Contents
 back to Synod reports |
 previous story
|
next story 
|
Terms of service: Synod votes down moving parsonages to dioceses
 Speaking up for parsonages: the Ven. Clive Mansell, Archdeacon of Tonbridge |
THE MOVE to vest parsonage houses in new diocesan boards set up for the purpose, rather than in the “corporation sole” of the benefice, was defeated in the General Synod on Tuesday. A clause-by-clause revision of the Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure and the regulations that go with it covered this and a range of areas, including the incumbent’s veto on changes to the parsonage house, and the ability of the clergy to resort to employment tribunals. Introducing the debate, the chairman of the revision committee, Geoffrey Tattersall (Manchester), moved that the Synod take note of the committee’s report. There was a “self-evident need for clarity”. But nine full days of meetings to revise the legislation had not satisfied a considerable rump of clergy, particularly over vesting parsonages in the new diocesan charities. |
| “We have taken some considerable care to ensure that the parsonages board is a separate and independent legal entity from the diocesan board of finance (DBF).”
He said that in multi-parish benefices there was “no direct local connection” between the parsonage and most of the parishes: the arguments against the transfer of ownership was “a matter of symbolism rather than of substance”.
Fairness and parity between the clergy was more important. It was “indefensible” that there was, in terms of housing, one system for incumbents and another for everyone else. Incumbents would, in future, have a qualified right to veto the sale of their homes, which could be overridden only if the parsonage board could persuade the Church Commissioners that the transaction should proceed.
The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill, said that under the draft legislation there would not be the possibility of dealing with pastoral breakdown where neither the incumbent nor the parishioner could be seen to be at fault. This was a “serious lacuna”.
Canon Simon Killwick (Manchester) said that Common Tenure was not as common as it was made out to be; nor did it offer as much security as was believed. In the conditions of service, there was “a large gap” between those on, in secular terms, permanent contract and those on short-term contracts.
The maximum compensation from a tribunal was £6000, “less than many of us had in mind”.
James Humphery (Salisbury) said that employment tribunals could order reinstatement and re-engagement as remedies. But he was concerned that the proposals to shift the ownership of parsonages to the new boards that were independent of the dioceses could look like an attempt to place assets beyond the reach of any future creditors. Gavin Oldham (Oxford) said that meeting the cost of administering all the new parsonage boards could be considerable. The Synod took note of the report, and moved on to revise the Measure clause by clause. The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) moved an amendment to Clause 1 that would have removed incumbents entirely from the Measure. He said that there was widespread concern about the vesting of parsonages, ministerial review, and capability procedure. Many incumbents would not be prepared to trade in their freehold for “the unknown and feared thing called Common Tenure”. Common Tenure would stop clergy moving. One senior government lawyer had told him that incumbents would be wrong to trade in their freehold for anything less than another freehold. If freehold was excluded from the legislation, it could be introduced later. The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Stephen Venner, said, in response, that he did not recognise, among the clergy whom he served, the picture of clergy whose primary concern was to preserve their freehold.Prebendary David Houlding (London) urged the Synod to embrace the whole piece of legislation, as a package, with enthusiasm. Common Tenure could aid the mission of the Church. It was a “golden thread”: “We have to have something in common for all clergy.” |
 Prebendary David Houlding |
|
The Archdeacon of Rochester, the Ven. Clive Mansell (Rochester), wanted to reassure incumbents that the culture of freehold would not change.
The Revd Susan Booys (Oxford) said: “The archdeacons and bishops need to go on a charm offensive, because people are fearful,” she said.
Gerald O’Brien (Rochester) said that removing the clause concerning the vesting of the parsonages was “an elegant way out of our dilemma”. If freehold and Common Tenure could run side by side, then, in five years, if Common Tenure had been seen not to have any unintended consequences, then the clause could be introduced.
Mr Benfield’s amendment was put to the vote, and lost.
Clive Scowen (London) moved an amendment that would have delayed the application of the Measure to incumbents and cathedral clergy by at least five years. “A lot of clergy think they are being asked to buy a pig in a poke,” he said. He was asking for time to “get the pig out of the poke and see it running around the farmyard”. It might prove to have a flat snout and a curly tail, or it might have a pointy nose and sharp teeth.
This amendment was lost.
Mr Scowen also proposed the establishment of a church system of “ecclesiastical officeholders tribunals”, equivalent to employment tribunals, but run by the Church. He based his amendment on St Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians not to go to the secular courts, but instead to form their own judicial system.
Mr Tattersall resisted this amendment to Clause 2. The Church’s internal processes needed to be examined from outside for the sake of fairness.
Dr Elaine Storkey (Ely) warned that people in high ecclesiastical office could set aside many of the procedures designed to protect employees, make up their own rules, and even dismiss staff without grounds. If they were then challenged, they would offer money to the person they had offended, hoping to sweep the matter under the carpet.
The present behaviour of people who already held high office in the C of E gave her no confidence that the Church would sort out its own business in a way that was fair. Employment tribunals, however, evinced the vital Christian principles of impartiality. She spoke of a church institution that was willing to spend as much money as it could “to try and get itself out of a hole”. Her own experience led her to resist the idea that the Church should run its own tribunals.
The Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) took pains to explain that Paul was not saying in 1 Corinthians that Christians should not have access to the secular courts, though they might in certain circumstances choose not to use them.
The Revd Rob Munro (Chester) believed that tribunals reflected an important aspect of the land, and Christians were entitled to use them, with restraint.
The Dean of the Arches, Dr Sheila Cameron, said that the experience and case law of employment tribunals was well developed. Those who presided at church tribunals did not know employment law; nor could they be expected to. Church appeal tribunals would be an equally “difficult and suspect body”. It was proper to refer employment matters to the existing tribunals, which dealt impartially.
The amendment was lost.
Debate became more vigorous when Mr Benfield, moving an amendment to leave out two critical sub-clauses of Clause 7, spoke about parsonages. The removal of these clauses would result in the parsonages’ remaining in the “corporation sole” of the benefices rather than being transferred to the new diocesan parsonages board.
The new arrangements were being rushed through without adequate scrutiny, Mr Benfield said, for the sake of “doctrinaire ideas that clergy may not hold property”.
The Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) was concerned about the vulnerability to speculative legislation of dioceses with a large portfolio of property — taking into account the kind of litigation over child-protection cases that had bankrupted one Canadian diocese. This was not the time to take away ownership from benefices.
Hugh Privett (Salisbury) was concerned that there was no guarantee that there would not be a change of law in the future, invoking a lingering claim on property. Such vulnerability was “positively dangerous”. Leave the situation as it was, he urged.
Justin Brett (Oxford) said that there was clearly a considerable body of opinion that the vesting of parsonages in a diocesan board was a mistake. None of the lawyers who had spoken had been in favour.
The Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster, had reservations about the “insidious centralising tendency” of the Church of England. Many parsonage houses were originally gifts of the local people to their benefices. The clause was all part of a “chipping away” that was making clergy feel vulnerable. There were anomalies surrounding clergy terms of service, and something about a priest’s home as a gift of the benefice which suggested that the Synod would be well advised to leave well alone.
Canon David Felix (Chester) was aware that one view of the Church of England was as “one large property-owning company”. He had heard evidence of mismanagement and bad stewardship by a number of different bodies, and this clause would make for better stewardship.
Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) reflected on the symbolic implications of transferring parsonage houses, and on the retention of the incumbent’s veto on changes to the property. Did the Synod want to keep the veto?
The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd John Gladwin, said that the issue for the clergy was how well their house was managed and how well the Church did its job in ensuring that good housing was provided. He had not heard sufficient argument to convince him that vesting parsonages in the new boards was important.
Mr Tattersall advised the Synod to vote the whole of Clause 7 down if they felt it should not exist. There was no point in setting up a separate parsonages board if only two vicars’ houses would be transferred to it. The Common Tenure Measure was trying “to give rights to those who had no rights”.
Mr Benfield said attempts to transfer to parsonages boards might improve protection for team vicars, but would have no advantage for incumbents.
The Revd Jolyon Trickey (Guildford) said that the legislation was intended to create common space where the clergy had common rights. Common Tenure provided that: proper rights were spelled out and protected. Very few people inappropriately exercised the veto, and removing one part of the unity that was the “corporation sole” was a parallel and unnecessary change.
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) identified a confusion between justice and uniformity, and suggested that there was no need for a unified system in order to provide fairness for all clergy.
The Revd Jonathan Baker (Oxford) warned that the transfer upset a balance between the local and the national. Local expression was important to the Church, and it was perceived that in terms of assets and property this principle was being undermined. “Don’t let’s nationalise vicarages. We might regret it, and wish we could de-nationalise them again,” he said.
Anne Sloman (Archbishops’ Council) detected no enthusiasm from the laity of multiparish benefices in Norfolk for ownership of parsonages. “It’s about parity — not perfect parity straight away, but in the future,” she suggested. A consultation of clergy and laity in the diocese had showed strong support for vesting in the dioceses.
The Archdeacon of Dorset, the Ven. Alistair Magowan, liked the covenant principle of “corporation sole”, and was concerned about the issues of vesting parsonage houses in new corporate trusts. The material was related to the spiritual, but he did not hear necessity in this argument, only preference. The real issue here was a matter of trust. Disaffected clergy were dealt with by processes such as ministerial review, not tinkering with trusts. The incumbent’s veto was rarely exercised.
Prebendary Houlding believed that housing could not be separated from clergy terms of service: it was part of what all clergy were given to fulfil their ministry. Fears about security, the vulnerability of assets to predators, and centralisation had all been answered. The diocese was the local church, and ownership would remain locally. He urged: “Please don’t let us get so hung up on this issue that we don’t cling on and go through with our great vision of Common Tenure.”
Canon Chris Sugden (Oxford) said that the proposals did not appear to represent proper transparency and accountability. Diocesan and national policies should be about empowering the local church. Who was willing the surrender of these assets?
After a division (carried out electronically), the amendment was announced carried in all three Houses: Bishops: 14 for, 9 against, 5 abstentions; Clergy: 100 for, 57 against, 4 abstentions; Laity: 84 for, 79 against, 4 abstentions.
The debate was adjourned, and resumed after lunch.
When the debate continued, Bishop Venner proposed that the whole of Clause 7, which, as amended, would have vested the houses of team vicars with the new parsonage boards rather than leaving them with the diocesan board of finance, be withdrawn. Clause 4, which would have established the new boards, was also withdrawn in consequence.
The Archdeacon of Malmesbury, the Ven. Alan Hawker (Bristol), moved an amendment to ensure that those who were not incumbents should still be entitled to suitable housing if they held a full-time office. This was carried.
Tim Hind (Bath & Wells) said that removing Clause 7 was “the right result”. “It is nice to know when it is right to fall on one’s sword and when it is not right to fall on one’s sword.”
The Synod went on to revise the Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations. These described the particulars of clerical office, the place of employment tribunals, and the right to stipend and accommodation. They were left as they stood with no debate.
An attempt by Mr Benfield to retain for officeholders an absolute right of veto over the sale or exchange of their parsonages was lost. He said that the effect on the priest and family, when their home was to be sold, was considerable. To retain the veto would be a way of respecting the sacrifice the priest and family had made.
The Archdeacon of Northampton, the Ven. Christine Allsopp (Peterborough), said that those who had the veto were in one situation, and those who lacked it were in another; but that did not mean that the veto should be extended; for this would not be in the spirit of Common Tenure.
Canon Killwick said that those on short-term contracts could find themselves having to move house twice.
The Revd Hugh Lee (Oxford) said that he wanted the right to a veto to be removed from all the clergy. Incumbents owned their house “in trust; so how can they have a veto?”
The Revd Colin Randall (Carlisle) asked whether the amendment would give bishops the right to veto the sale of their see houses.
Canon Kathryn Fitzsimons (Ripon & Leeds) said that the right of veto did not contribute to a culture of trust.
The Revd Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) said that the dioceses should not be seeking to move assets beyond the reach of creditors, because if a child-abuse case led to the order to pay damages, it would be right to meet the Church’s just obligations.
Dr Hartley then introduced a series of amendments, all seeking to widen the regulations governing ministerial reviews so that they would be uniform across the dioceses, would ensure full co-operation on the part of the clergy, and would ensure that bishops were obliged to act to provide training resources that such reviews might reveal. Although his amendments were lost, or fell through lack of support, or were withdrawn, he was congratulated by a number of Synod members for raising the issues.
Dr Philip Giddings (Oxford) said that his appeal for national guidance that all, including bishops, should follow, needed a response.
William Nicholls (Lichfield) said that a national Church should expect that its clergy would all undergo exactly the same personal review annually. “It is absolutely stupid to have different reviews in different places.”
John Wilson (Lichfield) said that it would be absurd to have 40 or more different structures for ministerial review. Anything that was issued as a guideline should be adhered to: otherwise it might not stand up in an industrial tribunal.
The Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster, said that the basic model of the Church was the bishop in the diocese: it was not a national corporation. He also believed that the requirement that bishops should “have regard” to the guidelines between the priest and the bishop was better preserved by allowing local variations.
The Revd Robert Cotton (Guildford) said dioceses were working out how they would conduct ministerial reviews “with a high degree of ownership”. He said that those who wanted to centralise the process should “back off”, and allow the diocesan enthusiasm for the reviews to “bubble up”.
Tim Hind said that, like buildings, the legislation should be put in first: “And then watch where they walk before you put in the paths.”
Janet Bower (Bradford) said she had worked for very varied charities, and they all had annual reviews.
The Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, said that the words used in the legislation that the bishops “shall have regard to” the regulations were very strong. “Woe betide the bishop — woe betide the archbishop — who ignores this.”
In a vote by Houses, the amendment was lost: Bishops: 1 for, 26 against; Clergy: 39 for, 110 against, 2 abstentions; Laity: 75 for, 80 against, 7 abstentions.
Canon Gordon Oliver (Rochester) said that issues of substance had to be faced on how bishops and clergy related together over a ministerial review.
David Jones (Salisbury) said that Dr Hartley had stirred up an area of interest. If the ministerial reviews were done well enough, they could be taken to the Crown Nominations Commission. Promotion in the army was entirely on the basis of such reviews. The Church should learn from the army and from big companies, and use such reviews to improve its selection processes.
The regulation 8 was passed to stand as part of the Measure.
Three amendments seeking to include attendance at synods and governing bodies of church and other schools were lost or lapsed.
The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Revd Pete Broadbent, asked: why debate issues about public duties as amendments? The clergy were required to determine before God and in consultation with parishes how they used their time. “The more we get away from the culture of regulation, the better.”
Tim Hind also urged wholehearted resistance — if clergy wanted to be on synods as a hobby, they should stand, and suffer the consequences, as lay people did. The Bishop of Chichester, the Rt Revd John Hind, also opposed the amendments on grounds of principle: to write this into the clergy terms of service would be fundamentally at odds with ministerial review. Amendments seeking to ensure that capability procedures were not invoked for the setting of unreasonable targets regarding worship numbers or failure to raise funds also lapsed. The Measure as amended completed the revision stage, and will be brought back to the Synod for final drafting and approval. |
 Anne Sloman from the Archbishops’ Council |
.gif "Caris Magazine for girls aged 11 to 16 © site")