REORGANIZATION AREAS MEASURE, 1944

HL Deb 15 March 1944 vol 131 cc57-66

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have to move that the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. When I introduced this Measure into the Church Assembly it took me an hour arid a half to expound its provisions. I could not imagine that your Lordships will wish me to repeat that performance here. Even the summary of the Measure which you will find attached to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee takes five closely printed pages, and really cannot be further abbreviated. I must therefore content myself with expressing the general purpose of this Measure, and that call be done very shortly by reading one paragraph of the Appendix to the Report: In many of the large towns and cities which have suffered from attack from the air, the destruction of churches, parish halls, vicarages and other church buildings is very great, and in most of those areas it will not be desirable either to rebuild the churches or to restore the parishes exactly as they were before. In the same areas civil replanning is or will be taking place which may vitally affect the distribution of the population and its density. In these circumstances the church must be able to replan for its own purposes and have machinery to put its plans into effect so that church life may be restarted on a firm basis, with churches and other buildings sited in the right place, and parochial boundaries drawn to fit the new conditions.

That process, which will begin immediately the war is over, cannot be met at all by small adjustments of parochial boundaries and so forth. A far more drastic treatment is called for. I could tell you of many areas in my own diocese which are so affected. One comes to my mind in which of six contiguous parishes only one of the parish churches stands at all at this moment. I could tell you of another area in which the population after the war, if one can assume that replanning will be carried through, will be reduced by one-half. In such areas all you can do is to take the whole area as a unit and replan it from the start, say which churches you wish to rebuild, where you wish to site them, and what parishes you need to deal with the pastoral supervision of that area adequately. But if you are going to do that, you will have to deal with every kind of consequent detail, ranging from the number of clergy who are to be there employed down to what is to happen to the monuments in the churches which you are not going to rebuild. The Church has no machinery for dealing with such a process at all. Nor should it he expected that it would have, for conditions like these have never existed before.

This Measure provides the machinery needed for this purpose. It applies only to such areas as I have described, which are certified as Ecclesiastical Reorganization Areas by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It applies only for a limited time. Such areas have to be defined within seven years, and schemes have to be defined within ten years. But where and while this Measure applies it is both comprehensive and drastic in its powers—comprehensive because, as I have said, it has got to deal with every contingency which may arise, drastic because it is no good having a plan unless you can put it into operation. And we do desire and mean to see that as soon as possible after the war in these areas affected, dislocated whether by war damage or the changing population, the Church may start again its work fully equipped and provided with a firm basis. The Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee quite rightly says that such reorganizations inevitably involve widespread interference with existing rights "of parishioners, incumbents, patrons and others." It cannot be otherwise when you are dealing with such a problem, but the Ecclesiastical Committee are satisfied that proper regard has been paid to their rights. One cannot avoid a disturbance of them, but the Measure abounds in provisions to see that the fullest possible consideration is given to all interests.

In the preparation of a scheme of reorganization there must be full discussion with incumbents, with parochial church councils, and with patrons. When a scheme is prepared objections may be lodged by all these interests and also, if desired, by any local or planning authority—that is to say, the civil side can come in if it so desires. If, after due negotiation, the objections are not resolved, there is an appeal to a special tribunal set up, one in each province. The decision of that tribunal is final. That is not to be quarrelled with, since you must get finality somewhere, but it still remains to say that the scheme as thus finally approved has to lie on the Table of the two Houses of Parliament for twenty-eight days when once more, if necessary, a final objection can be raised. The Ecclesiastical Committee in its Report calls particular attention to one special way in which existing rights are disturbed. In the process of making these rearrangements you may find a group of four parishes and decide they must be replaced by three parishes better arranged. If one of these parishes happens to be vacant, the three surviving incumbents can go into the three parishes; but supposing there are four incumbents, one is left over, one is, to put it shortly, superfluous, and therefore loses his incumbency.

What is to happen in such a situation? Quite obviously such a man must be fairly and equitably compensated for the loss of the benefice which he previously held. The Measure directs that every such dispossessed incumbent shall receive fair and equitable compensation. In presenting his own claim, he may be represented by a best friend, and if he is finally not satisfied he can appeal again to the special tribunal. Those responsible for the Measure are satisfied that in this way fair treatment and fair compensation will be secured. The point was specially brought to the notice again and again of the House of Clergy in the Church Assembly. They may be trusted to watch the interests of their own order, and on each occasion they accepted this proposal as properly meeting the needs of the situation. The Ecclesiastical Committee also endorsed that opinion that proper provision is made for that particular case, but it is right that your Lordships should have it in mind. It is the kind of thing one would not wish to happen, but it may have to happen, and we do wish it to be dealt with properly and fairly.

There I think we can leave the Measure. It is full of interest in its fifty-seven clauses for those who like to study it. Its purpose really to re-start parochial life as efficiently as possible and as soon as possible in these dislocated areas. It is an unprecedented Measure, and so are the conditions. The Church has, if I may say so, shown great courage and great foresight in tackling this problem boldly and definitely, and so armed itself beforehand to be ready to act the moment the opportunity arises. In our lighter moments we even think we are showing the way to the State, pointing the way they might go with equal courage and foresight in dealing with the much greater problems which face them. Five times in al the Church Assembly has debated the principles of this Measure and in every case has endorsed them. Its revision stage was long and thorough, and final approval was given to the Measure by what the most reverend Primate described as "quite an enormous majority." The Ecclesiastical Committee described it as urgently needed and expedient, and I submit it to your Lordships with every confidence that you will accept it.

Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganization Areas Measure, 1944, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)

LORD HEMINGFORD

My Lords, I make no apology for a few very brief remarks on the subject which the right reverend Prelate has just dealt with towards the end—the special paragraph in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I yield to none in this House in my admiration—I do not think it is too strong a term—for this Measure and my sincere hope that there will be no difficulty raised whatever in passing this Resolution. What I am anxious about is this. The Ecclesiastical Committee found them selves in a position of some considerable difficulty in making what could be regarded as a thoroughly favourable Report. It was on account of a comparatively small matter, but a matter which is definitely one of their duties under the Act constituting the Assembly and giving it its powers. The Act provides that the Ecclesiastical Committee have to draft a report stating the nature and legal effect of the Measure and their views as to the expediency thereof, especially in relation to "the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects." These are the important words to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, and which I hope will be borne in mind by the Church Assembly in future. In this case it did appear to a great many members of the Committee that certain constitutional rights were affected and that there was not that provision which Parliament probably would have put in for compensation for the loss of these rights.

I am not going into the matter in any detail, but it depends on the question of the right of an incumbent to a life interest in the income of the endowments of the benefice. It does not seem clear from the Measure, and certainly looks anything but clear from the debates which took place in the Assembly, whether the incumbent in such a case, if dispossessed, is going to get as compensation the full value of that life interest which is taken from him. Many people have asked, without getting a satisfactory answer, "What is the meaning of constitutional rights?" It is perhaps rather like the old story of the elephant: "I cannot tell you what an elephant is." I cannot tell you what is a constitutional right, but I think I can recognize one when I see it. I suggest that "the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects," at any rate, include the sort of rights which we all consider have been secured in this country by Magna Charta and in the United States of America by the Declaration of Independence. They are those rights which are claimed for the subjects of all free nations by the Atlantic Charter, and indeed are those rights for which we are fighting in this war.

In these circumstances it becomes, to my mind, more important at the present time that we should see that nothing is allowed to pass which is inconsistent with the preservation of what is described, for want of a better phrase, as the "constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects." The matter is really a technical point because there are very few who are concerned, or likely to be concerned. I do not propose to go into the argument whether the fair and equitable compensation, and the machinery arranged for obtaining it, is, or is not, sufficient. Having in view their anxiety not to interfere with the passage of the Measure into law, the Committee came to the conclusion (I think as a matter of what was likely to happen rather than as a matter of legal certainty) that there was not very much danger of any dispossessed incumbent suffering very much if at all under this. At the same time that technical point remained and the Committee felt bound to do as they have done—namely, call attention to it.

There are two things I want to say about that. The first is that this is not the first Measure from the Church Assembly which has aroused a certain amount of opposition in Parliament on account of some small incidental point, and I do hope that in the future, in its own interests and in the interests of the Church, the Church Assembly will watch very carefully what is likely to be the reaction of at any rate a good many members in the two Houses on certain points which may occur in a Measure. For instance, it would have done away with a certain risk to this Measure (which I think has been overcome) if this matter had been a little more carefully considered, and considered from the point of the difficulty which the Ecclesiastical Committee had in getting over those particular points.

The only other thing I want to say about it is in regard to the real importance at the present time of watching these questions, which just before the war some members of both Houses of Parliament were inclined to treat as trifling. We now see—I suggest we do see in this case—that there is often a very important principle behind some of these questions of what are generally considered to be the constitutional rights of some of His Majesty's subjects. Those rights are indeed the real issue in this war. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not think I have been wasting the time of the House by drawing attention to this particular point. I would go so far as to suggest that in all cases of this kind the National Assembly, or their Legislative Committee, which I suppose would be the proper body, should communicate with certain members of both Houses of Parliament in regard to a Measure before it comes up to Parliament, with a view of ascertaining whether there is any point of this kind on which difficulty is likely to be felt in either House. That I think would facilitate the passage of their Measures and would make the working together of Parliament and the Church Assembly very much more satisfactory than it has sometimes been in the past.

EARL GREY

My Lords, I think a third speech upon a Measure of the Church Assembly which is going to be accepted in a few minutes is creating a precedent in your Lordships' House which perhaps is not very desirable, but I should like to say a word or two on the subject both as a member of the Church Assembly and as a member, like my noble friend Lord Hemingford, of the Ecclesiastical Committee. There are two points that I should like to mention. This is not the only method of compensating dispossessed clergy but it was by far the most popular with the persons chiefly concerned, the clergy themselves. The protagonists who fought the other case on the Ecclesiastical Committee were led in both cases by the same person, my noble relative Lord Quickswood, and the difference between his success in the two was that he received far less support from the clergy in the Church Assembly than he did from some friends in the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I should like to say that it is constantly in the minds of those who work in the Church Assembly to maintain the best possible liaison between that body and the House of Commons and your Lordships' House. The late Lord Selborne introduced a new Measure about six years ago for that very purpose. It gave the House of Laity in the Church Assembly power to co-opt members who were not elected from any other source, and there are certainly two members of your Lordships' House who are co-opted. No later than last year I had the privilege of moving in the Standing Committee of the House of Laity that Mr. Willink and Mr. Henry Brooke, both distinguished Members of the House of Commons, should be co-opted for that very purpose. Unfortunately from that point of view the Government have since then taken possession of Mr. Willink and promoted him to a higher sphere, and he can no longer speak for us. But we have that matter very much in mind and it is more the difficulty of finding people who can spare the time than any absence of will on the part of the Assembly in this matter that stands in the way. But of course there is constant consultation between representatives of the Church Assembly and every Government Department that is concerned in any Measure that comes forward for consideration and the Government draftsman is also frequently consulted. I should like to assure Lord Hemingford that there is a really live effort to keep co-operation as close as possible.

The only thing I would like to say about the Ecclesiastical Committee is this. I think Lord Hemingford goes a little far when he says the Committee had a difficulty in finding a way of giving a favourable decision for this Measure. I think the Committee were really very much reassured by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clauson, who, speaking with all his great experience and after having made a careful examination of this particular point, said he was satisfied it was a full and fair measure of compensation that was offered. If it had not been for Lord Clauson's assurance perhaps there would have been further examination, but he did reassure us on that point, and I do not think there was any difficulty in the minds of the majority of the Ecclesiastical Committee in making the Report that has been presented to your Lordships' House.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I should like to add one word because naturally those of us who sit on these Benches are eager to avoid any suggestion that the rights of the clergy are being in any way overlooked. The particular problem that arose in this case was whether we should say that every dispossessed incumbent was to receive the full value of the benefice; but is this its value as it was when he was instituted to it, when there was a large income, or the value of the benefice at the moment of his dispossession, when it might totally have disappeared? In a great many of these cases the value of the benefice comes from the rent of property built on the glebe and because that has disappeared some of the best endowed benefices in the city of London are now providing no income for the incumbent at all. What he is dispossessed of, therefore, is a claim which cannot be met. It was necessary, therefore, to establish some form of equitable treatment for these men. It seemed more convenient and proper that all these cases should be met on a basis of equity rather than on a figure which depended to some extent on the action of the enemy which we cannot at present predict. That is the reason why we took this line rather than the line that a man is entitled to compensation to the full extent. It is no good saying that a man is legally entitled to a certain thing if that means that he will not have money to enable him to live.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has drawn attention to this point because it is an important point. We have always had in mind that we must have regard to the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects. When we approached this matter and in the course of the discussion upon it we did keep in touch with legal opinion and the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clauson, assured me personally that full constitutional rights were preserved in the Measure, especially by the final appeal to the Houses of Parliament, convinced me that we were not proceeding on false lines. This point was considered at every stage with very great care. We could not have been more careful if we had tried on this particular point. We tried every kind of formula and we found it impossible to produce one which would operate justly in every case. The most reverend Primate has just called attention to the fact that it is no use to say to a clergyman that his constitutional rights in his benefice shall he preserved if his benefice has lost its value. Throughout the discussions in the Church Assembly it was evident that this matter could not be dealt with by formula or arithmetical calculation but only by reasonable men trying to meet the situation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.