Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to see her in her place leading it. She eloquently set out the problems and issues facing churches that have ancient buildings to care for, and I agree with all her comments. I have spent the majority of my adult years attending, organising and contributing to events designed to help raise money for much-needed repairs to leaking roofs, rotten floorboards and new heating systems. This extended to altering the layout of pews so that a community space could be created where worshippers could enjoy a chat and a cup of coffee at the end of a service.

The listed places of worship grant was well respected by parishes and provided much-needed funding for both small and larger projects. The new fund, the places of worship renewal fund, is competitive rather than against criteria. Possibly 100 to 150 churches will get a grant, whereas in the past 5,000 gained from the VAT refund. At 20%, this is not to be brushed aside as irrelevant. Added to that, a church will need competent people to put together the application. The overall amount set aside is now less, as has already been said—£23 million a year versus £92 million for four years—but not inflation-proof. Submissions to the fund can be made only twice a year, whereas previously it was rolling.

Although I can see many benefits in the renewal fund, I fear it will mean that smaller rural parishes will miss out, especially as the fund is competitive. The ethos of the fund to reach out to disadvantaged communities is excellent. However, I suspect that this will mean that urban and city churches—where the expectation will be that the grant will renovate a dilapidated church, leading to increased congregations—will be paramount. I support this, but the other side of this coin is that rural areas where the local church, when built, had a thriving congregation that has now dwindled to a handful of faithful will not score highly enough to get a share of the fund.

For over 30 years, I worshipped in a Somerset village church where the congregation was small—perhaps 15 to 20 on a good day. It was very plain on the outside but had spectacular stained-glass windows, given by the family of a young German airman shot down and sent to work on the local farm. He and his family were so grateful for the kind treatment he received that they replaced all the plain glass windows with beautiful stained glass. This church was not listed then and is not now.

Having moved to Hampshire, I now worship in a church that is generally full. It is a much wealthier area compared with the small Somerset village. There are many different activities, including a group for mums, babies and toddlers on a Monday morning. This church is also not listed. Neither of these churches will have qualified for access to the listed places of worship grant scheme, but both, along with all churches, had to go through the laborious process of getting a faculty if they wanted to do any sort of repair, however small—even if the members of the congregation were to do the repair or updating themselves.

Architectural heritage is important. When entering a cathedral, a sense of wonder descends on the visitor, whether in Rochester, which has existed in various forms since the seventh century, or Coventry Cathedral, which has literally risen from the ashes of the Second World War. Even a modern cathedral will need some repairs to keep the weather out, as demonstrated by the Catholic Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, which had problems with its roof.

When scoring for the places of worship renewal fund, is it likely that a small parish church in a rural area looking to create a community space where outreach can take place—for young people, mums with babies or socialising for the elderly—will not score against the larger town and city churches which serve a large disadvantaged community that needs a sense of community and purpose?

The ending of the listed places of worship grant scheme and its replacement with the places of worship renewal fund has caused widespread concern among many church communities. It is not only regular worshippers who value their church: there are those within a village or community who may rarely attend services but often support fundraising events. These community members want the church to be there for them: for weddings, funerals or the occasional baptism. If a church seems likely to close, there is general outcry among the population it serves. Churches are an important part of the fabric of society and should not be left to crumble into decay.

I support the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox, Lady Seccombe and Lady Gill—and I will have words with my noble friend Lord Scriven. I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance that we are not about to see the demise of the village parish church due to a leaking roof or dry rot.