A good time to look at reform of the Ecclesiastical Court

REFORM is the name of the game at the moment.

And one area that is screaming out for it is the Ecclesiastical Court, an institution you only really get to know the workings of in death – or, more accurately, when someone close to you dies.

Its operation has largely managed to avoid serious scrutiny since the mid-1980s. Society, and how it operates, has obviously moved on since then.

But ask yourself a simple question – are you happy to pay a fixed tax to the Church of England?

And if you are, are you happy to have little idea what is happening to the money (although we know it stays on-island), or, indeed, how much money there is?

Are you content that a public office has no easily accessible fee structure (it's remained static since 1987), no website, no email address and only opens in the mornings? It may, though, have a messenger pigeon loft, I'm not sure.

The main role of the court is the proving of wills and the issuing of letters of administration in deceased estates. It deals only in matters of personality.

Every other jurisdiction has scrapped this arrangement – the French during the Revolution in 1789, the English in the 1850s, Jersey in 1951.

Those who support the court, which dates back 900 years or more, tend to have a vested interest in its operation.

The local church understandably likes the income stream that goes into the Deanery Fund and is then used to maintain its property and support its projects and charities.

All we know about how much money is involved is that it is 'significant' – not how significant, or how it is distributed and split up.

We are told it varies each year, like that is some reason not to worry. The only figure that has been published recently was that the court received £492,828 in 2006 – although there is no breakdown of how much was from probate.

For years this newspaper has pushed for full accounts to be released.

Publish those accounts and all of a sudden you lift the hem of the cloak of secrecy and can finally have a proper discussion and debate about its operation.

You can see exactly how the money is being spent, not just take nebulous reassurances.

There should be nothing to fear from opening up the court in this way, unless the public do not like what they see.

When the Parochial Ecclesiastical Rates Review Committee did its work, parish contributions to the maintenance of church buildings survived because many saw the historical significance of the buildings and recognised the need to keep them sound.

They also knew how much money was involved and if they turn up to the parish meetings can have a say each year.

But there remains a strong argument with all church taxes about the rights of being forced to support one religious group over another.

Those in charge of the court have also been at pains to stress that the money remains on island.

Remember, though, this is not an institution that is chronically short of funding, or one that works in isolation.

Each year the local CoE sends some £600,000 back up the food chain to England as part of the parish share, money collected from the church congregations. Much probably comes back, or so we are told, but the local body, its funding and spending is inextricably linked with the wider Church of England.

The last review of the Ecclesiastical Court began in 1978 and took almost seven years to complete – the Advisory and Finance Committee was behind the move to see if the Royal Court should take on probate instead.

There was no change because it was claimed at the time no surplus was being produced and there were fears costs would increase – although no accounts were produced either.

Surpluses certainly exist now.

In 2014 Treasury and Resources triggered a review into the court, but it was limited in its scope.

That report was finished in March and submitted to Policy & Resources in June.

We are told there were no 'substantial matters of fundamental concern arising from the governance of finances of the Ecclesiastical Court'.

So no one is cooking the books – but that was never the issue at stake.

The review has not yet been published, in keeping with the trend of secrecy that has been the hallmark of the Ecclesiastical Court.

That review can be seen as a stepping stone, a softly-softly approach to reform.

P&R has agreed to explore whether it is appropriate for the court to continue to be involved in probate.

It is an opportune time to do so, not least because there is a new Dean in place.

In the background we are expecting the States to evolve and work in the most efficient and transparent ways possible, yet do not ask the same of other public bodies such as the Ecclesiastical Court.

Its role in probate should not remain simply as a nod to history – and removing that function would not end the court, the responsibilities of which also include granting marriage licences and granting of faculties.

It might be that once the lid is lifted, we discover that the wider public is happy with the arrangements as they are.

We might not.

It is a debate that should no longer be shied away from by any of the parties involved.