HL Deb 02 March 1954 vol 186 cc32-7

4.5 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, I come to the third of these Measures, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is particularly interested. This Measure amends the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, which would have expired in March, 1954, but which, by this Measure, is extended for another three years, to 1957. I must say a word, therefore, about the original Measure, the Reorganisation Areas Measure. It was a war emergency Measure. It empowered the Church to deal with areas, particularly urban areas, where there had been great destruction of houses and churches and where, owing to that war damage and under subsequent civil re-planning, the population might change completely—the number of residents might be reduced: the population might be differently placed, and so forth.

Your Lordships can remember areas in the East End of London where there was immense damage. Here, the old setup of parishes and churches would have been out of keeping with the new set-up. In one or two areas there would have been far too many churches for a reduced population. In another area, the churches might be wrongly situated. Therefore, drastic powers were taken to reorganise and replan, in those particular areas affected by war damage, or by violent fluctuations in population, the spiritual provision for that area. Most of the powers in that Measure were in fact taken over into another and permanent Measure, the Pastoral Reorganisation Measure, 1949. It is under this latter Measure that, generally speaking, we are now dealing with this problem. But the earlier Measure, the war Measure, contained one or two provisions, drastic in their nature, but necessary for the particular purpose in view.

If there are, say, five, six or seven parishes that were badly affected in the war, with some of the churches entirely destroyed, and it is desired to reorganise them, it is essential to have liberty to reorganise thoroughly. One exceptional and drastic power was that, in the process of a scheme under this Measure, it would be possible, under suitable terms of compensation, to dispossess the incumbent of his living. Your Lordships can see why. If we are going to replan a considerable area like that, where a totally unprecedented situation has arisen, if one incumbent, somewhere in that area, in a key position says, "I am not going to budge," and he has another twenty years to run, he may frustrate replanning of the church provision in that area for another twenty years. So this drastic provision was taken that, in such circumstances, an incumbent could be dispossessed and compensated with an annuity. Equally, powers were taken to prevent new vested interests from coming into operation while the scheme was under discussion, and patrons were thus hindered from exercising their patronage.

When that original Measure came up, the Ecclesiastical Committee quite rightly pointed out that it affected the rights of patrons, incumbents and parishioners, but it argued that, in view of the special need arising out of the particular war conditions, it was right that the Measure should pass. That Measure was passed in 1944. Under it, fifty-seven schemes have been presented, considered, and put into operation. Twenty-two more are now in process—a total of seventy-nine. The Measure lays down that objections against any scheme may be made to the Church Commissioners and re-discussed with the dioceses. In the last resort, objectors can appeal to a special committee set up under the Measure to hear objections. Twenty such cases have been referred to the special committee and in five cases they upheld the objectors.

My Lords, I would say that this has been a quite indispensable Measure in certain areas to which it was applied. We had expected that in ten years, the original life of the Measure, all this general replanning of devastated areas would have taken place; that the civil authority would have known its general plans; that the Church would have therefore been able to form its general plans, and that the scheme would go forward. The Church Assembly have, however, been informed, by two or three people who knew what they were talking about, that in three or four places in the country, in large towns where there had been much war damage, with consequent long replanning, the civil replanning has gone forward so slowly that even now the Church cannot discover what is the general lay-out of the replanning scheme and is, therefore, unable to decide where it wants its churches, how it wants to arrange its parishes and so forth. In those two or three areas the Church has been hampered and prevented from using this Measure, not by its awn fault at all but because, for one reason or another, the civil authority has not been able to formulate its plans.

The Church Assembly took note of the evidence that there were a certain number of areas thus placed, and it seemed unfair that they should be deprived of the special powers given under this Measure for planning on their own behalf and should be unable to do what fifty-seven areas have already done satisfactorily. As first drawn, the Amendment Measure provided that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, should be extended for a further ten years from 1954. The Church Assembly did not like that. The 1944 Measure was an emergency Measure. It has now run for ten years, and we cannot think that any civil authority will still be uncertain in another three years as to haw it is to replan its important areas. So the Church Assembly cut down the extension to three years. They considered that there was a fair case for that amount of extension to meet those few but important areas in which no action has been taken by the Church under the 1944 Measure because of the failure of the civil authority to carry out their planning. The Ecclesiastical Committee have considered this Measure. They have again drawn attention to the fact that inevitably it interferes with certain constitutional rights of incumbents, parishioners, patrons and others, but are of opinion that it is expedient that the Measure giving this extension of three years should be approved. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measures, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1954, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.— (The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

4.13 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, again I am obliged to the most reverend Primate for the clear exposition he has given of this Measure: it shows that the Church is not the only profession in which he could have reached a really high standard. I am not sorry that I spoke on the previous Measure, because the exposition he has given to the House of this particular Measure seems to dot some of the "i's" and to cross some of the "t's" in what I said. Of course, the proposed extension for another three years of the operation of the Measure, in order to deal with future cases, in each case de novo, is not to be disputed. Obviously, if the need for reorganisation is there, then the necessary power must be given by the extension of the Statute.

On the other hand, I should not like to miss this opportunity of emphasising that such great authorities as the most reverend Primate, and the special bodies that he and his brethren may set up in the Church Assembly to deal with such questions, ought not to miss one fact. In some cases where reorganisation schemes have reached a far stage in development, but have not received final authority, the expected distribution of population has either not started in the direction anticipated or, at any rate, has been very much altered in regard to size and movement, with the result that much greater expense may be incurred. Moreover, the movement of population is something in which the Church and the State at large can be jointly interested. The problem of the balance to be maintained in population is not one especially for the Church. Unless we can solve this question of overspill into what are now regarded as rural areas, then difficult economic problems are created.

I am a resident, a ratepayer and, to not a little extent, a tithepayer in the county of Essex. At this moment there is taking place at Chelmsford a Commission of Inquiry into the proposal (and one cannot blame the Church for this) that a further 44,000 acres of Essex should be taken for an overspill of population which, from the point of view of economy and general interest to the country, ought as far as possible to be retained nearer to the site of their industry, so as to avoid the expense of travelling long distances to and fro every day. In the case at Bristol in which I was particularly interested, the matter has been reconsidered and the population that was going to be allowed to come in is now to be accommodated, not at the old rate of forty to seventy per acre (which had been in the minds of the local Church authorities at the time) but, in some of the areas that have already been discussed, at a rate of 120, 130 or 140 per acre. If this scheme is to spread out into other parts of a reorganisation area, what is the value of the original scheme? I am not opposing this Measure to-day, but I felt that your Lordships should recognise that it is only on such occasions when one can sit face to face with high ecclesiastical and spiritual authorities and put points to them, that your Lordships have any real opportunity of ventilating the case at all. The only other thing I would say is this. I hope that, not only now but at other times, when dealing with similar Measures, some better means of lodging appeals by the poorer parishioners will be provided. At present, they have either to instruct expensive and learned counsel or take their appeal on an insufficient basis before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

4.18 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, if I may say one word in reply, I appreciate the interest of the noble Viscount in this matter, both in general and in regard to the particular case to which he has given an immense amount of care and attention. He has raised two large questions which I cannot pursue today. The first concerns the right way of dealing with the replacement of the population. I do not suppose that anybody is overenthusiastic about undertaking overspill conurbations into the surrounding countryside. If the Church were to make the attempt, I have no doubt that they would do it better than the civil authority. Fortunately, perhaps, we have no authority in that matter—the people go to a particular place, and the Church has to go with them.

The second point is a most interesting and important one. The noble Viscount says, quite rightly, that you may make a plan now, but by the time you put it into operation the local authority may have changed its plan and your plan becomes quite inapplicable. Under the original Measure, a scheme for an, important area had to be provided within ten years—or, as we now say, within thirteen years—and once the scheme is provided, it can be varied and can be amended at any time. So, as the years pass, if the plan is varied, the scheme can change as well. The first essential thing is that within the given time under the Measure—thirteen years is now the period—the first scheme has to be submitted to the Commissioners.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I was going to say that I quite realise that, but, of course, in a particular instance—say in the case of a group of five or seven parishes—if two or three of the churches have been demolished in the meantime it is not very helpful.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I think we do not go ahead so fast in the working of our machinery as to pull a church down before a plan is developed. But mistakes may arise, under any administration. With regard to the noble Viscount's last point about appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the expense involved, I would say that there is one way of avoiding that expense, and that is for no one ever to appeal to the Judicial Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.