SIMPLICITY and transparency had been at the front of their minds throughout their work, the chair of the Archbishops’ Council’s Finance Committee, Carl Hughes, said, updating the General Synod on the Tuesday about the review of diocesan finances.
The proposals were recommendations that had been made to the Triennium Funding Working Group to address the dioceses’ “bleak financial situation”.
The proposals included an increase of one third in Lowest Income Communities (LInC) funding. Mr Hughes felt “very strongly”, he said, about addressing the fact that only two-thirds of LInC funding was going to the 25 per cent most deprived parishes. A “light-touch” reporting framework was proposed.
The Council was conscious of an “acceleration of missional and financial challenges” since the pandemic. “Dioceses are struggling to engage with longer-term strategic planning and are in crisis management mode.”
The proposals sought to provide “breathing space” to enable dioceses to develop plans for longer-term mission health and sustainability. A sum of £200 million of time-limited support, over nine years, was proposed.
Diocesan apportionment had “had its day”, Mr Hughes said, and it was proposed to abolish it, so that Votes 2-5 would be funded nationally.
Synodical consideration of national budgets could occur under the framework proposed in the National Church Governance Measure. A single ministry-training fund would be established, to which dioceses would contribute under a formula based on overall clergy and assets per capita. Maintenance arrangements would be enhanced and simplified.
When it came to clergy pay, the national average stipend was about 6.5 per cent below what it would have been had it tracked inflation. Forty-two per cent of clergy reported financial stress. A standard national stipend was recommended for incumbents, with related policies such as standardised maternity provision.
Improving the national minimum stipend was also the quickest way to increase pensions, Mr Hughes said. The Pensions Board had indicated that it would probably be possible to improve benefits — but this would need to come to the General Synod.
There were some “fundamental structural nettles that the Church really does need to grasp if we are going to right-size our physical and organisational structure to better serve the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s Church”, Mr Hughes said. “A turnaround in financial health will only come with improved long-term missional health and structural reform to reduce the overhead of historic structures no longer fit for today’s Church.”
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, asked whether the review group’s analysis of the effect of proposals on individual dioceses would be communicated to dioceses. She was told that it would.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) asked whether dioceses would choose more expensive training pathways if the cost was to be shared nationally. Mr Hughes said that, “at the moment, if we could actually get more people to do any form of ordinand training, I think there would be champagne corks popping.”
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) warned that the proposals might be regarded as “top-down, and possibly destabilise dioceses that are coping at the moment”.
The Revd Jonathan Macy (Southwark), who chairs the National Estates Churches Network, expressed concern about the percentage of LInC getting to the poorest churches. This was “absolutely shocking”, he said. Could details be given about how to ensure that all the funding reached the poorest parishes? Could a “big wooden stick” be considered?
Mr Hughes responded: “I know that everyone feels that there is this huge weight of the centre of the Church imposing its will across the Church. We have no power at all. I cannot require a diocese to do X, Y, or Z.” He, too, however, found it “disturbing” that 100 per cent of LInC was not reaching the poorest parishes.
Professor Roy Faulkner (Leicester) said that accounts for 2023 and 2024 suggested that there had been a decrease in spending on parish ministry, and a two-per-cent increase in spending on diocesan support and administration. Ten per cent of stipendiary clergy were employed at diocesan headquarters. Could this trend be reversed?
Mr Hughes suggested that, when it came to potential diocesan collaboration, it was “just insanity to keep doing everything separately 42 times”.
Canon Liz Hassall (York) asked whether, when it came to standardising policies, work already done, such as the Clergy Babies audit, would be taken into consideration. She was told that it would.
The Revd Christopher Blunt (Chester) asked whether LInC could be paid directly to parishes, and was told that this would not work in practice.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) spoke of a continuing disadvantage of clergy retiring since 2021, given the years in which the stipend had not tracked inflation.
Debbie Buggs (London), a Crown Nominations Commission member, asked: “What interview question would you like us to ask potential bishops to assess their ability to balance the books at a diocesan level?” Mr Hughes suggested that “it is mission that will actually solve a lot of the problems that I’m outlining to you.”
Billy-Jo O’Leary (Rochester) spoke of the need for accountability over LInC funding.
Canon Mark Miller (Durham) said: “I think there is a stick. I serve in the most deprived parish in my diocese. . . You said you have no power, but I think your power is: unless this goes to the poorest parishes, you ain’t getting it next year.”
Mr Hughes responded: “The most important thing for dioceses to hear is that Synod takes this extremely seriously, because that enables me to be very clear to our diocesan colleagues that accountability for LInC funding is something that we are going to be looking at very carefully.”
Penny Allen (Lichfield) asked whether LInC funding was going to be maintained, and whether reports from parish assessors would meet the requirement for reporting on how this was spent.
It would be inflation-adjusted annually, going forward, Mr Hughes said.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) asked whether the Church’s finances were “sufficiently devoted to supporting the poorer parishes in this country and ensuring that the cure of souls is maintained there”.
Mr Hughes said: “I hope you do know that my absolute focus in everything that we do is on mission. I want to see our Church grow, and I want to see our parishes flourish. . . The focus is getting that money to the front line, to our parishes. There is a lot of misunderstanding, I think, about what SMMIB does. . . It’s not all just about shiny new things: it’s about revitalising parishes.”
