HL Deb 14 July 1982 vol 433 cc411-9

7.30 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the second Measure, which I have to ask your Lordships to agree should be presented for the Royal Assent, is also an amendment measure. It is also part of a long, on-going process and, like the previous Measure, it is one that has been laid before Parliament after most careful and detailed consideration by the General Synod, where it received the final approval of the bishops, clergy and laity by a total of 319 votes in favour and none against.

I have no hesitation in saying that this clear and united desire to improve the Pastoral Measure, 1968, is because the prime purpose of that historic and far-reaching Measure was to make better provision for the cure of souls. As the longest serving diocesan Bishop in England, I know that it is the Pastoral Measure which has made it possible for my diocese the better to fulfil its mission to the whole community in West Kent and to use its resources of ministry, money and buildings more effectively. I have probably consecrated more new churches than any of my 103 predecessors in 13 centuries. I have certainly dedicated 21 new places of worship, which is more than double the number that I have seen declared redundant in my diocese.

The Pastoral Measure is concerned with the cure of souls, with a proper regard for our inheritance from the past and with equal concern for our continuing mission. The changes proposed in this amendment Measure by the bishops, acting in Synod with the elected clergy and the elected laity—both, incidentally, elected by proportional representation—are all designed to make better provision for the cure of souls and to provide better machinery for pastoral reorganisation and for dealing with redundant churches. Your Lordships should know that a consolidation Measure is already in hand to facilitate the use of the 1968 Measure and this amendment Measure, as soon as may be. A code of recommended practice was published in 1976 and this, too, will be brought up to date. The Ecclesiastical Committee, in reporting to Parliament that, in their opinion, the present Measure is expedient, noted a number of minor defects in the drafting which they have suggested should be amended on consolidation—a process which they consider highly desirable, in view of the length and complexity of the Measures.

I know that your Lordships would not wish me to go through the 72 clauses and 4 schedules of this Measure, even were I competent to do so, and I stand here alone, like the boy on the burning deck. But your Lordships will expect me to mention those matters which were of concern to the Ecclesiastical Committee in fulfilment of its duty to be watchful for the rights of all our citizens, as well as the considerations which prompted the General Synod to seek to make better provision for the cure of souls.

The title of this Measure states that it makes provision for the 1968 Measure to be extended to the Isle of Man, and also to enable a new body to be established to replace the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and the Redundant Churches Fund. This is an enabling power given to the Standing Committee of the General Synod, so that it may, if and when it deems appropriate, bring forward, after consultation with the Secretary of State and others, a statutory instrument that will be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.

Although the present procedure is thought by some to be unduly complicated, and the Synod is, in fact, on record some years ago as having asked for the Department of the Environment to be consulted about such a merger, it seems unlikely that any move will be made in this direction until a good deal more experience has been gained by both these bodies, each of which is a partnership of the Church and State.

Clause 7 of the Measure provides that the right of appeal to the Privy Council by anyone making written representations against a draft pastoral scheme will, in future, be exercisable only with the prior leave of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has itself made very clear that, in its judgment, the grounds for appeal are very limited. For this reason, the necessity to obtain prior leave should save considerable effort, as well as cost, for all concerned. I should perhaps stress that the average number of appeals heard in any year is three and has never reached double figures in any year. Moreover, I can testify from first-hand experience to the great care taken by the Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners, in their consideration of all representations made against a scheme. The Ecclesiastical Committee was satisfied that this limitation on the right of appeal was acceptable, especially as the Privy Council has itself reaffirmed in a recent judgment that the occasions when an appeal will be allowed are likely to be few, and has itself suggested that such a limitation should be made.

There are two other matters upon which the Ecclesiastical Committee commented at some length. The first is the modification of the 1968 Measure, allowing the final decision regarding the demolition of a church, when it is to be replaced by a new church, to rest with the Church Commissioners as an executive body, rather than with the Advisory Board, which, by its very name and nature, is advisory, and which has no other executive functions under the 1968 Measure. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that this proposal provoked a closely fought battle between the "conservationists", on the one hand, and the "pastors", on the other. Both parties can, in my judgment, take heart from the fact that one of the safeguards provided by the agreement between Church and State, when State aid for historic churches in use was finally granted after long years of negotiation, is that the Secretary of State can intervene to hold a non-statutory public inquiry in contentious cases before demolition proceeds, though under the law the eventual decision to demolish rests with the Church Commissioners. Although experience of this procedure is limited as yet to only one case, I am sure that the Advisory Board was right in its original judgment in this matter and that the Department of the Environment most certainly regards this as a considerable safeguard.

The other matter of substance to which the Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention are the powers in Clause 61, under which schemes made under the Pastoral Measure will be able to override Private Acts passed before the commencement of this amending Measure. The Ecclesiastical Committee are of the opinion that the proposed provision is a reasonable one, having regard to the fact that representations can be made against any scheme to the Commissioners, with leave to appeal made to the Privy Council.

This is a complex Measure, but it is one which is of importance for the daily life and mission of many parishes for, as I said at the outset, it is concerned to make better provision for the care of souls. The Church of England holds in trust for the nation not only hundreds of historic and beautiful buildings, but also the pastoral care of several million men and women, boys and girls. We fulfil that pastoral care in a growing partnership with our friends in the Roman Catholic and Free Churches. Bishops and clergy rejoice to work increasingly as partners with the laity in both ministry and mission and the Church of England as by law established, has unique delegated powers from Parliament with which it works in partnership in much more than legislation.

As we know full well at the present time, the year 1919 is a hallowed year for others besides the Church of England, but it is under powers granted in that year and powers by which Church and State have acted in partnership for over 60 years that I beg to move this Measure.

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

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, I am sure that once again the House is indebted to the right reverend Prelate for the way in which he has detailed the proposals and has explained their need. I should renew my declaration of interest as a Church Commissioner for the last 14 years, including a period when I was Second Church Estates Commissioner in the other place and had the pleasure to present such Measures there. Experience of some of the changing situations with which this Measure seeks to deal has given me a fuller appreciation of the need for the Measure, and it has also given me an awareness of the sensitivities and the anxieties of the wide range of organisations and individuals interested not only in the function of the Church but in the life and concerns of the wider community.

As the Bishop has said, the Measures had a long and justifiably detailed examination by many Church bodies: by the General Synod, plus the demanding scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee and of another place. Having read the evidence and studied the questions and assurances given in the Ecclesiastical Committee, I am pleased now, when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, to say that I welcome also these proposals. I am aware of the concerns expressed by members of both Houses in the Ecclesiastical Committee—particularly, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, about churches no longer required—also as a former member of the Redundant Churches Fund from its formation in 1968 until I became a Government Minister in 1974. I am pleased now to see that action is being taken in the Measure about the problems of the care and maintenance of churches—some of them listed and some not. I accept also the need to balance the priorities which include also—and most important—the needs of new and existing churches, to which reference has already been made, and must of course meet the needs of new and existing communities up and down the country. They, like those whom they serve, have to adapt to changing social patterns. I am of the opinion—as, I am sure, your Lordships' House will be—that the new redundancy and pastoral proposals will meet these needs.

The commissioners, as the Bishop has told us, are very much involved and identified with the details of this Measure, so I shall not go into them. The right reverend Prelate has been good enough to do this. I ought to emphasise—as did he—that the Measure had the overwhelming and total support of the General Synod. It follows a long and thorough review of a changing situation. The proposals will, I believe, enable the Church and all who bear national and, indeed, diocesan and local responsibilities, to work more effectively and more harmoniously in partnership, to the advancement of the Church's mission. I believe there has never been a time when there has been a greater need for all that the Church can offer. I believe that the Measure will help the Church to do the job more effectively in future, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.

7.45 p.m.

Viscount Esher

My Lords, as an original member of the advisory board for redundant churches since it was set up in 1969 and its chairman over the last four years or so, I have listened with great interest to the introduction of this subject by the right reverend Prelate. Let me say straight away that my board welcome the whole of the amendment Measure—particularly provisions such as those which allow it to have regard to the condition of churches where a demolition is proposed rather than simply their architectural quality—in particular the provision which allows us to take account of the contents of churches and churchyards which are obviously so vital a part of their ambience and character. But there has been one section of the Measure which, as the right reverend Prelate has indicated, we have not been happy about. In fact, we have never been happy about the loss of the board's veto on demolition in Section 46 cases. Those are cases where the demolition of an old church is proposed in order to make room for a new one. This power to veto such a demolition in a small number of cases is of course anomalous in the sense that it was strange that an advisory body should have executive power at all, but it did enable us to secure a decent alternative use of a fine building as an alternative to demolition in a number of important cases, some of which have been quoted by name in another place.

We also believe that this power has helped to safeguard the ecclesiastical exemption from planning control upon which the Church of England sets so much store, by protecting the Church Commissioners, on occasion, from the very strong diocesan pressures which are bound to exist in cases of this kind where pastoral and architectural considerations are often in direct conflict. When we heard that the loss of this power was mooted, we at once expressed our alarm to all concerned, and particularly to the Department of the Environment. But the department refused to help us because, as a sort of quid pro quo for its financial support of churches in use, it had introduced its new Article 8 non-statutory public inquiry procedure which it believed would be an effective substitute for the board's veto. We therefore—I now think mistakenly—did not pursue our objections. That was what the right reverend Prelate described as our original judgment. It was not a judgment on the merits of the case but was a judgment on how we should proceed. As I said, I believe that in not pressing our objections all the way we not only weakened them but also made rather a nuisance of ourselves.

Then two cases occurred which confirmed our opinion on this matter. Both cases involved mid-Victorian churches by Sir Gilbert Scott. The first was the Church of St. Matthew, Westminster, which is only a few hundred yards from this House and known, I am sure, to many of your Lordships. It has always been a place of worship for Members of both Houses, with a loyal congregation of people from all walks of life. In 1977 the roof of St. Matthew was destroyed by fire and the parish had to do what it could in the ruins to make use of the church, which it did. But a couple of years ago an opportunity occurred which the parish at once saw as an opportunity to rebuild. This was because, on an adjoining site, a commercial developer expected to get permission to put up a block of offices. This project needed a small parcel of church land and this gave the parish an opportunity to raise funds for rebuilding and replacement of the church.

It was a special case with some special urgency because the diocese was well aware that the new GLC was not enamoured of commercial development in principle, and was certainly not enamoured of it in that part of London, and was not likely to be as supportive of this money-making exercise as the previous council might have been. So there was an opportunity and there was a good deal of political urgency to the matter. These are the kind of questions to which I referred earlier.

The diocesan authorities felt so strongly about it that they were prepared to do the job by faculty if the board proved hopelessly obstructive. We did prove obstructive. We were not happy with the demolition of the great part of the church which, apart from being a good Scott church, contained work by Comper and Barclay of considerable interest and beauty. Still less were we happy with the design of the proposed new building. We therefore felt it our duty to press our objections and to refuse a certificate for demolition.

I believe everyone now recognises that the negotiations which ensued were a great success. We recommended the appointment of a consultant who has now been retained to design the restored building in detail. We have saved the whole of the church and we have prevented the building of what many of us felt to be a building of thoroughly unsatisfactory design. None of these things could have been done by public inquiry and it is a recent and excellent example of where the power of veto may make it possible for a good building to be protected and re-used and a bad building avoided. That was the first case which led us to question our decision not to pursue our objections.

The next case was that to which the right reverend Prelate has already referred, which is the Church of Holy Trinity, Rugby. This Scott church was not, in the judgment of the board, of first importance in the very large volume of Scott work which still exists in this country. Therefore, we did not see it as being fund-worthy, but our view was hotly contested by conservation bodies and, as a result, the first of these non-statutory inquiries was held. It was a long, often irrelevant and often entertaining but extremely expensive and time-consuming exercise. At the end of it, the Minister decided that the church ought to be preserved, but, of course, the inquiry being non-statutory, the Minister has no power to ensure that it is, and his decision presented the commissioners with an extremely difficult problem. We felt that this was an illustration of the bluntness of this instrument and the use of a steam hammer to crack what is often a little nut of some complexity but one not susceptible to the simplifications and oratory which take place at such public inquiries.

When we heard, as a result of these two experiences, that the Ecclesiastical Committee itself was unhappy, or at any rate divided, about the loss of the board's veto in cases of this kind we decided to restate our opposition. We did not want to hold up the Pastoral Measure provision which was already much delayed, so we proposed a compromise; either that the Measure be amended or that the Church Commissioners should provide us with an undertaking that there would always be a "cooling-off" period of not less than 12 months to enable the board to go through the kind of exercise which we recently completed so successively with St. Matthew, Westminster. It was this compromise that was so narrowly defeated in the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I would say again that I am not in any sense wishing to question the final judgment or the details of the Pastoral Measure provision. We must all hope that the machinery will indeed work. My board has always had excellent relations with the Church Commissioners. Almost without exception, its London Churches Committee under the chairmanship of Mr William Harris (and of which the right reverend Prelate was himself once a vice-chairman) has taken our advice, even when it was impaled on the horns of the kind of dilemma which I described earlier.

We have very much appreciated this and have been conscious of the courage which this often required. If the Church Commissioners continue to do this, they will be able to avoid the nonsense of a public inquiry and of a Minister's decision which has no binding power and which the Commissioners, with the best will in the world, may not have the financial resources to implement. I am sure that this is the only way in which the commissioners can hope to protect the independence, in planning matters, of the Church of England.

7.59 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I am speaking not for my colleagues who sit on this Bench but as an Anglican layman and as a recent member of the Redundant Churches Fund—to which I should add, by way of sketching in the background, that my wife is a current member of the Redundant Churches Advisory Board. I want to set forth for the record certain surrounding factors which mesh together with the details of the present affair which the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has set forth with such outstanding clarity, and to make one comment. It may be that what I shall say will be familiar to all your Lordships here present, but I think it should appear in Hansard because Parliament as a whole wants to have on the record all the relevant facts about what is done by any of its Committees, and this is the way to do it.

A church declared redundant by the Church authorities may or may not be preserved as a church in a state of redundancy by being passed to the Redundant Churches Fund, which is jointly funded as to half and half by Church and State. The question whether a given redundant church be preserved is the subject of advice from the Redundant Churches Advisory Board. Until the present Measure came before the Synod and before Parliament that advice was in one circumstance mandatory; that is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has said, in the circumstance of proposed demolition. If the board did not think a church should be demolished it could veto demolition by refraining from issuing the necessary certificate. That veto power is removed in the Measure at present before this House. Obviously, I am not going to propose that the House should reject the Measure, but we are not merely taking note of the passage of something; we are on this occasion deciding whether or not this House should pass into law the Redundant Churches Measure.

The House of Commons has already passed the Measure, but it is open to this House, if I understand the constitution correctly, to reject it. The Measure has itself been the subject of a close vote—the figures were 11:10—in the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. This is, therefore, a Measure that came from the Synod in need of parliamentary approval in order to become the law of the land, and the Committee of both Houses of Parliament, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on the advice of which the Houses of Parliament themselves are accustomed to act, divided upon it, and the vote was only 11:10 in favour of passing it into law. The reason was precisely as Lord Esher has been pointing out, the removal of this veto power on demolition from the advisory board.

I should say at this point that, of course, I think there is no Member of either House who has any real doubts about any other part of the Measure except this one very minor provision—when you take the Measure as a whole it is a minor part of it. In proposing it to us the right reverend Prelate said that the abolition of the board's veto power gave rise to a closely fought battle between conservationists and pastors. I was rather struck by that phrase, because it did reawaken various misgivings in my mind which had long existed. It seems to presuppose a drawn battle line where on one side there are those who have no care whatever for the pastoral function of the Church or for the cure of souls, the time honoured phrase the right reverend Prelate used in presenting the Measure, and on the other side those who have no care whatever for the preservation of fine old buildings. It suggests the existence on one side of an entrenched army of conservationists who positively wish the Church to stop caring for souls and to care only for old buildings, and, on the other hand, an entrenched army of pastors who positively wish to see expensive funds-consuming space-consuming fine old buildings demolished in order to provide more money for the cure of souls. I think that one ought to reject this vision of a closely fought battle, and if there is a battle at all to look forward to the day when that battle is a thing of the past and when pastors love fine old buildings like other people and when architectural historians love other Christian souls like other people. I do not believe that day is so far away; indeed I believe it exists at this moment.

At any rate, it is the existence of this battle which I think one has to admit gives Parliament, or certain sectors of Parliament, the elected of the people, misgivings about the present frontier in preservation law between Church and state. The Redundant Churches Fund benefits half and half from Church funds and state funds. But we should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that the state provides 15 times as much financial aid to churches in use, in full pastoral use curing souls, as it provides to the Redundant Churches Fund to keep the old ones standing up.

I will conclude, my Lords, only by saying that I do not believe that this measure can be a permanent resting place in the distribution of conservation functions in regard to Churches, whether in use or out of use, and that the statutory inquiry carried out by the Secretary of State, who has no power to do anything about it in these cases once he has considered the results of the inquiry, is, as Lord Esher has pointed out, an unsatisfactory solution. I believe indeed that it will not be many years before the matter must be returned to; whether in the form of another Pastoral (Amendment) Measure or whether in the form of a Town and Country Planning Bill, perhaps of 1985 or 1990, will become clear in time.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I thank my friends who have spoken, if I may be allowed from these Benches to refer to them in that way, and especially thank the noble Viscount Lord Esher and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for explaining some of the background to what I think some will see as the change of view of the advisory board. I think that what I tried to suggest earlier about partnership of the various bodies involved in this very complex and difficult matter is perhaps the greatest guarantee for the future. I share Lord Kennet's view that we are not probably agreeing upon a final arrangement for all time. There are various other matters which are under active discussion at the present time which may well have a bearing on this matter.

What I think one can say with some confidence is that, as a result of the considerable discussion that has taken place about this amendment Measure, all the partners involved, the Synod, the Commissioners the Redundant Churches Fund and the advisory board, will be the more concerned to work together in dealing with some of the more difficult situations that arise; and I hope very much that we shall find that the two parties that I rather unwisely stuck labels on will work happily together both in the cause of extension of the cure of souls and in the maintenance of our historic buildings.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.8 until 8.10 p.m.