the Measure to be maintained.

Like other hon. Members, I wish to speed the Measure on its way. To the many people, clerical and lay, who will have the enormously difficult task of carrying it out, I wish the very best of good fortune.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark)

I welcome the Measure and commend it to the House in the terms in which it has been welcomed already. I thought the comments of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) unjustly censorious and critical of the Measure. He alleges that this is a rather large chunk of change coming all at once, and seems to suggest that there is something sinister about it. But those of us who have read the Measure recognise that, if one makes changes in one respect, as we are doing here, other changes are inevitable at the same time. Moreover, there are real dangers in bringing in piecemeal legislation, bit by bit, when the hon. Gentleman and others might rightly ask what more was to come and why we could not have a glimpse of the rest at the same time.

I do not take up the hon. Gentleman's comments about the bishops being slapdash and idle. I speak tonight not as one of the Church Commissioners, having accepted the Archbishop's recent invitation to join that body, but as one who has some experience of the problems of the organisation of the Church, and having been a member of the Archbishop's Commission on London and the South-East. In that work, one appreciated the immense need for change. In my view, this Measure is long overdue.

It is a substantial Measure of over 100 pages and nine Schedules, and it repeals wholly or in part about 29 Acts of Parliaments. But all these changes are necessary, dealing as they do with the need for group and team ministries, the need for plurality in some areas, the need to deal with the problem of redundant churches, and, perhaps most important, the need to safeguard the interests of those involved, incumbents, patrons and others who have a duty and a responsibility and whose rights should be protected.

The Measure is an attempt to make the best, most efficient and most economical use of the manpower, money and materials employed by the churches today. It comes at a time when the country is undergoing immense changes, scientific, medical, educational, moral and other in every part of our lives. The Church must keep pace with change, it must change itself to suit the conditions and times in which it lives if it is to fulfil its mission.

The question of redundant churches must be dealt with now. Such redundancy is inevitable in present times, not because some think the churches are less full and have no useful place in the future but because of the mobility of people. There are new areas in which people live, new housing estates and so on, which make many churches redundant in some central areas and create enormous demands for new buildings, churches and halls in other areas. There must be the degree of flexibility which is permitted by the Measure.

It is important to realise that when people have been worshipping in one community for some time they wrongly tend to think that their church is most important to them instead of having regard to the wider needs of the community at large. There is a real need for greater flexibility of outlook among church people in appreciating the needs of the wider community, rather than thinking of their own area with which they have become identified over a period of time.

Various hon. Members who are not present tonight have expressed views about the effects of churches being closed and the possible use of land on which they stand. I understand that there is some concern about churchyards in the inner and central residential areas of London and other big cities. These areas where churches are likely to become redundant give us an opportunity to have open spaces instead of falling for the temptation to use the land for other purposes. Churchyards sometimes provide the only possible source of land for public open spaces, and I hope that those who are responsible in city and built up areas will have regard to the wider needs of the community to maintain the open spaces we have and to increase them wherever possible.

In the Measure there is adequate protection for the rights of parishioners, clergy and incumbents and all affected by the changes. As my hon. Friend said in moving the Motion, several Commissions have already looked at the matters involved. The Church Assembly has gone into them, as has the Ecclesiastical Committee. We are all satisfied that there is adequate protection for those who are affected by the changes, especially those who may be made temporarily redundant by group and team ministries. These are most important matters.

There is need to look ahead to the time when we have greater unity among our denominations. The Measure will allow changes which will make it possible for us to co-operate with other denominations at a later date. I think particularly of group and team ministries.

The Measure is long overdue. Changes of this sort, although we welcome them, can only be most effective and beneficial to the society in which we live only if people who work in the church at all levels recognise the challenge we face at present. We must use the changes in the best possible way to have the kind of involvement in the community which the country so greatly needs. Therefore, I welcome the Measure and hope that the church as a whole will make the fullest use of the opportunity we afford by these steps.

Mr. John Wells

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that he has sat down. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Mr. Wells

On a point of order. I had desired to correct a remark that the hon. Gentleman made about my speech, but out of courtesy to him I waited until the penultimate moment of his speech. I thought that he was easing himself into his seat, but I did not think that he had actually sat down.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little late, but I shall be very lenient tonight. Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells

I only wanted to say that my strictures on bishops were not on them in their general capacity, because obviously they are excellent and hardworking men, but merely in their exercise of patronage, which I think is poor compared with the private patron.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu

With the leave of the House, may I answer one or two points made in the debate. There was the point about bishops to which the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has just referred again. He should remember that in these days it is very hard for a bishop to act alone. He is rather like the Queen in Council. He is always surrounded by an advisory body of one sort or another, to whose opinions he has to pay attention.

Therefore, although I understand the origin of the hon. Gentleman's suspicions—way back in the past somewhere north of the Border—I feel that the position in this country at least is very different and that one need not have any of the fears to which he gave expression.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of this as being a Measure of urbanisation of the Church. I would be very much against it if it were, but how can it be urbanisation to deal, as it is the duty of the Church to try to deal, with the urban population, provided that it does not ignore the rural population? I understand that these proposals for group ministries might well have an effect which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would approve. It might well diminish the loneliness often felt by incumbents in the rural and sparsely populated areas. They can now feel that they have a chance of working together and helping each other. The same will apply to team ministries, which, I suppose, will be more likely to occur in urban areas. One obviously cannot ignore the urban areas and in not ignoring them one should not be accused of urbanising the Church.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was suitable that a church should be handed over to another Christian denomination. But this has been done already under various other provisions. This Measure, in Clause 51(8), provides for this very thing and, of course, in the context of the Measure it would have to be another Christian denomination to which the building was handed over.

I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). I am sure that those responsible for bringing the Measure before the House and who have worked so hard at it will be greatly encouraged to hear that the House has taken the view which I think that it is now about to take.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Pastoral Measure 1968, 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.