Ecclesiastical Fees Measure (Hansard, 24 February 1986)

§ Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners)
I beg to move, That the Ecclesiastical Fees 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. This is a Measure that is designed to change the method by which draft orders that are connected with ecclesiastical fees are brought, first, before the General Synod and secondly, if necessary, before the House. They deal with peripheral fees with which we are all concerned in various ways. These are fees that may be charged in the parishes for weddings and burials, for example. Secondly, the orders relate to ecclesiastical judges and legal officers' fees and the fees charged by ecclesiastical courts. Thirdly, there are the legal officers' annual fees relating to the annual retainers that are paid to provincial and diocesan registrars.
During the latter half of the century we have, unfortunately, had to deal with inflation and it has been necessary from time to time to increase the fees by way of adjustment to take account of inflation. The General Synod has come to the conclusion that to do this by way of an affirmative order every time, when it is often not a matter of controversy, is not a very proper use of the House's time.
The Measure that is before the House proposes that the Standing Committee of the General Synod can determine that an affirmative resolution is not necessary. However, I want to make it abundantly clear that any one member of the General Synod can have that decision overturned if he or she wishes a debate to take place. If any one member wants that to happen, there has to be an affirmative resolution from the General Synod. Members of the General Synod will be given the right, in accordance with the standing orders of the Synod, which require 25 members to be in support, to propose amendments, a right which they do not have currently.
There was a change made as a result of discussion of the Ecclesiastical Committee, to which I express my appreciation and gratitude. As first presented, the Measure did not provide that there must be a negative procedure, as we know it in this place, and annulment by the House and by another place. The Ecclesiastical Committee doubted that that was proper. It was rightly careful, quite correctly in my respectful view, of the rights of Her Majesty's subjects. That is exactly what it is there for. After careful reconsideration, the negative procedure has been inserted. Hon. Members will find that in each of the appropriate clauses it is provided that the House has the right, if it so wishes, at any time to raise a matter by the negative procedure. There were two votes against in the House of Clergy, eight votes against in the House of Laity and no votes against in the Houses of Bishops, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has found this procedure to be expedient.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down)
The Ecclesiastical Committee has served the House well in securing that both classes of order which can be made under this Measure will be subject to parliamentary 784 negative procedure. It is right and proper that we should not entirely relinquish parliamentary control over the content of these Measures. I think that it was in the original Measure that only one type of order was subject to negative procedure. It was right that the provision was extended to both, and that has resulted from the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the reconsideration that was given by the General Synod.
I hope that I am not straying too far when I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the General Synod may have come up with the solution to a problem which has vexed Procedure Committees and other Committees dealing with the procedures of the House. One of our difficulties in this place is our inability, when an order comes before us, to do other than approve or reject it. Even this House has found no means so far of being able, however desperately it might desire it, to discuss an amendment to an order. Perhaps a trail has been blazed for us by the General Synod by making it possible for an individual member to secure a debate—for an individual member of the Synod if supported by 25 others to secure that an amendment to an order can be debated. It is not often that, in our superior pride, we find ourselves looking to the Synod for guidance or enlightment in matters of our own procedure, but here the Synod may have hit upon something which is worthy of the attention of a procedural Committee of this House.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
One of the three short points I wanted to make has been made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I hope that it will fall upon willing and listening ears because the procedural device that this Measure will bring to the Synod could with advantage be adopted here. The reason given for it by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) was that in some measure it had to do with the work load of the Synod. During the short time I spent in the last Synod after I was co-opted to it, as was the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), one of the things that became apparent to me was that the time of the Synod was severely pressed.
It is important, while retaining safeguards, as this does, to make sure that routine matters, though important, can be disposed of in the most effective and efficient way. Quite properly, the Synod has an enormous amount of work to do and if Parliament or the Church or the country expects it to do its job properly, we should allow it to have procedures that permit that to happen.
My last point is perhaps slightly more topical. I hope that the fees set out for the different types of activity, parochial and ecclesiastical, and legal officers' fees, will be examined. Sometimes different rates may be more appropriate in inner city areas, for example than elsewhere. We politicians sometimes come up against the problem of recruiting members at a standard rate in the more affluent shires and in the less affluent inner cities. I hope that in the debate on the commission's report, bearing in mind the welcome that it was given by the Synod when it met some weeks ago and remembering especially the task that is ahead of the Church Commissioners over funding for the projects and priorities set out in that report—especially the urban priority areas —some thought will be given to the way in which the fee is charged.
785 I hope that the fee charged and therefore the income received may be adjusted so that standard rates do not necessarily apply. Once a system and a structure have been organised and have gained assent, it may be possible to do things that, even in a small way, could bring about what the Archbishop's commission has proposed. I hope that the Measure will provide safeguards for steps of that sort as it will for the standard rate fees for the normal activities of the Church.

§ Sir William van Straubenzee
I should like to thank the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am delighted to think that we at Church house may have found an answer to one of Parliament's problems. However, that is not a matter for me tonight. I shall draw to the attention of the appropriate authorities the interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. My immediate reaction, not rejecting his suggestion but thinking of it while I speak, is that I doubt whether we have the legal right and ability to make a difference in the fees as between one part of the country and another. As I say, that is my immediate reaction and the matter must be looked at. We are talking about the fees that may be charged in the parishes. I know, having chaired one of the commissions, that the clergy strongly wish that variable fees should, as far as possible, reflect the enormous pastoral opportunities of the clergy and the heavy expenses which fall upon families at a time of bereavement. Therefore, the fees are not uniform, imposed on a mathematical basis, but are geared to meet the pastoral duties of the Church. I hope that the House will accept the Measure.