Places of Worship Renewal Fund
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prentis of Banbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the places of worship renewal fund will differ from the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
My Lords, the church of St James the Apostle has towered over the small village of Somerton, Oxfordshire, for almost 1,000 years. Last Saturday, our daughter Matilda and her new husband James were married there. The bells rang, the bridesmaids looked beautiful and the church was immaculate. It was a perfect setting for a happy day.
Our church plays an important part in village life. We have no shop or pub and precious little public transport. Around half the adult population, 87 of us, choose to sign up to be on the electoral roll. Most are not regular churchgoers, but every couple of months many of us attend events which range from traditional services to holiday clubs for children, from talks and fêtes to the annual Orthodox Theophany service in the week of Christian unity. Our nativity play, with a real baby, ponies, sheep and alpacas dressed as camels, is the talk of the valley and frankly makes “The Vicar of Dibley” look rather low-key.
This large church is a huge responsibility for a small village. It is grade 1 listed: 45% of grade 1 listed buildings in the country are places of worship. Every five years, we are given a list of repairs that must be carried out. We are currently worrying about how to pay for a repair to the roof, and we are not alone in that. Cleaning the church in the run-up to the wedding, I felt the care that had been lavished on our building for generations. I am very concerned that the actions of this Government mean that on our watch we may fail to preserve these buildings as we should.
The vast majority of the money needed for upkeep comes from individuals in the village. Apparently 89% of the population are unaware that, for most ordinary parish churches, there is no central fund for repairs. Our church relies mainly on a very few people giving monthly direct debits. Of course, in order to function as a church, we must also fund the contribution that pays our share of clergy costs, which in our case is £11,500 a year. All this from a congregation, on a normal Sunday, of around 10.
Money for mission rightly should come from churchgoers—I have no quarrel with that—but this debate is about how we support our most important listed buildings. The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme allowed us to apply to reclaim the VAT costs on the cost of repairs, with a fairly straightforward application process. About 60% of all listed places of worship in the UK have used the scheme in the last 10 years. That is why previous Governments funded it with a stable budget of about £42 million. With that, we were not only preserving beautiful and important buildings but recognising the real value that churches provide to community life in the UK. Recent research by the National Churches Trust, using proper Treasury methodology, estimates that for every £1 spent on a church the benefit to the community is £16. It is worth remembering that the Church of England has to provide marriages and burials, and that there is historical value as well as civic value in these buildings. We are also, for example, the largest provider of art exhibition space in the country.
Despite all that, the Government decided drastically to cut the funding available to a fund of £23 million a year, which will not rise with inflation, and there is a new cap on all grants of £25,000. They announced that the scheme would end in April this year only for it to close early, meaning that eligible applicants lost out. After some time, when we were all in the lurch, with no information at all, we now, sadly, have details of the places of worship renewal fund. It is a very complex competitive grant scheme, with two application windows a year. Historic England, which has once again been put in charge of administering the scheme, has already warned of delays just for the earliest stage of the application. The scheme is limited to England only, with no provision for listed places of worship in the rest of the UK. To put the differences into perspective, it is estimated that the new scheme will probably support 100 to 150 listed places of worship a year. The previous scheme supported around 5,000.
The complexity of the application process is a real barrier. The fund is explicitly designed to target support in the most deprived areas of England, where need is highest. Consideration will also be given to communities with the least ability to raise funds locally. The scoring matrix has not been published, and I ask the Minister to give us further details on how rural deprivation in particular will be assessed. If necessary, I ask her to write to me about this, because details are really needed by the poor individuals in parishes around the country who are going to have to make the applications for the scheme.
I ask the Minister to think again. There is an argument that we should have a scheme such as this one for areas of highest deprivation, but please could we do it in conjunction with the previous scheme, which allowed us to claim back VAT costs? I am really pleased that the Conservative Party has committed to reinstate the much more generous scheme as it was before.
I thank noble Lords for their interest in this debate. I am sure that, in turn, they will all join me in thanking those who care for our listed places of worship: the Churches Conservation Trust, the Friends of Friendless Churches and, most of all, the individuals of all faiths and none who give their time and money to keep the roof on. The Government should not tax this worthy work, which is done on behalf of us all.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, if we get this right, we will do far more than preserve historic buildings; we will protect the civic infrastructure that quietly sustains our communities every single day. If we get it wrong, we risk allowing that infrastructure to erode slowly. So I welcome the Government’s intention, and I thank the Minister for bringing this measure forward. However, intentions alone will not sustain these places. What matters now is delivery and that this proposal truly matches the scale of the reality on the ground.
This is not really about buildings. It is about whether we recognise, and are prepared to properly support, the role that these places now play as front-line providers of community support. In my own city of Newport, these are not abstract heritage assets. They are places where people go when the system is under pressure. They are where families turn to when times are hard. Increasingly, they are stepping in when others no longer can, and they are doing so largely through volunteers, through faith communities, and through people who give their time and energy without expectations of recognition.
My own church, St Woolos Cathedral in Newport—the seat of the Archbishop of Wales, the inspirational and welcoming most reverend Cherry Vann—is a place of history, a place that holds the memory and remains of the Chartists, who died in the struggle for democracy, but its significance does not end there. St Woolos is not simply a monument to our past. It is a working part of our present. It is a place of worship, certainly, but it is a place where people gather, where support is distributed, where community is built and sustained. In every meaningful sense, it is a civic asset. This coming Sunday, I shall be honoured to once again attend Newport’s Civic Sunday service, held to welcome the city’s new mayor, who this municipal year is my very good friend, Councillor Deb Harvey—the epitome of a community champion—together with the deputy mayor, Councillor Debbie Jenkins, who I know has an excellent grade in GCSE English as she is one of my former pupils.
When we talk about funding these buildings, we do not mean that they are passive structures to be preserved; they are active institutions. The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme has recognised that, at least in part, and has succeeded because of that recognition. It has worked because it has been straightforward, predictable and accessible. It has trusted communities to get on with the job of serving others rather than tying them up in bureaucracy.
I welcome the proposal for a places of worship renewal fund, but I say with caution to the Minister that this must not just be a rebranding exercise. It must be a real step forward. The reality is stark. The demands on these buildings are increasing, not decreasing. The question before us is simple: does this fund rise to meet that reality? Will it support not just emergency repairs but essential adaptations to make these buildings usable in the modern world—accessibility, energy efficiency and the ability to remain open as genuine community hubs? I hope it will maintain that simplicity. Most importantly, will it be funded at a level that reflects what is happening in communities like mine in Newport, where these buildings are shouldering an ever greater sense of social responsibility?
I support the direction the Government are taking. This is the moment for realism and ambition. If we are serious about strengthening communities, we must be serious about strengthening the institutions that hold them together; if we are serious about resilience, we must invest in the places that deliver it daily; and, if we are serious about fairness, we must recognise that these communities cannot continue to do more with less. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the fund does not merely continue what exists but strengthens it, to ensure that it reflects not just aspiration but the reality faced on the ground, and to ensure that places like St Woolos are not simply preserved for their past but properly supported for the indispensable role that they play today. These buildings are not just part of our heritage; they are part of our response to the challenges that we face now, and we cannot afford to let them fall in that pursuit.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, for securing this debate and, indeed, for her wider service to the Church. I congratulate her daughter and son-in-law as well. I thank the many thousands of people across our country who play a part in caring for our wonderful churches and churchyards.
My fellow Lords spiritual regret that they are not able to join this debate; many are with their candidates for ordination services taking place this weekend. I know, however, that they share my support for the places of worship renewal fund and the recognition from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that places of worship are
“part of who we are as a nation”.
As the Second Church Estates Commissioner put it when this scheme was raised in Questions in the other place, churches are cornerstones of our communities. It is hard to overstate the significance they hold to people up and down the country, irrespective of faith. They are not only places of worship but vital community assets contributing to heritage, to social cohesion and to local economies. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government recognise this through the fund.
I am also aware that there have been collaborative campaigns for long-term sustainable support for the fabric of church buildings. The places of worship renewal fund will help unlock other funding for capital works which would have been unavailable under the previous scheme. In my diocese, for example, there are a number of major parish churches in areas of high deprivation which simply could not have raised the necessary funds needed for repairs, even with the VAT rebate.
There are, however, shortcomings to this new fund; some have already been mentioned by noble Lords, but I think it is important that I state them for the record. First, far fewer churches overall will be supported through this new fund than they were by the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. The latter provided around £40 million a year and supported around 5,000 listed places of worship per year. By contrast, the places of worship renewal fund works out at £23 million annually for four years and is expected to benefit around 100 to 150 listed places of worship each year.
Secondly, this fund applies only to England. Church buildings play as important a part in the heritage and community infrastructure of the devolved nations. I ask the Minister to explain how the Government plan to support churches in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Thirdly, although I appreciate the focus on areas of high deprivation, where churches can struggle to raise funds, the index of multiple deprivation does not reliably capture the challenges that more rural areas face in this respect and, indeed, more broadly. Very rural areas have smaller communities to draw on for fundraising, yet churches there can play an even more important role in bringing people together, often as the only public building for miles. Again, I ask the Minister whether any support will be extended to these more rural churches in future years of the fund.
The financial challenges facing cathedrals and church buildings, and those who care for them, are growing. Recent funding pressures highlight a widening gap between the cost of maintaining historic places of worship and the resources available to support them. Many congregations are now small and the burden of upkeep increasingly falls on communities with limited resources. A strategic long-term funding approach is needed—one which recognises that greater stability enables greater planning, better outcomes and, ultimately, better value for money. Can the Minister indicate whether that is the Government’s long-term ambition?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I enjoyed his contribution, although I have a nagging feeling that what I am about to say may make him wish that he had been scheduled to speak after me rather than before.
I may be a minority of one in this debate, with these views, but I am definitely not a minority of one in the House nor in the country. We are living in an increasingly secular Britain, where less than half the population identifies with any religious faith and a mere fraction regularly attends services. Yet this capital fund ring-fences millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money a year for the exclusive benefit of active religious buildings across the country. This is not a natural exercise in heritage conservation. It is an exercise in state patronage, filtering public tax revenue from citizens of all beliefs and none to subsidise the operational footprints of religious institutions.
Look at the gross unfairness baked into the eligibility criteria: the historic grade 2 listed village hall, an old miners’ welfare hall or an independent community theatre facing structural collapse cannot touch a single penny of this fund. They are forced to battle for oversubscribed general grants. The irony is that religious organisations are fully entitled to apply for some of these pots too, but an active place of worship now receives a dedicated, exclusive, multimillion-pound safety net.
Crucially, the Government have confirmed that the financial assets of religious bodies are not routinely considered when determining how this new support will be distributed. Why? Let us look, for example, at the Church of England. The Church Commissioners manage a massive, diversified endowment fund that is now valued at an astonishing £11.6 billion. They hold vast stakes in global equities and, despite scaling back their retail exposure, they retain a 10% stake in the Metrocentre in Gateshead, which is now being put up for sale for an estimated £500 million. This demonstrates just how highly commercialised these holdings are.
Nowhere is the commercial wealth clearer than in the heart of London, where the Church owns the prestigious 90-acre Hyde Park Estate. The estate consists of 2,300 high-end properties, luxury residential lets and the boutique commercial quarter of Connaught Village. It raises a staggering £45 million to £60 million in rental income annually for the fund. Let us be clear about what is missing from this premier estate: despite the Church’s public rhetoric on housing, there is virtually no social nor affordable housing on this site. It is treated explicitly as a high-yield cash generator.
We will no doubt hear the argument that the £11.6 billion fund cannot legally be used to maintain local parish churches because its statutory duty is restricted to pensions and clergy salaries. Although restructuring the endowment fund to local church properties might be difficult, it is not impossible if the leadership of the Church of England decides it wishes to do so. It is a question of choice. Instead, this cash-rich institution hoards its wealth centrally and does not use it for the upkeep of private religious buildings.
The Church of England spent £35 million on school evangelism projects alone last year. At a time when it can devote more money in a single year to school mission than the total annual budget of this entire new tax-funded building fund, why should taxpayers be expected to meet the cost of repairs that the Church is entirely capable of funding from its own vast resources?
Furthermore, we must scrutinise the strict mandate that these buildings must remain in active religious use to qualify. This goes far beyond preserving architecture. If this were purely a rescue mission for historic bricks and mortar then the theological utility of the building would be completely irrelevant. By tying public millions to active worship, the state is directly intervening to support religious practice itself. By funding active worship, the taxpayer is being forced to bankroll institutions that frequently hold exclusionary positions. Many of the religious bodies owning these buildings discriminate in their hiring practices, refuse to perform same-sex marriages or bar women from leadership roles. Why should an LGBT+, atheist or woman taxpayer see their hard-earned money used to prop up the roof of an establishment that rejects their rights?
If we are to spend £92 million of public capital on heritage, let us do so through a strictly neutral secular framework, which these buildings and institutions can bid against. Let us build an exclusive fund for public space, not fund the structural fabric of private faith. I urge the Government to rethink this fund and use it to deliver and protect truly secular and inclusive buildings for a 2026 Britain.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic, and sincerely thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury.
I recognise that places of worship are an important part of the UK’s heritage and architecture. It is fair to say that my opinion differs greatly from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who spoke before me. I have taken a particular great interest in them since I was a board member of English Churches Housing. Places of worship have held a special fascination for me, regardless of the faith—not just for their spirituality, serenity and intimacy, but because they give real insights into the history of the locality. Over the last years, post Brexit, I have regularly visited my local churches for art lessons, musical performances and local fêtes. From the number of activities posted on the boards, you can see they are a real centre of the community—a hub for community cafés, parent and toddler groups, food banks and for addressing many other welfare concerns.
Likewise, sacred places of other faiths provide similar support for their congregations. My own experience of Sikh gurdwaras is that many of them provide a daily hot meal to everyone in the community, not just to the practitioners of that faith. Therefore, I believe the renewal fund of £92 million of capital funding over four years announced earlier this year will address the challenging state of repairs of some of our oldest buildings in disrepair. The fact that the funding priority will be to those areas of high deprivation is a positive factor, given it is harder for those places of worship to raise funds in their localities.
I appreciate that many of the oldest buildings are churches and cathedrals. Nevertheless, there are notable older buildings belonging to other faiths that will qualify, including 27 synagogues, 15 mosques, seven Sikh gurdwaras and five Buddhist temples. I am particularly pleased that many of them are in my old constituency in the West Midlands.
However, I have had a lot of feedback about the loss of universal VAT refunds. This will be felt as a real cut by many places of worship, which will no longer have access to VAT-free repairs. I recognise that many of these are new, but they are iconic landmarks, such as Guru Nanak Road Gurdwara in Southall, Neasden Hindu Mandir Temple and Birmingham Central Mosque. They are not listed, but they are very important centres for long-established communities. I recognise that they have recourse to National Lottery funding, but there are real dilemmas faced by the committees of those organisations about accessing funds from gambling. Regardless, I welcome that this Government are safeguarding our heritage for future generations to enjoy—believers and non-believers.
Could I finally ask the Minister whether any additional support in navigating complex application processes will be given to deprived neighbourhoods which lack dedicated heritage staff?
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis for bringing this important debate before the House. Parish churches are so often the centre of local communities, including for people of all faiths and none. Nothing can compensate when a centuries-old church closes its doors. Over the past half century, approximately 8,500 churches of all denominations have closed. This is a profound tragedy.
During the pandemic, the doors of all our church buildings were suddenly shut, and 75% of the respondents to the National Churches Trust survey said that this had a negative effect on their community. Priests were forbidden by their own bishops from entering the churches that they are called to love and serve—even from ringing the bells to let people know that they were being prayed for. May those decisions never be repeated. As I live alone, I found lockdown particularly difficult. I discovered that the only way I could see other people was when I was shopping. Shopping and embroidery kept me going. I was greatly relieved when I was able to join my son’s bubble, and so in my Toyota hybrid I travelled to and fro—but thankfully very economically.
Of course, the established Church has much to answer for. But it appears that the Government are misunderstanding the role of our church buildings once again. It is shameful that the funding was cut by almost half for the listed places of worship scheme in its last year, and now the new places of worship renewal fund will see drastically fewer churches receive any government support.
Repair works can be expensive, and increasingly so, but they are essential to maintaining our heritage—not just England’s but Wales’s, Scotland’s and Northern Ireland’s. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the new places of worship renewal fund should be accessible to listed places of worship across our whole country.
Church communities and their volunteers are the custodians of this heritage, yet they are under attack. The Countryside Alliance estimated that 10 crimes were committed every day on church property in 2025, and the true figure may well be higher. What is the government action to tackle this? The damage caused to our altars and stained-glass windows traumatises congregations and tears apart communities. It causes the need for yet more repairs, beyond the usual day-to-day maintenance of these magnificent buildings. They need our help.
It seems that all these volunteers are asking for is that their fundraising efforts for repairs are not taxed further with the addition of VAT. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell us why the Government insist on doing so.
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.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis of Banbury, for securing this debate and congratulate her for the way she set it out. I also congratulate Matilda and James on what sounds like a splendid wedding. As their example shows, we are discussing places that record some of the most important moments in people’s lives and link us, in many cases, to 1,000 years of history of those who have also been through such moments. They are, in urban and rural areas, often the last community venues, providing not just religious services but support to the community in so many ways. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, they are part of our civic infrastructure. The survey by the National Churches Trust has tried to put a figure on this, showing that £55 billion of social value is delivered just through churches, let alone the other places of worship of all faiths and denominations to which these schemes apply.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for speaking, and we of course send our best wishes to all the ordinands this Petertide. Liturgically, this is perhaps not the best timing for the debate, but it is a timely one to be having. These buildings, of all faiths and none, are looked after by volunteers; they are not rewarded—in this life anyway—for their service. Not every parish can rely on a former Attorney-General to help them get their head round new schemes. The old scheme had many advantages, and we have heard chiefly about its simplicity and reliability. When I was a Minister, though, I was always open to ideas. The scheme was good for those who had the money to carry out the work, but lots of churches said they wanted something that would enable them to carry out the work in the first place. I am therefore open to ideas that allow that, as the new fund does.
As others have said, however, the way that the change has been brought about is regrettable, in many ways. Initially, there was the halving of the amount available and a bit of uncertainty about whether it would continue and when, which led to a very tight window for people to be applying, certainly in this first tranche of the scheme. That of course puts further burdens on volunteers, particularly those without the resources or the professional background that would help them get their head around it. There was also a bit of a lack of consultation among the users of the scheme, which is an important point. Debates such as this are a great way for feedback to be received by the Minister and her officials in relation to those who are using the scheme to deliver that public good. However, we recognise that we are where we are, and the Government have provided clarity about the scheme for the rest of this Parliament.
I will focus, therefore, on how we can make the new scheme work best. As we have heard, it is competitive. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government will ensure that we do not have winners and losers. Previously, there was a scheme to which everyone could apply. The cap in the old scheme was only ever met once—last year, when the amount was halved. Before that, people applying knew that they were very likely to get the money back. How do we make sure there is that reliability and dependability in the new scheme? How do we make it as user-friendly as possible, through generous deadlines, clear guidance and simple forms for the volunteers to fill in?
The new scheme focuses on areas of deprivation. There has been a lot of interest, but also a lot of head-scratching among those who are trying to work it out around the country. How can we make sure that the datasets that the scheme is based on are reliable? In particular, the Community Needs Index scores an area as more affluent if it has an asset such as a church, so how do we make sure that the methodology does not count against the places with a church that are in most need? Will the Minister work with Historic England to make sure that feedback from these early tranches is fed into the user experience?
The new system is England-only, whereas the old one was UK-wide. Will the Government work with the devolved authorities to make sure that there is support in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where, because of the different denominations, particularly of churches, there are a greater number of religious buildings needing to be looked after and saved? Will the Minister recognise that not everyone can avail themselves of the National Lottery Heritage Fund? Some faith groups and denominations do not like to apply to that particular heritage fund because it involves an element of gambling. That is why this scheme is so important.
Will this scheme be evaluated? In talking about the reasons for this scheme previously, the Minister said that eight out of 10 churches said that they would have carried on the work anyway. Of course they would, because, if the roof is falling down, you have to fix it, whether you get the tax back or not. The evaluation and the analysis are really important here. Can the evaluation of this scheme be done in conversation and consultation with users to understand some of the nuances which I think might have been lost in drawing up the current one? There might be a blend of the two schemes that would help give the grants and the tax back.
I should declare an interest: I am a trustee of the Churches Conservation Trust. In fact, I have just come from a meeting of the trustees of that secular charity that looks after 350 churches across the country. It was the biggest user of the old scheme. In effect, the ending of the tax arrangements now means a tax bill in the region of £300,000 for a charity that is funded by both church and state to look after these buildings for the good of the community. I know the Minister has been generous with her time with the chairman and chief exec of the charity, and has visited a CCT church in Rugby: I hope she will continue with the open-door approach that she has.
As we have a bit of time in hand before the hour is done, I shall draw out a bit more on the point that noble Lords have made about the work that these churches do for people of all faiths and none. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is very welcome to visit a CCT church to see the range of things that we do there: art exhibitions, recording studios, model railway exhibitions, CAMRA beer festivals, and even medieval jousting. I note that his party wants a network of cold spaces in this period of heat. There are not many places colder than a church, I can tell him. We have this network that can be used by people of all faiths and none. And of course, they are engines of training for the heritage skills that we need to repair buildings, including the one we are sitting in at the moment. I hope that the Minister will take the feedback that has been given by users of the scheme to the department to make sure that we have a scheme that really thanks and understands the custodians of these buildings who are delivering such a social good.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate and, like others, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, for securing the debate. I thank all other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate, who, despite the weather, stayed to speak in the debate. I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, or rather her daughter and son-in-law, on their marriage. I will aim, in the time allowed, to answer as many questions as possible, but I will review Hansard and follow up in writing where I do not.
In May, as noble Lords are aware, I announced the opening of applications for the places of worship renewal fund. The fund will provide upfront capital grants to restore listed places of worship, with funding targeted towards the places that need it most. I was pleased to be able to secure this funding of £92 million for churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other places of worship, in recognition of the valuable role they play in the hearts of their communities. In many cases, they provide services well beyond their congregations. The example that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, gave in her opening remarks of her local church, St James the Apostle, highlighted this, as did the examples from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Seccombe, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who highlighted the effective monetary value of the social value that is provided.
Since I became Heritage Minister, I have visited places of worship up and down the country, including St Michael le Belfrey in York, Salisbury Cathedral, Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, Grimsby Minster and the Sir Moses Montefiore Synagogue in Grimsby. I have spoken regularly to stakeholders, including the Church of England and the National Churches Trust. I know that wonderful buildings such as these rely on dedicated volunteers to keep the doors open and the lights on. While some larger places of worship may have dedicated fundraising staff, I know that, for the vast majority, it is those same volunteers—including, I have no doubt, many Members of your Lordships’ House, clearly including a number of those who spoke today—who will fundraise with their community and apply for funding for repairs and essential improvements. This scheme is designed with them in mind.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, highlighted the previous Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I recognise how much this scheme was valued by those caring for our historic places of worship and I know it supported many transformational projects. However, in the current fiscal environment, we need to look carefully at how funding is targeted to ensure it is delivering against our ambitions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said, many churches have not benefited as they could not raise the capital funds up front.
Our evaluation of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme showed that 80% of those who benefited said they would have completed the works anyway, though in some cases to a different timetable or scope. Our internal analysis on past payments in the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme data also shows that it disproportionately favoured places with less disadvantage, illustrating the point that it was almost impossible for some areas to get the funding to make the essential repairs.
To reassure my noble friend Lady Wilcox, this is not a rebranding exercise. The places of worship renewal fund will target places facing double disadvantage—the highest levels of deprivation and the greatest need for investment. When assessing claims, Historic England, which will manage the fund for the Government, will prioritise eligible applications in these places of greatest need.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, and other noble Lords raised rural churches. Any listed place of worship can apply and applications will be prioritised on the basis of need, as set out on the Historic England website. In areas not served by standard measures of deprivation, additional consideration can be given to those that serve isolated or rural communities or provide the primary or only shared community space in that locality.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox referenced the incredible church in Newport, Wales. In relation to devolution, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme was a UK-wide VAT rebate scheme. The places of worship renewal fund is for England only, because heritage is devolved. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations receive Barnett consequentials at the spending review, taking into account any changes to the overall DCMS settlement. We have made them aware that it covers this scheme. It is now for the devolved Administrations to consider whether to set up new arrangements, should they wish to. They have not yet done so, but we have offered to share how DCMS is approaching this. Lottery funding is also available in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and we anticipate that, over the next three years, about £100 million will be distributed for churches across the nations. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that some places of worship are reluctant to take lottery money.
It is only when all eligible projects in or serving the places that face double disadvantage have been funded that other projects will be considered. Second priority will be given to areas with the greatest need, as measured by the index of multiple deprivation. Once eligible projects in these areas have been funded, projects with the greatest need in terms of financial need, urgency of repair or community benefit will be considered.
The places of worship renewal fund will move funding from a retrospective VAT reclaim, as noble Lords have noted, which funded projects that could already raise the money to carry out capital repairs, to a targeted, upfront capital grant. Funding will no longer be awarded on a first come, first served basis. It will go to places that need it most. By enabling applicants to secure funding before major works begin, the places of worship renewal fund will give congregations the confidence and certainty to carry out works.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, questioned the point around active places of worship. An active place of worship is categorised either as one used for worship at least six times a year or as one owned by a charity that cares specifically for historic places of worship that are open to the public a minimum of six times a year. Like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I would recommend a visit to the Churches Conservation Trust, which is eligible for the new scheme.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox asked whether funding would be sufficient. The places of worship renewal fund will invest £92 million, as I have said. There is also a wider landscape of government funding for the Churches Conservation Trust. The National Lottery is expected to spend over £100 million between 2024 and 2027, and the vital work of parishes and congregations is also key.
This is not the only new funding I have launched. The £60 million heritage at risk capital fund is now open, ready to conserve and repair assets delivering community benefit. The £42 million heritage revival fund is also open, supporting communities themselves to take on the regeneration of historic buildings, getting them back into community use. This sits alongside lottery funding to heritage of around £300 million per annum.
In relation to the points made about whether the Church would fund this and the sustainability of funding, I will allude to different points made by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. Care of our places of worship is a significant challenge, and in the Government’s view it needs to be a shared endeavour. I will talk to the Church of England about how we, the Church, the lottery and others can work together to support these buildings. My conversations with Church officials, however, suggest that they are willing to have this conversation.
In response to the wider point of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, there is a balance to be struck. These are not simply religious buildings; they are also historic buildings. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, said, they make up almost half of grade 1 listed buildings. Through the places of worship renewal fund, smaller grants will be available for minor targeted interventions.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Gill have highlighted that simplicity was a feature of the previous scheme. In designing the new competitive application process, we have worked hard with Historic England to take into account the needs of volunteers up and down the country who care for our places of worship.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in designing the scheme we met with a range of stakeholders, as did Historic England, which also ran a working group to design it. Historic England will have dedicated project officers to guide smaller congregations and faith groups through the grant application process. When I was on a recent visit to Grimsby, I met a congregation who were availing themselves of that advice. We feel that means that groups which need extra support will receive it, above all in areas of double disadvantage.
This is the first round of a new scheme. We are monitoring feedback carefully using Historic England intelligence, reviewing social media and listening to our stakeholders to understand whether improvements to the process can be made. I will meet with Historic England to discuss this, and I am happy to meet with any interested Members of your Lordships’ House as well to hear noble Lords’ direct experience. Like all speakers in today’s debate, I recognise how our historic places of worship provide many valuable services to our communities, like food banks, playgroups, and spaces for music, dance and culture. The best way to protect our heritage is to use it, and this is exactly what the funding aims to do. I will write to other noble Lords, including to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, around crime and crime against churches.
The scheme will ensure that heritage buildings, including listed places of worship, stand proud at the centre of our communities and continue to serve their needs for many years to come.