Letters to the Editor

Reform UK meeting in Church House, Westminster

From the Revd William Hogg

Madam, — I was surprised — shocked, in fact — to see the report (News, 20 February) with the photo of the Reform UK press conference in Church House, Westminster. I thought that there was an understanding, or unwritten rule, that church buildings should not be used for party-political purposes, except, perhaps, at election time, for cross-party hustings to which all candidates are invited and given an equal chance to speak, and the public are encouraged to ask questions.

Readers will know that the C of E was once half-jokingly referred to as the Conservative Party at prayer, but that was always an inaccurate insinuation, embarrassing to those of other persuasions, and the Church has, in fact, always had a pretty broad membership in political terms.

Reform UK has often denied accusations of racism and even disciplined members for overtly racist remarks, but its positions on immigration and welfare issues are, to say the least, highly controversial. It seems to me extremely unsuitable for any Church to give a platform to such a one-sided event.

Your report gave no space to questions from journalists present, but seemed, rather, to concentrate on demonstrating that senior figures in Reform had Christian or religious connections, which seems tantamount to portraying as mainstream a far-Right party that has drawn much challenging criticism from church leaders across the denominations.

WILLIAM HOGG
Dunkeld, Perth and Kinross

[Church leaders’ criticisms of Reform’s policies have been extensively reported in our columns. Editor]

From Sue Dilworth

Madam, — I was shocked to see in last week’s News that an event had been held by Nigel Farage and the Reform party in Church House, Westminster, where he presented members of his “Shadow Cabinet” at a press conference. Given Reform’s far-Right rhetoric on immigration and human rights, and the uncaring character its policies, the Church of England needs to consider whether its use of Church House is still appropriate.

I know very little about the place, save what I read and hear in the media. Wikipedia states: “The Church House is the home of the headquarters of the Church of England. . . ” The General Synod is held there.

The Church House website has an Ethical Lettings Policy web page explaining the principles that it observes when making lettings or booking events. Perhaps someone at Church House, and the Church of England, needs to read the web page again, and especially Professor O’Donovan’s paper shown at the foot of the web page.

And perhaps it is time that the Synod found another home rather than be tainted by association with a far-Right organisation that does not share its values on the innate worth of all people.

SUE DILWORTH
Shrewsbury

From Mr Simon Carter

Madam, — I think that I first became suspicious just before Christmas when the Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin said in a post on X that the vicar had preached “a brave sermon about the very real prospect of Christmas being cancelled by the woke liberati” at the service at which the Christian Fellowship for Reform UK was launched. This was easily disprovable, of course. I wrote to the church about it, and they confirmed that the vicar had preached no such thing.

It is encouraging to learn, then, that Dr James Orr has been appointed Head of Policy for Reform UK. As an associate professor of Philosophy of Religion at Cambridge University’s Faculty of Divinity, Dr Orr seems eminently qualified to proclaim the true gospel of Jesus Christ to Nigel Farage and his colleagues.

Once Dr Orr explains to them what Jesus actually taught, no more will Reform UK be able to justify its co-opting of our woke Lord and Saviour as cover for the sowing of division and hatred in this country. I am sure that when Dr Orr briefs the so-called Reform UK Shadow Cabinet on the imperatives of Matthew 25 to give food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and care for the sick and for prisoners, scales will fall from their eyes, and love for the last, least, and the lost will begin to warm those cockles. Oh happy day!

Having finally heard from someone who has actually read about Jesus, these people will presumably not want to stop the boats any more, apart from, perhaps, those ones floating on the largest of the nation’s potholes as they filled up with water this month.

Oh, hang on. . . I’ve just read some more of Dr Orr’s opinions. Never mind. As you were.

SIMON CARTER
Address supplied

Early closure of Listed Places of Worship scheme

From Juliet Pattinson

Madam, — How many churches have been affected by the unexpected announcement by the Department for Culture Media and Sport that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme (LPWGS) has had to close six weeks early and is no longer accepting applications? This scheme, whereby listed places of worship can reclaim VAT on repairs, has for 20 years been a lifeline for many listed churches faced with expensive repair bills.

This week, much needed roof repairs and electrical work costing more than £40,000, were finally completed at my local church, a Grade II* listed building. This work was undertaken after careful financial planning and extensive fund-raising efforts. Instrumental in the decision to make the commitment to this expenditure was the knowledge that the LPWGS would be open for applications until 31 March 2026, and that we would be able to reclaim the VAT of just under £7000.

The decision to close the scheme without any prior notice means that we will have to find an additional £7000 through no fault of our own. This will cause considerable financial pressure. I appreciate that the LPWGS is to be replaced by the Places of Worship Renewal Fund, but, at present, there are no details as to how this new fund will work.

Undoubtedly, there will be other churches in the same predicament, which will have committed themselves to major expenditure for repairs in the expectation that they would be able to reclaim the VAT. The Government should have the decency to reverse its decision to close the LPWGS early. Another government U-turn is not too much to ask, is it?

JULIET PATTINSON
Fabric Officer of St Mary the Virgin, Micheldever
Micheldever, Hampshire

Bishops should not let UN shape view of Israel

From the Revd Drs Ian K. Duffield and Alan Billings

Madam, — There can be no doubt about the integrity of the Bishop of Gloucester. In her robust defence (Letters, 20 February) to the charges levelled by Baroness Deech and Lord Farmer (Letters, 13 February), the Bishop reveals that she has diligently consulted UN bodies before presuming to talk about Palestine using the language of “genocide”, etc., to describe Israel’s actions. Unfortunately, the bodies that she relies on, however eminently titled, are notoriously anti-Israel, as is the UN Human Rights Council, which regularly issues more resolutions about Israel than about all the other countries of the world put together.

The so-called “Independent” International Commission was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, and its chair is anti-Semitic, as is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. And the grand-sounding International Criminal Court is, significantly, not recognised by either Israel or the United States, and is unable by its terms of reference to prosecute states, even if it should eventually accuse Israel of genocide in defending itself against a genocidal enemy.

So, it remains unfortunate that Anglican bishops have strayed into this fraught domain. By over-reliance on UN bodies that reflect the UN’s systemic bias against Israel, the bishops do themselves no favours and further muddy the waters for others who hear and take note of their “authoritative” pronouncements.

This does not bode well for all of us who wish to see an end to this conflict and to see Jews and Arabs live peaceably together in the region. As it is, the Abraham Accords have made great strides in this direction, but constant vilifying of Israel, the only democratic state in the region, undermines further development that could establish greater stability for all.

IAN K. DUFFIELD, ALAN BILLINGS
Sheffield

Come Easter, Fairtrade flowers are the way to go 

From Polly Brown

Madam, — The cut-flower industry does indeed provide much local employment in East Africa (Letter, 20 February). But there is another aspect to be considered.

A friend who visited the Lake Naivasha region about 30 years ago said that the flower greenhouses were locally nick-named “widow-makers”. The plants were routinely and frequently sprayed with pesticides and fungicides, some of which were known to be dangerous to human health. Thirty years later, it seems that the only thing that has changed is that 70 per cent of the labourers are now women.

“Women shared their experiences of being forced to use unfamiliar and possibly dangerous chemicals on the flowers without any safety measures in place. Many expressed concerns about the serious health risks associated with these practices. Multiple sources confirmed these claims, which the team has documented in their reporting” (journalismfund.eu).

Perhaps the Church could spearhead a movement towards Fairtrade flowers? Fairtrade flowers guarantee decent working conditions, a minimum wage, and a total ban on the most dangerous chemical sprays. Their largest UK retailer is the Co-op.

POLLY BROWN
Glossop, Derbyshire

Safeguarding and the retired with PTO

From the Revd Dr Susan Clarke

Madam, — Retired clergy with permission to officiate (PTO) are providing invaluable ministry, assisting in parishes across the UK. All clergy in active ministry are required to undergo safeguarding training on a regular basis. This training reminds clergy of their duty of care to those they encounter in their ministry and informs them of the appropriate response to any safeguarding concerns.

Most dioceses, including Oxford (Letter, 20 February), have a bishop-appointed Diocesan Retirement Officer (DRO), or equivalent, to facilitate the ongoing care and support of retired clergy, both with and without PTO, in conjunction with the parishes and deaneries in which they live and minister.

The safeguarding challenges of older frail clergy, particularly if conducting early-morning services and being responsible for opening churches alone on dark winter mornings, must be taken into account by the church in which they minister.

Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring the safety and well-being of members of our congregations should be shared between all of us, as it is in any loving, caring family.

SUSAN E. M. CLARKE
Southwark Diocesan Retirement Officer
London SW16

Clergy pensions’ uplift needs to come sooner

From Canon Alan Bell

Madam, — Today, I have finally managed to unmesh CofE PensionsOnline to discover a letter telling me that, although some clarification (actual numbers) may be available sooner, I am only likely to feel the effect of the promised pensions uplift (News, 20 February) in March 2027, which is 13 months away.

I simply ponder the thought what other group of workers would put up with such a lethargic, not to say leisurely, state of progress. People I know are likely to be dead by the time this injustice of many years is finally settled. At 79 next birthday, I could be among them.

ALAN BELL
Croxteth Park, Liverpool