 House of Commons |
Session 2004 - 05 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates |
Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Column Number: 1 Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated LegislationThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: Mrs. Irene Adams Atkinson, Mr. Peter (Hexham) (Con)†Bell, Sir Stuart (Second Church Estates Commissioner) †Bottomley, Peter (Worthing, West) (Con) †Clwyd, Ann (Cynon Valley) (Lab) Cormack, Sir Patrick (South Staffordshire) (Con) †Cryer, Mrs. Ann (Keighley) (Lab) †Dobbin, Jim (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op) Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) (Lab) Hughes, Simon (Southwark, North and Bermondsey) (LD) Jones, Mr. Jon Owen (Cardiff, Central) (Lab/Co-op) Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert (Medway) (Lab) †Morgan, Julie (Cardiff, North) (Lab) Page, Mr. Richard (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con) †Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham, East) (Lab) †Sheridan, Jim (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) †Webb, Mr. Steve (Northavon) (LD) Libby Preston, Geoffrey Farrar, Committee Clerks † attended the Committee Column Number: 3 Tuesday 15 March 2005[Mrs. Irene Adams in the Chair]Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure9.55 amSecond Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): I beg to move,
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure and the Stipends (Cessation of Special Payments) Measure. Sir Stuart Bell: This is the first time in the lifetime of this Parliament that I have had the pleasure and honour of serving on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mrs. Adams. You will remember that in days gone by we in the Labour party did not use the term “Madam Chairman”—we used “Madam Sister Chair” instead. Sadly, if the Prime Minister takes the traditional car ride up the Mall to see Her Majesty in April, this will probably be the last time I serve on a Committee that you chair, as I believe you are going to take a well-deserved retirement. Today is also a first for Church legislation. Every Church Measure since 1919 has been dealt with on the Floor of the House of Commons. This is the first time that it has been treated as delegated legislation, taking us away from the Chamber and into Committee. I imagine that our debates will be better attended and perhaps more worthwhile as a result. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has bronchitis and is unable to attend the Committee. He will be missed because one of the Measures before the Committee was debated by the Ecclesiastical Committee in 1976 and his longevity as Member of Parliament is such that it would have been nice to have him with us today. I surmise, and I am sure that he would agree, that were he with us today we would most assuredly fill the hour and a half that is available to us. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): In an interesting way. Sir Stuart Bell: The experience would have been interesting and constructive for us all. The three Measures cover a wide range of issues relating to the Church of England but share certain common characteristics. They have enjoyed overwhelming support in the General Synod and been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. In their different ways, the Measures will help the Church of England to adapt aspects of its life and work to meet
As its name suggests, the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure makes a number of detailed amendments to the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. The 1990 Measure set up a system of Church controls to safeguard our cathedrals and their treasure. The universal view appears to be that the system is working well—certainly, that was the conclusion reached in a review commissioned in 1997 by what is now the Department for Culture Media and Sport. However, the Church had agreed to carry out its own review of the new controls once they had been in force for a few years. A review group accordingly carried out very wide-ranging consultations, which embraced the cathedrals and those who hold office in them, Church bodies, professional organisations and heritage bodies, such as English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings; submissions from the general public were also invited. As a result of the responses, the group made a number of recommendations for minor changes to the legislation, which form the basis of the present Measure. Again the Church consulted widely before bringing the proposals to the Synod. One of the changes embodied in the Measure extends to any significant works that could affect their essential character the controls on cathedral treasures that already apply to disposals. Another relates to the definition of the precinct of the cathedral, which is a key concept in the 1990 Measure. It is important that the complex of land and buildings of which the cathedral forms a part be considered as a whole. The amending Measure therefore expands the 1990 provisions on how the boundaries of the precinct are to be fixed and allows the boundaries to be changed if, for example, the cathedral acquires additional land. The changes are uncontroversial and passed the Synod without a single contrary vote; in that sense, the Measure is a modest one. Nevertheless, it will make a genuine contribution to ensuring that the arrangements for the care of our cathedrals work even better. I therefore commend the Measure to the Committee. You, Mrs. Adams, and other members of the Committee may have fathomed by now that the law of the Church of England is complex and substantial; from time to time, like our secular law, it needs to be corrected or updated to reflect changed circumstances. To that end, and from time to time, the General Synod enacts miscellaneous provisions Measures to amend Church legislation in ways that would not ordinarily merit freestanding legislation. The Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure is the latest in that series of Measures. It deals with a diverse range of matters united by little other than the fact that the changes made are uncontentious within the Church. There are certain common themes in the Measure’s contents, reflecting the desire to improve processes, to give greater flexibility and to clarify or harmonise problematic provisions. Column Number: 5 Several of the provisions will help the Church at national level, especially in relation to the work of the Church Commissioners. For example, at the request of the Privy Council, the Measure will relieve the commissioners of their present responsibility for confirming pastoral schemes made under the Pastoral Measure to reorganise parishes. That change, which will not prejudice existing rights of appeal, has the support of the commissioners and the dioceses and is expected to speed up the processing of pastoral and redundancy schemes. At the more local level, dioceses will be helped by the creation of a new statutory office of diocesan secretary, whose functions will be to act as the chief administrative officer of the diocese, undertaking such administrative functions as may be specified in future legislation or by the diocesan synod. At parish level, section 4, together with the changes made to the Church representation rules by other legislation, will complete the necessary process of bringing the accounting regime for parochial church councils into line with that applicable under the Charities Act 1993 to charities generally. The third Measure, which deals with stipends, is a modest Measure, but significant because its object is to target more of the very limited funding available from central Church bodies where the need for it is greatest. As such, it is a practical application of an ongoing and developing policy of mutual support between the dioceses. The main group of payments covered by the measure are known as guaranteed annuities, whose origins lie in the fact that, in the past, many individual benefices had their own endowments, such as glebe land, that produced an income for the rector or vicar. Those endowments were pooled by the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976—for example, glebe land was transferred into diocesan ownership—but if a benefice had endowment income before the 1976 Measure was passed, the Church Commissioners continued to make an annual payment to the rector or vicar up to the level of that income, or £1,000 if less. That payment is not an addition to the rector’s or vicar’s stipend. It forms part of it in the sense that it is paid to the rector or vicar, then deducted from the stipend that he or she would otherwise have been paid from diocesan funds. In any case, the payments have not been inflation-proofed and, as Committee members can imagine, their value in real terms has fallen dramatically since 1976. The result of the arrangements is that the payments benefit the dioceses by providing a subsidy for a diocese’s total stipend costs rather than provide any specific benefit for individual members of the clergy. Moreover, they benefit the dioceses that had the best-endowed parishes in the past, not the ones in greatest financial need today. Given that situation, the Measure brings the payments to an end, subject to an option for any rector or vicar who is currently receiving them to continue doing so while he or she holds the post in question. Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): If the payment is just money that comes directly to the vicar from the Church Commissioners, and the diocese offsets the
Sir Stuart Bell: The only reason to make the provision is as a courtesy to the vicar or rector to allow him, if he so wishes, to maintain the stipend. As I have said, it does not affect his income. As the Committee will realise, it is difficult to administer, but it is a choice that we give them in our free and democratic society. Peter Bottomley: The answer may be found on page 20 of the 219th report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, towards the end of the major paragraph in the middle. It relates that in July 1972 John Smallwood reminded Synod of the contents of the 1967 report by the Deployment and Payment Commission “Partners in Ministry”, CA1640. To paraphrase, tradition and nostalgia are the reasons why the arrangement continues. Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I will reveal one of his secrets. He is a fully paid up trade union member, which is why we Labour Members have always welcomed him to our ranks in the House of Commons. He is also an esteemed and distinguished member of the Ecclesiastical Committee; he has provided great assistance in that role and I hope that he will continue to do so. His situation differs from yours, Mrs. Adams, in that he is standing again. I have no idea what his majority is and it is not for me to speculate, but in the event that he is returned to Parliament, I look forward to his serving again on the Ecclesiastical Committee. As I was saying to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the rector or vicar has an option of continuing to receive the guaranteed annuity until he or she relinquishes the post. The money released by the Measure will be used to help dioceses that are particularly in need of financial support to pay their stipend bills. As I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, a further advantage will be some simplifying and streamlining of the payment of stipends. It follows that, as the Ecclesiastical Committee report points out, members of the clergy who currently receive the payment will not be disadvantaged. With regard to the endowment of individual benefits, the report also points out that the Measure will do no more than sever a last, “vestigial link” with the past. That is why that Committee and the Synod deemed the Measure expedient. 10.11 amMr. Webb: The care of cathedrals Measure and the miscellaneous provisions Measure attracted only one dissenting vote between them in all three Houses of Synod, and the Ecclesiastical Committee, of which I am a member, regarded both as expedient. Although I was not present at the discussions, nothing that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) has said makes me less happy to agree to the Measures. I have a couple of questions about the cessation of special payments Measure. I get the impression that there is a human rights angle to the rector being
I hope that I will not discourage the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) when I say that, in principle, this sounds like a slightly socialist Measure. It takes money away from dioceses to which people have left large endowments and hands it back to the Church as a whole to distribute where it is most needed. It is almost Marxist. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman turns to page 30 of the Ecclesiastical Committee report on the stipend Measure, he will see that two of the authorities cited in appendix B precede Marx. One of them is Philippians, chapter 4, verse 10 and following verses, and the other is Acts, chapter 11, verses 27 to 30. Mr. Webb: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I stand corrected. I have a couple of questions about the circumstances in which money is given and the donor’s expectations. By making these changes, are we breaking a promise that we made to somebody who gave money for a particular purpose some years ago? Secondly, will the Measure have any impact on people who might want to give gifts in future? Someone might have bequeathed land that generates an ongoing income—an annuity—which they might have intended to benefit a particular parish. When they gave the money, they thought that that parish would benefit from it—perhaps they had lived there, or benefited from the ministry of that parish. However, the parish no longer benefits from the income, because it merely offsets diocese benefits. Now, the diocese does not have to pay the money, but the Church Commissioners do. That is an odd set-up. Presumably, most of such money was given to relatively prosperous parishes, so the dioceses containing those parishes can save money and the wider Church shoulders the cost instead. That is an odd knock-on effect of giving money, and I can see why we would want to tidy it up. However, the Measure might create a danger. Let us suppose that I want to make a donation to benefit my local parish. At some future point, a Committee such as ours might say to the vicar or rector of the parish, “Well, you live in a fairly well-heeled area and your parish gets lots of money because lots of well-off people live there and give a lot to it,” and it might go on to say that it will do something equivalent to what the Measure does, such as change the quota structure, or tax the money, or offset it in some way. We do not want to discourage people from giving who might not give anything if they cannot give to an identified place or person. Is the hon. Member for Middlesbrough confident that there is nothing in the Measure that might dissuade future donors and make them fear that any condition or stipulation regarding the
That is my only reservation. That the wider Church should no longer subsidise areas that have been fortunate enough to have bequests and annuities seems right on biblical principles, as the hon. Member for Worthing, West said. However, there is a separate biblical principle about keeping promises, and I want to be confident that that principle is also to be honoured. 10.16 amPeter Bottomley: This is a significant debate, which might have been more significant had my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire been present, given that he contributed to the consideration by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I was a Member of Parliament in 1976 but I do not think I spoke on the predecessor Measure; I was certainly not in the House when the 1967 and 1972 Measures were being considered. I pay tribute to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who is left out of the middle measure, although there is provision for the First and the Third Church Estates Commissioners. It reminds me of a rowing club in Cambridge, where dinners were given by those who got thirds to their friends who got firsts. The provision is designed to tidy up the potentially unfortunate circumstances in which a First or a Third Church Estates Commissioner ceases to hold the job through retirement or death; until now, they have been denied any pension provision. The proposal rectifies an anomaly, and we welcome it. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who speaks for the Church Commissioners in the House, will not benefit from it and I extend my condolences to him. We must bear in mind the history of the Church stipends provision. We are discussing a Measure that affects 2.5 to 3 per cent. of Church stipends in general. Previously, had I been the incumbent of St. Luke’s church in Chelsea, the only job to which I could have moved that would have given me an increase in pay—not that I would have moved for that reason—would have been Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop of York or Bishop of London. That changed when the predecessor Measure—the halfway Measure—was introduced. Under that Measure, the maximum payment allowed was £1,000, so if the endowed income of the incumbent was £5,000, £4,000 was taken and up to £1,000 would be left. That arrangement was made to acknowledge the link with the donors’ intentions. In addition, glebe land was often physically associated with the church, and that had to be respected. Now, however, we are left with an incredible amount of administration for no purpose. The Measure is therefore right. I suspect that the small number of mainly lay members of the Synod who voted against it did so on the grounds of nostalgia and tradition rather than because there were significant arguments against it. I understand that the debate was brief. Column Number: 9 In passing, Mrs. Adams, may I say that it would be marvellous if Committee Chairmen were installed as lay canons, which would be an easy way of getting around the problem of whether to refer to them as Chairman or Chairwoman? On the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure, I am delighted that paragraph 48 on page 17 of the 220th report of the Ecclesiastical Committee states that
That might have interfered with the status of Westminster abbey and St. George’s chapel, Windsor as Royal Peculiars. It is important that the two churches are able to maintain that status. I do not think that there is a significant problem with their doing so. We have seen many advantages in the past and can see potential advantages in future in letting them continue as they are, without coming under the umbrella of a bishop. Having said that, I welcome the consideration that the Committee is giving to the Measures, and I believe that we are right to approve them. 10.20 amSir Stuart Bell: I shall respond first to the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon, who mentioned Karl Marx. If Marx were here today, he would be a derivatives dealer—I am sure that he would have found a way of progressing the socialist cause through the dealing rooms of the City of London. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Measure effects a redistribution, which is to the benefit of the Church. As a result of the Measure, nine dioceses will receive more than £1 million. The recipients of the largest amounts will be Durham, Chelmsford and Lichfield. Those figures relate to money coming from the Church Commissioners. If the Measure becomes law, Chelmsford, Lichfield and York each stand to gain more than £100,000. The richer dioceses will certainly lose some money, but redistribution is what the Church is about and we are glad that that is so. I anticipated the historical question, which is why I used the word “vestigial” in my opening remarks. In my poetic moments, I call to mind the phrase
How many years have slipped by since 1976, when these issues were fully debated and discussed with the Ecclesiastical Committee? The original endowments were taken out of the ownership of individual benefices and pooled by the 1976 Measure. As the Ecclesiastical Committee notes in its report—the hon. Member for Worthing, West touched on this—the Measure will now break what is no more than a last
that originally had the benefit of them. However, the Synod accepted that to keep faith with those who made the endowment and the general intentions of the original donors, and to reserve the funds for the purposes for which they are at present devoted, it would be right to ring-fence the money for stipendiary purposes. That is what is being done. Column Number: 10 The hon. Member for Northavon made a point about the future that was raised in the Ecclesiastical Committee by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The hon. Gentleman declared his interests to the Ecclesiastical Committee in that he was a cathedral chorister and his sister is a parish priest; he therefore knows all about the Church of England and is a lot closer to events than many of us. He asked whether those who wish to make an endowment or who wish to donate to the Church would be affected by the Measure. Miss Ingrid Slaughter, who is here today and who has rendered many years of service to the Church, for which we are all grateful, made the position clear when she replied:
The hon. Member for Worthing, West was right to say that the £3.6 million a year to which the special discretionary measures relate represents 3.2 per cent. of all the stipends paid by the Church. The actual total is £4.6 million, but £1 million of that is paid by the Church Commissioners as a discretionary grant. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Measure received almost unanimous support in the Synod; in fact, it received 92 per cent. support, which is a majority by any standards. If I may say so, I look upon the Synod as being like the old Labour party conferences: you will remember, Mrs. Adams, different sections voting on different issues and reaching different conclusions. However, the Synod came to a clear conclusion on this matter. The hon. Gentleman talked about the Royal Peculiars not being affected by the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure. That was a simple statement, but the underlying debate between the Church and the state went on for many years. The conclusion eventually reached was welcomed by the Church. It was a proper conclusion, although we did get some employment rights into the Royal Peculiars as a consequence of the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their comments and am, of course, available should there be any further questions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Resolved,
Measure Resolved,
Committee rose at twenty-six minutes past Ten o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 16 March 2005 |
