Church Representation Rules changes carried

THE General Synod voted to amend the Church Representation Rules on the Monday. Its resolutions will now be laid before Parliament.

Clive Scowen (London), for the Elections Review Group, reminded members that the business had been deferred from February, and that, as elections were to be held in 2026 for the brand new quinquennium, approval was vital.

The 12 months 2021 had been the primary to have fully electronic voting for all constituencies. Some of the changes were “unashamedly centralising”, he said: for instance, a national timetable to interchange the person timetables of the 42 dioceses. The election period would begin immediately after dissolution on 14 July 2026, and shut on 19 October. All voting can be through a web-based election portal.

Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London) expressed concern on the imposition of a single fixed timetable for all dioceses. It had several “pinch points” — as an example, the necessities of 15 clear days between the initial letter and the invitation to nominate, followed by 14 days for electors to reply. He identified additional administrative burdens.

Mr Scowen gave Civica Electoral Services’ assurance that it was all possible.

Emma Joy Gregory (Bath & Wells) brought three amendments. The first would remove the requirement, in an election to the House of Clergy, for an invite to vote (whether in the web portal or on a voting paper) to specify each candidate’s postal address. The second did the identical for the House of Laity. The third would remove the requirement for an invite to vote to specify the parish or parishes on whose electoral roll each lay candidate’s name was entered.

“Personal data is one in all our Most worthy and vulnerable commodities,” she said, suggesting that an address could lead on to the making of unhelpful judgements in line with the sort of dwelling, locality, and economic status. “We are normal people, not MPs. It doesn’t make us public property. We must remove any unnecessary barriers.”

Mr Scowen urged Synod to withstand. “Any candidate can ask for it to not be published,” he said. “We hold this public office: it is correct in principle that addresses needs to be available.”

Dr Diane Tremayne (Leeds) said that she had experience, as an elected local councillor, of “people turning up on the doorstep. It’s not ideal.”

Robin Lunn (Worcester) was also a neighborhood councillor. “Fewer and fewer candidates are joyful to do that,” he said, “though in Synod’s case, you would possibly like people to contact you.”

Debbie Buggs (London) was in favour of the amendment. “Not asking for it levels the playing field. There’s not an amazing need for the address is to be published,” she said — something with which David Hermitt (co-opted) agreed.

Ms Gregory amendment’s concerning the House of Clergy candidates’ addresses was lost by 136 to 118, with ten recorded abstentions.

Debate on the House of Laity Election Rules raised members’ concerns over distribution of election materials (the opportunity of a candidate distributing information directly fairly than through the diocese), and of potential timetable hitches with the counting of 90 elections inside three working days, “putting the timetable under severe stress”.

The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool) wondered whether candidates needed to declare all of the electoral rolls that they were on.

Debbie McIsaac (Salisbury) raised the likelihood of staff absence in August: a more elastic timetable is perhaps needed, “allowing per week to sort out messes”.

One of several amendments brought by Sam Margrave (Coventry) sought to remove the ability for a candidate for the House of Laity to incorporate post-nominal letters. The amendment sought to amend the culture of deference within the Church: “Titles and honours don’t have any place on the ballot paper,” Mr Margrave said. “First and last names will do. Every word on a ballot paper needs to be neutral.”

Canon Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), a member of the Third Order of Franciscans, asked: “Why should one group not give you the chance to say who they’re?”

The Revd Mark Miller (Durham) said: “We don’t need these. I would like to see diversity of presence in Synod.”

Ros Clarke (Lichfield) said: “There is a spot for nominees to state who they’re, but only a reputation on the ballot paper.”

The amendment was carried by 161-89, with 22 recorded abstentions.

Ms Gregory’s amendment concerning the House of Laity candidates’ postal addresses was lost by 134 to 118, with 11 recorded abstentions.

Ms Gregory moved her amendment to remove the requirement to specify a lay member’s parish or parishes. Nothing of the candidate’s background information or capability had anything to do with the parish from which they got here, but electors “may make a call on what they consider the parish, which is perhaps known for a specific theological stance”, she argue. “Synod already has deep churchmanship divides. This invites assumptions.”

The Revd Charlie Baczyk-Bell (Southwark) said: “It’s not an unnecessary detail. It’s on the very least an issue of transparency, however it’s primarily an ecclesiological problem. I actually have a much higher opinion of laity to make these decisions.”

Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) would “encourage the electorate to base their decision on the candidate’s statement, not on the parish”.

Ms Gregory’s amendment was lost by 196-58, with five recorded abstentions.

David Ashton (Leeds) reflected on a general inconsistency. At 84, he declared himself to be in good health, “gardening quite a bit and walking”, and 50 years married. His age needed to be declared on the candidate’s form. Would that inevitably provoke the query, “Is he past it?”

Debate on the principles resumed on Tuesday, when the voted to approve further miscellaneous amendments on electoral eligibility, not confined to Synod elections. The proposed changes required a two-thirds majority in each House.

They include amendments to the compilation of the electoral roll: a candidate doesn’t now must declare that they’ve habitually attended public worship within the parish in the course of the preceding six months. Others related to disqualifications, confirmatory votes, and training requirements for PCCs.

The final one removed the ability for one fifth of the members of a PCC voting on a specific resolution to require the minutes of the meeting in query to specify how each member voted on that resolution.

Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) considered this “a package of sensible amendments”.

Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) asked: “Can we try to not load excessive burdens on PCCs and PCC secretaries? Those who can’t afford to supply these resources really struggle.”

The motion was carried.

The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) moved the primary of two amendments. The first would remove the proposed requirement for every PCC secretary to offer newly elected lay parochial representatives with training materials approved by the Business Committee.

All PCCs were answerable for ensuring adequate training and updating of members and provision of materials, he said. He had not seen any material approved by the Business Committee, and compliance with the the principles can be “a box-ticking exercise which imposes one more duty on PCC Secretaries”.

Caroline Herbert (Norwich) was in favour: material needed to be suited to different parish situations and native contexts.

Paul Ronson (Blackburn) said bluntly: “We can’t even fill the tea rota. . . It’s desperate in rural areas. Support this. It really matters for the agricultural Church.”

Alison Coulter (Winchester) was against the amendment, reminding the Synod of the “latest world, where PCCs have to be more accountable to the Charity Commission”.

Jane Evans (Leeds) wanted the Business Committee materials as a reminder that PCCs needed to know the principles, regulations, and responsibilities.

The amendment was lost by 183 to 107, with 11 recorded abstentions.

Mr Benfield moved his second amendment, to retain the present facility for one fifth of PCC members voting on a specific resolution to require the minutes of the meeting in query to specify how each member voted. “It’s within the interests of transparency to know who voted and the way, or abstained,” he said. “It’s an accurate voting record of members. We shouldn’t do away with it. It is a helpful tool, especially when there’s great division within the parish.”

The Revd Marcus Walker (London) urged the Synod to vote for the amendment. PCCs and deanery and diocesan synods represented the laity within the congregation, and it was vital that they were in a position to be held to account by the electorate on controversial issues, “so that individuals know what. Is being done of their name. It is basic democracy.”

The Revd Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield) disagreed: in a smaller, rural church, she said, “it’s vital that individuals can vote without people knowing. Keep this in place, in order that they can’t be bullied or pressured.”

The Bishop of Lichfield, Dr Michael Ipgrave, was for the amendment. “We’re continuously being asked to take a look at transparency in parish decision-making. It can be regrettable if the opportunity of requesting transparency were removed.”

Mr Margrave was in favour: “Record all votes, to be fully accountable on things people need to find out about them.”

The amendment was carried by 173-109, with 14 recorded abstentions.

Read more reports from the General Synod digest here