INTRODUCING the annual reports from the Archbishops’ Council and Church Commissioners on Monday, the First Church Estates Commissioner, Alan Smith, spoke of 15 years of positive returns.
On average, the target of CPIH (the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs) plus four per cent had been met, but there was a need to be “considered and humble”, because, in the past couple of years, the target had not been met. The Commissioners needed to maintain “vigilance and discipline. Asset classes that had performed well over the past decade — private equity and timber — were negative in the past year.
“We are at the cusp of how the markets are operating . . . we need to be wise in terms of how we invest and how we commit for the period ahead.”
In 2023, £223 million in charitable expenditure was made, including £121 million on clergy pensions pre-1998. The Commissioners’ remit was to “maximise sustainable distributions, not to keep back”. They received many letters from Bishops and clergy about “the guy who stores up stuff in barns”. A total of £3.6 billion was to be distributed between 2023 and 2031. This was very unusual among national grant-makers, given that all indicators suggested that returns would be slower in the years ahead.
Members were invited to ask questions.
The Revd Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham) asked when the Synod could have a “calm and mature conversation” about the Church’s financial links to the transatlantic slave trade. Second, could any growth beyond inflation not be distributed directly to the parishes?
Roy Faulkner (Leicester) said that £12.1 million (seven per cent of the total) had been distributed to new Christian communities, while £81.3 million (43.1 per cent) had been allocated to parish revitalisation. Many would argue that this was a “correct change of emphasis”. If it had been distributed evenly across the dioceses, an extra 40 vicars per diocese could be appointed, avoiding the need for amalgamation and super-parishes. Could this proportionality be retained?
Mr Smith said that the balance reflected what dioceses were requesting.
Robin Lunn (Worcester) said that less had been said about reversing the decline in people coming forward to ordination.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), a member of the Archbishops’ Council, said that a possible cause was LLF; another was that a big drive and peak may have “fallen off”, and then there were questions about the “offer” for those considering coming forward. Another factor was work with parishes to encourage people to come forward.
Andrew Orange (Winchester) asked for clarification about the extent to which the pre-1998 pension obligation was a drain on spending. Mr Smith said that it was currently about £130 million.
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) asked about the decision-making process for funding parishes directly through dioceses without them having to apply for it, so that they could sustain day-to-day parish ministry with no other strings attached.
The Revd Prebendary Pat Hawkins (Lichfield) asked about work on capacity building, including access to expertise, for the implementation of the net-zero programme.
Penny Allen (Lichfield) was concerned that there was a belief that a younger church would lead to more money flowing into it. Given the cost of living crisis, what forward-planning was under way?
The Revd Marcus Walker (London) asked about LICF allocations, which was now described as “a means of delivery against strategic objectives”. When was this decided? Second, would a report be done into how many “souls were lost” by the decision to shift from formula funding to grant funding?
The Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Mark Ireland (Blackburn), tabled a following motion that the Synod “regret that the Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council does not refer to the relaunch of the National Burial Grounds Survey (NBGS) despite this being a significant piece of work in 2023”. The motion welcomed changes made to the NBGS since its previous launch, “in particular that Atlantic Geomatics are no longer formally partnering with FamilySearch, an agency of the Mormons (Latter Day Saints)” and that the financial offer had improved.
It also expressed “deep concern about other outstanding issues, in particular, commercial use of the data, giving AG International Ltd copyright ownership of the images collected and the right to sell this database to third parties for profit, which could well include the Mormon Church”. The Mormon interest in ancestry was the enablement of baptism of the dead, he said. Other concerns were “data creep — the NBGS seeks to film all parish registers, not just burial records, including current baptism registers” and safeguarding: “Baptism registers hold information about children, including material that is highly sensitive in the case of looked-after children, vulnerable children whose address may not be known to a parent who is abusive.” There was still “deep concern” among archdeacons, who asked that the Archbishops’ Council work with them to make the scheme better.
Archdeacon Miller opposed the motion, telling the Synod that there was a deep commitment to working with the College of Archdeacons. There was now much more interest in this area, and it was now almost impossible to get genealogical data that was not in some sense connected to the Mormons. Data creep was being challenged. He offered reassurance that work was under way to get the issue right.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, supported the motion, arguing that Archdeacon Ireland would not be bringing it to the Synod unless there was a “fair degree of frustration” — he had been unable to get answers to questions for two years. It was a good example of the Synod’s holding the Archbishops’ Council to account.
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) also supported the motion. She had worked in libraries for more than 20 years. The records belonged to the Church. She was concerned about the inclusion of the current baptism registers which contained personal data such as addresses and dates of birth and arguably fell into the sensitive personal data category.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), also spoke in favour on “major transparency grounds” — it was very difficult to find information about the issue.
The Archdeacon of Sunderland, the Ven. Robert Cooper (Durham), spoke of unintended consequences.
Archdeacon Ireland said that he had been asking for years for a copy of the legally binding document that he was supposed to be telling parishes about, but that it was still not available. He hoped for a more transparent and open conversation about this.
The motion was carried.