THE General Synod revised the Draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure — a grab bag of unconnected reforms — on Tuesday morning.
The Archdeacon of Dudley, the Ven. Nicola Groarke (Worcester), who chairs the revision committee, introduced a take-note motion on its report on the Measure. Not much united the “disparate parade” of issues in the legislation, except that they were all practical reforms that would not merit an entire canon or Measure by themselves, she explained. Her committee had “significantly improved” the first draft of the Measure carried by a previous meeting of the Synod.
First, the Measure tackled hybrid remote meetings of the Synod and removed a sunset clause, making hybrid meetings permanent. It also meant that minor changes to the safeguarding code of practice no longer required synodical approval, and neither would changes to the names of suffragan sees.
There were also minor tweaks to common tenure and delegating bishops’ functions. Clause 7 created a new ecclesiastical office of lay residentiary canon, open to anyone with at least six years’ experience as a Reader or other lay worker.
Patronage reforms and ecclesiastical judges’ retirement ages were also covered with minor reforms, as were the composition of diocesan advisory committees and land transactions during vacancies in parishes. There had been some discussion about parochial elections reforms, but these would be passed on to the Elections Review Group, Archdeacon Groarke said.
When one archbishopric is vacant, the other Archbishop alone would now be able to appoint people to the Pensions Board, she concluded. She then briefly explained the various parts of the Draft Amending Canon, including increasing the minimum age of marriage to 18, mirroring a recent change in civil law.
Parts of this item might seem dry and technical in comparison with other matters coming up, but they remained important, she told the Synod, and urged it to take note of the report.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) regretted the holding of the revision procedure solely online, which, he feared, would end only in a larger number of amendments on the floor of the Synod, because points were not being properly addressed.
The Revd Fraser Oates (Worcester) raised the question of Bishop’s Mission Orders (BMOs), and argued that they were precarious, given that they and all associated licences, buildings, vocations and stipends rested on merely the “opinion” of the relevant bishop, who could shut them down at will.
Clive Scowen (London) spoke about annual parochial church meetings, assuring the Synod that the Elections Review Group, which he chaired, was hoping to bring forward proposals on elections to the July sessions.
Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) spoke of the lack of trust and the need for multiple safeguards to prevent the abuse of power. The Synod must consider the worst-case scenarios when legislating, she said.
The Revd Timothy Bateman (Birmingham) said that the Synod should take note of the report, but continue consultation beyond this vote on the issue of BMOs. The proposal to allow BMOs to be terminated with immediate notice placed thriving church-plants under extreme pressure, he said. He asked whether more thought could be put into a sensible time-frame for termination periods, so that church leaders had more security and backing from their bishops.
The Revd Matthew Beer (Lichfield), also a leader of a BMO, said there was no protection for clergy or lay staff working under a BMO if they could be ended solely by the whim of a bishop with no notice. He asked the revision committee to consult further with BMOs as this proposal was taken forward.
Max Colson/Church TimesRebecca Chapman (Southwark)
Prebendary Pat Hawkins (Lichfield) spoke about hybrid meetings. She had no objection to the proposals, but commented that more thought needed to be put into how the Synod could work permanently in a hybrid fashion.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), drew attention to the part played by the Visitor in BMOs, reporting on how they were going, and what consultation could take place before the sudden closure of a BMO.
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) said that no one raising concerns about BMOs had been contacted by the revision committee or had suggested amendments, and that it was very complicated to unpick things at this stage of legislating.
Responding to the debate, Archdeacon Groarke said that there was a general review of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 under way, which was also looking at BMOs. She encouraged further concerns to be fed into that process.
The Synod took note of the report.
The chair of the steering committee, Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford), then moved that the Draft Measure proceed to the revision stage.
Mr Scowen moved an amendment on hybrid Synod meetings, which would mean that Article 7 or 8 business could be considered at such a meeting only if at least two-thirds of those attending were present in person and not online. Article 7 business concerns matters of doctrine and worship, while Article 8 covers business that involves changes baptism, holy communion, the Ordinal, or relations with another Christian body.
He reminded the Synod that when hybrid Synod meetings were first introduced during the Covid lockdowns, they had voted to exclude Article 7 or 8 business, as it was too sensitive and difficult to tackle online.
Now that all meetings were hybrid, and some members were joining online, a way of addressing Article 7 or 8 business needed to be created. The Draft Measure simply struck out the prohibition, Mr Scowen said, but his amendment would permit it only if a super-majority of two-thirds were present in the chamber. This would not be a problem in practice, as at least 80 per cent of members had attended in person at the past few hybrid groups of sessions, he said. But it was useful to have a fallback, in case fully remote meetings returned in future for any reason.
Mr Hofmeyr said that remote and hybrid meetings had been very successful, but that they could not continue indefinitely if Article 7 and 8 business was permanently excluded. He said that the revision committee had unanimously rejected Mr Scowen’s proposed limitation on this, and urged the Synod to do likewise.
Debbie Buggs (London) backed the amendment because, if there was another pandemic, and only 20 people attended in person, but 300 attended online, this would make it almost impossible to conduct a proper debate.
Also backing the amendment, Fr Benfield said that Article 7 or 8 business was not urgent by nature and so could always be delayed until a normal meeting of the Synod could take place again.
Max Colson/Church TimesThe Dean of the Arches, Morag Ellis KC
Ruth Abernethy (Channel Islands), who had attended the Synod remotely, worried that the people backing the amendment simply wanted another way to use procedure to frustrate debate. Any group hoping to quash a controversial point could simply walk out of the chamber, switch to Zoom, and thus thwart any debate entirely if it constituted more than one third of the members attending.
Mr Scowen said that he had not intended to make hybrid meetings, which he agreed had been successful, difficult. His concern was with Article 7 or 8 business at fully remote meetings, should they ever return. He had not considered Machiavellian schemes such as that described by Ms Abernethy: all procedures were open to abuse, but members chose not to abuse them, he said.
The amendment was lost by 161-127, with six recorded abstentions, and the Synod voted that Clause 1 stand part of the Measure.
Carl Fender (Lincoln) then moved that the Synod reject Clause 2 in its entirety. This addressed Legislative Reform Orders for fast-track removal of administrative and financial burdens.
Mr Hofmeyr explained that the Legislative Reform Measure (LRM) which created the power to make Orders would automatically expire due to a sunset clause in March 2024, unless this was extended. The Draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure would simply remove the sunset clause, and he urged the Synod to reject Mr Fender’s motion and allow the LRM to be extended.
Mr Fender argued that the LRM should be scrutinised by the Archbishops’ Council, not within the current Draft Measure, otherwise the LRM would be available indefinitely. No justification had been sought for evading the more complex statutory procedure for extending the LRM inside the original legislation itself, he said.
The Revd Stewart Fyfe (Carlisle) supported the LRM, which, he said, had brought “unaccustomed speed and remarkable efficiency” to Synod’s proceedings. It would be a shame if the sunset clause was forgotten and allowed to lapse, he said. The Synod had earned the right to abolish the sunset clause.
Canon Simon Butler (Southwark), who chairs the Legislative Reform Committee, said that the LRM was written to constrain the Synod anyway; so Mr Fender’s concerns were unfounded.
Mr Scowen said that the LRM had been a “curate’s egg”, and some of the ways in which the orders had been used were outside the scope of the original legislation. It was not an unqualified success, and stripping out the sunset clause — which had been first introduced at the request of MPs — might risk a rejection by Parliament’s Ecclesiastical Committee of the entire Draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure.
Responding, Mr Hofmeyr said that he remained of the view that enough trust had been built up to allow the LRM to continue indefinitely, the Synod retaining the final say in each order.
The Synod voted by 168-87, with 37 abstentions, that Clause 2 stand part of the Measure, and the debate was adjourned.
The debate resumed on Wednesday morning.
Mr Scowen, with the Synod’s approval, withdrew his amendment that the entire Measure be returned to the steering committee for further revision. This was done on the understanding that the committee had since agreed to remove Clause 8 from the Measure, regarding BMOs, which Mr Scowen had deemed problematic. He had been reassured that the working group for the Mission and Pastoral Measure would continue work on Clause 8.
Mr Hofmeyr then moved that Clause 8 be removed from the Draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure.
The Archbishop of York described the amendment as “an elegant and helpful way forward”. There was no issue of trust here with the bishops, he said.
The Synod voted to remove Clause 8 from the Measure, and that Clause 9 stand part of the Measure.
Geoffrey Tattersall KC (Manchester) moved his amendment on Clause 10, which, by removing Subsection 3 would remove the proposed increase in the retirement age for ecclesiastical judges from 70 to 75, in line with secular judges. Doing so would uphold the current law under which the default retirement age for an ecclesiastical judge was 70, which could then be raised by up to two years, and then by another year at a time, until the age of 75. If this clause was not removed, a Chancellor would have the right to remain in office, whether or not it was in the interests of a diocese. “This is not a good idea,” he said. “Chancellors have no terms of service: [the retirement age] is the only means of removing them from office.”
Debate on the amendment continued after 25 members stood.
Max Colson/Church TimesThe chair of the steering committee, Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford)
Opposing, the Vicar-General of York, the Rt Worshipful Peter Collier KC, had 19 days to go until his retirement. He saw an unintended consequence of this provision. There were ten Chancellors between the ages of 65 and 69. If they all took advantage of the new age specification, the preponderance of “elderly white males” would continue, because 2029 would be the first date for new appointments.
The Dean of the Arches, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, declared herself “somewhat conflicted”, because the legislation would allow her to continue until the age of 75, but she disagreed with the suggestion that there was a surfeit of ecclesiastical judges.
Mr Tattersall insisted that, as a matter of principle, this was the wrong thing. “It works well. There’s no need to tinker with it.”
The Synod voted that Clause 10 stand as amended, and Clauses 11-13 stand part of the Measure.
Fr Benfield then moved his amendment to Clause 14, which would provide that, if there were to be a conflict between the new duty on environmental matters and the existing duty on worship and mission, the latter was to have priority. The five marks of mission involved responsibility to human need by loving service, he said.
The Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer (Exeter), believed that ecological concerns should come second.
The debate continued after 25 members stood.
The Revd Ruth Newton (Leeds) disagreed that ecological protection ran contrary to the Church’s mission. “It falls within three and four of the five marks of mission. Environmental protection enhances worship.” This was not a novelty: in 1941, the C of E had been the first mainstream denomination to make a high-level statement on the environment. “We are ahead of the game,” she said.
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) was supportive — “it doesn’t downplay the importance of environmental protection” — as was Luke Appleton (Exeter).
Dean Ellis urged the Synod to vote against the amendment because it was unnecessary and unhelpful. Even legislation could be written in the “language of Christian”. It would reduce the effort put into exploring green options.
The amendment was lost. Clause 14 was consequently deemed to be carried.
The Revd Dr Tom Woolford (Blackburn) brought another amendment — one that he described as “the Ronseal of amendments. . . the soft and cuddly end of the Save the Parish amendments”. Taken with three further amendments, it would mean that where a benefice was vacant, the incumbent’s power to dedicate land for a highway would be exercisable by the priest-in-charge or, if there was not one, the bishop at the request of the PCC. “It puts the PCC in the driving-seat but still confers necessary powers to the bishop,” he said. “The initiative lies with the PCC in the first instance, but keeps those in the community on the ground and in the driving-seat.”
The debate continued after 25 members stood.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) said of his support for Save the Parish: “I have recognised a huge breakdown of trust between parishes and dioceses. This is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that. There are many measures that have been granted to bishops in the past, often in the teeth of opposition from parishes. This has seriously damaged trust between the people and the centre. What’s the problem? If the PCC agrees to the disposal of the land, fine. If not, trouble. Let’s start the process of restoring trust. Please support this measure.”
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) said that it was a question of language. What was it that was “vacant” where there was no incumbent in the parish, he asked. “Make it clear that the PCC remains competent to deal with financial and property issues.”
Penny Allen (Lichfield) was against: “We have hard decisions . . . sometimes with commercial and sometimes with personal interest.” She cited a case concerning the entire disposal of property and land worth millions — held up by the lack of access to it via a parsonage garden.
Simon Eyre (Chichester) articulated the frustration of his PCC and its lack of power in the matter of a vicarage unoccupied for more than 20 years. “Anything that enhances the PCC is welcomed,” he said.
The first amendment was carried in a vote of the whole Synod: 109-86 against, with 13 recorded abstentions. The additional three amendments were then carried without further debate.
The Synod voted that Clause 15 as amended be part of the Measure.
A stand-apart motion on Clauses 16-18 was carried.
Continuing to Clause 19, Mr Hofmeyr that this formulated and made things transparent: “There’s nothing sinister in there, believe you me. It is to make us more efficient.”
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) was opposed, saying that the clause “gives licence for committees to be established willy-nilly”.
That Clause 19 be part of the Measure was carried.
The following two items were thus deemed carried, together with the vote in favour of the long title of the Measure.
