THE Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, introduced the following stage of the National Governance Measure to the General Synod on Sunday afternoon. It proposes to cut back the variety of the C of E’s National Church Institutions (NCIs), and would create a recent Church of England National Services (CENs) to include the functions of several existing bodies.
Bishop Watson referred to fears that the proposals could find yourself suffering “death by a thousand amendments” — but in addition acknowledged that “improvements will be made”, and encouraged members to submit their recommendations to the Revision Committee.
All the speakers expressed their intention to vote for the Measure to proceed to the following stage.
John Brydon (Norwich), in a maiden speech, raised points about accountability. Audit work needs to be completely independent, he said. He suggested that the measure needs to be amended to remove CENS’ part in appointing members of its Audit and Risk Committee.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Southern Deans), referred to the importance of trust — a subject discussed on the primary afternoon of this group of sessions. She had sat on the programme board on governance, and emphasised the importance of maintaining the Church Commissioners’ commitment to cathedrals when the Commissioners’ non-investment functions are transferred to CENS.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller, spoke concerning the proposed Synodical Scrutiny Committee, designed to enable the Synod to scrutinise the work of the NCIs, including CENS. “Constructive engagement” required that the Synod committee have sight of the workings of the institutions, but in addition resisted the urge to perform its debates “by proxy” under the guise of scrutiny.
Dr Nick Land (York) said that he knew how easy it was to forestall scrutiny if the body being scrutinised controlled access to information. A right of attendance to meetings would help the Synodical Scrutiny Committee to do their work, he suggested.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, said that it was vital that the operation of theological advice didn’t grow to be “transactional”, but retained a “relational” aspect. The Faith and Order Commission, which he currently chairs, was certainly one of the bodies that might be affected by the changes.
Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) said that what was being proposed was good, “but might be significantly better”. She made three suggestions: that the Archbishops not sit on CENS by default, but be freed to do other work; a sunset clause on the powers enabling the Measure; and greater use of the Synod’s Appointments Committee in filling roles.
Jane Evans (Leeds) said that some conflicts of interest were inevitable in any large organisation run by humans, but that proper processes and structures would help. The changes were a very good start, she said, as they made the structure clearer and reduced overlap of roles; but further tidying up was essential. Further revision would help to be certain that the “processes and principles support the culture we try to attain”, she said.
Paul Waddell (Southwark) said that the experience of living in Croydon, where the borough council has been involved in various crises, was a warning about who got hurt when governance went incorrect: probably the most vulnerable in society. He urged members to read the papers fastidiously, and to submit their “galaxy-brained” suggestions.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) echoed concerns concerning the lack of power given to the Synod Scrutiny Committee, and suggested that it should play an element in approving grant programmes.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that strong oversight was required, because CENS could be a robust body. “We are institutionally introspective, egocentric, and never church-centric,” he said, and suggested that the oversight body needs to be institutionally independent.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) said that trust had been built up by the best way through which the project board had operated. Existing wording about how the Commissioners’ funds needs to be disbursed needed to be incorporated into the brand new laws, to reassure people further, he said.
The Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) said that she was “thrilled” by the reception that the draft Measure had received. Cultural change was essential, she said, and work was being done, as illustrated within the trust paper. It bothered her, though, that the Church was often unkind to the bishops. “In teeny weeny little adjustments, we will change our culture,” she said.
David Hermitt (UKME co-opted) said that he was impressed by the paper. “We clearly understand as a Synod the intense failures of governance which have taken place previously.” In choosing the individuals who would fill the positions in the brand new structure, it was vital that they were clever, kind, and thoughtful.
Responding, Bishop Watson thanked members for his or her engagement, and warranted them that their concerns and suggestions could be taken under consideration on the revision stage.
The motion was carried on a show of hands.
