THE General Synod revised the National Church Governance Measure in a debate on Thursday which was adjourned and resumed on Friday.
The one successful amendment out of several tabled required the new Church of England National Services (CENS) to have, in spending decisions, “particular regard” to the “provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required”.
Introducing the debate, the chair of the revision committee, Stephen Hogg (Leeds), said that the legislation was not, and could never be, perfect — as evidenced by the number of amendments proposed. But the committee had reached what he hoped was a good balance.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln), welcoming the work, said that the voice of the Synod had now been strengthened in the legislation.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds) urged careful thought before voting for amendments that tied up the new governance schemes with complex provisions. Simplicity was supposed to be the aim.
Sandra Turner (Chelmsford) said that the Measure would bring clarity, simplicity, accountability, and order to the Church’s complex structures; and all of this would rebuild trust.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford), a member of the committee, said that there had been significant improvements. Each of the national church institutions (NCIs) in the new structure would have its own board of trustees and be subject to external regulation by the Charity Commission or Pensions Regulator. The Synod was being given input into setting priorities rather than regulatory oversight, to avoid “needless” duplication and excessive scrutiny, he said. As a result, the Church’s elected leaders would be able to act with strategic clarity.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said that the proposals were a “significant step forward”, and would bring more clarity to the governance structures of the Church. There were still gaps, however, and this could leave “good people caught up in institutional impotence”. She had heard criticism that the Church was too dominated by top-down management. “I have gazed into the heart of the Church of England, and found at its core incoherent governance structures,” she said. Although the Measure was a good start, there was more work to do.
Professor Roy Faulkner (Leicester) said that the Measure was too focused on the interests of the bureaucracy rather than the people in the pews. There must not become an “upstairs Church of bishops and bureaucrats” dominating a “downstairs Church” of vicars and parishioners. He feared a mentality that would lead to cover-ups by an over-mighty bureaucracy. The Church should return to an approach of “the customer is always right,” he argued, strengthening the “downstairs Church” by reducing the administrative staff.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that, done well, the proposed Synodical Scrutiny Committee could help to ensure new governance structures operated as intended.
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, who had chaired the original governance review, said that clarification was required, not just simplification. At some point, the part played by the Synod would need to come under the microscope — but he feared that members would strive to guard their own power bases. Vested interests had killed off a previous generation of governance reform in the 1990s, thanks to “death by a thousand qualifications”. “Don’t lose sight of the bigger picture,” he said.
The Synod took note of the revision committee’s report.
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) introduced his amendment that two independent members of the Governance and Nominations Committee would be appointed by the Synod’s Appointments Committee. This provision would not add extra complications, he argued. The new Committee would comprise seven people, three of whom were CENS trustees. Two others would be from the Appointments Committee, and two more would be independent. It was these last two members that he wanted to be appointed by the Synod rather than by CENS.
The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Andrew Orange (Winchester) moved an amendment that was not intended to undermine the Measure, but would ensure that the charitable objectives for which CENS could use the Church Commissioners’ funds were in line with those that currnetly applied to the Archbishops’ Council.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Southern Deans) warned that it would limit the range of projects that CENS could fund, and that they would be unable to function properly with this limitation.
The amendment lapsed.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) then spoke on his amendment, to compel CENS, when spending money from the Commissioners, to have “particular regard to making additional provision for the cure of souls” in the poorest parishes in England. Churches in the most deprived 20 per cent of the country were five times more likely to close than churches in the least deprived area, he said. Poorer churches had been stigmatised as failures because parishioners could not afford to fund their own ministry through giving. But they had much to give, including foodbanks, he said. In many places, ministry could not be funded by local giving. His amendment would ensure that the poor were prioritised.
Dean Ford applauded Fr Walker’s intent, but argued that the amendment would make the decision-making process of CENS too complicated. It would mean that, in every decision, CENS had to ensure not only that all spending was in line with its charitable objectives, but also pay special attention to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1840. That Act transferred the assets of cathedral estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, so that the money could be best spent in poorer parishes. But it was always intended “to be alert to the whole system”, Dean Ford said, and not solely focused on the cure of souls in the most deprived parishes. Fr Walker’s amendment should therefore be rejected, she said, but asked for debate to continue so that the mind of the Synod could be “properly heard”.
The Acting Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Revd Martin Gorick, who is the Bishop of Dudley, said that the cure of souls always required partnership and a “mixed ecology response”. It remained a guiding principle of the Church, and he wanted to see it included somewhere in the Measure. “Let the cure of souls, one way or another, come first.”
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that local people knew best how to spend the Church’s endowment, in line with the original purpose of the 1840 Act. The amendment sought to defend this principle, and, without it, CENS would allow money to be disproportionately committed to central projects not aligned with the original purposes of the endowment. “Local dioceses know best: support ministry within our parishes,” he said. It would not prevent spending on other things, but would indicate where the Church’s priorities should lie.
Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) praised the concept of the “cure of souls”: evangelism and discipleship rolled into one. The amendment would not specify how the Church should spend on the cure of souls in poorer parishes, just that it should be a priority. It would help to ensure that the Commissioners’ money reached the grass-roots level.
Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council), who chairs the Finance Committee, stood for simplicity, he said. The Measure was intended to streamline bureaucracy and make things more efficient. He agreed with Fr Walker in principle, but the amendment, he said, would create a huge amount of new bureaucracy and wasted time — every time a spending decision was made, staff would have to justify how it fitted with the Measure. Spending on things such as net zero and racial justice — asked for by the Synod — had to be funnelled through the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure 2018. “Let’s not further tie the hands of CENS,” he said.
Robert Zampetti (London), a Church Commissioner on the revision committee, said that there was agreement on the intent of the amendment, which, he argued, would not necessarily cause undue burden on the decision-making of CENS.
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) feared that the amendment had the potential to divert resources from places that helped everybody.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Orange then moved a further amendment to require CENS to publish its assurances, sent to the Commissioners, that it had spent their grants in accordance with their charitable objectives. He had already tried to access these annual certificates from the Archbishops’ Council, and had been rebuffed, he said, and so wanted to change the policy for the future CENS.
Dean Ford resisted the amendment on the grounds that a statutory requirement to publish all information requested of CENS might compromise commercially or financially sensitive details. The amendment lapsed.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) introduced an amendment to give the new Synodical Scrutiny Committee the power to create sub-committees. The Committee was a great idea, hesaid, but, rather than give more jobs to busy bishops, why not delegate tasks to sub-committees? The experience and skills were available on the floor of the Synod, he said. Expecting the seven members of the Committee to achieve it alone was too much, and their efforts would become superficial, he argued.
Bishop Watson arguing that the point of the Scrutiny Committee was to increase transparency. The Measure meant that the Synod could ask questions of the NCIs through a “small but powerful Committee” that regularly met with the CENS leaders. A parliamentary-style array of Select Committees would not be helpful reform, as the aim was to reduce the number of committees.
The amendment lapsed.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) introduced the first of his six amendments (having withdrawn two) which would compel each of the NCIs to publish its response to the Scrutiny Committee’s reports within three months, and have “due regard” to the reports in how it carried out its functions. Speaking about the thrust of his amendments, he said that it was vital that trustees of the new NCIs could not be allowed to ignore the Synod’s views.
Dean Ford said that the Measure would “enhance” Synod’s existing powers of inquiry into the NCIs. The Synod should not become a “quasi-regulatory body for the NCIs” — a function that would be fulfilled by other statutory regulators. The Synod was a legislative assembly, not an inspector or an audit committee. The Scrutiny Committee aimed to foster better working relationships, but Dr Johnston’s amendments would make it a more formal and aggressive regulator. She resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Dr Johnston then moved his second amendment, which would remove a clause saying that the Standing Orders of the Scrutiny Committee “may not have the effect of invalidating anything done” by any of the NCIs. Resisted by Dean Ford, this also lapsed.
Dr Johnston third amendment would oblige the NCIs to have “due regard” to any report written into it by the Committee of Inquiry. He said that he was just trying to “encourage a more open conversation” between the NCIs and the Synod, because, when “push came to shove”, the NCIs didn’t have to talk to the Synod.
Bishop Watson said that any NCI was required to respond to a report within six months, and so the amendment was unnecessary. The amendment lapsed.
Dr Johnston then moved another amendment, which was a further effort to give the Synod more opportunities to exercise oversight over the NCIs. The Charity Commission was already regulating the Archbishops’ Council, and that clearly had not worked. “Soft power” from the Synod had failed, and so he hoped to toughen up their role.
Bishop Watson resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Moving his next amendment, to give the Synod the power to request that an NCI make a report to the Charity Commission, Dr Johnston said that Bishop Watson and Dean Ford were “missing the point” in their replies, as he wasn’t trying to make the Synod a quasi-regulator.
Bishop Watson said that it was unclear why this amendment was necessary, and it also lapsed.
Debbie McIsaac (Salisbury) moved an amendment that would clarify that references to “diversity” in the Measure encompassed diversity of church traditions.
Dean Ford resisted the amendment on the basis that diversity of church tradition was already contained within the terms of the Measure, and that it would be unhelpful to single out church tradition alongside other varieties of diversity.
The amendment lapsed
Mr Greenwood introduced another amendment to remove the Archbishops as ex-officio members of CENS and boost the numbers of bishops from two to three. It would be wise to cut down the workload of the Archbishops, he argued, and slim down the trustee body. The Archbishops could still be elected by the House of Bishops if they wished to be chosen, but this would give them the option to let other colleagues sit on CENS.
In response, Bishop Watson said that, in general, rebalancing CENS away from elected members to appointed members was the intention. There needed to be a diversity of expertise and experience to steer the “complex beast” that would be CENS, he said. A mainly elected body could not provide that skill-base, and would leave CENS a “marginally tweaked version” of the Archbishops’ Council, he argued.
The question of the Archbishops had been discussed at significant length, and they recognised that there was value in reducing the workload of the Primates. This was why the Archbishop of Canterbury would no longer have to chair CENS, but not having them there at all would create “shadowy back channels”, as the Archbishops would have to be consulted on almost everything CENS decided. This would contradict the transparency that the reforms were trying to achieve, he said. Not having the Archbishops would be like not having an incumbent on a PCC.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, opposed the amendment, arguing that the Archbishops were in the middle of a “tug of war” within the Church. They were leaders of a more centralised Church, and yet the Church increasingly wanted to remove them from executive power. “Some people think there is a massive race to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury, but they’re wrong: the race is mostly in the other direction,” he said. The job was already impossible, but removing them from CENS would make it “even more impossible”.
The Archbishops had the best top-down view of the Church, and were needed to develop a strategy that they were expected to execute, he argued. For leaders to be accountable, they had to have some decision-making powers first.
Ms Chapman backed the idea of the Archbishops’ sitting on CENS not by default, but only if they won an election among the House of Bishops. This would help to tackle deference and make all members serve limited terms, she argued, instead of having a separate caste of ex-officio members.
Bishop Mullally said that an independent chair of CENS was an excellent reform, but having the Archbishops ex officio was important to “provide clarity and coherence”, stitching everything in the Church together.
Canon Bruce Bryant-Scott (Europe) said that, if leaders were appointed in a Church, they should be permitted to lead. The Archbishops were going to be leaders regardless, he said, so better to have them as part of CENS rather than exercising power in more informal ways.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) urged members to resist the amendment on the basis that, if the Archbishops were not on CENS, it would create gaps in governance.
The amendment was defeated.
The revision stage concluded on Friday morning, after Mr Greenwood withdrew three amendments concerning the membership of CENS.
