Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.