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 these would enact a decision taken by the Synod in February, which called for the 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), another member of the committee, moved a series of special amendments.
The first of these corrected a drafting error so that the whole budget for the new Church of England National Services (CENS) would be laid before the Synod. But, in contrast to the current system with the Archbishops’ Council budget, the CENS budget would be approved by its own trustees, not by the Synod itself. The Synod would still be involved in the development of the CENS budget and the ability to scrutinise spending, however, Mr Hogg said. Nobody was trying to “diminish the proper involvement of Synod”, but a fundamental principle of charity law was that a charity’s trustees were responsible for approving the budget.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) then proposed an amendment to Mr Hogg’s amendment which would compel CENS to seek the Synod’s approval before implementing its budget. Members had been told that they would be involved in the budget development and that CENS had to have “due regard” to views expressed — but this, he suggested, was a weak provision and could easily leave the Synod “sidelined”. “Does Synod want to have control of the finances of the Church of England, or will it be left a talking shop?”
Mr Hogg said that the governance reform was trying to leave behind unhelpful processes of the past, and this included giving the Synod excessive control of CENS. The trustees were the proper body to agree the budget, and most of them would be Synod members anyway, he said. There were better 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 would 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 in which the Synod could have any control of the budget was by putting it into the text of the legislation, he said. This power, which could be returned later on through Standing Orders, would be a yes or no; members would not be allowed to amend the budget. It was unlikely that members would ever vote down a CENS budget, he said, but unless the power 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 had to report back on how they had taken the Synod’s views into account, on top of the synodical scrutiny committee also written into the legislation. The approval of someone else’s budget was a “historical anomaly” and likely 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 had to sign off their budgets through diocesan synods; so replicating this on a national level would be consistent. She agreed that it would 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 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 “new start”, he said, with a board of trustees which had a considerable representation of Synod members. The whole Synod could provide input at the start of the process and scrutiny at the end, 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 lay its budget before the year to which it referred. “There is no point in voting or discussing a budget after it has come into operation,” he said. This might force the CENS to produce 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 end of the year. Any budget prepared that early would be very liable to change, rendering the Synod’s scrutiny a waste of time. Fr Walker’s proposal, if passed, could force the Synod to meet in a third 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 lightly 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 workers. “It is a small change but it could unlock something very transformative.”
The amendment was carried, allowing Mr Hogg to move more technical amendments to allow 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 hard work of national church staff who, she suggested, could all earn much more if they took their gifts elsewhere.
Mr Scowen backed the amendment, but queried a potential drafting error in the amendment text.
Mr Hogg acknowledged there was a “cut-and-paste” error in the order paper, but said that the text was correct in 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 process, saying that he and Mr Hogg had found it, to their surprise, rather enjoyable. “Openness, accountability, and clarity” were at the heart of what the governance changes were trying to achieve, he said. The changes were “good and necessary”, but not in themselves enough. Even the best-designed governance structure would fail without a “culture change”, he said. He hoped that the introduction of the new structure would help to precipitate a good culture. In particular, he hoped that the CENS board of trustees would be representative of diversity in the Church. He thanked the Synod members for their 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 the start of the process and equally shocked at how many senior figures had no idea of how complex things had become. “Vested interests” on the Synod often came out to defend their corners, and he had feared that the governance reforms would die the death of a thousand cuts “or a million 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 building 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 complaint to the Charity Commission, which, he said, the regulator was taking seriously. The Measure would “give respectability” to this alleged misspending, he suggested, and, therefore, he would not vote for it.
Many in the Church were unhappy with how it was being run and lacked trust in 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 new Archbishop of Canterbury had been appointed?
Paul Waddell (Southwark) had been encouraged by members to support the motion. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” he said. The application of a rubber stamp was a necessary part of a legislative process, and did not mean that the Synod had not been engaged in it.
Carolyn Graham (Guildford) said that there was always a risk that parishes and dioceses could end up with less power as a result of changes, but encouraged Synod members to take hold of the opportunity for scrutiny of the 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 would be bound by law to prioritise assets over mission, he said, which was a major 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 would be used throughout the new governance structures in various other boards and committees. The chair of CENS would be appointed by the Archbishops after consulting the committee. He asked whether this could be at the start of this process, not the end, 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 thanks to broad consultation throughout. But the Synod had failed to 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 could be brought to 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: more than 400 amendments had been proposed by Synod members at the revision stage. Further change was possible, owing to clauses written into the draft Measure. “This is only the beginning of establishing the new regime,” he said. He encouraged members to think about and engage with the next steps, including, in due course, the selection 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 involved in the next steps
Professor Roy Faulkner (Leicester) opposed the motion, because, he said, it put “central staff first, and the customer — that is people in the parish — last”. He feared that the Church would be dead at the parish level within the next 15 years if this was allowed to continue.
The Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) said that God alone could bring change, transformation, and growth. The governance reforms were promising, but the “work is only just beginning, and the work is prayer”, she said. She hoped that the Measure would be approved, but asked members to join her in praying for transformation in the Church which only Christ could usher in.
Archbishop Cottrell said that he could not understand the arguments against the Measure, as it would bring the clarity and accountability that the current system lacked and, therefore, tackle the deficit of trust. This was not a rubber stamp: this was approving the Synod’s own work over many years, he said, which had — unlike the last round of reforms — survived being “amended into oblivion”. “We are doing a great thing today, and I hope it will pass with a huge majority.”
The Revd Dr Catherine Shelley (Leeds) also praised the Measure, saying in reply to Mr Hofmeyr that, by law, the new CENS body would have to order an independent audit every year 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, rather than replacing them with “yes men and yes women”.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) said that it was clear that the Measure would be carried, but he and others still had legitimate concerns that had to be taken seriously. He urged the Synod to be open to amending the Measure “significantly” further down the line. He would resign his position on the Synod soon, but, in his final session, he wanted to raise more concerns about the weakness of audit and scrutiny.
The Measure was carried nem. con. in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy, and by 133-10 in the House of Laity, with one recorded abstention.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
