| THE SYNOD has rebelled against being asked to approve legislation on detailed matters of fees before discussing the principles behind them.
Rejecting by a close vote advice from the platform, the Synod adjourned a debate on Wednesday morning after hearing complaints about centralisation, which echoed the previous day’s debate about the ownership of parsonages.
Introducing the Draft Ecclesiastical Fees (Amendment) Measure for first consideration, the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds, the Rt Revd John Packer, said that the Measure was about Christian mission. “You only need to spend a day alongside staff dealing with enquiries from the public to know what harm is being caused by the present lack of clarity.”
After wide consultation, there was “overwhelming support” for the proposed approach, under which the diocesan boards of finance (DBFs) “formally” become the recipients of the fees currently payable to incumbents and used to support their stipends (News, 25 January).
He said that the report, Four Funerals and a Wedding, provided policy recommendations for setting fees that would “more closely reflect the costs of the ministry provided”. It sought “fair and regular remuneration of retired clergy and other non-stipendiary ministers”.
In the draft Measure, the “ministry element” would be payable to the diocesan board of finance. The other part of the fee would continue to be payable to the PCC.
Timothy Allen (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) welcomed the ending of giving cash to the clergy, which was “open to abuse and not professional”. He had a “bee in his bonnet” over the number of lawyers who formed the committee that decided the retaining fees for registrars. So he welcomed the tripartite division representing users, providers, and an independent element that would “let in light and air to the process of fixing registrars’ retaining fees”.
The Vicar-General of York, His Honour Thomas Coningsby, said that the committee setting registrars’ retaining fees needed “a good deal of legal experience”. The chairmanship had in the past been a judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and he wished for that arrangement to be restored. It was valuable to have a judge in the chair, because a judge would be seen to be independent (which would not be the case if he or she were appointed by Archbishops’ Council).
The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill, said that the chair of the committee would be independent.
The Revd Susan Booys (Oxford) said that proposals to end the fee for banns did not acknowledge the cost of administration. Memorials also took time to discuss with the bereaved and others, and were a pastoral cost that should be acknowledged.
John Freeman (Chester) said that PCCs did not need a centralised fees agency. “Stop centralising everything: it’s a bad habit the Government has got into, and the Church should not get into.”
The Revd Vera Hunt (Deaf Anglicans Together) signed her speech through an interpreter, expressing relief at seeing recommendations included on fees for sign-language interpreters.
The Revd Dr James Garrard (Blackburn) feared that the bureaucratisation of the process would be a hindrance to the clergy, including the retired clergy. The system might recommend itself to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but not to the Church.
The Revd Paul Ayers (Bradford) said that, as far as paying fees to the DBF rather than to incumbents was concerned, the Church was not in the mood for centralisation. That had clearly been demonstrated by the perceived “land grab” of parsonage houses. Fees should be retained in the parish. He was also puzzled about how the level of fees related to costs: prices were normally set in relation not to price, but to market. Costs of heating and lighting were variable.
The proposal that a funeral director would “book” a funeral and then contact a parish priest had not been well thought through, and was “unworkable”. Forms of service for thanksgiving and other services varied greatly in their requirements: charging one standard fee would not work. There must be a chance to debate the principles, he urged.
The Revd Bill Henwood (York) said that in many parishes the national fee was clearly stated, followed by the church fee, and the options of the services people might choose. Good practice ensured clarity. The 2005 consultation pre-dated this quinquennium, and, after the amendment of marriage laws, was already out of date.
There had to be wider consultation about setting a national flat-rate fee. A full debate was needed in the Synod. “This Measure is not just a matter of tweaking of fees. It is root-and-branch reform — a matter of ministry and pastoral mission of the Church.”
The Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Peter Ballard, said that the buildings charge needed to be separable from the ministerial charge: it was counter-cultural to change them into one. “Be open and charge: it is a free market, and it will be different in different places.”
Fees were an issue only because people expected the Church to be free. “Get away from trying to make the Church cheap,” he urged. “It has to be worth going there.”
Centralisation was not the answer. Maybe the Church of England should be entrepreneurial and form Church of England Funerals plc.
The Revd Moira Aston (Oxford) bewailed the pointlessness of the clergy “ending up being the bankers for the diocese” in the way fees were collected and assigned. Administration was a job for the diocese, not the minister.
Andrew Britton (Archbishops’ Council) recommended charges on the basis of recovering costs, not on profit. This was sound economics.
Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln) said that the aim of the legislation was to create consistency. As the Synod was not today looking at the suggested level of fees, it was “a pig in a poke”. It needed the illustration of the figures. He was unhappy, too, with central registering: in rural areas, the priest was the one who organised the funeral. Funeral directors had expressed unhappiness about the extra burden to be placed on them.
The Archdeacon of Northampton, the Ven. Christine Allsopp (Peterborough), was aware that relationships between funeral directors and clergy could deteriorate as a result of reduced pastoral contact. Including extras and statutory fees was considered “not a sensible proposal”.
Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) put in a first suggestion that the debate be adjourned.
The Dean of the Arches, Dr Sheila Cameron, suggested that the Parochial Fees Order, which would have to come from the Archbishops’ Council to the Synod, might be the opportunity to discuss the principles. She also emphasised the importance of the independent element on the new Fees Advisory Commission.
Canon Killwick moved a procedural motion for adjournment. The issues of Four Funerals and a Wedding were part of a larger package, and it was important to consider the principles before the legislation. It was wrong that the Synod should be looking at just one part of an issue that affected every parish.
Bishop Packer urged the Synod to resist adjournment. Policy could be made in relation to powers when there was a framework in which to do it.
The Synod voted by 135 to 110 for adjournment, with 12 abstentions.
|
back to Synod reports
previous story
|
next story 
.gif "Caris Magazine for girls aged 11 to 16 © site")
