§ 34. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)If he will make a statement on the work of the archbishops' review group on bishops' needs and resources. [53995]
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners)The archbishops' review group published a report last year, "Resourcing Bishops", which the archbishops commended for reflection and debate. It concluded that the range of resources made available to bishops is broadly right, but recommended changes in how they are provided.
§ Michael FabricantI have the document here, and it is interesting to note that its foreword states:
Readers will find that the report reveals no financial scandal, no profligate waste".That makes a pleasant change.The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the burden on archbishops, and in particular of the worldwide role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. What further consideration is being given to the future of the archbishops of the United Kingdom? The hon. Gentleman will know that in the eighth century, there was a third archbishopric, based in Lichfield. There needs to be more than one archbishop based in the United Kingdom while another spends much of his time looking after the interests of the Anglican dioceses abroad. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if there is to be a third archbishopric, there is a precedent, and it is Lichfield?
§ Mr. BellThere was a television catch phrase years ago, "Give us a job!", and that might apply to the bishopric to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am grateful to him for pointing out that the report states that there is neither waste nor profligacy in the Church Commissioners' books or in the Church of England. He will also be aware that Lord Hurd of Westwell's report on the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury found that the archbishop had no fewer than six major national and international roles; Lord Hurd made a number of 501 recommendations on archbishoprics. He did not recommend a third archbishopric, but I shall be glad to add my own tuppence on that.