HL Deb 16 December 1993 vol 550 cc1478-81

4.36 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford 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. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain as briefly as possible the content and purpose of the Measure. It is a Measure dealing with redundant Church of England churches. The reason for its short title is that it amends the existing legislation on the subject, the Pastoral Measure 1983. The word "redundant" conjures up rather negative images, but the Measure is in fact a positive one. It aims at improving the arrangements for Church buildings which, for whatever reason, are no longer required for their original purpose. If I may put the matter in context, your Lordships may like to know that 20 to 30 out of 16,000 Church of England churches are declared redundant each year and that between 10 and 20 new places of worship are opened each year.

The future of the buildings and all that belongs to them is obviously of major concern to the Church of England itself, but it is also of concern to the wider community. One reason is that the local community often sees the church building as a vital part of its history and a focus of its life, both now and in the future. At a national level, the state, as well as the Church, contributes substantial sums of money to the Redundant Churches Fund to help it care for some of the most important redundant churches for which no suitable alternative use can be found. Because of that, the Government and the Church Commissioners joined together in 1989 in asking Mr. Richard Wilding to review the operation and financing of the Redundant Churches Fund. When he reported in 1990, he made over 60 recommendations and the Government and the Church Commissioners have accepted the majority of them.

Some of the recommendations do not require legislation, but at least one calls for an Act of Parliament. No doubt, your Lordships will be asked in due course to consider a Bill to deal with the matter. The Measure before your Lordships today includes the provisions which the General Synod needed to pass to implement the Wilding report. Many are of a financial nature. For example, they lay down more flexible arrangements for the financing of the Redundant Churches Fund.

Apart from financial matters, the Measure changes the name of the Redundant Churches Fund to the Churches Conservation Trust which reflects the fact that the fund is a practical and positive body whose churches take on a new and positive role in the community when they come into the fund's hands. The Measure also includes a few other provisions which the Church Commissioners, the Department of National Heritage or the Redundant Churches Fund have suggested in order to improve the practical working of the 1983 Measure.

I refer to Clause 7, which the Ecclesiastical Committee mentions in its report. That clause deals with the provisions for removing the legal effects of consecration—as opposed to what I might call the spiritual significance of consecration—when a redundant church or land is being disposed of. The main effect of removing the legal effect of consecration is that it is no longer necessary to go to the consistory court for a faculty before making alterations to the property.

Clause 7 makes the existing provisions for removing the legal effects of consecration slightly wider. But it does not affect the provision in the 1983 Measure under which the scheme dealing with a particular church may always preserve the effects of consecration where that seems desirable. In any case, removing the faculty jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that the new owner is completely free to deal with the property as he likes, because of the restrictive covenants to which I have already referred.

The Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention to the ecological importance of many churches and burial grounds and the need to safeguard this. It is widely recognised that churchyards are often the main, if not the only, sanctuary for wildlife for many miles around. The Church and other bodies are doing a great deal to provide encouragement, information and advice about wildlife conservation for all those who are responsible for them. There is always, in any case, an opportunity for members of the public and official bodies to make representations before a redundancy scheme is made in order to deal with concerns about wildlife, and those would be given due weight if any such representations were made.

That concern for the environment highlights one aspect of the matter which I mentioned in opening; namely, that the future of redundant churches and all that belongs to them is of concern to the wider community as well as to the Church. The Measure which is now before the House seeks to ensure that the best possible arrangements are made for them. I therefore ask noble Lords to support the Measure, and the Motion standing in my name.

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 Guildford.)

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, we have no difficulty in supporting this Measure, and the Ecclesiastical Committee had no difficulty in declaring it expedient. Obviously, it needs to go through this House and to get Royal Assent as quickly as possible. The only point that I had intended to make, and will still make, is that which the right reverend Prelate just mentioned; namely, the ecological value of burial grounds and churchyards in some cases. In areas where there is a great deal of chemical farming, such places are quite often the last haven for wildlife, for plants and for animals. It is very important that that point is recognised, and I am very relieved to hear the right reverend Prelate give it his attention. I hope that the Measure will go through as quickly as possible.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee I too can find nothing that we should comment on in the general bulk of the Measure before us. It seems admirable, and it has been given due and proper consideration by the Church authorities. I too would like to draw attention to the ecological point. It is important. I think it probably was the noble Baroness who drew the attention of the Ecclesiastical Committee to this particular point when we considered it.

It was in the days of high farming, when relentless war was waged on conservation right across the courtly, that the Churches maintained their tradition of being, in a way, a sanctuary for wildlife. These days it is not quite so important. With low farming and set-aside, conditions are less threatening outside. Nevertheless, it remains important. At the species diversity conference this morning, which I mentioned earlier, consideration was given to the fact that it is not enough to have SSSIs and particularly designated small areas. Rather, it is important that there should be a network over the whole countryside so that there is not just a single area which may be quite insufficient for the retention and for the breeding of a single species. It is important to have such a network over the countryside. It is absolutely right that the Church, with its strong doctrine of creation, should safeguard that.

The right reverend Prelate said that there was machinery for dealing with this matter. He said that it would be given "due weight". That phrase is a little ambivalent. I would welcome something much stronger. "Due weight" depends on what your attitude is when you do the weighing. I would like a commitment that it will be given very strong weight and will be taken very seriously into account. It is a matter about which the whole of Parliament probably feels very strongly; and I am sure that the whole Church feels very strongly. Therefore they should reach agreement on it.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I had not intended to interfere in this debate, but I would like to say that from the whole of the discussion it would appear that a wildlife sanctuary in the churchyard is very important. I disagree. I believe that the main aim should be to preserve the architectural beauty and the historical importance of such sites in the community. I live and work in a high farming community. There is a lot of wildlife. If it had to depend on the well-kept churchyards in that county, there would be no wildlife at all.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford

My Lords, perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that a great deal is done to ensure that churchyards, though they are finally designed to be resting places for the departed, are also fortunately places for life.

Perhaps I may give a further reassurance: the code of practice for the care of churches and ecclesiastical jurisdiction measure contains specific recommendations about the importance of wildlife within churchyards; so does the Churchyards Handbook. None of those documents is the kind of matter that noble Lords would normally read in bed, but they are documents which are readily available to those who have these responsibilities. An information pack produced by a number of conservation bodies is available and contains a number of leaflets, including Discovering Butterflies in Churchyards, and so on. So due weight is given to the importance of wildlife in churchyards. But we have to recognise that that is not their only purpose. Therefore, with due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I would wish to stick to the phrase "due weight". But I assure noble Lords that the matter is taken seriously and I hope that noble Lords will support this particular measure.

On Question, Motion agreed to.