Church of England (General Synod) (Measures) (Hansard, 23 June 1999)

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)
I beg to move, That the Care of Places of Worship 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. In section 1(2) of the Measure it should say Subject to subsection (5) below and not subsection (4), as incorrectly printed. That saves me from coming back to the House, as the Home Secretary did earlier today.
The House may be pleased to note that this is a fairly brief Measure, and does not compel anyone to take action under it unless they wish to do so. However, it forms a significant part of the Church of England's legislative process for safeguarding the Church's places of worship, which are an important aspect of this nation's heritage. The Church has been carrying out that process in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage, and this Measure will help to fill a gap in the arrangements for ensuring that all those buildings are well cared for.
I should stress, as the Ecclesiastical Committee did, that this Measure relates only to places of worship linked to the Church of England. Thus, it does not apply to places of worship that belong exclusively to other Christian Churches or to the buildings of non-Christian faiths. Its origins lie in the so-called ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls for ecclesiastical buildings, which are for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes and in the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, which cut down the scope of the exemption.
In the case of the Church of England, the main provisions of the 1994 order restricted the exemption to buildings that are within the Church's legal controls: that is, those relating to cathedrals or the Church's faculty system, which covers parish churches and some other places of worship. They are stringent legal systems of control, although they take account of the need to use the building concerned effectively for the Church's worship and mission.
However, the 1994 order also contained other exemptions for a number of buildings that were not within any effective form of control under either secular legislation or the Church's own systems. They included the Ecclesiastical Peculiars, so called because they lie outside the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese—some chapels of religious communities of monks and nuns; chapels of schools, colleges and various other institutions; and some shared church buildings that are used jointly by the Church of England and other Christian Churches.
The Church and the Government agreed that this situation was not satisfactory. It was always known that the special exemption in the 1994 order would be withdrawn sooner rather than later. The Church of 1251 England agreed with the Government that it would bring legislation to the General Synod to allow the places of worship in the categories that I have mentioned to opt into the Church's system of control under the faculty jurisdiction if they wished. If they did not, and if the buildings in question were listed buildings or in conservation areas, they would normally come within the secular listed building and conservation area controls once the special exemption in the 1994 order was revoked. The main object of the Measure is to fulfil that agreement. Briefly, it provides that the proper authority or authorities for a place of worship that falls within the categories in section 1(2) can have it entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body on, among other matters, the use, care and conservation of places of worship. They can also apply to have the buildings removed from the list if they wish.
While a place of worship is on the list, it will be within the faculty jurisdiction and, in most cases, within the provision for five-yearly inspection by a qualified architect or surveyor in the Inspection of Church Buildings Measure 1955. The list will be open for public inspection and copies will be made available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; English Heritage; the national amenity bodies; and the local planning authorities concerned.
The position of places of worship that fall within section 1(2) will be clear. They will be within the faculty jurisdiction or they will be subject to the normal listed building or conservation area controls or an alternative agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As a result, the so-called gap in control, which has existed for many years in the legal arrangements for safeguarding such places of worship, will be filled.
Faculty jurisdiction will not be a soft option. The faculty system exercises careful control over changes to the buildings that it covers and it has been strengthened in recent years in close consultation with the Department and English Heritage. Aspects of it are being looked at again in the light of the recent report on ecclesiastical exemption produced for the Department.
We have consulted widely at each stage of the legislation with individual institutions and representative bodies as well as with the Department and English Heritage. A great deal of account has been taken of their comments and suggestions.
This modest Measure is urgently needed so that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can make progress on revoking the temporary exemptions under the 1994 Order. It had the overwhelming support of the General Synod, it has the support of English Heritage and it has been declared expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. I ask the House to approve the Measure and take a further step to protect some of the finest parts of the nation's built heritage.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he has presented the Measure. As he says, it is modest, but important. There is scarcely a town or village in England where the church is 1252 not one of the most prominent buildings, and in many cases it is the most prominent and the building of greatest historical and architectural interest. One can trace the social history of our country through its parish churches. It is vital that they should be properly conserved and that there should be proper controls on internal and external alterations and additions. They must be subject to regular architectural inspection. I speak as a churchwarden who has some responsibility for a lovely old church. The Measure will help. I commend it to the House and thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has introduced it. I hope that we shall give it a swift passage on to the statute books.

§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)
I do not intend to vote against the Measure, although I was tempted to vote against the previous one when I came in for the end of that debate. It is absurd that, in the last six months of the 20th century, the House of Commons still devotes three hours to debating one Church. It never debates any other religion. Most other religions would rightly bitterly resent any interference by this House in the running of their affairs, yet the Church of England is still given time to debate its reforms, which have to be brought here for approval. That is totally wrong. It is the Church of England and this, as we are so often reminded by Conservative Members, is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not just England.

§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)
It is always a pleasure to see a Scottish Member intervening in the affairs of England, even though he has his own Parliament now. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Measure and attend the debate, he would understand that the purpose of the Ecclesiastical Committee is not to be the voice of the Church of England, but to ensure that Church of England legislation does not bear down oppressively on all the citizens of the United Kingdom, including his constituents.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—

§ Mr. Maxton
You are not going to let me go far down that road.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is not a question of going far down it. The hon. Gentleman cannot go down that road at all, because it is outwith the terms of the Measure. He can speak only about the Measure.

§ Mr. Maxton
To finish my point, the House should not be debating the issue. The Church of England should be disestablished.
The Measure adds more churches and religious buildings, including school chapels and others, to the list of those to be protected. Last week, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport took evidence from English Heritage. It transpires that English Heritage spent £40 million on preserving churches, and that is only a small fraction of the state money that it receives. Although the Measure has no direct financial implications, does the 1253 fact that extra buildings are being added to the list mean that, eventually, the Church of England will come back to the Department looking for more money?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
The hon. Gentleman has not read the Measure or, if he has read it, he has not understood it. Buildings are not being added to the list; it is merely a question of whether they maintain the ecclesiastical exemption to which very high standards are applied, or whether they opt for the secular system, to put it very simply and crudely. It is not a matter of adding vast numbers of buildings to the list.
I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally exceptionally civilised and enjoys the cultured and sensible things of life, should be making such an iconoclastic speech.

§ Mr. Maxton
I am making an iconoclastic speech because I do not believe that taxpayers' money—whether it is lottery money or from anywhere else—should be spent in over-large amounts on one particular religion.
As I have said in the House, I am an atheist and anti-clerical and I do not believe that religion should play the large part that it does in the House or elsewhere. In my opinion, we spend far too much time and money on preserving something that I personally do not believe in. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) say whether the Measure has any direct or indirect financial implications?

§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)
It would be wrong to say that I was provoked to speak by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton); nor would it be appropriate to say that the working of the Holy Spirit has brought my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and myself to the Chamber on this occasion, but he will remember, as I do, that, when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was set up, he and I inherited the issue of the ecclesiastical exemption.
I remember the order being delayed by my raising questions about exactly the bodies that are referred to in clause (1)(2) and I am indebted to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for having introduced the Measure when I was here for other purposes so that I am brought wholly up to date with the narrative. Although it was 1254 extremely interesting to hear the views of the hon. Member for Cathcart, they were not strictly germane to the Measure that we are discussing.

§ Mr. Stuart Bell
I always appreciate the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) which remind me of my last conversation with an atheist, who told me, "I am an atheist, thank God." I appreciate our various conversations on these important subjects and I am happy that he has intervened in the debate and put the record straight. Of course, the Measure places no financial obligations on the state.

§ Mr. Key
Although it is hardly germane to our debate, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has intervened, let me say for the record that the Earl of Cathcart was buried today at Middle Woodford church in my constituency.

§ Mr. Bell
These debates have the potential of developing very widely, and, as you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are allowed to enjoy a short diversion.
I can say sincerely that the Measure places no financial obligation on the state. As I said at the beginning of the debate, it does not compel anyone to take action unless they so wish. It is a matter entirely for the additional bodies. If they wish to participate, they can, and if they do not wish to participate, they are under no obligation to do so.
The entire process has been carried forward in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage. It allows those who so wish to have their place of worship placed within the categories that I described earlier and entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body. That will assist those places of worship, if they so wish, to have proper use, care and conservation of their buildings. This is a positive but small Measure which will try to maintain the heritage that we all enjoy, in our own different ways, of our chapels, churches and places of worship.