Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-95)
29 JANUARY 2004
MR DAVID
WATTS, MR
NICK WHEELER
AND THE
REV JOHN
LEE
Q80 Ross Cranston: You have spoken
about the administrative difficulties if we had what I describe
as parish choice of patron, but what about the ability of the
parishes themselves to do that, to effect that choice? Is that
a consideration as well? In other words, how difficult would it
be for them to actually make the decision? Is that a consideration?
You are looking at if from the point of view of the Civil Service
concerns, you have to consult widely and all the rest of it, but
what about their ability to actually make a choice?
Mr Watts: If I understand where
you are going, I think there may well be a case in making sure
that each of the parishes and those involved in the decision have
a certain body of information on which they would need to make
a sensibly informed choice as to what the consequences of the
different choices might be and the kind of considerations which
would apply. I think, if I have understood your proposal correctly,
they would be making a once and for all decision and the parish,
once it had adopted for a new patron as it were, that new patron
would then continue with that parish thereafter.
Q81 Ross Cranston: In other words,
there are costs on them in terms of making this decision. They
would have to be fully informed, they would have to have the information,
and they would have to have the options laid out for them to make
the choice. They would have to have the capacity to do that.
Mr Watts: It would be very complex
and very time consuming I think as well.
Q82 Chairman: It would not be so
complex if it were a matter of staying with the Crown or going
to the Church. The parish would be saying "I want to go this
way or go that way" rather than choosing from a great rank
of patrons.
Mr Watts: Yes.
Q83 Chairman: I do not think I have
quite got clear whether any legislation or statutory instrument
would be required to give effect to any of these options.
Mr Watts: We have a range of legal
views.
Q84 Chairman: You disagree internally
about whether legislation is required.
Mr Watts: There are a range of
options which ministers would need to take a view on, I am afraid.
Q85 Chairman: So it is quite likely—or
at least possible—that legislation specific to this would
be required or a statutory instrument to give effect to the options.
Mr Watts: That is certainly one
possibility.
Q86 Chairman: I find it very odd
that the Department does not know whether it will need to do that.
This is not a question about the decisions; it is about what the
law is.
Mr Watts: I am afraid these are
issues which ministers need to take a view on.
Chairman: I am not sure that I would
ask the minister to tell me what the law was.
Ross Cranston: The law is a very complex
matter, Chairman.
Q87 Peter Bottomley: I think the
situation is that very few of the livings where the Lord Chancellor
can propose a candidate are established by statute. Some of the
Lord Chancellor's non-judicial responsibilities are established
by statute, but those are probably not linked to the ordinary
livings. Beyond that I suspect it gets complicated.
Mr Watts: What I can say is that
there are some statutory references to the Lord Chancellor's role
in respect on patronage, not in respect of any particular living
but in respect of patronage at large. Those would certainly require
amendment in a bill of some kind.
Q88 Peter Bottomley: It is also right
to say that advowsons can be gifted and I think can be transferred
without anybody else really getting involved.
Mr Watts: That is correct.
Q89 Peter Bottomley: It does not
require a bishop's approval so it is conceivable that the Lord
Chancellor would just give them back to the Crown or could give
them to wherever he liked.
Mr Watts: That might be one approach.
Q90 Peter Bottomley: Am I right in
saying that at the end of the Department of Constitutional Affairs'
useful summary of responses to consultation, a number of people
regretted that the paper did not consult on the principle of abolishing
the Lord Chancellor.
Mr Watts: Yes.
Q91 Peter Bottomley: On the Lord
Chancellor's non-judicial responsibilities in relation to specific
schools, charities and other bodies, am I right in saying that
most of those discussions on how to transfer the role are going
ahead without a great deal of upset? It is likely that there will
be successful agreements on what should happen next.
Mr Watts: That is certainly what
we plan and what we expect from bi-lateral contact with the relevant
organisations.
Q92 Peter Bottomley: Can I then move
to the Royal Peculiars which are St George's Windsor, Westminster
Abbey and the Chapels Royal (Chapels Royal are made up of four
small chapels attached to the palaces and the Temple Chapel)?
The proposal to abolish the Lord Chancellor overlaps with the
proposals put forward a month or so ago on some of the visitorship
to the Royal Peculiars. Is there agreement from each Royal Peculiar
on what should happen next, or there is still a state of on-going
discussions?
Mr Watts: This is not strictly
my area but I understand the position to be that ministers have
formed a view which takes account of the views expressed by each
of the Royal Peculiars.
Chairman: Very nicely put.
Q93 Peter Bottomley: Moving away
from Royal Peculiars, we had a useful submission from Augur Pearce
who is a lecturer at Cardiff University in Ecclesiastical and
Public Law. He usefully refers to patronage as securing a desirable
dispersion of authority within the national church. Putting the
question generally to those in front of us, would I be right in
saying that a transfer from the Lord Chancellor to the Crown does
not actually affect that dispersion? In all practical senses the
same amount of dispersion would apply.
Mr Watts: I am sorry; I have not
really got the gist of that.
Q94 Peter Bottomley: Is there any
change in the degree of dispersion of authority if the Lord Chancellor's
nominations switch to being Crown nominations? Do you do your
job differently for the Lord Chancellor than for the Crown?
Mr Wheeler: The answer is no.
Q95 Peter Bottomley: Can I suggest,
Chairman—because I am not sure whether we are going to produce
a report or let this session stand by itself—that if the
Lord Chancellor comes to a view on how to deal with the livings
under his nomination, it would be sensible to actually put forward
his proposal rather than saying that this is a decision. It seems
to me that if, for example, the Lord Chancellor is minded—or
the Government is minded—to say that the Lord Chancellor's
responsibilities should transfer to the Crown but that they are
willing to hear exceptionally if a parish wants to suggest alternative
arrangements there is a way of doing that; and that if, over the
Royal Peculiars they propose changes, again to put forward what
they have in mind to do to allow people to respond rather than
just making a great battle in Parliament. Although the Church
of England supporters in Parliament take their job seriously,
it is often better to search for agreement so that the disagreements
do not become part of a Parliamentary battle, even though non
party.
Mr Watts: I do not think I can
give a commitment on behalf of ministers to do that, but I can
certainly take that suggestion back and report it to them.
Chairman: Thank you very much. We are
most grateful for your help.
| 
