HL Deb 28 June 1990 vol 520 cc1792-7

7.50 p.m.

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

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure is the first major instalment in fulfilling the undertaking which the General Synod gave to the Government to improve and extend the control of repairs and alterations to our churches; that is, those which enjoy ecclesiastial exemption. This particular Measure fills a big gap; namely, the lack of control over cathedrals. In presenting this Motion, and the Measure to which it relates, I speak with the experience of having been dean of one of our great cathedrals for five years. I refer to Worcester Cathedral.

When a priest is appointed to such a post his first concern must be for the cathedral as a centre of worship and mission. A cathedral is the mother church of the diocese, it is a place where daily prayer is offered for the diocese, and it is a place where from time to time the bishop—from whose teaching and governing seat, the cathedral, derives its name—presides over ordinations and other diocesan gatherings; it is a spiritual powerhouse for the whole diocese.

The dean, or provost, and his colleagues in the chapter are deeply involved in these matters. However, they also find themselves custodians of a building which is of great historical and architectural importance. Very often tension exists between those two roles. It is a tension caused partly by the amount of time taken up in fund-raising in order to repair and maintain the building and partly by the need to decide to adapt it, as has constantly been done throughout the centuries, to the developing needs and changes in patterns and styles of worship. It is necessary to find the right reconciliation between competing interests.

Hitherto, the administrative body of each cathedral has been the final authority, which was able in the last resort to do what it thought right within the limits of the finance available. This Measure, when it becomes law, will make a fundamental change in that situation which has existed for hundreds of years. The Measure provides for each cathedral a fabric advisory committee as a statutory body of experts which must be consulted about all proposed changes of significance and its approval obtained.

The Measure further converts the present Cathedrals Advisory Commission, which over recent years has proved its worth as a non-statutory body, into a statutory Cathedrals Fabric Commission the consent of which must be obtained for all the more important changes. This body will also deal with appeals in case of dispute between a fabric advisory committee and its administrative body.

If noble Lords will look at Schedules 1 and 2 to the Measure, they will see that the composition of the commission and of the committee ensures that the views of those who are expert in the care and conservation of ancient buildings will be brought fully into the making of decisions about the restoration or alteration of the cathedral fabric.

The Measure also provides that if the administrative body of a cathedral, having gone through the various processes of application and consultation is, nevertheless, dissatisfied with a refusal by the Cathedrals Fabric Commission and wishes to proceed with its proposals, it may ask for a commission of review consisting of three persons. One person would be appointed by the two archbishops, one would be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the third person, who would be the chairman, would be the Dean of the Arches or a lawyer appointed by him.

Those of us who have been involved in the working out of this Measure believe that that last provision will be rarely, if ever, used. It will be rather like the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved which was provided in the 1963 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure but which was not called into being for 25 years.

Such are the bare bones of the Measure. Your Lordships have before you more of the flesh in the Measure itself and in the detailed commentary of the report of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod which is attached to the commendation of the Measure by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. The report also provides more of the background to the making of this Measure than I thought it right to weary the House with this evening.

I should like to take the opportunity to say at this point how very grateful those of us who have been involved in the drafting of the Measure are to the present heritage Minister, to his predecessor and to officials of the Department of the Environment for their help and sympathetic understanding of the various problems which we faced in persuading 42 administrative bodies that they should sacrifice the sovereign independence which they have enjoyed from time immemorial. I believe that what is now before the House is a workable scheme and, given good will and understanding, one that can be worked happily for the reconciliation of the interests of conservationists and those who have responsibility for the worship and mission of cathedrals.

However, before I sit down, I must touch on one other matter; namely, enforcement. There are no enforcement provisions in this Measure. There are some in the Measure which concerns the care of parish churches which I hope will receive final approval from the General Synod next week. I hope that I shall be able to introduce that Measure to the House in a few months' time.

As I said, there are no enforcement provisions in this Measure and I think that I should explain why this is so. We had prepared a third Measure dealing solely with enforcement provisions for both the Cathedrals and the Care of Churches Measures, but it appeared to certain persons in high places so formidable that we were advised by the previous heritage Minister to withdraw it for further consideration and discussion. We felt bound to follow that advice, but in view of the importance of the Cathedrals Measure—which I hope the House understands—and the great weakness in the ecclesiastical exemption which it remedies, we were anxious not to delay implementation.

The further consultations which have taken place on the matter have shown a possible way forward. We were able earlier this year to put the appropriate provisions into the Care of Churches Measure. They have been accepted by the synod and I believe that they are also acceptable to the Department of the Environment. However, it was too late in the legislative process to alter the present Measure and, indeed, we have yet to get the provisions into a form appropriate to cathedrals. That is because we simply cannot take them from one Measure and apply them in exactly the same way in another.

I can, however, assure the House that we are committed to providing an adequate enforcement procedure and have began work on it. I have already had one meeting with our legal advisers, following a helpful interview with the Minister. We have roughed out a scheme which is to be considered by the drafting committee tomorrow morning. I am confident that we shall be able to produce a short Measure to the new synod which comes into being at the end of the year.

It is, however, vital that we have proper consultation with those who will be affected by such provisions and, so far as possible, obtain their good will. Perhaps I may add that we are well advanced with the drafting of the rules that have to be made under the Measure.

I hope that your Lordships will accept that in the Measure we have provision for the protection of these great historic buildings which equals and in some respects goes further than the secular controls of listed buildings which the House has looked at in recent months. I beg to move.

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

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, we on these Benches give the Measure a warm measure of support! I assure your Lordships that that was an accidental pun. The manner in which the basis of the Measure has been explained is certainly to the benefit of the House. I cannot believe that anyone inside or outside the House would not wish to speed this Measure into legislation.

The right reverend Prelate not only has more experience than I have but is closer to the action. Nevertheless, I have taken advice from English Heritage. As noble Lords know, that organisation takes a keen interest not merely in cathedrals and churches but in maintaining the fabric of our heritage. I like the opening words of its briefing to me: The 42 mainland cathedrals of the Church of England form the largest coherent and artistically splendid group of listed buildings in England, as well as being of enormous archaeological importance. They are also the home of some of England's greatest works of art from the post-Roman period onwards". I thought that those words were splendid. They paint a picture and a scene that we all wish to preserve.

I noticed that the final words of the right reverend Prelate were that the Measure provides protection. The greatest protection that I know is money. I wondered to what extent there was provision for that. There is framework for a vast improvement in the public accountability of those people who could make a contribution to what we desire rather than what previously existed. One does not wish to be critical about a past situation because that gets one nowhere. From what I have read, I believe that many controversial decisions have been made without—to use a clumsy phrase—adequate consultation. Of course there is consultation, but sometimes people who might be helpful are sidelined or ignored—not out of malice—and that creates a rift.

One reads the schedule and sees the enormous care that has been taken to try to obtain the best, most representative group of people to serve on the committee to achieve what we wish. I am impressed. I imagine that few people, if any, who claim to have in interest in the Measure are not taken care of in one way or another, particularly under paragraphs 3(e) and (f) of Schedule 1 on page 13. One can go right through the Measure and see a great deal of care and attention. The more people who are invited to contribute to the ideas, the wider the base from which one can raise the necessary money. We on this side of the House are conscious that the Measure ought to be approved and speeded on its way.

I am also delighted to see that it will be a duty on English Heritage to advise the national Cathedrals Fabric Commission on any application referred to it. In other ways, the expertise of English Heritage will be available. I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few kind words and I wish the Measure well.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, I am very glad to be able to speak in this debate to give the Government's view of this important Measure. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for the hard work that he and the officers of the General Synod have done in bringing forward a system to operate efficiently and yet sympathetically to ensure the proper protection of these Church of England cathedrals.

Modern trends of secularisation cannot distort the fact that the Church has played a major part in the history of this country. The medieval cathedrals stand as a witness to this, from Durham which stands firmly on its rock as a symbol of the temporal as well as spiritual power of the medieval bishop, to the grace and beauty of Salisbury. English cathedrals stand also as symbols of Georgian elegance in the close and of the national spirit itself, emerging like St. Paul's in London like a phoenix from the flames both in the 17th and the 20th centuries. But more than all this, the cathedral is the house of God.

I would not wish the Church to give up all its freedom of action to be engulfed by secular rules and regulations. It has a task to perform, and that must be its first priority. But there must be systems to ensure that any body with such a precious inheritance will take proper care of it. So I am very glad that the Church of England has so conscientiously and with such determination brought forward a comprehensive system for looking after these marvellous buildings, balancing the duty of worship and mission with the needs of care and conservation in a way which sets an example to other denominations.

However, I wish to leave one thought with the Church authorities. It is vital to consider the question of enforcement. Clearly, it must be for the Church to consider what provisions it wants to bring forward on this score. But I and my ministerial colleagues feel strongly that it is most important for the Church to ensure—and to be seen to ensure—that there are adequate and unambiguous provisions for controlling any breaches of this legislation.

In an ideal world, of course, no enforcement provisions would be necessary in secular or Church legislation. Everyone would honour the requirements upon them, without question. But perhaps in that happy situation we would need no legislation at all. Meanwhile, in a world where we are all sinners there must be clear provisions to ensure that the requirements of the legislation cannot be flouted without the risk of penalties. I urge the General Synod to consider that.

Members of your Lordships' House will also know that for some time now my department has been considering the way forward on the restriction of the ecclesiastical exemption listed building control, following discussions in 1986 and a further consultation paper last year. Tonight is not the right occasion on which to go into the details of our thinking on this issue, except to say that—as my comments will already have made clear—we wish to give due weight, on the one hand, to enabling worship to proceed without interference and, on the other, to ensuring that buildings of special architectural or historic interest enjoy appropriate protection. However, I hope to discuss it with your Lordships shortly to enable us to consider the way forward. Meanwhile, I again express my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and support this Measure before your Lordships' House.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester

My Lords, perhaps I may express my thanks to the two noble Lords who have spoken. This is the end of a long process over cathedrals and it is gratifying to find the Measure so warmly welcomed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to