The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Miss
Anne
Begg
Bailey,
Mr. Adrian
(West Bromwich, West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Bell,
Sir Stuart
(Second Church Estates
Commissioner)
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Farron,
Tim
(Westmorland and Lonsdale)
(LD)
George,
Mr. Bruce
(Walsall, South)
(Lab)
Gibson,
Dr. Ian
(Norwich, North)
(Lab)
Hollobone,
Mr. Philip
(Kettering)
(Con)
Holloway,
Mr. Adam
(Gravesham)
(Con)
Hughes,
Simon
(North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD)
Johnson,
Ms Diana R.
(Kingston upon Hull, North)
(Lab)
Key,
Robert
(Salisbury)
(Con)
Lepper,
David
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Lab/Co-op)
Main,
Anne
(St. Albans)
(Con)
Osborne,
Sandra
(Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
(Lab)
Sheridan,
Jim
(Paisley and Renfrewshire, North)
(Lab)
Stoate,
Dr. Howard
(Dartford)
(Lab)
Thornberry,
Emily
(Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab)
Chris
Shaw, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Fifth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 23
October
2007
[Miss
Anne Begg
in the
Chair]
Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure
10.30
am
The
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell):
I
beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure (HC
998).
This is the
first time that I have had the opportunity to address you in the Chair,
Miss Begg. It is a great pleasure to do so. You may be happy to know
that we do not have a great deal of Church legislation and it may be
some time before we have such an occasion
again.
As
Members will see from the length of this Measure and the contents
pages, it is a substantial piece of legislation covering many aspects
of the life of the Church of England. In fact, we believe that this is
the longest piece of Church legislation to come to Parliament since the
1980s. However, the common thread, whichif I may mix my
metaphorsruns as a river through the whole of it, covering the
eight parts and seven schedules, is that it will help the Church of
England to carry out its mission effectively in the 21st
century.
The
Measure has received overwhelming support from the General
Synoda majority of 250 was in favour, with one
againstand, if we may continue with the metaphors, it had a
thoroughly good canter through the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am glad
to see the hon. Member for Salisbury leading for the Opposition,
because he played a part in that Committees meeting. I hope
that this Committee will also feel able to give the Measure its support
this morning.
The
Measure originated in a review set up in 2000 into the working of two
major pieces of existing Church legislation: the Dioceses Measure 1978,
the contents of which are very much as its name suggestsit
deals with various aspects of dioceses and diocesan
reorganisationand the Pastoral Measure 1983, which includes the
processes for making changes to parishes and parish structures and
closing churches that are no longer needed for public
worship.
The object of
the review was
to ensure
flexible and cost effective procedures which fully meet changing
pastoral and mission
needs.
The Church, like
any other major organisation, cannot be immune from change around it
and within it; it needs to be in a position to respond to that change.
In the words of our former Prime Minister, there is always a time to
move on.
[Interruption.] I thought that that might raise a
cheer. However, the review carried out all its work on the basis that,
if the Church is to fulfil its task effectively, its legislation must
safeguard and support the core institutions that it has inherited.
Here, I have very much in mind the parish, the parish priest, the
diocese and the bishop, which are all cornerstones
of the previous Measure. The principle of safeguarding and supporting
these core institutions remains at the heart of this Measure. The
reviews recommendations on the Dioceses Measure 1978 and the
Pastoral Measure 1983reached after wide consultationled
to the Measure before the Committee
today.
The Synod fully
supported the underlying principles that I outlined a moment ago, even
though the detail of the legislation received a great deal more in the
way of careful scrutiny, accompanied by further consultation, before it
reached the form in which it arrived at the Ecclesiastical Committee
for onward approval by this
Committee.
I
mentioned the word form. The Ecclesiastical Committee
noted that a consolidated Measure might have been the more appropriate
way of incorporating the reviews recommendations into existing
Measures, and the Church concurs. The Synod recognises that the Measure
before us leaves some existing legislation in a heavily amended form.
Following the passage of this Measure before the Committee, it is the
intention of the Church to create a consolidated Measure. I am grateful
to the Church house legal staff who, in the meantime, for ease of
reference, have produced a revised text of the Pastoral Measure 1983
showing all the amendments. They plan to make that widely
available.
Turning to
the provisions of the Measure, I am sure that the Committee would not
thank me if I kept its members here for several hours with a detailed
explanation of every part. It might be a tale for them to tell their
grandchildren, and mightily bored they would be. Fortunately, the
material accompanying the Ecclesiastical Committees report
already provides a reasonably full account. Today I will simply outline
some of the most important
provisions.
Part
I lays down the general principle that anyone who has functions under
the Measure must have due regard to the furtherance of
the Churchs mission. However, the Measure explicitly gives a
wide meaning to the mission of the Church, to cover the
totality of that missionpastoral, evangelistic, social and
ecumenicalmirroring, by the way, the wording of earlier
Measures, which is reflected in the present
Measure.
Part II deals
with the provincial and diocesan structure of the Church. One major
feature of the new process is a new dioceses commission, which will
have a proactive role, both in reviewing the current structure and in
bringing forward changes for consideration. The commission will also
receive any proposals for changes, if considered appropriate, from the
bishops of individual
dioceses.
Part III
deals with the procedure for making pastoral schemes and orders and
pastoral church building schemes. Linking Part IV with Part II, we can
see a number of changes to the procedures under the 1983 Measure. Those
changes do away with the rather discouraging expression
redundant church. They are supported by a new and more
flexible set of provisions for the relevant diocesan bodies. Currently,
there are two diocesan bodies. The first is the Council for the Care of
Churches, which deals primarily with the buildings that the Church uses
for public worship, but also has a role in the church closure process.
The second is the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, which has a
role later in the closure process. The Measure replaces both with a new
body, the church
buildings council, which will be a single, central Church source of
expert information and advice on church buildings. The council will be
in a position to give the Church the best possible service and will
also make the process of closing a church clear and straightforward.
The Synod was very much aware of the importance of providing impartial
heritage advice about the future of closed churches and great care was
taken over that. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and
English Heritage were consulted. The way forward adopted by the Synod
was to give key roles on closed churches to those members of the church
buildings council nominated independently by the Secretary of State.
That satisfied the Ecclesiastical Committee and I trust that it will
reassure this
Committee.
Part V
deals with mission initiatives. Many such initiatives are working to
good effect all over the country, but some new forms of mission
initiative are required to meet todays changing conditions. If
such an initiative wishes to operate within the Church of England, it
is essential that it accepts the bishops authority and also
that it complements and co-operates with, rather than undermines, the
parishes and their clergy. The Measure aims to ensure this by giving
the bishop power to authorise an initiative by a bishops mission order,
which would include a series of provisions dealing with the particular
mission initiative. The Measure sets out a process of overseeing and
reviewing the initiative and providing it with the necessary support
and guidance.
The
House of Bishops is also required to produce a code of practice on this
part of the Measure. The hon. Member for Salisbury raised that matter
on the Ecclesiastical Committee. A draft of that code has been produced
and was made available to the Ecclesiastical Committee. The remaining
parts of and schedules to the Measure are miscellaneous in character,
and I need not detain the Committee in taking right hon. and hon.
Members through them. You will be pleased to know, Miss Begg, that I
have embarked on a lightning tour of a very significant piece of Church
legislation, which will help the Church to carry out its work into the
new century. As I said earlier, the Synod endorsed the Measure with but
a single dissenting vote, the Ecclesiastical Committee was able to
report that it was expedient, and it went through its stages in the
other place yesterday. I invite this Committee to help it on its way to
the statute book.
10.41
am
Robert
Key (Salisbury) (Con): Miss Begg, it is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I declare my interest
as a member of the Salisbury Diocesan Synod, the General Synod of the
Church of England and the Ecclesiastical Committee. I can honestly say
that this enormous piece of legislation has received careful scrutiny
at every level, from parish through to Synod. It represents seven
years work, and there has been a lot of painful decision making
and controversy, which has all been fully debated, catalogued,
recorded, and considered by the revision committee of the Synod.
Questions have also been raised in the Ecclesiastical Committee, as the
hon. Member for Middlesbrough
mentioned.
There is no
doubt that the Measure is a huge piece of work. We should bear it in
mind that, in the end, it
received very substantial endorsement, as the hon. Gentleman said. In
fact, in February this year the result of the vote in the General Synod
for final approval in the House of Bishops was 22 ayes and zero noes;
in the House of Clergy, 104 ayes and one no; and in the House of Laity,
123 ayes and zero noes. The Ecclesiastical Committee was of the opinion
that it was expedient. I do not need to go over all that ground again,
and having been there at every level, I can reassure the Committee that
an enormous amount of work has been done trying to get this
right.
I would like
to explore the process by which the Measure has come before the House.
Does the hon. Gentleman know the last time a Measure was taken in a
Standing Committee rather than on the Floor of the House? It is
perfectly permissible to do this under Standing Order No. 118, but the
Library assures me that the practice is rare. In Library fact sheet
L10, Church of England Measures,
states:
In the
Commons, less important Measures have occasionally been referred to
standing committee...This is permissible under SO No 118, although this
practice is rare.
Here
we have an enormous body of legislation, the result of seven years of
work, which has been scrutinised thoroughly, and suddenly we find that
instead of being taken on the Floor of the House, it is in a Delegated
Legislation Committee. Could the hon. Gentleman explain why the
decision was taken to follow this procedure, who took the decision and
what criteria were applied? I expect that there are perfectly
reasonable answers, but I think that it is important that we
know.
In the Church of England at the
moment, there is a great discussion about the nature of the established
Church and of the scrutiny and approval of synodical measures. At a
time when the Government themselves are, as a result of the Prime
Ministers announcement in July, reconsidering how he exercises
his patronage over the appointment of senior members of the Church of
England, including archbishops and bishops, and at a time when the
Government are also scrutinising their own patronagefor
example, the Lord Chancellor has the gift of more than 800 livings in
the Church of England, including nearly all those in the Channel
Islands, for historical reasonsI contend that it is important
to consider whether we have got it right. We need to ask ourselves
whether we need the Ecclesiastical Committee at all in this day and
age. It is archaic and anachronistic. I am proud to be a member of the
Committee because it does a useful job, but do we really need it in the
21st century, given that it was cobbled together as a way through in
the 19th century, when the first attempts were made to enfranchise the
established Church of
England?
I do not
expect that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer that significant
question now, but I flag it up because it is important, particularly in
light of the way in which this enormous piece of legislation has come
to the Committee. Even though it is uncontroversial now that the
decisions have been taken, we still have an opportunity to consider
whether this is the right way forward. I am a strong supporter of the
established Church and I think it important for both Church and state
that the relationship continues more or less as it is, but I wonder
whether both Houses of Parliament are handling such measures in the
right way and whether
we could do better. Having said that, I concur with the hon. Gentleman
that the work has been done, both at synodical level and by the
Ecclesiastical Committee, and I am content to accept the
verdict.
10.47
am
Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I, too,
welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg. Like the others who have spoken, I
am a first-timer under your
chairmanship.
Unlike
the hon. Member for Salisbury, I have always been a supporter of the
disestablishment of the Church of England, and I am a member of the
disestablished Church. I hope that before long we will make sure that
disestablishment happens in England, as it wisely happened in Wales,
under a great Liberal Administration, and, before that, in Ireland.
Until then, we have to deal with the business. It is interesting that
the hon. Gentleman suggests thatgiven that the Prime Minister
has made the welcome announcement that he will renounce his right and
that of his successors to nominate to the monarch, and make decisions
about, the individuals who would be bishopswe should look at
the wider ramifications. I welcome that initiative and look forward to
its taking effectit was a nonsense for Prime Ministers who were
not Anglicans or had no particular Christian faith to be able to
nominate people to lead the Church. The Church itself will therefore
soon be electing its own bishops in England as it has
donesubject, I guess, to formal appointment by the
monarchvery satisfactorily in Wales and other parts of the
world for many years. That is a good
thing.
The
hon. Gentleman asked about the future of the Ecclesiastical
Committeea Committee on which I also serve. That is at the
moment the only sensible way to check that the work that the Church has
to send to Parliament to be decided is in good order. I endorse the
question whether the Committee is the right place to consider this
Measure. It is here because it is not controversial, not because it is
not important. Logically, if the test were importance, the Measure
would have been considered on the Floor of the House, although not
because it would have had the crowds flocking in. It is probably not
surprising that there are not serried ranks of people in the Public
Gallery who have come here especially for this
event.
In the earlier
procedures in the Synod, there was one person who voted against. They
should be named. I do not know who they were, but they are a brave
individual and it would be intriguing to know what their opposition
wasperhaps they just wanted to make their
mark.
Regarding
the broad compass of the Measure, the second and third parts are the
most important, although the first part is often where things get hung
up because it is procedural. The Church is about care, pastoral work
and mission. Those are its principal dutieslooking after people
and preaching the gospel. Dioceses are simply an administrative
mechanism, important though they are historically and in our
communities. It is really the pastoral and mission issues, therefore,
that should prevail in the consideration of the Measure.
I want to pay tribute to the
fantastic pastoral work done by ministers in the Church in my
constituency, just over the bridge in the Diocese of
SouthwarkNorth Southwark and Bermondsey in the borough of
Southwark. A huge amount of excellent work is done not just by the
Anglican Church but by the other Churches. They really support and help
the communitynot just their own members but far beyond
thatin a way that cannot be
quantified.
In my part
of the world, the Church is growing, not shrinking; the numbers are
increasing, not diminishing; and the Anglican Church, like all the
other Churches, has seen significant growth in numbers of people
attending in recent years. That is largely, though not entirely, due to
two things. The first is immigration in the last quarter of a century,
particularly from places such as west Africa, from where great numbers
of people have come into the Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic
Church and the Anglican Church, as well as into the black-led Churches.
The second is the fact that the Church has been more outward-looking
and has realised that it will not get people in by having them sitting
in pews, facing in the same direction in an unwelcoming,
under-heated building at an inconvenient time of day, and that it has
to reach out to people, as politicians know we have to
do.
The Church of
England has taken great initiatives such as the Alpha course. I commend
a really positive attitude to pastoral work and to mission work in the
Church. Graham Cray, who is one of the authors of this piece of work,
knows about that, together with the other authors of the report, and
does it well.
If we
are really going to do mission work, the one thing missing
hereit would have been controversial if it were included, but I
hope that it will come soon whether it is controversial or
notis the fact that the Church of England must finish the work
of allowing women to occupy posts at all levels in the
Church.
I was one of
the supporters in this place of allowing women to become priests. My
sister-in-law was one of the first women to be ordained as a priest in
the Church of England. It is now time for there to be women bishops
and, potentially, archbishops in the Church. Women have added
fantastically, as we all knew they would, and have completely changed
the nature of the resource available to lead the pastoral mission work
of the Church.
The
Measure is not only about ordained people; it is about lay people. Lay
people have a hugely important role in every part of the Church and
they should be commended. The Measure makes their role more
important.
I want to
comment on the organisation of dioceses. The Measure allows a more
flexible approach to diocesan boundaries, appointments of suffragan
bishops and areas for suffragan bishops. Although I understand that, I
would like to issue a word of caution. Southwark diocese was created in
1905 out of the Winchester diocese. It was created because of the
growth in the number of people in south London and it was an
appropriate response. Its boundaries were later changed to include the
Croydon area, which was then brought into the Southwark diocese. There
is a need for that responsiveness to the changing population. If
todays figures are right, and we have a population of 71
million in the next 25 or 50 years, the Church needs
to think about how it should deploy its organisational structures.
However, people like continuity and community, and it is important that
boundaries are not changed too frequently. People like to belong
somewhere.
In
Scotland, as you will know, Miss Begg, and in England, local authority
changes have often not been terribly well received by ordinary people.
The politicians may think that the changes are great, but ordinary
people do not like their county suddenly disappearing or being chopped
in two or having edges cut off it. I give a warning that we should
think of changing diocesan boundaries only if there is overwhelming
logic and overwhelming support for doing
so.
The same does not
apply to areas for suffragan bishops below the diocesan bishop, where
pragmatic changes might mean that the division of responsibility in a
diocese has to be organised. We have in Southwark suffragan bishops of
Woolwich, of Kingston and of CroydonI have probably forgotten
one. They do a particularly good job and there is a logic about the
boroughs that they represent. They could be more flexibly changed, but
diocesan boundaries are pretty key building blocks that are not usually
the barrier to, or a difficulty in, the ministry of the Church. They
also contain the centrally important building of the Churchthe
main mother church of the
diocese.
I am
privileged to be the MP for the Anglican cathedral of Southwark, as
well as St. Georges Roman Catholic cathedral, serving the
archdiocese of Southwark. I know how good a job they do as mother
churches of the diocese. Creating new ones and getting rid of old ones
is not something that should be done
lightly.
Robert
Key:
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about
continuity. I represent a constituency thatunder the same
namehas sent a Member of Parliament to Westminster ever since
1265, so you would expect me to endorse it, Miss
Begg.
Of course, as
the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, dioceses have to be flexible. For
someone who is not a member of the Church of EnglandI mean this
genuinelyto have such a deep grasp of these issues is very
good. However, I am sure that he would also agree with me that, just as
we need continuity and identity with a diocese and a cathedral, his
argument is the best possible reason why we should continue to have a
first-past-the-post electoral system for the
House.
Simon
Hughes:
You will not allow me, Miss Begg, to go far down
that road, however new you may be in chairing us. Just to correct the
record, I am baptised and confirmed into the Church in Wales, which is
why I am a disestablished Anglican. However, I am a member, on the
electoral roll, of an Anglican church in London, so I use and worship
in an established Church even though I am by nature a formally
disestablished
Anglican.
The point of
continuity of parliamentarians and constituencies and people in their
diocese has a logical parallel and the hon. Gentleman may be interested
to know that outside this room I think there may be common ground
between us. There could be a fair
system in politics as in the Church, without getting rid of constituency
linkshe is a proud Member of Parliament for his
constituency.
Just
as a postscript, Members of Parliament for Southwark have existed since
the same time as those for Salisbury, and I believe that I am the
435th. That reminds us of the transitory nature of our job, although
for many years there used to be two Members per constituency, so the
numbers clock up quite quickly.
I realise that colleagues are
not here because they have no better way of spending their morning, so
I will move on to a couple of other points. I want to flag up a
question. The Second Church Estates Commissioner may not know the
answer, but I would be grateful if he provided it either now or as soon
as possible. One of the issues about mission and pastoral work that
comes up regularly is that, to save money, the Church of England has
fairly significant interregnums when an incumbent or a priest who is in
charge retires or moves to another post. I would be grateful to know
what the shortest and longest period permitted is, and what the average
is. I understand that one needs due time to make the right choice, but
long periods without leadership are not healthy and I want the Church
to understand that it must try hard to make the periods as short as is
practically possible, compatible with all the moving around, proper
consultation and so
on.
It is a good idea
that the Church is going down the road of having more people who are
not the stipendiariesnot the freeholdersand are not
being given the title, with more people being appointed priests in
charge and so on, on a contractual basis. I believe that is a good
thing, but I would like to know what the policy of the Church
iswhether it is intended that more people will be given
contractual periods of appointments with priests in charge and the
like, rather than being rectors or vicars who are obviously locked into
the parish for as long as they wish to
stay.
I do not know at
what rate churches are being made redundant, although the proposal
provides for more flexibility. May I make another plea? On Sunday, I
went to an impressive event at which St. Judes
churchwhich is located on St. Georges road, on the
right-hand side of the road between the Elephant and Castle and here,
nearly opposite the Imperial War museumwas brought back into
use. It was built in 1900, but stopped being an Anglican church and was
made redundant in 1980. The church has had various intermittent uses,
but it was re-opened this Sunday by a congregation from the New
Testament Church of God, which is a black-led Church. A very impressive
woman minister, whom I have known for many years, has led the work and
it was hugely well
supported.
I
am not convinced that every time the Church of England thinks that it
might have to make a church building redundant, particularly in urban
Britain, it formally engages with all the other local Church
communities to see whether they have a use for it. In London, there are
many black-led Churches and other free Churchescharismatic
Churches, Pentecostal Churches and so onthat have huge
congregations but worship for many years in rather inappropriate
surroundings on old industrial estates and so on. It would be better
for many of them if they were in the church building that is redundant
and empty round the
corner rather than on a site where they are not so compatible with the
other buildings and residents. I want a considered reply about how good
the collaboration is whenever the Church of England is thinking of
making a church redundant. That is not dealt with expressly in the
Measure, although new procedures are put in place. They are welcome,
but I want to ensure that there is a proper way to engage other Church
communities so that, where possible, another Church use may be found
for a consecrated church building, if it is appropriate.
One thing
that is referred to in the Measure is a more flexible form of ministry.
I assume, although I have not studied all the small print sufficiently
to know the answer, that that will allow more flexible forms of
ministry with Christian Churches of other denominations too. I welcome
that. Some of the best church buildings and the most effective ways in
which the Church can do its job is when denominations are seen to be
working together on one site, under one roof. I have always wanted all
churches in my borough to adopt a sign that says not, This is
an Anglican churchor a Roman Catholic church or a
United Reform churchbut rather This is the Christian
church and, in small letters underneath,
Anglican. The important thing is that it is a church,
not that it is Anglican, or Methodist. The Church is what unites the
Christian Church. I hope that we can therefore get to an approach
whereby the Measure will allow, wherever possible, such collaborative
working, not only on the same site but between Churches in a group and
so on across the denominations.
Finally, we had a bit of a row
in our diocese of Southwark because our beloved bishop decided that he
was going to get rid of the local ministry. There was a scheme for
members of the community who wanted to be ordained but might not have
gone through formal education after leaving school. Two friends of
mine, one who did painting and decorating and one who was an engineer
in the bus garage in south London, became excellent ordained members of
the Church through that route.
The scheme was abolished, with
much opposition in the diocesan synod and more widely. It has been
replaced by the general all-encompassing non-stipendiary ministry
scheme, whereby people can train for ordained ministry. I am not in a
position to judge whether, on balance, we can get as good a system
under the new regime. I had words with the Bishop of Southwark about it
and in the end he was not to be moved. He is a man of firm convictions
and was not persuaded, and he went ahead with his proposal.
I hope that the new scheme will
encourage and enable people who might not have done A-levels, gone to
university or got a degree, if they feel a call to be ministers in the
Church, to be fully participative ministers. They add huge value. They
often relate better to their local communities by virtue of having come
from those communities and, a bit like people doing access degrees at
university, they may be put off by the more formal educational process
that going to theological college would imply. There is a very good
scheme run in Southwark for Southwark and neighbouring dioceses by a
former head of my office in the House of Commons, Nick Townsend, based
out of
Trinity court in Borough High street, which does that sort of training.
He is one of the people who lead that. I want to make sure that the
sort of people whom we would all want to be active in our political
parties are the ones we reach and encourage to be equally active in the
Church.
This is
clearly a positive Measure: it opens lots of doors, it is widely
supported, it is not controversial and it gives the Church great hope.
I hope that the result will be that we have many more people in the
Church, many more members of the Church, a much bigger Church and that
the signs of growth that many of us see will be replicated throughout
the land.
The message
is never the problem in Christianity: the message is absolutely always
the thing that brings people to Christ and to the Church. The problem
has often been the organisation and the fact that we have been too
hidebound, too conservative, too stuck in our ways, too establishment
and have put people
off.
I hope that the
Church realises that eventually being a disestablished Church is the
way forward and that, on the way there, the more outreach there is, the
more outgoing and more broadly based the Church is, the better it will
do and the better Gods kingdom will be served here in this
country.
11.6
am
Sir
Stuart Bell:
I am grateful to the hon. Members for North
Southwark and Bermondsey and for Salisbury for the way in which they
put their points and for the pertinence of those
points.
If I may, I
shall work backwards on the questions asked by the hon. Member for
North Southwark and Bermondsey. On his last point about selection,
there is nothing about selection or training of ministers in the
Measure. That is a matter for the House of Bishops. However, he makes a
good point that the Church would no doubt wish to
consider.
I shall ask
Church house to give a proper response on interregnums and on
contractual appointments. On the hon. Gentlemans other points,
the new body will be able to take some of the things that he mentioned
into account and we look forward to the hon. Gentlemans future
participation in these matters in the same way as he has participated
in the past.
Briefly,
on the wider question of the disestablished Church, the Prime Minister
made a point in his report about modifying the way in which we choose
bishops. He also made a clear statement that the Church of England is,
by law, established. That is the first clear statement that we have had
that there will be no change in the established Church. Until now, we
have always had a statement saying that the Government would leave it
to the Church and the Church has always said that it leaves the matter
to the Governmentand the matter has always been in abeyance.
The Prime Ministers statement made it clear that the Church of
England will stay
established.
I am
grateful to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey for
mentioning Lloyd George, who made a name for himself in the House on
the disestablishment of the Church of Wales. However, having made his
name, he left the disestablishment issue and the Church was not
disestablished for another 20 years. Thats history for
you.
The hon. Gentleman made two
other important points. He mentioned the Diocese of Southwark; he is
right in the sense that dioceses should not be interfered with in terms
of size and the rest of it. There has been some discussion on this
matter and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no hidden hit
list or blueprint for abolishing dioceses behind the Measure. Indeed,
the Measure could be used to increase rather than reduce the number of
dioceses, if that seemed
appropriate.
The new
Dioceses Commissions first duty will be to keep the provincial
and diocesan structure of the Church under review, which will enable it
to form its own views of what changes, if any, are needed as well as to
consider any changes proposed by bishops in respect of the individual
dioceses
concerned.
Simon
Hughes:
There is often merit, although sometimes people
think otherwise, in having dioceses big enough to include both urban
and rural communities, like Leeds and Ripon and Southwark. Only-rural
and only-urban dioceses may have advantages, but probably they are not
as good mixes and as good places for the Church to see how the other
half
lives.
Sir
Stuart Bell:
That is a comment, rather than a question,
but I accept it as it
is.
The hon. Gentleman
also mentioned working with other Church communities. Subsections 47(5)
and (6) provide for consultation with other religious organisations, in
relation to the bishop making a bishops mission order. We are
keen, where we can, to include non-Christian religious organisations in
our various discussions. We make it clear that we are happy to work
with other Churches where possible.
On the question of women
bishops, which the hon. Gentleman touched on and which also relates to
the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury, if we were debating
women bishops now, it would be on the Floor of the House of Commons.
This measure does not go into the question of women bishops, but it is
one that we are all aware of and which the Church is dealing
with.
I turn now to
the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury, who went through the
various stages of the Measure before it reached this stage and his own
participation. At the end of these proceedings, when
the Measure gets Royal Assent, I will give him the appropriate T-shirt.
He deserves it, he worked for it and he can wear it with pleasure. On
the question of which previous measures we have discussed in Committee,
in the 10 years that I have been a Church Commissioner, we have used
the procedure twice. In 2006 the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure and the
Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure came before Committee rather
than the Floor of the House. That refers back to the point made by the
hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that this is a
non-controversial measure and does not require to be taken on the Floor
of the House.
The hon.
Member for Salisbury referred to the Ecclesiastical Committee and
whether we needed one. He will be happy to know that I advised the
present Prime Minister that, while the Ecclesiastical Committee may
have many defects and flaws, as it goes back to legislation of 1919, to
change it is not really an exercise that would engage the attention of
Parliament for three to four years. In view of the fact that we have
very little Church legislation, it is not a measure that we should
pursue. Therefore, the Ecclesiastical Committee will be with us for
some time.
On the
question of the decision to take this matter before the Committee, it
was my decision, on the basis that it was non-controversial. The
procedure is perfectly proper. We could have taken it on the Floor of
the House, but the Church is obviously very keen, given the seven years
that have passed since the Measure was first mooted in a review, that
it receives Royal Assent at the end of this parliamentary Session. We
would hope that, with the Committees consent, this would come
to the Floor of the House and then on to Royal Assent on 30
October.
To find
parliamentary time, even in a rather scant parliamentary schedule, is
difficult and it was not the intention or the wish of the Church to
hold this up. I can repeat the point that I made earlier: matters that
are controversial would be taken on the Floor of the House. I think
that I have covered all of the points that have been raised. If I have
omitted any, I shall be happy to
respond.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure
(HC 998).
Committee
rose at thirteen minutes past Eleven
oclock.