Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am glad that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) used this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Cardinal Hume. I met him when he was given the freedom of the city of Newcastle way back in 1981, and we stayed friends from that time forth. The last time he was in the House I reminded him of that event and he said that it was one of the happiest moments of his life. In his simplicity lay his greatness: he who was given such honour in his lifetime felt that the greatest honour of all was to be given the freedom of the city where he was born. I associate myself with the thoughts expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
The late cardinal was a great supporter of Newcastle United. Listening to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who wanted to be on the Ecclesiastical Committee, to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who never had such an ambition, and then to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is on it, I thought that it might be time for some free transfers.
As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I appreciate the contribution that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal makes to our debates and proceedings, as I appreciate those of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is still here even though he has outside engagements.
These debates may be sparsely attended, but we have some of the finest debaters in the Chamber here tonight and they have made scintillating contributions. The hon.
Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) told us that he was brought up almost in the precincts of the cathedral--I know that his father was a bishop--and one gets a wonderful sense of richness and depth from these debates, in which it is a great pleasure for me to participate.
Reference has been made to Westminster abbey and to St. George's chapel, Windsor. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned the memorable royal wedding there. I was told that it was the last royal wedding of the century, which is not surprising, but those wonderful television commentators have to tell us something. As the House knows, neither of those is a cathedral: they are Royal Peculiars, as are the chapels royal. The Howe commission's remit did not extend to them and the Measure does not apply to them.
The House is aware of an announcement made on 18 May that, at the request of the Dean of Westminster, the Dean of Windsor and the Bishop of London, as dean of the chapels royal, Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to appoint a new commission to review the organisation, management and accountability of those institutions. It will report to Her Majesty through the Lord Chancellor. The review will not affect the institutions' status as Royal Peculiars, but the three deans' request arose out of their concern that the relevance to the Peculiars of the principles on which the Howe commission based its findings should be properly considered.
The new commission will be chaired by Professor Averil Cameron, warden of Keble college, Oxford. The other members will be the Dean of York, the very Rev. Raymond Furnell, who, until recently, was chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, and was a member of the steering committee for the Measure; and Sir Brian Jenkins, chairman of Woolwich plc and a former Lord Mayor of London. It will combine the various types of expertise needed to tackle this important subject successfully, and the three deans have publicly committed themselves to doing all that they can to assist it. It will be for the new commission to consider how the spirit of the Howe recommendations can best be applied to those unique institutions.
Quite apart from the fact that the Measure does not cover Westminster abbey, which is the subject of a separate review along with the other major Royal Peculiars, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the case of particular loans to particular individuals, but the general subject of the finances of cathedrals received close scrutiny from the Howe commission and is dealt with by the Measure.
I have already referred to the finance committee of the chapter, which will advise the chapter on financial and investment management, and will include members who have expertise and experience in these fields.
The chapter must prepare an annual budget for the cathedral, which must be considered by the council. The chapter must produce an annual report and accounts in accordance with the best professional standards and practice, as specified by the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners have prescribed detailed guidelines for the accounts, and they have the power to inquire into any shortcomings. The accounts must be audited, and they and the annual report will be considered by the council and the College of Canons. That will help
to ensure that every cathedral's financial affairs are dealt with properly, effectively and openly on the basis of professional advice, and are regularly subject to proper scrutiny.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal referred to Christ Church, Oxford, which is a cathedral of the diocese of Oxford and thus fell within the Howe commission's remit. The Howe commission visited it and examined its affairs in detail. However, it is also part of an Oxford college, and is governed by the statutes of that college. It has always been recognised as a unique case which cannot be governed by the same legislation as the other cathedrals. Equally, it was recognised that the principles underlying the Howe commission's recommendations could not be applied in the same way as to other cathedrals.
The dean and canons of Christ Church have been anxious to ensure that the cathedral complies with these principles. I have placed in the Library a note explaining that the cathedral is within the spirit of the Measure in matters such as accountability and communication, lay participation, proper financial management, careful scrutiny of budgets and accounts, and strong links with the diocese.
My final and parting words are to say how much I have welcomed the co-operation of those on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the kind thoughts and sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire--I shall run out of names shortly. They have all contributed sensibly to an important Measure, which has taken five years to get to the House. I am happy to commend the Measure to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Before I put the Question, may I say on a personal note that I welcome the comments made about Cardinal Hume. I mourn his passing: he was a good friend to many of us in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners):
I beg to move,
The House may be pleased to note that this is a fairly brief Measure, and does not compel anyone to take action under it unless they wish to do so. However, it forms a significant part of the Church of England's legislative process for safeguarding the Church's places of worship, which are an important aspect of this nation's heritage. The Church has been carrying out that process in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage, and this Measure will help to fill a gap in the arrangements for ensuring that all those buildings are well cared for.
I should stress, as the Ecclesiastical Committee did, that this Measure relates only to places of worship linked to the Church of England. Thus, it does not apply to places of worship that belong exclusively to other Christian Churches or to the buildings of non-Christian faiths. Its origins lie in the so-called ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls for ecclesiastical buildings, which are for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes and in the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, which cut down the scope of the exemption.
In the case of the Church of England, the main provisions of the 1994 order restricted the exemption to buildings that are within the Church's legal controls: that is, those relating to cathedrals or the Church's faculty system, which covers parish churches and some other places of worship. They are stringent legal systems of control, although they take account of the need to use the building concerned effectively for the Church's worship and mission.
However, the 1994 order also contained other exemptions for a number of buildings that were not within any effective form of control under either secular legislation or the Church's own systems. They included the Ecclesiastical Peculiars, so called because they lie outside the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese--some chapels of religious communities of monks and nuns; chapels of schools, colleges and various other institutions; and some shared church buildings that are used jointly by the Church of England and other Christian Churches.
The Church and the Government agreed that this situation was not satisfactory. It was always known that the special exemption in the 1994 order would be withdrawn sooner rather than later. The Church of
England agreed with the Government that it would bring legislation to the General Synod to allow the places of worship in the categories that I have mentioned to opt into the Church's system of control under the faculty jurisdiction if they wished. If they did not, and if the buildings in question were listed buildings or in conservation areas, they would normally come within the secular listed building and conservation area controls once the special exemption in the 1994 order was revoked. The main object of the Measure is to fulfil that agreement. Briefly, it provides that the proper authority or authorities for a place of worship that falls within the categories in section 1(2) can have it entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body on, among other matters, the use, care and conservation of places of worship. They can also apply to have the buildings removed from the list if they wish.
While a place of worship is on the list, it will be within the faculty jurisdiction and, in most cases, within the provision for five-yearly inspection by a qualified architect or surveyor in the Inspection of Church Buildings Measure 1955. The list will be open for public inspection and copies will be made available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; English Heritage; the national amenity bodies; and the local planning authorities concerned.
The position of places of worship that fall within section 1(2) will be clear. They will be within the faculty jurisdiction or they will be subject to the normal listed building or conservation area controls or an alternative agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As a result, the so-called gap in control, which has existed for many years in the legal arrangements for safeguarding such places of worship, will be filled.
Faculty jurisdiction will not be a soft option. The faculty system exercises careful control over changes to the buildings that it covers and it has been strengthened in recent years in close consultation with the Department and English Heritage. Aspects of it are being looked at again in the light of the recent report on ecclesiastical exemption produced for the Department.
That the 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.
23 Jun 1999 : Column 1250
8.33 pm
That the Care of Places of Worship 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.
In section 1(2) of the Measure it should say
"Subject to subsection (5) below"
and not subsection (4), as incorrectly printed. That saves me from coming back to the House, as the Home Secretary did earlier today.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |