36 Reasons to say NO - Part One - Legal

 Since the new Bishop of Truro, the Rt Rev David Williams, published proposals for pastoral reorganisation in Kerrier deanery, west Cornwall, last month we have received many questions from people who are concerned about the plan and would like to know how to object.  This pastoral reorganisation, with its proposal for 23 churches under one rural dean, has attracted negative attention both locally and nationally. 

Here are three dozen reasons why large groupings of parishes are unnecessary and unwelcome...  These come under four headings. The first: Legal.  

A paper by Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent 

Summary:  The Pastoral Reorganisation Code of Practice is a gold mine of the rights of PCCs.  Read it and use it!  And do not give up your PCC, otherwise you will not have any of these rights.

 Dioceses have to operate within the law.  Changing a whole diocese to Minster Communities or other large groupings is ‘Pastoral Reorganisation’.  The procedure for this is laid down by Act of Parliament called the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011.  Your diocese may not be acting within the spirit of the law, as set by Parliament.

1. Moving parishes into Minster Communities or other groupings will eventually need pastoral reorganisation under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 (MPM 2011).  This measure is enacted to “make better provision for the cure of souls.”  The diocese must demonstrate throughout consultation that this is the case.  PCCs can and should challenge why a larger grouping of parishes will achieve this.  Where is the evidence (see below)?
2. Section 1 of the Measure (which has the force of an Act of Parliament) requires “It shall be the duty of any person or body carrying out functions under this Measure to have due regard to the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England.”  The diocese must demonstrate they have complied with this duty throughout the process from informal consultation (possibly already in progress) to submission to the Church Commissioners.  PCCs can challenge this for their own parish.  Will the proposed scheme ‘further the mission of the CofE’ in your parish?
3. Nowhere in the legal procedure for pastoral reorganisation does it give any particular weight to the views of your Diocesan Synod.  Deanery Plans do have some weight but are not a defining factor.  Do not be bullied by the Diocesan Synod – the governance of your parish is in the hands of your PCC.  Just because the Diocesan Synod have approved something it is not too late to object.
4. MPM 2011 requires each diocese to establish a Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee to, amongst other things, make recommendations for pastoral reorganisation across the whole diocese, or in parts.  In so doing they must have regard to: ‘the financial implications for the diocese’, ensure that ‘appropriate conditions of service are enjoyed by those employed or holding office in the diocese’ and to ‘the traditions, needs and characteristics of particular parishes’.  The diocese must demonstrate at every stage of consultation that these points have been complied with.   For example, a single priest serving multiple parishes over a large area may not in your PCC’s opinion have ‘appropriate conditions of service’.
5. MPM 2011 is accompanied by a Code of Recommended Practice Volume 1: Pastoral Reorganisation.  The diocese should bring this document and an understanding of its contents to every affected parish before embarking on informal consultation (which is covered in the code) – not least because ‘It provides guidance on process and seeks to identify those areas where problems are most likely to occur in practice.’   The code strongly recommends that ‘officials concerned inform the interested parties of their statutory rights at the outset of informal discussions’.  The code requires the Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee to ‘help the clergy and laity understand why and how pastoral proposals come to be initiated and the ways in which individual interests are safeguarded.’  If your diocese has not made this available to your PCC, with explanation, then the PCC should ask for any consultation to stop until they have been thoroughly advised about their rights and responsibilities.
6. The ‘due regard’ formula (see 2. above) allows and requires a person or body exercising a particular function under the Measure (which includes PCCs) to take account of all the relevant factors, giving each their proper weight in that particular context.  PCCs must point out where insufficient weight is being given to ‘relevant factors’.  A relevant factor might for example be that your parish church is currently flourishing and sustainable – which the proposed reorganisation would put in jeopardy.
7. The Code of Recommended Practice requires that ‘Diocesan officials should make it clear to the interested parties when discussions are informal and when the formal stage begins.’   The PCC must challenge if this is not happening.  Do so in writing and keep records.
8. The Code identifies Key Principles to bear in mind on consultations.  ‘For consultations to be fair: (i) they must take place at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; (ii) the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposals to permit intelligent consideration and response; (iii) adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and (iv) the product of the consultations must conscientiously be taken into account when finalising any decision.’  Challenge if you believe any of these are not happening.
9. The Code also emphasises ‘Avoiding Pre-judgement – While the DMPC or its representatives may feel it necessary to emphasise any constraining factors, e.g. the availability of clergy or funds, or matters of diocesan policy, that may impose limitations on the recommendations the committee, they should on no account make it appear that the committee has already decided on its recommendations regardless of any suggestions made by those who are being consulted.’  And ‘The Committee or an archdeacon may have a pre-disposition towards a particular recommendation but should always be open to reconsidering this in the light of the views expressed.’  Be prepared to press this point.  

Part One Legal  

Part Two Evidence

Part Three Finance

Part Four Pastoral