CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE

HL Deb 19 May 1978 vol 392 cc670-7

2.25 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, your Lordships' attention has had to range during the last three-and-a-half hours over a very wide spectrum, and I must now bring you into the world of the Church of England. The Measure that is before you is an omnibus measure. It picks up a number of details which arise from time to time and which are not of sufficient importance to warrant a separate Measure for each one. Therefore, in order to avoid occupying too much of your Lordships' time, we have put them all together in one Measure and bring them to your Lordships' attention. I hope that you will agree with me that this Measure is entirely uncontroversial and need not cause your Lordships any great concern. However, I am sure you would want to know what it is you are being asked to agree, and therefore I should like to take you briefly through the Measure.

The first clause requires special majorities for certain Measures passed in the General Synod. It is anomalous that under the Worship and Doctrine Measure any new service that is approved of by a Canon must have a two-thirds majority, whereas if the Church of England wants in any way to alter the Book of Common Prayer this has to be done by Measure, has to be done by coming to Parliament, and it would be possible for such a Measure to be introduced with a majority of only one person in the General Synod. There is nothing that is immediately in the pipeline regarding this part of our activities. But supposing—I say, supposing—the Church of England decided that it was right to ordain women to the priesthood, this would need a change in the Book of Common Prayer. It is felt in the Synod that it would be totally inappropriate that a matter of such importance could theoretically be passed by one vote in the General Synod and brought to Parliament for Affirmative Resolution. Therefore we think it right that if ever it is intended to ask Parliament to agree to a change in the Book of Common Prayer, it should do so only if there is a two-thirds majority in the General Synod. That is what is provided for in Clause I.

Clause 2 deals with certain people who would come under the Measure which provides that all clergymen in future must retire at the age of 70. This Measure is not retrospective and therefore does not affect those who were in their beneficies on 1st January 1976. If a man moves after that date, then he immediately becomes subject to the requirements of this Measure and would have to retire at the age of 70. If, on the other hand, he is still in the benefice which he held before 1st January 1976, then he can go on indefinitely because he has a freehold. But it does happen in the course of pastoral reorganisation that two benefices are brought together and create a new parish, and therefore technically, one of the incumbents would be in a new benefice. It is felt, however, that it would be unjust that, while because of a pastoral reorganisation scheme he was technically in a new benefice, he should not enjoy the benefits which were written into the Measure; that is, that it should not be retrospective. Therefore those clauses in the second part of this Measure provide that such a clergyman shall continue with his freehold, even though technically he would otherwise have come under the provisions of the 1975 Measure.

Clause 3 empowers the Church Commissioners to arrange that their accounts shall start on the first day of the year. This is at the request of the overwhelming number of dioceses most of whom keep their financial year from 1st January. By law, all parochial church councils have to account from the first day of the year, and it therefore seems much more convenient that the accounts of the Church Commissioners should also observe the same period during the year.

Clause 4 makes one or two small adjustments in the constitution of the Church Commissioners. Thus, for instance, of the eight Commissioners, four of whom are nominated by Her Majesty, and four by the Archbishop of Canterbury, two are required at the moment to be Queen's Counsel. It is thought that this is rather an unnecessary provision, and although it would be free to Her Majesty or to the Archbishop to appoint all eight as Queen's Counsel, we think it better that there should be only one that is statutory. Why there should be one at all I am not quite sure, although I imagine that it probably dates from the early times of the constitution of the Commissioners themselves. The other two clauses refer to the representatives in the General Synod that their timing may be more appropriate and that, if one ceases to he a member of the General Synod, he shall make way.

Clause 5 deals with the representative from a diocese on to the Central Board of Finance. It is thought very desirable that, unless it is the diocesan secretary himself who represents the diocese on the Central Board of Finance at Church House, the member should at least be a member of his own diocesan board of finance. So that would be made statutory. Clause 6 is honouring an assurance which I gave to the House when we were considering the Parochial Registers and Records Measure. It will be remembered that certain noble Lords felt very strongly that those libraries or institutions which are diocesan record offices but are not local authority offices should be under some restriction as to the fees they can charge. I gave an assurance that, although we could not write that into the Measure, because it was too late, we would in the next Miscellaneous Provisions Measure provide for this. Therefore, the Bodleian, the Borthwick Institute and Canterbury Cathedral Library will be allowed to charge only those fees that are approved in a Fees Measure by the General Synod.

Clauses 7 and 8 take us into a rather recondite area of the law. Under Clause 7, if land has been acquired under Section 13(1)(e) of the New Parishes Measure 1943, it cannot be sold later on. In order to make this clear to me, my legal friend who advises me gave me an instance. A church may have been given or have acquired a piece of land which it intends to turn into a car park, and then it finds that it cannot afford to tarmac it and so it lets it out as allotments. This may have happened over a period of years. Then the church may decide that, after all, it does not want a car park anyhow, and wants to sell the land. If it has been acquired under Section 13 the church cannot sell it. It is thought desirable that it should have the power to do so, and therefore that this sort of land should be put under the powers contained in Section 17 of the Measure.

Clause 8 again deals with a rather obscure situation. Suppose there is ecclesiastical property which it is required should be acquired by compulsory purchase. If there is no incumbent, there is no fee simple, and therefore there is nobody who can write a receipt. Therefore, the land cannot he compulsorily acquired. This is becoming a rather more likely situation because in the course of pastoral reorganisation we have very often had to suspend the presentation of a benefice and put in a priest-in-charge. But if a part of the ecclesiastical property was required under compulsory purchase, it could not be so done because nobody possessed the fee simple. And so it is suggested that in those circumstances it should be the Church Commissioners who can sign the receipt and enter into the necessary negotiations.

Clause 9 deals with a situation where sometimes in a parish there is some ecclesiastical building which has not been consecrated, which has only been dedicated. It may be a very distinguished building, and therefore it is desirable that it should come under the Inspection of Churches Measure 1955, which makes it necessary that over every period of time the church shall formally he inspected by an architect. Since it is not consecrated, it does not automatically come under that provision, and we think it desirable that the bishop should have power to order that such a building should come under that Measure.

Clause 10 deals with a problem of the Diocese of Oxford. The Diocese of Oxford is unique in that its cathedral is a college chapel. Therefore, the Diocese of Oxford does not come under the Cathedrals Measure. If any other diocese wants to change or alter its cathedral statutes, it can do so by the machinery that is set out under the Cathedrals Measure whereby a scheme can be laid before the General Synod and be objected to if necessary. This cannot happen over the Diocese of Oxford. The particular problem here is that, like every other bishop, the Bishop of Oxford has power to appoint 24 honorary canons. This is a way in which a bishop can recognise meritorious service to his diocese, and it is an honour which is greatly appreciated by the clergy.

The Bishop of Oxford has one of the largest dioceses in the country, and therefore he wants as much freedom as possible to be able to confer honorary canonries on his clergy. But as things stand at the moment, if an honorary canon retires and continues to live in the Diocese of Oxford, he cannot be removed, except with his acquiescence, from his honorary canonry. It is conceivable, therefore, that all the honorary canons could be retired clergymen, and this very much restricts the freedom of the bishop to he able to give honour to those who deserve it. Therefore, this clause will provide that, in the Diocese of Oxford, if a clergyman resigns, ceases to be beneficed or licensed to serve or if he attains the age of 70, automatically he shall vacate his honorary canonry and the bishop will be free to honour somebody else. This is not retrospective and does not affect the present honorary canons, and, of course, it does not affect the right of the bishop to appoint someone who has been removed from the honorary canonry in this way as a canon emeritus, so that he will be able to continue to call himself "Canon", even though he may not have that status in the cathedral.

Clause 11 has to remedy a rather unfortunate circumstance. When the Incumbents (Vacation of Beneficies) Measure came before these two Houses in 1975, for entirely proper reasons in another place, an Affirmative Resolution was not provided. This somehow escaped the notice of those who were drawing up the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976. Now that the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure has received the Royal Assent in 1977—because we remedied the mistake that had been made and which was observed in another place—we need in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976 to refer to the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977 and not 1975.

In the second part of that, since Section 85 of the Pastoral Measure was repealed and substituted in the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1976, we need to make the proper reference in the Endowments and Glebe Measure.

Finally, Clause 12 deals with certain property which is, under the Queen Anne's Bounty Act 1714, placed within the authority of the Church Commissioners. When this land is vested in them one of their officials from No. 1 Millbank has to make a pilgrimage to the High Court, and in a large ledger is written in the acquirement by the Church Commissioners of, say, a vicarage. This is considered to be rather an unnecessarily demanding act for what may be a very small piece of property which is already registered in No. 1 Millbank. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has indicated his readiness to forgo this piece of business. Therefore, it is thought that it is unnecessary that this journey should be made from No. 1 Millbank to the High Court in order to register this small detail.

I have said that this Measure is uncontroversial. When it came before the General Synod for final approval, it was received by the House of Bishops with Ayes in favour, 38; Noes, None. By the House of Clergy it was received with Ayes, 124; Noes, None, and by the House of Laity with Ayes 136; Noes, 1. I do not know what matter so irritated the one person who voted against the Measure, but I hope that your Lordships will consider that the vote showed that it is completely uncontroversial and will give the Measure an Affirmative Resolution.

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

2.41 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I do not think I have ever seen anybody come to this House and introduce a Measure of 13 clauses referring throughout only, so far as I can detect, to the Instrument itself. I must congratulate the right reverend Prelate on an extremely exhaustive and clear elucidation of a Measure which your Lordships will welcome, as will almost everybody except possibly the non-residentiary canons of Christ Church Cathedral who do not happen to bask in the favour of the Bishop of Oxford. If I may pick up a small point, it does lie in the Bishop's power not to enforce the provisions in Clause 10 against a non-residentiary canon who otherwise would not qualify to retain his honorary canonry.

There is little, if anything, to alarm your Lordships in this Measure. Clause 7, which caused temporary concern to my noble friend Lord Denham is in fact harmless and relates to circumstances which are actually surprisingly common. The obstacles to the progress of planners in Clause 8 are removed without the necessity of filling vacant livings when the choice is not ripe to be made.

In Clause 2 we find what is an eminently sensible departure, which avoids the unnecessarily early retirement of clergy doing a good job in a parish which is being reorganised. The ministry is one of the few professions in which the effectiveness of the person in office is apt to continue to increase until very late in life, and although there are occasions when one would wish that it was possible kindly to retire an incumbent, the occasions on which one regrets an enforced early retirement are far more numerous.

I have reserved to the end what I regard as the principal feature of this Measure. It is one which I and, I think, many of your Lordships not now present who have spoken in debates on the Prayer Book, will welcome warmly. That is Clause 1, which requires a special majority for any alteration in the Prayer Book, not only, of course, over such a major matter as the introduction of women priests, but also over matters which many of us hold very dear concerning changes in the language and order of service—the liturgy and the Litany. In those respects, the Synod should be better qualified to form a judgment than your Lordships' House. There is always some inhibition in your Lordships' House about speaking against a decision of the Synod. This, I think, will be less necessary as a result of this Measure, and once again I thank the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on his introduction of it.

2.45 p.m.

Lord KINNAIRD

My Lords, further to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said, I should like to make one controversial comment on what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, said about the majority votes in the Synod. I agree, of course, that to bring about a change in the Prayer Book by a majority of one vote is dangerous. But, knowing how stupid men can be, I consider that on a possible question, such as the ordination of women, a majority of two-thirds is not nearly high enough I suggest 99.

On Question, Motion agreed to.