§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may not be the only Member who might be tempted to raise issues related to Christ Church, Oxford, to St. George's, Windsor, or to Westminster abbey, but we gather from the report from the Ecclesiastical Committee that the Measure does not apply to either St. George's or to Westminster abbey and only in small part to Christ Church. Could we have guidance on how far we able to refer to events at those three places of worship in the debate?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)The answer is simply that it will be in order to refer to those institutions in general terms, as far as they relate to the matter we are debating, but it will not be in order to go into any detail about events that have happened in those establishments, which may be what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)I beg to move,
That the Cathedrals 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.It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Measure to the House, not only because it represents a significant step in the process of affirming and strengthening the role of the cathedrals of the Church of England, which are a vital part of the life of the Church, the life of the nation as a whole and our national heritage, but because that process has been initiated and supported by the cathedrals themselves and because the Measure reflects much of the best practice which cathedrals have already adopted.Much of the Measure deals with the governance of the cathedrals. The existing legislation was laid down more than 35 years ago. Under it, different cathedrals have adopted a variety of structures, and not all of them are equally suitable for the 21st century. A number of cathedrals have attempted to update those structures, but, under present legislation, that means going through a fairly lengthy and complex procedure. Partly as a result of that, and also because of a desire to review the working of the cathedrals as a whole, the cathedrals asked the two archbishops to set up a commission to examine those issues.
The commission, under the chairmanship of Lady Howe of Aberavon, had broad terms of reference and its report, "Heritage and Renewal", which was published in 1994, covered many aspects of the life of the cathedrals. The commission's recommendations were widely welcomed and are being taken up in various ways. The Measure stems from the main recommendations, which can be implemented only by legislation.
The Measure will set up a single framework for the efficient, effective and transparent governance of all cathedrals, providing the governing bodies with proper support, ensuring accountability and encouraging effective links with the bishops and the diocese as a whole. The governing body will be a new chapter, 1234 which will be a different body from the existing chapters in some cathedrals. It will include the senior cathedral clergy, the dean and the residentiary canons, but it will also include others, including a proportion of lay people. A number of cathedrals already have people other than the cathedral clergy on their governing bodies and I am sure that they would vouch for the advantages that that brings.
The chapter will be supported on financial matters and investment management by a finance committee, which will include people with financial expertise. There will also be an administrator, who may be a voting member of the chapter. Again, that reflects what is already happening in a number of cathedrals.
A new feature is the creation of a council—a larger body to which the chapter will be accountable—with a chairman chosen by the bishop. That body will also consider the budget prepared by the chapter and decide on any future changes to the cathedral's constitution within the terms of the Measure. In addition, there will be a college of canons, including almost all the cathedral clergy and, in particular, the honorary canons or the prebendaries, who are often parish priests in the diocese. In some cathedrals, lay canons will also be included. The college will receive an annual report from the chapter.
There must be a roll of the worshippers at the cathedral and members of its parish, should it have one, or of members of the wider "cathedral community" should there be no parish. The cathedral community will also be represented on the council. All that provides a framework, setting out a basic and common structure of organisation and accountability. However, each cathedral is justly proud of its traditions and the cathedrals operate in varying local contexts and circumstances. Thus, the Measure deliberately allows a good deal of flexibility to cathedrals within the basic framework so that they can take all those factors into account.
The Measure sets out to make the constitutions of the cathedrals responsive to future needs by making the process of change much simpler while ensuring that clergy and laity have a right to make representations about what is proposed. Above all, the Measure provides that everyone who has functions under it must have regard to the basic purpose of the cathedral—namely, that it is the so-called "seat" of the bishop of the diocese and a centre of worship and mission.
The Measure received overwhelming support from the General Synod, and I know that many cathedrals are enthusiastically preparing to implement it should it be passed by the House and by the other place shortly. It will help the cathedrals to continue to play their important role in the life of the Church and of the nation effectively in the years to come. I therefore invite the House to approve the Measure.
§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)We are very grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the Second Church Estates Commissioner, for introducing the Measure and thank him for all the work he has put in over the past year and more. We are also grateful to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Out in the real world, people do not know what the Ecclesiastical Committee is, and I think they assume that it is an ad hoc Committee of fully paid-up members of the 1235 Church of England—that, of course, it is not. It is a Committee of both Houses and of all parties and none, notably cross-Benchers in the House of Lords, and of all denominations and none. It was set up to ensure that Church of England legislation impacts reasonably on the citizens of this country—of whatever denomination, or none, they may be.
The Committee consists of a number of distinguished hon. Members who have given a great deal of service, and none greater than my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has served some 28 years on the Committee. We congratulate him on that. Two members of the Committee represent cathedral cities—Exeter and Southwark. I had anticipated that they would be here tonight and had hoped to refer to them, but neither took part in the relevant proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee, either the examination of witnesses or the decision to agree that the Cathedrals Measure was expedient on 18 June 1998. However, it gives me great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) here as he represents St. Paul's cathedral.
May I declare an interest at this point? I am a member of the guild of stewards of Salisbury cathedral. That is not some grand office; it simply means that I take the collection and welcome visitors. To those who work in our cathedrals, particularly volunteers, the kerfuffles in the abbey and the events at Lincoln have an air of virtual reality—or, indeed, complete unreality in some cases. At Salisbury, the dean and the precentor, above all, keep an eye on the stewards. We all know that there are stewards and stewards. Those of us who visit other cathedrals around the country know that some stewards are pompous, some are vain, some are control freaks, some are quick-witted and some are otherwise, and some are over-enthusiastic with visitors.
When one is a steward, one never quite knows what will happen. One never knows where the processions will go; one is not sure whether there should be incense or not, and what difference that will make; one never knows how many people will turn up for Sunday school; and one does not know whether to use two bags or three for the collection, and whether they will be dropped. Those are the realities of life in a cathedral, as opposed to the legalistic discussion that the Ecclesiastical Committee has enjoyed over the past year or so.
Volunteers in cathedrals must now be aware of health and safety rules. They must know how to evacuate a cathedral, how to give medical assistance—I vividly recall running out of aspirin for somebody a couple of weeks ago in Salisbury cathedral—and how to cope with revellers at midnight services and interrogations from earnest American visitors seeking tombs. A couple of weeks ago, I was challenged by an American claiming that his ancestor was St. Margaret of Scotland and asking where her chapel was. Fortunately, I knew the answer. Unfortunately, we also have to cope with the grief of the stricken, the downhearted and the bereaved.
The cathedral communities are rich and rounded, and it is a privilege to serve in them. I have known Salisbury since I was two years old. I recall lighting the Christmas tree in Salisbury cathedral 50 years ago.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThe tree or the candles?
§ Mr. KeyI lit the candles, not the tree. Now, candles are too dangerous and we have to have twinkling little electric lights, which are a bit twee. Never mind, they are still wonderful.
My late father was the Bishop of Sherborne, which is a suffragan of Salisbury, and later of Truro. My son was a chorister in Salisbury and my daughters attended the Sunday school.
I have discussed the Cathedrals Measure with my bishop and my dean, and I have read the Measure and the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Incidentally, I have met the Dean of Westminster to discuss the administration of the abbey and the issue of Royal Peculiars.
I support the Measure, although I do so with some regrets. First, I regret very much the deeply damaging fiasco at Westminster abbey concerning its most distinguished former organist. That should simply never have occurred. Due process of law has now been followed, at substantial cost. To most people, the outcome remains unhappy and unsatisfactory.
Inevitably, all of that drew in the Royal Peculiars. I appreciate and agree that they are quite different from cathedrals, and in due course proposals may be put to the Ecclesiastical Committee by the legislative committee of the Synod. The bad press surrounding all of that was deeply wounding to all those involved, not just in Westminster abbey, but throughout the Church, however humble their function—passing the collection bags—or much more exalted occupations. I shall draw a line under that subject, because I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to refer to it.
My other regret and reservation is that the ancient statutes of our cathedrals have worked most of the time and in most cathedrals. However, synodical government has not worked particularly well since its introduction. It has undermined the authority of the archbishops, bishops, deans, chapters and parish priests in the name of wider participation and greater accountability. Ultimately, however, it has done little to increase either.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyA number of us would not necessarily agree with what my hon. Friend said about Westminster abbey, although this is not the place to have that discussion. Lack of defence should not therefore be taken as all-round agreement.
On synodical government, does my hon. Friend accept that many archbishops have said that synodical government is pretty grim, but that it might be slightly less grim than taking all stages of Church legislation through this House, which would have been the alternative?
§ Mr. KeyThe archbishops may agree with that, and I am sure that they do not want to have a grim life and will do anything to make it a bit easier. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said: I regret the diminution in the authority of bishops in the Church of England and, indeed, other bishops.
The bishops are under great pressure. Indeed, they have never been under greater pressure and I deplore the unwarranted attacks that are made on them from time to time. I leap to the defence of my bishop, who was accused 1237 by a Sunday tabloid of leading an extravagant life style, with champagne breakfasts and all the other nonsense that goes with that. It is important to get this matter in perspective and to realise that a senior diocesan bishop earns about half the pay of a Member of Parliament and about the same as the head of a village primary school in my constituency. Just as business men do not count their offices, their secretaries or their expenses as income, nor do bishops—quite properly. The same applies to journalists, council staff or anybody else. It is hypocrisy of a high order to attack bishops, deans or any other members of the clergy, who are, by any standards, modestly paid, on those grounds.
Cathedrals, however, have become big business. They now call for a new quality of leadership and management, which was not needed 50 or even 10 years ago. The lay functions involved in running our cathedrals have grown enormously, as have the responsibilities for the fabric, the worship, the music and the volunteers. Even responsibility for the sandwiches and cups of tea has grown out of all proportion. It has sometimes been wounding to volunteers when they have had to be told that things have become so professional that they simply cannot keep up with the requirements.
Above all, the Measure entrenches and spreads best practice, much of which already exists. For example, since I first had the privilege of worshipping in Salisbury cathedral, the numbers involved in the life of the cathedral have risen dramatically. There are two choirs instead of one, and we established the first girls' choir in the country. The cathedral school has grown, and the responsibilities of the chapter office have increased. The cathedral's budget has risen, as have the charges for entering the cathedral, which is visited by tourists from all over the world. However, it must be said that the heating and the sound systems work, thanks often to the friends of the cathedrals, who meet much of the cost.
The cathedral close no longer looks tatty as it did when I was a child. Indeed, it may have gone a little far in the other direction and have become something of a millionaires' row, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who occupies a house in the close. He is very welcome.
Management problems for our cathedrals have also increased. Above all, the number of worshippers has risen dramatically. I remember how empty Salisbury cathedral was when I was a child, and I attended most Sundays. By comparison, today congregations are measured in hundreds on an ordinary Sunday and by thousands at the great festivals. We should acknowledge that.
Congregations are up, and the electoral roll is up. Salisbury has an electoral roll of 504 this year. The offertory fund is up: we are paying our way as a congregation. The fund stood at £127,000 last year. Last year, the guild of stewards, of which I am a junior member, undertook 1,480 individual duties at 315 services. And we should not forget the 56 "holy dusters" who keep the stalls, the lights and so on clean and shining bright.
Let us put this in perspective. The Measure is intended to spread best practice. Those of us who serve in cathedrals are proud to do so, and the Measure gives an added dimension to the quality of our lives while, hopefully, giving something back to our communities.
I have not dwelt on the legalistic issues. I simply wanted to say, on behalf of those who work as volunteers in our cathedrals, that I for one support the Measure.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)It is always a pleasure to speak in debates on Church matters, because of the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) introduces them. Anyone who was unsure of what the Measure was about will, after hearing his speech, understand what we are discussing.
Debates such as this sometimes reveal the most unexpected circumstances. This evening, we have seen someone who is normally one of our more liberal and free-spirited Members making what I would describe as a rather ugly rush at the Chair, taking on the role of censor and trying to prevent others from making, in their simple and humble way, the contributions that they think best. I applaud the way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gently pushed the rush aside.
I know of the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley)—I shall call him my hon. Friend—has had both in London and in his constituency. He is astute enough as a politician to be aware of that, in the crucial run-up to a general election two years hence, he must widen his appeal. He must not appeal just to more liberal spirits in his constituency; there is also the authoritarian side, and their votes. He is clearly after those votes, and he is happy to use a Church Measure to show that there is an even nicer side to the face that we already know.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyI accept my right hon. Friend's chiding.
I suspect that I am not the only person to have read many books by the Dean of Westminster. I think them well worth reading, and I commend them to those who concern themselves with these matters.
For some reason or other, for 20 years I failed to be appointed to the Ecclesiastical Committee, having been a trustee of Christian Aid and chairman of the Church of England Children's Society. I watched with frustration as the committee engaged in all sorts of discussions. If I suspected that this Measure would lead to a rerun of what was in the publicity—I am sure that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention—I would find that equally frustrating.
§ Mr. FieldWe now see a third side to my hon. Friend's character. We see not only the free spirit and the authoritarian, but the angst that he feels as a result of his exclusion from the Ecclesiastical Committee. When there is the possibility of an open debate, he tries to undertake your task, Mr. Deputy Speaker—an attempt that you gently rebuffed—in deciding what we can and cannot discuss.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I do not think that we should ever, in any way, abuse our position or privilege in the House. During the debates that will follow from the Measure, I shall be happy to repeat outside the House what I say inside. I am sorry if that adds yet more to the administrative costs of our abbey across the road.
I discussed how we should approach the debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She, too, is worried about what has gone on in the abbey. When I talked to her about it yesterday, I said that I had two particular questions in mind. First, if this reform had been in place at the time, 1239 could the scandal at Lincoln have been prevented? Secondly, if it had been in place, could the scandal at Westminster abbey have been prevented?
We know that there is to be a special inquiry into the Royal Peculiars, and I shall return to that shortly. However, while discussing the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I reflected that, because there is much to be said about the abbey, we ought to ask for a special debate on the subject. That would enable us to discuss not just that long-standing and sad saga, but much of the information that has come to light more recently.
For example, at the weekend, we read in The Sunday Times that some members of the chapter are being given loans, as though the abbey were some sort of merchant bank. We know from the accounts that have just been published that administrative costs have risen by nearly two thirds. I would guess that that increase—an increase of more than half a million pounds—is largely to do with the legal fees incurred. We also note that the abbey gives only 1 per cent. of its income to charitable causes, although Synod—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough—has said that we should give 5 per cent. of our income to such causes. But it would be wrong to try to bring issues concerning the abbey into the debate—indeed, you would not allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and I will therefore seek time for a proper debate about what we think has been going on there.
Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would no doubt have protected the privileges of Back Benchers if they had wished to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West that one of the reasons why the Measure will have such a smooth run is that the Church has announced an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars. Tonight's debate might have been slightly different if that inquiry had not been announced.
Let me end by issuing a plea to the inquiry. I beg it not to get things out of proportion, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is clearly an issue regarding what happens in an institution that is a Royal Peculiar when some person behaves badly, and may have to be sacked; and it is clearly immensely difficult if the head of the organisation involved is our monarch. I hope, therefore, that the inquiry will be limited in what it seeks to do. I hope that it will help to answer the question that I have raised, and will not rein back on the special privileges enjoyed by the abbey, St. George's chapel, Windsor and the other Royal Peculiars. I think that it adds immensely to the quality of life in this country that people can do things differently in different places. It would be sad if, because of the serious problems that the abbey has experienced, we encouraged the inquiry to make the Royal Peculiars uniform with other cathedrals.
I shall, in the normal way—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, and, no doubt, other hon. Members in other parties—seek time for a debate enabling us to look properly at what has happened at the abbey. I end, however, by saying again that I am more than happy to repeat outside what I say under privilege here.
§ Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)We are discussing, in a very pleasant atmosphere, a Measure presented by the Church of England that is intended to regulate the way in which cathedrals are run. I believe it to be the most far-reaching Measure on this subject that has been presented to the House since 1833, when an ecclesiastical titles Measure removed a large number of members of the cathedral bodies of the time as well as a number of bishoprics in Ireland, where there were few worshippers but many bishops. Two Bills were presented at about the same time, both as a result of the great Reform Bill. So it has been a long time since any serious thought was given to the matter of cathedrals.
The House should recognise that part of the reason why such thought has not been necessary is that cathedrals' structure has been sufficiently flexible that, in different ways and at different times, they have been able to move in meeting the needs not only of the nation but of the diocese that each serves. I therefore share the concern of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the various establishments' flexibility—which is so important—and the differences between institutions should not be lost in seeking to find a solution to fundamental difficulties that have arisen.
I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I say that one of the problems with cathedrals goes right back to the point in the Reformation when rather different bodies became cathedrals. Until then, those bodies had not been of a cathedral type. A very few of the bodies became Royal Peculiars, and others became the seat of the diocese's bishop. The latter bodies long met a perceived need, but were also burdened with having to carry the weight of the establishment.
There is no doubt that there was some heaviness in the type of structure that those bodies inherited. That was the basis of the 1833 reforms, in which those whom we now call honorary canons became honorary, rather than receiving significant emollients. The reforms were also the background to the novels of Trollope, who was writing about an earlier time in which people such as Vesey Stanhope spent most of the year in Italy, while paying a small sum to someone else to sing the services for which he was responsible. Vesey Stanhope returned only when the appalling Bishop Proudie discovered what had been happening.
Although that type of cathedral has long since gone, there are still those who have operated within the new structure in a way that is difficult to understand, causing great scandal. It would be wrong to deny that the Measure is the result of that fact. On this occasion—unlike that of the churchwardens Measure—the Church of England has not found a solution and then sought a problem. It had a problem and had to find a solution, and this Measure is that solution.
The Ecclesiastical Committee had to consider why the Measure should not affect all institutions of a similar type. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that it would perhaps be better if we referred to none of those institutions. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the truth is that the Measure has taken so long to be considered by the House because, had it come to the House before the Church of England—finally, after all the pressure—decided that it would investigate and produce a report on 1241 the Royal Peculiars, the Measure probably would not have been passed. Hon. Members would have had to say: "Until there is proper provision for all similar institutions, it is not possible to pass this limited Measure." That was the very strong feeling of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it would be odd not to refer to those situations and conditions, even if only in passing.
I am sad about several aspects of the Measure. The first is that it is necessary, essentially because a small number of individuals failed to resign when they should have done. A mid-western American Catholic bishop was asked what he thought about the conduct of the current President of the United States. He said, "It is very simple: it is very odd that he didn't realise that he needed to resign." He made no other comment on the matter. However, that comment was very interesting, as it seemed very clearly to apply also to at least two people who have been at the heart of our debates on the matter. Had they resigned, I doubt whether this legislation would have been needed at all.
The legislation is convenient and will sort out some issues, and the Church of England—which has moved from hierarchy to bureaucracy without any intervening stage of democracy—is very pleased about it, because it is neat. I believe that neatness is the enemy of civilisation. I am therefore sad that we shall now have a neater Church of England, simply because some people failed to recognise that they should resign.
We shall—compounding the sadness—now have to have more committees. I have been both an Anglican and a non-Anglican, and have therefore seen the Church from both inside and outside. Although it forced me out, I still love it. It has so much of importance. But I still despair of the constant desire to solve all its problems by establishing yet more committees.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), in his charming way, in all fairness, could not describe the Measure without mentioning how the committee structure would be changed—for that is at the heart of the proposals. The new Church of England's answer to all problems is: "Another committee, with wider reference and greater connection with more people." I really wonder whether that will forward the Kingdom of God—which, oddly enough, is what cathedrals are supposed to do.
I found that part of the debate particularly bleak, for it proposes a bureaucrat's solution. I am not at all sure that the House should not be considering a rather different Measure—one to get rid of committees, to reduce bureaucracy, to close down Church House entirely, and instead to allow the Church of England to reform itself from bottom up. I am sure that such a Measure would not have done more for all Britain's cathedrals than almost anything else. Nevertheless, that is not what we are doing. We are considering a Measure that is designed so to trammel and confine the cathedrals of our land that those for whom eccentricity became positively dangerous might be stopped.
I am sad also that members of the Ecclesiastical Committee have had to press for the same trammelling to apply to three other institutions that, unaccountably, are omitted from the Measure.
The House does not consider this type of Measure in debates on Second Reading, in Committee, and in other stages. I am therefore thinking that this debate is a mixture of all those stages, and hope that it will be in order to 1242 refer to matters that are not dealt with in the Measure. One such matter is the application of the Measure's provisions to Christ Church, Oxford, to St. George's chapel, Windsor, and, of course, to Westminster abbey.
We have just seen a remarkable example of how St. George's, Windsor is able to contribute to national life, and we already knew the fascinating mixture that is Christ Church, which is both a college and the cathedral of the Oxford diocese. They demonstrate the curious differences between the types of institution that this type of legislation has to cover.
Unfortunately, Westminster abbey has not been a good example of such flexibility. I endorse the request made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for a full-scale debate on the situation at the abbey, not least because of the revelations in relation to its accounts. I should also like to address the general issue of cathedral accounts—which I am not at all sure is addressed in the Measure. Cathedrals are now in receipt of large sums of money and happily, at long last, the state has begun to recognise that the whole community, not just those who go to church, has a responsibility to keep the roof on. We are one of the meanest countries in the world in terms of our support of the churches. It is a sad thing, but it is true. The cathedrals now have rather more than they did, but often it is not enough. They also receive money from tourists. No cathedral or similar institution receives as much as Westminster abbey.
It is proper for parliamentarians to ask how that largesse is used on behalf of all of us. In an odd way, the cathedrals are an example of stewardship. The general run of them were not built by the Church of England. They were seen as different institutions historically and they are under guardianship on behalf of many others in the Church of England. I hesitate to say this, but it is interesting to see how much larger a proportion of a much smaller income is used for charitable purposes by Westminster cathedral at one end of Victoria street compared with Westminster abbey. It is proper to ask why, and who makes such decisions.
It is also proper for us to know more about the uses to which the money raised from tourists and others is put, but my last point is about the individuals involved. I was brought up in a cathedral city. I went to a cathedral school and my father was a member of a cathedral chapter, so I declare an interest over a considerable length of time. Cathedrals are able to operate because of the devoted work of large numbers of people, many of them lay people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said. We need to make sure that those people can play a full part in the mission of the cathedral.
Cathedrals are not there to be historic monuments. They are there to provide a witness of the enduring power of the faith of Jesus Christ. We ought not to have a debate such as this without talking in those terms. If we fail to do that, we miss out the central issue. Perhaps, in that context, I can say what grieves me most about the need for this legislation and the legislation that we are likely to see very soon. There is something about the structure of cathedrals today that enables people to feel that they are theirs and that they have certain comfortable positions which it is almost improper to suggest ought to be very carefully thought through.
I am not sure that every member of a cathedral chapter has a job description or proper targets for what they ought to be doing. That sounds very oddly modern, but if we 1243 are to have a bureaucratic Church let us have some of the advantages of modern bureaucratic practice. If the Dean of Westminster carefully considered what his job description ought to be, which I think him not to have, he might, indeed I think he would, agree with me that there comes a moment when it is best for the sake of everyone to go. Were that to have happened, I doubt whether this House would have had to ask for another Measure to follow this one. If it had happened in two other cathedrals, I doubt whether we would have had to have this Measure.
The reason why I care about the matter so passionately is that we live in a society in which variety is increasingly difficult. Everyone needs to be within a defined box lest something goes wrong. The people who make that variety so difficult to uphold are the individuals who, when they have used the power that they have been given beyond reasonable limits, do not recognise that their independence demands the responsibility to know when to go.
The Measure is before us because two people did not know when to go. The one that is coming will be before us because one other also failed in the responsibility to the independence and variety which has up to now been the glory of our cathedrals and has explained why for 160 years we have not had to have a debate.
§ 8.6 pm
§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)I shall make only a brief speech. My speech was to some extent contingent on the way in which the debate went. I declare an interest, at least at this moment, as a lay adviser to St. Paul's cathedral since 1980. The lay body owes its origins to the great late Launcelot Fleming, who, as Bishop of Norwich, was responsible for the creation of lay advisers to that cathedral taken from across the diocese. The chance that Alan Webster came to St. Paul's after having been the Dean of Norwich meant that the idea was then developed at St. Paul's. Launcelot Fleming went on to become the Dean of St. George's, Windsor and thus has a walk-on part in our debate.
The lay body of St. Paul's has had the considerable benefit of the advice of Lady Howe of Aberavon, to whom the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred. It was valuable advice. I understand that the dean and chapter of St. Paul's welcome the Measure. The lay body to which I have belonged for 19 years will cease before the millennium and the new body that will be created under the Measure will take over.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has now left the Chamber. In the context of his references to the Ecclesiastical Committee, I shall simply remark that I have never sought to be a member of the committee and I have suffered no distress to my psyche from the fact that I have not so served.
I could not be unaware, however, of the involvement of certain right hon. and hon. Members in the matter of Westminster abbey. I mention wholly neutrally and without any angst the fact that there were no particular contacts with me at the level of constituency courtesy about those involvements. I feel no angst because I have been long accustomed in my 22 years in the House to the fact that the majority of my colleagues regard my constituency as the equivalent of the district of Columbia—without any democratic representation at all. 1244 Those who would be deeply hurt and offended if I were to appear in their constituency without having sent them a postcard have no hesitation in traversing my constituency in hobnail boots. That is not a reference to the manner in which people have behaved in this matter, but I hope that a brief reference to events at Westminster abbey is in order—events to which allusion has been made by one or two other participants in the debate.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for not pressing the matter in the context of the debate, other than in the references that they have made, but it is fair to say that they have made certain animadversions. The dean and chapter have accepted Lord Jauncey's judgment. The only observation that I would make—I am touching on things that have been said before—is that the dean and chapter in the matter to which oblique reference has been made sought to work within the employment law of this country, not under any special jurisdiction or position that the Royal Peculiar afforded them.
I have only once appeared—I think that this is relevant—in an industrial relations tribunal case. It was, in the light of subsequent developments, a fairly remarkable case to have participated in, as my counsel was the present Lord Chancellor and the pupil whom he brought to the case was the present Prime Minister. It is to the credit of both those right hon. Gentlemen that we won the case.
However, I learned from that experience that one of the most disagreeable features—my brother is a lawyer although I am not—of being involved in any such case is the very firm advice that one receives from lawyers that one must not behave in as open and generous a manner in the ordinary conduct of business as one would naturally wish to do with someone with whom one has worked closely in the past. It is a very disagreeable condition to be in; I have been in it myself.
§ Mr. GummerI wonder whether my right hon. Friend would accept the following: many of us feel that when Christians deal with other Christians, every effort must be made not to go to law. I believe that that is actually a gospel demand. The issue—it was the issue long before the employment rules were reached—is what was referred to in Lord Jauncey's judgment about the rules of natural justice. I want to go further and suggest to my right hon. Friend that perhaps the true concern is that people did not behave as brothers at the beginning, but allowed the situation to develop until lawyers got involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the lawyers get involved, it is very difficult to be charitable.
§ Mr. BrookeI am reasonably sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to follow my right hon. Friend down that—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That is quite correct. I think that we are now in danger of having the debate that we must not have.
§ Mr. BrookeI anticipated your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so my right hon. Friend's words will be in the Official Report and no words that I might say in response will be—but then he is a much more shrewd and cunning parliamentarian than I am.
1245 I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for not seeking to hold up the Measure this evening. In areas outside the Peculiars, it is obviously welcomed by deans and chapters up and down the land, so it is a thoroughly good thing that it should proceed.
As to the commission that has been appointed in connection with the Royal Peculiars, I understand that the dean and chapter of Westminster welcome that; as their local Member of Parliament, I certainly do, too.
If the authorities of the House were to pay due attention to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, that there should be a debate, it would be better if the debate occurred in the aftermath of the commission's report rather than in advance of it, but I would certainly wish to participate in it, were it to occur. I support the Measure before us.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said that he had never sought to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. If he had served on it, he would have enriched it. His wisdom and his contributions would have enlivened our discussions. I hope that, even at this late stage in his most distinguished parliamentary career, he might consider expressing a desire to serve on that committee.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and the House will forgive me if I say something that might technically be slightly out of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned Westminster cathedral. Until now, there has been no opportunity in the House to pay tribute to the very great Christian who died last week and who will be buried tomorrow—Cardinal Basil Hume. I should like to do so now. If all those in positions of authority within all the Churches showed his degree of Christian charity and humility, not only would we not be having this debate tonight but we would not need to have many on Church affairs. He has made an outstanding contribution to the spiritual and social life of the country. It is right that that should be on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned my long membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Twenty-eight years is indeed quite a long time, and I believe that I hold the record for serving on it longer than anyone else. It is a most unsatisfactory committee because it has no power to do more than exercise a certain amount of influence. We can never amend any Measure that comes before us. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows too well, we are faced with the stark choice of deeming a Measure expedient and letting it proceed and come to the House, or sending it back to Synod because we do not deem it expedient. To be realistic, it is unlikely that the committee's terms of reference will be rewritten, but it is useful to place on record the fact that, from time to time, it is a very frustrating committee of which to be a member.
I must declare an interest in that I am an elected member of the General Synod. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who spoke with his customary lucidity, is on the General Synod too, ex officio. I am now the only Member of either House of Parliament to have been elected to the General Synod by the most peculiar 1246 system of proportional representation that we were castigating an hour or so ago in the Chamber. That body could be vastly improved, especially if every member of every electoral roll in the country had a vote for Synod representatives, but that is not in order this evening.
When I was on the General Synod, I did not support the Cathedrals Measure because I have always felt that hard cases made bad law. Although I am not suggesting that the Measure is bad law, and I will commend it to the House, it seemed to me that the rich diversity of our ecclesiastical life, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal spoke eloquently, was being to a degree dragooned and made uniform by the Measure, and all because there had been a couple of incidents which, understandably, had given cause for disquiet—especially the events at Lincoln.
I cast no criticism at the work of Lady Howe—a good friend of many hon. Members present—and her cathedrals commission, which went into the matter with great diligence and thoroughness and, I believe, visited every cathedral in the country. I visited almost every cathedral in the country when I wrote a book on cathedrals in 1984, and I was struck by the excellent way in which most of them were managed, their treasures presented and the worship—the most important thing—carried out. They are beacons and centres of excellence in every sense.
I would not want anyone to think that the Cathedrals Measure was in any way a vote of no confidence in the way in which our cathedrals have been organised and managed by their deans and chapters and provosts during the past 50 years. We are very fortunate in the way our cathedrals are managed. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, who has enormous experience of its beautiful cathedral and who spoke eloquently about all the work that the volunteers do, emphasised that.
I hope that the new Measure, which I support, will not put the dead hand of uniformity on the way cathedrals are organised. I support the Measure—I am not suggesting that the House should do anything other than support it—but I hope that our speeches will send a message that, within the House, we do appreciate the rich diversity. We do understand that the way Lincoln is run, when it is run properly, is not necessarily precisely the same way as Exeter or Ripon should be run. I hope that all those who have charge of our great cathedrals, especially those who will be members of the new Bishops Council, will not feel that they have always to consort to ensure that what is done in one cathedral is precisely replicated in another.
It would be wrong not to refer briefly to what has been said about the abbey. I, too, welcome the fact that there is to be an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars although I deeply regret the necessity for it. I do not want to be accused of passing any judgment. Regardless of who has been right or wrong, what has happened over the past year has done enormous damage to the Church of England.
If cathedrals are the beacons of our national Church, the abbey is the supreme lighthouse. It is perceived by many as the embodiment of the national Church. It is tragic—I use the word deliberately—that events should have happened there that have shaken people's confidence in the national Church. I hope that the inquiry will be thorough but not protracted and that when it is complete its findings will be able to be debated both in Synod and in the House.
1247 I hope that everyone who has been involved in the affairs of the abbey over the past year will recognise that there is a great deal of repair work to be done and many bridges to be built if confidence is to be restored. I am not seeking to apportion blame, but the abbey is not a very happy place at the moment for many people who have given a lifetime's service to it. I want that to be remedied at the earliest possible date.
The Measure is important and will transform the way in which our cathedrals are managed and presented in a way that no other Measure has ever done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that it was the biggest change since 1833. That is true, but it is a different sort of change. It is a managerial change and it is extremely important that those who occupy new positions of authority in the Bishops Council and elsewhere never lose sight of the fact that a cathedral church—the seat of the bishop of the diocese—is the building most people look up to. In its services and the dignity of its worship, it should be the embodiment of all that is best in the Anglican Church. If the Measure can assist in making that the norm, that is good.
It would be very sad if the House were to divide on the Measure, and I am glad that it is not going to do so. I know that there are those present who, had there not been the promise of the inquiry into the Royal Peculiars, would have felt that they had to make that statement. I know that my right hon. Friend—I am pleased to call him that—the Member for Birkenhead is one of those. We can all now go forward in a positive spirit. I wish the Measure every success.
§ Mr. Stuart BellI am glad that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) used this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Cardinal Hume. I met him when he was given the freedom of the city of Newcastle way back in 1981, and we stayed friends from that time forth. The last time he was in the House I reminded him of that event and he said that it was one of the happiest moments of his life. In his simplicity lay his greatness: he who was given such honour in his lifetime felt that the greatest honour of all was to be given the freedom of the city where he was born. I associate myself with the thoughts expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
The late cardinal was a great supporter of Newcastle United. Listening to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who wanted to be on the Ecclesiastical Committee, to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who never had such an ambition, and then to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is on it, I thought that it might be time for some free transfers.
As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I appreciate the contribution that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal makes to our debates and proceedings, as I appreciate those of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is still here even though he has outside engagements.
These debates may be sparsely attended, but we have some of the finest debaters in the Chamber here tonight and they have made scintillating contributions. The hon. 1248 Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) told us that he was brought up almost in the precincts of the cathedral—I know that his father was a bishop—and one gets a wonderful sense of richness and depth from these debates, in which it is a great pleasure for me to participate.
Reference has been made to Westminster abbey and to St. George's chapel, Windsor. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned the memorable royal wedding there. I was told that it was the last royal wedding of the century, which is not surprising, but those wonderful television commentators have to tell us something. As the House knows, neither of those is a cathedral: they are Royal Peculiars, as are the chapels royal. The Howe commission's remit did not extend to them and the Measure does not apply to them.
The House is aware of an announcement made on 18 May that, at the request of the Dean of Westminster, the Dean of Windsor and the Bishop of London, as dean of the chapels royal, Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to appoint a new commission to review the organisation, management and accountability of those institutions. It will report to Her Majesty through the Lord Chancellor. The review will not affect the institutions' status as Royal Peculiars, but the three deans' request arose out of their concern that the relevance to the Peculiars of the principles on which the Howe commission based its findings should be properly considered.
The new commission will be chaired by Professor Averil Cameron, warden of Keble college, Oxford. The other members will be the Dean of York, the very Rev. Raymond Furnell, who, until recently, was chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, and was a member of the steering committee for the Measure; and Sir Brian Jenkins, chairman of Woolwich plc and a former Lord Mayor of London. It will combine the various types of expertise needed to tackle this important subject successfully, and the three deans have publicly committed themselves to doing all that they can to assist it. It will be for the new commission to consider how the spirit of the Howe recommendations can best be applied to those unique institutions.
Quite apart from the fact that the Measure does not cover Westminster abbey, which is the subject of a separate review along with the other major Royal Peculiars, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the case of particular loans to particular individuals, but the general subject of the finances of cathedrals received close scrutiny from the Howe commission and is dealt with by the Measure.
I have already referred to the finance committee of the chapter, which will advise the chapter on financial and investment management, and will include members who have expertise and experience in these fields.
The chapter must prepare an annual budget for the cathedral, which must be considered by the council. The chapter must produce an annual report and accounts in accordance with the best professional standards and practice, as specified by the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners have prescribed detailed guidelines for the accounts, and they have the power to inquire into any shortcomings. The accounts must be audited, and they and the annual report will be considered by the council and the College of Canons. That will help 1249 to ensure that every cathedral's financial affairs are dealt with properly, effectively and openly on the basis of professional advice, and are regularly subject to proper scrutiny.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal referred to Christ Church, Oxford, which is a cathedral of the diocese of Oxford and thus fell within the Howe commission's remit. The Howe commission visited it and examined its affairs in detail. However, it is also part of an Oxford college, and is governed by the statutes of that college. It has always been recognised as a unique case which cannot be governed by the same legislation as the other cathedrals. Equally, it was recognised that the principles underlying the Howe commission's recommendations could not be applied in the same way as to other cathedrals.
The dean and canons of Christ Church have been anxious to ensure that the cathedral complies with these principles. I have placed in the Library a note explaining that the cathedral is within the spirit of the Measure in matters such as accountability and communication, lay participation, proper financial management, careful scrutiny of budgets and accounts, and strong links with the diocese.
My final and parting words are to say how much I have welcomed the co-operation of those on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the kind thoughts and sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire—I shall run out of names shortly. They have all contributed sensibly to an important Measure, which has taken five years to get to the House. I am happy to commend the Measure to the House.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Before I put the Question, may I say on a personal note that I welcome the comments made about Cardinal Hume. I mourn his passing: he was a good friend to many of us in the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the Cathedrals 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.