| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
Disestablishment
34. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will estimate the costs of disestablishing the Church of England.[11149]
Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Disestablishment would not lie with the Church Commissioners to initiate and, without formal instructions and definitions, cost estimates are impracticable.
Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, does he agree that whatever the costs, they would be well worth paying to enable the Church of England to renew itself? For example, the diocese of Lincoln, which covers my constituency, has become a laughing stock because the bishop, for whom I have the greatest regard, is unable to preach his Christmas sermon in his own cathedral. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as many vicars--two thirds, so it is said--are unable to remember even two or three of the Ten Commandments, there is a case for allowing the Church of England to go its own way, to renew itself and to take part in political debate without politicians criticising it when it does so?
Mr. Alison: I share my hon. Friend's dismay at the damage that the Lincoln cathedral dispute has done. I am grateful for the concern that he has expressed, the interest that he has taken and the support that he has given to the Bishop of Lincoln. Disestablishing the Church of England, however, could prove detrimental to Church and to state. It would be paradoxical thus to extend even further the detriment that has already arisen from the Lincoln dispute.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no disestablishment Bill has gone through the House without disendowment? The effect of disestablishment would be that, the day after, the same old crew would be running the same old show with a lot less money.
Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm the point that the hon. Gentleman has shrewdly and pertinently made. Queen Anne's bounty, which has a remote but important historic pedigree and origin, is at stake in the matter of disestablishment and, if disendowment occurred, there would not be sufficient resources to pay clergy stipends at their present level.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join in the support for the Bishop of Lincoln who has had a hard time and who deserves fully to be supported. It would, however, be helpful if the Church Commissioners assessed the benefits of disestablishment. It has been no disbenefit in Ireland and no disbenefit in Wales. The better and more democratic position in Scotland has been no disbenefit either. The benefits would be to the Church which, it seems to me from all the Gospel teachings, should not be part of the establishment but challenging it.
27 Jan 1997 : Column 19
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)--that disestablishment would inescapably be associated with the controversial issue of disendowment. Although that might be a great benefit to the non-conformist Churches, which might claim some of the assets of the Church of England, and to the Roman Catholic Church, it would bring considerable financial detriment to the clergy in the Church of England.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will not my right hon. Friend give a more robust defence of establishment? Does he agree that one inestimable benefit of establishment is that every man, woman and child in the country has, as of right, the services of the established Church unless he or she is a member of some other religion or sect?
Mr. Alison: I am happy to support my hon. Friend and I hope that my references to the hon. Member for Birkenhead showed that I am intrinsically robust in my approach. In the light of the importance and significance of Church Commissioners' questions every month, I hesitated so as not to exalt too highly the benefits that might accrue to Parliament from having questions answered regularly by a Conservative Back Bencher.
Church Funds
35. Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to improve the transparency of Church funds.[11150]
Mr. Alison: The statement of recommended practice "Accounting by Charities", issued by the Charity
27 Jan 1997 : Column 20
Commission, and part VI of the Charities Act 1993 and the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 1995, provide the framework for charity accounting with which dioceses and parishes of the Church of England must comply. The Church Commissioners are exempt from the regulations but complied in full with the statement of recommended practice in their 1995 accounts.
Mr. Flynn: When will the Church publish the report that might partly explain the calamity whereby the Church Commissioners lost a third of their total assets in the great property boom and how they lost £80 million in an absurd venture in Kent? It seems that we are not to know the details. When will the right hon. Gentleman answer the campaigns by CELFRA--Church of England's lost funds recovery action--and Mr. Ancrum Evans who claim that the Church Commissioners should sue Coopers and Lybrand and Chestertons and anyone else who advised them during the loss of that £80 million? The Commissioners are still refusing to publish the full report. When will we be told the truth?
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that all the details of the losses, which occurred some years ago, were published in the properly scrutinised and audited annual reports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who although he comes from Wales is not inimical to the Church of England, will be glad to know that the largely paper losses that arose from the drop in valuation of the Church of England's assets have now been almost fully recovered. On the question of the property in Ashford in Kent, if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question, I will happily give him at least a written answer. Consideration and investigation of the background to that debacle--I agree that it was no less than that--are continuing and results will be published in due course.
27 Jan 1997 : Column 19
27 Jan 1997 : Column 21
Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, last week, Mr. Justice Kay discontinued the trial of people accused of escaping from Whitemoor prison. One of the reasons that he gave for doing so was the deteriorating health of the accused as a result of the conditions in which they were kept in the prison. Has the Home Secretary given any indication that later today he will seek your leave to interrupt business, to make a statement about the debacle of that trial?
Madam Speaker: I have not heard from any Minister, and certainly not from the Home Secretary, that he is seeking to make a statement later today, although, of course, the House will be sitting and any Minister is able to make a statement later in the day, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may surprise you to know that in the past, two members of the royal family have communicated their approval to me of campaigns that I have run, but--following "Erskine May"--I have never mentioned that fact in the House. I should like us to consider what is stated on page 376 of "Erskine May":
- "The irregular use of the Queen's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament."
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; I would refer any Member who is interested to page 376 of "Erskine May", where it reminds us that it is disorderly to
- "use the Queen's name to influence a decision"--
-
or the judgment of this House. In this instance, I heard the remark that was made, but did not hear anything irregular in any of the exchanges this afternoon--just as I did not during the statement last week, although many remarks got close to being objectionable. I should, however, take this opportunity--I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter--to remind all Members, whether they are Ministers of the Crown, Front Benchers or Back Benchers, that the Queen's name should not be used in this House during such exchanges.
Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that, once I have given a ruling, I do not accept further points of order on the subject. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. If he can make a different point, I will of course hear it.
Mr. Williams: It is an extension of the point.
Madam Speaker: Now who is rewriting the constitution?
Mr. Williams: I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you will see my point to be an extension. I accept entirely your ruling that one must not use Her Majesty's name in such matters. Is not it also part of the rule that one should not embroil the Crown in party political disputes in the House--which is a wider point? Was not what happened on Wednesday a calculated and deliberate attempt to do just that on the eve of an election? Is not the matter even more serious, given that the statement last week could not have been made without the Prime Minister's consent? If what I have put forward is a rule of the House, should not the Prime Minister therefore come to the House to explain his conspiracy in breaching that rule?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |