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 new quinquennium, approval was vital.
The year 2021 had been the first to have fully electronic voting for all constituencies. Some of the changes were “unashamedly centralising”, he said: for example, a national timetable to replace the individual timetables of the 42 dioceses. The election period would begin immediately after dissolution on 14 July 2026, and close on 19 October. All voting would be through an online election portal.
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London) expressed concern at the imposition of a single fixed timetable for all dioceses. It had several “pinch points” — for instance, the requirements of 15 clear days between the initial letter and the invitation to nominate, followed by 14 days for electors to respond. 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 invitation to vote (whether in the online portal or on a voting paper) to specify each candidate’s postal address. The second did the same for the House of Laity. The third would remove the requirement for an invitation to vote to specify the parish or parishes on whose electoral roll each lay candidate’s name was entered.
“Personal data is one of our most valuable and vulnerable commodities,” she said, suggesting that an address could lead to the making of unhelpful judgements according to the type 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 resist. “Any candidate can ask for it not to be published,” he said. “We hold this public office: it is right in principle that addresses should be available.”
Dr Diane Tremayne (Leeds) said that she had experience, as an elected local councillor, of “people turning up on your doorstep. It’s not ideal.”
Robin Lunn (Worcester) was also a local councillor. “Fewer and fewer candidates are happy to do this,” he said, “though in Synod’s case, you might 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 a great need for the address is to be published,” she said — something with which David Hermitt (co-opted) agreed.
Ms Gregory amendment’s about 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 possibility of a candidate distributing information directly rather than through the diocese), and of potential timetable hitches with the counting of 90 elections within three working days, “putting the timetable under severe stress”.
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool) wondered whether candidates had to declare all the electoral rolls that they were on.
Debbie McIsaac (Salisbury) raised the likelihood of staff absence in August: a more elastic timetable might be needed, “allowing a week to sort out messes”.
One of several amendments brought by Sam Margrave (Coventry) sought to remove the facility for a candidate for the House of Laity to include post-nominal letters. The amendment sought to amend the culture of deference in the Church: “Titles and honours have no place on the ballot paper,” Mr Margrave said. “First and last names will do. Every word on a ballot paper should be neutral.”
Canon Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), a member of the Third Order of Franciscans, asked: “Why should one group not be able to say who they are?”
The Revd Mark Miller (Durham) said: “We don’t need these. I want to see diversity of presence in Synod.”
Ros Clarke (Lichfield) said: “There is a place for nominees to state who they are, but only a name on the ballot paper.”
The amendment was carried by 161-89, with 22 recorded abstentions.
Ms Gregory’s amendment about 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 came, but electors “may make a decision on what they think of the parish, which might be known for a particular 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 at the very least a question of transparency, but it’s primarily an ecclesiological problem. I 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 a lot and walking”, and 50 years married. His age had to be declared on the candidate’s form. Would that inevitably provoke the question, “Is he past it?”
Debate on the rules 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 does not now need to declare that they have habitually attended public worship in the parish during the preceding six months. Others related to disqualifications, confirmatory votes, and training requirements for PCCs.
The final one removed the facility for one fifth of the members of a PCC voting on a particular resolution to require the minutes of the meeting in question 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 not to load excessive burdens on PCCs and PCC secretaries? Those who can’t afford to produce these resources really struggle.”
The motion was carried.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) moved the first of two amendments. The first would remove the proposed requirement for each PCC secretary to provide newly elected lay parochial representatives with training materials approved by the Business Committee.
All PCCs were responsible 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 rules would be “a box-ticking exercise which imposes yet another duty on PCC Secretaries”.
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) was in favour: material needed to be suited to different parish situations and local 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 rural Church.”
Alison Coulter (Winchester) was against the amendment, reminding the Synod of the “new world, where PCCs need to be more accountable to the Charity Commission”.
Jane Evans (Leeds) wanted the Business Committee materials as a reminder that PCCs had to know the rules, regulations, and responsibilities.
The amendment was lost by 183 to 107, with 11 recorded abstentions.
Mr Benfield moved his second amendment, to retain the current facility for one fifth of PCC members voting on a particular resolution to require the minutes of the meeting in question to specify how each member voted. “It’s in the interests of transparency to know who voted and how, or abstained,” he said. “It’s an accurate voting record of members. We shouldn’t get rid of it. It is a helpful tool, especially when there is great division in the parish.”
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) urged the Synod to vote for the amendment. PCCs and deanery and diocesan synods represented the laity in the congregation, and it was important that they were able to be held to account by the electorate on controversial issues, “so that people know what. Is being done in their name. It is basic democracy.”
The Revd Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield) disagreed: in a smaller, rural church, she said, “it’s important that people can vote without people knowing. Keep this in place, so they can’t be bullied or pressured.”
The Bishop of Lichfield, Dr Michael Ipgrave, was for the amendment. “We’re constantly being asked to look at transparency in parish decision-making. It would be regrettable if the possibility of requesting transparency were removed.”
Mr Margrave was in favour: “Record all votes, to be fully accountable on things people want to know about them.”
The amendment was carried by 173-109, with 14 recorded abstentions.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
