§ 1 pm
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly about one of my favourite subjects. Almost the first thing that I did when I entered the House was to begin moves to introduce a Bill to make public funds available for ecclesiastical buildings in use, because until 1977 they were not.
I am delighted that my campaign met with some success. I joined and was joined by many others. For almost 20 years, the Church of England especially has had cause to be grateful for the funds that have come its way. I say that to emphasise the fact that this is not a carping speech. I hope that I shall say some important things about the preservation of England's churches and cathedrals. I mean no insult to anyone, present or not present, by concentrating on Church of England buildings, because the problem of historic churches is essentially a Church of England problem.
The Church of England has about 16,000 churches, about 13,000 of which are listed buildings, and of course it has 42 cathedrals. Forty per cent. of grade 1 listed buildings in England are ecclesiastical.
It is an appropriate time to talk about churches and cathedrals, to which I hope people throughout the country will flock next Wednesday, which is Christmas day. They will be fuller then than probably at any other time of the year—fuller than most of them will be at Easter. That draws attention to the use of our places of worship.
Many of those who do not choose to go to church next week nevertheless recognise the central importance of the church. In most towns and villages, the church is the most important public building, almost always the most outstanding architecturally and the one with the most interesting history. If one believes, as I do, that one comes closest to the soul and the spirit of a nation in its historic buildings, one recognises the central importance of our churches and cathedrals.
I am glad to see my friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in the Chamber. I apologise to him for the fact that I shall not speak about Scottish churches today, but he takes a well-informed interest in all heritage matters and it is always good to see him in our debates.
A month ago today, the Archbishop of Canterbury launched an initiative with a press conference at Lambeth palace. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage is well aware of that. I am glad that he will reply to the debate; he is one of my oldest friends in the House, and no one could question his commitment to the civilised things of life.
The archbishop's initiative, which is encapsulated in the document that I hold in my hand, entitled "Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage", is concerned with developing and strengthening that partnership. I emphasise the word "partnership". After all, we are speaking of our national, established Church—the Church whose services and ministrations are available for every man, woman and child in England, and which therefore has enormously important commitments of mission and worship.
No sensible cleric regards our great, rich legacy of historic churches as anything other than a wonderful asset. One has only to think of some of one's favourite churches 914 to recognise the transcendant beauty of such buildings. I think of my native Lincolnshire, which I left many years ago: of churches as glorious as Louth, Boston and Stow and of little gems such as Snarford. In my adopted county of Staffordshire, in the diocese of Lichfield, I think especially of my parish church at Enville, where I am churchwarden and where, during the past few years, we have struggled to raise about £110,000 to maintain our church.
That says it all, in a way. We have a population of fewer than 400. There is a similar number on the electoral roll. We have received, and are grateful for, state aid, and we have received aid from the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, of which I happen to be a trustee. Nevertheless, we have had to raise a very large sum ourselves. We have done it, and it has brought the community together. We welcomed the challenge, but we would not welcome another one next year because there is a limit to the amount of money that small communities can raise, and a recognition of that is at the heart of the archbishop's commendable initiative.
It is calculated that it costs about £100 million a year to maintain the fabric of the churches and cathedrals of the Church of England. About 75 per cent. of that comes from the Church and from voluntary giving and fund raising, and 25 per cent. comes from grant and lottery money. Welcome as grants are, the sum received from English Heritage is about £11 million—about £5 million less than the VAT that the Church pays on repairs. Every Minister should ponder that figure.
If we are to continue to be regarded as a civilised nation, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the greatest buildings in our country are properly maintained. At the moment, most of our churches and cathedrals are in good repair. As the archbishop said when he launched his document a month ago, in very many cases they have never been in better repair. Yet, looking into the next century and beyond, one must recognise that the continuing burden will be too much for the Church and congregations effectively to discharge unless more help is given.
Today, I am appealing for a recognition of that fact, and of other facts too. The lottery money is certainly welcome, although there are certain reservations about it in Church quarters—reservations that I can well understand. Still, the money has been welcomed by the Archbishop and by those who have the care of our churches, but it is not enough. We are, after all, asking for only a very small sum of money. The budget of English Heritage is being cut. We need more funding from that source, but English Heritage cannot provide more core funding if its resources are being cut.
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for National Heritage and other Ministers have said repeatedly that the lottery money is regarded as additional to Government money, stressing time and again that it is never to be seen as a substitute for Government funding, but it is becoming a substitute. Later today we shall have an opportunity to debate the Second Reading of the National Heritage Bill, and if I am fortunate enough to catch the Speaker's eye, I may be able to develop some of those arguments then. For now, I merely put down a marker. Ministers must face up to the facts of Government funding; we need more core funding from English Heritage.
915 We also need money to compensate for the £16 million that the Church pays out in VAT. Perhaps it will be possible to negotiate with Brussels a better rate of VAT on repairs to listed buildings throughout the Community. Perhaps also we might take another look at differing rates of VAT in this country. After all, by decision of the House, the VAT rate on fuel is already 8 per cent. Why not an 8 per cent. rate in this case too?
We also need more money for the Churches Conservation Trust, the body that used to be called the Redundant Churches Fund, which maintains the fabric of churches that are no longer regularly used for worship but are of architectural or historic importance. Those churches, vested in Church and state, will need, we calculate, about £3.3 million more if they are to be effectively maintained over the next three years. The same money could buy only a very small bit of a bypass or motorway.
Next year, we shall commemorate the 1,400th anniversary of the arrival of St. Augustine, in 597. Two years after that, we shall begin to celebrate the millennium. People often forget when they talk glibly of the millennium that it is the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of our Lord. There is surely no more fitting way to commemorate the millennium than by guaranteeing the churches and cathedrals of this land the necessary funding to take them through to the next century and beyond.
I am talking about a matter of £5 million a year extra; that would take care of most of the points mentioned by the Archbishop in his press conference. Set in the national context, that is a tiny sum, yet it will ensure that some of the greatest buildings, not just in this country but in Europe, are secure for the future. That is what the debate is all about: making sure that our churches and cathedrals remain the focal points of our towns and villages and of many a wonderful rural landscape. Although congregations will still have a responsibility, they will be able to devote more energy and resources to the other tasks confronting the Church. Bearing in mind the state of our society today, I submit that there never was a time when there was more need for the Christian message to be heeded.
I ask the Minister once again to heed my plea today. I hope that he will not just tell me what has already been done, because I recognise that with gratitude. I hope that he will tell me that more is going to be done and that it is recognised that more must be done if we are to keep faith with our Christian heritage.
§ The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on his success in securing this short debate. He brings to our heritage, especially our ecclesiastic heritage, not just immense expertise but the sort of passionate commitment that has been on display again this morning. I shall try to explain what can be done and how matters can be taken forward, but, especially for the sake of those who will read the debate, I should also like to put the subject in context by touching on what has already been done. I understand, nevertheless, that my hon. Friend wants to take matters beyond that.
I certainly agree that historic religious buildings stand at the very heart of our national heritage. As my hon. Friend said, it is estimated that nearly 15,000 listed 916 buildings are in religious use, 13,000 of them churches of the Church of England. Of the buildings listed grade I—the top grade, representing only 2 per cent. of all listed buildings—well over a third are Anglican parish churches.
The importance of the ecclesiastical heritage lies not merely in its prodigious quantity but in its astonishing richness and diversity. It reflects every phase in the history of architecture from Saxon times up to the present century. It encompasses buildings of every size and style, from tiny mediaeval churches in remote countryside areas to huge Victorian masterpieces in the inner cities; from nonconformist chapels to the great Anglican cathedrals. It offers countless examples of artistic and technical achievement, and it attracts millions of visitors every year from home and abroad.
Moreover, we appreciate those buildings for more than their intrinsic architectural and artistic qualities. We value the unique contribution that they make to the appearance of the countryside and the townscape. At a deeper level, we are aware of their role in the development of communities and of the nation. We acknowledge their significance as enduring symbols of religious faith through the centuries.
The Government are totally committed to preserving the ecclesiastical heritage in all its fullness. That commitment extends to the historic buildings of all religious denominations and faiths. I well recognise, however, that in initiating this debate my hon. Friend has a particular concern for the buildings of the Church of England. I shall therefore concentrate on that aspect when responding to him.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it has long been accepted that care of the Church of England's heritage involves a partnership between the Church itself and the state. Such a partnership has in fact existed for many years, and has achieved remarkable results. The credit for that can be shared equally between both partners. The Church of England has an excellent record in looking after its historic buildings. I readily accept that caring for those buildings and their contents is a heavy responsibility, much of which must be borne by churchgoers themselves.
Therefore, I am very glad to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those individual congregations who do so much to preserve that outstanding part of the nation's heritage, not least my hon. Friend's village church. For a population of 400 to raise more than £100,000 is an achievement, and I can see why my hon. Friend would not like to go through the process again next year. I congratulate him, in his role as church warden, and the other members of the congregation on that remarkable achievement.
For the past 20 years, Government funding has been available to assist with the repair and maintenance of historic church buildings. Such funding is today channelled through English Heritage. During the past five years, English Heritage has provided grant funding of £61.4 million for repairs to churches and cathedrals, the vast majority of them Anglican. During the current financial year, English Heritage expects to make some 300 grant offers, at a total value of £13 million, for church and cathedral repair schemes. Some 80 per cent. of the grants will be for Anglican buildings. Normally, only churches listed grade 1 or grade 2-star are eligible, but all applications, including those for grade 2 churches, are considered on their merits. The criteria for the award of 917 grant are the historic importance of the building, the urgency of the proposed repairs, and the need for financial support.
The national lottery has now firmly established itself as a further key instrument for securing the future of the ecclesiastical heritage. Already, the heritage lottery fund has made 124 grant awards, totalling £14.5 million, for schemes relating to religious buildings. I understand that 105 of those awards have been for Anglican churches. Unlike English Heritage grants, which are geared towards the maintenance and repair of the fabric of historic churches, lottery funding is able to support a much wider range of projects. For example, a considerable number of lottery awards have been made for the restoration of church monuments, organs and bells. A further important difference is that lottery funding can be offered for unlisted churches in conservation areas and redundant churches.
As the House may be aware, in October, the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage launched an important new joint scheme for funding repairs to churches in use. That will pool lottery and English Heritage resources to create one source of funding. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have each set aside £10 million for the scheme during its first year. That will enable available resources to be deployed more effectively and to reach a wider range of church buildings, thereby ensuring that more local communities benefit from lottery grants.
The scheme offers a simplified one-stop application process and will allow English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund to deal with applications more efficiently and quickly. It will provide them with a clearer overall picture of the requirements of churches, thus allowing them to assess individual needs more accurately and to target grants more effectively, but I should emphasise that church organisations or congregations that do not wish to seek lottery funding on moral grounds will still be free to apply only for English Heritage support.
A further expression of the partnership between Church and state is the continued commitment on both sides to the support of the Churches Conservation Trust. The trust is devoted to the repair and maintenance of outstanding Anglican churches that are no longer required for pastoral purposes and for which no suitable alternative use can be found. There are currently more than 300 churches in the care of the trust. Since 1995, the trust has been fortunate to have my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) as its chairman.
The major financial supporter of the Churches Conservation Trust are the Government, who contribute 70 per cent. of the trust's costs, the Church Commissioners providing the remaining 30 per cent. Over the three years from 1994 to 1997, financial provision for the trust has totalled £10.3 million, of which £7.2 million has come from the Government and £3.1 million from the Church Commissioners. Funding for the period 1997 to 2000 has been provisionally agreed at £10.6 million, comprising £7.4 million from the Government and £3.2 million from the Church Commissioners.
The level of funding is intended to enable the trust to keep its churches in a decent state of repair and to allow it to take on a limited number of additional churches. If 918 the trust did not exist, many of those outstanding historic churches would face neglect, damaging alterations or even demolition. As it is, the buildings are maintained in sound condition, remain a focus in their localities and are accessible to the public.
I will also mention the Government's support for the work of the Historic Chapels Trust. The trust was set up in 1993 to acquire outstanding non-Anglican religious buildings—Roman Catholic churches, nonconformist chapels, synagogues and so on—which are no longer needed for worship. In effect, the trust aims to perform for such buildings a similar role to that undertaken by the Churches Conservation Trust.
The establishment of the Historic Chapels Trust was aided by financial support from the Government. The trust is currently funded via English Heritage grant and through private sponsorship. My Department is at present considering an application from the trust for financial support from the heritage grant fund. So far, the trust has acquired six buildings and is negotiating to acquire eight more.
Looking ahead, I should draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that financial support will be available to the churches for the role that we anticipate that they will play in celebrating the new millennium. All the Christian churches have a potentially vital contribution to make in what is, at its heart, a year of religious significance—the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. The Government are liaising closely with all the churches on how the spiritual aspects of the millennium can be reflected in plans for marking the occasion. In preparation, many historic Anglican churches will benefit from grants worth more than £5 million approved by the Millennium Commission for restoring belfries and casting new bells, for a nationwide peal of church bells to ring in the new millennium.
My hon. Friend mentioned the recently published Church of England document "Developing the Partnership between Church and State over the Ecclesiastical Heritage". Let me say at once that the Government warmly welcome the document. As I have already said, the existing Church and state partnership has already achieved a great deal. However, we are ready to discuss new ways in which the partnership can be developed and strengthened. From what my hon. Friend said in his speech, he might like to use his fertile imagination and experience to suggest ways in which that might be done.
There is much in the Church's document with which we whole-heartedly agree. The financial difficulties and pressures currently facing the Church of England are well understood by the Government. I have to say, too, that there are also constraints on the state side. The continuing need to control public expenditure means that heritage spending programmes are likely to remain under pressure for the foreseeable future. None the less, the Government are ready to work with the Church in exploring other possible sources of funding for the ecclesiastical heritage—for example, from Europe. We are also willing to consider what steps can be taken to improve co-ordination between all the Government and non-Government agencies with a potential role.
His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has already had discussions on the issues with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and my noble Friend the 919 Minister for Tourism. As the next step, officials in my Department will hold discussions with the General Synod to explore the issues raised in the document in detail, identify the constraints on each side and explore possible new options.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the discussions, it may be helpful if I make a couple of observations in response to some comments made in the Church's document. The first is the concern that the Government have gone back on their commitment to the additionality of lottery funding. The document urges that English Heritage funding should not be reduced to take account of the advent of the lottery. I can assure the House that the Government stand by their commitment to the additionality of lottery funding and that we therefore have no intention of reducing core funding programmes to take account of awards from the lottery.
That commitment does not mean that the Government can set aside the constraints on public expenditure to which I have already referred. None the less, I hope hon. Members will have found some encouragement in our recent decision to grant an additional £1.8 million to English Heritage in 1997–98, which means that funding for next year will be substantially maintained at this year's level. It is of course for English Heritage to decide how best to allocate the available resources across all its activities.
The second point relates to the claim—as my hon. Friend mentioned—that, in 1993, VAT on churches and cathedrals repairs cost the Church about £16 million, far more than it receives in English Heritage grants. The document calls for the Government to press the European Commission to add listed building repairs to the categories of services eligible for reduced rates of VAT at national discretion, as alterations already are. My hon. Friend will know that, as a tax matter, this is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While we have no particular reason to doubt the Church of England's £16 million figure on the amount of VAT paid, I have to say that the way VAT is collected does not allow Customs and Excise to calculate the amount of VAT paid on churches or on listed buildings.
Furthermore, the VAT directive that requires repairs to be taxed at the full 17.5 per cent. is about to be reviewed. Any decision on whether to increase the scope of the list of goods and services to which a reduced rate of VAT may be applied would be taken by the Finance Ministers of all member states. It is currently the UK Government's policy to have a single rate of VAT at 17.5 per cent., but to retain for the present the existing zero rates, which have been agreed with our EU partners.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. I hope that hon. Members will have been reassured about the Government's continuing commitment to the preservation of our ecclesiastical heritage. We look forward to working closely with the Church of England and other denominations and faiths in pursuit of that objective.