THE General Synod conducted various items of legislative business.
It approved the next step of the process to fulfil the recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) with regard to the powers of diocesan safeguarding advisers.
One implication of the recommendations, which were accepted by the Synod in November 2020 (News, 23 October 2020), would be the renaming of the DSAs renamed “diocesan safeguarding officers”.
The chair of the steering committee, Stephen Hofmeyr QC (Guildford), put forward the draft legislation, Amending Canon No. 42, for first consideration on Monday afternoon. He emphasised that this was merely implementing a decision that the Synod had already made. “If you don’t like that decision,” he said, “I’m afraid it’s tough.”
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) described herself as a “survivor of CDM abuse”. She welcomed the change because it “strengthens the hand” of safeguarding officers. This, when combined with proposed changes to the CDM, would work to keep everyone safe, she said.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, asked who managed the DSO in a situation in which their performance was called into question; and who could make the decision to terminate their contract.
Mr Hofmeyr, responding, said that their line manager on the diocesan board of finance would be responsible for performance management, but that the revision committee would be open to other suggestions.
Gavin Drake (Southwell & Nottingham) said that, while he “agreed in principle”, the change in title “doesn’t give them more power”. He urged members to support his private member’s motion, which would change the management structure of the new DSOs and “give them real power to act”.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) said that her experience working with the current diocesan safeguarding adviser, and with similar figures in the NHS, convinced her that “independence is absolutely crucial.”
John Mason (Chester) expressed concern about whether something could be added to the morion to help ensure that the vacancies were not left unfilled, and that provision for cover could be outlined.
Mr Hofmeyr said that it would be a statutory requirement to have a DSO in post.
The motion was clearly carried, and the draft canon is now referred to the revision committee. The deadline for submissions to the committee is 9 September.
FIRST consideration was given to the draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure on Monday. Again, Mr Hofmeyr introduced the debate. Among its provisions, the Measure would permit the Synod to meet in hybrid and virtual forms, without the current requirement for this provision to be renewed.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) said that it seemed “sensible” to enshrine this in law. Fears that in-person meetings of Synod might be at risk if such a provision was made permanent had proven to be unfounded.
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) said that he was “surprised” to see included Clause 5, which allowed for the appointment of lay residentiary canons, because, during debate on the Cathedrals Measure, adopted by the Synod in 2020, it was deemed too significant a change to be made within that legislation (News, 4 December 2020). He suggested that questions about the kind of people who would be considered for such positions, as well as what part they would have in the governance of the cathedral, should be included, a suggestion with which Dr Harrison agreed.
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London) called for the adoption of a statutory basis for remote meetings, to apply across the Church of England.
Carl Fender (Lincoln) criticised the lack of detail in Clause 2, which removed the sunset clause of the Legislative Reform Measure 2018.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis QC, assured members that Clause 7, which made some changes to judicial appointments and training, was “not a power grab”.
Amanda Robbie (Lichfield) said that consideration needed to be given to who would undertake safeguarding checks in a situation, under Clause 15, which would allow exceptions to the normal rules for PCC appointments in “exceptional circumstances”.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, spoke in favour of Clause 5, and praised the work of lay canons. If talk of lay ministries was going to be “more than tokenism”, she said, such measures should be adopted.
The Dean of Southwark, the Very Revd Andrew Nunn (Southern Deans), also spoke of the significant contributions of lay ministers in the life of cathedrals.
Mr Hofmeyr, responding, said that the revision committee would consider all the contributions to the debate, and invited members to submit their suggestions in writing before 9 September.
Amending Canon No. 43 (Miscellaneous Provisions) was then introduced for first consideration by Mr Hofmeyr. There was no debate.
THE Church of England Pensions (Application of Capital Funds) Measure, which enables the Church Commissioners to use capital funds to meet their responsibility for historic pensions, was renewed for a further seven years on Saturday afternoon.
Busola Sodeinde (London) said it was a privilege to introduce the debate, “even if it was a bit boring”. The Commissioners were responsible for paying pensions accrued before 1998. Though expenditure on this had begun to reduce in 2019, the cost was forecast to remain at more than £100 million for the next decade. “The power to spend capital on pensions gives the commissioners much greater flexibility in their asset allocation policy,” Ms Sodeinde explained.
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) supported urged the Synod to “send [the Measure] on its way to do its job”.
The motion was carried.