Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2003
Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 26 February 2003
The Minister of
State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg
to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Grants to the Churches
Conservation Trust Order 2003.
The purpose of the
order is to specify the maximum Government grant to the Churches Conservation
Trust for a three-year period beginning on 1 April 2003. My right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State is empowered to make such an order under section 1 of the
Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969, subject to the
approval of the Treasury and the House. The order constitutes the statutory
basis on which the Government provide financial support for the trust's work.
The Churches
Conservation Trust—formerly the Redundant Churches Fund—was established in 1969
under provisions in the Pastoral Measure 1983, as amended. The trust's role is
to care for Anglican churches of historic or architectural interest that are no
longer required for regular worship and for which no suitable alternative use
can be found. The trust's chairman and trustees are appointed by Her Majesty on
the advice, submitted through the Prime Minister, of the Archbishops of
Canterbury and of York. Since July 2001, the trust has been ably chaired by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
There are almost
13,000 listed Anglican churches, and it is a sad fact that every year about 30
of them cease to be required for regular worship as a result of demographic and
social change. Many are in inner-city or rural locations, and some are of great
historic or architectural interest.
There is a
statutory procedure for dealing with such so-called redundant churches. Most are
found other suitable uses, including as places of worship for other
denominations, community centres, concert halls, offices and, latterly, as
houses. The future of churches of historic, architectural or archaeological
importance for which no satisfactory new use can be identified can be secured by
vesting in the Churches Conservation Trust, which has received 11 such churches
in the past three years. In such cases, the decision is made by the Church
Commissioners, who take expert advice from the Advisory Board for Redundant
Churches, which is an independent body. The funds available to the trust are
also a decisive factor.
The trustees have
legal responsibility for more than 330 churches, of which 310 are grade I or II.
They range from the magnificent 18th century church of St. Paul's, Portland
square in Bristol, which is one of the most important examples of provincial
ecclesiastical Georgian architecture, to St. Bartholomew's, Richard's Castle in
Herefordshire, which is an ancient church dating back to the 12th century. Were
it not for the trust, many beautiful churches would face damaging alterations,
deterioration or even destruction. As it is, however, they are maintained in
sound condition, are accessible to the public, and remain a focus in their
localities.
The trust's main
duty is to repair and maintain such churches, but increasingly it is concerned
to find ways to encourage people from all backgrounds who are not familiar with
historic buildings to see its churches as places where they are welcome and
which belong to them. June 2001 therefore saw the launch of the trust's website
at www.visitchurches.org.uk, and I hope that every member of the Committee has
logged on to it. That achievement has raised the trust's profile and reflects
its wish to be as accessible as possible. Such an innovation was to some extent
overdue, but it is good to see it.
The trust is also
developing a strong education programme for primary and secondary schools and
that, too, is welcome. Last year, its education officer launched a series of
leaflets for teachers so that they could be well informed about the issue.
Schoolchildren were among the 27,000 people of all ages who visited St. Mary's,
Shrewsbury in autumn 2001 to experience Anthony Gormley's inspiring display of
sculptures, ''Field for the British Isles''.
In line with
departmental objectives, the trust aims as far as it can to invest in churches
in Government priority action areas. About £2.3 million from the Heritage
Lottery Fund has been invested in work at St. Paul's, Portland square in
Bristol. The trust hopes to lease the church to a local charity that teaches
circus skills. That will allow the building to regain its place at the heart of
the community and to become a landmark project for the regeneration of that
deprived part of Bristol. [Interruption.] I think that hon. Members are saying
that there were summersaults from politicians, but the House of Commons can
cater quite well for that without help from a church in Bristol. In any case,
the repairs contract is providing excellent training opportunities for
disadvantaged young people through collaboration with a local government-funded
agency.
The trust has
achieved the majority of its objectives, which it set out in its 2001 to 2004
funding agreement. That included a 10 per cent. year-on-year increase in visitor
numbers. As regards future plans, a new funding agreement is being drawn up and
will be ready for implementation by the end of March. The trust has again set
itself challenging targets, including a move towards team-based working in five
designated regions. Meanwhile, the role of the trust's churches as a focus for
education and community activity will continue to be promoted.
The next few weeks
will see the trust's long-awaited move to new office accommodation in west
Smithfield. That is an exciting step for the trust, which has had to battle with
a cramped working environment and an outdated telecommunications system for too
long. The trust's continued presence in the City of London can be justified by
its need to be close to its two major sources of funding. It further benefits by
not having to pay business rates in the City, owing to its charitable status.
My Department is
the trust's major financial supporter and contributes 70 per cent. of its grant
in aid funding. The Church Commissioners provide the remaining 30 per cent. That
ratio has been in place since it was agreed in 1994. English Heritage is
sometimes able to provide funds to assist with major repairs to individual
redundant churches that are due to be vested in the trust. In addition, the
Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded several grants to the trust, which hopes to
receive more for projects in the coming years.
Financial provision
to the trust for the three financial years ending on 31 March 2003 will total
£12.6 million. Of that, £8.8 million will have come from the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport and £3.8 million from the Church Commissioners. The
order provides for Government grants of up to £9 million to the trust in the
next three financial years. That is an aggregate of the public spending review
figures for the next three financial years. Those figures have already been made
public and the trust has been notified for financial purposes.
The grant allocated
to the trust continues to be determined in accordance with departmental spending
review procedures, within the limits of the maximum that the order specifies for
the three-year period as a whole. The Church Commissioners' maximum contribution
for those three years has been set at £3.857 million; the Synod approved it
today. We therefore propose that the trust's maximum overall budget for the next
three years be £12.9 million, against £12.6 million for 2000 to 2003. The
Government are confident that that level of funding will enable the trust to
keep its existing churches in satisfactory repair, receive a limited number of
new churches—the Church Commissioners will need to prioritise eligible
buildings—and achieve the targets set out in the funding agreement.
The order
represents the Government's continuing commitment to the care and protection of
our built heritage, as voiced in the Government report ''The Historic
Environment: A Force for our Future'', which we published in December 2001. The
report outlined the Government's commitment to realising the full potential of
the historic environment harnessed as a lifelong learning resource for all and
made accessible to the whole of society. The order will help the trust to
achieve its aspiration of ensuring that some of the finest buildings in England
become better known, better appreciated, better understood and even more widely
loved by a growing proportion of the population.
Mr. Malcolm Moss
(North-East Cambridgeshire): May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Beard? The Opposition will not oppose the
order. We fully support the grant to the Churches Conservation Trust, which does
invaluable work in maintaining a critical part of our national heritage. We also
pay tribute to the Church Commissioners for their contribution to that cause.
I have a few
questions, which the Minister might be able to answer when he sums up. It is all
very well offering money to rescue churches that would otherwise fall into
disrepair, but are the Government being sufficiently pre-emptive? Are they doing
enough to minimise the unintentional redundancy of churches in circumstances in
which local communities or the Church authorities find it difficult to maintain
them? If money were spent pre-emptively, we might not need quite so much to
bring buildings back from the dead, so to speak.
We are pleased that
the trust has set up its own website and heightened its profile nationally; that
is obviously important and an extremely good move. Are the Government
sufficiently pleased, however, with the conduct of local consultation on
buildings that are threatened? Are the right processes in place to ensure that
local communities have a say in whether such buildings become redundant in the
first place, and, when that is almost inevitable, in what their future should
be?
The Minister said
that 11 churches had been put on the register in the past three years. Our
research, which might be inaccurate, suggested that there were only five; it
would be interesting to have confirmation that we were measuring the same
period. None the less, 11 is a fairly substantial number, as it accounts for
about a third of the churches that became redundant in that period. As the
Minister rightly said, the great proportion find other uses, but is the rate at
which churches are becoming redundant increasing substantially, or is there a
steady trickle of four of five a year?
The increase in
funding from £8.8 million to £9 million is, of course, welcome. However, that is
an increase of only 1.94 per cent. over the next three years, which averages out
at a 0.65 per cent. increase per annum, which is well below the rate of
inflation. Although there may not be a linear relationship between the costs
involved in the trust's work and inflation generally, wages and the cost of
materials are certainly large inflationary factors in any figures, and the
funding in no way keeps pace with inflation. Is the Minister confident that his
Department's share of the money is sufficient to do the necessary work?
What did the trust
ask for? It must have had input, and presumably the Minister can tell us what it
deemed necessary to do the job that it has been given to the best of its
ability. What was the real basis on which he and his team determined the figure
of £9 million? It is a nice round figure, but it does not make much sense to
anyone who looks at the percentage increase on what has been offered over the
past three years. Will he tell us how he determined the final figure?
When the last
statutory instrument was debated, the Minister said that the trust had set
itself challenging targets, mainly financial. He alluded to some of them, but
did not say whether they had all been met, although I think that he said that a
majority had been. Will he give us a closer definition of what he means by
a majority? Was he talking about 90 per cent., 99 per cent. or perhaps just over
50 per cent?
Has there been any
change in the amount of funds available from charitable and non-state sources?
If the money from those sources for the upkeep of churches has increased, has
the Government's contribution fallen? Has the Minister or his Department carried
out any assessment of the relative funding from English Heritage, the Heritage
Lottery Fund, local authorities or other independent sources? Does his
Department have any proposals to encourage potentially larger donations from
those sources? He mentioned £2.3 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund, so
money is obviously coming from such sources, but does that happen on an ad hoc
basis? Do the Government have an overview of the figures?
The Minister
mentioned the trust's new offices. He alluded to the fact that there were no
rates to pay because it was, in effect, occupying its own buildings, but he did
not say whether there was any increase in the overheads of running the trust as
a result of moving into new premises.
All in all, we
support the order, but we would be grateful for the Minister's answers to our
questions.
Mr. Adrian
Sanders (Torbay): We support this mechanism for getting money to where it is
needed. It is vital that we do what we can to preserve and enhance our
ecclesiastical heritage. However, I have two questions, one of which might
require a written reply.
This draft order,
like the previous one, which was introduced in 2000, is for three years. Are
there mechanisms in place to review it within the three-year period in
circumstances that are obviously beyond the Minister's control? For example, if
inflation returns or other disasters occur, it might be necessary to reconsider
the situation, so is there a review mechanism?
My second point
relates to an interesting issue raised with me by my right hon. Friend the
Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Historic Chapels Trust does a
similar job to that of the Churches Conservation Trust in relation to disused
nonconformist and Roman Catholic chapels of historical and architectural
significance. Together with the Churches Conservation Trust, it won concessions
on value added tax—hon. Members may recall their campaign—and Scottish and Welsh
trusts won a similar concession. However, the trusts face a similar problem
arising from the Licensing Bill.
The Government plan
to exempt churches from expensive and bureaucratic licensing procedures for
concerts in places of worship, but they have not so far made specific proposals
to include the Churches Conservation Trust in the Licensing Bill exemption.
There is a danger that the money granted today will return to the Treasury in
the form of charges under the Bill. Has the Minister raised that issue with
colleagues?
If not, will he do
so and give us his view? Those are my points, but we shall support the order.
Bob Russell
(Colchester): Following on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Torbay (Mr. Sanders), we need to be clear whether the Chancellor is giving with
one hand on VAT and taking with the other. Ministers and others must also
consider, albeit not today, how the nonconformist Churches and other faiths—not
only Christian faiths—can be brought under the same umbrella. While it is right
and proper for us to support the order, we should move on from the thought that
only the Anglican church should benefit from this largesse.
We should put on
record our appreciation to everybody involved in the Churches Conservation
Trust. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, perhaps
if there were more resources more could be done. Many historic buildings in our
communities would benefit from such assistance.
I am particularly
keen on the trust because there are already three buildings under its
jurisdiction in my constituency—one would expect that in Britain's oldest
recorded town—so perhaps I am putting out the begging bowl for more. Will the
Minister tell me in his reply today, or later in writing, whether there is a
route back for a church whereby it can again become a regular parish church or
place of worship? Suppose the community has departed, the church is redundant
but has been restored to perhaps its best condition in centuries, and then the
closure of a port and massive urban regeneration brings more people into the
area than historically lived there. There in their midst is a closed church. Is
there a mechanism, if the community desires it, to bring that church back into
active use?
I am not sure who
has legal ownership of the buildings. If ownership is no longer with the
diocese, does it still have any say over the use to which a church, once closed,
can be put? I ask that because the Greek Orthodox community in my constituency
would like to take over a closed church, but is apparently having difficulties
in so doing. Is there something in the rules and regulations that enables the
former owners to prevent a different denomination or faith from coming in?
Those are pertinent
questions, which I hope the Minister will answer in writing, if not in his
response today.
Mr. Frank Field
(Birkenhead): I add my expressions of pleasure at speaking under your
chairmanship, Mr. Beard. I declare an interest in that I am chairman of the
Churches Conservation Trust, although I think that I have not put it in the
Register of Members' Interests—I shall go and do so immediately after the
Committee rises. If I take a slightly different angle from the other speakers in
this debate, it is because I am the chairman of that body.
Thanks to
taxpayers' money and to support from the Church Commissioners, this country now
has the finest collection of ecclesiastical buildings anywhere in the world, and
it has put them under one stewardship. The taxpayers and the Church have done
that not only because they believe that the buildings are of great beauty, but
because they are part of the English memory. For them to be carelessly destroyed
would be a huge act of vandalism.
I shall comment
later on some of the issues that have been raised, but the debate gives me an
opportunity not only to congratulate the staff who conserve our buildings and
ensure that they are open to the public, but in the House of Commons to express
to the huge number of volunteers my respect for their extraordinary effort. I
also put on the record our thanks to them, whether they are paid or unpaid, for
that effort.
Let me pick up the
comments so deftly put by the Opposition speakers. We must accept that we are
discussing a standstill budget. Although the Secretary of State, when the public
expenditure round was agreed, wrote to all the organisations that he helps to
fund saying what a generous settlement had been made, we had a standstill
budget. However, the Secretary of State said that money was being kept back for
modernisation, and I assure the Minister that when money becomes available for
which organisations can apply, the trust will be one of the first to do so.
We will happily
work under the heading of modernisation, because we must think well beyond the
bounds that the trust has sought to maintain up to now in carrying out its
functions. I therefore welcome the care that the Government have taken in
limiting taxpayers' money given to us. They have said that there is an offer of
new money, but that nothing will come to us automatically: it will depend on the
quality of our plans. The debate that took place in General Synod earlier showed
that this is the last time that its members will approve their side of the
agreement.
The full effects of
the squandering of historic assets by previous Church Commissioners on the
financial running of the Church are now becoming only too plain. Had they not
lost that £800 million by thinking that they could pull off a fast move in
American property, the Church today would have an extra £50 million a year in
income. The effects of that folly of a decade ago are beginning to show in the
Church's daily operations. I therefore do not expect Synod to approve its side
of the motion again.
When the hon.
Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned Churches that are not established
Churches being outside the fund, there was considerable agreement among Labour
Back Benchers about what appears to be unfairness. Therefore, the modernisation
proposals that we take to the Government must not only rethink our role, but do
so in a way that takes into account other Christian denominations, so that the
best of their buildings can be treated as well as redundant Anglican buildings
have been in the past.
To end on a
personal note, we are always pleased to hear from other groups that might wish
to use our churches. One of the hon. Gentleman's local churches, St. Martin's,
which I think was used as a restaurant for a time, was most weirdly painted in
ways that did not enhance the building. There clearly are problems surrounding
who gain leases on buildings and how they treat them. However, it was good news
that there might be somebody in the market for the three churches in his
constituency.
I am grateful for
this opportunity to speak. I want, through the Government, to thank taxpayers
for their support. May I also convey, through my hon. Friend the Second Church
Estates Commissioner, our thanks to the Church. My right hon. Friend the
Minister will add another first to the many firsts of his parliamentary career:
I do not think that in three years' time another Minister will move a similar
motion to the one moved today.
Second Church
Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): I add my own expressions of
satisfaction that I am in this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Beard. I
can agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in this respect: I
will probably not be in another Committee with you for the next three years, as
I do not normally sit on these Committees.
Let me tell the
Committee a story about Winston Churchill, who used to walk the grounds of 10
Downing street, dictating to his secretary. He used to start with ''Mr. Speaker,
sir, I didn't intend to speak today, but,'' and then he gave his set speech. I
did not intend to speak today, but came simply to congratulate my right hon.
Friend the Minister. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead
referred to the Church Commissioners, it might be useful to put some points on
record, although I will not speak of dissatisfaction, because I was hardly
dissatisfied with the Minister's statement.
The figure of £800
million for the supposed loss some years ago is not correct. The Church
Commissioners never lost that amount on property. However, that figure has got
into the system, and like all figures that get into the system, it is impossible
to get out, as we have heard today. When I became Church Estates Commissioner in
1997, the commissioners' assets were £3 billion. Under my stewardship, they
increased to £4.5 billion. Victory has 1,000 fathers, and why should I not be
one of them? Assets have decreased a little, to about £4.3 billion, because of
the fall in the stock markets, but they are sufficient for a lengthy period.
I therefore do not
associate myself with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend that this is
the last time that the commissioners will grant money to the Churches
Conservation Trust. The money is the Church Commissioners' money, not Synod's
money. I am very glad that that grant has been approved today, but I do not
believe that it represents the last contribution that the Church Commissioners
will make.
On the wider issue
of Church and state, although we have many debates about the Church being
established or disestablished, Church and state come together under this order.
The Church makes its contribution through the Church Commissioners; the state
makes its contribution through the taxpayer and my right hon. Friend. Thus, we
see how the established Church works in harmony and, in this case, in the
interests of our stock of redundant churches.
I end on a happy
note by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead on his
work as chairman of the Churches Conservation Trust. I also congratulate my
right hon. Friend the Minister. He might not be in his post in two or three
years' time, but I am sure that whoever is in his post then will introduce a
similar order.
Mr. Caborn:
I shall try to answer in writing the questions that I do not answer now, because
I cannot give all the details now, although I have been going through the annual
report to try to find answers. I advise hon. Members that if they read the
2000–01 annual report—an extremely good read—it will probably answer all the
questions that they have asked. None the less, I shall do my very best.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned the change in the funding
arrangements. Part of our funding comes from the Church of England or, to be
more precise, the Church Commissioners. Originally, the Church provided 60 per
cent. of our budget and the taxpayers 40 per cent. That ratio is now 30 per
cent. and 70 per cent. respectively, but it would be wrong to take a simple
reading of those figures. Both Church and taxpayers are committing more in money
terms to our work than they did originally. However, the Church lost certain
fiscal privileges—some have been mentioned today—such as exemptions from rates
on vicarages, so part compensation was made by adjustments to the proportion of
the grant that taxpayers made to the trust, which explains today's figures of 70
per cent. and 30 per cent. The formula has changed.
The amount of money
that the trust asked for is outlined on page 31 of the report, which says:
''We have applied
to our sponsors for £14,798,000 to enable us to take forward our core work . .
. This is a comparatively modest increase, at 17 per cent., on our statutory
funding of £12,612,000''.
So, the answer to
the question asked about that is 17 per cent., of which we granted 2 per cent.
Nevertheless, we are looking at all the budgets and I am sure that the hon.
Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, whose party stands for cuts in taxation
and public funding, will wholeheartedly agree that one has to be very prudent
when considering public expenditure to make sure that the money is spent in the
right way.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned that my Department is going through a
modernisation process. We have held back some funds to drive that modernisation
forward. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire would
totally agree with that, too. I was asked whether the trust has hit its
targets. If hon. Members look at the report, as I recommend they do, they will
see that there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of visitors. The
education targets are also set out in the annual report. I cannot give the
details about the finances of the new offices, but I shall write to the hon.
Gentleman.
The hon. Member for
Torbay asked whether the draft order can be changed during the three-year
period. It can be, but if it were, the money would have to come out of other
expenditure by my Department. We are setting out a comprehensive spending review
for three years. If we want to make a course correction, we can do so—any
Department can—but we cannot go back to the Treasury and ask for more money.
Therefore, if there were a crisis in the organisation, it would have to come to
us and make a good case, because we would have to rob Peter to pay Paul, which
would not be easy.
I cannot answer the
questions about Roman Catholics and VAT now, but will come back to them. The
Licensing Bill has been part of a long debate, but I shall draw the comments of
the hon. Member for Colchester to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister
for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who is dealing with that Bill.
Until the timely
speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, I had not realised the
parlous state of the Church of England's finances. He gives a warning that we
should all heed. Managing that type of change will not be easy. As he said, we
are all custodians of a collection of churches that is probably unrivalled
anywhere in the world. If serious financial problems are likely to arise in the
next two or three years, we must recognise that now and consider how we can
ensure that our heritage is maintained for future generations.
I smiled when I was
asked whether churches can be taken back into use as a church or be used for
other purposes. I got married in a church inside Sheffield university 37 years
ago, and when I went back about three years ago I found that it had been changed
into a lecture room for the university. When I gave a lecture there, I said that
35 years ago I had been standing at the altar there, and it had not changed at
all. It makes an incredibly good lecture theatre, and the pews are still in
place. I said to some of the students ''I was here 35 years ago, but getting
married, not lecturing''. Sheffield university has kept that church in
tremendous order, and it is now used daily by students. If churches can keep
their historical context and be used in a modern setting, we should encourage
that, and we should also encourage the population to visit them.
Question put and
agreed to.
Resolved,
Committee rose at
eight minutes past Three o'clock.
|