HC Deb 19 February 1969 vol 778 cc697-734

[First Sitting]

10.30 a.m.

Resolved: That if the proceedings on the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill ought to be read a Second time. I am sure that this Measure, short though it is, will commend itself to all members of the Committee for it is a compound of a common sense provision and a financial provision, to enable those churches or places of religious worship which are no longer required for their original purpose to be preserved. The fund, which is being set up specially for this purpose and to which the Government will contribute, will enable those buildings to be preserved so that we shall not be faced again with the kind of heartrending experience which most of us must have had in the past. One thinks of the kind of destruction which took place at the turn of the century, even in the City of London, of old churches, but now these great heritages from the past can be properly preserved under a scheme which will look after them and will make all the necessary safeguarding provisions. Therefore, what has been regarded by many people throughout the world as one of our great heritages—the large numbers of churches, often delightfully situated—which may, because of the effluxion of time, be no longer required for their original purpose, will be preserved wherever possible, especially when they are of special architectural or historic interest.

The Measure has three main objects. First of all, it will authorise payments into the Redundant Churches Fund to be set up under the Pastoral Measure for the preservation of redundant churches of the Church of England of historic or architectural interest and which, as the Pastoral Measure says, ought to be preserved in the interests of the nation and the Church of England.

Secondly, it excludes churches of the Church of England, whose demolition is provided for under an approved pastoral or redundancy scheme under the Pastoral Measure, from the preservation control of Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. These provisions apply only to England.

The third provision enables historic places of worship belonging to other denominations and faiths to be acquired by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This last provision applies to Wales but the first two do not, because there is no Established Church in Wales; it was disestablished more than 60 years ago. This enables churches of historic or architectural merit to be preserved by the method of transfer. The Pastoral Measure included similar provisions in relation to acquisition by the Minister of Public Building and Works, to acquire buildings belonging to the Church of England, and this Bill amends the Pastoral Measure to facilitate their acquisition by the Minister of Housing and Local Government who now discharges functions which, at the time of the original Measure, were discharged by the Minister of Public Building and Works.

The Bill has its origins in the Commission appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in December, 1958. Paragraph 1 of its terms of reference stated very precisely that it was to consider the problems arising in connection with churches regarded as redundant but having a claim to preservation on historic or architectural grounds and to make recommendations as to the procedures for handling such matters and the financial problems involved". The Commission was under the chairmanship of Lord Bridges. It duly reported and a good many of its recommendations were subsequently incorporated in the Pastoral Measure, 1968. I understand that that Measure will come into operation on 1st April this year. As the full title of the Measure states, its objects include the making of better provision for the cure of souls and for the use, preservation or disposal of redundant churches where that is thought appropriate.

Under Section 42 of that Measure an Advisory Board is to be appointed by the Archbishops and the Prime Minister, to advise the Church Commissioners about the historic and architectural qualities of churches to be declared redundant.

Secondly, a Redundant Churches Fund is to be appointed under section 45, to preserve in the interests of the nation and the Church of England, churches and parts of churches of historic or architectural interest vested in the fund, and the Church Commissioners are empowered to make a contribution of up to £200,000 to the fund in the first five years from the operation of the Measure. As I said earlier, this question of helping in the preservation of historic churches is not controversial in a party sense, and as long ago as July, 1964, the then Minister of Public Building and Works stated that the Government would contribute an equal amount. Since that date certain functions exercised by that Minister have been passed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which is why I am speaking this morning. Clause 3 of the Bill substitutes a reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the reference to the Minister of Public Building and Works in Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure.

The Committee may like to know the size of the problem. No precise estimate can be made, because that would require the detailed examination which will be made in the various dioceses as time passes. But there seem to be something like 800 churches which may become redundant over the next 20 years. That is a fairly substantial figure but it is not thought that anything like 800 would come into the categories which this Measure is designed to help. The best estimate that the ecclesiastical authorities can make is that between 300 and 400 such churches may attract the attention and care of the fund.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

Will the Minister confirm that the Church of England will decide in the case of its churches which ones are worth preserving on architectural grounds, and that, in any case, if the Church of England wishes to demolish a church, whatever its achitectural merit, it will still be enabled to do so?

Mr. Skeffington

Yes, and this is why the Pastoral Measure provided for the setting up of this special body which is to advise the ecclesiastical authorities about the historic and architectural merits. This is, of course, entirely a matter for the Established Church. The capital cost of putting those 300 or 400 churches into a reasonable state of repair is very difficult to estimate and must be very approximate. The capital cost over the next 20 years is likely to be—I should not like to be tied to this—between £1,500,000 and £2 million.

As regards the Minister's powers to acquire places of worship other than those belonging to the Established Church, I should make it clear that, generally speaking, the Ministry will be able to give help only in cases of exceptional value judged on either or both of the tests, though it will obviously try to preserve all those buildings which are worthy and which should be preserved for access by the public, or for some other use in suitable circumstances.

At first sight, Clause 2 of the Bill, which exempts from listed building control a building declared redundant under a scheme approved under the Pastoral Measure, hardly affects a Measure for the preservation of buildings. In fact, this Clause adapts in more limited form a provision already enacted in the Pastoral Measure. Before the Pastoral Committee of a diocese recommends to the bishop that a scheme be prepared, it must consult the interested parties, who include the local planning authority, and it must ascertain the views of the Council for the Care of Churches before any proposal that a church is considered to be redundant. At a later stage the Advisory Board has to be consulted, and if it considers that the church is of the quality to which I have already referred, then there has to be a waiting period of at least a year while efforts are made to find a suitable use for the building, during which period it remains in the care of the diocesan board of finance.

It is very important that there should be proper consultation with all the bodies, so that no church is declared redundant unless the matter has been most carefully considered; and, secondly, that before destruction or alteration of the building takes place every effort must be made to see whether there is some alternative use.

When the Pastoral Measure was enacted, the former system of preservation control by building preservation order was in force, and Section 91 of the Measure, which Clause 2 of this Bill amends, provided that a building preservation order could not be made during the waiting period. Under this Clause the new method of preservation control will apply during the waiting period. Those Members who had the delights of sitting on the Town and Country Planning Bill last year will recall that these become listed buildings as from 1st January and automatically attract a certain preservation character which can be altered only after the proper procedure has been gone through. The provision was generally felt to be of great value in relation to historic buildings or buildings of great merit and to give far greater security than existed previously. It will apply during the waiting period.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

Could the Minister help us over this matter? The Bill appears to exempt a redundant church from Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act in relation to whether or not it should be a listed building. Would all the other Sections not apply to a redundant church?

Mr. Skeffington

Certainly all the preservation status applies during the waiting period until the procedures are gone through and the church is declared redundant. But up to that time the building is fully covered by Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act. After the waiting period has elapsed and the procedures have been gone through and approved by all those who have to approve them, demolition can then take place. I was emphasising that the new procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act will help during this period.

I should also point out that this Clause, unlike the provision in the Pastoral Measure, does not exempt from preservation control alterations to adapt a redundant church to another use. It is important that where this occurs the objects of the Town and Country Planning Act are retained in regard to the character of the building and the fact that alterations have to be approved by the local planning authority and, if need be, by the Minister, and this will be the case.

It may be asked why the Bill does not provide in terms for the Minister to acquire redundant churches or other religious buildings belonging to other bodies than the Established Church. The reason this is not included in the Bill is that the Minister already has this power under Section 5 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, and therefore no provision in this respect needs to be made in the Bill. By virtue of that power the Minister may accept as a gift any building appearing to him to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest. The Minister concerned is now the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or in Wales the Secretary of State and not the Minister of Public Building and Works. This was provided for under Article 4 of the Transfer of Functions (Building Control and Historic Buildings) Order, Statutory Instrument No. 692, which was approved by the House of Commons in 1966. I put this on record so that at a later stage the authority of my Ministry will not be questioned.

The remaining Clauses of the Bill relate to religious buildings belonging to bodies other than the Church of England, and the Committee will see the provisions which have been made for them. It is not considered likely that there may be many other such buildings, but it would be very foolish not to make provision for those other buildings, if any exist. In my own constituency there is a Baptist Church hall, which must have been one of the earliest, erected some time after the Cromwellian period. That might be the sort of building which could come within these provisions if it were felt necessary to preserve the building. The provisions of the Bill will enable this to be done in suitable cases.

Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill add to the general law of charities to enable the trustees of a redundant church to hand it over to the Minister and to enable provision to be made for the building to be used again for public worship, if that is thought desirable. A church may become vested in the Ministry and subsequently, because of some new development, it may be desired that that church should revert to its original use. This can be provided for in the Clauses to which I have referred.

I believe it is true to say that at one stage the Methodist interest in Wales was somewhat apprehensive because there was no power of appeal in the event of a dispute about the handing over to the Ministry of a building of this character. An appeal procedure is not required because in relation to any place of worship other than those for which special provision is made in the Church of England the transfer can only be by agreement. The initiative remains with the trustees and with nobody else, and the trustees can make the transfer or not. It is entirely a matter for them. Consequently, there is no need for an appeal procedure.

I hope that the Committee will feel that this is a useful Measure. It has been agreed with all the interests concerned, and the Government under the terms of the Bill are to make their own contribution to the fund in accordance with the undertaking given as long ago as 1964. I am sorry that it has taken so long to get the promise translated into reality, but it will be by this Bill. We will have taken a considerable step forward in preserving, in an orderly way, those buildings which are no longer required for religious purposes but which are worthy of preservation. I hope that the Bill will receive the unanimous approval of the Committee.

Sir Frank Pearson (Clitheroe)

Before the Minister sits down, could he explain how the disposal of churchyards fits in with this Measure? Is it to be dealt with entirely separately? The Bill applies to the church building itself, and not to the churchyard.

Mr. Skeffington

The position is that usually a church has surrounding it a certain amount of land within the curtilage which is described as "church and land" and which will be covered by the provision. If there is land in addition to that, it will have to be subject to the normal transfers for which there is provision in other pastoral measures and in other general statutes.

10.53 a.m.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

We on this side of the Committee welcome this Bill which, as the Minister has said, authorises Government contributions to the Redundant Churches Fund and provides for the preservation, in the interests of the nation and of the Church of England, of Church of England buildings and also of places used for religious worship by other denominations. The important matter is the provision by the Government of £200,000 every five years to the Redundant Churches Fund. We on this side of the Committee do not always approve of all Government increases in expenditure, but I am sure that everybody welcomes this expenditure.

The fund, as I understand it, will receive as a result of this Bill a contribution of £200,000 from the Government, £200,000 from the Church Commissioners under the Pastoral Measure, and, in addition, up to £100,000 being one-third of the proceeds of sale of churches which are made redundant and which are not required to be preserved and of the assets which are sold off, whether the building is demolished or not. The maximum which the fund can receive is £500,000 over five years. This will probably not go the whole way, but will be of great help in dealing with the average of 40 churches a year which the Minister expects will come under survey.

I was not quite clear from the Parliamentary Secretary about the exact sequence of events which will occur when a church becomes redundant. I assume that the Diocesan Redundant Churches Use Committee, set up under Section 43 of the Pastoral Measure, would be the first to take action. It would be realised within a diocese that there was one church too many and that there would be bound to be redundancy, and under Section 43 it would be its duty to secure alternative uses for the church. If it could not find an alternative use, it would report to the Church Commissioners.

It would also at the same time, as the Minister has told us, consult the local planning authority. This would be reported to the Church Commissioners who, under Section 42, would set up an Advisory Board for Redundant Churches to give advice on the historic and architectural merits of the building under consideration. If the Church is to be preserved, the board would consult the Redundant Churches Fund to see whether there were funds available to meet it.

It emphasises the great importance of that Committee. It will be remembered that it is its duty under Section 42 of the Measure to be concerned with historic and architectural qualities of any church, or part of a church, and that therefore consideration as to preservation shall be on architectural and historical merit and not on any other matters which might come forward. Presumably, this committee will consist more of laymen than of church men, and I am sure that the board will be of the very highest calibre. Its advice will go to a committee which is set up under Section 44 and which is described as a committee of the board. That committee presumably will act for the Church Commissioners in preparing redundancy schemes. If the Redundant Churches Fund is able to take on the load of preservation, the scheme will provide for that. The alternative will be a scheme for alternate use or a scheme for preservation.

It is most important to consider the matter of consultation with the public. We have heard that at the initial stages in the diocese the local planning authority will have been consulted, but the main decision as to whether or not the church is to be preserved will move to the Advisory Board, which has the final say as to whether or not the church is worthy to be preserved. If the Redundant Churches Fund says "However worthy it is to be preserved, we have no money left", then their hand is forced, but in normal circumstances it will be the Advisory Board which takes what is pretty near to a final decision.

I turn to deal with the preparation by the committee of the board of the redundancy scheme. This involves the question of informing the public, and is provided for in Section 50 (4), on page 39 of the Pastoral Measure: The Commissioners shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the redundant building is situated a notice stating the effect of the draft scheme … The Commissioners shall consider any representations duly made with respect to the draft scheme … Presumably at that stage if there is within 28 days a representation—

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Could the hon. Member tell me if this is not a lesser degree of publicity than is required now by the local authority under the new Town and Country Planning Act?

Mr. Allason

I was coming on to compare it. My emphasis is on the fact that the minimum of publicity is given in this case. There will be 28 days for the public to make any protest. If this protest is successful, no doubt the Board will consider again the matter of the redundancy scheme and perhaps consider alternative uses. If one hears that a really delightful church is about to be demolished and feels strongly about it, all one can do is within 28 days to write in and make other suggestions.

Mr. Robert Cooke

My hon. Friend makes it sound very easy, but 28 days is not a long time. Could provision be made for a large notice to be affixed to a doomed building so that those who see it can realise that it is threatened?

Mr. Allason

I certainly cannot find anything to that effect in the Measure. I am not here expounding the Measure as mine; I am only expounding my explanation of the Measure, because I think it is important. I stand to be contradicted on what I have said, but I certainly feel that this is rather inadequate. I found some difficulty in following the Minister on the extent to which such a redundant church is subject to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968 and I intervened. Clause 2 of this Bill states: Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 … shall not apply to the execution of works for the demolition, in pursuance of a pastoral or redundancy scheme … of a redundant building … or a part of such a building. So it appears to me that this is an extension. At present, under the Town and Country Planning Act a church in use is exempt from the operation of Part V of the Town and Country Planning Act, which deals with preservation. The Minister told us that after the church had ceased to have the scheme applied to it, it would then come under the Planning Act, but by that time it will either have been demolished or put to another use.

I do not think we ought to consider that it is in any way covered during the period, which is the essential period, from the preservationists' attempt to stop a charming building being demolished, and I believe it is not only Section 40 but also Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968 which will not apply—the latter providing that where a listed building is becoming derelict and no one will maintain it, the local planning authority may make a compulsory preservation order to preserve the building. Section 50 of the Act excludes an ecclesiastical building for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes. As I understand it, we are extending that also to cover a redundant church prior to its being demolished, and removing the possibility of preserving that church before it has been demolished.

Mr. Skeffington

I hope that I may be allowed to explain this again. In the new Town and Country Planning Act, from 1st January all buildings which had some status under previous legislation became automatically now listed buildings. That protection continues up to the period that a demolition order is approved, so during the whole of the waiting period the preservation status is maintained and nothing can be done. It is only when procedure under the Pastoral Measure, and in no way affected by this Bill, has gone through the whole process, and when the demolition order has been signed, that preservation ceases. Up to that point all the status is preserved.

Mr. Allason

I think we shall have to return to that in Committee. Clause 2 of this Bill appears to contradict this, and I am at some loss to understand the meaning of Clause 2.

Now we come to the question of the preservation or acquisition by the Minister of churches and other buildings. This may happen under Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure, under which the Minister may acquire a redundant church. This is presumably the occasion when the redundant church has run out of cash or an extremely expensive building is under consideration which the Redundant Churches Fund cannot handle with limited supplies of money. The Minister may acquire the church under that provision, or alternatively under Clause 4 of the Bill which deals with places of religious worship outside the Church of England. I wonder whether this really is going to happen, or whether this is an emergency operation just in case there might be such a building? Is it really the intention of the Minister to operate this power to acquire? For example, he already has the power to acquire historic buildings, and I should like to know how many he has acquired so far.

Mr. Skeffington

None, but shortly some, or one, will be acquired.

Mr. Allason

Again when he comes to acquire an historic building he will do so under the 1953 Act and the money will come from the Land Fund, but under this Bill the Land Fund is expressly excluded under Clause 6. Where indeed is this money coming from? Is there to be a special vote on each occasion when this happens? I am suspicious about this. Looking at the explanatory memorandum under the financial effects of the Bill there is mention of the £200,000 coming into the Redundant Churches Fund, and no mention of any further sums. As this gives the Minister a new power to acquire buildings, it is odd that there should not be some mention of the possibility of there being further charges on the Exchequer.

If this is going to happen, we come to the question of what happens to the building afterwards. Presumably there is provision in the Measure for charging fees for admission. I do not think the Minister of Housing and Local Government can have any experience of looking after a building of this sort, preserving it, providing custodians and generally maintaining it, whereas the Ministry of Public Building and Works has such experience. Its record in connection with ancient monuments is absolutely brilliant. I question whether it is helpful to the general interests of efficiency for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to set up a system of custodians and an architects' department to look after this, when the Ministry of Public Building and Works already does it so well.

It was provided in the Pastoral Measure that it would be the Ministry of Public Building and Works which would do this. For some technical reason a building needs to be treated as an historic building while being purchased, but there should be some possibility of converting it from being an historic building into an ancient monument if the intention is to treat it as an ancient monument and to provide custodians. Therefore, I should have thought that it should be possible to make the conversion that I have suggested. The Pastoral Measure envisages that it would go to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and in consequence this Bill amends the Pastoral Measure.

Clause 3 says: shall have effect with the substitution, for any reference to the Minister of Public Building and Works, of a reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

I wonder what the constitutional position is. My impression of the Pastoral Measure was that it was presented to Parliament and that Parliament could accept or reject it but could not amend it. Here we find that Parliament is proposing that it should be amended. This is not the only amendment. In Section 7(3) there is another amendment.

Mr. English

The position is quite simple. An Act of Parliament can amend any Measure. A Measure can also amend an Act of Parliament within certain defined limits set out under the Act of Parliament which gave power to pass Measures. A Measure when put before the House is in the same position as an Order of a Minister which can also amend an Act of Parliament and which could be amended by an Act of Parliament. A Measure is put before the House for approval or rejection in the same way as Orders are put before the House for negative or positive procedure.

Mr. Allason

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his exposition of the constitutional position. I think it will come as a surprise to a number of churchmen. I agree that Parliament can do anything—except change a man into a woman.

Is it really polite to the Church Assembly, without as much as by your leave, to make the amendment? I should have thought it would be more polite to request the Church Assembly to amend their own Measure. I agree that the Church Assembly had power to amend an Act of Parliament, but the Assembly Measure comes before the Houses of Parliament who assent to it, and the Houses of Parliament clearly have power to amend their own Measures, so I do not think the corollary is a useful example of the type of thing we are considering.

However, on the general principle I think we are all keen to preserve churches of historic and architectural merit, and to the extent that this Bill is doing that we give it a very hearty welcome. There are details that we want to discuss further, but I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.

The Chairman

It might be for the convenience of the Committee to bear in mind that this is a Second Reading debate and that there will be full Committee stage if a Second Reading is given to the Bill this morning.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has just said, all of us here and most Members in the House will sympathise with the primary purpose of this Bill, but there are one or two questions which arise and at least one apprehension on which I should like some reassurance from my hon. Friend, whose exposition in general was admirably clear.

One point that the hon. Member has just made is attractive on face value—that some of the buildings should be handed to the Ministry of Public Building and Works for their guardianship. I think the distinction here is that the ancient monuments which the Ministry of Public Building and Works looks after are almost always buildings which are unused for ordinary purposes or uninhabited. They take over an uninhabited, half-ruined castle, not a castle that is still occupied by a family and assisted by a grant from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council.

That brings me to the first point I wanted to ask about. Is there any limit to the alternative uses to which these buildings could be put? Presumably there would be purposes that would be considered suitable both by the Ministry and by the Church authorities, but how wide a latitude would be shown in estimating suitability? Would it be considered a suitable use if, for instance, like St. John's, Smith Square, which has been so happily and beautifully restored to its pristine excellence, they were to be used for concerts, lectures and discussions? I assume that that would be suitable. Would a youth club be a suitable use? It might lead to a certain amount of banging about. Would a clinic be suitable? It would be unusual, but I am not sure that it would be altogether unsuitable. It is worth thinking about.

Would it be considered suitable to make these buildings over for the use of religious worship by people of other faiths? When I say "other faiths" I do not mean only other Christian denominations. I mean other world faiths of whose adherents there are, as we know, increasing numbers now in this country or coming to this country. In other parts of the world we have seen great Christian churches which have been for many centuries, for historical reasons, adapted for use as mosques—not altogether with happy results aesthetically because of the different orientation—but none the less in principle I cannot see any objection to the use of a redundant church for the worship of a community of Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus, and so on.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

Would the hon. Gentleman give way? Surely this matter will be settled not by the Government but by the Diocesan Uses Committee, which would presumably seriously restrict the uses to which they would agree.

Mr. Driberg

I would hope that they would not severely restrict them, except for the primary purpose of preserving a building of architectural and historic interest. This is not primarily a matter for the Government, but presumably the Government have been engaged in consultations with the ecclesiastical authorities, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can enlighten us about this when he replies.

The other main point that I want to make is that I am still not quite clear or happy about Clause 2 of the Bill. I do not think that this is only a Committee point; otherwise I would not weary this Second Reading Committee with it. It seems to me to be fairly fundamental. At first sight it would seem that to some extent this Clause contradicts the primary purpose of the Bill, in so far as it would enable the ecclesiastical authorities in some cases to demolish buildings of historic or architectural interest. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said that the Advisory Board would take "what is pretty near to a final decision" on such a matter, but if a board is advisory it is only advisory: it does not take final decisions.

I am afraid that there have been many examples during the present century of the destruction of churches—which would probably now not be destroyed—by the ecclesiastical authorities, for reasons which seemed to them to be good. I do not like entrusting them always with a final authority for this purpose. The older Members among us will recall such London churches as St. John's, Red Lion Square, which admittedly was partly destroyed in the blitz but which could have been at least partly restored. There was also St. Mary's, Charing Cross Road. These churches were not all of the highest architectural merit, but at the same time they were not truly redundant. Also, tastes and fashions in architecture change. We now think much more of Victorian Gothic—

Mr. English

Some of us.

Mr. Driberg

—those of us who are reasonably in touch with current developments of taste—than was thought half-a-century ago, or in my youth, which was half-a-century ago.

Apart from changes in fashion and taste, there is also the point of changes in population. New towns and new cities are being built and it may be that churches which appeared redundant 10 or 20 years ago would now serve a useful purpose. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be well aware of a particularly beautiful church in the park at Cranford in Middlesex, which might well have been declared redundant before the suburbs started creeping out to within a few yards of it. It was only saved by the genius of one priest who went there and did a great deal for it. Before that, it could have been considered redundant, particularly as it has some markedly baroque features, of which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) disapproves. Anyway, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could give some reassurance about this matter.

In my view, the most flagrant example of abuse of their powers by the ecclesiastical authorities has occurred only in the last two or three years in the great cathedral of Salisbury—

Mr. Robert Cooke

Hear, hear.

Mr. Driberg

—where the Dean and Chapter have behaved in what many people consider to be a most irresponsible way, and have certainly demolished "part of the building", which they had no moral right to do, at least without much fuller consultation. I know that the drastic changes that they made are controversial—there were arguments on both sides—but to many people in Wiltshire this seemed to be an act of vandalism.

Mr. Cooke

The hon. Member will be aware that they sold the great screen for scrap, and parts of it are now being offered for sale by a scrap merchant.

Mr. Driberg

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The Gilbert Scott screen has been lying in a scrap merchant's yard, in pieces. Many people considered that it had great merit, both functionally and intrinsically. I have made that point and I hope my hon. Friend, the Government and the church authorities generally are aware of these dangers.

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that 800 churches might be becoming redundant within the foreseeable future. In various dioceses figures have been issued in the last year or two which, if anything, suggest that the figure might be rather higher. I know of one diocese in which the figure of 200 churches has been mentioned. This fills me with some alarm and apprehension. One understands the difficulties of the Church authorities but I beg them, through my hon. Friend, to use their powers with great discretion. In particular I entirely agree with a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), that there should be some provision by which prominent notices are displayed outside a threatened church, in addition to the advertising in the local Press which has been mentioned.

Subject to these qualifications, in which naturally I may be wrong, I support what has been said and I am glad to welcome the Bill as a whole.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)

I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), not least because I want to support him in his championship of Victorian churches. Nothing plays a more important part, both in the landscape and townscape of this country, than churches, and in the latter category those churches are often Victorian and sometimes modern. One only has to go to the City of Liverpool to see that. So in this discussion we are not only talking of ancient churches.

I hope I may be able to help the Committee without wearying it by saying a word or two about my own experiences in the matter of redundant churches. I had the great good fortune to be asked by the Archbishop of York, after the General Election of 1964, when I had more time on my hands than previously, to act as chairman of a commission in the city of York to look at redundant churches. This was a preliminary job in anticipation of what we are now discussing. We were asked to look at the problem in that city, where there are 16 mediaeval churches within the walls and no sort of expectation in the future of a population within the walls likely to justify that number of churches. We considered with great care the uses to which these churches should be put.

I believe the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, if I may presume to suggest it, is that a number of the uses which he suggested are not suitable in every case. The question of suitability is not a general but a particular proposition. We looked at about a dozen churches which are likely at some date to become redundant. Some are of such superb quality that it would be absolutely wrong to put them to any other use at all. Those are the kinds of churches which should either be in the hands of the Redundant Churches Fund or should be taken over by the Ministry of Works. There are also an enormous number of other churches the exteriors of which are highly important but whose interiors have through neglect, changes or rebuilding, become quite unimportant. It is these for which other uses can best be found as for example, a concert hall, a youth club or a clinic.

The question of other uses I cannot answer specifically, but certainly we welcome the suggestion that such churches should be used by other religious faiths, and I would think that in suitable circumstances other uses could be applicable. Perhaps it would help the Committee to know something of the thinking on these matters in the preliminary work.

The Bill, which I welcome, contains safeguards which are very considerable. The position of this Advisory Board, appointed by two Archbishops on the advice of the Prime Minister, could not be more dignified. Its status will do an enormous amount to allay the fears of those who are concerned with the maintenance of our churches that really fine churches may be destroyed in the future. There is this enormous safeguard, an elaborate procedure for looking at uses and so on, which I believe will work well. I have little doubt that it is an enormous step forward so far as redundant churches are concerned.

I have the great privilege of knowing the City of York fairly well ecclesiastically, since I represent it in the Church Assembly. In this House I represent London, so that I am, as it were, a two-headed monster.

Mr. Robert Cooke

A two-edged sword.

Mr. Worsley

Or a two-edged sword—and I have yet another capacity in Strasbourg. In York the aim is to raise £2 million to save York Minster, but if one looks at the cathedral in Strasbourg one sees a large notice stating that it comes under the Ministry des Beaux Arts. There we see a great difference between the French and English way of handling these affairs. I do not believe that anybody would wish to go that far, but I am not sure that the situation we are creating by this Bill will be our final action. I do not think we can really say that the State is not interested in any church which is a living church.

Redundant churches are in a particular position, but we have to move further forward fairly soon. I say that for many reasons. The big church which is based on a small congregation in a small country village may be almost impossible to repair. The courage and enthusiasm with which those people try to do it is beyond praise, but we get the unhappy situation where a small congregation becomes wholly absorbed in money-raising, dominated by a church which, while it is extremely beautiful, prevents them carrying out their real purpose as a congregation. An ancient building can be a very demanding mistress.

We shall, therefore, have to move into a situation where a magnificent church cannot be regarded simply as the responsibility of perhaps the handful of people who happen to worship there. I am thinking of some of the Norfolk churches in tiny villages, part of our national—or international—heritage.

The Historic Buildings Council has been a fantastic success. It has established two things which could be critically important in helping churches still in use—and I speak of churches of all denominations. First, it has set a very high standard. Secondly, it has helped those who help themselves. It has given grants in such a way as to avoid the idea in people's minds that they can rely on the Government to do it for them. It has given grants only when people have been prepared to raise money themselves, to dig into their own pockets. I believe we can and should use this machinery as soon as the present financial stringency allows us to help churches which are still used when they are of good quality. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to indicate whether, providing the Historic Buildings Council had the money, there would be any legal difficulty in helping in this way a church which has a congregation. That would be a useful piece of information. Otherwise, we should be considering in Committee whether we ought not to go further ahead.

This Bill sets out a partnership between the Church and State—and here I am talking of the Church of England—in the maintenance of redundant churches. I hope that this is the beginning of a partnership between members of all Churches and the State to preserve our historical churches. If this is such a step, then this is a very important morning in the history of our historic churches.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

I should like to follow the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) in one of his capacities since he is my M.P. when I am living in London. I quite agree with him on most of his points. First, I agree with him that there ought to be some provision for churches before they become redundant, just as there is for other buildings. It has always seemed rather strange to me that we as a country should say that we are prepared to give support to an ancient layman's residence, or perhaps I should put it the other way round—a layman's ancient residence.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Not necessarily.

Mr. English

As the hon. Member points out, it may not even be that, but we are prepared to provide financial support for the residence of a person but not for the residence of a religious congregation.

Mr. Cooke

I hope the hon. Gentleman will make quite clear that the object of the Historic Buildings Council for historic houses is to preserve buildings for public enjoyment now and in the future. There is no question whatever of preserving buildings for the enjoyment of a person who happens to be living there.

Mr. English

The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is revealing something of his own feelings. I was not attacking the principle of providing the historic house with a subsidy from the State. I was merely saying that that was much less justifiable than providing a subsidy for an historic church, whether or not there is a congregation. Indeed, there may be a far larger number of people concerned there than are concerned with the historic house. If the hon. Gentleman on another occasion wants to discuss the virtues of the Historic Buildings Council, I will do so with pleasure, but I believe he is defending something which has not been attacked.

The situation is that there are in the country certain buildings which ought to be preserved, not for the benefit of any particular person but for the benefit of the country as a whole. They are part of our history and tradition and, therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) that we should treat them in this context, not as if they were something special, not because of ancient religious traditions so that as in the past we have appeared to be subsiding a particular place, but as historic buildings. Some may happen to be houses, some may happen to be Anglican churches or something else. It seems to me that this is the proper way of dealing with it.

There is, however, a corollary. Institutions which happen to be in a particular privileged position—as in this case, the Anglican Church—must accept that the State as a whole has certain rights over what they do. This is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). There is a difference between a redundant church and a redundant railway station in that the latter does not have the capacity of any degree of religious feeling on the part of any group of people.

Mr. John Smith

What about St. Pancras?

Mr. English

I am coming back to that. The position is that a church attaches to itself certain emotions on the part of believers in the faith who happen to worship in that church. There would be many who would be considerably upset on purely religious grounds if a church were converted into a Moslem mosque, a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), but that has happened in the past. I recollect that St. Sophia's in Constantinople was converted into a mosque. That has happened in the past and, no doubt, it will happen again. It could happen, if desired, by good will rather than as a result of conquest as in the case I quoted. Nevertheless, there would be many of the Christian faith whose religious susceptibilities would be greatly upset if they thought that it was to happen. I am not saying that it would be right or wrong; I am just stating a fact.

It seems to me that when we have these churches it is entirely right to go through such procedures of the Church concerned before making alterations to a church, demolishing it or converting it into something else. What that church is not entitled to do—and I hope one hon. Member here who is on the Commission considering relations between Church and State will take the point I am getting at—is to say at that point, because the provisions and requirements of the particular church have been complied with, therefore the requirements of the State which wishes to preserve certain historic buildings irrespective of their character cannot be complied with as well. Nor is it entitled to say that, because it is one particular institution, it can get itself exempted from the provisions of the town planning laws of the United Kingdom.

If anybody doubts the validity of what I have said, he ought to talk to a few planners and people concerned with the preservation of historic buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking well expressed the emotions which people have, not merely about a hand being taken away from the clock at St. Pancras, but when a portion of an ancient cathedral is demolished. Provisions stating that a building can be preserved should be applicable to lay buildings and to religious buildings of any kind. When my right hon. Friend comes to reply, I hope he will indicate how far he is prepared to accept Amendments to this Bill which are designed to that end, because there will possibly be one or two put down.

I do not have the slightest objection to money being provided by the State for the upkeep or protection of redundant or living churches, whether they happen to be of my own faith or of any other. What I have an objection to is anyone saying, "You are not going to do that. You are going to provide a subsidy and, in addition, you are not going to allow the country as a whole to have at least a right of veto about removal."

My hon. Friend asked a very relevant question. He asked: who is the Advisory Board advisory to? He said that, presumably because it is called "advisory", it is not the decisive body. I think I am right in saying that the decisive body is the Church Commissioners. It is, in fact, an Advisory Board to the Church Commissioners. The point here is that ill some cases a conflict of interests can arise.

There may be a church which is redundant because nobody lives around it any more. It happens to be in the middle of a city and, although there are plenty of offices around, there is nothing else. There are no residents. Then somebody says, "It would be very useful for the development of this site if we could knock down that church." A very large sum of money indeed would come into the Church Commissioners' hands, and they are precisely the same people who have to decide what happens to the church. I am not suggesting for a moment that they would decide the matter on those motives. What I am saying is that if they did decide to pull it down, they would be in a very difficult position to defend their decision, however good it was, because nowhere else in the country do we allow this to happen. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) quoted the case of St. Pancras. British Railways got away with it at Euston, as a result of which a preservation order was put on St. Pancras.

Mr. John Smith

I feel I ought to explain, in case of misunderstanding, that I simply meant that there are places other than religious buildings where feelings and sentiment apply; and, indeed, feelings and sentiment must be considered when the question of their preservation or demolition is being considered.

Mr. English

I quite agree. The hon. Member is, in fact, really supporting the point I am making. Incidentally, my feeling about railways is probably more considerable than those of other members of the Committee, since my father was commercial manager of one and I have always been interested in them for that reason.

If a building is not covered by this Bill or by the Measure, it may get a preservation order put on it. To quote an example, there is a hotel in the centre of Nottingham. It is an ancient building, but the Corporation of Nottingham desired to tear it down. However, through the efforts of some citizens of the town and, ultimately, of the Historic Buildings Inspector of my right hon. Friend's Ministry, it is now impossible for them to tear it down. It has therefore gone back to being used for its original purpose, instead of being demolished to fit in with a scheme. This would not necessarily occur in the case of a redundant church. The Advisory Board might advise that it ought to be preserved for one reason or another, but the Church Commissioners might decide that they did not wish to preserve it. They could tear it down and, as I understand it, they would be exempted from the normal provisions of the Town Planning Acts. The Minister of Housing and Local Government could not send an Historic Buildings Inspector down to hold a special inquiry and could not decide that the building should not be pulled down.

Is this the correct situation? If it is, then I should like to know from my right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to allow the Bill to be amended in order that that sort of ultimate inquiry could take place. I do not think it is any use saying that the people concerned are highly moral, honest people who will never make a mistake. Human beings do make mistakes and we need that right of ultimate recourse to the normal procedure, which is the protection which, as citizens, we all have from other people tearing down buildings which we wish to remain standing.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

This Bill is clearly a result of very complicated and delicate negotiations, and I certainly would not wish to upset the result at all. To have achieved any result is a triumph. Further, the Bill is in a way a triumph for that body, the Friends of Friendless Churches, and its presiding genius, Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas. He has certainly been the John the Baptist and occasionally the Joan of Arc of this movement for some years. In a way this Bill is a vindication of his activities and I salute him. It usually takes 20 years in this country to change official thinking on any matter. That is the interval between the time when people are young enough to receive ideas, and old enough to have the power or influence to put them into effect. Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas has been active for only 12 years and under that head, also, we should salute him.

One point in this Bill worries me a bit, and it was alluded to by the previous speaker. The result which is expected to take place is as follows. The Advisory Board will consider a church and may decide that it is redundant. There will then be a period in which another use will be sought for it, and other bodies will be sought who may be willing to come to the rescue of the church financially. If after that period no use and no outside resources can be found, then the Church will in practice be demolished and the site sold. At first glance that sounds fine, but, in practice, outside bodies interested in the preservation of buildings will always hold back until the last possible moment. With the fund in existence they will inevitably hold back in the hope that the money will be coming from official sources.

Secondly, the Advisory Board is a body ecclesiastically appointed, and, although it is tremendously important that the members of it should be concerned only with aesthetic considerations, and although they will no doubt be borne in mind, it will inevitably be a body with a split personality. A body appointed in that way is inevitably going to be composed of people who are churchmen as well as aesthetes. Therefore, their decisions—and they are going to be decisions although they are advisory, because I cannot imagine that their advice will ever be turned down—are not going to be solely aesthetic ones.

Next, once the procedure has been gone through for demolition of a building, although it may be of the quality suitable for listing, or, indeed, may be listed, that will prevent other people from coming forward to save it. I am not clear whether the search for a use means a search for any use, but I cannot imagine that it does. I think the use to which the building can be put will be settled by the diocesan uses committee, and the use which that committee will accept is bound to be—and probably correctly—somewhat circumscribed. I envisaged cases arising where a church has gone through the whole procedure and is, at the end of it, demolished when it need not be demolished. There are cases where outside bodies have in the past preserved ecclesiastical buildings and we are very glad that they have. For example, in times past had there been insistence on demolition we should have lost Tewkesbury Abbey and, to take an even more extreme example, Woodspring Priory, which was converted into a house and would not, of course, be considered now. Therefore, there is a risk of losing buildings which could be saved.

If the Nonconformist Churches and the Anglican Church come together, there will clearly be many redundant buildings, and a very high proportion of those are of high quality. At the moment there is the ecclesiastical exemption, as it is called. But I cannot help wondering whether this is not the time to end the ecclesiastical exemption. I say this in a spirit of friendliness towards the Church, but it is the ecclesiastical exemption which prevents the State from helping ecclesiastical buildings in the way that it helps other buildings. Indeed, speaking in another part of this building, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said the year before last: I can see the difficulty which would face any Government that was asked to provide State funds for the maintenance of cathedrals"— the debate was about cathedrals, but the argument applies equally here— without, at the same time, the cathedrals being subjected to the full effect of the Town and Country Planning Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th April, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 525.] Therefore, the two branches of my sole point about this Bill are these. First, can we in some way ensure that the Advisory Board is, in fact, a body which is concerned with aesthetic considerations? Secondly, in order to prevent the possible loss of buildings which have been right through the procedure and whose rescue appears at the very end when it is too late, could we not reconsider the possibility, of ending the ecclesiastical exemption, which in my opinion would be of great advantage to the Church and certainly financially advantageous.

12.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)

I should like briefly to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I regret that not enough attention is given explicitly in the Bill—thought the Minister may have something in the back of his mind which he could tell us about—with regard to what my hon. Friend called the living churches. I refer to those parish and other religious buildings which are struggling to continue in existence in actual use and which are by no means redundant from the point of view of their users but which, nevertheless, carry a crippling burden of fabric repair and maintenance.

I hope the Minister appreciates the paradox. A parish church may struggle on for a decade or more to maintain its fabric in order but at last may fail to do so and cease to be available for use as a place of active, present-day worship. The church may at that point become redundant and may well thereafter under the Bill qualify for the sort of assistance which, had it been available at an earlier stage, might have enabled it to have continued in fuller use. I hope the Minister appreciates that it would appear from the facts and figures involved—particularly the figures referred to by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) showing that over 800 churches are likely to become redundant—that the pool of redundant churches will be self-liquefying in terms of the provision of funds.

If upward of 1,000 churches become redundant, three procedures could then obtain. First, the churches could be diverted to some other revenue-producing use. Second, they could be demolished and the sites sold; and third, they could be declared of historical interest and preserved. I cannot believe that two of these procedures, namely, the revenue-producing use and the disposal of the cleared site, will not produce overwhelmingly sufficient funds to provide a self-liquefying pool so that the small percentage which will come into the category of needing to be preserved will find all the funds they need in the turnover of redundant churches.

The Minister will note that the Pastoral Measure which is associated with this legislation requires that the Church Commissioners subscribe only one-third of any revenues or proceeds yielded by the disposal of a site, or the lease of it, or some other purpose, to be diverted into the Redundant Churches Fund. One wonders whether it would not have been a better bargain, both for the Government and for the nation as a whole, if the Government had persuaded the Church Commissioners to divert a far greater proportion of the yield from the disposal of sites or the revenues obtained from leasing into the Redundant Churches Fund. They might then have had greater scope for the use of moneys which Parliament proposes to make available to help churches which are struggling to keep clear of the redundancy margin and to maintain a useful and active life.

If the Minister, in view of this general criticism of the basic approach to the Bill, cannot give any firm undertaking, would he see if he can find some means of stopping churches straying into redundancy and thereby qualifying for funds which the Government would be forced to make available?

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I, too, would like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) has said. I am sure that the aims of this Bill are good, but it has taken along time to get it and it has serious defects. It may be possible to amend it at a later stage. It may also be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little more about what is behind it.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster paid special tribute to Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, but we should not forget that Mr. Thomas was regarded as a considerable nuisance by many powerful people in the Church of England, that he has only recently been regarded as a "respectable" person and has still some pretty strong enemies.

12.6 p.m.

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

12.41 p.m.

Sitting resumed.

Mr. Cooke

I had just implied that but for the work of Mr. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas we would have lost quite a number of churches of considerable architectural and historic interest. It is certainly true that it is a result of the agitations of such as he over a long period that we are faced with this Bill today. No doubt, it will do some good, but I believe it contains grave defects. I can see nothing in the Bill that will prevent the demolition of any church of the Church of England that the Church is determined to demolish. It may badly need the money from a valuable site in order to use it for important pastoral work elsewhere, such as to build a number of new churches on a housing estate. That is a right and proper aspiration, but it is not to be restrained by this Measure from demolishing a fine building if it is so determined, despite all the advisory committees and the other machinery.

We are told that there are redundant churches, and a figure has been mentioned, but at least one hon. Member has made the point that a church that is redundant today may well turn out to be of considerable use in the future. One knows of the difficult situation in a city where the population has moved away and one is left with the churches which have stood there for centuries. But even in a city one can conceive of the possibility in the future that the population will be brought back, as is happening to a certain extent in the City of London. There is a definite trend to build residential accommodation, and, rather than spoil the country with new housing estates, it is good that this should be done. Certainly the dock area of Bristol is to be redeveloped in the not too distant future, and therefore churches in towns may not be redundant after all.

There is also the case of the country area, where there are so many imponderables. A new town may appear quite unexpectedly and a fine large church that the congregation now finds a struggle to maintain may become the centre of a thriving community. Indeed, it may be the only building of significance in an entirely new town.

I feel that it would have been better at the outset if there had been constructed a national survey or map of all the fine buildings, both ecclesiastical and secular—and, for that matter, all the really fine pieces of scenery. Around all these things which we would all wish to see preserved for all time, new roads, new airports, towns and so forth should be disposed. Instead of that we find ourselves fighting a losing battle for historic churches and other buildings against the onslaught of the motorway the improved road, the airport or whatever. The whole thing is being done the wrong way round. I welcome this Measure because I believe it will do some good, even though it should really be done quite the other way.

Much has been made of the funds that will be available. I believe that they will prove to be woefully inadequate. As I see it, the Church is to provide a maximum of £100,000 in each five-year period from the proceeds of the sale of sites of demolished buildings. Surely this amount, with the two sums of £200,000, will make a total woefully inadequate to deal with the problems which will arise. Anyone who has knowledge of the cost of restoring St. John's, Smith Square, saved by the energy of the local inhabitants and others, when no longer required for church purposes, will know the vast sums that were required there.

We seek to preserve buildings, but buildings preserved with no use attached to them are perhaps not particularly valuable except as part of the landscape; and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the possible uses to which buildings might be put and the co-operation which one might expect from other agencies of the State—the local authorities and other ministries for that matter; because with a little co-operation between all concerned it might well be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) suggested, to find satisfactory alternative uses.

I am glad the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) took up the suggestion I made in an earlier intervention about giving proper notice to interested members of the public when a building is threatened with redundancy and possible demolition. I can see no reason why an adequate notice board should not be affixed to a building when those procedures are being followed. This method of notification can be far more effective than something in small print in a local newspaper, perhaps with a tiny circulation. In any case, I can see no possible objection to it. If there is a statutory objection, let us remove the statutory difficulties. Certainly, it could do no possible harm. If the Minister says that the countryside and townscape are already littered with notices, I hope he would agree that a discreet notice of this kind is hardly a massive addition to the kind of thing that is put on commercial premises, unchecked by the planners.

An ecclesiastical building falls into the category which this Bill is seeking to help, and the procedures are lengthy and complicated. What is to prevent a very rapid run down in the condition of a building while discussions are going on?—because I do not imagine that a building will be declared redundant in the prime of its condition. One of the reasons for which it will be chosen as redundant is that it is in such structural condition that it would be uneconomic to restore it. It might be a fine building but beyond repair so that it comes within the scope of this Measure. But what will be done to prevent vandalism destroying worth-while features in the interior—for example, the windows—or perhaps even the destruction of the building itself by fire or some other accident while these discussions are taking place?

Recently, I was told of a Victorian church in a great city, which was shortly to be demolished. I went to see it and discovered in it certain features which in my opinion were well worth saving. There was a quite fine Victorian stone reredos with images on it, and there were at least two windows which could have been used elsewhere, as well as certain other fittings. The authorities told me that they would be delighted if I would remove these and re-erect them elsewhere. I said that I would, and I agreed to pay a nominal sum towards the funds of this particular church. But when I went to the church I found that it had been broken into, and when I went to investigate further I found that everything worth saving had been wantonly destroyed; and, although the local police knew that vandalism had been done in the building, nothing had been done to prevent further such action. Fires had been lit within the building and the stone of the reredos had been thrown down and was smashed beyond repair.

This kind of thing is happening all the time and it will happen to churches coming within the scope of this Measure. Hands will then be thrown up in horror, and it will be said that it is difficult to do anything about it and that the building must go. The transitional period, therefore, will be a difficult one.

We have heard about the screen in Salisbury cathedral. There was far too much secrecy about that. Had it been more widely advertised that the screen was to be removed I am sure another place would have been found for it, if not in its entirety. Pieces could have been preserved in other, perhaps Victorian, churches in the Salisbury diocese. I know of one church in my own diocese, of which I am patron, which could have accommodated some of this Victorian material. Instead, it was left in a builders' yard and is now being sold piecemeal. I have no objection to a church disposing of surplus fittings, but selling to a middle-man who makes a profit from breaking them up is not a very satisfactory way out. Organs and fine organ cases have been destroyed by vandals in unoccupied buildings, and not enough effort has been made to find a new home for them.

There are many fittings in a church due for demolition which could be used elsewhere—things like fine timber, tiles and even stonework. Not enough effort is being made in that direction. There is power here to help with the preservation of parts of buildings, but will the Minister say whether that provision means that part of a building can be preserved where it stands or that money could be provided for the removal of fine fixtures and their re-use elsewhere? This was something which the Historic Buildings Council was unable to do in the case of secular buildings. With modern techniques quite a lot of fine architectural features could be removed elsewhere.

During the time when the procedures in this Bill are being worked out—and we have heard that it will take a good deal of time—there will be a tendency for further damage to occur to structures. Nothing like enough knowledge exists among those concerned about the very rapid deterioration which can take place in a building which is unoccupied and uncared for. Even the blocking of a vital rainpipe for a month during the course of a rainy winter can do a great deal of damage to a building which could prevent it being economically restored.

Coming back to Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, in the case of Shobdon church, whose 18th century plaster work is well known, he was probably obstructed by certain members of the church in his efforts to make the place weatherproof. Eventually he succeeded, but damage was done because of the lack of knowledge and the absence of definite action at an early stage.

I have dealt with a number of details, and I conclude by saying that I hope this Bill will do some good, though I feel we are being asked to go about it in quite the wrong way. What should be done is that those of our churches which for achitectural or historic reasons are regarded as our finest should be properly listed, scheduled and protected; and whatever their status in the eyes of the Church, whether they are likely to continue for the foreseeable future as buildings for worship, as buildings in use, or possibly to become redundant—whatever their possible future use—they should receive a measure of protection and help if they are in need of repair.

Under this Measure it is quite possible for a parish to hang on to a fine building which may be too large or perhaps difficult to maintain. It may be a magnificent church, like some of the East Anglian churches, with a dwindling congregation, and it is neglected for a quarter of a century because the funds are not available, so that it is then found to be in such a condition that it is impossible to repair. This can happen despite this Measure. We were told that there would be hundreds of churches becoming redundant over the next 20 years. Many of those will be neglected from this day for the next 20 years, and we shall then be told that they cannot be saved.

The Church now has an idea of having quinquennial architectural inspections with recommendations made by experts, but it may happen that repairs are botched so that more harm than good is done. Therefore, although this Measure honestly means well, it will not tackle the problem. But perhaps it is a good beginning. I hope that the Ministry, perhaps with people in the Ministry of Works who are skilled in these matters, may manage to educate those who care about historic buildings in what can be done by means of first aid repairs or first rate repair and maintenance, because there is so little knowledge about this, particularly in certain Church circles. If that knowledge were available some problems would not arise. I have spoken on a wide variety of aspects of this topic which may enable the Minister to give us a fairly full reply.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Cooke

Mrs. Jeger, I believe that it is possible to go on until 1.15 if the Committee agrees to do so.

The Chairman

I understand that this is a question for the Chair. There is a provision whereby we can continue for a further 15 minutes, but only with the agreement of the Chair, and only if it is felt by all members of the Committee that this will enable us to conclude our business. But I feel, in fairness to the Minister, since he has been asked many detailed questions, that it would possibly be for the convenience of the Committee to meet again. We have already provided for a sitting at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday next.

Mr. Cooke

I have absolutely no wish to press the Minister to do anything he does not want to do, and if it is more convenient to meet next Wednesday I will withdraw my suggestion. I was merely trying to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee adjourned at one minute to One o'clock till Wednesday next, 26th February, 1969, at half-past Ten o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Chairman)

Alison, Mr.

Allason, Mr.

Bishop, Mr.

Blenkinsop, Mr.

Cooke, Mr. Robert

Driberg, Mr.

English Mr.

Harper, Mr.

Jackson, Mr. Peter M.

Mills, Mr. Peter

More, Mr.

Pearson, Sir Frank

Skeffington, Mr.

Smith, Mr. John

Thornton, Mr.

van Straubenzee, Mr.

Watkins, Mr. David

Worsley, Mr.