The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:†
Bell,
Sir Stuart (Second Church Estates
Commissioner)†
Blackman,
Liz (Erewash)
(Lab) Boswell,
Mr. Tim (Daventry)
(Con) †
Chapman,
Ben (Wirral, South)
(Lab) †
Cormack,
Sir Patrick (South Staffordshire)
(Con) †
Drew,
Mr. David (Stroud)
(Lab/Co-op) †
Duddridge,
James (Rochford and Southend, East)
(Con) †
Eagle,
Angela (Wallasey)
(Lab) †
Flello,
Mr. Robert (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab) †
Hodgson,
Mrs. Sharon (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab) Hughes,
Simon (North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD) Mountford,
Kali (Colne Valley)
(Lab) †
Mudie,
Mr. George (Leeds, East)
(Lab) †
Reed,
Mr. Andy (Loughborough)
(Lab/Co-op) †
Selous,
Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con) †
Streeter,
Mr. Gary (South-West Devon)
(Con) †
Webb,
Steve (Northavon) (LD) Dr.
Griffiths, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Third
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationTuesday
27 June
2006[Mr.
Greg Pope in the
Chair]Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 20064.30
pm
The
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): I
beg to move, That the
Committee has considered the Church of England (Miscellaneous
Provisions)
Measure.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to
consider the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure.
Sir
Stuart Bell: Although the miscellaneous provisions Measure
is the more technical of the two Measures before the Committee today, I
hope I need not detain hon. Members long in considering it. Its purpose
is the worthy one of making modest and uncontentious changes to various
aspects of ecclesiastical
law. The
substantial—some would say excessive—body of law that
regulates the Church of England is complex and, like secular law, from
time to time needs to be corrected or brought up to date. As part of
that process the General Synod employs miscellaneous provisions
Measures to make amendments to Church legislation that do not merit
free-standing legislation. This Measure is the latest in the
series. Given their
nature, miscellaneous provisions Measures generally represent a
somewhat amorphous mixture of technical material, united essentially
only by the common characteristic of being uncontroversial. This
Measure is no exception, but as with most such Measures, there are some
common themes in its contents, in terms of improving processes, giving
greater flexibility and clarifying or harmonising problematic
provisions. A number of the changes inthe Measure are
designed to improve the procedures of the Church's national
institutions. Thus, for example, the Measure will amend the General
Synod's constitution so as to allow the introduction of electronic
voting in its debates and remove restrictions on the number of persons
the Archbishops, as its presidents, can appoint as chairmen of
debates. The Measure
will also streamline aspects of the Church Commissioners' procedures.
For example, it will simplify the requirements for the application of
the proceeds of sale of parsonages, so as to remove the unnecessary
circulation of funds. It will also alter aspects of the commissioners'
functions relating to pastoral reorganisation under the Pastoral
Measure 1983, without detracting from the rights of interested parties,
in various ways which will produce cost savings.
Further
cost savings will flow for parishes from a new provision under which
land appropriated by a scheme for ecclesiastical purposes of a parish
will vest automatically in the diocesan board of finance on trust for
the parochial church council.
Those are all
examples of provisions in the Measure streamlining procedures. Other
provisions are intended to confer greater flexibility. Thus, for
example, the Church Commissioners cannot at the moment take advantage
of legislative provisions under which companies and charitable
corporations can execute documents under the signatures of two
directors or trustees. Changes made to the Church Commissioners Measure
1947 will, among other things, allow them to do
so.
The Measure will
also widen the powers of the commissioners with regard to Farnham
Castle—a former see house of the diocese of Guildford, which is
now the only property in the commissioners' ownership subject to a
statutory prohibition against disposal. The Measure will bring the
commissioners' powers in relation to Farnham broadly into line with
their powers in relation to other former see houses, by allowing them
to sell or otherwise dispose of it, subject to safeguards to protect
the historical and architectural significance of the property in
perpetuity.
Finally, the
Measure will make amendments to a large number of Acts of
Parliament—my own favourite is the Weeds Act 1959, about which
we shall no doubt hear a lot in our proceedings—in each case
with the agreement of the Government Department in question. The
statutory provisions concerned principally relate to requirements that
notices be served on the commissioners in relation to proposals to deal
with benefice property or glebe land. The changes are designed to
ensure that property issues are dealt with at the appropriate level,
which does not need to be nationally. They will therefore again produce
administrative savings at the centre as well as in the dioceses, which
will no longer need to correspond with the commissioners about such
matters. I
hope these necessarily brief examples of some of the Measure's
provisions will show that beneath its dry and technical complexity lies
the laudable aim of making the Church's legal processes as effective as
possible, at national, diocesan and parish levels. The Measure has of
course been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee, some of
whose members I am pleased to see are with us today, and has been
approved in another place. I have no difficulty in commending the
Measure to the Committee.
Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): The hon. Gentleman rightly says
that a number of members of this Committee are also members of the
Ecclesiastical Committee, so we have already examined the Measures and
deemed them expedient. The hon. Gentleman will forgive my ignorance,
but can he clarify for my benefit why we are going through them again,
given that Members of both Houses have unanimously deemed them
expedient? I hesitate to use the word “modernisation” in
present company, but is there any scope for the Modernisation Committee
to consider whether the process can be streamlined so that we do not
have to consider such Measures
twice? Sir
Stuart Bell: I can reveal some secrets to the hon.
Gentleman. Last week I was at No.10 Downing Street with proposals to
modify the Church of England (Assembly) Powers Act 1919. I left the
same document at Lambeth palace. We are looking to see
whether—under a possible new Prime Minister and a new
Administration—we can introduce proposals that will streamline
the Church’s legislative process without removing powers from
Parliament. It is vital that Parliament should have the last say in
such matters. I can tell the hon. Member for South
Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that if we reach the stage
of having to vote on women bishops, that matter will certainly be taken
on the Floor of the
House. 4.37
pm Sir
Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): It is a great
pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell),
who speaks eloquently on behalf of the Church Commissioners. I do not
think that he or anyone else realises that this is a most historic day
for the Church of England because we are being presided over by a Pope.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Pope. I will not
attempt to repeat what the hon. Gentleman—in this context an
hon. Friend—said, because he has already outlined some of the
major features of the Measure, but I would like to say something in
response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve
Webb). We in this country have an established Church. I happen to
believe that that is a very good thing. The fact that every man, woman
and child, whatever his or her faith or belief, lives within a parish
of the Church of England and is entitled to the services of the Church
of England is something rather special. The Church brings a real and
important dimension to our great national occasions. Therefore, if we
ever came to debate the disestablishment of the Church of England,
whether on the side of the angels or not, I would always be on the side
of establishment rather than disestablishment. There is of course a perfectly reasonable and
responsible case for that course even though I personally reject it.
But so long as we have an established Church, it is important that
Parliament should have the last say.
I do not, however, believe that
Parliament should have the first say. As somebody who served through 10
rather long and somewhat tedious years on the General Synod, and who
last year decided without any great reluctance not to seek re-election,
I nevertheless believe that it is right that the synod should have the
first say. The synod should decide what Measures it wishes to introduce
without any shackles or interference. Once those Measures have been
introduced, they come to the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is one of
the very few Committees consisting of Members of both Houses, and it is
the duty of that Committee to look carefully at the Measures the synod
sends it, as it has looked carefully at both the Measures before us
today. The
Ecclesiastical Committee has no power to reject or amend. It can only
deem whether a Measure is expedient. If the Committee deems it
expedient, the Measure comes before both Houses of Parliament. If it
does not, the Measure goes back to the synod, which can then decide
whether to re-present it or to redraft it, or whatever it
wishes. During my 36
years in this place—for 35 of which I have served on the
Ecclesiastical Committee—Measures introduced by the Church of
England have on occasion been contentious. One thinks of the
Churchwardens Measure 2001, in respect of which the House played an
important and constructive part, and
of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, where, as a result of
what the Ecclesiastical Committee said, safeguards were built into the
Church of England’s legislation to protect traditionalists: the
Act of Synod. So there is a very real role for the Ecclesiastical
Committee and for this House. Having received the
Ecclesiastical Committee’s report and having seen that synod
passed the Measures with, I think, one dissentient in the House of
Laity, and that the Ecclesiastical Committee deemed them expedient
after briefly examining witnesses, we are now asked to allow them to
pass into law. On this occasion, I have absolutely no hesitation in
saying that I hope that the Measures will get a fair wind. I hope there
will be no need to divide. I hope that the Measures will go forward to
join that already considerable body of Church law which they will have
the advantage of tidying up somewhat. That is
good. I was a little
concerned when the hon. Member for Middlesbrough used the words
“modernisation” and “streamlining”,
particularly following a conversation in Downing street, but we will
let that pass for the moment.
Mr.
Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): As members of the
Committee know, the hon. Gentleman and I have a difference of opinion
over the subject of women bishops, but I respect him and all his work
on the Ecclesiastical Committee and we have shared many a time together
in the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. I, too, welcome the
Measures, but there is something that I would like to ask the hon.
Gentleman. Clause 8 allows for article 5(4) of the Standing Orders to
be amended to introduce electronic voting into the synod. The hon.
Gentleman says that he wholeheartedly supports the Measure. Is he keen
to see that happening in the synod, and would he like in due course to
see it to happening here?
Sir
Patrick Cormack: I would most certainly not like to see
electronic voting happening here. I would resist any such move. But we
are dealing with the synod. I have already said that it is for the
synod to regulate its own affairs, and I do not believe that because it
has electronic voting, we should have to have it—any more than I
believe that because it has a weird system of proportional election, we
should have that. I
hope you will allow me to digress briefly, Mr. Pope. I believe that,
just as every person on the lay electoral roll is entitled to vote for
us, every person on a Church electoral roll should be allowed to vote
for those who put their names forward for the synod. I also believe
that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and I are at one on
that. I must not digress further, Mr. Pope. Thank you for your
indulgence. I hope
that the Measures will proceed smoothly following our deliberations
today. 4.43
pm
|
