My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate has said, this is an important measure, perhaps the most important to come before the House for some years. I suspect that the most important part of the measure—certainly the most innovative—is Part 5, which enables diocesan bishops to make what are called mission orders. Happily, that part of the Bill is entirely uncontroversial, so I can pass quickly to the only two controversial matters raised in the course of the hearing before the Ecclesiastical Committee. The first arises under Part 2 of the measure, which enables the dioceses commission to make proposals for the reorganisation of dioceses, including dissolution. Certain people in the diocese of Truro took the view that this provision was directed towards them, perhaps thinking that their diocese might be swallowed up by the diocese of Exeter. Happily, the right reverend Prelate was able to assure the committee that the diocese of Exeter has no territorial ambitions.

The second controversial matter arose under Part 7, which, as the right reverend Prelate explained, deals with the care of churches and provides for the abolition of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and its replacement by the statutory advisory committee of a new church building council. I mention this part of the Bill because I had a number of letters from the chairman and members of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches both before and after our hearing. The new statutory advisory committee will have seven members, four of whom will have specialist knowledge of architecture, archaeology, aesthetics, and so on. They will make up a Majority of the sub-committee. They are appointed directly by the Secretary of State and are therefore clearly independent of the church authorities. That is one of the matters worrying the advisory board. I express my sympathy for the advisory board. No one likes being abolished; I have twice been abolished by statute, so I know what it feels like. But it was necessary to streamline the procedure, which is what the provision does.

The advisory board had ample opportunity during the progress of the measure through the synod to make its case known. It sent us a lengthy argument before we heard the measure and its case was put by Sir Patrick Cormack, who was a doughty advocate on its behalf. We were not persuaded that the abolition of the advisory board made this measure inexpedient.

I support the Motion proposed by the right reverend Prelate. Perhaps in concluding I may remind him of his promise, which I am sure he has not forgotten, that as soon as may be he will produce a consolidated version of what are now two separate pastoral measures.