Pastoral (Amendment) Measure

HC Deb 17 June 1982 vol 25 cc1185-200 10.39 pm

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William van Straubenzee)

I beg to move, That the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod 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 am aware that this is a more substantial measure, not only in size but in content, than the previous measure and that it involves matters that the House may wish to consider at greater length.

As with the previous measure, I should like briefly to set this amendment measure in perspective. The prime purpose of the 1968 measure was to make better provision for the cure of souls. It provided the Church at that time with administrative and quasi-judicial machinery designed to assist in that purpose. It provided a machinery for the creation of new parishes, the adjustment of boundaries, the creation of team and group ministries and the handling of the acutely difficult matter, which often raises very strong feelings, of redundant churches—all bound up with a careful and extensive process of consultation with interested parties.

In beginning our examination of the amendments measure, it should be made clear that the 1968 measure was a factor of the highest importance in fulfilling the mission of the Church to its own people and to the country as a whole. After 1955, particularly, the Church found itself in some cases with churches with no populations around them and in other cases with populations with no churches. The House may be interested to know that between 1 April 1969, when the pastoral measure came into force, and 31 March this year, 5,052 pastoral, redundancy and other schemes were passed under its provisions. It is not surprising, however, that a measure which came into force in 1969 requires adjustment in the light of experience. We are familiar with that need in the House, and it has been the experience of the Church of England with its own legislation.

The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go through every clause of the amendment measure, which covers a considerable amount of ground, but I will do my best to answer any questions. Perhaps I may, with permission, deal at the end of the debate with matters which require a reply. I shall concentrate at this stage on the two provisions upon which the ecclesiastical committee concentrated and on which it reported in the document which is available to hon. Members.

The first relates to clause 7, on page 3. Up to now, there has been an unfettered right of appeal to the Privy Council by anyone making written representations against a draft pastoral scheme. If the House agrees to the amendment measure, that right of appeal will be reduced in that, thereafter, such right of appeal will be exercisable only with the prior leave of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has already made it clear—and a particular judgment is quoted in the ecclesiastical committee's report—that in its judgment the grounds for appeal are already very limited.

Although I no longer serve on, and have not for some years served on, the appropriate committee of the Church Commissioners, I did so for a considerable number of years and I watched the extremely careful way in which the appeals procedure was operated and the great care that was taken when the appeals were lodged with the Privy Council. While I mind very much about the right of the individual to appeal, I genuinely believe that the requirement to obtain leave will do no more than secure that expense and effort on the part of the would-be applicant are avoided in cases where it is obvious to the Privy Council that there is no chance of success. I hope that that might be a positive help to those concerned.

Some of us who practise, however modestly, in the law—I am not called to the Bar, which would be the appropriate branch in this case—have observed that in similar provisions the Court is liable to lean over backwards whenever there is any doubt and is likely to grant leave. They are broadly parallel provisions that are widely known in general law.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Can my hon. friend tell us how many people in a year have taken advantage of the unfettered right of appeal?

Sir William van Straubenzee

I shall try to give my hon. Friend some accurate figures. I do not wish to give the impression that there are hundreds each year. Hon. Members are always concerned about the individual, none more so than my hon. Friend. If only one person was cut out who should not be, the House would be deeply anxious.

That was the first of two matters that concerned the ecclesiatical committee. After careful consideration, it felt that it was a reasonable matter and it deemed it to be expedient. Then comes a difficult matter over which I must take some time. Part V of schedule 1 on page 42 concerns the comparatively narrow, but important and emotive, problem of a declaration of redundancy in respect of an existing church which is to be replaced by a new one. If the House agrees to the measure tonight, there will be a change in the law. The present law is that a scheme cannot provide for demoliton unless the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches issues a certificate. The new law will be that the decision to demolish will lie with the Church Commissioners, although they will be obliged to take into account the views of the Advisory Board. However, they will not be bound by those views. Somewhat exceptionally, but understandably, having given careful consideration to the matter, the committee divided. I do not wish to hide anything, so I can tell the House that 10 members expressed doubt about the provision and 11 accepted it.

I have no doubt that the views of the 10 doubtful members will be properly expressed on the Floor of the House. I put the case in favour of accepting the proposition.

It is fair to say that the provision now in the measure is more favourable than the law previously was to the original provisions of the Bridges Committee, from which this derives.

Secondly, the fact that the agreement between Church and State that has subsequently been arrived at, by which the Secretary of State for the Environment can intervene and order a non-statutory inquiry in contentious cases before demolition proceeds, is a new and important factor.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

Unworkable, though.

Sir William van Straubenzee

If the hon. Gentleman will develop that point I shall seek to answer it.

That is a different position from that of 1968. I believe that it is a powerful sanction. It should be taken into account and weighed carefully when deciding whether to accede to the provisions in schedule 1 to which I have drawn attention. I accept that they are matters of opinion and judgment. I respect the judgment of those who hold a different view from mine, but I am sure that we shall listen to each other's views.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Waltham Forest)

I am not an expert in these matters as the hon. Gentleman is. Anxiety has been expressed to me, on behalf of a member of the Church of England, about the removal of the power of the veto of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, and that it is a retrograde step. The hon. Gentleman said that that occurred in the ecclesiastical committee and that its members divided on that point. I have read the original measure, the amendment and the explanation of the ecclesiastical committee. It is not clear to me what the reason is for removing—in the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—the power of veto, especially in the case of churches of some architectural interest, of which there are a number. Will the hon. Gentleman say a little more on that point?

Sir William van Straubenzee

There are a variety of factors. One arises out of the careful inquiry into the working of the 1968 measure. The second is that there has been considerable anxiety expressed—not only from within the Church but also from the amenity society lobby; I say that respectfully and not as a term of abuse—at the cumbersome procedures as they exist. They have at times led, unfortunately, to vandalism. There is great difficulty in caring for a church that is under the scrutiny of the procedure about which we have been talking. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State—as he is now entirely free to do in the appropriate cases—can order a non-statutory inquiry. We all know that those inquiries take time. The care of the church during that interim period is a considerable problem. That is one of the factors that has led the Church to look closely at the matter.

Sometimes—not in the House—it is implied that the Church of England consists entirely of Philistines who long to tear down any church that they can lay their hands on. If by good luck they managed to get their hands on a beautiful Fourteenth or Fifteenth century church, that is what they would do. There are as many lovers of beautiful churches in the Church of England as anywhere else. One of the problems is that they have to fulfil their mission to an existing and living church. This is one of the problems. It arose from a careful scrutiny of the workings of the 1968 measure by a working party.

Mr. Field

The hon. Gentleman has presented to the House the argument that the advisory board will lose its veto and in place of that we shall have the non-statutory inquiry. Before he develops his argument further, will he comment on the board's comments, which are appended to the papers that we are debating, on the experience of the first statutory inquiry at Holy Trinity, Rugby? The advisory board informs us that The long delays and heavy expenditure involved, and the cumbersome nature of the enquiry itself is likely to make all the bodies concerned exceedingly unwilling to have recourse to this method of saving buildings which ought not to be demolished. That does not quite match the check that the hon. Gentleman has been describing to the House.

Sir William van Straubenzee

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Rugby inquiry was the first of its kind. I accept that it is not on all fours with the provision that I am introducing. It is a good example of a non-statutory inquiry, yes, but it is not an inquiry into an issue of the sort to which I am referring. The Rugby inquiry took a long time and it was the first of its kind, but even if I assume that all subsequent inquiries are of similar length, does the hon. Gentleman not think that that in itself is a considerable brake upon an authority in the Church that is contemplating demolition?

The argument works both ways. If it is a constraint upon what I shall describe loosely as the amenity societies, it is equally a constraint upon the Church. I hope that on another occasion tae matter can be dealt with rather more expeditiously. If I were concerned from the other side of the fence, I should regard the hon. Gentleman's argument as a pretty powerful one if I contemplated what pressures and considerations would be in the minds of the Church Commissioners before they were to act.

Mr. Field

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of by what method this safeguard will be triggered?

Sir William van Straubenzee

This is the safeguard—I hope that I am giving the accurate answer—that rests with the. Secretary of State for the Environment. It will be his decision, if we are talking about a listed building, whether to institute such an inquiry. My personal view is that the House is familiar with the pressures that are properly brought to bear upon a Secretary of State for the Environment, and which will continue for the time being. That is one of the reasons why I believe that this is a new and important safeguard that justifies the change in the law that I have sought to put before the House.

Mr. Field

The hon. Gentleman referred to listed buildings. Is he saying that this protection will exist only for listed buildings?

Sir William van Straubenzee

Yes, that is what I am saying. I must give the facts as they are. It is hard to envisage that the sort of building with which we are all concerned would rot be a listed building. I find that a difficult proposition to envisage. The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question and I wish to give him a direct answer. I draw his attention to the concordat entered into between Church and State.

I began my few remarks—which I must now draw to a conclusion—by seeking to put this matter into a wider setting. I end by dosing the same thing. If the House looks again at the report of the Church Commissioners, they will on page 24 find that, between 1969 and 1981, 839 churches were declared redundant; but 52 per cent. of them have been put to an alternative use and 21 per cent. of them have been preserved. However, that means that 27 per cent. of them have been demolished, a great many of them without any substantial opposition. I am entitled to give those figures to the House because at times the picture is perhaps unintentionally painted of every redundant church being torn down. To my certain knowledge, because I see something of it from the inside, enormous efforts are made fo find alternative uses, and it is fair to make the point that 52 per cent. of the 839 have been put to alternative use.

I imagine that it is that and other considerations that led to the General Synod, having considered this matter for a long time, with great care, at what we now term third reading, accepting it without a vote against. I hope that that and other considerations will commend this measure to the House.

11.2 pm

Mr. Frank R. White (Bury and Radcliffe)

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) has delicately and skilfully presented the case for approving the measure. If hon. Members believe that he has been extra cautious in outlining its details, may I assure them that it is not because of any official opposition threats; it is more likely to be because of a flanking movement caused by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). The measure is non-controversial, as the hon. Member for Wokingham has said, but he will be aware that individual sections of it have given rise to some concern among Members, and I have no doubt that those Members will make their views clear in their own way.

I represent tonight the official Opposition view. It is not our intention to object to the measure. I should like to make a few personal comments. I accept that the point of the measure has to be seen in the wider context. No one in political life can doubt the necessity from time to time to adjust parliamentary boundaries, for instance, to meet population changes. Indeed many hon. Members are now concerned with boundary changes.

Likewise, the Church needs to have the machinery to deal with the problem of population drift and change when dealing with the creation of new parishes, new ministries, and, regrettably, with churches no longer required for worship.

Those points are not disputed. I understand the fears expressed by some hon. Members regarding the redundancy and demolition of churches. Indeed, on one occasion in the ecclesiastical committee I registered my support in a vote. The agreement outlined by the hon. Gentleman allowing the Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene and set up a non-statutory public inquiry is a valuable safeguard in this respect. I also appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman that, whilst 954 churches have closed since the 1968 pastoral measures came into effect over the past 20 years, many new forms of ministry such as non-stipendiary priests, a greater reliance upon readers and other lay workers, has led to the growing development of team and group ministries where the previously isolated vicar is now working in a partnership.

It was the feeling of a church in retreat, closing down and being demolished, despite the wishes of many parishioners, that motivated my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. Against the figure of 954 closures must be set the team and group ministries, as well as 303 new churches opened since 1968 and 1,100 since the end of the Second World War.

The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West is a well-respected Member who brings an expertise to our debates in regard to national heritage. I readily acknowledge that to many, including with some notability the hon. Gentleman himself, the churches of England are a national heritage. They include many valuable and outstanding buildings of historical and architectural interest. I read somewhere that some of them are described as sermons in stone, reflecting the age and the community in which they were built.

The possibility of some of these great treasures being consigned to the demolition hammer was enough to delay the measure in its passage through the ecclesiastical committee. The hon. Member for Wokingham gave assurances regarding this. For my part, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I accept those assurances, but I trust that those who read our debates and receive reports of the sittings of the ecclesiastical committee will study the progress of the measure since it left the synod in February 1981. I realise the feelings of the synod concerning the delay, but examination of the reasons will show that valuble lessons need to be learnt.

The synod must appreciate that on this issue many hon. Members who are members of the ecclesiastical committee had serious reservations about their role in approving the measure as it was presented. I am pleased to note that as a result of the normal channels, shall we say, informal discussions are taking place to try ensure that such a delay is not repeated. With that assurance, and bearing in mind the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman, I ask my hon. Friends to support the measure.

11.7 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

This is a serious debate. There are several things that should be put on the record. None of them should be taken as in any way impugning the sincerity and integrity of my hon. Friend and Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), nor the good intentions of those who introduced the measure into the General Synod and who backed it.

Had the ecclesiastical committee had the power to amend, the measure would not be before the House in its present form. It is equally true that if those of us who have profound misgivings, and who voiced them on the ecclesiastical committee, had been minded to do it, we could have ensured that many more hon. Members were present and there could well have been a Division as a result of which the measure might have been lost.

I do not propose to call a Division; I do not think that my hon. Friend— deliberately call him that—the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) proposes to call one either. But there are hon. Members who would certainly vote against the measure if there were a Division. If we had been so minded, and if other graver events had not occupied the attention of the House in recent weeks, there could have been quite a full Chamber and a vote. That would have been regrettable because many of us believe profoundly in the established Church of England and want to see it maintained, and its dignity and position in our national life enhanced.

We were deeply troubled by the insensitivity that lay behind what appeared to be an unnecessary bureaucratic zeal in the formulation and the continual pushing of this measure. My hon. Friend has given a lucid and honest account of the deliberations of the ecclesiastical committee. He referred to the 11–10 vote. He knows, because he took part in those debates, that among the 11 there were at least two or three very reluctant voters who, for the very best of reasons, decided to vote as they did but with their voices expressed their sympathy with those of us among the 10.

This is an unhappy state of affairs, and I hope that it will not be repeated. I hope that the deliberations that are shortly to take place between the appropriate committees of the General Synod and the ecclesiastical committee will lead to a wider understanding and a bridging of the gulf that undoubtedly exists between this place and the General Synod and the Church of England.

I cannot understand why the measures—we are talking about two parts of the measure—are necessary. I cannot accept that the system will be improved as a result of what is really a reduction in the right of the individual parishioner and the individual parish.

The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), who is a notable churchman, referred to my interest in the heritage, for which I thank him. The House must realise that by an accident of history and by enormous good fortune the Church of England has within its guardianship and control the largest number of important buildings of architectural merit and historic interest that exist throughout the whole of Europe. Anything that can be seen as putting those structures at risk will inevitably cause disquiet in the ranks of those who regularly attend church on Sunday, and also in the wider community.

I can best illustrate that feeling with a personal anecdote. I was for some years a churchwarden of a parish in my constituency. The church was a notable local landmark and a greatly loved building. Suddenly we discovered that we had enormous problems of dry rot and we needed to appeal for what was a vast amount of money for such a small village—£10,000 or £20,000.

We knocked on every door in the parish one Sunday and in one day alone raised about a quarter of that amount. Most of the money was given not by those who regularly worship and who would be represented in the General Synod, but by those who are represented in this place and who regarded the building as part of their heritage. They may have been, to use the trite and common phrase, four-wheeler Christians—those who attend church in their prams for baptism, in a carriage for marriage and in a hearse for their funeral—but this, nevertheless, was the building that, in a sense, dominated their lives and they gave to it, willingly.

I do not think that the General Synod has been sufficiently aware of the enormous affection and regard with which the buildings of the Church of England are viewed by the multitudes who write "C of E" when they enter the Army or go to school, or who write nothing at all but look upon the local parish church as their church.

Anything that can apparently make the demolition of such a building more likely is to be viewed with concern. I happen to be a trustee of the Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust. I think of the church in Salmonby—not one of enormous architectural distinction or historic interest but a Victorian gothic church. The local people wanted to keep it, yet the decree was that it should be demolished. In spite of all the safeguards that presently exist, demolished it was. Great heart-searching and anguish was caused, but the church was gone.

It can never be brought back to life. Many of us believe that it should be legitimate to sanction the careful ruination of a church so that at least it can remain a landmark. Many of us believe that there is a virtue in moth balling a church so that if people come back into an area because of population movements, it can be brought back into use. However, if it is demolished it is gone for ever.

In so far as this measure makes it easier for churches to be demolished, it strikes at the very heart of what many people regard as the most important aspect of the Church of England.

I am very concerned indeed that the views of the advisory board have been flouted. My hon. Friend could say with absolute truth that it changed its mind, was somewhat indecisive and was late in the day in lobbying the Ecclesiastical Committee. All that would be entirely true and utterly justifiable, but those who have been charged with giving advice on these issues decided after the most careful deliberation and real heart searching—such as the 11 who voted for this part of the measure—that this should not be expedient. They had a profound influence upon us. I only wish that their second thoughts had been taken more carefully into account by the General Synod.

The last thing 1 want is to see this measure written down as a landmark on the road to disestablishment. I choose my words carefully. If a greater sensitivity is not shown by the General Synod in the future, this could be seen as a significant landmark on the road to disestablishment. That would grieve me enormously, as I know it would the hon. Members for Birkenhead and Bury and Radcliffe.

Mr. Greenway

Not me.

Mr. Cormack

Perhaps not my hon. Friend. That is a perfectly reasonable point of view, which doubtless will again be debated in the House in the future. But to those of us who regard the twin pillars of Church and State as being of some importance in the maintenance of the fabric of civilisation in this country as we know and love it, it is something rather significant.

As I say, I shall not vote against the measure tonight. I appreciate my hon. Friend's sensitivity. I appreciate more than I can say the candour with which he explained the procedure of the ecclesiastical committee. However, I hope that he will recognise, perhaps a little more than he did in his speech, that the divisions were deep. Among the 11, there were some very reluctant voters. If some of us had not been more concerned about the damage that might be done to the fabric of the Church of England, the Chamber might have been much fuller and the measure could well have been defeated.

It will not be defeated. There will not be a Division. It will go on the statute book. There are fail-safe mechanisms within the measure to which my hon. Friend has referred. We must hope that what is being said here tonight, and what was said on 1:he ecclesiastical committee, will ensure that our fears ate not realised and that what we are concerned about will not come to pass.

Mr. Greenway

My hon. Friend more than once made the point that this measure is, so to speak, pushing it. If it is not noted, there will be trouble. That should be clearly understood.

Mr. Cormack

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I merely reiterate what I said a moment ago. Warnings have been given and people have been troubled. The procedure by which measures from the synod are considered by the almost unique animal, the ecclesiastical committee, are not as a satisfactory as they might be. We may have to look at their whole operation again if we are to maintain our proper responsibility in the House for affairs within the established Church.

Let what has been said here and earlier be heeded. As I say, I thank my hon. Friend for the candour and clarity with which he presented the measure. I hope that there will be no need to repeat this exercise in the future.

11.22 pm

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

The speech of my "hon. Friend", the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) is a difficult one to follow. I shall begin, as he did, by paying a compliment to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) for the way in which he introduced the measure. It was up to his usual standards. Indeed, I pay him the compliment of imitating the structure of his speech.

I should like to say something about one of the measures which were contentious in the ecclesiastical committee. I should also like to comment on—to use his grand phrase—the relationship between Church and State. There are important lessons which none of us present tonight, and few of those who are absent, would want to be lost.

In referring to the specific measure relating to the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, I think it is correct to say that, while our attention was concentrated on two issues, most of our concern was directed to a discussion about the fate of churches. It is proper for us to consider for a moment, as did the hon. Gentleman in his introductory remarks, the position that the Church of England is in. On this issue it is sometimes torn in two opposite directions. We have been reminded correctly tonight that because it is the established Church, the Church of England is the trustee—and the largest trustee—of our architectural treasures. It has duties and responsibilities in that regard.

However, the Church is also a living body, the primary job of which is to propagate the gospel. In some instances those two pressures do pull in different ways. I do not wish to appear in the caricature that was painted of those people who believe that the Church is composed only of destructive forces.

I am therefore genuinely pleased to put on record the pleasure we have as Members in witnessing the work of headquarters staff of the Commissioners and the work done in the dioceses by people who are concerned to meet those two requirements of protecting our heritage and our day-to-day and immediate responsibility of spreading the gospel. It is also a suitable opportunity to put on record our thanks to the advisory board and to the Redundant Churches Fund for the work they do.

The hon. Member for Wokingham was careful to stress the good work that has been done, yet he polarised the debate started by those who try to paint the picture that all is bad in the care of our treasures. Yet it would be equally mistaken to try to present the Church as having an unblemished record in this respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West—I shall continue to call him that this evening—has given some examples. We all have examples from our own constituencies where we believe the Church has not behaved in a proper manner given the responsibilities it has had. I expect that we have all received letters from other hon. Members' constituents as a result of deliberations in the ecclesiastical committee. There is also the work done by pressure groups such as SAVE which have looked critically at the Church's record in protecting our architectural heritage.

A report was published recently about how the Church had fulfilled its responsibilities in the North-West, part of which I have the privilege to represent. The report makes sad reading. It is against that background of wanting to thank people for a job well done and being mindful of the imperfections of the way the present system works that we must look critically at the powers that synod seeks, and particularly the amendments it is making to what is generally called section 46.

If we examine this measure and the examples provided to us by Church House of why this reform should go through, and then we examine the counter paper by the advisory board, we must say, to use a current phrase, that the advisory board fired deadly Exocets at the reasons provided by Church House for having this amendment. In paragraph 4(d) of its report the advisory board makes out a powerful case for retaining the status quo. I shall read that paragraph to remind the House of the advisory board's record, a record which will be diminished as a result of the change in its powers: More relevant to the issue is the fact that the Advisory Board's refusal of Certificates, in the face of strong pressure, resulted in saving Holy Trinity, Tunbridge Wells, … later upgraded and converted for use as a theatre; St. Stephen, Rosslyn Hill … which is now under consideration for vesting in the Redundant Churches Fund; Holy Trinity, Sloane Street … which is now being retained in parochial use; St. Hilda, Cross Green, … which is again in active parochial use; Christ Church, St. Albans, … now converted to use as a recording studio; St. Gregory the Great, Canterbury,…now converted for educational purposes. The board concluded by saying that it could give other examples.

The advisory board went on to make an even more powerful case why the board should remain independent and have the power of veto: Again cases which have arisen during 1980–81 … have convinced the Board that it would be unwise to leave decisions in the hands of the Church Commissioners, if only because it would be extremely difficult for a pastorally oriented body like the Commissioners to resist the diocesan pressures that would be brought to bear on them to reject the Board's advice and to ignore restrictions which the Board might, on valid historic or architectural grounds, strongly recommend". It then refers to its recent deliberations on one church, when it considered the matter three times. Some hon. Members have an interest in that case, as it is a church which we use during the week. As a result of the advisory board having this power of veto, and its willingness to hold up a scheme, we now have a much better scheme for St. Matthew, Westminster than we would originally have had. I say that, being a friend of the vicar there, and knowing the extra burden that it placed on him, waiting, lobbying and trying to persuade people to support the rebuilding of his church. It has been an enormous personal cost to him and many of the parishioners. The end result, in my view, will be very good.

One of the questions that I want to put to the hon. Member for Wokingham is: what will happen to this debate and the many hours which we spend in the ecclesiatical committee? How will the synod receive our comments? What is the mechanism by which it considers what the ecclesiastical committee says and what we say on the Floor of the House? I ask that because serious reservations have been expressed this evening about this measure. When we have considered the measure in committee, or when we have questioned the hon. Gentleman about how the 1968 measure has worked, we have received replies which have not made happy reading.

I remind the hon. Gentleman of two of the replies that he gave me. I asked him how the safeguards to the 1968 measure worked in respect of every diocese having a depository for the furnishings of redundant churches. The reply showed that not every diocese is yet carrying out what we were led to believe would happen to church treasures.

The second point concerned a simple matter of making an inventory of all the lists of a church before anything happened to them. It involved a church which is being considered for redundancy. One of the central churches in Birkenhead suffered in this way, and the hon. Member had to tell me that no inventory had been made. The phrase the "four-wheel Christians", which has just been used, is a new phrase to me, yet when I was questioned in my local Labour party about my activities on the ecclesiastical committee, I was not sure what reception I would get from the party activists about the amount of time that I had spent on this topic. I was genuinely surprised and pleased, when I talked about the two churches that we lost in Birkenhead, and which are now just a couple of old bomb sites, when people said, "That is the church from which we buried my mum. That was the church that I was christened in. That was the church that I went to Sunday school in. I could not understand why they closed it. Quite a few of us used to go."

There was a real commitment to two fine buildings in Birkenhead that were lost. And this does not take note of a church in Rock Ferry, the furnishings of which now largely occupy a pub in Greasby. We have heard of a new safeguard tonight if the advisory board loses this check. We heard about safeguards before when we discussed the original measure. They are not yet working. We agree to this measure reluctantly. I want a proper dialogue between us and synod and I ask, what will happen to our comments? I hope that they will be examined carefully. After examining our comments, perhaps synod will consider that this part of the measure should not be enacted.

There are three general lessons to learn from our long and important debates on this amendment measure. I underline the disquiet that has been expressed about two aspects of the opposed measure. I cannot underline enough the fact that agreement was given by 11 votes to 10 to the proposal which is opposed by the advisory board. I go further than the gentleness that marked the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West. The majority of 11 was made up of people who voted for the measure because of their responsibilities here or in synod or because they were non-conformists and believed, as a matter of principle, that the House, or the ecclesiastical committee, should not interfere with Church business. Without that support, this aspect of the measure would not have been passed. That is am important message to take back.

When we debated these issues at length, the hon. Member for Wokingham sometimes had justice on his side when his patience appeared to be a little strained. I should like him to be clear why we took so long. It was a chance to make our views known. We were unaware of the proper machinery to make our views known effectively to synod. Many of us have reservations about some of the actions that synod has been taking. They are not all actions that we have debated in the ecclesiastical committee, so we took what opportunity we could to register our disquiet.

Our present procedures for accepting or rejecting are unsatisfactory. None of us wants to vote down measures so that some in synod can call for disestablishment. It is ironic that when vie first considered the pension measure, it was so badly drafted that an informal meeting took place and the measure was taken back. That was a good action for us to take. That principle of give and take, where the House has something to add to our deliberations, could be extended into areas other than simply drafting defects.

As a practising Anglican as well as a Member of Parliament, I believe that we have not yet reached a satisfactory state of affairs in which our views can be registered with synod. That is not to say that it will necessarily take notice of or bow to what we say. but we would like to know that our deliberations are received by synod.

The third message underlying much of the debate has been the concern of some of us that some members of synod want all the privileges of establishment and none of the disadvantages I think that it was 50 years ago that William Temple said in the Life and Liberty movement that to disestablish the Church, would be good for the Church and bad for the State. I believe now that disestablishment would be bad not only for the State but also for the Church. For all sorts of reasons that we cannot deal with now, I believe that the Church looks in upon itself far too much. If I may say so, it shows some of t he faults of local Labour parties in which the activists, full of zeal, have no wish to take into account the views of other people, even when they are committed people on the same side.

We do not wish to go down the path of disestablishment, but there are rights and duties for the established Church. The present set-up in which some members of synod want all the privileges but have no wish to accept any of the reservations cannot and will not continue. My fear is not that this may be seen as a first move towards disestablishment, but that the temper of this place is now such that the Church may stumble into disestablishment without realising what it is doing.

11.44 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I wish to follow some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). First, I declare my own hand. For me, the Church is about people and about teaching God's message, not about plant and bureaucracy and similar matters in which I have very little interest. I love beautiful buildings, I was a cathedral chorister, and I will never forget the joys of singing in great choirs and fine services. All that is part of it, of course. Nevertheless, if all that and the buildings had to go, it would not matter particularly to me, provided that the job that Christ came on Earth to do continued—because that is what it is about. People are concerned about establishment. Although there is great value in it and a great deal to be said for it—indeed, I am more than marginally in favour of it—in the end I would not care if it went because it is not the vital thing. Other things are more important.

At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) who, with his customary care and accuracy, opened the debate.

The public relations aspect of church closures is almost always deplorable. Although that is a big generalisation, I think that it is fair. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, people's roots are deep in the buildings or churches where they are baptised or married. One need not think long about the involvement of an individual with the place where he parts with the mortal remains of his loved ones. Synod and those associated with it far too often forget that, although for fair reasons, that is the very matter that the Church and its associates should remember.

When there is a proposal for closure, every care must be seen to be taken and arguments must be carefully mounted. I know that both old and young people are appallingly difficult, obnoxious and ghastly in their opposition to closures, but the Church must bear that. Public relations must cover that aspect and remind Christians and their families that their relationship with the Church is not about plant.

I take up with great interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead about St. Matthew, Westminster. I lived next door to it for some time and it was a place where the greatest in the land worshipped with the humblest. It was the home of Bishop Frank Weston, Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and Archbishop Michael Ramsay.

The redundancy of Christ Church, Spitalfields, was handled well. I was a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate in that area for some time and I saw the marvellous work done for alcoholics in the basement of the church while people were worshipping upstairs. I cannot think of a more godly use for the building. That beautiful and magnificent piece of history is still there as a great concert hall. It is an inspiration to anyone.

St. John's, Smith Square, has been beautifully restored for concerts and spiritual music. One's great delight is choral music. The work of people such as Lady Parker, the late wife of the late Lord Chief Justice, restored that church well, within measures available long before the measures before the House this evening were contemplated.

Sensitivity is required when we deal with church buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham described the position under the new measure where a building is to be closed and an alternative built. That brings to mind all the questions about team ministry and so on. I am worried about the establishment of team ministries as an alternative to individual churches with individual incumbents because spiritual growth is required in all worshipping communities. That will come only through steady, thoughtful, deep and progressive teaching. We may get a good deal more team ministry as a result of this measure, and I am not sure that that is necessarily conducive to deep teaching.

I was in Wales on a Sunday recently and I went to a local church in a small village. It was a nice service, though not well attended. I asked the vicar how many churches he had to look after. he told me that he looked after six churches and that he did not consider that many in these days. I told him that I felt that his task must be difficult and he replied "It is a great deal easier than having a single church and seeing the same people Sunday after Sunday, trying to make an impact on them and take them +through progressive teaching. It is much easier to see different people all the time".

I was concerned about those remarks because they implied a shallowness of instruction. If there is any suggestion that the redrawing of parish boundaries will produce more team ministries, I should want to enter a caveat of concern. If teaching is not deep, progressive and real, a community's roots in the faith will become more and more shallow. Those of us who are practising Anglicans do not want that to happen. We should not stand by and watch the Church die. That would be a gross failure of our duty.

I am looking forward to my hon. Friend's reply to my intervention on the question of the envisaged restriction of the right of appeal. The difference between an unfettered right of appeal and the right of appeal by leave is important. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me on that point. Public relations on sensitive matters that are deep in the heart and consciousness of individuals and communities are important.

11.55 pm

Sir William van Straubenzee

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. I begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House for the tenor of their remarks, for which I am grateful. I thank them also for the kind things that have been said about myself which are less deserved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) expressed concern about the reduction in the power of appeal and asked how many appeals were lodged each year. I am advised that three of four appeals are heard each year. I stress "heard" because a number of appeals may be withdrawn before the hearings take place. We can be informed about those appeals only in general terms. Of course, if there were only one appeal every three years, it would still be important. I am certain that my hon. Friend and I are in agreement about that. It is the principle that is important and not the numbers.

It can be said, as was reported to the ecclesiastical committee, that the initiative for these proposals came more from the legal than from the ecclesiastical authorities, which were concerned about the welfare, expense and trouble of would-be appellants, having by way of judgment laid down the pretty narrow terms upon which they were prepared to entertain an appeal. This is not a plot by the Church to reduce the number of appeals.

Unfortunately, I gave the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) an incomplete answer when he intervened during my opening speech. I apologise to him. I overlooked something and I must put the record right. I said to him, perfectly correctly, that what I loosely call the Secretary of State's appeal procedure is related to listed buildings. I should have added that it refers also to buildings in a conservation area whether listed or not. That is quite an important extension. I forgot that when I answered that question quickly on the Floor of the House.

The House will forgive me if I do not explore the fundamental question whether the House should have power to amend measures. That goes to the root of the settlement between Church and State, which was arrived at in 1919. I suspect that I would incur the wrath of the Chair if I cantered down that road too far. I must content myself with the law as it is. It may be that Parliament may wish to reopen that matter with the Church. If it does, so be it.

I have listened with care and attention to the matters that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House relating to the necessity for the General Synod to listen and to be receptive. The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked by what mechanisms does the synod get to know. It gets to know by a number of mechanisms including—I am not being flippant—Hansard and other House journals.

I have always seen it—no doubt this has been the view of my predecessors—as one of my tasks to seek to interpret within the appropriate committee of the General Synod. Over recent weeks I have sought, perhaps inadequately, to do so. My experience is that individual members of the synod are receptive to and understanding of public expressions of views on their work as expressed by hon. Members.

It is true that since I first entered the synod, or, as it then was, the Church Assembly, there have been few members of this place who have been members of the General Synod. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) happily has been co-opted, to the great advantage of the General Synod. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) is an elected member. I am both an elected and an ex-officio member. We are the only three Members of Parliament who are members of the General Synod. In some ways I regret this. If there should be times—and this has been touched on by all three hon. Members who have addressed the House from the Back Benches—when hon. Members are concerned about the operation of a pastoral measure or provisions for redundancy, I most earnestly hope that they will make their views known to me if I can be of any help as a channel. I suppose in one sense that is my role, and I will take it on most willingly.

It is very important indeed that these things shall be done with as much sensitivity as possible. I have to say that the Church of England is not a centralist organisation. It is not one run with a highly disciplined force from the centre. I have to accept quite freely that from time to time there are imperfections in its operations. I could not possibly say otherwise. I would like to say, however, having given the House the figures for the number of schemes that there have been, that this is perhaps not an example with which we are familiar in Parliamentary life where we rightly hear of the cases which have gone wrong, and we do not hear anything of the cases which have gone right: where there has been intense sensitivity, where there has been the most careful sounding of opinion, where the Archdeacon and his people have with infinite pastoral care and sensitivity felt their way forward and brought their people along with them.

In fairness, one might be allowed to say that, but I would never want to excuse insensitivity. I would be deeply concerned, and I have been, when toes have been trodden on and feelings hurt, a deeply-felt love of Church over-riding in an apparently brutal way by someone. This cannot be excused for one moment. I am not seeking to do so. I am asking for help in getting to know of them, and to be aware of them when the time comes.

Finally, reference has been made to forthcoming consultation. I say no more about it, because it is of a non-statutory kind, as some of us know. Within the limitations of the present law, I think that might be a very useful occasion. I detect no disposition whatever on the part of the General Synod to be other than receptive to the views of this House as expressed by its Members, and to take them appropriately and carefully into account.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead takes the view—and he is fully entitled to—that the comments of the Advisory Board on this matter of schedule 1 were more powerful than those put forward by the General Synod. I respectfully disagree. These are matters of judgment. I still believe that what I ventured to say earlier about the very powerful provisions for the Secretary of State's non-statutory inquiries are going to turn out to be extremely important. I know he used the expressive phrase that they would use an Exocet. I would not wish, I confess, to describe Miss Margot Eates as an Exocet, certainly not to her face, but I take the point about the very powerful nature.

I hope that the balance may be right. All sides are seeking to get it right. It is in that spirit that I commend the measure to you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod 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.