From Mr David Lamming
Sir, - At its meeting in London on 11 February, the General
Synod will take the revision stage of the new Draft Measure and
Amending Canon to enable women to become bishops in the Church of
England. This follows the Synod's decision last November that the
revision stage should be taken in full Synod, not, as is usual, in
a revision committee.
Assuming that the revision stage is completed next month, the
next stage will be the referral of the Draft Measure to the
dioceses under Article 8. A majority of the 44 diocesan synods must
approve the proposals for them to proceed to final approval by the
General Synod.
Under standing orders (SOs), the Business Committee has the
power to supervise the conduct of the reference, subject to a
condition (among others) that diocesan synods shall be informed of
the date prescribed by the Committee for replies, "which shall be
not less than six months later than the date of the Synod's
decision that the matter should be referred" - SO 90(b)(iii).
The timetable for the February sessions has, as an item of
business to follow the revision stage: "Motion to suspend SO
90(b)(iii)." No details are given (we are told that "further papers
will appear on Friday 17 January"), but the inference must be that
the Business Committee intends to impose a shorter period than six
months for diocesan synods to respond to the reference. Indeed, it
is understood that dioceses have been informed of a proposed
deadline of 22 May 2014, presumably with a view to taking the
final-approval stage at the Synod meeting in York in July.
While it is entirely understandable that the Synod wishes to
proceed swiftly to enacting the new proposals after the débâcle of
November 2012, this proposed truncation of the consultation period
with dioceses is troubling. Given that many diocesan synods meet in
February or March and not again till June, proper consideration of
the revised proposals will be difficult, if not impossible. Due
process is important if the new Measure is to secure maximum
acceptance.
There must also be a doubt whether the proposed suspension of SO
90(b)(iii) would be procedurally proper. SO 38 (which deals with
suspension of standing orders), provides that "Any member may move
at any time . . . the motion 'That (paragraph . . . of) Standing
Order . . . be suspended during (or until) . . .' which may provide
for the suspension of one or more Standing Orders (or part of a
Standing Order) during the consideration of a particular item of
business or until the end of a particular session or group of
sessions."
Although widely worded, it is doubtful whether it was ever
intended that the SO prescribing the minimum period for diocesan
synods to respond to an Article 8 reference should be able to be
suspended under this provision.
Giving diocesan synods the prescribed minimum six months to
respond to a reference would allow for proper consultation in
dioceses, and would still enable the final-approval stage to be
taken by the present Synod in November 2014 or February 2015.
DAVID LAMMING
20 Holbrook Barn Road, Boxford
Suffolk CO10 5HU