Listed Places of Worship Scheme

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and for highlighting the significant cultural importance of Salisbury cathedral. He is spot on: volunteers across our communities sweat everything they possibly can out of fundraising endeavours. This is not a case of going to the Government in the first instance; this is people simply asking for support that ultimately enables churches to be net economic contributors to the communities in which they operate.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Mr Western, I probably ought to indicate that I have proudly served in the past as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, although I do not regard this as just an Anglican issue at all. Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the support for these buildings—for our churches—comes from generous donations by members of the public, which are given for a very specific purpose. Does my hon. Friend agree that this money is freely given, but that it is not freely given to be taxed? I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that later.

[Bradley Thomas]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are so many generous benefactors across the country who are giving their funds—which, in most cases, they have paid income tax on—to support churches and places that provide spiritual and social wellbeing. Government should recognise that, and I certainly hope the Minister will reference that point in his remarks.

These buildings are loved by their communities, and in most cases they are also cared for by volunteers. Particularly in rural communities, the care of these magnificent buildings is in the hands of a few committed people, many of whom are later in their years. They diligently raise funds for the repair of the church building that has shaped the life of their village and community for centuries. Although I raised major projects earlier, the potential loss of the listed places of worship grant scheme in the places I have just mentioned—which may claim only a few thousand pounds per year—will determine how much maintenance and repair can take place. At worst, it could be the difference between being solvent or not, and determine the long-term survival and preservation of those buildings.

Places of worship are the very essence of place-making and community. They provide enormous value to society—value that our country would be immeasurably poorer without. The National Churches Trust’s “House of Good” report calculated that the total UK-wide economic and social value of places of worship had a market value and replacement cost of £2.4 billion per year. I hope that that puts into perspective what excellent value the listed places of worship grant scheme is for the long-term preservation of those assets. That is £2.4 billion of value for a scheme that costs just £29 million a year. Clearly, that amount of money makes no material difference to the country’s £1 trillion expenditure, so I simply cannot understand what is under threat. If the Government were not to renew the listed places of worship grant scheme, the task of keeping church buildings in good repair and open for people to use would be made much harder. More money would need to be raised by local people to pay VAT to the Government, on top of money for skilled labour, materials and other project costs.

The damage done to parish churches across England will come at a difficult time, when our communities are becoming less united than ever. The past 50 years have seen unprecedented change, with mass immigration, enhanced social mobility and evolving social attitudes. All of those factors have changed and pushed our communities in different directions and made society less cohesive. Instead of attacking one of the last few community spaces left, I ask the Government to continue funding the scheme.

I urge the Government to look now at making the scheme permanent, and not just at giving it a temporary reprieve. A permanent scheme would enable the larger places of worship, such as cathedrals that plan their repair work over five to 20 years, to commit to long-term projects with certainty that VAT costs will be covered by the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing the debate. I come from a different angle as I was very much unaware of it, so I thank the Very Reverend Karen Rooms of Leicester cathedral for bringing it to my attention. Leicester cathedral is the cathedral where, when we found King Richard III in a carpark, we reinterred him, and many in our city believe that is what led to Leicester City winning the premiership the season after, so it is absolutely vital to us.

Cathedrals are more than places of beauty, religion and art. I, as a Muslim, volunteer for a Sikh charity serving food in a Christian church for the whole community. Reflecting what has been said, churches and cathedrals are places of community cohesion. I also come from a culture in which we do not own places of worship; we are simply their custodians. We are custodians of our churches and cathedrals.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It has been raised earlier in this debate, and it worried me. Our parish churches are, of course, important, but is it not true that our cathedrals are also monumentally expensive to maintain? Is not the grant every bit as valuable to, for example, Canterbury cathedral in the see of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly. They are our heritage and we must save them for our future generations. The scheme should not just be extended; it should be made permanent and accessible to many places of worship.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

I feel as if I have been beaten up for the last hour and a quarter in the most genteel way, with a maniple rather than a boxing glove. [Interruption.] I see that most people do not know what a maniple is; perhaps I am the only former priest in the room.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), excoriates me for citing a hymn. It was:

“nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,

when the earth shall be filled with the glory of God,”

and the Department will announce its decisions. The hon. Gentleman says that the Church cannot rely on a hymn and a prayer. Actually, if I might gently correct his theology, that is literally what the Church does rely on. He needs to go back to the 39 articles; I am quite happy to provide tutorials.

We have had Bede—not in Latin, I note. We have had Jethro Tull; I think that that was Jethro Tull the band, rather than the 18th-century agronomist. We have had Matthew Arnold, to whom I will return a little later, and of course Betjeman. We have also had Proverbs; I think 11:14 was quoted, very sensibly, but if we go up to 11:13, in the King James version, which is always my preferred one—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thought that that might carry at least half the House. It reads:

“A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter”,

or in a more modern translation,

“A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret.”

That is what we have been doing in the Department for a while now.

I warmly commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who put his case extremely well. I think that I agreed with nearly everything he said, as I will come to in a moment. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—one of my favourite Conservative Members—quoted Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, and he knew that I would know it:

“The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full…

But now I only hear

Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Part of the problem is dwindling congregations, which are sometimes fewer than a dozen. I know that the Bible says

“where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I”,

but when we are down to two or three, it is difficult to raise the funds for a beautiful, ancient building that is very expensive to maintain or even keep warm. Those are significant challenges, on which I want to work with all hon. Members.

We have focused mostly on Anglican churches—there are obviously not many medieval Catholic churches around—but of course this issue relates to all listed places of worship in the country and to many different congregations, denominations and religions. There is a specific issue for many of our very historic churches, which are beautiful and need our help as a nation.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove is right that churches are community hubs as much as anything else. They host youth groups, such as the one I used to run at All Saints, High Wycombe; I think I was a bit of a trendy vicar back then—that is all gone now. He referred to food banks, which are also run in many churches. In fact, the old Conservative Association in one of my valleys closed and became a food bank, which is run by a new church that has been set up there. That has managed to save an old historic building, which is great.

Choirs and orchestras often perform in churches, and churches are often warm spaces for people in winter. Although my memory of most churches is that they are rarely warm, the fund has been able to help to make segments of churches into warm places. Churches are also refuges for lots of people. The bit that we have not mentioned very much is that they are a place of worship, which is an important part of the spiritual life of this nation. Births, deaths, baptisms, funerals and weddings are a very important part of community life and a commitment to God.

Churches are also of phenomenal artistic and architectural importance. Some of the most beautiful buildings in this country are historic churches. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned Salisbury cathedral. There is the famous painting, of course; it is a very beautiful cathedral. I cannot now think of it without remembering the horrific, horrible Russians who claimed that they had come to Salisbury to visit the tourist site there when we know that they came with murderous intent.

Many of those places are a vital part of our country’s tourism. They are also often a living archive. Whether it is the memorials on the wall or on the floor, the brass rubbings that people look at, or the churchyards themselves, genealogy is still a very big business around the world, including for thousands of Americans. I think Walt Disney at one point came to Northamptonshire or somewhere where there is a d’Isney who may or may not be related. Many Americans come to British churches to see where their forebears came from.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will the Minister accept that the volume of tourists that he has just referred to is essential to many listed buildings, particularly places such as Canterbury cathedral? That volume of tourism also, of course, adds to the cost of maintenance.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, it does. For many cathedrals, deciding whether to charge is a difficult balancing act. It is a complicated decision, but the passage of millions of people through a building does wear it down. Toilets have to be renewed, places have to be kept warm, and the electrics have to be repaired and kept safe; we have heard a couple of references to fires in churches over the years.

I fully accept that volume of tourists is a massive challenge for us. We have a different settlement in this country compared with other countries. In the Church of England, when I was in the diocese of Oxford, we had what we used to refer to as “dead men’s money”, which is the Church’s historic endowment, but it is often stretched very thin.

Hon. Members have talked about funding. The churches themselves do a lot of fundraising, and I put on record my tribute to the widow’s mite and to those who have contributed significant sums over the years to keep churches open. I think Andrew Lloyd Webber has played a significant role in that, as have many others who have given tens of thousands of pounds or have left money to their local church. When I was a curate in High Wycombe we had to raise thousands of pounds for the spire. I think I sat for 24 hours outside the church reading poems, including Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, to help to raise money, and then they threw me out of an aeroplane as well—with a parachute.

The single biggest chunk of money that goes to churches, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove knows, comes from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Between 2017 and 2023, the amount of money given to smaller churches came to £165,188,049. That far eclipses the amount of money that comes through the scheme that we are talking about today. Even Bromsgrove has received £1.2 million from that fund since 1994, including for St Laurence, Alvechurch, which got £189,000 for repairs to its tower last year.

In addition, there is the Churches Conservation Trust, which is governed by the Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act 1969. We will be laying a statutory instrument fairly soon to enable that to continue with something in the region of £3 million, and it is responsible for a specific number of churches. The Church of England has also set aside £11 million for its Buildings for Mission fund. All that funding is excellent.

I have to say that, as a Minister of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the financial situation in our Department is very tough. Many hon. Members who have spoken could equally have come along and asked about the museums or libraries in their constituency, which have struggled because of local authority funding cuts over the last 14 years; or they might have said to me, “What about the local theatre or the local arts venue, which are struggling for finances? Or the music venues that have been closing, two a week, for the last few years?”; or they might point to other forms of heritage at risk. I note that the shadow Minister made several spending commitments for the next general election campaign, including significant extra funding for a whole series of different heritage bodies. There are a significant number of churches on the heritage at risk register. It is good that 23 places of worship have been removed from that since 2023, but obviously we want to go further if we can.

I tried to come to the House as soon as I could after we came to a decision. Going through the process in the Department has been difficult because the funding is so tight and we have a lot of competing demands. In addition, we have a series of arm’s length bodies, such as the national galleries and museums that are Government-owned and under Government responsibility, which we cannot leave out of the equation. I note the Father of the House’s comments earlier—I am sure he is not accusing me of using some kind of hidden tactic—but I wanted to come as soon as I could to respond to the debate, which we knew was going to be today. I have officials and everybody lined up so that I can make the proper announcements to the House as fast as we possibly can, because I think Parliament should hear them first.

Members will be aware from the Order Paper that an announcement on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme is due today. The written ministerial statement will not say much more than I am about to say now, so hon. Members should not get too excited. I am pleased to be able to give certainty and announce that the scheme will continue in 2025-26 with a budget of £23 million. We have made this difficult decision against a tough financial background and bearing in mind a wide range of compelling priorities for expenditure within the Department.

In order to meet the budget, we have introduced a cap on the total amount that a listed place of worship can claim per year. We have set that at £25,000, which can still be spread across multiple claims from the same church. In all the years so far, 94% of applications have been under the £25,000 cap, and the vast majority of claims—over 70%—have been for less than £5,000. A written ministerial statement will be made shortly in both Houses to confirm and provide further details of this announcement, but, to be honest, there is not much more detail there.