MISCELLANEOUS Bills were approved in two sittings.
First, the Synod carried a Bill to amend the table of readings within the Book of Common Prayer. The same revision process had happened in 2016/17, to introduce latest readings for Remembrance Sunday. An error was made within the dating when Remembrance Sunday happened in certain years, nevertheless, and this latest Bill would fix this clerical mistake.
Bill No. 2 sought to ensured that those elected to diocesan synods were meaningfully connected to the parishes that they represented.
Bill No. 3 prolonged the retirement age of archdeacons (currently 70) to the retirement age of the clergy, which is 75. There was no clear reason that the structure had originally instituted separate ages, the Synod heard, nevertheless it seemed fair to align them now.
The Archdeacon of Belfast, the Ven. Barry Forde (Connor), proposed Bill No. 4, which might allow for the authorisation of pioneer ministry within the Church, each to licence individual pioneer clergy and establish legally independent pioneer ministries at parish or diocesan level. Archdeacon Forde said that this exciting reform would enable dioceses and parishes to shape latest models of mission. True pioneering will throw up latest opportunities, and this laws may perhaps need further revision, he said.
Bill No. 5 was introduced by Quentin Teggin (Dublin & Glendalough). He explained that, when the Church of Ireland was disestablished, vestry registers needed to be amended only by births and deaths, as few people moved home. But, given how common it was for people to maneuver between parishes today, a single annual vestry review was not sufficient. This Bill would allow parishes to review their registers between the annual check in the event that they wished to.
The Revd Sam Johnston (Down & Dromore), nevertheless, spoke against the Bill, which, he said, wouldn’t solve the issue outlined by Mr Teggin, since it still stated any extra review must still occur before Easter. He also feared that giving parishes more power over vestry lists could create opportunities for abuse of the democratic powers of parishes.
Mr Teggin replied that the select vestry retained control of the method, which seemed appropriate.
The Bill was then put to the vote, and was carried by the Synod.
Mr Teggin, introduced Bill No. 6, said that many smaller parishes couldn’t fill their select-vestry positions. Current rules prevented co-option to fill empty seats after the Easter vestry meeting. His Bill would correct this lacuna, again giving parishes the liberty to fill as many or as few empty positions as they wished.
Seconding the Bill, Robbie Syme (Cashel, Ferns & Ossory) said that latest charitable regulations had made people more reluctant to hitch select vestries. It can be sensible to give you the option to co-opt someone willing to perform duties that others weren’t.
Mr Johnston returned to “urge extreme caution” again about unintended consequences. The Bill would allow for a malign small group on a vestry to co-opt huge numbers of allies, immediately changing the balance of power.
After multiple failed attempts to place the Bill to the vote, it finally passed its Second Reading 197-141, and moved into Committee Stage.
Simon Elliot (Cork, Cloyne & Ross) then proposed an amendment to guard the legitimacy of the select vestry, which ultimately derived from the parishioners. In extreme cases, all of the members of the select vestry might be co-opted, not elected, which might undermine this, he argued. His amendment was to be sure that the entire variety of co-opted members on a select vestry was smaller than the variety of elected members.
The amendment was accepted by Mr Teggin.
Canon Ruth West (Kilmore) asked for clarity about where nominated or appointed members, reminiscent of the rector or churchwardens, would fit into this amendment.
The assessor then clarified for the Synod that appointed members wouldn’t be counted for determining those that might be co-opted under this amendment.
The amendment was then put to the vote and Carried unanimously, and the Synod nodded the Bill through the remainder of its Committee Stage. It was later passed.
Bill No. 7 facilitated clarifying and simplifying the legislative procedure within the Synod. Ken Gibson (Connor) said that the Bills process had served the Church of Ireland well to pass or reject laws for well over a century. His Bill wouldn’t affect those core principles, but simply calmly amend the structure to create flexibility for the Synod to amend the standard three-readings parliamentary process if it wished.
Bill No. 8 was introduced by the Bishop of Connor, the Rt Revd George Davison, who reminded the Synod that, in 2016, it had revised the means of electing bishops. A working group had been arrange by the Standing Committee to review the brand new system, and had now brought some recommendations that might be considered later. But some needed amendments to the structure, and that was what the Bill would tackle.
First, it will address anomalies attributable to the reduction within the variety of dioceses within the Province of Armagh, and likewise reformulate the shortlisting committee within the Electoral College as a due-diligence committee, which was what it had actually been in practice. The Bill was nodded through its Second Reading. Bishop Connor proposed an amendment to correct a printing anomaly and restore a paragraph by chance omitted.
There was then a debate over a pair of amendments addressing the precise language of the Bill where it laid out what the due-diligence committee could take a look at when considering candidates. The text as proposed introduced the list of questions that the committee should answer with the words “The matters to which the Due Diligence Committee shall have regard in its inquiry into each candidate shall [comprise/include] the next. . .” After debate, the Synod nodded through the rest of the Committee Stage. The Bill was later passed at its Third Reading.
Bill No. 9 was introduced by Robert Neill (Dublin & Glendalough), who explained that it was needed due to increased costs of managing additional voluntary contributions after changes in Irish pensions regulations. The Representative Body was now recommending the closure of additional contribution schemes for the old pre-2013 pensions scheme. The Bill was nodded through its First and Second Readings and Committee Stage, and the business was accomplished the next day.
Bill No. 10 was introduced by Michael Johnston (Down & Dromore). It addressed clergy-illness policy, which allowed members of the clergy who had been off work for greater than a yr to resign their stipendiary office and receive financial payments under a everlasting healthinsurance policy, a part of the Church’s major pension scheme. But those utilising this scheme needed to proceed contributing to the scheme, and, under the regulations, due to this fact, needed to proceed to be technically in service to the Church. The policy due to this fact required any such cleric to be licensed to a ministry of contemplation in a selected diocese. The Bill would correct this anomaly by amending the definition of service within the structure to incorporate simply availing oneself of the everlasting health-insurance policy.
Bill No. 11, introduced by Robert Neill (Dublin & Glendalough), addressed the present defined contribution pension scheme. The cost of compliance with latest pensions regulations was very high, he said. As a result, it was decided that the scheme can be managed under a “master trust”, which allowed employers to club their schemes together and create “economies of scale”. By virtue of its size, the providers of a master trust may also invest more in governance and security.
A master-trust provider has been chosen (Mercer) for each the Republic and Northern Ireland by the Representative Body. The trustees will change, but members’ interests shall be protected. There shall be no changes to either advantages or investments on the transfer, and no risks to the members. The Bill amended the Constitution to permit this transfer to occur.
