Lord Scriven
Main Page: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, as the House knows, I am chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee. We considered this Measure, we heard evidence from the Church and we deemed it expedient.
Perhaps I could just add that, since the Church of England is the established Church, it is entirely appropriate that suitable Measures from synod should become Acts of Parliament, which is what is happening at the moment—and these two Measures are appropriately being brought to this House.
My Lords, no one disputes that the present system creates this for Parliament. My argument is not that it is happening; my argument is that it should not happen because we should not have an established Church. It is quite incredible—and I hope that the outside world listens to this debate—that the Church of England suddenly has a £3 billion fund that it now wishes to be regulated, which is good, but also that it can save money by not paying VAT. Again I point out that, by having the Bishops in this House, the Church has a special and privileged position to be able to argue for that. So while the system of the established church remains, Parliament’s time is going to be wasted with this kind of discussion about the governance of the Church of England, when with any other church it would be for the equivalent of the synod to make that decision without having to come to this Parliament to make the decision of synod. That is all my argument is—that, regardless of whether this is a good or a bad Measure, it should not be coming to Parliament because we should not have an established Church; it should be an equal church among many religions and faiths across the country, and Parliament should be debating other things rather than the internal governance and how to use £3 billion of the Church of England’s funds.