House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Jul 1990

Schedule 5

Building Societies and Deposit-Takers

Amendment made : No. 21, in page 124, line 45 leave out from beginning to shall' in line 46 and insert Subsection (3) (a) above'.-- [Mr. Ryder.]

Amendment proposed : No. 29, in page 128, line 12 , at end insert--

Transitional provision

16.--(1) In its application to the year 1991-92, section 477A of the Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect with the following modifications. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may also require any building society to account for and pay, on transitional sums, an amount representing income tax calculated in part at the

Column 818

basic rate for the year 1990-91 and in part at the reduced rate determined for that year under section 483(1)(a) of the Taxes Act 1988.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) above the reference to transitional sums is to such sums paid or credited after 28th February 1991 and before 6th April 1991 as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.

(4) In subsection (3)(a) for the words from "actual" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "appropriate amount".

(5) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)--

"(3A) In subsection (3)(a) above the reference to the appropriate amount is to the actual amount paid or credited in the accounting period of any such dividends or interest together with--

(a) in the case of dividends or interest paid or credited in the year 1990- 91, any amount accounted for and paid by the society in respect thereof as representing income tax, and

(b) in the case of dividends or interest paid or credited in the year 1991- 92, any amount of income tax accounted for and paid by the society in respect thereof.".'.-- [Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Nicholas Brown : Schedule 5 effectively abolishes the composite rate tax scheme and introduces the new scheme, involving deduction of basic rate income tax. It is likely that the old rules covered the transitional period straddling the changeover date of 6 April 1991. However, the Government seem to have had second thoughts on this point, and the amendments are designed to facilitate those second thoughts. It is an unexceptional point and is acceptable to the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6

Life Assurance : Apportionment of Income etc.

Amendments made : No. 30, in page 129, line 18, after agency' insert outside the United Kingdom'.

No. 31, in page 133, line 29, after if', insert --

(a) each of the'.

No. 32, in page 133, line 31, leave out the reference' and insert--

(b) in subsection (5)--

(i) a reference to overseas life assurance business were included after each of the references to pension business in paragraph (a)(ii), and

(ii) each of the references in paragraph (b)'.-- [Mr. Ryder.]

Schedule 8

Insurance Companies : Holders of Unit Trusts etc.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We now come to amendment No. 40, to be moved formally. I call Mr. Nick Brown.

Hon. Members : Aye.

Mr. Nicholas Brown : I hear hon. Members shout, "Aye," I am happy to take that as the consensus view rather than launching into my half-hour oration.

Nevertheless, I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 147, line 18, at end add--

(4) Relief under this paragraph shall be calculated in such a manner as is just and reasonable notwithstanding anything in section 35 Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 (part disposals).'.

Column 819

Clause 46 provides for an annual deemed disposal of holdings of unit trusts and relevant interests--I am sure that this is going to keep the attention of the whole House--in offshore funds held by an insurance company as part of its long-term business fund. There are transitional provisions in schedule 8(2) to provide relief for assets held on two back liabilities in respect of policies issued before 1 April 1990.

These provisions were foreshadowed in the December 1989 Inland Revenue press release, which stated in respect of assets relating to pre-1 April 1990 policies :

"These assets will not be chargeable under the new rules for so long as the corresponding liabilities are outstanding."

There is a problem with the existing part disposal rule for capital gains tax calculations, which means that the value of the relief is eroded much more quickly than the liabilities run off. During discussions with the Inland Revenue, a solution to this problem was suggested, but the Financial Secretary stated in Committee that the legislation required to deal with that calculation in detail would be very complex and lengthy and that he was not persuaded that the introduction of such legislation would be appropriate.

The Association of British Insurers suggested to us and, it appears, to other members of the Committee the simple amendment now before the House. It requires little space in the Bill. Effectively, it empowers the Inland Revenue to ignore the effect of section 35 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979, when applying the rule in schedule 8, if the Revenue accepts that it would be just and reasonable to do so. Everyone from the ABI who approached us seems to think that that would meet the point. We are persuaded that it would do so. I hope that the Government will reconsider and accept our modest, constructive amendment.

Sir William Clark : From the outset I should state that I am a consultant to Commercial Union Assurance. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on reading out the brief, of which I have a copy, with such panache. He put the point that was made by the ABI, as he rightly said.

There is no question but that the Government are sympathetic to what the insurance industry seeks to do. The only thing that holds them back is the complexity of any legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will give the House an assurance that the Government will reconsider. There appears to be an anomaly, and if it proves to be one that affects the insurance industry, I hope that remedial action will be taken.

Mr. Lilley : Our problem is that dealing with the underlying problem would require complex further legislation. An amendment which simply refers to calculations proceeding in a just and reasonable manner does not provide the required level of certainty or the sound basis on which the law should be framed. Different companies may have different ideas of what is just and reasonable. That lack of precision could give rise to disputes that would have to be resolved before the appeal commissioners or in the courts.

However, I recognise the industry's worries. While it is not possible to introduce detailed legislation in this year's Bill, I can say without commitment that we shall consider returning to the problem next year. By "we", I mean my hapless successor.

Column 820

Mr. Nicholas Brown : I am sure that it will not be a hapless successor.

It is not often that the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and I have similar speeches to make and similar briefs to read in the House. That is a welcome event. I hope that it is the beginning of a new consensus between us. Nevertheless, I suspect that probably I have not incited sufficient rebellious spirit on the Conservative Benches--although I can see that I have made a start. I would waste the time of the House by putting the matter to the test of a Division. I know that the Financial Secretary's not hapless successor will want time to reconsider the points raised. He may even arrive at a different conclusion. To facilitate that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Schedule 18

Definition of "Local Authority"

Mr. Nicholas Brown rose --

Amendment made : No. 33, in page 180, line 9, leave out paragraph 3 and insert--

3. In section 149B of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (3) "(3) A local authority, a local authority association and a health service body shall be exempt from capital gains tax.

(3A) In subsection (3) above--

(a) "local authority association" has the meaning given by section 519 of the Taxes Act 1988, and

(b) "health service body" has the meaning given by section 519A of that Act.".'.-- [Mr. Ryder.]

Schedule 19

Repeals

Amendments made : No. 34, in page 182, leave out lines 34 to 37.

No. 35, in page 184, line 4, at end insert--

1990 c. 19. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Section 61(2).'.

No. 36, in page 184, line 7, leave out from repeals' to section' in line 8 and insert

of section 52 of the Finance Act 1974 and'.

No. 22, in page 184, line 19, leave out sections 476,' and insert

section 476 (apart from the repeal in subsection (4) of the words from the beginning to "affecting" and the words "and that paragraph") and sections'. -- [Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Nicholas Brown : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You put Government amendment Nos. 33, 34 and 36 to the House, overlooking the fact that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was rising to speak. It was difficult for you to overlook it--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Those amendments have already been debated. They were disposed of earlier.

Further consideration adjourned --[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Bill (as amended in Committee and in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Column 821

Care of Cathedrals

1.19 am

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : I beg to move

That the Care of Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

This Measure, and a second Measure still on its way to Parliament--the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure--but to which the General Synod gave final approval last week, represent the fulfilment, essentially, of a commitment made by the Synod to the Government in July 1984. The terms of that commitment were that the Church of England would implement voluntarily the proposals of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission contained in its report published likewise in July 1984, provided that all churches in use, including cathedrals, were allowed to remain exempt from listed building controls ; and that the state aid scheme launched in 1977 for churches in use, but as yet not for cathedrals, should be made permanent.

In October 1986, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Skelmersdale, announced the Government's acceptance of those two conditions. As a result, from early 1987 onwards a drafting committee chaired by Dr. Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester, has been continuously engaged on the task of preparing the promised legislation of which this Measure is the first instalment.

In deciding to give priority to the care of cathedrals, the Bishop of Chichester and his colleagues took account of the fact that cathedral buildings, despite their immense historical and architectural importance, are at present outside the scope both of the Church of England's own faculty jurisdiction and of the state's system of listed building control. It seemed only logical to plug that gap before improving and extending the faculty jurisdiction that already controls repairs and alterations to churches other than cathedrals.

Before outlining the provisions of the Measure, I draw the attention of the House to clause 1 in particular. It lays down explicitly the important principle that the functions of care and conservation which the measure confers on certain bodies--whether new or existing bodies--must be exercised with

"due regard to the fact that the cathedral church is the seat of the bishop and a centre of worship and mission."

While to many people that may seem a statement of the obvious, there are still some conservationists who need to be reminded that even the most important of our ancient churches have rightly and necessarily been altered and adapted to reflect changes in patterns of worship as one century has succeeded another.

A balance must always be struck between, on the one hand, the role of the cathedral as

"a spiritual powerhouse for the whole diocese",

as the Bishop of Chichester described it, and, on the other hand, the temporal needs of the building as a part of our nation's architectural, archaeological and artistic heritage. Members of the General Synod, and not least the deans and provosts among them, set great store by the inclusion of clause 1 in the Measure. It will ensure that those who administer it have clear guidance, to the effect that their

Column 822

duty is to attempt to reconcile the potential tension between spiritual concerns and heritage concerns, and not to pursue the one objective to the exclusion of the other.

I turn to the control mechanisms that the Measure will introduce. Whereas in the past the administrative body of a cathedral enjoyed sole authority in the last resort to alter the interior of the building or to dispose of or acquire moveable contents, it will in future be required to secure the approval of a local statutory committee for every proposed change of significance short of certain really major changes--about which, more anon. There is to be one such committee for each cathedral, known as its fabric advisory committee. As schedule 2, which provides for its membership, shows, it will not include the dean or provost or any residentiary canon of that cathedral as voting members. Rather it is intended that this committee should be an independent group with relevant expertise and a particular interest in the cathedral concerned.

The authorisation of the more important changes, including the disposal by sale or otherwise of outstanding moveables, will be reserved for a new statutory body at the centre to be called the Cathedrals Fabric Commission. This body will replace the present Cathedrals Advisory Commission which is constituted, like the other non-statutory boards of the General Synod, under the synod's standing orders.

In many respects the new commission will inherit and continue the useful advisory functions of the one it succeeds, but it will have in addition a statutory power of control which will enable it to prevent action by a cathedral's administrative body without the commission's consent. This "new -look" commission will also be able to resolve disagreements between an administrative body and the local fabric advisory committee. Great care has been taken to involve as wide a range of expertise as possible in the composition of this very important commission. That composition is set out in schedule 1 to the Measure.

There is also a provision in the Measure allowing an appeal by an administrative body against a refusal by the Cathedrals Fabric Commission to give approval to any particular proposal. An appeal by an administrative body at that level of jurisdiction is to take the form of a request for a commission of review. This would be an ad hoc three-member body which can fairly be described as the long-stop feature of the system, unlikely to be needed except on rare occasions. One member, probably the chairman, would be the Dean of the Arches or another lawyer appointed by him, the second a dean, provost or residentiary canon of another cathedral appointed by the two archbishops, and the third a nominee of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

For a fuller treatment of the origins and content of the Measure, I refer hon. Members to the customary appendix to the ecclesiastical committee's report, which contains the report of the General Synod's legislative committee. In particular, I should underline the fact that, as can be seen from paragraph 12 of the latter report, not one single contrary vote was recorded in the final approval vote on the Measure in November 1989.

Like the Bishop of Chichester in another place, I should like to put on record, on behalf of the Measure's drafting committee, our warm gratitude to all the present and past Ministers responsible for heritage matters, and to all those officials in the Department of the Environment who have advised them, for their unstinting help in the preparation of this intrinsically sensitive area of church legislation.

Column 823

Let me say a word in this context about enforcement. Earlier this year, after consultation with the present Minister, the draft Care of Churches Measure, the one following this Measure, and still en route to us, was amended in the General Synod to include the enforcement provisions now contained in clause 12 of that Measure which were also acceptable to the Department of the Environment. It was too late, however, at that stage to amend the present Measure, and, in any event, there were then as yet no agreed proposals for an enforcement procedure appropriate to the special needs of cathedrals. To sum up, the present position as to enforcement is that the General Synod is already committed to an adequate enforcement procedure for cathedrals, if necessary by legislation. But the acid test is that this Measure should work. All of us in the Church of England are determined that it should, but we are equally clear that if experience gained after a reasonable trial shows it is not working, further action must be taken. Meanwhile, plans are laid to introduce the rules required under the present Measure for the approval of the new synod in November of this year. Once those are in force, the stage will be set for the archbishops to bring the main provisions of the Measure into operation shortly after.

The Measure is undoubtedly a landmark in the lengthy process in which the Bishop of Chichester, his Faculty Jurisdiction Commission of the early 1980s and latterly his drafting group appointed in 1987 have each played a vital part. May I add my personal thanks to them for their achievements. I hope that the House will now help to crown them by endorsing this Measure, which seeks to give greater protection to some of the finest historical buildings that we as a nation possess.

1.29 am

Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : The Opposition welcome the Measure that is before us at this very late hour. There is no doubt that our 42 mainland cathedrals of the Church of England form, in the words of English Heritage,

"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 am sure that many hon. Members and others concerned about the subject will fully agree with the view expressed by English Heritage.

We welcome the fact that for the first time occasionally controversial decisions that would affect the buildings and contents of our Church of England cathedrals will now become subject to a procedure that will give a measure of public involvement in, and even control over, those wonderful listed buildings.

We also recognise the enormous amount of hard work that has gone into the formulation of the measure. It seems remarkable that we have ended up with a proposal that is, as we have just heard, so acceptable to so many people, given that the first draft suggested that the Measure would not see the light of day.

We believe that the local fabric advisory committee and the central Cathedrals Fabric Commission will definitely be of great benefit to the church administrative organisations responsible for the conservation and maintenance of cathedrals. We have no doubt that their membership, so carefully chosen, and the individuals who

Column 824

will be appointed to serve on them, will bring enormous expertise and specialist knowledge to our cathedrals. That is particularly important and something from which our cathedrals will greatly benefit.

I am sure that such wide knowledge of everything--architecture, archaeology, art, church music, stained glass, and historic manuscripts-- will be invaluable to cathedral authorities charged with the task of balancing the cathedral as a place of worship against the concept of the cathedral as a vital part of our national heritage. That balance reminds me of the one that must be kept between nature conservation and access to the countryside. Drawing and maintaining that balance is an important part of conservation.

It is important to view the Measure alongside other developments that are relevant to our cathedrals, some of which the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) touched on. Positive action to implement the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission's 1984 report has been much too slow in coming forward. Today's Measure brings the standard of controls over listed Anglican churches more closely into line with those for secular buildings. However, that is only one of several measures needed relating to cathedrals and their conservation. I understand from a debate in another place that proposals on the restriction of the ecclesiastical exemption of listed building control following the consultation paper last year are imminent. In the debate on 28 June in the other place, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Hesketh, stated : "Tonight is not the right occasion on which to go into the details of our thinking on this issue"--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 1990 ; Vol. 520, c. 1797.]

I wish that there was a Minister present who could tell us what progress has been made on that. I would welcome comments from the right hon. Member for Selby, if not from the Minister, on the issue so that we may have some indication of the Government's timetable and the Synod's timetable for the implementation of the Measure proposing reductions in the scope of ecclesiastical exemption. I should be interested to know whether that proposal, whatever stage it has reached, is on the interiors as well as the exteriors of buildings. I am sure that that is an important issue.

I join English Heritage in calling for speedy implementation to reduce exemptions. I should like to take the opportunity to ask for assurances that there are proposals for comparable controls for non-Anglican churches, chapels and other places of worship. Although a Minister is not present, it is important to draw attention to the fact that the buildings of other religious denominations are an equally important part of our national heritage.

The lack of enforcement provisions in the measure must be remedied at the earliest opportunity. I noted carefully the comments of the right hon. Member for Selby and of the Bishop of Chichester that enforcement provisions for both the Care of Cathedrals Measure and the Care of Churches Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure were withdrawn at the request of the Government. We must not delay tonight's Measure, but I wish to emphasise that an adequate enforcement procedure, properly resourced, is the highest priority. There is growing concern that the architectural heritage embodied in our churches and cathedrals is not receiving adequate funding for its care and upkeep. Statutory controls for the care of cathedrals are welcome because

Column 825

they bring more accountability to the standards and mechanisms for church controls. Government and the churches must closely define the matters in which the latter retain freedom of action for building adaptations and change of use, while releasing more state funding subject to the expansion of an educational and interpretive role by the churches. That is an important point to make.

Nobody knows how much maintenance and repair work is needed to keep our cathedrals in good order. To keep them more than wind and watertight, and so that they can weather the years ahead, a full audit of outstanding repairs is long overdue, and we must bear in mind the need to take account of the effects of acid rain. Is it not time that the Government and the Synod, with the assistance of English Heritage, assessed the state of the fabric and condition of our cathdrals and their contents? Is not it time that we took account of the dual role played by our cathedrals? Virtually each of our cathedrals, as well as being a place of worship, has become a centre for tourism, but some more than others. We should recognise the contribution made by the Salisburys, Wellses, Chesters, Herefords and other better-known cathedrals--or perhaps those with the greatest treasures that people, particularly tourists, wish to see--and by tourism to local economies. That can be a great economic bonus to local areas as well as bringing extra worshippers to cathedrals.

We must take account of the effects of wear and tear on the fabric of buildings and the financial implications of that. The comparison that comes to mind are the tiles in Central Lobby. I cannot help but notice that those tiles, knowing that they were manufactured in my constituency, are inevitably worn out by the hundreds and thousands of people who pass over them. We should provide the extra facilities that are both necessary and desirable for the constant stream of visitors to our cathedrals, bearing in mind the balance to which I referred earlier.

We recognise that any increased expenditure on our priceless cathedrals must go hand in hand with priority treatment for the recruitment and training of skilled craftsmen and craftswomen. We cannot begin to deal with the fabric of our cathedral buildings without taking account of the need to ensure that we have properly trained and qualified people to do the job.

Historic buildings, ancient monuments and our national heritage have all suffered from public spending cuts. We recognise--as did the Select Committee on the Environment in its final report of February 1987--the need to improve the protection given to monuments, buildings and sites of archaeological importance, which, of course, includes cathedrals. Meanwhile, this Measure, although small in relation to that need, will play a large part in safeguarding the cathedrals that are so vital to our national heritage. It has our full support, if not--dare I say it?--our blessing.

1.40 am

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the clear and detailed way in which he set out the Measure. It is extraordinarily nice to debate a Church of England Measure with which I can wholeheartedly agree : I seem to

Column 826

have been short of those of late, and it is a great pleasure to speak on one that I have pressed for--albeit only in spirit ; the Synod pressed for it in actuality.

It does not seem nearly two years since I stood here in high dudgeon, demanding that the Measure be presented to prevent the unfortunate experience suffered by Hereford a while ago. The nub of the matter for me, and, I think for Hereford--apart from the broad aspects mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley)--is the question of the disposal of articles of value and historical interest. I am delighted that that has been brought into line with the provisions for parish churches, which have existed for some time.

The House will be aware of the trauma involving Mappa Mundi which was sprung on this place in November 1988, on the verge of the 700th anniversary of the drawing up of Mappa Mundi by a canon--admittedly from Lincoln. The artefact itself had hung, modestly undisturbed, in Hereford cathedral for 700 years less a month ; it was unfortunate that it should find itself in the limelight as a result of the decision by the dean and chapter to use it to restore the cathedral's financial fortunes.

All hon. Members were seized with a sense of outrage that such an artefact should be hawked around to potential buyers--and, indeed, should evaporate, in conditions of great secrecy, in the direction of a London firm of auctioneers. Altogether it was an unfortunate experience, and it is pleasing to know that it will probably not recur. I have great sympathy for the cause of the dean and chapter who sought to address through this valuable artefact the question of repair and maintenance and the funding of future maintenance and other matters pertaining to the cathedral.

Hereford cathedral has tremendous problems. It is not lavishly endowed with past generosity, but lives from hand to mouth. It was understandable that the dean and chapter should have decided in extremis that the prize was worth the outrage. I am glad that outrage won and that the prize was put back on the shelf. The outcome was intriguing. I subscribe to the cock-up theory rather than to the conspiracy theory about the way in which activity was started. I think that it was felt that the row would last a few days and when the dust settled the artefact would be sold and a nice £4 million or £5 million would be gained which would be sufficient to deal with most of the problems and endow a fund for appropriate maintenance. As so often happens in cock-ups, things went wildly wrong. On the conspiracy side, there is no way in the world that we could have promoted the Mappa Mundi to the rank of a world renowned artefact, which it now is, if we had not gone through the curious exercise which took so long and which cost so much. The naughty side of me asks whether there was an intrigue which promoted the artefact. I have discarded that theory, but it is a nice little thought. However, it is now well known throughout the world that Hereford cathedral has the earliest known full map of the world.

I am delighted to have the Mappa Mundi back in Hereford. It is on display now and I invite hon. Members to come and see it and get to know it. I have been enjoying it for 40 years and I thoroughly enjoy taking guests to see it, especially those from America because the Mappa Mundi has a space where America might be--because it had not been discovered when the map was drawn. That keeps everything in perspective.

Next Section

Home Page