Chapter 7: Main Questions |
|
| 1. | Westminster Abbey, St. George's Chapel, Windsor and the Chapels Royal have been treated individually in chapters 4-6. Here we address some broad issues and make recommendations which affect either the two major Peculiars or all three, even if not in equal measure. |
|
Accountability and Governance |
|
| 2. | The Statutes of St. George's Chapel, Windsor and Westminster Abbey date from 1352 and c.1560 respectively. In the case of the Abbey further relevant documents include the original Charter (1560) and later Supplemental Charters, the First and Third Reports of Her Majesty's Commissioners (1854 and 1855), the Returns of Collegiate Churches (1867), the Westminster Abbey Act and Order in Council (1888), the Report of the Sub-Commission of the Cathedrals Commission (1927) and the Westminster Abbey Act (1929). In addition there is what is normally referred to as the 'Custom' or 'Customs' of the Abbey, which are partly collected in the Abbey's Red Book. However the recommendation of the 1927 Cathedrals Commission that a Register be drawn up of the Customs of the Abbey has not been formally adopted. As said above, we think this should now be done, together with a clear list and summary of all the supplements to the Charter and other relevant governance documents. |
| 3. | The technical status of the original Statutes in laying down provision for the governance of the Abbey is at best unclear. As noted by the 1927 Commission, the Statutes drawn up under Elizabeth I did not receive the sign manual of The Queen, and it has been repeatedly held, for example by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Sovereign in 1911, that they have no legal force, and that the Abbey is governed by Orders in Council, Royal Letters and Custom. The same opinion about the Statutes was repeated in 1951 by Lord Simonds, Sir John Beaumont and Sir Richard Hopkins in their Report to the Lord Chancellor. Nevertheless the 1927 Commission itself took the view also held earlier that the Elizabethan Statutes 'have weight as evidence of what the ancient custom presumably was'. The determination made by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle in 1998 invoked the Charter of 1560 and the Supplemental Charter of 1951. The original Statutes constituted the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Visitor, but in practice the Sovereign has always been regarded as the Visitor, and when the Visitor has been called in, as in 1949 and 1998, the Sovereign has acted through the Lord Chancellor's Office. |
| 4. | The Statutes of the College of St. George at Windsor were promulgated by the then Bishop of Winchester on 30 November 1352, the Chapel having been restructured by Letters Patent dated 6 August 1348. The Foundation Statutes were preceded by Papal Bulls dated 1350 and 1351, and have been supplemented subsequently by Royal Grant, Injunction and Mandate, and by Act of Parliament. Recent changes have come about by Letters Patent. Like Westminster Abbey, St. George's was originally (and remains) a royal free chapel, free from the jurisdiction of the diocesan and subject only to the Sovereign. In practice the supervision of St. George's, with the right of Visitation, was delegated by the King to the Chancellor of England, and indeed a Visitation was held by the then Chancellor as early as 1378. |
| 5. | The history of the Chapels Royal in this regard is more complex. The Chapel Royal as it originally existed was the Royal Free Chapel of the Royal Household and had a Dean even before its incorporation by Edward IV in 1483. According to the Liber Regie Capelle of 1449 the Dean 'recognised no superior in spirituals except the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being'. Since 1748 the Dean has by custom been the Bishop of London, but these offices are strictly separate, and the Chapels Royal are accountable through the Dean to the Sovereign and not to him as diocesan. Unlike that of Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel, the management of the Chapels Royal is not independent. In the case of the Chapel Royal at St. James's Palace and The Queen's Chapel, which are part of The Queen's Ecclesiastical Household, management falls under the Lord Chamberlain's Office, while the management of the Chapels Royal in the Tower of London and Hampton Court falls under the Historic Royal Palaces Trust (HRPT), established in 1989 as the Historic Royal Palaces Agency. This body is itself answerable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under the Secretary of State. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 1990 already mentioned set out the relations between the then HRPA and the Royal Household through the Lord Chamberlain's Office and confirmed the continuing responsibility to The Queen through the Lord Chamberlain's Office of the Dean of the Chapels Royal for all ecclesiastical matters concerning the Chapels Royal. |
| 6. | The Chapels Royal are not collegiate bodies, and the Sub-Dean and Chaplains, priests and deputies are responsible to the Dean. |
| 7. | It is undoubtedly true that the Royal Peculiars have a complex legal status and are governed according to their own Statutes and ordinances. Nevertheless there have been a significant number of changes made over the years, whether by Act of Parliament, Injunction or Letters Patent, and therefore change is indeed possible with the agreement of the Sovereign. The key question is whether the Royal Peculiars should continue to be treated as unique institutions or whether, in the light of modern developments in both church and public life, they should accept more of the character of cathedrals, not in constitution but in organisation and outside links. |
| 8. | The major Royal Peculiars, Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel, Windsor, possess the scale and dignity of the major cathedrals in England. However, they are not subject to a diocesan bishop, there is no cathedra in them for a bishop and no diocesan bishop is the Ordinary. That role falls to the Dean. Nor do they have diocesan links and responsibilities. And unlike all other parts of the Church of England they receive no support from the Church Commissioners, being dependent instead entirely on their own resources. |
| 9. | Their separate role and status as compared with the other structures of the Church of England is evident in that they answer to a Royal or proxy-Royal Visitor. This reflects their position as the Monarch's own places of worship and, in the case of Westminster Abbey, as the scene of the Monarch's most solemn task, that of being crowned King or Queen. It is evident that The Queen sees each place - and in a different way also the Chapels Royal - as having major importance for Her Family and Her role as Monarch. |
| 10. | The Abbey, and to a lesser degree St. George's, clearly also have a national role, which makes it legitimate to consider their broader accountability. We go on to address these issues below. In certain respects, for example administration, financial management and maintenance of the historic fabric, they do resemble cathedrals, even if not exactly. But first we consider an important issue of governance in which they differ from them. |
|
The Visitor |
|
| 11. | The role of the Visitor as a safeguard for the settlement of any disputes is an ancient institution which is found also in cathedrals and in universities and colleges. Indeed the diocesan bishop is Visitor to cathedrals according to the provisions of the Cathedrals Measure 1999. Appeal to a Visitor is normally a last resort and judicial review is possible only where the Visitor has acted outside his or her jurisdiction, in breach of natural justice or (possibly) perversely. It is the Visitor's duty to consider whether there is a case and if so, to hear it or to make arrangements for it to be heard, usually through the appointment of a senior legal representative or commissioner. In the history of Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel there have been several appeals to the Visitor, and these have sometimes, though not always, resulted in subsequent Injunctions or supplements to the articles of governance. |
| 12. | It is intrinsic to the Royal Peculiars that they are directly answerable to the Sovereign, albeit in different ways, and this is recognised in the role of the Sovereign as Visitor at Westminster Abbey. The Lord Chancellor was originally the Visitor to the College of St. George as the Sovereign's representative. At the Chapel Royal on the other hand, the Dean is directly accountable to The Queen, and management responsibility is overseen by the Lord Chamberlain's Office. These relationships are therefore complex. As happened at Westminster Abbey in 1998, an appeal to the Visitor can involve the Sovereign in contentious matters and attract considerable publicity. Furthermore, Visitorial jurisdiction is itself currently under active discussion and its continuance has been called into question, for example in educational establishments, in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 which is now in force. Appeals to a Visitor are also usually very expensive. We address this issue further in what follows. At issue in particular is the requirement for a complaints procedure conducted by persons external to the institution itself which will ensure compliance with the rules of natural justice and the right to a speedy, fair and open hearing. It is clearly essential that the governance of the Royal Peculiars is seen to comply with these aims. |
| 13. | We take it as a given in our terms of reference that the Royal Peculiars should remain under the authority of the Crown, whether through the existing system of Visitorial jurisdiction or in another form. Indeed this independence from the main ecclesiastical structures can at times be extremely valuable. |
| 14. | We believe nevertheless that it is in the interests of the Royal Peculiars and indeed of the Sovereign to have regard to ideas of good practice as they continue to develop, and that to do so is in no way incompatible with continuance of their status as Royal Peculiars or with their independence overall. |
| 15. | The question then arises whether the existing arrangements should continue as they are, or whether there should be some new body, or Standing Commission, to which the Sovereign could delegate the performance of Her functions as Visitor of Westminster Abbey, and the Lord Chancellor his functions as Visitor of St. George's Chapel, Windsor. A Standing Commission would, we think, have a number of advantages. |
| 16. | In the first place it would mean that there would be a permanent body to advise the Sovereign on all matters relating to the Royal Peculiars, and to act on Her behalf in the happily rare cases of a formal appeal to the Visitor. Since the new body would be independent of and external to the Deans and Chapters of the Abbey and St. George's, and the Dean of the Chapels Royal, there could be no objection to it exercising Visitorial jurisdiction on the Sovereign's behalf. There are obvious benefits in addition in having a single body exercising these functions on behalf of all the Royal Peculiars. And there are many precedents for Visitorial functions being exercised by a Board of Visitors rather than an individual. |
| 17. | As for the Lord Chancellor, we have suggested above that, like the Sovereign, he should delegate his functions as Visitor of St. George's to the new body. But it would be simpler and better if he were to allow the role of Visitor to revert to the Sovereign Herself. Historically, this seems to have been the position. In other words the Sovereign was the Visitor of St. George's. But he delegated his Visitorial functions to the Lord Chancellor as the Keeper of his Conscience. Thus the pattern which we are proposing for the Royal Peculiars as a whole is very similar to the pattern which grew up in the Middle Ages in relation to St. George's, save that the new body will take the place of the Lord Chancellor. |
| 18. | We are conscious that the Deans of the Royal Peculiars have long had a 'special relationship' with the Crown to which they attach great importance. We do not see the Standing Commission as impinging in any way on this special relationship. It would not be inserting a new layer of authority between the Deans and the Crown. On the contrary, the right of appeal would still lie direct to the Sovereign as Visitor. But the question in dispute would then be referred by Her to the new body for resolution. The position would be the same as for appeals to the Privy Council. In form the appeal is to The Queen-in-Council. But in practice the appeal is referred to the Judicial Committee for their advice. |
| 19. | There are other advantages in having a Standing Commission to which we will return. But first we consider what should be the size and composition of such a body. One of our witnesses suggested it should be the same size as cathedral Councils under the Cathedrals Measure 1999. In our view this would be both cumbersome and inappropriate. In the case of Royal Peculiars there is no diocesan bishop to provide for and no diocese. Westminster Abbey has already made its own proposals for the composition of such a body. But we believe the Standing Commission can and should be much smaller. We propose that it should consist of not less than three and not more than five persons, the number to be determined and the persons appointed by the Crown. Before making the appointments we recommend that the Crown afford the Deans and Chapters an opportunity to express views both in general as to the appointments and as to any specific person proposed, and we recommend that the Crown shall have regard to those views. However we also recommend that one of those appointed should be a senior bishop. Another should be a person who holds or has held high judicial office. A third should have experience in financial administration. The Chairman should be the bishop. In order to preserve the special Royal status of these institutions we consider it appropriate to look for membership to those bishops who are already associated with the Sovereign. Since the Bishop of London is excluded by reason of his being the Dean of the Chapels Royal, we suggest as the chairman of the Standing Commission one of the two other bishops who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household, namely the Clerk of the Closet or the Lord High Almoner. Appointments should normally be for an initial period of five years but renewable for a further term. |
| 20. | We now touch on some of the other benefits which we see as flowing from the new Standing Commission. While the primary purpose of the new body would be to perform Visitorial functions on the Sovereign's behalf, it would also be able to give informal advice to the Deans and Chapters on contentious matters, and thereby perhaps prevent grievances reaching the point at which they give rise to a formal appeal. Mediation is now a principle which is increasingly recommended, especially for dispute settlement in cases relating to charities, and it is at least possible (though we express no view on the point) that if such a body had been in existence in 1998, and been able to perform a mediating role, the need to appoint Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle might never have arisen. |
| 21. | There is a further important advantage. The duty of the Royal Peculiars to serve the Monarch is reflected in their constitutions, especially in the role of the Visitor and the Dean as Ordinary. But for public institutions this is, in modern terms, not deemed to be enough in the way of accountability. Even if the Statutes and the roles of the Deans and Chapters of the Abbey and St. George's remain unamended there is still a case for a supervisory body, one of whose main duties would be to take a balanced view of the possibly competing demands, within the current structure of the Royal Peculiars, of the Monarch, the governing body, that is, the Dean and Chapter, or the Dean and clergy in the case of the Chapels Royal, and accountability to the public. We also think that the existence of such a body, and the shared experience of the institutions in working with it, would have the advantage of encouraging further ways of co-operation between the institutions themselves. |
| 22. | We have said that we do not see the Standing Commission as replicating cathedral Councils. But there is one respect in which it would perform the same important function. As we have said, we live in an age of public accountability. The Abbey and St. George's are, as we have seen, responsible for the expenditure of large sums of money. Both have a public role, the Abbey particularly so. It is true that their income comes largely from tourism, and not from the Church Commissioners or from taxpayers, and that their accounts are audited in the normal way. But even so we think that their budgeted expenditure should be subject to some form of independent scrutiny. The Standing Commission would be ideal for that purpose. |
| 23. | The Standing Commission should meet once a year and as required, with its secretariat being provided by the institutions concerned on a rotating basis. It should make an annual report to the Visitor. |
| 24. | The Standing Commission should receive the annual budget, audited accounts and an annual strategic report from each institution. It would have the duties of alerting the Sovereign as necessary on matters of concern and of advising and encouraging the institutions where appropriate. |
| 25. | As we have explained, it would also act on behalf of the Visitor in case of complaints or disciplinary matters. These may be secular or ecclesiastical. The Visitor would refer such matters to the Standing Commission for investigation. |
|
Ecclesiastical discipline |
|
| 26. | In matters of ecclesiastical discipline the Dean in each of the Royal Peculiars has primary authority. Section 83 (3) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 excludes from proceedings under the Measure all holders of office in Royal Peculiars. However, it was recommended in section 6.1 of the Under Authority Report of the General Synod Working Party on Clergy Discipline (GS 1217) that the disciplinary processes of the Church should apply to all in Holy Orders. The draft Clergy Discipline Measure (2001) and amending Canon 24 take this recommendation forward but in consideration of the present Review do not at present include clergy in the Royal Peculiars. Nor does the Measure apply to offences involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial, which are subject to special provisions under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. A separate Working Party is considering these. At present clergy in Royal Peculiars take an oath of loyalty and obedience to the Dean, who is in turn responsible as Dean directly to the Visitor, or in the case of the Dean of the Chapels Royal to the Sovereign. It may be very unlikely that a situation should arise in which such provisions would need to be invoked. Nevertheless we recommend that clergy in the Royal Peculiars should no longer be subject simply to the Dean but to disciplinary procedures laid down by Measure, though with appropriate modifications. Thus it is the Standing Commission which would decide whether to attempt to bring about conciliation or whether to refer the case for formal investigation by a special disciplinary tribunal. There should be a right of appeal in the usual way from any decision of the tribunal to the Court of Arches. Where there is a recommendation for deposition from Holy Orders or prohibition as provided in the draft legislation, it may be thought better that the penalty should be imposed by the Chairman of the Standing Commission after consultation with the other members, rather than the Commission itself. References to the diocesan bishop in the proposed legislation should be read as references to the Standing Commission. |
|
The Dean (Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel) |
|
| 27. | According to the Statutes, the Dean of Windsor is appointed to govern, rule and preside over the Canons and Prebendaries, and he is the Ordinary of St. George's Chapel. On the other hand he is himself a Canon and a Prebendary and as such he is regarded as primus inter pares ('first among equals'). At Westminster Abbey the Dean is also the Ordinary and by the Statutes of the 1560s 'Governor' of the whole College of St. Peter, and to that extent the position is somewhat clearer. Different interpretations are clearly held at the Abbey and at Windsor as to the role of Ordinary. We believe that in each case the Dean should be recognised as the chairman of the Chapter with a casting vote if need be, and that further consideration should be given as to what is meant by the term 'Ordinary', with a view to clarifying what seem to be discrepancies in understanding between the two institutions and in order to arrive at a common mind. |
|
The Chapter |
|
| 28. | At both Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel the governing body consists of the Dean and residentiary Canons. It goes without saying that they are at the heart of the spiritual life of the two foundations. Indeed, the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey are keen to evoke the monastic origins of the Abbey in their current communal life. Although as we have seen monastic life at the Abbey came to an end with the dissolution in 1540, apart from a brief revival under Mary, the Benedictine tradition is invoked to this day. This was a point which came out clearly in the evidence we took at the Abbey. We have had it much in mind when considering whether to recommend that the Chapter should be enlarged by the inclusion of a lay element. |
| 29. | The Cathedrals Measure 1999 makes provision for the Chapter of a cathedral to include not less than two and not more than seven other persons, of whom at least two thirds should be lay. The evidence from St. Paul's, York Minster and other cathedrals is that the inclusion of lay members in the Chapter has been widely welcomed and is working well. It would have been possible for us simply to recommend that the same arrangements should apply to the Royal Peculiars. But for two reasons we have tried to approach the question afresh. In the first place there is not the same need in the case of the Royal Peculiars to make room for diocesan representation. Secondly we have heard evidence from a number of witnesses, including a senior Bishop, that uniformity in human institutions is not always a bonus. There is merit also in diversity. We agree. |
| 30. | The main arguments for leaving the two Chapters as they are are that the decision-making body should be small; that the members of the body should be able to meet frequently and at short notice, and should be living on the spot. It may indeed be felt that a Chapter should consist only of clergy, with their special role. As for lay input in the case of the Peculiars, the Deans and Chapters can of course already call on lay advice whenever it is needed. At Westminster Abbey they can call on the High Steward and the High Bailiff, as well as the Receiver General. At St. George's there is the Chapter Clerk. There is also the Investment Committee at Westminster and the informal financial advisory committee at Windsor referred to above. |
| 31. | These are strong arguments. But the arguments the other way are stronger. There is a crucial distinction between advisers and decision makers. The Royal Peculiars are centres of prayer. But they are also large and complex institutions. The Abbey and St. George's have heavy responsibilities to the Monarch, the nation and the Commonwealth. They are dealing with large sums of money. We have come to the conclusion that in fulfilling these latter functions both foundations would benefit from the inclusion of a lay element in the actual decision-making process. |
| 32. | If we had thought that the presence of lay men or women as members of the Chapter would in some way inhibit the spiritual life of the Abbey or St. George's, we should have had second thoughts. But that is not our view. We are glad to say that our view accords with that of the great majority of our witnesses. |
| 33. | For the above reasons we recommend that members of the laity should be included in the Chapters of the Abbey and St. George's. We make this recommendation because it is in our view what is needed. But it will also have the additional advantage of showing to the world that the Deans and Chapters of the two great foundations are not, as may be sometimes thought, inward looking and old-fashioned, but are determined to remain in touch with the best modern practice. |
| 34. | As for the number of lay members, it is important that the Dean and residentiary Canons should always be in a clear majority. This points to two as being the appropriate number of new appointments. The appointments should be made by the Crown, with the same provision for consultation with the Deans and Chapters as in the case of the Standing Commission, and for an initial term of five years, but renewable for a further term. One of the two appointments should be of a person with experience in financial administration. We leave it to the Abbey to decide whether the Receiver General should be a full member of the Chapter in addition to the two already mentioned. We suggest that he should be, and that his functions as Chapter Clerk should be hived off. The same should apply at St. George's in respect of the Chapter Clerk. |
| 35. | The Deans and residentiary Canons of Westminster and Windsor are appointed under the Crown appointments system. Appointments were formerly for life, but a retirement age of 70 has been introduced in recent times. In the past, and particularly at Windsor, there have been problems with excessively long tenure, and it may be less easy at Windsor than at Westminster Abbey for Canons to undertake outside commitments (though the present Dean and Chapter certainly do play this role). If appointed young, Canons may have an excessively long time in post and we do not consider this of benefit either to the Canons themselves or to the institution. The adoption of a retirement age was a move in the right direction, but we are of the view that limited tenure should also now be considered for the Canons, though not for the Deans. A possible model would be appointment for seven years, renewable for another three. Some flexibility would be desirable. A similar provision should also be considered for the posts of Sub-Dean and Chaplains at the Chapels Royal. We hope that when making such limited-term appointments the Crown will also recognise a duty to assist in the onward placement of the individuals concerned. |
| 36. | In making appointments it is important that there should be regard for the particular needs of each institution, and in the case of Windsor particularly for the suitability of those appointed to lead courses at St. George's House. This is so even though the statutory Chapter offices technically rotate among the Canons. |
| 37. | There are at present no women clergy in any of the Royal Peculiars. The same is true of the higher staff levels and of the lay members of the Colleges of St. George and St. Peter. This should be considered where appropriate. |
|
Finance |
|
| 38. | The assets, liabilities and financial activities and risks of Westminster Abbey and the College of St. George are comparable to those of the largest cathedrals. In some respects the financial risk is greater. Neither Westminster Abbey nor the College of St. George receives its funding from the Church Commissioners, the Government or the Crown. Their income is more dependent upon visitor charges and trading. Both institutions run choir schools, which have required major investment in recent years, and operate in a competitive and fast-changing market, and at Windsor the financial future of St. George's House causes concern and is currently under review. |
| 39. | As a result, considerable attention has been given at both Westminster Abbey and the College of St. George to establishing and improving financial administration. In each institution (though this is more formalised at the Abbey than so far at St. George's) financial staff report to the Canon Treasurer. The Dean and Chapter approve budgets and monitor outturn regularly. We commend the measures for improved financial management and control which have been put in place in recent years at both institutions and which in some respects are still being implemented. |
| 40. | Both Westminster Abbey and the College of St. George have also made provision for obtaining and receiving advice on financial and investment management. The Abbey has an Investment Committee, established by Supplemental Charter, and the Auditor, who in addition to being a partner in the firm which audits the Abbey accounts, is a member of the Collegiate body and is available for advice throughout the year. At the College of St. George there has been an informal financial advisory committee whose composition and terms of reference are currently being formalised. However these arrangements are less comprehensive than those now required of cathedrals. |
| 41. | In addition, both Westminster Abbey and the College of St. George prepare an annual report and accounts in accordance with the Statement of Recommended Practice: Accounting by Charities (commonly known as the Charities SORP). The report and accounts are sent to the Charity Commissioners and the Church Commissioners, as well as being made more widely available. |
| 42. | Under the Cathedrals Measure 1999, each cathedral must have a finance committee of the Chapter which should include persons having financial expertise and experience and should advise the Chapter in connection with its responsibilities in the field of financial and investment management. We recommend the establishment of a committee on these lines at Westminster Abbey and the College of St. George to advise the Dean and Chapter on all financial matters. |
| 43. | We make these recommendations as a matter of good financial practice. However we are also conscious of the heavy financial responsibilities of each of these institutions and the associated risks which we have outlined above. For this reason we believe that a strong finance committee which can take an overall view is an essential tool for the future financial health and future management of both institutions. |
| 44. | In the case of the Chapels Royal budgetary control of public moneys allocated to the Chapels is exercised through the Lord Chamberlain's Office. This includes the payment of salaries and scholarships, as well as uniforms and other necessities. The fabric is maintained and building works carried with the help of the Grant-in-Aid, through the Privy Purse and the Royal Household Property Services. Other income comes from voluntary giving, and the regular service sheets indicate the designated charities and the amount devoted to Chapel expenses. Annual audited accounts are the responsibility of the Hon. Treasurer of the Chapel Royal. The expenses for the Royal Maundy are paid by the Royal Almonry Household. We do not think a finance committee necessary or appropriate in these circumstances, although we have made some suggestions in chapter 6 about particular local variations. |
|
Fabric matters |
|
| 45. | It was a principle of the 1994 Review of the ecclesiastical exemption (Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994) that ecclesiastical buildings could be exempted from secular heritage controls only if they were covered by an acceptable alternative procedure for control of works. Such a procedure was provided for cathedrals under the Care of Cathedrals Measure of 1990, and the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure of 1994, the latter containing enforcement machinery. The Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England was established in 1991 as the necessary regulatory body, and has by now built up a substantial amount of experience. Finally, the Measure itself is currently under Review. |
| 46. | By way of exception to the general principle, the 1994 Order continued the exemption on a temporary basis for a number of categories of ecclesiastical buildings, including buildings of peculiars, which did not then have satisfactory alternative controls. So far as Church of England buildings are concerned, that temporary exemption is expected to be withdrawn in the fairly near future, when the Care of Places of Worship Measure 1999 comes into force. The 1999 Measure allows for peculiars, including Royal Peculiars, and a number of other categories of places of worship including certain chapels of educational institutions and religious communities, to opt to come within the faculty jurisdiction rather than the secular heritage controls, namely listed building and conservation area regulations. |
| 47. | The Chapels Royal, being situated within Crown buildings, have Crown exemption from statutory planning and heritage controls. Should Crown exemption be abolished in the future, the relevant authorities have indicated that they would wish the Chapels to be covered by the secular heritage regime rather than Church controls. |
| 48. | We are well aware that Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel did not wish to be included in the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 and that they opted not to come within faculty jurisdiction under the Care of Places of Worship Measure 1999. Instead, after discussion with the Department of National Heritage (now Culture, Media and Sport), they established their own procedures, based on a Fabric Advisory Commission or Committee, whose constitutions and terms of reference were separately agreed for the Abbey and for St. George's Chapel, and which in both places replaced earlier advisory bodies. We are also conscious that the Abbey's Commission received its Royal Warrant only in June, 2000, and that these arrangements were accepted, though not without hesitation, by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as being sufficient to justify the continuance of the exemption. |
| 49. | Despite this they differ from the arrangements laid down in the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 in ways which lead us to believe that they are not yet satisfactory. In the case of cathedrals, in order to provide the necessary element of external evaluation, all matters involving permanent change to the fabric of a cathedral must be referred for determination to an independent statutory body, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England (CFCE). Indeed, it is on the basis of this system, under which the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England has responsibility for the Church controls which form the basis for the ecclesiastical exemption, that cathedrals have become eligible for significant grants administered by English Heritage. Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel were also recently granted eligibility for such grants on the strength of their recently established fabric committees. As we have said, we understand that major work will be needed at Windsor over the next ten years for which outside funding will be essential. |
| 50. | Secondly, under the provisions of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 the Fabric Advisory Committees of individual cathedrals must have lay chairmen. In addition, half their members are appointed by the CFCE rather than by the cathedrals themselves, albeit with due consultation. In contrast, the much larger Fabric Advisory Commission of Westminster Abbey and Fabric Advisory Committee of St. George's Chapel are not independent of the institutions, and deal with both non-permanent and permanent alterations. Thus they combine in one body the roles of a cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee and of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We commend the care with which these committees have been set up. However we find that the important element of external evaluation of proposals emanating from the Dean and Chapter is still lacking. |
| 51. | The Fabric Advisory Committee of St. George's Chapel has a lay chairman and the Dean and Chapter have no voting rights. Nevertheless, its members are appointed by the institution itself, albeit after consultation with appropriate outside bodies. At Westminster Abbey not only are the members appointed by the institution, but the Commission is chaired by the Dean and the members of Chapter are voting members. In our view this fails to fulfil the essential requirement of independent assessment in the 1994 Order. |
| 52. | In view of the outstanding importance for the national heritage of these great institutions and their recently acquired eligibility for grants it seems essential to us that the procedures followed by them have at least as much independent scrutiny as is now imposed on cathedrals, and that similar procedures are followed in other matters, for example in relation to relevant appointments, archaeology and recording. These are helpfully discussed in Heritage and Renewal, chapter 10. Again, it does not seem to us that the major Peculiars differ sufficiently from cathedrals in this respect to justify a separate arrangement. |
| 53. | There would be advantages in participation in the same system as other bodies. Isolation from the main procedures of the Church in heritage matters means that the Royal Peculiars are not directly involved in the growing amount of discussion of major heritage issues and policies for the built environment at bodies such as the Church Heritage Forum, or to direct sharing of the very considerable amount of experience in good practice that has been built up since 1990 on the technical aspects of caring for great medieval ecclesiastical buildings. The Church Heritage Forum, chaired by the Bishop of London, is the body which brings together representatives of the various Church heritage interests, and which takes forward the issues of broader policy. Furthermore the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England has an educational role in addition to its regulatory function. In this capacity it regularly issues procedural guides and holds conferences on specific aspects of conservation and management. In view also of the role of Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel as centres of tourism, and of the Abbey's location as part of a World Heritage Site, we regard it as highly desirable that these institutions should be sharers and contributors in these debates. |
| 54. | As with other exempt buildings, the continued ecclesiastical exemption of Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel depends on compliance with the Code of Practice set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, Planning and the Historical Environment (1994). The evidence that we have taken confirms us in our view that despite the care with which they have been arrived at, the individual arrangements separately arrived at with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by the Abbey and St. George's are not satisfactory. There could also be said to be a legitimate interest on the part of the Church, since in the public perception Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel are likely to be assumed by many, even if incorrectly, as already falling within the general heritage management of its buildings by the Church of England. |
| 55. | The question then arises of what changes we should recommend. There is a ready solution to hand in that the system operating for cathedrals is now well developed and accepted, and a thorough review of the 1990 Care of Cathedrals Measure is under way. Despite the reluctance in the past of the Abbey and St. George's to be included either in the regulatory system for cathedrals or in faculty jurisdiction, we believe that this needs to be reconsidered. We repeat that it is in the interests of the Crown and potentially of the public purse through English Heritage that these great buildings should be as well managed as possible in this regard. It is our view that notwithstanding their status as Royal Peculiars and the fact that they are not cathedrals, both Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel should now come within the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. We hope that they will now be willing to embrace the possibility themselves. This recommendation is made notwithstanding the fact that the relevant committees have been established only recently. We further recommend in the meantime, before the necessary legislation is in place, that an independent chairman should be appointed for the Westminster Abbey Fabric Commission and that the Dean and Chapter should not be voting members. |
| 56. | Particular arrangements would need to be made for enforcement, in that the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure of 1994 provides for an enforcement process initiated by the appropriate bishop. This would not be difficult. In the case of the Royal Peculiars enforcement would be a matter for the Standing Commission, acting on behalf of the Visitor. |
|
Conclusion |
|
| 57. | In their different ways the Royal Peculiars have survived from and preserve a system which goes back to earlier forms of lordship, and remind us of a time when kings deliberately kept such foundations clear of episcopal rule in the interests of their own patronage. The Chapel Royal was indeed the private ecclesiastical establishment of the Monarch, and as such retains its status within the still existing Royal Household. Nevertheless all the Royal Peculiars owe (and indeed claim) a duty to the wider community, the nation and beyond. With the blessing of the Crown, all open their services to the public and are visited by very large numbers of people at other times. They follow the forms and usages of the Church of England. They are the custodians of some of the most important parts of our built heritage. It is right therefore for them to address the issues and aims that have been identified as part of good practice for comparable institutions and, while mindful of their special status, to reach out to meet the wider public and its needs. |
Return to contents page