A BRIEF debate on the report from the Business Committee allowed members to air their minor grievances about how the General Synod organises its business.
Robert Hammond (Chelmsford), who chairs the Committee, introduced its report. He outlined the two approaches that the Committee could take to the agenda: to adopt a fairly rigid structure, enabling members to know what would be debated and when, but with the risk that some items had to be curtailed in order to move to other business; or, a more flexible approach which would allow items to run on, but with other topics consequently falling off the agenda. The Business Committee considered the former to be preferable, he said. Mr Hammond also said that feedback on the February session’s being held over a weekend had not, generally, been favourable, and that the Committee had taken this feedback on board.
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) praised a video on the C of E website introducing the national governance review, which, she said, had been a helpful preparation for the documents. She asked whether more resources like it could be produced.
Fiona MacMillan (London) said that the current timetable had increased working hours in the chamber at the cost of break times for fringe meetings, and that this was a shame. She urged the Committee to reconsider this shift.
Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) wanted to know the voting figures for lay members who were not retired when the consultation around weekend dates in London Synods was undertaken, as these members faced a particular challenge in attending weekday Synods. He also asked for more time for members to read the papers before the Synod met.
Muriel Robinson (Lincoln) echoed calls for the length of Synod papers to be cut back.
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) asked whether the Committee could create space for a debate on Mission and Ministry in Covenant: a joint report with the Methodist Church about further integration between the two denominations.
Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans Together) added her voice to complaints about the length of the Synod papers, which, she said, was particularly challenging for deaf members for whom English was not their first language.
The Revd Barry Hill (Leicester) asked how much staff time it took to prepare answers to more than 200 questions, to help members to “prioritise our curiosity” more.
Responding to the debate, Mr Hammond reiterated that his Committee did not see the papers for each item before they drew up the agenda, and therefore could not control the quality or length of the documents.
The motion to take note of the report was then carried.