THE National Church Governance Measure received final approval on Saturday morning, after the Archbishop of York had indicated the King’s consent to debate the Measure, which affected royal prerogatives and interests. The chair of the steering committee, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, then commended the special amendments for the final-drafting stage.
One of those would enact a choice taken by the Synod in February, which called for the brand new national body to have “particular regard” to parish ministry in poorer areas of the country.
Certain steering-committee amendments were to be deemed carried if the Synod took note of the report, which it did.
Then Stephen Hogg (Leeds), one other member of the committee, moved a series of special amendments.
The first of those corrected a drafting error in order that the entire budget for the brand new Church of England National Services (CENS) can be laid before the Synod. But, in contrast to the present system with the Archbishops’ Council budget, the CENS budget can be approved by its own trustees, not by the Synod itself. The Synod would still be involved in the event of the CENS budget and the power to scrutinise spending, nonetheless, Mr Hogg said. Nobody was attempting to “diminish the correct involvement of Synod”, but a fundamental principle of charity law was that a charity’s trustees were answerable for approving the budget.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) then proposed an amendment to Mr Hogg’s amendment which might compel CENS to hunt the Synod’s approval before implementing its budget. Members had been told that they might be involved within the budget development and that CENS needed to have “due regard” to views expressed — but this, he suggested, was a weak provision and will easily leave the Synod “sidelined”. “Does Synod wish to have control of the funds of the Church of England, or will it’s left a talking shop?”
Mr Hogg said that the governance reform was trying to depart behind unhelpful processes of the past, and this included giving the Synod excessive control of CENS. The trustees were the correct body to agree the budget, and most of them can be Synod members anyway, he said. There were higher ways for Synod to be consulted than through Fr Benfield’s amendment, he said, and urged members to reject it.
Clive Scowen (London) supported Fr Benfield’s amendment, saying that this might revert to the position that the Synod had been content with at its last meeting in February, when the governance Measure was last debated. The only way wherein the Synod could have any control of the budget was by putting it into the text of the laws, he said. This power, which might be returned in a while through Standing Orders, can be a yes or no; members wouldn’t be allowed to amend the budget. It was unlikely that members would ever vote down a CENS budget, he said, but unless the facility existing just even in theory, the Synod would lose all control over CENS, he said.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford), a member of the steering committee, said that the trustees of CENS needed to report back on how they’d taken the Synod’s views under consideration, on top of the synodical scrutiny committee also written into the laws. The approval of another person’s budget was a “historical anomaly” and prone to be opposed by the Charity Commission. It would also embed a culture of distrust, he warned. He urged the Synod to trust those of its members chosen to be CENS trustees to get this right.
Julie Dziegel (Oxford) said that dioceses needed to log out their budgets through diocesan synods; so replicating this on a national level can be consistent. She agreed that it might be unlikely that members would ever say no to a CENS budget.
The Archdeacon of Southend, the Ven. Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford), urged members to reject the amendment: other ways for views of Synod to be heard had been built into the brand new structure.
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) also urged members to reject the amendment. “Let’s not fall for the temptation of nostalgia.” CENS was an attempt at a “recent start”, he said, with a board of trustees which had a substantial representation of Synod members. The whole Synod could provide input at first of the method and scrutiny at the top, but should leave the trustees to do their job in between.
The chair of the Archbishops’ Council’s Finance Committee, Carl Hughes (Southwark), agreed with Mr Greenwood. It was a “myth” that the Synod had previously had the position of approving the Archbishops’ Council’s budget.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesStephen Hogg (Leeds), a member of the committee, moves a series of special amendments
Deborah McIsaac (Salisbury) backed the amendment to stop a “last-minute and substantial change”.
The amendment was lost.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) moved an amendment to compel CENS to put its budget before the 12 months to which it referred. “There is not any point in voting or discussing a budget after it has come into operation,” he said. This might force the CENS to provide its budget by July, six months early, but this was a barrier that was easily overcome, he suggested.
Mr Hogg resisted Fr Walker’s amendment, which, he said, would make the budget unreliable, forcing it to be written up long before the top of the 12 months. Any budget prepared that early can be very liable to vary, rendering the Synod’s scrutiny a waste of time. Fr Walker’s proposal, if passed, could force the Synod to fulfill in a 3rd November meeting solely to debate the budget, he warned.
The amendment fell. Mr Hogg’s initial special amendment to the governance Measure was carried, as were a series of technical drafting amendments. He also proposed amendments to frivolously modernise and update the Pensions Board’s charitable objects.
The Chair of the Church of England Pensions Board, Clive Mather, said that these technical changes would help to support clergy and church employees. “It is a small change however it could unlock something very transformative.”
The amendment was carried, allowing Mr Hogg to maneuver more technical amendments to permit the transfer of staff between national church bodies while protecting their employment rights.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, backed the motions, praising the exertions of national church staff who, she suggested, could all earn way more in the event that they took their gifts elsewhere.
Mr Scowen backed the amendment, but queried a possible drafting error within the amendment text.
Mr Hogg acknowledged there was a “cut-and-paste” error within the order paper, but said that the text was correct within the report from the steering committee. Both his amendments were carried.
The draft Measure, as amended, was then put before the Synod for final approval.
Bishop Watson paid tribute to the people involved in the method, saying that he and Mr Hogg had found it, to their surprise, fairly enjoyable. “Openness, accountability, and clarity” were at the center of what the governance changes were trying to realize, he said. The changes were “good and obligatory”, but not in themselves enough. Even the best-designed governance structure would fail with no “culture change”, he said. He hoped that the introduction of the brand new structure would help to precipitate a superb culture. In particular, he hoped that the CENS board of trustees can be representative of diversity within the Church. He thanked the Synod members for his or her engagement throughout the long process.
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, making his last speech as a member of the Synod, before retirement, said that he had been “horrified” to see the “mess” that the Church’s governance was in at first of the method and equally shocked at what number of senior figures had no idea of how complex things had develop into. “Vested interests” on the Synod often got here out to defend their corners, and he had feared that the governance reforms would die the death of a thousand cuts “or 1,000,000 qualifications”. In fact, what was being approved now had survived and would really change the Church’s culture, he said, by introducing greater accountability and constructing trust.
Andrew Orange (Winchester) said that the Church Commissioners’ money was not being spent on its charitable objectives of the cure of souls in parishes. This had led to his submitting a grievance to the Charity Commission, which, he said, the regulator was taking seriously. The Measure would “give respectability” to this alleged misspending, he suggested, and, due to this fact, he wouldn’t vote for it.
Many within the Church were unhappy with the way it was being run and lacked trust within the hierarchy, he said. Would the Synod act as a “rubber stamp” and approve the Measure without further thought, or would they be “braver and more imaginative” to oppose the governance reforms and delay them until a recent Archbishop of Canterbury had been appointed?
Paul Waddell (Southwark) had been encouraged by members to support the motion. “Don’t let the right be the enemy of the great,” he said. The application of a rubber stamp was a obligatory a part of a legislative process, and didn’t mean that the Synod had not been engaged in it.
Carolyn Graham (Guildford) said that there was all the time a risk that parishes and dioceses could find yourself with less power consequently of changes, but encouraged Synod members to grab the chance for scrutiny of the brand new structure.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Archdeacon of Southend, the Ven. Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford)
Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that the oversight provisions for CENS were “dangerously insufficient”. If there was a financial crisis, the trustees of CENS can be sure by law to prioritise assets over mission, he said, which was a significant issue. He urged members to vote against the Measure.
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool), said that the Appointments Committee, which he chaired, strongly welcomed the Measure. He also praised how members of his committee can be used throughout the brand new governance structures in various other boards and committees. The chair of CENS can be appointed by the Archbishops after consulting the committee. He asked whether this might be at first of this process, not the top, although this was not a reason to vote against the Measure, which, he said, he strongly supported.
Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) also backed the motion, which, he said, had been endlessly improved and amended due to broad consultation throughout. But the Synod had did not heed one concern about scrutiny, he warned. Members had rightfully insisted on independent scrutiny with regard to safeguarding, but this was just as vital for governance. He asked whether a minor legislative amendment might be dropped at the Synod addressing “independent scrutiny and audit”.
Mr Greenwood insisted that the Synod was not merely a rubber stamp. It had been a “very rigorous” process: greater than 400 amendments had been proposed by Synod members on the revision stage. Further change was possible, owing to clauses written into the draft Measure. “This is simply the start of building the brand new regime,” he said. He encouraged members to take into consideration and have interaction with the following steps, including, sooner or later, the choice of the trustees and chair of CENS.
Robert Zampetti (London), a Church Commissioner, praised the steering committee and support staff, and called on the Synod to get entangled in the following steps
Professor Roy Faulkner (Leicester) opposed the motion, because, he said, it put “central staff first, and the client — that’s people within the parish — last”. He feared that the Church can be dead on the parish level inside the following 15 years if this was allowed to proceed.
The Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) said that God alone could bring change, transformation, and growth. The governance reforms were promising, however the “work is simply just starting, and the work is prayer”, she said. She hoped that the Measure can be approved, but asked members to hitch her in praying for transformation within the Church which only Christ could usher in.
Archbishop Cottrell said that he couldn’t understand the arguments against the Measure, as it might bring the clarity and accountability that the present system lacked and, due to this fact, tackle the deficit of trust. This was not a rubber stamp: this was approving the Synod’s own work over a few years, he said, which had — unlike the last round of reforms — survived being “amended into oblivion”. “We are doing an incredible thing today, and I hope it’s going to pass with an enormous majority.”
The Revd Dr Catherine Shelley (Leeds) also praised the Measure, saying in reply to Mr Hofmeyr that, by law, the brand new CENS body would need to order an independent audit every 12 months as every charity with substantial assets was required to do.
Sam Margrave (Coventry) was going to vote against the Measure, which he described as a “power grab”. He was concerned about paying members of CENS and the “diminished role of Synod”. More people from Synod needed to be on committees and boards, fairly than replacing them with “yes men and yes women”.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) said that it was clear that the Measure can be carried, but he and others still had legitimate concerns that needed to be taken seriously. He urged the Synod to be open to amending the Measure “significantly” further down the road. He would resign his position on the Synod soon, but, in his final session, he wanted to lift more concerns concerning the weakness of audit and scrutiny.
The Measure was carried nem. con. within the Houses of Bishops and Clergy, and by 133-10 within the House of Laity, with one recorded abstention.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
