HC Deb 01 July 1991 vol 194 cc121-30

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

10.3 pm

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Michael Alison)

I beg to move, That the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 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 long and detailed Measure, but essentially it is not complex—and it is both reasonable and desirable in its objectives. It is primarily concerned, as the Ecclesiastical Committee's report makes clear, with the care and conservation of churches and land, and articles belonging to them, in the parishes of the Church of England. Within that overall aim the Measure seeks to secure two broad objectives: first, to strengthen and extend the Church of England's legal and administrative arrangements for the care and conservation of churches; secondly, to extend and reform the general law relating to ecclesiastical courts and their officers.

The background to the Measure is that the Church of England enjoys the privilege of being exempt from secular planning law, for example from listed building consent, so far as repairs, alterations or additions to its parish churches and other consecrated or dedicated buildings is concerned. However, that privilege—known as ecclesiastical exemption—is not unqualified. Those responsible for parish churches—generally parochial church councils and the incumbent—have to secure a form of permission called a faculty before they can undertake any repairs, alterations or additions to their churches.

This measure is required essentially to reinforce and modernise the faculty procedure. It was part of the agreement between Church and state in 1977, which inaugurated the granting of state aid for churches in use, that the Church of England, via its General Synod, undertook to review and improve the operation of that so-called faculty jurisdiction.

Turning briefly to the more detailed provisions of the Measure, it amends legislation in three main areas: care and inspection, which is part II; the amendment of the faculty jurisdiction, in part III; and certain reforms of the ecclesiastical courts, which is also in part III.

The measure provides for the diocesan advisory committee, which advises parochial church councils, and the diocesan chancellor—who is an ecclesiastical judge—on the care and conservation of places of worship, to have a written constitution including provisions for three members who are to be appointed after consultation with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, the various national amenity societies and the relevant local authorities.

The diocesan advisory committee will be required to make an annual report to the diocesan synod and will have its own budget for the first time. Paragraph 3 of schedule 3 amends the Inspection of Churches Measure 1955, requiring a bishop to establish a five-yearly inspection scheme for all churches in his diocese and to extend the scheme to certain valuable or vulnerable articles in churches. The carrying out of inspections is to be extended to chartered building surveyors, in addition to architects.

Clause 12 makes it clear that a consistory court—the diocesan court presided over by the chancellor of the diocese—has power to grant faculties, subject to conditions, and enables the court to grant faculties authorising the archdeacon to carry out, at the petitioner's expense, where he or she has defaulted, the works authorised by the court.

Clause 13 re-enacts section 5 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 in more concise language, but with the addition of five new provisions. First, the consistory court is empowered to require any party, other than the petitioner, whom it considers responsible for any act or default which led to the faculty proceedings being instituted, to meet the whole or part of the cost of the proceedings and the expenses of any works authorised by the faculty—that is in clause 13(1). Secondly, the clause reinforces an existing power of the court which enables it to add, as a further party to the case, any person alleged to be so responsible—that is for any act or default in respect of which the court proceedings had been initiated —even if that person is an outsider. That is in clause 13(2). The court may also require that person to attend a hearing —clause 13(3)—and may treat failure to attend without reasonable excuse as a contempt of court—clause 13(11).

Thirdly, the consistory court is given power to issue an injunction restraining a person from committing or continuing in an unlawful act in respect of any church, any article belonging to a church or any churchyard in the diocese—that is in clause 13(4). Fourthly, the court is empowered to make a restoration order to restore the position that existed before the unlawful act was committed—that is in clause 13(5)—and a time limit of six years is imposed on certain enforcement proceedings under the clause. In my third and fourth examples, the consistory court may act on its own motion, on the application of the archdeacon or that of any other person who appears to the court to have a sufficient interest.

Clause 15 requires a chancellor, or an archdeacon exercising delegated faculty jurisdiction, to seek the ad vice of the diocesan advisory committee before dealing finally with any faculty matter. Exceptionally, if the chancellor considers what is proposed sufficiently urgent, he may grant a faculty, or issue an injunction, without the committee's advice.

Clause 15 was amended during its consideration by the General Synod to require the chancellor to seek the advice of the diocesan advisory committee, rather than to obtain that advice. That may seem a bit of hair-splitting, but, during consultation with the Department of the Environment and English Heritage, it was pointed out that in certain circumstances a long delay over a faculty could be detrimental to the church fabric, and that, if a reasonable length of time had elapsed since the seeking of the committee's advice—hitherto unforthcoming—the chancellor should have power to go ahead with that advice. That is expected to happen only very rarely, but a measure of flexibility would be provided when the chancellor thought it desirable.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Delay in decision-making can indeed be very damaging to fabric, especialy if it happens over a winter and frost has eaten into stone that may not have been pointed as well as it should have been. Who can make the decision that work must be done quickly, even if all the money is not available? This is a serious problem.

Mr. Alison

The chancellor of the diocese, or the archdeacon and his associated officers, can bypass the diocesan advisory committee for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman has so perceptively given. The requirement is that they should seek advice, not that they should obtain it.

Having sought the advice—and its materialisation, for whatever reason, having been delayed—the archdeacon and his relevant fellow officers can bypass it and proceed to implement the vital repairs or other emergency action that may be needed for the reasons, perhaps climatic, that the hon. Gentleman has helpfully cited.

Clause 18 re-enacts, with modifications, section 2(4) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964. It empowers the chancellor to execute an instrument authorising demolition, or partial demolition, of a church without a faculty, in specified emergencies—if, the matter being urgent, there is not enough time for a faculty to be obtained. The terms of the instrument are to supplement, not exclude, any listed-building controls that may be applicable.

Where there is total demolition of a listed church, or where an order for such demolition is proposed, the church will cease to be an ecclesiastical building for ecclesiastical purposes and the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 will apply. Listed building consent will be required in the same way as it would be for a secular building.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the other place questions were asked about the extent of the powers in clause 18 to avoid normal planning constraints and to agree to demolition or partial demolition. Reading between the lines, it was suggested that the Minister who spoke for the Department of the Environment would reconsider the matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a considered view on whether clause 18 goes too far?

Mr. Alison

I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman —I am coming to that point. I remind him that where full or total demolition is proposed, for which an order must be made in advance, the building ceases to be a ecclesiastical building altogether.

Mr. Hughes

Altogether?

Mr. Alison

The order is the operative factor. Once an order is made, the building ceases to be an ecclesiastical building and therefore automatically falls within the ambit of the full secular law.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the weather affecting churches. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the beautiful little church in Bolsover was seriously affected by mining subsidence. I remember the arguments and the questions that were being asked in the House about what we were going to do about that beautiful little church. All sorts of things were being said, but in the end the Church Commissioners caved in and did not fight their corner. My question is about churches in mining areas, which can be seriously affected by mining subsidence. Where do we stand?

Mr. Alison

In the context of this Measure, if subsidence occurred in Bolsover or near the hon. Gentleman's constituency that was so detrimental to the parish church that it was about to collapse around the heads of the worshipping congregation, that would be an emergency and the church authorities would wish to secure authority totally to demolish it or it might fall down when people were worshipping. In such circumstances, the church authorities would have to publish an order for its demolition, and from then on it would cease to be an ecclesiastical building and would be subject to the full secular law on listed building control. Normal planning regulations and requirements would apply to the way in which it was handled thereafter.

The point that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made about the availability of compensation for subsidence, though interesting and important, is not within the ambit of the Measure that I am introducing. I would be happy to debate that with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.

Mr. Haynes

The right hon. Gentleman is not doing very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not get a great deal of help from the Church Commissioners. The matter dragged on and on. If that could happen in Bolsover, it could happen in any small mining village. The people could end up without a church.

Mr. Alison

The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I am afraid that we are wandering slightly outside the ambit of the Measure, although I am happy to travel down this road with so important a navigator as the hon. Member for Ashfield.

The hon. Gentleman is slightly unfair to the Church Commissioners. They coughed up plenty of money. It was impossible to do so, except in the context of protracted legal negotiations between the parochial church council, the incumbent of that church and British Coal. Those complicated negotiations involved liability. Such negotiations were unavoidable, but they were concluded and the parish council was well endowed with compensation.

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Where there is partial demolition, the ecclesiastical exemption will continue to apply. That does not mean, however, that the chancellor of the diocese will have unfettered discretion. Clauses 18(1) and 18(2) of the Measure mirror the provisions of the 1990 Act, and those requirements must be satisfied before the diocesan chancellor can issue an instrument for partial demolition. The relevant sections of the 1990 Act contain four groups of requirements upon which secular authorities insist in planning law in respect of the demolition of certain listed buildings. Clauses 18(1) and (2) transpose those sections, in effect to apply pari passu to the ecclesiastical authorities within their ecclesiastical exemption and faculty jurisdiction. They will mirror the requirements of secular or state planning law in the functions that are discharged within the scope of ecclesiastical exemption. Therefore, there will be no lack of proper supervision or control as a result of ecclesiastical exemption—the diocesan chancellors will behave exactly as if they were the secular planning authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his careful and clear explanation. This is obviously a matter of general importance involving the conservation of important buildings. Does one conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's comments that the emergency powers granted to a diocesan chancellor in partial demolition cases will not give him any greater power under the church legislation over churches than planning authorities have under equivalent secular planning legislation? Although there are emergency powers, are they equally constrained, or does an emergency give additional rights against which there would be protection in secular planning law?

Mr. Alison

Only partial demolition is relevant in this respect. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and everyone else is satisfied on total demolition. Although some ecclesiastical independence is retained because of ecclesiastical exemption for partial demolition, the ecclesiastical authorities have done exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks—they have limited themselves as the 1990 Act would have limited them had it applied to them directly.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that there is a delicate balance to be struck between the liturgical needs of parishioners and proper conservation of historic buildings. I suggest that the Measure, which received overwhelming majorities in all three houses of the General Synod at final approval stage, gets that balance about right. In moving the motion, I wish to place on record the thanks of the Church of England to the Department of the Environment for the great help which was given over a long period during drafting and consideration of the Measure.

10.24 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Scottish Presbyterians such as myself must be careful in trying to meddle in the affairs of the Church of England. In a sense, I speak in sackcloth and ashes as perhaps all hon. Members should when telling other people what to do with their ecclesiastical buildings.

I take this opportunity to say that the Crypt—not a hundred yards from here—needs urgent attention. During the past four years I have, through the Serjeant at Arms and through the Property Services Agency, asked endlessly for something to be done about the stone rot in the Crypt, especially that by the font just past the beautiful etchings of Noah and Moses. I understand that there are difficulties, possibly caused by the bomb in the 1940s, by the drainage system and by the cracks. I find it profoundly embarrassing to take knowledgeable visitors into the Crypt to see the disintegration of the stone in the beautiful marble octagonal chapel. So it is with considerable reservation that I even rise to speak.

My excuse is that my wife was for 12 years a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and is now a member of the Scottish Ancient Monuments Board. In Scotland, we have a civilised habit whereby the Ancient Monuments Board goes on three-day visits each Whitsun and spouses are allowed to go along as paying guests. One can learn a great deal. It is against that background that I put three points to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).

First, I welcome the principle of quinquennial or five-yearly inspections, but who carries out those inspections? What powers are there to enforce any conclusions that might be reached?

Secondly, there follows from that the vexed question of grants from the state for church repairs. In Scotland there has been much difficulty even for great churches such as the Holy Rood in Stirling, because money that might have been forthcoming from state sources was not for a long time forthcoming. It is unreal to expect churches, which as a result of population changes have small congregations, to undertake the work that they perhaps should undertake.

Thirdly, I do not come from Norfolk or Suffolk but I regard the wonderful wool churches—the great monuments of medieval European architecture—as part of my heritage as much as anybody else in these islands. All praise to the work of Lady Harrod and others who have devoted the latter part of their lives to trying to do something about the problems. Nevertheless, the time has come for substantially more state help.

In a different context I, like the Secretary of State for the Environment, went to Heveningham hall. I shall not go into detail other than to say that it had been beautifully restored inside. I went there at the invitation of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I have never seen better restoration of wood and plaster work, the features on which I am competent to pass judgment. But what on earth is going to be done about the Suffolk and Norfolk churches which were in once prosperous farming areas, but whose congregations have now dwindled and perhaps moved to the towns? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on the vital question of giving state help to churches which are part of the medieval European heritage but which cannot be supported by their local congregations to the extent that repairs now demand?

10.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

My intervention will be on a similar subject to that raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I welcome this timely Measure, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for clarifying the point that I raised earlier.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow has posed a question that was left unanswered: how sure can we be that historic church buildings in England are adequately funded? Let me give an example. I am a member of the congregation of St. James's, Bermondsey, a beautiful Waterloo church in the diocese of Southwark, which can be seen from the railway line coming out of London Bridge station. We have just restored that church and hung new bells. The stone work has also been cleaned. All that was made possible only by our going round seeking special funding—in this case, funding gratefully received partly from English Heritage and partly from the London Docklands development corporation. There are other churches that are very near to St. James's but outside the London Docklands development corporation catchment area, whose congregations or incumbents could not have gone to the LDDC, which has helped the architectural heritage in London, and which has done excellent work north of the river, in the docklands churches of Tower Hamlets, Wapping and the Isle of Dogs, and also, I believe, in Newham.

Our concern is that congregations and, indeed, dioceses often cannot raise the necessary funds. That is certainly true if they are in inner-city areas or areas that were once prosperous. I see that the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) is in her place. I do not mean it impolitely when I say that I know that there are some areas of her constituency which were once more prosperous than they are now and where the capacity of congregations to keep their churches in a good state of repair is substantially reduced. That is also true of very rural parts of the country. My family comes from Herefordshire, which has some beautiful churches whose congregations number a handful of people, if that. Suffolk and Norfolk face similar difficulties. In some East Anglian churches, there is one service a month because the vicar has seven or eight parishes to look after.

It is right that we should update our procedure. I welcome the fact that we are addressing the care of churches this year just as we addressed the care of cathedrals last year. We welcomed the arrangements, announed last year, whereby some state aid would be given for cathedrals, but it must be said that many churches are still equally in need of support, albeit not necessarily in the same way. I hope that the right hon. Member for Selby will be able to answer, at least in part, the concern felt by people—whatever their denomination if they are Christians, or religion if they are not, or views if they are people of no religious persuasion—that the heritage of Christian buildings throughout the country should be preserved and that too many of them have been under threat in recent years.

10.33 pm
Mr. Alison

With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, let me respond first to the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the five-yearly inspection, which I mentioned in my opening remarks.

The inspections will be carried out, as they usually are at present, by architects and also—as a result of the powers taken in the Measure—by surveyors. The inspection may result in recommendations to make a change, repair or improvement to a particular building, either on the initiative of the inspection body or person or possibly in conjunction with the parochial church council and the incumbent of the building inspected. Wherever the initiative comes from, either the inspector or the incumbent and PCC have then to submit the scheme for corroboration and advice to the diocesan advisory committee, which is an expert body. In due course, that body will issue a faculty or permission for the work to be carried out. A systematic, regular inspection system results in reasonable recommendations for change, subject to the advice of the diocesan advisory committee, being authorised by the faculty jurisdiction procedure.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to money. I speak with some diffidence as I do not know enough about the affairs of the Church of Scotland or the Episcopal Church of Scotland to know exactly how their finances work. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that since 1977 the state has made substantial sums, running into many millions of pounds, available to the Church of England for the maintenance of our historic heritage of old and splendid ecclesiastical buildings. That to some extent bears upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who referred to the problem of raising enough money for many of our fine buildings, the huge range of needs and the relatively limited resources.

The grant aid scheme for churches in use is to be reviewed by the Department of the Environment in conjunction with the churches to discover how it can be refined, extended and elaborated and generally improved. There is something in view. Now that the principle of state aid has been accepted, improvements and perhaps elaboration are in prospect.

Mr. Dalyell

Is it not wrong that most of the money has, perhaps understandably, found its way to the restoration of great cathedrals like Wells and York instead of trickling down to some of those country churches where a little money could make a difference?

Mr. Alison

Since 1977, the lion's share of the money has gone to the parish churches. The Government have only recently accepted the principle of state aid for cathedrals. On the whole, cathedrals have had a better, more photogenic base on which to appeal for substantial funds. Many of them have, with good management and before any state aid was in prospect, succeeded in raising considerable sums of money. State aid is now in prospect for cathedrals, but since 1977 the bulk of the money has been available for parish churches.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman has taken the debate slightly further by saying that a Department of the Environment reconsideration is in prospect. If that is so, I want to record a bid for a subject to be reconsidered; namely former church buildings such as the palaces of the Bishops of Winchester and Southwark which are beautiful buildings, but which no one can identify because there is nothing on those buildings to tell people what they are. If the DOE is reviewing the way in which it can help, it can assist by allowing people to be informed through English Heritage about the historical importance of buildings.

Mr. Alison

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot make a very intelligent comment on it other than to suggest—and this is an almost anarchical, entirely improper and unofficial suggestion—that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should persuade the Bishop of Southwark to consecrate or dedicate the building he mentioned so that it becomes an ecclesiastical building. It can then come within the ambit of all the marvellous things that we arc seeking to do. However, he must not take that advice as ex cathedra.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

My right hon. Friend should watch out. The Bishops of Winchester had palaces or residences all over the place. Perhaps it would be far better to leave them buried. Now is an appropriate time to ask my right hon. Friend to pass on the thanks of the House to all those who have produced the Measures and those who look after the buildings and put in many hours of dedicated work. We are grateful for what they achieve. We would not have much of our heritage without the work of people at parish level. How pleasant it is to read part I of the Measure, which is fairly unusual in an ecclesiastical Measure. It states: Any person or body carrying out functions of care and conservation under this Measure …shall have due regard to the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission."Such a statement of principle is very welcome, and I hope that it will be repeated on other occasions.

Mr. Alison

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful, constructive and agreeable accolade to those who have made an important, worthwhile, and desirable contribution in respect of this Measure.

Mr. Dalyell

I hope that the new director of works for the Palace of Westminster to be found by Saxon Bamphylde, the head-hunters, will have as his job specification the urgent architectural needs of the Palace, and not the reorganisation of staff, as the rumour is, that he be brought in to cut down, on a hatchet basis, the number of staff working in this Palace. I hope that attention will be given to the problems that I raised, such as the surrounds to the Crypt of the House of Commons.

Mr. Alison

I shall want to study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Crypt chapel. I am not quite as familiar with it as he is. I am speaking without notice. I do not think that the jurisdiction of the Crypt chapel comes within that of any diocesan authority. It is one of the peculiars, in the jargon of ecclesiastical circles, which means that it is not a royal peculiar, but just a plain peculiar. That means that the scope for taking action in respect of the needs of the Crypt chapel do not strictly come within the scope of the Measure or of the Diocese of London. I shall take further advice on the position of the Crypt chapel and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 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.