CHANGES to the structure and operation of vacancy-in-see committees were approved on the Friday.
The changes were brought forward with reference to a review, published last year, of the appointment of the Rt Revd Philip North as Bishop of Blackburn (News, 19 April 2024). The reviewer, Maggie Swinson, had found that the process had been followed correctly, but recommended that the appropriateness of the chairing of the comittee by a suffragan bishop in the diocese be reviewed.
Thus, one of the changes that the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, proposed was that the chair be elected from among the lay members of the committee. This, she told the Synod, would avoid the risk of other members’ feeling unable to speak their mind because the chair was their line manager, or in another position of authority.
Other proposals were aimed at ensuring “better representation of the diocese as a whole” on the Crown Nomination Commission (CNC), Bishop Mullally said. This included a requirement that at least one woman be chosen to be among the six diocesan representatives, and that two members of the vacancy-in-see committee could not be connected with the same parish.
In the initial debate on the proposals, Christina Baron (Bath & Wells) spoke in favour of the proposals, saying that it was important that the committee members, particularly those who went on to serve on the CNC, be representative of the diocese.
Professor Lynn Nichol (Worcester) said that her experience as a lay person chairing a vacancy-in-see committee convinced her that a lay chair was symbolic of the importance of lay people to the work of the diocese. She welcomed the provision to ensure better representation of women.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) asked what teeth the regulations would have.
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool), in support, said that her diocese “has a problem” in relation to the CNC, and that this would not be addressed by the proposed changes. “That problem is that there is somebody who cannot be trusted to maintain their oath of confidentiality,” she said, referring to a recent leak about the CNC process for Dr John Perumbalath (News, 7 February).
An amendment from the Revd Jonathan Jee (Coventry) sought to remove the proposed restriction on people from the same parish or other worshipping community serving on the committee. This would prevent “good people” serving and create a barrier to younger and more diverse representation. Membership, he said, should be kept open to everyone. Because some Synod members were automatically members of the committee, the proposals would disqualify anyone else who attended the churches of those gathered in Church House, he argued.
Abigail Ogier (Manchester) said that it seemed “palpably unfair” for any parish to have more than one representative.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that his parish church was diverse in ethnicity, class, gender, and age, and that, if this restriction was passed (and he was licensed to the parish), everyone who attended would be disqualified from membership of the vacancy-in-see committee in favour of him, a “middle-class, middle-aged white man”.
Dr Nick Land (York) said that no lay people in a cathedral could be elected on to the committee because of the Dean’s inclusion as an ex-officio member. He asked whether the Synod really wanted to include the ex-officio members.
Dr Gill Frigerio (Coventry) said that, in her experience, having multiple representatives from one parish negatively affected the functioning of the committee. She “couldn’t possibly comment”, she said, on whether having more than one representative from a parish could be connected to the committee’s not electing any female clerics to the CNC.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) said that the “demographic reality, like it or not”, was that young people attending church were increasingly concentrated in larger churches and cathedrals. The effect of the proposals would be to reduce the opportunity for young people to serve on the committee, he argued.
In a vote by Houses, the amendment was lost in the House of Bishops. Voting was: Bishops 7-14; Clergy 75-64, with three recorded abstentions; and Laity 82-79, with two recorded abstentions.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) then moved the first of two amendments: the first would remove the prohibition on the chair of the committee to be elected to the CNC, while retaining the clause in the proposals to ensure that the chair was a layperson. Removing the restriction on the chair would give the committee a wider choice of who can represent the diocese, he argued.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesJennifer Fellows (Gloucester) moves her amendment
Bishop North felt that this was one one area in which suffragan bishops could safely participate, as they “know the diocese backwards.” It was “another way of undermining their ministry and diminishing their role.”
Dr Chris Angus (Carlisle) echoed Bishop North. He had had experience of being chaired by a suffragan, and the committee had gone very well, despite differences of tradition among them.
The amendment fell.
Mr Bacon’s second amendment would remove the requirement for the chair of the committee to be elected from the lay members of the committee.
Peter Adams (St Albans), suggesting that there was “an elephant in the room”, said that the Synod should be “naming our fear of the power that sometimes the bishops represent for us. We need to work on the empowerment of our laity to speak in that situation without fearing that ‘power’.”
Helen Lamb (Oxford) found the whole process “incredibly patronising. . . We are micro-managed and over-legislating what should be a democratic process: one person, one vote. Let’s not get too big for our boots. Trust people to use their power well.”
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) spoke of the importance of holding space for the laity.
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool), said that he was “amazed” at what he was hearing. “If the rules suit you, you probably don’t want to change them. . . And that we should [even] think enabling a suffragan to chair was a good idea!” Better, he suggested, to “co-opt a lay person who maybe doesn’t want to be on a CNC”.
The amendment was carried by 188-119, with 26 recorded abstentions.
Jennifer Fellows (Gloucester) moved an amendment to remove the requirement for at least one lay person and at least one cleric from those elected from a vacancy-in-see committee to the CNC to be female. The proposed change failed to address issues of women not being listened to: “We can still enthusiastically pursue and empower women to become part of the process.”
Bishop Mullally said that she was surprised at even having to bring this requirement. There had been no women on the vacancy-in-see committees in Durham, Exeter, and Coventry, and only one in Winchester, Sodor & Man, and Ely. “Women’s voices continue not to be heard,” she said. “Why are we not ensuring that our members are 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women? Even if we only have two possibilities, we still have four who are men. There continue to be institutional barriers. We continue to experience micro-aggression.” Visibly emotional, the Bishop turned away from the podium. This was met with prolonged applause. “People will say I have manipulated you,” she continued.” I have not manipulated you. . . Reject this amendment. Don’t just wear a blue ribbon. Do something about it.”
The Revd Kate Massey (Coventry) said: “Women are not another minority in the Church. We are a majority. We are subject to legal discrimination because of the bodies we inhabit. You need the voice of local women in your discernment. Every CNC includes a male priest, but not an ordained woman. This is not an aberration: it is a problem. We need to hear women in our church discernment. Vote against this amendment.”
The Revd Jo Winn-Smith (Guildford) said: “Here we are today, debasing women. We are a majority in the Church’s congregations. I urge you to reject this.”
The Revd Kate Wharton (Liverpool) supported the amendment at one level: “I am a feminist and an egalitarian who has proudly worn the blue ribbon all week.” She was in favour of equal representation for men and women on all committees but said: “We should be beyond a time of reserving places for one gender. I want this clause not to need to exist. I want us to be better about changing our culture.”
The Archbishop of York also “wished we weren’t having to have this conversation. But I do want to stand alongside my sister Sarah, and many other sisters in the Church. . . I believe God is calling and challenging us to find ways of living with conscientious disagreement, and we are facing many many challenges over that. I wish we didn’t need any of those things, but we do, for the greater cause of unity and representation, and everyone feeling they have a place around the table. Therefore, if you’re somebody who thinks, on some issues, you need provision, if you support the Five Guiding Principles, then I hope that we will reject this amendment and simply accept that this is where we are.”
Fr Thomas Seville CR (Religious Communities) was sensing a weariness in the Synod: “The quality of our discussions is getting very micro-focused. We need more time to come to a consensus.”
Bishop Mullally countered: “These are urgent matters. The quality of debate has been good: we are giving it the proper attention due.”
Dr Catharine Rhodes (Sheffield), a consultant obstetrician, had been able to train only part-time because of a government requirement that five per cent of trainees should be part-time. “It’s really important we resist this item,” she said.
Canon Jane Richards (Chelmsford) looked to the day when no special provision had to be made for women — or any marginalised group — to be heard. “We still need to ensure that women are given equal voice and what we say is given equal consideration.”
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) said that women were “allowed to be in the decision-making until it’s being decided. This is a minor level of provision, not political, not a theological position.”
The amendment fell in all three Houses. Voting was: Bishops 1-18, with two recorded abstentions; Clergy 55-79, with nine recorded abstentions; Laity 68-90, with four recorded abstentions.
Also lost, in a counted vote of the whole Synod — 156-174 with four recorded abstentions — was an amendment from Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) to prevent the election to the CNC of more than one person from the same parish or other worshipping community within a vacancy-in-see committee: “Don’t take the choice away before diversity even starts.”
It drew the comment from the Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) that “well-connected churches have been scooping up CNC places.”
Returning to the main motion, Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford), on Zoom, believed that it was “tinkering, trying to control the democratic process”, and would have unintended consequences.
The Revd Dr Charlie Bell (Southwark) thought it sensible. “Show the Bishop of London a little more respect than comparing what she’s trying to do with Mugabe or South Africa,” he said. “There has been so much talk about paying attention to power. This is being a bit ludicrous: we are not listening to the voices of those who don’t believe they are being heard. Just vote the thing.”
Kenson Li had been co-opted on to the Synod as one coming from a GMH background, he reminded the Synod. “The discussion before lunch made me feel I’d wasted one and a half hours yesterday pleading for the voices of young adults to be heard. Synod, if you think the system is working, don’t be surprised if they [young people] leave us. They will have made their minds up that this Church is not worth their time.”
The motion was carried: Bishops 16-3, with three recorded abstentions; Clergy 83-64, with four recorded abstentions; Laity 93-64, with no recorded abstentions.
The motion that the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation 2024 (Amendment) Regulation 2025 be solemnly affirmed and proclaimed in an Act of Synod was carried.
