A BRIEF debate on the report from the Business Committee allowed members to air their minor grievances about how the General Synod organises its business.
Robert Hammond (Chelmsford), who chairs the Committee, introduced its report. He outlined the 2 approaches that the Committee could take to the agenda: to adopt a reasonably rigid structure, enabling members to know what could be debated and when, but with the chance that some items needed to be curtailed to be able to move to other business; or, a more flexible approach which might allow items to run on, but with other topics consequently falling off the agenda. The Business Committee considered the previous to be preferable, he said. Mr Hammond also said that feedback on the February session’s being held over a weekend had not, generally, been favourable, and that the Committee had taken this feedback on board.
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) praised a video on the C of E website introducing the national governance review, which, she said, had been a helpful preparation for the documents. She asked whether more resources prefer it might be produced.
Fiona MacMillan (London) said that the present timetable had increased working hours within the chamber at the fee of break times for fringe meetings, and that this was a shame. She urged the Committee to reconsider this shift.
Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) desired to know the voting figures for lay members who weren’t retired when the consultation around weekend dates in London Synods was undertaken, as these members faced a selected challenge in attending weekday Synods. He also asked for more time for members to read the papers before the Synod met.
Muriel Robinson (Lincoln) echoed calls for the length of Synod papers to be in the reduction of.
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) asked whether the Committee could create space for a debate on Mission and Ministry in Covenant: a joint report with the Methodist Church about further integration between the 2 denominations.
Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans Together) added her voice to complaints concerning the length of the Synod papers, which, she said, was particularly difficult for deaf members for whom English was not their first language.
The Revd Barry Hill (Leicester) asked how much staff time it took to arrange answers to greater than 200 questions, to assist members to “prioritise our curiosity” more.
Responding to the controversy, Mr Hammond reiterated that his Committee didn’t see the papers for every item before they drew up the agenda, and due to this fact couldn’t control the standard or length of the documents.
The motion to pay attention to the report was then carried.
