| Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) was encouraged by the increased transparency, but called attention to the need to work closely with bodies such as funeral directors. They might be reluctant to negotiate different amounts. He also spoke about open burial grounds, in which parish-ioners had a common-law right to be buried. It was difficult to fund them, and the Measure made no provision.
The Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, said that the requirement for a bishop to be on the body that set fees was an extra burden. Nor was he convinced that a body was needed at national level to set fees for lawyers.
The Revd Rod Thomas (Exeter) asked: had the cost to clergy of the changes been worked out? Furthermore, the proposal that the clergy must justify their waiving of a fee to a diocesan nominee could be a breach of confidentiality. Regarding remuneration of retired clergy — “we would be sunk without them” — nothing in the Measure required the DBF to remit fees to them. It was easier to get co-operation if it was clear that this was their fee, part of which they remitted to the diocese.
Was the motivation for the Measure the under-recovery of fees by dioceses, he wondered. In that case, a managerial rather than legislative solution was needed.
The Revd Richard Hibbert (St Albans) was concerned about the centralising tendency of the Measure. All fees should be paid directly to the parish priest, he said. Otherwise, it would break the link between the parish priest and the people.
The Archdeacon of Salop (Lichfield), the Ven. John Hall, questioned the sanity of the Archbishops’ Council in wanting to take over what had always been done by the incumbent at a time when it was trying to simplify procedures.
The Vicar General of Canterbury, Chancellor Timothy Briden, turned to the matter of legal fees in the Measure. It was, he said, very important to chancellors and registrars that proper fees should be set. He hoped that the Measure offered a fresh start.
“I hope that every time we want to waive fees we don’t have to go to the Bishop’s nominee,” said Canon Tony Walker (Southwell & Nottingham). He also wanted to be able to reduce fees. At the moment, incumbents had the choice between full fees or none at all, but there were many occasions, for which a reduced fee was appropriate.
Canon David Bird (Peterborough) wanted a better arrangement for travel fees for the clergy. He got a standard fee of Ł20 for a funeral, whether he walked two miles to the cemetery or drove a considerable distance to a crematorium.
Tim Hind (Bath & Wells), who had been involved in providing the report Four Funerals and a Wedding, said that it was important to regard fees as fees, not as reimbursement for services, which would be a dangerous route, and might involve VAT.
The Revd Moira Astin (Oxford) said the Synod must distinguish between fees and expenses. The fee element had been set since the time of Richard I (though they had gone up since), but it was a difficult line to draw. She did not see, for instance, how the setting up of a church for a service could be an expense.
Canon Chris Lilley (Lincoln) was also unhappy at having to consult before waiving a fee. What was needed was a framework that would make clear, for instance, whether the organist’s fees were included. Parishes could then make their own decisions within a nationally agreed formula.
Canon Andrew Nunn (Southwark) spent much of his time arranging special services, particularly memorial services, in the cathedral. Fees for them were unclear. Some services were largely arranged by the families, while he had a great deal of work to do when arranging a memorial service for a well-known person.
The Archdeacon of Maidstone, the Ven. Philip Down (Canterbury), said that attention needed to be paid to house-for-duty clergy.
The Revd Dr John Hartley (Bradford) said that the arrangements were not clear about PCC fees for funerals at crematoriums. There were also difficult cases where someone had been moved to a nursing home, and wanted a funeral in his or her original parish church, but the fees went to the PCC of the parish where the nursing home was situated.
The Measure now stands referred to the revision committee |
back to Synod
previous story
|
next story 
