HL Deb 30 January 1969 vol 298 cc1295-320

4.3 p.m.

Debate on Second Reading resumed.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, as a humble lay member of the Church of England I feel diffident about my ability to contribute anything of value to a debate which has been so admirably initiated by the most reverend Primate. But I think it is appropriate that speeches should be made on this Bill from both Front Benches, and I have authority to say from this Despatch Box the few words that I am going to say.

I welcome this Bill and have no criticisms at all of it, in general or in detail. I am delighted to see that noble Lords who belong to other Christian Churches have indicated their desire to speak in the debate, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I greatly hope, and sincerely believe, that they also will recognise this as an important advance and as a piece of legislation which can be most widely welcomed. In a sense, it seems to me that by this Bill we are now seeking to do for Christian Churches in general throughout the country very much what has already happened in the case of the Crypt Chapel of the Palace of Westminster. I am not quite sure whether the Crypt Chapel is brought in at all—for instance, by subsection (4) of Clause 6. I am not sure whether it is a chapel of a "public institution", but it sounds to me very much as though it may be. I cannot see, from my own superficial reading, that it will matter a great deal whether it is in or out but I think that each House of Parliament ought to satisfy itself that we are not inadvertently making any change in the position of the Crypt Chapel.

I must confess to having a special interest in the Bill, in that some months ago I accepted an invitation from a Bishop to become Chairman of a Commission which he was setting up to advise him on any needed changes in the Church of England structure in part of his diocese; and that has brought my colleagues and myself to a closer realisation—in my own case, at any rate—of the nature of some of these problems. One is so well aware, when one is looking at the existing parochial structure of the Church of England in an area, that the resources may be ill-distributed. There may be far too many churches in an area from which much of the population has moved away, while there are too few church buildings in new housing estates which have been built more recently. All of this has to be considered against a background of financial stringency, because the days are long past when any Christian Church in this country has had ample money for all the purposes which it would wish to serve. Certainly my experience on that Commission has convinced me how wrong it is that the scant financial resources of the Church of England, at any rate, should be overmuch concentrated on either the erection or the maintenance of buildings if, because of that, the work which that money could otherwise assist through the agency of people may be straitened and limited.

In the case that I have in mind I doubt whether there will be occasion for the sharing of an existing building, but I can well imagine other cases and other parts of the country where it may be thoroughly desirable that an existing building which is not fully used by the Church to which it belongs should be shared with another Church, or Churches, in order, first of all, that that building should be more greatly used to the Glory of God, and, secondly, that moneys that have been contributed by devoted supporters of one Church or another should be put to the best possible use for the saving of souls, and not eaten up by buildings.

That is as regards old buildings. Where a new housing estate is being created I hope that everybody will agree nowadays that it is desirable that the various Churches which hope to have ministers of their own working among the new population should consult together to see whether the total expenditure on church buildings can be limited by a sharing agreement, not so that God may be worshipped less well or less gloriously, but so that there may be more resources left free for Christian work among the people and in the homes of the people. I can myself think of several cases, having served in local government in the years since the war, of new housing estates where the multiplicity of new churches which have been erected at great cost in a limited area is now a matter for regret. The money could have been used to greater Christian purpose if a Bill like this had then been on the Statute Book.

I am glad to see that in subsection (4) of Clause 1, it is stipulated that: A sharing agrement shall not be made on behalf of the Church of England without the consent of the bishop and the Pastoral Committee of the diocese concerned"; and there is a similar provision in that subsection relating to other churches. I note that Clause 4(1) says: A sharing agreement … may dispense, to such extent as may be necessary, with the requirement to hold certain services of the Church of England on Sundays and other days. There are already certain parts of the country where Church of England services on Sundays are thin on the ground, due to inability any longer to provide a separate incumbent for each parish church. It would be regrettable if subsection (1) of Clause 4 were to be used to reduce still further the number of Church of England services which have to be held by law, in any area where those services are already rather scarce for meeting the needs of the people. However, I can see that subsection (4) of Clause 1, to which I have referred, should be an adequate safeguard against that, because these decisions will not be taken simply by one man; they will have to be looked at in the context of the whole neighbourhood and diocese.

One cannot help regretting that it is necessary for Parliament to be asked to pass complex legislation of this character in order that a very simple aim, which nowadays must be approved by almost everybody, shall be achieved. I am not a professional in these matters, but sometimes laymen like myself are appalled at the extent to which the original work of Christianity has become overlaid with legal structure.

I notice that in subsection (2) of Clause 4 (perhaps what I am going to say may be regarded by some as controversial, but probably not in your Lordships' House) it is proposed to make special provision that: Notwithstanding any statutory or other legal provision, a minister, reader, or lay preacher of one of the Churches sharing a church building under a sharing agreement, may, by invitation of a minister, reader, or lay preacher of another such Church, take part in conducting worship in that building in accordance with the forms of service and practice of that other Church …'. It seems to me a sad thing that, even now, this is to be allowed only in a shared church. For my part, I shall welcome the day when restrictions imposed by the Act of Uniformity and other Measures upon Church of England clergy are removed (I may get into trouble with the most reverend Primate for saying this), and when there is no restriction upon a minister of the Church of England who desires to take part in the conduct of a service in another church in accordance with the doctrines of a Church represented on the British Council of Churches.

My Lords, we are here making an advance, and I dare to think that if this Bill can go through with general support and approval in both Houses of Parliament it will mark the fact that Parliament has reached a stage where it is ready to assist the Church of England and other Churches in lightening this heavy legal structure in posed on the work of Christ. I venture to believe that that will assist that work to go forward with greater success and to the greater Glory of God.

4.16 p.m.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in thanking the most reverend Primate for moving the Second Reading of this Bill and explaining it with such clarity. This is, of course, not a Party political measure, and I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill. The fact that the most reverend Primate should have introduced it and that a number of other denominations should have approved it illustrates the great change which has taken place in the last fifty years, and indeed in the last five years. And, incidentally, it shows how completely out of touch with the spirit of the times are the speeches and actions of persons such as Mr. Ian Paisley.

This, as has already been said, is an enabling Bill. It will not bring about a very dramatic change and to some extent it legalises what is already happening. I am aware that there are some people who consider that progress towards the union of all Christian denominations is exceedingly slow. Perhaps that is inevitable, since some of the differences are very real and cannot easily be bridged; but there are many different ways of achieving closer unity. One approach to Church unity is by the sharing of church buildings and the sharing in the many causes which are part and parcel of church life and which do not necessarily involve theological differences. I suggest that the actual saving in expense is not the first priority, although it is important. The amount of time, energy and money that is spent on the maintenance of the fabric, or renovation of the organ and on all kinds of efforts to preserve buildings seems to me at times to be quite out of proportion.

I do not wish to embarrass the most reverend Primate who moved the Second Reading of the Bill by anything I may say in supporting it, but I have some sympathy for those who say that the burden of buildings has become so great that, in the kind of society in which we live to-day, nothing less will suffice than a completely fresh start without the handicap of buildings, however drastic the consequences may be. I know there are some who hold that view. I do not go quite so far as that. I recognise the great historic and architectural importance of some of our church buildings and that there are few communal activities that can be carried on without some buildings, but anything which may help to lessen the excessive concern over the maintenance of church buildings is all to the good. This Bill seems to me to be a move in the right direction.

The various clauses have been explained and it would not be appropriate to discuss them in detail on Second Reading, but I have three points of detail which perhaps merit some mention on the Second Reading of this Bill. I appreciate the fact that a considerable part of the Bill deals primarily with the legal position as it affects the Established Church, but it also affects other main Churches as set out in Schedule 2. The first point may be of importance to other Churches as well as to the Church of England. I know from experience of cases where congregations of two different denominations, both of them Nonconformist, have decided that it would be right and proper that they should join together and worship in one building. They have decided that this sharing would be the right course to adopt. As a result of this, the other church—the church that is not to be used—becomes redundant, and then the congregations have been disappointed to find that they could not in any way modify the trusts of the church which has become redundant. In the case of a Nonconformist church, it is likely that the building will be held upon certain trusts as a result of which if the building is disposed of, the proceeds, both capital and income, must be held for the benefit of that particular denomination, generally in that particular area, and that in no circumstances can the funds be used to benefit the sharing church. I am not quite sure whether this Bill will remedy that situation.

If a church of the Church of England is declared redundant following a sharing agreement having been entered into with another denomination, and the church is eventually disposed of under ordinary circumstances—of course, I speak without great knowledge of the Church of England—the proceeds will presumably go to the Church Commissioners. In the case of a Nonconformist church, the proceeds would be held upon the trusts on which the building was originally held and apart from this Bill there would appear to be no power to use either the capital or the income for the benefit of the shared church. This point may be covered by Clause 3(1) of the Bill. I am not quite sure whether that subsection will override the trusts upon which the redundant church is held, but if it does it could be of considerable practical importance.

The second point may be a rather technical one. It has been suggested to me that if two or more churches are considering entering into a sharing agreement, it might be advisable to have a trial period. But if there were a trial period before the sharing agreement was entered into, then technically there would be a breach of the law or, at any rate a breach of trust until the sharing agreement was actually signed. I do not think the Bill covers that point. Perhaps the best method would be to have an agreement with a clause enabling either party to terminate the agreement after a specified period, although, psychologically, that might not be the best way of starting upon this form of co-operation. But if nothing is done in that respect, there might be two churches coming together and after a while finding that the sharing does not work out quite so well as was hoped, and the members of the redundant church might find that it was too late to go back to the original arrangement.

I raise the third point with some hesitation, because it has been put to me by some Methodists and I am not a Methodist. I have spoken very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I have no doubt that he will be able to answer the point. It has been suggested to me that there is an anomaly in Schedule 2 in the reference to the appropriate authority which is to determine who shall be a party to a sharing agreement. The Schedule sets out the appropriate authorities. In the case of the Baptists it is the Baptist Trust Corporation, acting with the concurrence of the Church meeting. In the case of the Congregationalists it is the Congregational Trust Corporation, acting with the concurrence of the Church meeting. In the case of the Methodist church it is the Annual Conference of the Methodist Church. It has been suggested to me that there ought to be some provision for consultation with the local church. I understand that the comparable body would be the leaders' meeting as well as the local trustees of the fabric, and that they should be parties to an agreement. It may well be that there is a clear and simple answer to this point. I raise it because I have been asked to do so, and also because I know that it is the intention of some Members of another place to table an Amendment to this Bill, unless it is clarified before it reaches there.

I have one general observation. In some respects the fact that buildings are made to last, not only for generations but very often for centuries, is a disadvantage. Population moves, circumstances alter and redevelopment is very expensive. But when redevelopment is practicable, I hope more thought may be given to what kind of redevelopment it is. I think it provides an opportunity for something rather more than just the sharing of a church building. I should like to illustrate this by reference to just one example; namely, the Carrs Lane Church, Birmingham. This is an independent church of the Congregational order which was built in 1748, and has, I believe, great influence not only within the City of Birmingham but farther afield. However, the building has become unsuitable for the present day and is to be pulled down. On the site a new church is to be built, which will be shared with the Lutheran church, and I believe there are some who would have been very willing that there should be a sharing agreement with other churches if that had been desired and had been practicable.

The point I should like to make is that on this same site there will be the headquarters of the Birmingham Council of Christian Education; there will be a counselling centre offering help to people with a great variety of different problems; there will be a junior church; there will be a youth club; there will be a club for people not necessarily of that denomination—people who are wanting to undertake personal service in tie City—and, in addition, there will be a block of 12 flats for letting to overseas students and their families who are temporarily resident in the City. It seems to be that development of that kind should be welcomed and encouraged.

My point of view may be a little unorthodox. I should not mind very much whether there was one church with several different services, perhaps at different times of the day and the week, or a church, a chapel and perhaps a Roman Catholic church together, surrounded or adjoined by various other buildings which would be used by all denominations for general purposes in connection with church activities. It seems to me that there is a great prospect for advance along those lines.

I can see the merit—and I am speaking here as one who would probably never be fit to be admitted to membership of the Established Church—of the parish church of days gone by, which was the centre of life of the community. To-day, when the majority of people do not go to church at all, there is not much point in looking back to the past with a feeling of nostalgia. This is the time to look forward. But in looking forward we should realise that there are many ways in which greater unity might be achieved, and there are many joint activities which do not necessarily involve the difficult problems of theology and Church government. Be that as it may, I am sure that this Bill is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will not be long before it reaches the Statute Book.

4.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am afraid I did not quite hear something that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I thought I heard him say that he did not think he would ever be admitted as a member of the Catholic Church.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I said that I did not think I should ever be fit to be admitted to the Established Church.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

On that point, of course, I have no opinion to offer. I was only going to say that so far as my Church is concerned I felt that he was already absolutely fit, and that it was just a question that depended on him, when he felt like applying. I just wanted to make that clear from the point of view of my particular Communion.

My Lords, I rise with the greatest pleasure to offer the most enthusiastic support for this measure. What is vastly more important than any personal support of mine, enthusiastic or otherwise, is that I come here to-day to offer a very cordial welcome on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in this country—and in saying that I know I have with me the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and other Roman Catholic Members of your Lordships' House. We Roman Catholics welcome this as a measure good in itself, practical, sensible and economical, and therefore prudent and expedient in every way. But we also welcome it on lines referred to by other speakers: as a symbol of this wonderful ecumenical movement which has made such terrific, such unexpected, such staggering progress in the last few years.

Perhaps some of us here will cast our minds back to the debate on Christian Unity initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in, I believe, 1961. Some progress had already been made by then. Lord Fisher of Lambeth, had already paid that historic visit to Rome. But when we compare the position to-day with the position in 1961, we seem to be living in a different world. And when some of us—I hope not many Members of your Lordships' House, but quite a few people who used to be called "men of light and leading"—take the view that everything in this country is getting worse and worse, let us at least look at something which is clearly getting better and better by any standard at all. So I think we must all be very cheered when we think of the ecumenical movement.

There used to be the phrase, "How these Christians love one another!" sometimes used in admiration and sometimes in sarcasm. I do not know how much we all love each other—love is a very profound emotion which cannot be scattered about indiscriminately—but I think we all like each other, in our different Communions, much more than we used to, and this liking is half way to love. So let us all draw great consolation from the events of which this is just an expression this afternoon. Certainly we in the Roman Catholic Communion who have listened to the Archbishop of Canterbury should pay a special tribute to him—for his speech, of course, but also for the policy for which he and his Church have been working so hard and so inflexibly in these last few years. I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, but certainly the most reverend Primate has given a magnificent lead in this direction during the period he has presided over the Church of England.

My Lords, I am glad to think that this is not a limited partnership, that it is not just a question of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, but that we have spokesmen to-day from the other great branches of the Christian Church in this country and in Scotland. If Northern Ireland is not represented as strongly as it might be, perhaps that is a little safer than if we cast the net too wide. Of course, I say that without any sort of provocative intention. At any rate, my Lords, here is a solid Christian front which I am sure can bring nothing but pleasure even to those who are not pro-Christian, who are even very critical of Christians. I should think, therefore, that from every point of view this Bill would be welcomed.

I am not myself as strong on the existence of a personal Devil as perhaps an official religious spokesman ought to be, but supposing for the sake of argument the Devil exists in a personal or some other sense, I would say emphatically that this is a bad afternoon for the Devil and that it is a very good afternoon for all the forces of righteousness. My Lords, I repeat that on behalf of the Roman Catholics of this country I strongly support this Bill.

4.36 p.m.

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, arising from the opposite pole of the Christian religion from that of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I join with him in thanking the most reverend Primate for inaugurating this Bill. I recognise that it applies only to England and Wales, but we in the Scottish Churches are always interested in ecclesiastical developments in England. In the past we were, I suppose, mainly interested in the turbulences of the Churches in England, though these seldom if ever reached the degree of barbarity which for so many years were almost commonplace in Scotland. Those unhappy days are now far off, and we remember them only for the heroism they evoked. It is true that there are, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has indicated, some disturbances at the present time, but these are very much on the fringe. Some of them belong to a Presbyterian sect—very much a vestigial relic of the olden days, passed by in the steady evolution of that distinctively Scottish religion.

The ridiculous action of these lunatic religious fringes, which provides news for the masses, does have a certain beneficial "fall-out". It makes those people who are little concerned with religion aware that something is moving among the Churches of Great Britain. But for the activities of these protesting groups, such persons—and there are, alas!, many of them—would go on saying that the Church lives in the past. Now that is no longer possible. The Churches of Britain are very much on the move. Doubtless they could move faster, and I welcome this Bill because it makes it possible for the Churches to move faster.

In speaking to-day as a member of the Established Church of Scotland, I must make it clear that I cannot speak on behalf of that Church. No individual can do so: only our General Assembly can pronounce. But so far as I can ascertain, the General Assembly, if it were sitting and were to pronounce, would give unequivocal welcome to this Bill. It could not well do otherwise, for there is no law, civil or ecclesiastical, against the sharing of churches in Scotland. Nor has the General Assembly ever sought to regulate this matter.

For the most part, we are content to work this out on a local basis. It may be of interest to your Lordships to hear how this is presently working out. The most reverend Primate, and also the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have mentioned the work in the New Towns. May I give an example? When the first proposals were made for the construction of the New Town of Livingston, just to the West of Edinburgh, a committee representing most of the Churches in Scotland agreed unanimously that the churches should be ecumenical. Various suggestions were made, including one for a joint building held by specially appointed trustees. However, the actual arrangement made is that the first church erected belongs to the Church of Scotland. The next one, in the next "precinct" of the New Town, will belong to the Episcopal Church. Both churches are to be shared equally. The present method is that the services and congregations are completely integrated for all purposes. There is really only one congregation and this integration includes inter-communion. I would assure the most reverend Primate that once his Bill becomes law things may move a little faster than perhaps he seems to think at the present moment. It is good ground that is being prepared for the seed to fall upon.

My Lords, another inter-Church development in Scotland which has met with notable success has been the establishment some eight years ago of the Scottish Churches' House at Dunblane. This belongs to seven Churches; they hold it jointly and it is built in the precincts of the ancient cathedral of Dunblane.

It would appear that there is no English Presbyterian Peer speaking in this debate. I have even less right to speak for that distinctive Church than I have for the Church of Scotland. However, having made inquiry of my co-religionists South of the Border, I feel that I am safe in saying that they, no less than any of the other Churches, give the warmest possible welcome to this Bill. Indeed, an origin for the Bill is in some measure due to the outstretched hand of the Church of England for the sharing of their church at Woolwich with the Presbyterians. The most reverend Primate referred to this in his speech, and it is a point that I know that the Presbyterian Church of England greatly appreciates. The most reverend Primate knows much better about it than I; but I would say that all Presbyterians are fully appreciative of this initial gesture which one might say sparked off the Bill before the House to-day.

Penultimately I should like to mention, as the right reverend Primate has already mentioned, the part played by the British Council of Churches. By bringing together the members of the Churches of Britain, both clerical and lay, the British Council of Churches has, in its 25 years of existence, done a tremendous amount towards our mutual understanding of each other's point of view. The public hear about the British Council of Churches only when it records its opinion on questions of the day. But it does far more than that. Probably the most important practical result is the bringing of the Churches together towards a common fellowship and the fruits we see to-day. The right reverend Primate is the President of the British Council of Churches. Already the work of the former most reverend Primate, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, in fostering this when he was President, has been recorded, and I, as a Scot from the Church of Scotland, should like to place on record our very deep appreciation of the way in which both Primates have guided the deliberations.

My Lords, all barriers between the Churches have not yet been broken down, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, indicated, it may take a long time before they are; but to the existing opportunities of sharing of worship, of sharing of experience, of sharing of discussion, of sharing of social work and of sharing of things spiritual is now added the opportunity of sharing the fabric, the buildings. I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I conclude with a quotation from Robert Burns, for last Saturday was his birthday. Perhaps it may be taken as a message from the one Established Church to the other. Before I do so I should like to explain that the word "bield" is a Scottish word for building. The quotation is as follows: Thy bield should be my bosom To share it a', to share it a'".

4.45 p.m.

LORD SOPER

My Lords, it is my joy to bring the enthusiastic support of the so-called Free Churches to the measure which is before the House for Second Reading to-day. There is a liturgical injunction which goes: "Let the people say, Amen'"—and either in principle or in more particular context that has been said by the Churches which will be endeavouring to participate in this new adventure. I think it would be convenient to draw the distinction between the "economical" and the "ecumenical" aspects of this Bill. Primarily, it is in order that the Churches, as they now are, can do their own jobs better that this sharing of premises is envisaged. I heartily agree that such a process may well conduce to ecumenicity and will bring us closer together; but in the first instance this is a sharing of premises in order that we may continue more effectively to do our own work. I welcome it on those grounds because there is paramount need for this kind of adventure now, and in two particular areas to which reference has already been made.

It is clear that in the new conurbations, in the new building estates, in the new housing areas on the fringes of the great towns, there is a profound need for a sense of community; and therefore, as the most reverend Primate has so succinctly put it, if we can by the sharing of premises give that sense of community even in a structural, geographical, sense, we are doing something which will immensely increase the prestige, or something which can immensely increase the prestige and effectiveness of the individual Churches. It will not only be a great saving in money; it will be an occasion in which we can at least present the appearance of community—and that not in the specifically spiritual sense but in the civic sense which is as important and which is not unrelated to the spiritual sense of community.

It is also completely true, and has not been mentioned to-day, that if we look at the premises of the various Churches it would seem as a general proposition that the Church of England is rich in premises where worship is suggested but perhaps the Methodists and others are fairly wealthy in the provision of premises where the work of the Church can be more effectively carried out. I am not attempting to draw a distinction between work and worship; but I know of circumstances, of places, of areas, within the great cities where we could share, as this Bill will make it possible, one place in which to worship where the whole environment suggests and encourages worship and where, at the same time, we could do the work, the more effective social work, of the church in premises which, under the Nonconformist tradition, have been in many cases more attuned to that—and no one is going to say that there is conspicious merit in the architectural splendour—shall we say?—of the Methodist churches of the 19th century. We are better now; but it would not be a calamitous loss to the buildings of England if, as has been suggested, a number of our old buildings were demolished or were turned into those areas which can better supply the everyday, the weekday needs of practical churchmanship. It is for reasons like that that certain experiments have been already undertaken; it is to facilitate those experiments and to override the particular legal difficulties which have arisen, that there is sufficient cause, I think, to support this Bill—even if it went no further than that; even if no further arguments could be presented in its support.

But I wonder how many Churches will now be encouraged to set about adventures of this kind if they feel that there is both the legal possibility of their carrying them through and the sense of some kind of permanence in the experiment which they make. It is to do that that this Bill is primarily concerned. It is true that the Church of England have difficulties at present in the various laws and provisions which prevent a sharing of churches and the incorporation of other rights in the particular churches of the Church of England. That is also true of Methodism. Many of the Methodist churches are built upon what is called the "model deed", which among other things for many years prevented dancing although it permitted rhythmic exercises. And it is astonishing what could be generally contained under the denomination of "rhythmic exercises". In fact—I do not adduce this as evidence—I was trained and well disciplined in the "Lambeth Walk" long before there was any idea of Methodist-Anglican consultations. There is, I believe, a real need to recognise that within the area of the Methodist Church, as well as within the area of other Free Churches, there have been inhibitions and difficulties which now may be overcome by this Bill. For these reasons it seems to me sensible, economical, eminently common sense, that such a Bill should appear upon the Statute Book.

My Lords, may I turn for a moment to the more ecumenical side of it, in which I rejoice as much for the promise as for the performance? There seems in this regard to be a welcome opportunity for a grass-roots coming together. There may be some of your Lordships who feel that hitherto such efforts as have been made to bring the Churches together have perhaps been too sophisticated at the theological level to be agreeable to a great many of the simple people within those Churches. I have wrestled long with the episcopal theories de jure and de facto and I am not very much enriched by the process of thinking about them, but I am sure that there are many Christian people who would rejoice in the opportunity of coming together and getting to know one another better at the level of shared churches, where ocasionally, and perhaps unconsciously, they may stray into one another's services and that will not do them any harm.

It seems to me that here is an opportunity for a coming together which is natural and real. I have the somewhat naïve belief that it would be better if Christians of various denominations were to get to know one another better because on the whole they are better on second acquaintance. In any case, it is a process whereby the ordinary folk of the Christian Church may find themselves on the same premises, and if they are not worshipping in the same way I think there is one inevitable consequence of this Bill if it goes through, as I very much hope that it will: it is that in the provision for the sharing of the churches for worship according to the rights and ceremonies of the particular participants there will be added pressure on those who are doing the day-to-day work among young people in the various hostels and social enterprises in the church to recognise that they will be very much better doing these things together on the same premises and seeking to alternate their particular activities from time to time.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked a question about Methodism which I think I can satisfactorily answer. In the provisions of Clause 1(3)(b) in the first Part of the Bill he will find that as respects the other Churches, the authorised people who will be required to take part in the sharing agreement and to be responsible for it are … such persons as may be determined by the appropriate authority of that Church. It is not the authority of the Church but it is those who will be appropriately selected by that authority, which in the case of Methodism is the Annual Conference which is omnicompetent. In the same subsection it is indicated that this body of people who will be operating on behalf of the appropriate authority in the Church will have to include the trustees of the local church. That probably meets that particular point. In any case, there would be the most careful sending down of any legislation from the Methodist Conference, for, being new legislation, it has to be sent down to the quarterly meetings and the local authorities of the Church in order to find the authority to carry it through.

I very much hope that this particular venture, modest as it is, will accelerate the process not only of coming together which will be necessitated by this provision but of going on together until at last—and may it not be too far distant!—we shall find ourselves a united body of Christ.

4.56 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, in responding to the invitation expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the opening words of his speech, I fully support the Second Reading of this Bill; and, my Lords, I rejoice with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and all the other Peers who are similarly minded. So far as the Church of Scotland is concerned I have few words to add to what has already been said by my noble friend Lord Balerno. My researches, such as they are, absolutely confirm what he has indicated about the attitude of the Administration of the Church of Scotland to this Bill, and I am certain that they would take the General Assembly with them.

My noble friend Lord Balerno, mentioned, when referring to Scotland, the absence of any law. He mentioned the laws of Church or State. I think he will agree with me that it is only the law of the Church which would have a bearing on this matter North of the Border. Indeed, I know that I am right in saying that if the State had tried to legislate on any such matter it would have been rebuked by the Church of Scotland in no uncertain terms. However, the Church of Scotland is concerned in a small way with this Bill, and I refer to Clause 11(3) to which the most reverend Primate referred.

Our Church, my Lords, has few congregations in England but it is well within the bounds of possibility that use may be made of this provision in time to come. Much has been said of the problems in the new towns, and I am thinking in this instance, particularly, of a place like Corby, where there is a substantial and growing concentration of Scots. There are two Scottish Church congregations, and who knows but that in such a situation some measure of sharing of church premises in future may be not only convenient but desirable. I use the word "desirable" deliberately, not specifically in connection with Corby, but in general terms. For I am one—and my noble friend Lord Balerno will confirm that this is typical of the great majority of members of the Church of Scotland (whose Communion Table has always been open to communicant members of any Christian Church)—who is in favour of any reasonable measure that will contribute to the growing together of Christian denominations.

This proposal, so far as people like myself are concerned, may be only a trickle flowing into the main and distant stream. But despite the rocks that lie ahead—and, my Lords, they are formidable, and they abound—despite the eddies of intolerance and the turbulence of bigotry, of rowdyism and even violence; despite all these I believe that some day—and pray that that day may not be so distant as it would sometimes appear—the tumbling stream will become a mighty confluence to the Glory of God. To this end, my Lords, I support the most reverend Primate's Bill.

4.58 p.m.

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, the denomination to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, belongs is outside the scope of this Bill as much as the denomination to which I belong; though indeed our remoteness from the Bill is for rather different reasons, because no doubt he is much more orthodox and traditionalist than I am. I stand in a rather heretical position; more heretical than the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and far more heretical than the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury who, from the standpoint of yesterday, would be considered heretical and also from the standpoint of one very formidable world Church. Therefore, as an outsider in a sense, I want to express on behalf not only of myself but of all those in this House and outside who do not belong to any of the Churches named specifically in the Bill my very warm appreciation of the Bill itself and the spirit behind it. It is an indication of the spread of the ecumenical spirit which I trust will find even more gracious expression in the days to come.

I wish to assure the House, and the most reverend Primate, that I do not intend to speak for very long. I know that the most reverend Primate has an engagement to-night which, once more, is evidence of the spread of a more generous and liberal spirit than obtained yesterday; for he is to conduct a service in St. Paul's Cathedral in honour of a non-Christian but a very great man, Mahatma Ghandi; and I shall be there, too. So if I continue for very long, he will not be able to keep his appointment and I shall not be able to go there either. But I would say that this is certainly an indication of how far we have moved away from the vicious days of 1662. I suppose that, in a sense, the Established Church is now welcoming back those whom its predecessors helped, if not to eject, then to persuade that they should retire from their livings in the 17th century. All this is to the good.

There have been many other encouraging signs of this spirit of generosity and Christian charity. The proposal in the Bill that there should be a sharing of premises has one strange anachronism. I believe that already in the town of Arundel, in Sussex, there is a building in which both Roman Catholics, at one end, and members of the Church of England, at the other, join in worship, divided by a wall in between.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that the wall is going down.

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, I am very glad. That is symbolical of other walls going down, walls that should not be a partition between people.

Not only have we had in existence for some years the Council of Churches but we have also had an interchanging of ministers. Priests of the Church of England have preached in Free Churches (the modern synonym for non-conforming and dissenting Churches), and we have even had Roman Catholic and Church of England exchanges. This is all to the good. Strangest of all, the Salvation Army, one of the most (if you like) emphatic of the Nonconformist or Free Church bodies, has played its music in Westminster Cathedral. This advances us still further along the road of bringing the Christian Churches together in the spirit of Christian charity.

It is particularly encouraging to feel that human social services may now be undertaken by members of all the Christian denominations in buildings no longer divided, and I can see no reason why there should be on that level any separations of human service. After all, the Good Samaritan did not have compassion only for one of his own religious community. He simply expressed a compassion of the heart for the poor wretch in the ditch. In the same way, surely members of all Christian denominations—and, also, if you like, non-Christian denominations—should have the opportunity to share together premises devoted to these social purposes.

I am glad to see that provision has been made for a liberalisation of the ceremony of Christian marriage but—and this is the point on which I should like the most reverend Primate to say a word—why should this not also extend to Christian burial places? I see in Clause 12 that land used for the purpose of interment is excluded. There may be some explanation of this, but I should have thought that if we could go so far with regard to matrimony and social service and human service, it should be possible also to make some provision for burial places to be open to people of all denominations. I cannot understand, perhaps, because of my heretical views why a body deposited in consecrated ground should have some supernatural advantage over those not so deposited, particularly with the increase in the number of people who are cremated. I do not know whether or not their ashes are consecrated. But I would ask the most reverend Primate to give me some enlightenment on this matter.

I heartily and sincerely welcome this extension of what I call Christian charity. It should not really have been necessary. What is now proposed should have been operating long before this. But better late than never. I am sure that all Members of the House, no matter to which denomination they belong, or if they belong to none at all, will give the Bill every support.

5.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, I intervene for the briefest moment only because, as the noble Lord Earl, Lord Longford, said, I had the honour of introducing a Motion on Christian unity in your Lordships' House some seven or eight years ago—the only occasion, I think, on which this matter has been discussed in any Parliamentary assembly. No doubt there have been many discussions on Christian disunity in the past but that is a different matter.

The most reverend Primate has said that this is not a dramatic ecumenical breakthrough. That may well be so, but I would point out that such a Bill would not have been possible twenty or even ten years ago, so far have we advanced through the agency of the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, and of the blessed Pope John, so great has been the change in outlook. I heartily support the Bill and I would add, from a personal point of view, that it is a grand and a marvellous thing for a Christian to live in these times.

5.7 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I agree heartily with the words of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and also with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, on this subject. Anything that makes it possible for a streamlining of the churches in our big cities is obviously desirable. From a practical point of view, I think it is fair to say that of the churches in our big cities, the most beautiful would be those of the Church of England. Therefore, the churches which are likely to be chiefly in surplus are those belonging to the Free Churches. Many of these are standing on very valuable sites, and their sale will bring considerable sums of money, presumably, to the denominations that own them. I presume that the sharing agreement can provide in some way for a sharing of the income from the capital sum received in return for these sites.

The first result, obviously, is that we shall get one church in an area, and instead of it being as cold as charity the whole of the week and lukewarm on Sunday, we shall get a church to which people can go for private prayer and meditation throughout the week. This is very important. Another result of this pooling of revenues under the scheme is that I presume that a combined church will be able to support projects like industrial chaplains and missioners in fields outside the parish. For that reason I think that this streamlining is most highly desirable from an economical as well as from an ecumenical point of view.

5.10 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I hesitate, as another member of the Church of Scotland, to say a word. My noble friend Lord Balerno has already explained that it is not necessary to change the law in Scotland, but I think that it would be wrong not to mention the wider effects which this Bill may have. In my wanderings round the world, I have been tremendously impressed by the way in which so many Churches generally calling themselves Anglican follow what happens in Canterbury, and I have little doubt that this Bill will have an immense effect indirectly in a great many different places. We in this country have become accustomed to diversity; and we may well regret it. I rather suspect that we shall always have a measure of diversity, however much we may come and work together. But when you go to a community in which Christians are in a great minority, where they represent possibly only a fraction of the population, and you find perhaps 25 different Churches there—which, indeed, was the case in Singapore—one realises that it is extremely difficult to explain what on earth this diversity is all about. And many diversities, of course, are based on situations and assumptions far distant.

I am sure that this movement will have a far-reaching effect in many different parts of the world. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Soper; namely, that a sharing of buildings has a great effect. If I may take an example in the Commonwealth, in Scottish history we have had disruption and we have had shift; and when a community divides, the first thing it does is to build a separate building. Once you get back to a common building there is a great chance of other things being worked together in common. For that reason, I think that this Bill is of far-reaching importance.

5.12 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords. I am grateful for this debate, and I should like to express my warm gratitude to every noble Lord who has taken part in it. To each one of them I feel a deep sense of thankfulness. My expectation was that this debate would issue in a big manfestation of good will. That indeed has happened, and I do not believe that it could have happened to a greater extent than it has done.

It is not surprising that many of the speakers this afternoon have not been able to restrain themselves within the precise provisions of the Bill, and have found themselves speaking about the bigger cause of Christian unity, of which this Bill is a small part; and it is, indeed, right, good and moving that this has been so. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for instance, spoke about the great desirability of flexibility in the ministers of one Church sharing in the administrations of another Church, quite apart from the sharing of buildings; and I agree wholeheartedly with him. That is certainly something which in other contexts is on the way, but naturally a Bill concerning the sharing of buildings cannot provide for it.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke of the spread of Christianity in this country and of the wrongness of thinking so much in terms of buildings at all; and again I entirely agree with him. I think that we are witnessing now, particularly among the younger generation of Christians, a building up of Christian fellowship and Christian worship that is quite apart from traditional church buildings— the working out of Christian communities in the homes of the people and in the factories where people work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that in the Christianity of the future we may see a good deal more of what existed in New Testament times; namely, a Christian religious fellowship that was not so much bothered about the formal buildings.

Again, when the noble Lords, Lord Balerno and Lord Soper, said that the passing of this Bill would be likely to issue in developments going far beyond those that can at present be popularly predicted, I agree with them. And I agree, too, with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that once people are together under one roof those things begin to happen which do not happen when they are separate and not in touch with one another.

Let me refer now to just a few critical comments of the Bill which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me what would be the effect of this Bill upon the practices in the Crypt Chapel of the House of Commons. I feel sure that if an authoritative statement is wanted about the exact standing of the Crypt Chapel the question should be asked and answered in another place; and I should certainly tremble at attempting to give an authoritative answer to that question. However, I can confidently assure the noble Lord that I am advised that there is nothing whatever in this Bill which will make impossible the ecumenical practices that already take place in the Crypt Chapel of the House of Commons.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, made three points. Let me say that I sympathise, broadly, with every one of his points, and I appreciate no less warmly the friendly spirit in which he made them. But I am advised that the terms of the Bill, as it stands, in fact meet and provide for the points about which he is concerned. For instance, on his point about a denominational building becoming redundant and being sold (this was a point made, also, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke), I am advised that it will be possible to use the proceeds for a new church. I am advised that Clause 3(1) does allow this.

I am advised, also, that the noble Lord's point about a trial period is sufficiently met by Clause 9(1) and (2). I think his point about the Methodist Conference may have been adequately met by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I need add nothing to that. If it is necessary to amend the Bill in either of these particulars—and I promise the noble Lord that I will confer with him again to make absolutely certain about the matter—then let the Bill be amended. But I doubt whether admendment will make the Bill any more effective on any of these points than it is already.

The noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, asked why the provisions of the Bill do not extend to burial places. Let me assure the noble Lord that the present law allows that in an Anglican graveyard the burial service of any of the denominations may be conducted in the usual manner by the minister of any one of the denominations. As that provision already exists, it might not add very much to have a sharing of ownership.

LORD SORENSEN

Does that mean that the incumbent himself can decide whether a person who does not belong to the Established Church may be buried in the burial ground?

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I understand that there is a right to be buried, and there is no legal restriction upon it at all: that is to say, supposing the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, desire to be buried in the Anglican graveyard, they will be entirely free so to choose without being burdened with the undertaking of joint ownership of the ground in which they are buried.

The fact that the points of detail requiring comment from me in winding up the debate are so few is, I think, a tribute to the skill with which the legal advisers, not only of the Church of England but of all the Churches concerned, have put into the preparation and drafting of this Bill. This has been a most encouraging afternoon for all of us who care for Christian unity and for the wise, sensible and fraternal advancement of the cause of Christianity in this country. It is with great happiness that I commend this Bill for Second Reading.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, before the most reverend Primate sits down, may I refer to one point that he did not answer? It is this. It is quite clear that any of these schemes may provide that what we now call "Free Church money" may be used for the upkeep of another church. But this Bill could be an absolute goldmine to the Free Churches who own valuable sites in the big cities. Is there any method by which those moneys can be diverted for joint purposes of spreading the mission of the Church at home and abroad? It is not clear in the Bill.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, it is not clear in the Bill, but, speaking on the spur of the moment, I assume the answer to be that that depends upon the internal legislation of the Churches themselves as to how they use their money.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Forward to