THE allocation of seats for each diocese in the synodical elections later this year was approved by the General Synod on the Wednesday.

Introducing the debate, Nic Tall (Bath & Wells), a member of the Business Committee, explained that the new allocation would keep overall numbers of clergy and laity the same, at 200 each, and maintain the traditional 70:30 split for the Provinces of Canterbury and York respectively (even though the Northern Province was actually 25 per cent of the national electoral rolls).

Because of shifting populations on electoral rolls, 14 dioceses would have changes to their allocation within this, he said.

Canon Joyce Jones (Leeds) welcomed the slight over-representation for the Northern Province, which, she said, was often excluded from national church life.

Bob Chambers (Chichester) welcomed a slight decrease in the disparity between the best- and worst-represented dioceses by population in the new allocation, which would help to address a democratic deficit. He said that, in his experience, this could be significantly worse in some deanery synods.

Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council) spoke of the size and cost of the Synod, which, he said, was last adjusted in 2005. Since 2014, electoral rolls had plummeted by 28 per cent, and the number of clergy electors had also fallen by 14 per cent. In the next quinquennium, the Archbishops’ Council could consider reducing the overall size of the Synod, given that it was representing a smaller Church.

The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) was astonished that the diocesan allocation for London had gone up, despite electoral rolls’ falling. He was “terrified” about what this implied for the rest of the Church, and pleaded for a focus on growth over the next quinquennium.

Fiona MacMillan (London) asked whether proportionality could also be considered with regard to how large churches could dominate deanery synods, leaving the voices of the less powerful to be less heard. Could deanery-synod representation rules be re-examined to correct for this, she asked.

The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) said that her diocese would lose a clergy seat on the Synod. There were many vacancies in her diocese, which meant that, if the Synod figures were based on those currently in post rather than the budgeted-for clergy numbers, the diocese was therefore underrepresented.

The motion was carried.

Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here