THE Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, introduced the next stage of the National Governance Measure to the General Synod on Sunday afternoon. It proposes to reduce the number of the C of E’s National Church Institutions (NCIs), and would create a new Church of England National Services (CENs) to incorporate the functions of several existing bodies.
Bishop Watson referred to fears that the proposals could end up suffering “death by a thousand amendments” — but also acknowledged that “improvements can be made”, and encouraged members to submit their recommendations to the Revision Committee.
All the speakers expressed their intention to vote for the Measure to proceed to the next stage.
John Brydon (Norwich), in a maiden speech, raised points about accountability. Audit work should be completely independent, he said. He suggested that the measure should be amended to remove CENS’ part in appointing members of its Audit and Risk Committee.
The Dean of Bristol, the Very Revd Mandy Ford (Southern Deans), referred to the importance of trust — a topic discussed on the first afternoon of this group of sessions. She had sat on the programme board on governance, and emphasised the importance of maintaining the Church Commissioners’ commitment to cathedrals when the Commissioners’ non-investment functions are transferred to CENS.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller, spoke about the proposed Synodical Scrutiny Committee, designed to enable the Synod to scrutinise the work of the NCIs, including CENS. “Constructive engagement” required that the Synod committee have sight of the workings of the institutions, but also resisted the urge to carry out its debates “by proxy” under the guise of scrutiny.
Dr Nick Land (York) said that he knew how easy it was to prevent scrutiny if the body being scrutinised controlled access to information. A right of attendance to meetings would help the Synodical Scrutiny Committee to do their work, he suggested.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, said that it was important that the operation of theological advice did not become “transactional”, but retained a “relational” aspect. The Faith and Order Commission, which he currently chairs, was one of the bodies that would be affected by the changes.
Rebecca Chapman (Southwark) said that what was being proposed was good, “but could be much better”. She made three suggestions: that the Archbishops not sit on CENS by default, but be freed to do other work; a sunset clause on the powers enabling the Measure; and greater use of the Synod’s Appointments Committee in filling roles.
Jane Evans (Leeds) said that some conflicts of interest were inevitable in any large organisation run by humans, but that proper processes and structures would help. The changes were a good start, she said, as they made the structure clearer and reduced overlap of roles; but further tidying up was necessary. Further revision would help to ensure that the “processes and principles support the culture we are trying to achieve”, she said.
Paul Waddell (Southwark) said that the experience of living in Croydon, where the borough council has been involved in a number of crises, was a warning about who got hurt when governance went wrong: the most vulnerable in society. He urged members to read the papers carefully, and to submit their “galaxy-brained” suggestions.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) echoed concerns about the lack of power given to the Synod Scrutiny Committee, and suggested that it should play a part in approving grant programmes.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that strong oversight was required, because CENS would be a powerful body. “We are institutionally introspective, egocentric, and not church-centric,” he said, and suggested that the oversight body should be institutionally independent.
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) said that trust had been built up by the way in which the project board had operated. Existing wording about how the Commissioners’ funds should be disbursed needed to be incorporated into the new legislation, to reassure people further, he said.
The Revd Charlotte Cook (Archbishops’ Council) said that she was “thrilled” by the reception that the draft Measure had received. Cultural change was necessary, she said, and work was being done, as illustrated in the trust paper. It bothered her, though, that the Church was often unkind to the bishops. “In teeny weeny little adjustments, we can change our culture,” she said.
David Hermitt (UKME co-opted) said that he was impressed by the paper. “We clearly understand as a Synod the serious failures of governance that have taken place in the past.” In selecting the people who would fill the positions in the new structure, it was important that they were wise, kind, and thoughtful.
Responding, Bishop Watson thanked members for their engagement, and assured them that their concerns and suggestions would be taken into account at the revision stage.
The motion was carried on a show of hands.