HL Deb 10 June 1991 vol 529 cc956-69

7 p.m.

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Measure, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.

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, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Measure that I put before you today is the second part of the Church of England revision of its law concerning the care and conservation of its places of worship. Last year Parliament gave its approval to the Care of Cathedrals Measure, which has now received Royal Assent. I hope before long to introduce a short Measure into the General Synod to provide an enforcement procedure for that Measure, which, but for unforeseen difficulties, would have been included in it. I am sure that your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties that the Treasury can place in the way of otherwise desirable legislation. We have something similar in our difficulties with the Church Commissioners and the Central Board of Finance, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, and I hope to be able to present an enforcement Measure for cathedrals to your Lordships next year.

The present Measure revises and extends a number of existing pieces of legislation concerning the care of churches and the jurisdiction of the church courts in relation to that. I hope that one day it may be possible to have a comprehensive piece of legislation on this subject, but that will take a long time to prepare and in the meantime this Measure carries out the undertakings which the General Synod gave when it approved the report of the commission of which I had the privilege to be chairman.

This is a detailed Measure and it would take a long time to expound it in detail. As your Lordships have before you the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which contains the synod exposition of the Measure, I shall confine myself to certain salient points.

Before any repairs, alterations or additions can be made to a church, a form of permission called a faculty has to be obtained from the chancellor of the diocese—an ecclesiastical judge with legal qualifications appointed by the bishop, who is required by Schedule 4 to the Measure to consult the Lord Chancellor and the Dean of the Arches. That schedule also opens the office to solicitors as well as to barristers and introduces a retiring age which is to be the current retiring age for a circuit judge. It also strengthens the appeal court by providing that there shall be three judges instead of one as at present.

There are many works needing to be done in relation to churches which are uncontroversial and unopposed. Section 14 of the Measure empowers a chancellor to delegate his jurisdiction in these matters to the archdeacon, but with conditions and safeguards set out in that section.

Both the chancellor and the archdeacon are required to seek the opinion of the diocesan advisory committee on any application for a faculty. The word "seek", which the Synod itself substituted for "obtain", has caused some comment. During consultations with the Department of the Environment and English Heritage the point was made that in certain circumstances a long delay over a faculty could be detrimental to the church fabric and that, where a reasonable length of time had elapsed since seeking the advice of the diocesan advisory committee, the chancellor ought to have power to go ahead without that advice. It is expected that this will happen only on rare occasions, but it means that there will be a measure of flexibility where this is thought by the chancellor to be desirable.

Every diocese must provide a written constitution for the advisory committee within three years of the coming into operation of Section 2 of the Measure. Schedule 1 sets out the provisions which are to be included in such a constitution, and Schedule 2 sets out the functions of the diocesan advisory committee. Schedule 1 has been drafted in such a way as to ensure so far as is possible that, through this committee, parishes themselves, as well as the chancellor and archdeacon, have access to high quality advice both about technical matters concerning buildings and about historical and aesthetic considerations. The committee will also be concerned with matters of liturgy and worship as they affect the building, its furnishings and order. Many dioceses have such a committee already. Others which had a diocesan advisory committee which is not quite of the standard now required have already taken steps in that direction.

The reference to national amenity societies in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 will perhaps have been noticed. There is more than one such reference in the Measure and they illustrate the fact that a purpose of the Measure is to give formal recognition to the interest that these societies have in ecclesiastical proceedings concerning the care of churches.

There are two matters in particular which have required much consultation with the Department of the Environment and English Heritage. One is reflected in Section 13, which deals with enforcement. In this, extended powers are given to the ecclesiastical courts, and these have been welcomed by both bodies. The Department of the Environment was especially concerned that the court should have power to intervene and prevent any unlawful act which was known to be in prospect, and also that it should have power to make a restoration order. Those matters are covered by paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section 13.

The other matter which has presented special problems is dealing with churches which are listed buildings when demolition in whole or in part is required as a matter of urgency, for example on the issue of a dangerous structure notice. Section 18 relates to that. This empowers a chancellor in an emergency to issue an instrument authorising demolition or partial demolition of a church without a faculty. Where there is total demolition of a listed church it will cease for the time being to be an ecclesiastical building used for ecclesiastical purposes, and the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 will apply to it. That means that listed building consent will be required in the same way as for a secular building. Where there is partial demolition, the ecclesiastical exemption will continue to apply, but this does not mean that a chancellor will have unfettered discretion.

Paragraphs 18(1) and 18(2) of the Measure mirror the provisions in the 1990 Act, and those requirements will have to be satisfied before the chancellor can issue an instrument for partial demolition.

The primary responsibility for the care of a parish church rests upon the parishioners acting through their elected representatives, the parochial church council and the wardens, working with the incumbent. The key to proper care is regular inspection and repair. Schedule 3 and Sections 3 to 7 deal with this matter and revise existing legislation to make it more effective in this regard.

Section 6 illustrates a number of the kind of difficulties which were encountered in drafting parts of this Measure. One example of such a difficulty is what constitutes a tree. How big does a tree have to become before it is considered to be a tree? In the synod we listened to an amusing and eloquent speech attacking us for including in the legislation any provision about trees. It was alleged that we were imposing unreasonable burdens on parishes in this respect.

It is easy to make fun of such details but trees can affect the whole appearance of a churchyard and the setting of a church. If trees are planted too close to the church building, their roots can seriously damage the structure of the building as they spread. It is therefore necessary to control the planting of trees in churchyards and to control their maintenance. However, it is difficult to do so without being pernickety and burdensome. We have tried to find the answer to this problem in Section 6.

Section 7 is the outcome of lengthy discussions on the responsibility of a parish for ruined churches and ruins of churches in its area. Throughout the compiling of this Measure we were acutely concerned about the financial problems that many parishes face and the difficulty of imposing burdens arising from the upkeep of buildings. It seems to be adding insult to injury to add the expense of maintaining ruins. Section 7 tries to tackle this problem.

I have drawn the attention of noble Lords to those two sections as they are examples of smaller matters of detail which have had to be considered alongside the major matters to which I have referred. They may be smaller matters of detail but they are time consuming. It is our belief that this Measure will improve the protection that the faculty jurisdiction already gives to our ecclesiastical heritage. However, I must point out that the jurisdiction extends to all consecrated churches and to many unconsecrated ones. I refer your Lordships to paragraph 5 of Schedule 3. The jurisdiction is not restricted to those churches which are listed buildings. It also controls the contents of listed buildings to a greater extent than does the secular legislation. We can reasonably claim, therefore, that it is more comprehensive in the protection of our churches.

Like any other system, the law of churches depends greatly on those who administer it. We are fortunate in having able lawyers who regard their work as a service to the Church and many lay people who give their services as members of diocesan advisory committees.

The people who are likely to be most immediately affected by this Measure are the archdeacons. Their responsibilities are markedly increased. I am glad to be able to report that the training of archdeacons has received attention and most, if not all, of them have now been freed from parochial and other such responsibilities so as to be able to give their time more fully to the work required of them by this and other recent Measures.

It is necessary to have a system of control which will ensure that our churches are cared for and that in the making of alterations to them there is a proper conciliation between the needs of present use and those or proper conservation. Further, alterations and additions should be of a quality worthy of the purpose of the church to point to God and to glorify Him. We wish to continue to encourage artists to give of their best. We hope that the church will continue to be a patron of the arts. But, in considering what we would like to see happen, we must also consider what is possible. Financial pressures are growing. In my diocese there are in Brighton within a mile of each other three exceptionally fine Victorian churches. One is conducting an appeal for a quarter of a million pounds, the second an appeal for a million pounds and the third is faced with problems of structural repair which may involve a sum approaching £4 million.

We must have a system of control which will protect these fine buildings but it must be a system that will help and will not add unnecessary burdens to the problems that already exist. I believe that the terms of this Measure represent a reasonable reconciliation of differing, interests which should help us to work together for something which is the common concern of us all. All of us who have been involved in the drafting of this Measure are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her department for the great and sympathetic assistance which they have given us over the years while this legislation has been in preparation. 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.)

7.16 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this apparently small but extremely complicated measure so briefly and so clearly. One of the ways in which the phenomenon of the faculty had not been working well was in the matter of the care and protection of churches as buildings of historic and architectural interest and of landscape and townscape importance. In the old days it was rather too easy for diocesan authorities, making the most of the ecclesiastical exemption, which largely excludes consecrated buildings from normal planning law, to go so far as to demolish church buildings in their care without receiving appropriate professional advice and without paying much attention to the views of other interested parties.

The listing of churches helped greatly in theory—and quite largely in practice—but, given the fact that neither listing nor conservation area designation are complete, many consecrated buildings that are of undoubted importance as buildings have been at considerable risk. Some have been lost and some have been vandalised while in diocesan care.

As I remember it, the purpose of the commission of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester was, among other things, to enable the church authorities themselves to devise better arrangements compatible with their own historic procedures and also compatible with the existing law of the land and public policy. The Measure before us certainly provides improvements but it does not evidently provide for much better arrangements for the protection of church buildings. On the contrary, if it were agreed to, it would enable the chancellor of a diocese to decide on his own authority and at his own total discretion, without informed or professional advice of any kind—even that of the Church of England's own Council for the Care of Churches —that a given church should be instantly demolished, if he deemed this was necessary in the interests of safety or, rather surprisingly, of health.

Section 18 of the Measure states that the chancellor may, by an instrument under his hand authorise the carrying out of the demolition without a faculty". The demolition, without a faculty or any other authorisation, of a church which is a listed building or is in a conservation area appears to be quite specifically envisaged.

The Minister informed me in correspondence that Section 18 of the Measure echoes the language of the planning Act 1990 and that it is intended that listed building consent should still have to be obtained in the circumstances I have just outlined. That is not what Section 18 seems to say, and it is of course the language of the text which matters in law and not what anybody may tell us in this House or in another place. Perhaps when she comes to speak the noble Baroness will be able to reassure the House that the frontiers of the ecclesiastical exemption are not being moved by this Measure. However, a simple layman's reading of it suggests that they are.

Planning law, in the form of DoE Circular 8/87, may well require that listed building consent should be obtained in the normal way for the demolition of buildings by faculty, but the Measure before us appears to exempt chancellors for the first time in recent years from having to obtain listed building consent. When no faculty is required it appears from the text that no listed building consent need be sought. If, as the Minister has told me and will no doubt tell the House shortly, listed building consent has to be sought, why does the Measure not say so? There is specific mention of mandatory reference to the local planning authority in Section 17(5) when there is no urgency due to safety or health. Why is there no similar mention in Section 18 if such reference is also mandatory there?

I wish to raise another matter, of which I was not able to notify the noble Baroness until just now. I believe that she has had an opportunity to warn the right reverend Prelate that I intended to raise it. I apologise for not having noticed the point earlier, but this is a complex measure and it has been introduced quite quickly. My point relates to another respect in which the measure before us appears, unintentionally I surmise, to allow the diocesan authorities to increase the number of buildings benefiting from the ecclesiastical exemption.

Section 11(2) lays down that any, building licensed by the bishop of a diocese … for public worship", is to be treated, as though the building were a consecrated church". Does that not mean that such buildings would be deemed by diocesan chancellors and others to be covered by the ecclesiastical exemption and excluded from planning law? Whether or not a building is consecrated determines its status under the ecclesiastical exemption. Some noble Lords will remember the difficulties that that raised in the case of the demolition of the mortuary chapel at St. Matthew's, Westminster only a few yards from here.

Assuming that I am right, do the Government accept that extension of the ecclesiastical exemption? I believe that English Heritage would be concerned at any extension, intended or unintended. No limits are proposed to the authority of a bishop to license premises for public worship so that they would count as consecrated buildings and be removed from planning law. I understand the reason for that provision in the Measure. It is extremely sensible. It brings many and manifest benefits. However, I suspect that it has that unintended side effect. As it stands, it seems to me that a bishop might designate Blenheim, the Victoria and Albert Museum, Wembley Stadium or any other listed building in the country as a licensed place of worship. I do not believe that that can have been the intention of those who framed the Measure, but the language they have used is open to that interpretation. That potential confusion should be cleared up.

At best, these are ambiguities. Neither will do, in default of extremely strong and forthright language from the state as well as from the Church—and both can be quite forthright.

It was in 1986 that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the then Minister, promised that the Department of the Environment would examine the already acknowledged problems presented by the ecclesiastical exemption from planning law for the country's historic churches. We are still awaiting the result of that examination five years later. We are also awaiting the Government's response to the Wilding Report on an adjacent matter—historic churches in the care of the Redundant Churches Fund. It is time we had a report on the provision of public money for churches in use. The system has been operating for years and there should now be an assessment.

My purpose in saying that is to urge that there should be an end to the dribs and drabs of legislation, both in the form of statute and in the form of ecclesiastical Measures. Much is happening. Many proposals are in the pipeline. Only a month ago in another place my kinsman, Sir George Young, announced in a lengthy Written Answer that the Government intended to amend the Planning and Compensation Bill then before the other place to, extend the definition of development to include the demolition of all buildings".—[Official Report, Commons 10/5/91; col. 622–3.] That is new doctrine and is very welcome. On the face of it, it does not in principle exclude church buildings. Presumably the "Skelmersdale" examination of the ecclesiastical exemption will reflect that very welcome new thinking. It certainly should.

In conclusion, I take the opportunity to urge the Government to think about undertaking an all-round examination of the question of the preservation of churches, cathedrals and other ecclesiastical buildings as buildings of historical and architectural interest as well as of pastoral necessity. In the meantime I hope that the noble Baroness, and the right reverend Prelate when he winds up, can remove both the apparent defects in the Measure that I have outlined.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I had not expected to be in your Lordships' House at this hour and I apologise for speaking, albeit extremely briefly, without notice. I do so because in 1985 and 1986 I was Minister for the built heritage. It warms my heart to see the result of the subsequent five years of co-operation between the department and the Church authorities in this bringing into step of the ecclesiastical and secular conservation systems.

As an ex-churchwarden I should also like to say that the burden of responsibility resting on those responsible for individual church edifices is considerable and often very painful. Decisions have to be made between the conservation of the church built with human hands and the expansion of the church built without hands. To have the guidance of the advisory body established in this Measure will take some of that burden from my erstwhile colleagues. It is a matter of the priorities that must be at the centre of the policy of a Church responsible for such a magnificent heritage. I congratulate those on both sides who have spent so long in bringing forward this measure.

I do not have the A.P. Herbert approach to some aspects of the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, brought forward. I believe that Blenheim Palace is quite safe. I await the Minister's assurances on the other aspects of his criticisms.

7.28 p.m.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I apologise if I appear not to have much knowledge of this Measure but I have seen it only today for the first time. I cast my eye over it fairly quickly, but there are two paragraphs which cause me concern.

On page 7 the first paragraph includes the words, under this section by any court shall be a contempt of that court". I am not certain what that means. If it refers only to spiritual matters, I should not want to interfere with it. However, on page 19, under the definition of "church", the Measure states that "church" shall mean, a building used solely for the purpose of religious services relating to burial or cremation". Buildings owned by local authorities are sometimes used for religious burials—indeed, in certain parts of the country they are used mainly for religious burials —but they are also used for secular burials. If the Measure is to be applied in that way and a question of contempt is involved, the term should be more clearly defined. It should be made clear that buildings that are used for burials or cremations, of which the majority are secular funerals, are not included in the Measure. I do not know whether to address my question to the Minister or to the right reverend Prelate, but I should like an answer.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the House is grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for introducing the Measure. As he said, it is extremely complex. I was present at the discussions in the Ecclesiastical Committee and it was apparent that, if we wanted to go into all the details of the Measure, it would take the committee more than its allotted time.

In general, I have no difficulties with the Measure. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the questions of my noble friends Lord Kennet and Lord Sefton. I have one or two incidental points to put to the right reverend Prelate. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to the burden placed on church wardens. In his introduction, the right reverend Prelate referred to the extra burden to be placed on archdeacons and quite rightly said that there would be provisions to educate archdeacons, if that is the right expression, as to how to perform those duties. Will there be any provision to help church wardens in what, under the provisions of the Measure, will be extremely onerous duties? It is not enough to say simply that archdeacons will have to be educated. Church wardens will have to be instructed as to their duties under the Measure and instructed how to perform those duties, because they are extremely complex.

That point leads me to my second question. How will the Measure, which is difficult in law and complex in practice, be transmitted to parochial church councils within the great body of the Church of England? Will a leaflet, for example, be sent out to tell them what their duties will be in that respect? How will they know what the Measure contains? Perhaps the right reverend Prelate can help me on that point.

I have another, more specific, question. The Measure refers in many instances to the diocesan bishop. What happens if there is no diocesan bishop in place and, as cited in Section 18, there should be an emergency demolition of a church? Is there some mechanism whereby a diocesan bishop having died, and no new bishop having been appointed, the emergency demolition of a church can be effected without waiting for the appointment of a new diocesan bishop? What is the role in that respect of an area bishop, if a diocese has an area bishop system, or of a suffragan bishop, or of a vacancy-in-See committee? Is there any mechanism that can be brought into play to provide a substitute for the diocesan bishop if none such exists at the time?

Finally, from my own personal interest—the right reverend Prelate will understand why I have this interest—I notice that on page 19 of the Measure the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford is excluded from the Measure. I should be grateful if the right reverend Prelate will explain the background to that exclusion.

7.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak in this debate to give the Government's view of this important Measure. 1 congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester on the hard work that he and the officers of the General Synod have done in bringing forward the Measure which, among other things, strengthens and extends the Church's legal and administrative structures for the care and conservation of churches.

On behalf of my officials, I thank the right reverend Prelate for the kind remarks that he made about the co-operation of my department. I also thank my noble friend Lord Elton for echoing those remarks.

The primary role of parish churches is to care for the spiritual and pastoral needs of parishioners and congregations. But, in addition, they are a very important and varied part of the nation's architectural heritage and, as such, they must be properly cared for by the Church authorities which are responsible for them. The Measure provides a good framework for that exacting task.

I am particularly glad to see that the Measure provides a number of enforcement provisions for controlling any breaches of the legislation. I regard that as one of the most important features of the Measure from the heritage point of view. I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary to invoke the provisions, but, human nature being what it is, there can be no guarantee of that, even within the Church. That is why enforcement provisions are necessary.

On the subject of enforcement, the right reverend Prelate is consulting the deans and provosts about an enforcement Measure for cathedrals which it is hoped will be ready for consideration by the General Synod at the November 1991 Group of Sessions. Your Lordships may recall that, when the House considered the Care of Cathedrals Measure last year, my noble friend the Chief Whip stressed the importance that the Government attached to the Church ensuring that there are adequate and unambiguous provisions for controlling any breaches of the provisions of the Care of Cathedrals Measure. I hope that the consultations with the deans and provosts will result in such controls over breaches involved in works to cathedrals. That, along with the Care of Churches Measure, would go a long way towards completing the legislation necessary to implement the recommendations of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission.

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 from listed building control, following discussion in 1986 and a further consultation paper in 1989. More recent discussions have been held, earlier this year, with individual denominations. Tonight is not the right occasion on which to go into the details of our thinking on the issue, but I hope to discuss it with your Lordships when we have analysed the latest discussions.

I now turn to the specific points that have been made. I can confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that listed building consent will still be required in those circumstances where it applies now; for example, in cases of total demolition. The Measure does not affect the secular law.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. Is listed building consent required now for partial demolition or alteration of listed churches and, if so, will it continue to be required in the case of emergency pastoral demolition or alteration under the new Measure?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the secular law will apply for total demolition. As I understand it, the ecclesiastical regulations would have to be followed for partial demolition. I can do no better than repeat what I said in my letter; namely, that Article 18 provisions mirror the provisions in Section 9(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The department asked the Synod to follow that provision in drawing up Article 18. It is fairly normal practice in legislation to provide for such urgent situations in which the usual controls are inappropriate. I confirm that the letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explains the situation as we understand it; namely, that total demolition would be dealt with under secular law and partial demolition under ecclesiastical law. When the right reverend Prelate replies, he may well fill in any gaps that I have not addressed.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the noble Baroness is being most patient, but the House has not seen our correspondence. Under state law, is listed building consent necessary for emergency partial demolition or alteration?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, again if I am wrong I shall correct it in writing to the noble Lord. However, my understanding is that secular permission would not be required for emergency partial demolition. I think I see nods of approval around me. I shall confirm it in writing to the noble Lord.

On the reviews of ecclesiastical exemption of the redundant churches fund—the Wilding Report, which was referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet —we expect to announce conclusions very shortly. I have to say that I am rather unkindly going to leave the right reverend Prelate to deal with what I considered to be a relatively extreme example of designating other great buildings as churches in order to gain exemption from secular law. Meanwhile, I again express my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and support the Measure now before your Lordships' House.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester

My Lords, I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised. On the question of partial demolition, I point out that the Measure in Clause 18 mirrors clause by clause the provisions of the 1990 Act concerning partial demolition of listed buildings. The chancellor has to be satisfied about exactly the same matters that are included in Section 9(3) (a) (b) and (c) of the 1990 Act.

With regard to Blenheim Palace, I believe that if a bishop started to do that, questions would be raised about his sanity. There are extensive provisions in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure for dealing with bishops and indeed archbishops who appear to have lost their reason or otherwise have broken the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, recognised, there are instances in which it is desirable to have such a provision. It is difficult to draft one which would not be open to abuse if there were somebody stupid enough to do that. I think that the assumption has to be that people who reach certain positions are endowed with a degree of common sense.

The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, mentioned contempt. This would be a matter of total disregard of the injunctions of the court concerning the provision of the Measure. In fact, it would relate to breaches of the law. We have had a lot of difficulty over the question of contempt. In the end, the ecclesiastical court refers the matter to the appropriate secular court, which then takes whatever may be the appropriate action. We have been anxious to put as many stages in the process as possible before one gets to the extreme point of someone being sent to prison. However, I do not believe that the question of cemetery chapels can arise in relation to that because the definition of "church" on page 19 excludes buildings used solely for burial and cremation. I do not think that that can possibly apply to places in relation to a secular service.

With regard to the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, first let me say that there is to be a day conference of archdeacons next year on the working of this Measure. Archdeacons in their visitations will instruct the church wardens and that will be supplemented by written material. There is an official body called the Council for the Care of Churches which issues leaflets, pamphlets and guidance to church wardens and other persons affected in this way.

So far as concerns the vacancy in the see, there are many provisions in other legislation for what is to happen in respect of the administration of a diocese during the vacancy in the see. Those would cover anything that the bishop has to do under this Measure.

As regards area bishops, I have to say that there is some confusion in the use of that term. Strictly speaking, area bishops are those suffragans who operate under an area scheme which has been formally made and passed by the General Synod. That scheme will always contain a list of the duties which are delegated to area bishops. It will vary a certain amount from diocese to diocese. I have to say that ordinary suffragans would not operate in this field unless there was a vacancy in the see and they were made guardians of the spiritualities. It could be that in some dioceses the formally appointed area bishop would have that kind of authority.

I can illustrate the differences. My own diocese has an area scheme but we do not have area synods. The diocese of London has an area scheme and it has a separate synod for every area. So there are quite distinct variations in the extent of delegation which are related to the size of the area and the complexity of the problems involved.

The last point concerned Christ Church, Oxford, which is always exempt from all these matters because it is a Royal foundation and we have no wish to interfere with the visitatorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I can clear up one or two points. I was not quite certain what he said in regard to the definition of a church. I thought he said that it would be exempt under another section. I accept that perhaps I missed it in reading hurriedly through the Measure. I shall read tomorrow with interest what was said.

In relation to contempt, do I understand that in fact it is possible that contempt of an ecclesiastical court can in fact finish up in a secular court? If so, I should want to oppose that principle, be it contained in any Measure. However, I am not quite sure of the procedure of how to oppose it.

Lord Elton

My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate replies and we have a difficult situation on our hands, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, the fact that what is being done here is a duplication of secular law in an ecclesiastical authority, and the secular law enforcement agency is the court. It is only in the last resort that the Measure provides for an extreme breach of that application of the parallel secular law to be drawn to the attention of the enforcement agency of the secular court.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I accept that and in essence that is what the right reverend Prelate said. I object to the principle that in some way or other a person can be arraigned before a secular court for what is evidently a spiritual matter. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will clear up the issue and we shall have it on the record.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester

My Lords, that is already the case in other parts of the ecclesiastical law. We are not introducing anything new. This is something that already exists. On page 19 it states that a church means: any building licensed for public worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England other than". The "other than" includes: a building used solely for the purpose of religious services relating to burial or cremation". So I do not see how that could possibly make this matter cover cemetery chapels used for secular purposes.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, with permission perhaps I may say that I am not entirely satisfied with the explanations given to resolve my two areas of doubt. That the ecclesiastical law should mirror secular law by placing certain decisions in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities when corresponding decisions are placed in the hands of secular authorities for lay buildings is not the point. The point is this. Is there or is there not an extension of the ecclesiastical exemption? I believe that there may be.

I was perhaps unwise to use an extreme example to illustrate my case about the designation of lay buildings as places of worship. I was not thinking of Blenheim but of any small building which by designation as a place of worship could be removed from secular planning law. That is a great pity. The Measure permits bishops to create churches out of any old shed. I do not wish to impute malice. However, once that is done, then the diocesan chancellor would have the right to order a partial demolition without planning consent from the secular authorities. I believe that I am right. Whether or not I am right, I should like to ask whether the right reverend Prelate will consider withdrawing his Measure today.

Noble Lords

No.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I ask the right reverend Prelate, not the Government Front Bench, whether he will consider withdrawing his measure today in order to allow a short time for consultation with the statutory amenity bodies —which I assure him are as perplexed with the Measure as I am —and then to reintroduce it as soon as is convenient. Consultation need take no more than a week or so. I hope that he is prepared to do that. If not, I hope that he will give an undertaking that the matter will be fully explained so that a proper discussion can take place when the measure comes to the House of Commons.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to intervene. I hope that the House will not persuade the right reverend Prelate to withdraw the Measure. I understand the noble Lord's worry that there is an unwritten extension of the powers of exemption. I do not believe that that is true. I am certain that that is not the intention.

My department is happy to sit alongside the operation of this Measure. Indeed we have welcomed the tightening up of the procedures under the Measure which gives the department and I believe the world of heritage generally a feeling that control is being exercised responsibly. I said that we are considering ways of examining the exemption that is enjoyed by the Church authorities. However, we believe that these measures are about right. We should like to take the Church on trust with a reasonable and, we believe, responsible tightening up of Measures which I hope the House will accept.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester

My Lords, I do not believe that it would be proper for me at this stage to withdraw the Measure having made such progress in close consultation with the Department of the Environment. The demolition clause was the subject of lengthy consultation throughout with that department. We understood that it was entirely happy with the Measure.

Under the present powers of the department in relation to the exemption, I understand that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that some aspect of the Measure infringes the exemption, he has power already to deal with that infringement whether or not this Measure is passed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.