FIRST consideration was given on Tuesday afternoon to the Draft Church of England (Ecclesiastical Property) Measure.

Introducing the debate, the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, the Ven. Clive Mansell (Rochester), who chairs the steering committee, explained that the short Measure was being introduced after the private member's motion from the Revd Christopher Hobbs had been carried by the Synod in 2012.

Mr Hobbs's motion called on the Archbishops' Council to bring forward legislation to change the legal position which prohibits PCCs from holding property. The law currently requires such property to be held by the diocese as custodian trustee. The draft Measure would allow PCCs to hold property if it was in the form of a "short lease"; and to acquire or dispose of property if it was below a value set from time to time by the Archbishops' Council. Dioceses would retain a custodian-trustee role in relation to other property.

Mr Mansell said that the Measure could be seen as part of the C of E's simplification process. "These are quite technical issues . . . but lying behind them are some important principles: that parishes have responsibilities to the dioceses and the whole Church of England, and not just the local congregation; that dioceses need to act in the best interests of the parishes. . ."

The Revd Christopher Hobbs (London) said that when his motion was debated in July 2012, "a phalanx of archdeacons opposed it, and alluded to horror stories of foolish PCCs. . . We allow PCCs to make all sorts of decisions to do with money, just not property. To be honest, I believe we could allow PCCs to hold their own property, since property is well regulated by the 2011 Charities Act, and the much-feared alienation of charity property is illegal."

He said that he was "content with small steps", but said that, since the Charities Act, "we are subject to double regulation, and the Church's rules are more prescriptive than those required by the Charity Commission."

Robert Holgate (Birmingham) said that he was "disturbed" by the contents of the Measure, and asked whether the vision of the national Church for PCCs and local churches was "one of empowerment or . . . duplicated regulation, arguably beyond reasonable accountability? Currently, we trust local churches with witness and evangelism. . . These are really important matters; yet we do not trust them with significant property matters."

Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) said it would be "helpful if we could be clearer about whether the concerns of the Archbishops' Council for not implementing the 2012 resolution in full was about principle, something about the relationship between parish and diocese; or a matter of pragmatism, where we don't want PCCs to make a balls-up and cause untold damage to the church."

The Archdeacon of Lincoln, the Ven. Timothy Barker (Lincoln), said that he was one of the "phalanx of archdeacons" referred to by Mr Hobbs. While he was "nervous about some of the aspects" of the private member's motion considered in 2012, he was "delighted to welcome the proposed legislation", which "tackles seriously the need to reduce the burden of PCCs and the duty of PCCs to safeguard the assets of the Church".

He said that he had recently visited a tiny parish in the heart of Lincoln diocese, where "closure had seemed a real possibility." It had no electricity, and faced a large bill to run an electricity cable over a neighbouring field. "A group of young women wanted a place where they and their children could come to worship," he said.

The diocesan trusts officer had investigated, and discovered that a balance of £12,500 had accrued on an old trust that had been forgotten about after the death of a former treasurer. The Archdeacon supported the draft Measure and its "appropriate balance between flexibility and the protection of valuable assets of our parishes".

Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) said that she would not have wanted to embark on a career in property management in the Church without the support of the diocesan authority. She asked that a "safety net" be provided when powers were devolved to PCCs.

John Ward (London) was "nervous about the spirit or sentiment which says that diocesan authorities are necessarily a burden". These authorities were "part of the checks and balances necessary to make sure that decisions about significant sums of money are taken in a collective way".

Being required to draw on the expertise of diocesan authorities could help PCCs to make decisions about sales and expenditure. The Church should "rejoice and celebrate in the fact that we are an unusual charity . . . because power is held at different levels, and, therefore, checks and balances are required in our charity that would not be required in others." Could there be checks and balances that related to the proportion of assets on a PCC's balance sheet?

Clive Scowen (London) was critical of what was before the Synod, which was "not what Synod asked for". The Synod had "asked for bread . . . and been given a thin crust". In the spirit of simplification, it was possible to do "so much better". All PCCs were already well-regulated by the Charity Commission, and much smaller charities than many PCCs were able to hold their own land, subject only to regulation by the Commission.

The main argument against "de-nannyfication" was the loss of the "sage advice and involvement" of the archdeacon. But while the part played by the archdeacon was "enormously valuable", there were already safeguarding mechanisms in place. Could PCCs be made subject to a duty to consult the archdeacon and to have regard to his or her advice?

The diocesan board of finance's consent would have to be obtained only in exceptional cases.

He pledged to vote for the Measure, but expressed hope that the Commission would be "bold and robust in making changes to bring it more in line with what Synod originally asked for, and in the spirit of the simplification process".

Peter Smith (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) welcomed the draft measure, and pledged to vote for it. But he warned that the Church must ensure that PCCs did not sell land without "professional advice taken from valuers and experts in church law", so that they did not lose out on the "windfall monies that could come to it if it was properly advised".

Debbie Sutton (Portsmouth) emphasised that the matter before the Synod was not just one of money and property, but of people. There was a pastoral aspect. A curate's house had been leased to a church family who did not pay the rent. This had been a "grisly experience". She was "not convinced that every PCC would have the expertise to deal with that; and pastoral relationships, frankly, were a bit of a disaster".

She was asking for reassurance that PCCs would have support, or that there would be provision for another body to take on such difficult issues.

The Draft Measure was referred to the revision committee.