HC Deb 10 December 1990 vol 182 cc653-4
27. Mr. John Marshall

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Commissioners have made about the Government's proposal that the Department of the Environment will assist with the maintenance of cathedrals.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)

None, Sir, because, while they welcome the Government's proposal, the Commissioners have no direct responsibility for the maintenance of cathedrals. The primary duty of the Commissioners is the support of the full-time parochial ministry of the Church of England, in service and retirement, and the bulk of their income is used for that purpose.

Mr. Marshall

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this extra money means that there will be much less pressure on cathedrals to sell their historic treasures? It demonstrates the Government's concern for the environ-ment and for our cultural heritage, and perhaps a bouquet should go to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for getting the money from the Treasury.

Mr. Alison

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. The £11.5 million to be spent over the next three years by the Government and by the Secretary of State for the Environment, in particular, is very welcome, although the Church must make up more than £70 million to contribute to that source. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy was an important and potent force in securing that welcome financial input from the Government and we are grateful for his help.

Mr. Frank Field

When the right hon. Gentleman is considering land that the Commissioners may sell—he rightly said that the proceeds of those sales are used to pay clergy salaries—will he consider the Commissioners' duty in relation to employment levels in different parts of the country? If it does not cause the Commissioners great expense, should not they withdraw land from areas of high employment so that Government jobs in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can go to areas of high unemployment such as the one that I represent?

Mr. Alison

I naturally have much sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, particularly in regard to the Birkenhead constituency and Merseyside, where developments that increase employment might take place. The initiative for planning applications for the use of Church Commission land must come initially from the person or unit wishing to develop land. If the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food central scientific laboratory is projected to be at a particular locality in, say, North Yorkshire, the only way in which the Commission could stop it would be by refusing to sell the land, but the Ministry might then compulsorily purchase it. However, I personally will write to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food drawing his attention to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the central scientific laboratory might be located away from North Yorkshire and see what happens.

Mr. Latham

I warmly welcome the fact that Government money is available to preserve the matchless heritage of our historic cathedrals, which are famous throughout the world. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no diminution in the money available for English Heritage to help historic parish churches, many of which are in a serious state?

Mr. Alison

I take careful note of my hon. Friend's point. The sums available to English Heritage through the Government have been steadily increasing and are at an all-time high in the current financial year.