INTRODUCING the annual reports from the Archbishops’ Council and Church Commissioners on Monday, the First Church Estates Commissioner, Alan Smith, spoke of 15 years of positive returns.
On average, the goal of CPIH (the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs) plus 4 per cent had been met, but there was a must be “considered and humble”, because, up to now couple of years, the goal had not been met. The Commissioners needed to keep up “vigilance and discipline. Asset classes that had performed well over the past decade — private equity and timber — were negative up to now 12 months.
“We are on the cusp of how the markets are operating . . . we must be smart when it comes to how we invest and the way we commit for the period ahead.”
In 2023, £223 million in charitable expenditure was made, including £121 million on clergy pensions pre-1998. The Commissioners’ remit was to “maximise sustainable distributions, not to maintain back”. They received many letters from Bishops and clergy about “the guy who stores up stuff in barns”. A complete of £3.6 billion was to be distributed between 2023 and 2031. This was very unusual amongst national grant-makers, on condition that all indicators suggested that returns could be slower within the years ahead.
Members were invited to ask questions.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) asked when the Synod could have a “calm and mature conversation” concerning the Church’s financial links to the transatlantic slave trade. Second, could any growth beyond inflation not be distributed on to the parishes?
Roy Faulkner (Leicester) said that £12.1 million (seven per cent of the full) had been distributed to recent Christian communities, while £81.3 million (43.1 per cent) had been allocated to parish revitalisation. Many would argue that this was a “correct change of emphasis”. If it had been distributed evenly across the dioceses, an additional 40 vicars per diocese may very well be appointed, avoiding the necessity for amalgamation and super-parishes. Could this proportionality be retained?
Mr Smith said that the balance reflected what dioceses were requesting.
Robin Lunn (Worcester) said that less had been said about reversing the decline in people coming forward to ordination.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), a member of the Archbishops’ Council, said that a possible cause was LLF; one other was that an enormous drive and peak can have “fallen off”, after which there have been questions on the “offer” for those considering coming forward. Another factor was work with parishes to encourage people to come back forward.
Andrew Orange (Winchester) asked for clarification concerning the extent to which the pre-1998 pension obligation was a drain on spending. Mr Smith said that it was currently about £130 million.
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) asked concerning the decision-making process for funding parishes directly through dioceses without them having to use for it, in order that they may sustain day-to-day parish ministry with no other strings attached.
The Revd Prebendary Pat Hawkins (Lichfield) asked about work on capability constructing, including access to expertise, for the implementation of the net-zero programme.
Penny Allen (Lichfield) was concerned that there was a belief that a younger church would result in extra money flowing into it. Given the price of living crisis, what forward-planning was under way?
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) asked about LICF allocations, which was now described as “a method of delivery against strategic objectives”. When was this decided? Second, would a report be done into what number of “souls were lost” by the choice to shift from formula funding to grant funding?
The Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Mark Ireland (Blackburn), tabled a following motion that the Synod “regret that the Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council doesn’t consult with the relaunch of the National Burial Grounds Survey (NBGS) despite this being a major piece of labor in 2023”. The motion welcomed changes made to the NBGS since its previous launch, “specifically that Atlantic Geomatics aren’t any longer formally partnering with FamilySearch, an agency of the Mormons (Latter Day Saints)” and that the financial offer had improved.
It also expressed “deep concern about other outstanding issues, specifically, industrial use of the information, giving AG International Ltd copyright ownership of the pictures collected and the correct to sell this database to 3rd parties for profit, which could well include the Mormon Church”. The Mormon interest in ancestry was the enablement of baptism of the dead, he said. Other concerns were “data creep — the NBGS seeks to film all parish registers, not only burial records, including current baptism registers” and safeguarding: “Baptism registers hold details about children, including material that is extremely sensitive within the case of looked-after children, vulnerable children whose address will not be known to a parent who’s abusive.” There was still “deep concern” amongst archdeacons, who asked that the Archbishops’ Council work with them to make the scheme higher.
Archdeacon Miller opposed the motion, telling the Synod that there was a deep commitment to working with the College of Archdeacons. There was now far more interest on this area, and it was now almost unimaginable to get genealogical data that was not in some sense connected to the Mormons. Data creep was being challenged. He offered reassurance that work was under method to get the problem right.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, supported the motion, arguing that Archdeacon Ireland wouldn’t be bringing it to the Synod unless there was a “fair degree of frustration” — he had been unable to get answers to questions for 2 years. It was an excellent example of the Synod’s holding the Archbishops’ Council to account.
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) also supported the motion. She had worked in libraries for greater than 20 years. The records belonged to the Church. She was concerned concerning the inclusion of the present baptism registers which contained personal data corresponding to addresses and dates of birth and arguably fell into the sensitive personal data category.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), also spoke in favour on “major transparency grounds” — it was very difficult to search out information concerning the issue.
The Archdeacon of Sunderland, the Ven. Robert Cooper (Durham), spoke of unintended consequences.
Archdeacon Ireland said that he had been asking for years for a replica of the legally binding document that he was imagined to be telling parishes about, but that it was still not available. He hoped for a more transparent and open conversation about this.
The motion was carried.
