🙏 Delegated Legislation Committee

General Committees

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The UK Parliament’s First Delegated Legislation Committee approved a £3 million grant for the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT) for the year 2025-26. The CCT manages over 350 historic churches no longer used for regular worship, transforming them into community and tourist spaces. Concerns were raised about the increasing number of redundant churches and the need for more stable funding for their maintenance. The government plans to align future funding commitments with the spending review cycle to provide more security for heritage preservation efforts.

Summary

  • The Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2025 was discussed in a parliamentary session, chaired by Graham Stuart.
  • The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, Chris Bryant, introduced the order, which allows the government to continue funding the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT) with over £3 million for the year 2025-26.
  • The CCT manages over 350 historically significant churches in the UK, which are not regularly used for worship anymore. These buildings are kept open to the public for free and are involved in regeneration projects to repurpose them for community use.
  • An example of a regeneration project mentioned is the transformation of the Old Black Lion pub in Northampton into a new headquarters for the CCT, which will also support the nearby St Peter’s church.
  • The CCT is funded not only by the government but also by the Church of England, donations, and grants, to ensure the preservation and revitalization of these historic buildings.
  • Opposition member Saqib Bhatti expressed support for the funding but raised concerns about the increasing number of churches at risk and the potential financial burdens on churches due to recent budget changes.
  • There was discussion about the one-year commitment of funding compared to previous three-year commitments, with hopes of aligning future funding with spending review cycles for more stability.
  • Concerns about the listed places of worship grant scheme’s funding cap of £25,000 per project were addressed, with the Minister explaining that this cap was informed by historical bidding patterns and would not affect claims made before the end of the current financial year.
  • The session concluded with the committee approving the draft order, ensuring continued financial support for the Churches Conservation Trust.

Divisiveness

The disagreement displayed in the session is moderate, warranting a rating of 2 on a scale of 1 to 5. While the overall tone remains fairly collaborative and supportive of the draft order, there are significant points of contention raised by the opposition that, although not directly attacking the order, question the broader financial context and policy decisions affecting churches.

Key examples of disagreements include:

  1. Funding Concerns and Uncertainty: Saqib Bhatti from the opposition expresses worry about the increasing number of churches at risk and the effects of recent budget decisions on churches, such as the new cap on the listed places of worship grant scheme. He directly challenges the Minister on the impact of these policy decisions, particularly the one-year funding commitment and the cap on grants, suggesting they create uncertainty for churches. This shows a clear disagreement on the government’s approach to funding and support mechanisms for churches beyond those managed by the Churches Conservation Trust.

  2. Clarity and Stability: Bhatti pushes for more clarity and stability in policies affecting churches, mentioning the lack of published guidance on changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme. His request for further information and suggestion of a more permanent grant or relief scheme indicate a disagreement with the current administrative and policy direction from the government.

  3. Response to Concerns: In responding, the Minister, Chris Bryant, acknowledges the concerns about budget impacts and the heritage at risk but largely deflects the criticisms by explaining the reasons for one-year commitments and the cap, as well as mentioning other sources of funding. While he addresses Bhatti’s points, his response suggests a disagreement on the adequacy of current efforts and policies to address church funding and preservation comprehensively.

Despite these points of contention, the disagreements do not descend into outright opposition to the draft order itself, as both sides affirm support for the Churches Conservation Trust and the order’s aim to fund it. The disagreements focus more on broader policy critiques rather than the specific measure under discussion, which keeps the level of conflict moderate rather than high.