GLEBE LAND (Hansard, 5 May 1976)

§ Sir David Renton
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to exempt glebe land and tenancies of it from the scope of Part II of the Bill. Glebe land consists of land and buildings which are part of the endowments of a church, but excludes the parsonage and the land and buildings which go with it, such as gardens, garages or stables. Glebe land is owned by the incumbent, the vicar or rector, as a corporation sole. He holds it in trust for himself and his successors.
There are about 30,000 acres of glebe land in England and much of it is farmed 1350 by incumbents. I do not know if there are any statistics—if the Ministry has the figures it would be interesting to hear them—but my guess, from casual observation, is that about two-thirds of glebe land is tenanted.
There are two good reasons for excluding glebe land from the scope of Part II of the Bill. It is unnecessary to include it because clergy can be relied upon to act compassionately—indeed, in a Christian manner—when a tenant of glebe land dies and there is a suitable member of his family to carry on the farm. I hope this will appeal to the Minister of State who was a Church Commissioner and a pillar of the Anglican Church. This has nothing to do with his surname.
My second reason for excluding glebe land is that, unfortunately, the law relating to the ownership of glebe land during the time when a benefice is vacant is in an unsatisfactory state. The diocesan board of finance can become the owner, though only if the parish council passes a resolution asking the board to become the owner and the board agrees. The patron of the living or the bishop might 1351 become the owner instead. The question of ownership during a vacant benefice can take quite a long time to resolve. There would be the most appalling muddle, probable litigation and hardship if a tenant died when a benefice was vacant and the possibility of Part II of the Bill applying were to arise. We ought to envisage the possibility of such a situation and try to avoid the confusion which would arise.
Whoever becomes the owner of glebe land during an interregnum is likely to be a person or group of people living at a distance and not knowing the land or the deceased tenant's family well enough to make a decision. It would be very much better if the provisions of Part II did not apply in these circumstances and that the matter were to be left, as it is now, until the living were filled. There is not often a long delay during an interregnum and this would simplify matters considerably.
My second reason for suggesting that the scope of Part II should not be extended to glebe land is, perhaps, the stronger. If the Bill is to apply to glebe land, it would not be right to leave in its present state the law relating to ownership of glebe land during a vacant benefice. It should be amended to introduce a much quicker procedure for securing ownership of the glebe land, even temporarily, during a vacant benefice. This Bill is not the right place to amend this rather elaborate part of ecclesiastical law. The best way to avoid trouble is to omit glebe land from the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Bishop
I hope the right hon. and learned Member will forgive me if I say I am a little puzzled about the reason for his amendment, which, I am sure, is meant to be helpful, as was shown by the way in which he moved it. I am grateful for his explanation, but I cannot see why glebe land should be exempted from the family succession scheme.
Perhaps I should declare an interest, though not a financial or pecuniary interest. I am a Church Commissioner and was at one time Second Estates Commissioner in this House.
This land is the property of the incumbent of the benefice to which it belongs. I understand that many thousands of acres are let on normal 1352 agricultural tenancies. The land is either run by the incumbents themselves or by the diocese, and it may be that the latter arrangement will become more general in future if Parliament accepts certain proposals approved by the Synod. I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of those proposals. The rent from these acres is part of the stipends of the incumbents concerned.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that the clergy can be relied on to act compassionately, and no one doubts that, but it is also true of many other landowners and also of the Church Commissioners themselves, who have a statutory link with Parliament for exercising their trusteeship for a considerable amount—perhaps 160,000 acres or more —of agricultural land, although here I speak from memory.
My right hon Friend's intention in the Bill is to regularise the custodianship or the responsible way in which good landlords, including the Church Commissioners, have been exercising their responsibilities for many years, including, of course, their acceptance of family succession. I think that many good landlords have tenants and their families who have been in occupation of their land for a considerable time. I do not see how the provisions of the family succession scheme need interfere with these arrangements in any way. Indeed, I believe that they help the situation by laying down guidelines. They do not alter the ownership of the land—an important point—or its status as tenanted land.
They are concerned with the succession to the holding. That is the point which matters here. Each succession will be a new tenancy, and provision is made in Clause 22 for arbitration on variations in the terms of the tenancy and a fresh rent. I cannot see, therefore, that the incumbents concerned will be affected by the Bill in any way differently from other landlords, and I regret that I cannot accept that a valid case has been made out for the new clause.

§ Sir David Renton
I shall not press the motion to a Division, but I do not retract at all from what I said, although I am grateful to the Minister of State for his explanation, which coincides broadly with my own view of the matter. However, I still cannot see the need for applying the Bill to glebe land, bearing 1353 in mind the kind attitude of incumbents. I have discussed this part of the Bill with representatives of farmers in my constituency. They do not see the need for this part of the Bill in general. The complexity of the provisions cannot be doubted, and to impose upon incumbents an obligation to follow them, when they could perfectly well continue as they have done in the past, and give complete satisfaction to tenant farmers, is quite unnecessary. There is no need to compel them in this way. However, in order to make progress and in view of the, no doubt, sincere attitude of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.