1 10 2 https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/3d4b9c1b1be46a637984783ed8c96737.pdf 4d09013e7bd57861549e143bd376ff2f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Changes to the Office of Lord Chancellor Subject The topic of the resource Constitutional Reform Description An account of the resource In 2003, the Government announced that the office of Lord Chancellor would be abolished. While this ultimately did not happen, the Lord Chancellor's duties were adjusted as part of the Government's wider program of constitutional reform. Minute These are formal communications from one minister to another or from a civil servant to a minister. Transcript A transcript of the document. [illegible] Your advice to me has been sound up to now! So let it revert to the Crown From: W E Chapman Date: 3 December 2003 cc: Jeremy Haywood Justin Russell PRIME MINISTER THE LORD CHANCELLOR’S ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE I attach a submission from Lord Falconer, who recommends handing over this patronage to the Church. As you know, the patronage is handled from within my office, almost all by my deputy Nick Wheeler. Although separate from Crown patronage, also handled here, the procedure is virtually identical. I would recommend that the Lord Chancellor’s patronage revert to the Crown. I apologise for the length of my explanation. The facts By a modest majority individual respondents to the consultation (all drawn from the Church) did not want the patronage to transfer to the Church. Just over 50% wanted it to stay with the State, either reverting to the Crown (43%) or (8%) remaining with a Minister. 43% wanted the Church option. When the Church was consulted institutionally via the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, it expressed no clear preference-see the resulting letter from both Archbishops at flag A. This reflects, in particular, the clear majority in the House of Bishops which favoured reversion to the Crown. In addition, most deans favour the Crown option. These are all senior voices in the Church.  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 2 The Archbishop of Canterbury personally favours transfer to the Church. I believe the Archbishop of York sees the value of the Crown taking on the role, because it provides a level playing field to those who belong to a Church minority (in his case, the traditionalist Catholic wing). The Crown tries to work above Church politics. It is incorrect to say that the current system interferes with reorganisation, as Lord Falconer suggests. Under Nick Wheeler, proposals for reorganisanisation are always co-operated with. Indeed, the consultation has confirmed the high regard for Nick’s sensitive and collaborative working of the system. Transfer to the Church would make my job in advising you more difficult, as I rely on Nick’s networks in the Church to help me reach a rounded view in giving you advice and in ensuring a good field of candidates for senior posts. Modernisation I appreciate of course that abolition of the Lord Chancellor is part of the government’s modernisation programme. But there is nothing inherently un-modern about a variety of Church patronage, of which the Crown’s patronage is part. Trusts, colleges, private individuals exercise Church patronage, as well as bishops. Diversity is increasingly recognised, as you know, as a vital and valuable part of the modern world-a point made by the Chief Rabbi in his book “The Dignity of Difference”. The Bishops already exercise about 48% of patronage; adding the Lord Chancellor’s would take it into the early 50s. There is nothing conceptually modern in moving toward greater uniformity. In addition, variety of patronage maintains checks and balances within the Church, particularly important now when passions run high on such matters as the gay issue. For example, had Jeffrey John’s appointment to Reading been more directly in the Crown’s hands, it would arguably not have been derailed. Some bishops do “pack” </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 3 their dioceses with clergy of a particular churchmanship, or overrule a parish which has requested a particular sort of priest. In exercising patronage from here we try to avoid such things and are widely recognised to do so. Implications for establishment I do not think Charlie Falconer’s submission does justice to this part of the argument. Lord Chancellor’s patronage is operated on behalf of the Crown (it was originally the Crown’s patronage entirely). The transfer of such a substantial chunk of “state” patronage (around 450 posts) to the Church would be seen as a significant disengagement and could trigger a move to disestablishment. If disestablishment is to be on the agenda, it ought to be there as a result of proper debate, not as a side produce of a piece of bureaucratic tidying up. It is true that this was not a major factor in the consultation responses but, if the transfer actually happened, I believe people would see the issue more starkly. Given the implications for Establishment, I understand the Palace may have a view. I wonder whether you might want to touch on this at an Audience. Conclusion Practical implications of reversion to the Crown would be minimal. The system would still be worked from here. The Lord Chancellor would no longer play a part. You would have 5 minutes more work a year, signing 25 or so extra formal submissions. If the Church had voiced an overwhelming preference for transfer to the bishops I would have advised you to acquiesce. But the Church did not-far from it. In these circumstances I believe the wider issues point to reversion to the Crown. Are you inclined to opt for transfer to the Church—or reversion to the Crown? </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 4 If the former I should welcome a chance to discuss this with you before you finally decide. If the latter, and if you wanted to make an accommodating gesture to those who hold the opposing view, we could offer to discuss with the Church the detail of the way the system is operated, in case those discussions threw up improvements. This would underline our existing willingness to keep the system flexible and up-to date. Whichever option you choose, change could probably be effected administratively. Bu Lord Falconer recommends a section in the Constitutional Reform Bill, given the significance of the issue. Clare thinks this is right. Agree? Finally, I gather from Lord Falconer’s office that this is not something on which he would want to die in the last ditch, should you disagree with him. (Sgd.) William W E CHAPMAN </div> Signatures The person who signed the document even if there isn't a wet-ink signature. William Chapman (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Special Features This is a place to enter any distinguishing features. Jeffrey John's proposed appointment to the Suffragan See of Reading provoked considerable backlash due to the fact that John was in a (celibate) same-sex relationship, and he ultimately asked that it not proceed. Although the Sovereign formally appoints suffragan bishops on the Prime Minister's advice, it has long been the case that the Prime Minister invariably recommends whoever the diocesan bishop has nominated (see s. 1 of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen8/26/14/section/I">Suffragan Bishops Act 1534</a>). Document has a handwritten annotation by Tony Blair indicating that he agreed with Chapman that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should revert to the Crown. In the end, this didn't happen. These appointments remain a cancellarial duty to this day (some of the instruments involved can be seen elsewhere on the CBAI). Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minute - Recommending That the Lord Chancellor's Ecclesiastical Patronage Revert to the Crown [2003-12-03] Subject The topic of the resource Parochial Appointments Cathedrals Description An account of the resource Minute from William Chapman to Tony Blair recommending that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should revert to the Crown instead of the Church of England. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Chapman (Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived PREM 49/3579/3 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-12-03 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Cathedrals Church of England Lord Chancellor Parochial Appointments Prime Minister Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments https://cbaionline.org/corpus/files/original/0092241735ed32bd71fcc666e9c25f2e.pdf f0601aa4b61f4dfdd15b71e3dacb5316 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Changes to the Office of Lord Chancellor Subject The topic of the resource Constitutional Reform Description An account of the resource In 2003, the Government announced that the office of Lord Chancellor would be abolished. While this ultimately did not happen, the Lord Chancellor's duties were adjusted as part of the Government's wider program of constitutional reform. Minute These are formal communications from one minister to another or from a civil servant to a minister. Transcript A transcript of the document. <div style="text-align:center;">RESTRICTED-POLICY</div> <div style="text-align:center;">From the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor The Right Honourable Lord Falconer of Thoroton</div> The Department for Constitutional Affairs Selborne House 54-60 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QW [Phone and fax numbers] November 2003 PRIME MINISTER THE LORD CHANCELLOR’S ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE 1. This minute seeks your agreement to my proposal that the Lord Chancellor’s ecclesiastical patronage should be transferred to the Church, as part of our work to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor. The remainder of Crown patronage (administered through the Ecclesiastical Office in No 10) would be unaffected. The transfer would be included in the forthcoming Constitutional Reform Bill. Background 2. For historical reasons dating back to Edward III the Lord Chancellor exercises patronage on behalf of the Crown in relation to 157 livings in England where he is sole patron and in 285 livings where the patronage is shared with other patrons. He also appoints to 12 Canonries at 4 cathedrals. In addition, the Crown is also the patron in respect of a further 210 benefices and some 25 Canonries, where The Queen acts on your advice. In practice the work in relation to all these livings is carried out through the Ecclesiastical Office based in No 10. 3. With the decision to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor we need to settle how his patronage should be handled in the future. Our Consultation Document in September invited views on three options: that the patronage be carried out a/ by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (or another Minister); b/ in the same manner as other Crown livings (i.e. with the PM advising The Queen); c/ by transferring the patronage powers to the Church (with sub-options as to which part of the Church). Outcome of Consultation 4. Opinion of respondents to the consultation was divided evenly between those who wish the patronage to be handled in the same way as other Crown livings and those who wish it to pass to the Church in some form (43% of respondents to this question supported each of the options). There was little support (8%) for it passing to another Minister (eg the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs). The Archbishops of Canterbury and York consulted the House of Bishops in Synod and the Archbishops’ Council. They note that both options have their advocates, but ultimately left the <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 2 decision to Ministers. Seven Bishops responded to the consultation separately, each advocating that the patronage remain with the Crown. However I understand that privately the Archbishop of Canterbury would welcome the Church taking on these appointments, but he is asking that no particular importance should be attached to his personal views. My approach 5. I believe that we should take this unparalleled opportunity to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s patronage to the Church. We would need to discuss the details with the Church itself, but in practice I would expect the transfer to be to the most appropriate Diocesan authority: either the Bishop himself, or the Diocesan Board of Patronage, where it is active and effective. I set out my reasons below. 6. It is scarcely appropriate or necessary in the modern world for any Government minister to deal with individual parish appointments, especially where there are arrangements to ensure that the Bishop’s and the parish’s views are taken into account. I do not believe that tradition or historical antecedents are sufficient justification. It is said that any move to alienate appointments from the Crown could be a seen as a sign of disengagement of State from Church and could give rise to fears of disestablishment. This does not seem borne out by the consultation, where this is mentioned by only a handful of respondents. Questions of Establishment rest on far more than Crown appointments to a small proportion of all parishes. Nevertheless, in announcing any change I think we should make clear that the Government does not see this as disengagement from the Church or the thin end of the wedge on the way to disestablishment. 7. We are engaged in a programme of substantial constitutional reform to ensure that our national institutions are fit for purpose at the beginning of the 21st century. Those institutions must include the national Church, which should be able to make its own appointments and manage its own affairs at parish level, subject to the law. The point has been made to me by some Bishops that the existence of a parish where the Lord Chancellor is patron can interfere with sensible parish re-organisation. I think we should be seeking to remove such difficulties where we can sensibly do so. I am not persuaded by the argument that the, frankly serendipitous, historical pattern of patronage is essential to the balance of authority within the Church. That is not borne out by the divided views in the consultation and seems to be an argument simply for those who wish to maintain as far as possible the status quo. 8. I am aware of the argument that the Lord Chancellor’s patronage is Crown patronage and that, if there is to be any change, then it should revert to the Crown. However, that is not a compelling argument. Put differently, it amounts to saying that because of its historical provenance we should not be considering a change which otherwise seems desirable as part of our reform agenda. We have refuted that argument in connection with the office of Lord Chancellor and we should similarly do so here. It would be a nonsense to say that we are intent on abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor with its quaint antiquities, only to shift them onto the Prime Minister. 9. Some will raise the question of why not transfer all Crown patronage to the Church, not simply that exercised by the Lord Chancellor. In practice this was not a major concern in the responses to the consultation. However, we are not engaged in a review of Crown patronage or of patronage in the Church more widely. We are seeking simply to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor (and the historical </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 3 anomalies he embodied). We are seeking to dispose of his functions in the most sensible and efficient ways to meet modern circumstances. We do not wish to perpetuate unjustified legacies of history, but nor do we want to raise wider questions by embarking on further reforms than those to be addressed in bringing to an end the office of the Lord Chancellor. Canonries 10. I recognise that the case for the transfer of Lord Chancellor’s 12 Canonries is arguably less clear cut. There was very little comment on these in the consultation responses. You advise The Queen on the appointment of some further 25 Canons, as well as more senior ecclesiastical appointments. However, I think the principles are the same as for parish appointments and I see no reason not to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s rights to appoint Canons to the Church as well. Other patronage issues 11. The Lord Chancellor has powers to exercise the rights of a patron of unsound mind under the Mental Health Act 1983. I propose that these powers should pass to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (who would act on advice from the Ecclesiastical Patronage Office in No 10). The Secretary of State already has responsibilities for the affairs of those of unsound mind. I would not propose any shift in the default arrangements for exercising the patronage of the Duchy of Cornwall where the Duchy is vacant or held by a minor. With the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor all this patronage would ultimately be exercisable by the Crown acting on your advice. Means of transfer 12. Our lawyers advise that, under existing legislation relating to the transfer of advowsons, it may be possible to transfer the Lord Chancellor’s patronage to the Church by means of an instrument under the Great Seal. However, I believe that we should make use of the forthcoming Constitutional Reform Bill to do so. Such an important change should be the subject of proper scrutiny and (if required) debate in Parliament. The size and antiquity of the Lord Chancellor’s patronage, its provenance from the Crown and the obscurity of the nature of the original delegation from the Crown all point to the certainty which primary legislation would provide. In any event there are a number of references to the Lord Chancellor’s patronage in statute which would need consequential amendment even if transfer were to be accomplished in some other way. Next steps 13. Subject to your views, I will include provisions relating to the transfer of the Lord Chancellor’s ecclesiastical patronage, with my other proposals for the Bill when I seek formal DA approval shortly. When I have your views and those of DA, I will provide formal advice to The Queen on how we intend to proceed before the Bill is published. I expect to be announcing the outcome of consultation in relation to the office of Lord Chancellor and other constitutional changes when the Bill is introduced. That would include our proposals in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s ecclesiastical patronage and would allow us to make clear the Government’s view that such a change would not affect the fundamental status of the Church of England. 14. I am sending a copy of the minute to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster because of his responsibility for Crown patronage in relation to the Duchy. I am </div>  <div style="border-top:2px solid #000;margin:2em 0;"> Page 4 also sending a copy of this minute to Sir Robin Janvrin for information, so that he is aware of the advice being offered. </div> Special Features This is a place to enter any distinguishing features. Black and white Lesser Royal Arms in the upper left of the first page. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minute - Recommending That the Lord Chancellor's Ecclesiastical Patronage Be Transferred to the Church of England [2003-11] Subject The topic of the resource Parochial Appointments Cathedrals Description An account of the resource Minute from Lord Falconer of Thoroton to Tony Blair recommending that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should be transferred to the Church of England. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lord Falconer of Thorton (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived PREM 49/3579/3-4 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003-11 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Jason Loch Cathedrals Church of England Lord Chancellor Parochial Appointments Prime Minister