The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Ainger,
Nick
(Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire)
(Lab)
Bell,
Sir Stuart
(Second Church Estates
Commissioner)
Borrow,
Mr. David S.
(South Ribble)
(Lab)
Boswell,
Mr. Tim
(Daventry)
(Con)
Burstow,
Mr. Paul
(Sutton and Cheam)
(LD)
Clelland,
Mr. David
(Tyne Bridge)
(Lab)
Cormack,
Sir Patrick
(South Staffordshire)
(Con)
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Gray,
Mr. James
(North Wiltshire)
(Con)
Hodgson,
Mrs. Sharon
(Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab)
Milburn,
Mr. Alan
(Darlington)
(Lab)
Sanders,
Mr. Adrian
(Torbay)
(LD)
Stanley,
Sir John
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
Twigg,
Derek
(Halton) (Lab)
Williams,
Mrs. Betty
(Conwy)
(Lab)
Wood,
Mike
(Batley and Spen)
(Lab)
Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Seventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 2
March
2010
[Robert
Key in the
Chair]
Church
of England (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Measure
4.31
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 (HC 207).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the Crown
Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure (HC 209) and the Vacancies
in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure (HC
208).
Sir
Stuart Bell: It is not my wish nor, I presume, the wish of
the Committee that I detain Members at length on the first Measure save
to say that it is the 10th such Measure and the first to be approved by
the Synod in the 2005-10 quinquennium. It deals with various
uncontroversial matters, which, individually, would not merit
free-standing legislation. As the Committee will see, the Measure
contains significant, but technical, changes that have no political
considerations, either within the Church or without. I am aware,
Mr. Key, that you have a long and distinguished career on
the Synod and are aware of the Measures from another
place.
When
the Measure was given final approval in the Synod, 16 bishops voted in
favour and none against. One hundred laity voted in favour and none
against. Of the clergy, 69 voted in favour and one against. The
Ecclesiastical Committee was greatly intrigued by that one; apparently
the person who voted against had no objection to the Measure but had
simply raised her hand. Those of us who have a long political
career behind and before uswill know the significance
of a Member who sits at the back and raises his or her hand. I should
add that the Measure went expeditiously through the Ecclesiastical
Committee with no votes against. It has been brought before this
Committee for consideration.
Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I speak as someone who
attended Christ Church, Oxford, for a couple of very happy years. I
presume that the substantial section dealing with the status of the
canons of Christ Church has been wholly approved by the dean and
chapter.
Sir
Stuart Bell: The short answer is yes. I have now lost my
place.
Sir
Stuart Bell: I turn to the second Measure before the
Committee, the Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives)
Measure, which extends to Crown benefices the right
of parochial church councils to appoint lay representatives
whose approval must be obtained before the patron may offer to present a
particular priest with a benefice. The cognoscenti among us will know
that a Crown benefice is one where patronage is exercisable by the
Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister, or the Lord Chancellor
acting in the name of the Crown or of the Duchies of Lancaster or
Cornwall. Those benefices are referred to collectively in the Patronage
(Benefices) Measure 1986 as Crown benefices. They make up about 8 per
cent. of parochial benefices. This Measure brings such appointments
into line with parochial appointments.
The third
Measure, which, in a sense, we take in tandem with the second, is the
Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other Ecclesiastical Offices Measure,
and modifies the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534. The mills of God grind
slowly and sometimes they grind exceedingly small, but after the many
years that have passed since 1534, it is probably appropriate for
Parliament to come to terms with modifying the Act. The Measure
modifies the 1534 Act so that only one name, rather than the present
two names, needs to be presented to Her Majesty for an appointment to a
suffragan
see.
The
Measure modifies the law with regard to the exercise by Her Majesty of
patronage belonging to a vacant diocesan see, such that the patronage
in question may be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by a suffragan or
acting bishop during a vacancy in the see. It also abolishes certain
rights of the Crown to present to vacant ecclesiastical offices where
the patronage in question is not normally in the Crowns
gift.
Both
the second and third Measures were introduced to the Synod for first
consideration in July 2008. At the final approval stage, both Measures
received overwhelming majorities in all three houses. I will now
outline the voting on each of the measures. On the vacancies in
suffragan sees Measure, 19 of the bishops were in favour with none
against, 115 of the clergy were in favour with none against,
and 125 of the laity were in favour with two against. On the Crown
benefices Measure, 20 bishops were in favour with none
against, 119 clergy were in favour with none against, and 125 of the
laity were in favour with none against. Since two rather than one of
the laity voted against the vacancies in suffragan sees Measure, I can
only assume that the same person raised both handswe have all
seen a person at the back of political meetings do that. I am, of
course, adding levity to our proceedings. The vote at Synod is properly
recorded.
When
the Measures reached the Ecclesiastical Committee, we had an
interesting, erudite and even titillating debate, taking us back to
1534 and all that, and there was not one vote against any of the
Measures. On that basis, I commend all three Measures to the
Committee.
4.38
pm
Sir
Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): It is a very
great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Key,
not least because you became the only Member of Parliament on the Synod
at the most recent synodical elections, which were the very elections
when I ceased to be a member, having done 10 years hard
labour.
I do not want
to detain the Committee for long and hon. Members will be delighted to
know that I do not wish to divide it. One or two things, however, need
to be said.
I shall resist
the temptation to take the Committee down memory lane, but I have been
on the Ecclesiastical Committee since 1970 and the Second Church
Estates Commissioner, whom I am very pleased to count as a good friend,
was being ever so slightly disingenuousinadvertently, I am
surewhen he talked about the Ecclesiastical Committee having no
votes against. The fact of the matter is that the Ecclesiastical
Committee can only do one thing. You will know this too, Mr.
Key, because you are a member of it. The Committee can deem whether a
Measure is expedient or not, but it cannot amend it or record votes
against it. A Measure is either expedient or not. I do not quibble with
the Ecclesiastical Committee for deeming that the three Measures are
expedient, but I think it is important to put that point on the
record.
It
is also important for people, particularly Members of Parliament, to
know that in the Churchs parliament, which I consider a rather
unsatisfactory institution, votes are taken by a show of hands unless
there is a demand for them to be taken otherwise and to vote by houses,
in which case the laity, the bishops and the clergy will indeed
votethe bishops in the quaint way of going up or down the
steps, according to whether they are voting aye or no. The business of
voting by show of hands and having them counted can lead to the odd
amusing occurrence.
The Synod is
an unsatisfactory institution because it is not really representative
of the man and woman in the pew. I have long argued that the Synod
should be elected by everyone who is on the electoral roll, as we are
all entitled to be, of the parishes where we reside, but that is not
the case. In my parish, for instance, only two people have a vote for
General Synod. They are the people who sit on the deanery
synod.
That is
enough of arcane Church politics. However, it is important to have a
few things like that on the record.
I start with
the miscellaneous provisions Measure. One should always look at these
things very carefully. As the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon.
Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) once saidI think
when she was Leader of the Housein complicated measures, the
devil is often in the detail. It often is, and particularly in Church
of England Measures, we have to look for the devil. Well, I do not
think he is here, so we can approve the Measure without too many
misgivings.
I welcome the
Crown benefices Measure because it is reasonable that there should be
proper lay consultation before an incumbent is appointed. I am a little
less enthusiastic about the suffragan bishops Measure. The Second
Church Estates Commissioner said there was a long and lively discussion
in the Ecclesiastical Committee, led by the Rev. Lord Pilkington, who
is an ordained Church of England clergyman of some considerable
distinction and a theologian to boot. He was concerned, and there is
just a little bit of room for concern, that the submission of one name
rather than two means there is absolutely no choice. Speaking on behalf
of the official Opposition, I can go along with that Measure because I
do not think it will cause great problems. What we will have to look
at, and Synod will certainly have to look at in the coming years, is
the number of suffragan bishops in this country, but that is another
issue and you would rightly call me to task, Mr. Key, if I
dilated on that theme.
I end with
this point. Sometimes people ask me why Parliament bothers with these
things. It always used to be the case that Church of England Measures,
having gone through Synod, were taken on the Floor of the House. Now
they are mostly dealt with upstairs, as we are doing today. However,
while we have an established Church, it is right that we consider them.
I personally welcome the fact that we have an established Church, but
whatever ones views on that issue, while we have one it is
right that Parliament should have the final say on Measures. After all,
everyone who lives in England lives in a parish of the Church of
England and is therefore fully entitled to all the services of the
incumbent and of the Church within that parish. We no longer pay taxes
to our Church as people do in a number of continental countries, but we
have a Church that is there to minister to each and every one of us. As
long as that is the case and it is the established Church of our land,
it is right that Parliament, the supreme authority in our land, should
look at the Measures the Synod
passes.
These
Measures are unobjectionable and I commend them to Members on both
sides of the Committee. I thank the Second Church Estates
Commissioner. It would be right at this stage to congratulate him on
his long tenure as Church Commissioner. I think I am right in saying
that he is the longest serving member of the present Government. Since
1997, he has held a unique position for which he is not paid. He
answers questions with great aplomb on the Floor of the House. We are
all in his debt and are all, I hope, delighted to congratulate him on
what he has done and wish him well for the future. Perhaps he will
become the longest-serving Church Commissioner ever; perhaps the
electorate will decide otherwise. We shall see in a few weeks
time. With those few words, Mr. Key, I commend the Measures
to colleagues on the
Committee.
4.46
pm
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I welcome your chairmanship,
Mr. Key. I do not presume to hold a candle to the two
distinguished colleagues who have already made a contribution. My
commitment to the Church of England, although profound and of long
standing, is more on the pastoral than the legal side, which is not
always the case with the things in which I have interested myself in
this place.
I do not
approach the debate with great knowledge of how the system works. I
simply have a couple of questions for the Church Commissioner, both of
which relate to the vacancies in suffragan sees Measure. I have to
admit a slight prejudice against attacking long-standing legislation.
There was an occasion when the Law Commission had reported on a number
of pieces of legislation and a colleague of mineno longer in
the Houseand I felt an almost irresistible urge to resist the
abolition of the Innkeepers Act 1424, on the grounds that it had stood
the test of time. Last night, only a few Committee rooms away from
here, the bell captain of St. Margarets,
Westminsterwhere I have a certain parliamentary involvement, as
did my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire before
mereminded us that the bells there had been rung continuously,
not all the time but every year, since 1475. One should celebrate that
degree of antiquity but we should move on.
Mr.
Gray: Has my hon. Friend noticed the interesting date of
the Suffragan Bishops Actthe 26th year of King Henry
VIIIs reign? He must forgive me for not remembering, but was
that before or after the Reformation and the establishment of the
Church of
England?
Mr.
Boswell: In so far as the Reformation was a particular
event and not a process, it would be after. I will not
indulge myself at length, but when I was a child I lived in
Bulls Lodgeformerly Bullens Lodge, after Anne
Boleyn, whose father had it as a hunting lodge. I think she married
Henry in 1532, so one can date it however one wishes. It was about that
time.
My hon.
Friend, like me, has an interest in archives. I am sure that
if one went to Lambeth Palace library one would find a seamless process
between what one might call the pre-Reformation and post-Reformation
bishops. We have a lot of
history
4.49
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
5.3
pm
On
resuming
Mr.
Boswell: After that interruption, and to pursue the
ecclesiastical themealthough I preface my remarks by saying
that I do not think persecution has been characteristic of the Church
of England in recent timesI am minded of the Spanish lecturer
at the university of Salamanca who attracted the attention of the
inquisition in the middle ages. He was put in chokey
for five years and resumed his lecture with the words, As we
were saying yesterday.
I do not want
to detain the Committee, but I should like to ask the Church
Commissioner about three points arising from the measure on vacancies
in suffragan sees. First, what is the motivation for the measure? Is it
the difficulty in getting suitable nominations? Is it the wish, which I
am sure will be profoundly echoed by the Committee, to speed up the
nomination process and get things moving? What else is behind the
Measure?
Secondly, I
want to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South
Staffordshire on the disquiet expressed in church newspapers and
elsewhere about the possible reduction in the number of suffragans.
Certainly, in a widely extended diocese such as mine in Peterborough,
we desperately need to keep a suffragan, and for a long time we did not
have one. Others may have a sufficiency, but although in these times
every institution has to be mindful of economy, it would be useful to
have the Commissioners take on how that is likely to
go.
My final
point relates to the comment in the Ecclesiastical Committees
report, which is also in one of the more technical but not very
informative bits of this legislation, that the Measure
abolishes
certain rights the Crown has to present to vacant ecclesiastical
offices where the patronage in question is not normally in the
Crowns
gift.
I
read that as meaning that it would not be very fair or sensible to take
rights away from somebody who would normally have the rights to
nomination on the grounds of the purely contingent fact that there was
a vacancy at the time. I would like two assurances from the
Commissioner: first, that we are not somehow creating a situation in
which nobody is empowered to make an appointment and, secondly, that
anything that does happen is not likely to give rise to undue
delay.
We
all want such tidying-up Measures to work effectively and to improve
the process of selection, which is not an easy one. I should
say before I conclude that I am entirely happy with what I have seen of
the outcome of the appointment of my new diocesan bishop in
Peterborough, and I look forward to his installation in our diocese. We
need to pay reasonable attention to the detail, however, and make sure
that we get it
right.
5.6
pm
Sir
Stuart Bell: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once
more. I did not say at the beginning how pleased I am to be on this
Committee with you, Mr. Key. I had hoped to leave that
little bit of peroration until the end, but I am very happy to
associate myself with the comments of my colleague the hon. Member for
South Staffordshire.
I am pleased
to be on this Committee with you, Mr. Key, and I am sad that
you will be leaving us, which is a great pity from both the Church and
Parliaments point of view. It is also a pity that the hon.
Member for South Staffordshire will be leaving, as will the hon. Member
for Daventry and my hon. Friends the Members for Conwy and for Tyne
BridgeI must be careful to mention all the members of the
Committee who will be leaving us. All of them have rendered great
service to Parliament, but it has not necessarily been notched up,
because as we can see from the serried ranks of the press following our
every word, our work means that we are the unsung heroes of Parliament.
I wanted to put that on the record before we move
on.
The
hon. Member for North Wiltshire asked about Christ Church. When Mark
Twain was sailing down the Mississippi, the captain asked him how far
it was to New Orleans, and he answered with great certainty and speed,
I dont know, sir. I was spared such a response
by an intervention, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in a more
local context, clause 10(2) brings the provisions governing Christ
Church, Oxford, more into line with those applicable to other
cathedrals under the Cathedrals Measure 1999, which did not apply to
Christ Church, by increasing the number of non-residential canons,
allowing the appointment of lay and ecumenical canons, and creating a
college of canons with specified functions. There was consultation with
Christ Church to introduce those changes in the same spirit as those
affecting all other cathedrals, which took effect following the coming
into force of the 1999
Measure.
The
hon. Member for Daventry made three points, which I will seek to
remember and answer. Nothing in the Measure relates to motivation.
There is no difficulty, in my view, with people wishing to seek
nominations. The essence of the Measure is to remove the syndrome that
two names go to the Prime Ministers office. In 100
years, the second person has never been named over the first. We are
entering an era of transparency so many No. 2s know full well that they
are No. 2 and that they have no way of progressing. That is one of the
reasons for the
Measure.
Sir
Patrick Cormack: There was a recent case in the past 12
years when the Prime Minister rejected both
names.
Sir
Stuart Bell: Yes, and there is nothing to prevent a Prime
Minister in the future from rejecting the first name suggested to him.
The first decision that Tony Blair made was to reject two names for the
bishopric of Liverpool. As he said, he went from Bambi to Stalin
overnight as a result of that decision. There is nothing to prevent a
Prime Minister from not endorsing a name but, as I have said, over the
past 100 years, the Prime Minister of the day has always accepted the
first name.
The second
question put by the hon. Member for Daventry was about the exercise by
the Crown of patronage not normally in its gift. There are two types of
situation covered by recommendation (b) of the archbishops
report. The first relates to the position during the vacancy of a
diocesan
see:
Where
a diocesan see is vacant, the patronage that belongs to the
seeand which would normally be exercisable by the diocesan
bishopis exercisable by the Crown instead. The patronage
exercisable by the Crown in these circumstances is known as the
Crowns sede vacante patronage. The Crowns right arises
because during a vacancy in a diocesan see the Crown is the Guardian of
the Temporalities of the see, the rights of patronage belonging to the
see being among those
temporalities.
There
is a reason why that particular essence is in the
Measure.
The
third point the hon. Gentleman raised was about the scarcity or lack of
suffragan bishops, and whether the Measure was a move to reduce them.
To put the point in context, there are 8,000 Church of England parish
priests in our country, 110 bishops and 110 archdeacons. We
have a very strong Church, notwithstanding what is said; as the hon.
Member for South Staffordshire made clear, there is a parish church in
every part of our land. The Measure will not deter people from coming
forward, or be a bar to someone becoming a suffragan bishop.
I come back
to the points made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire when he
began his speech. I am grateful to him for his personal remarks; it is
nice of him to have said what he did in a spirit of parliamentary
camaraderie, as one Member of Parliament to another. I am very grateful
for that. He made the point that the Ecclesiastical Committee can say
only whether a Measure is expedient or otherwise. There are 30 Members
of the Committee, 15 from the Lords and 15 from the Commons. Any Member
can oppose a particular Measure. In the case of the three Measures
before us, none of them did so.
The hon.
Gentleman raised a number of important, valuable points with regard to
Lord Pilkington, a friend of mine in many aspects of his life and
someone I admire. I will not go down the road we took in the
Ecclesiastical Committee, as the Measure deals not with diocesan
bishops but with suffragan bishops.
I am grateful
to the Committee for the pertinent points made by Members. I think I
have answered all of them, but if I have overlooked any, I am happy to
respond to further
interventions.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Church of England (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Measure
(HC207).
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Crown Benefices (Parish
Representatives) Measure (HC 209).(Sir Stuart
Bell.)
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Vacancies in Suffragan Sees and Other
Ecclesiastical Offices Measure (HC 208).(Sir
Stuart
Bell.)
5.14
pm
Committee
rose.