SYNODICAL GOVERNMENT MEASURE (Hansard, 11 July 1969)

§ Sir Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I beg to move, That the Synodical Government Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. I am moving this Measure in the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), whose name appears first on the Order Paper, together with the names of other hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. and learned Friend has asked me to explain that he is unavoidably detained elsewhere. When Measures passed by the Church Assembly come before this House for approval they have, in recent years, needed very little commendation or explanation. This Measure seems to be of such substantial historical and constitutional importance that I imagine the House would expect something to be said about it before it is put to the vote.

The Measure provides a very substantial reorganisation of the existing machinery of church government. One of its main objectives is to simplify the present machinery and in particular to increase and strengthen the voice and status of the laity in decisions about matters affecting the Church of England. In doing so, the Church is carrying one stage further a process that has been in operation for some time. In so far as the laity will in future be much more closely integrated with the bishops and clergy in the management of church affairs there is a restoration to the practice of the early Church when there was only a blurred division between the clergy and the laity and when the affairs of the church in a locality were decided by the whole body of Christian people.

Hitherto, the government of the Church of England has been embodied in two systems. The Convocations have had an exclusive jurisdiction over certain 1775 matters such as liturgy and worship although in recent years they have, as a matter of courtesy, consulted the laity. Ultimately, lay control has been secured by reason of the fact that Parliamentary sanction was required for any canons passed by Convocation. Equally, Parliamentary control has been exercised over measures coming from the Church Assembly by reason of the fact that the assent of both Houses is required before any Measure can be presented to Her Majesty for assent.

The House would wish me to say something about, not the details of this Measure, but such impact as it may have on the position of Parliament. In so far as the influence of the laity in matters of Church government is very considerably strengthened, it will, I think, have this effect. In the 25 years or so since I became a Member, I have heard a number of debates in the House on Measures coming from the Church Assembly. I have heard it said that the House should jealously exercise its constitutional powers of examining Measures from that Assembly, particularly when minorities have dissented from proposals, because, in a sense, this House is more representative of the laity than the House of Laity in the Church Assembly. I do not say that I have assented to that proposition, but I have heard it urged.

In so far as the laity in the Church Assembly, which by this Measure will be renamed the General Synod, have much greater power and influence over Church measures, that argument must lose some of its effect. That will not deny this House the responsibility of examining any measures to which there is a large dissident minority. But it is also true to say that in my experience the attitude of this House in recent years has been that when the Church, through its own procedure, has reached certain conclusions about its own domestic affairs, the duty of the House is to accede to the wishes of the Church and not interfere.

I do not propose to explain the details of the Measure, which has been widely approved by all three Houses of the Church Assembly. There was some debate as to the franchise, but baptism has been accepted as the franchise in the so-called General Synod and communicant status has been accepted as the 1776 qualification for representation on the parochial church councils, general synods, diocesan synods and the House of Laity.

There are two matters which, I think, will particularly interest the House. The first is the procedure which will in future have to be adopted when matters concerning worship, doctrine and liturgical changes are introduced. The two convocations hitherto have had exclusive rights in these matters, and, when the Measure becomes operative, they will retain a veto. Effect is given to that by Article 7 in the First Schedule. The House may be interested to see what the future procedure will be if, for example, a proposal is made for a change of relationship between the Church of England and another Christian body. We all have in mind the recent discussions and decisions about Anglican-Methodist reunion. If this Measure had been in operation a few days ago, or in recent years, the procedure under which those decisions were reached would have been quite different.

The House will know that the effective decision made earlier this week was reached by the two Convocations sitting jointly without any representation of the laity. Under this Measure, if a proposal comes forward from the Church for a scheme of constitutional union with some other Christian body, as I hope it will, the procedure will be as follows. The final decision will rest with the General Synod consisting of the bishops, the elected clergy and the elected lay members of the General Synod.

May I say, in parenthesis, that the machinery for electing the lay members of the General Synod will be considerably strengthened by this Measure. There will be in future the direct election from the ruri decanal synods to the House of Laity. But, whereas the final decision will rest with the General Synod. Article 8 of the Second Schedule requires that such a scheme of unity would first have to be approved by a majority of the dioceses at meetings of their diocesan synods. That is a procedure which we should welcome because the laity will be fully represented on the diocesan synods.

In so far as there will be a more democratic election to the diocesan synods and to the House of Laity, it will have the effect of enabling pressure from what is sometimes called the grass roots in the church to be more effective. In 1777 so far as Anglican-Methodist union is concerned, it is true to say that the scheme recently approved by Convocations, but by an insufficient majority, is more ardently desired in the grass roots of the Church and among the laity, where it is not exposed to some of the more refined theological objections from diverse quarters which have been made.

Therefore, my view is that this reorganisation in future for church government is eminently to be desired. I should add—and here I express a personal opinion—that some of us regret that the scheme was not accepted by a 75 per cent. majority of the Church of England. Some of us may doubt the wisdom of the convocations in imposing upon themselves a self-denying ordinance which required a 75 per cent. majority.

Be that as it may, one is entitled to say that we in this House, of course, are accustomed to reaching decisions by simple majorities. The Church of England is more charitable and more generous to its minorities, but the corollary of that is that substantial majorities may feel themselves much more frustrated. Therefore, I wart to stress that, while I commend this Measure to the approval of the House of Commons, one must bear in mind that, for a variety of procedural reasons, there must be a substantial delay before the Measure is brought into operation.

Those who are interested in form, as distinct from substance, will find that the operative Clause 1 of the Measure merely says: It shall be lawful for the Convocations of Canterbury and York to submit for Her Majesty's Licence and Assent Canons in the form set out in Schedule I to this Measure.… Therefore, the form of legislation is for the Convocations, with Her Majesty's Assent, to pass Canons. Those Canons will be in the form set out in Schedule 1. There will be a reference in the Canons to Schedule 2 and when these procedural steps have been taken it will then, I understand, be open to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to bring into operation the new machinery of synodical government set out in Schedule 2, which sets out in detail the constitution.

The point I am trying to emphasise is that I personally hope that the provisions of this Measure and the inevitable delay 1778 in bringing it into operation will not be used by the authorities of the Church of England as an excuse for delaying what I regard as the necessity for continuing to make progress with the discussions with the Methodists for a scheme of union. I think that it would be deplorable if the present momentum were lost, and I think that perhaps the most relevant new factor that has been introduced into the situation is that the Methodists, by a very large majority indeed, have declared themselevs in favour of the Scheme.

I hope that, in days to come, the expression of views by 69 per cent. in the Church of England will lead the Convocations to take the view that they have a duty, before this Measure comes into operation, to consider the wishes of the large majority and also to bear in mind, insofar as the laity have been able to express it, their wish for progress towards this particular constitutional change. If the Convocations adopt that view, various legislative processes will be required, partly by Measure and, in some cases, by Bill, and, therefore, this House will have an opportunity of considering what legal and constitutional changes are involved.

§ Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Wokingham)

The right hon, Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) has commended the Measure in such clear and helpful terms that it is unnecessary for any other hon. Member to speak more than briefly—at any rate, those in support of the Measure, as I am. I hope that the House will give its approval to the Measure going forward to Her Majesty.

As does my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), I serve in the present House of Laity and have, therefore, had the opportunity of seeing the present machinery at work at first hand. I have no doubt that the very extensive reorganisation set out in this Measure is a very great improvement.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right to stress that the Measure will bring effective lay participation into the government of the Church in a way which has not been the case up to now. It will also thereby remove some difficulties which face the Church of England 1779 because of discussions taking place separately between the laity together on the one hand and the clergy together on the other. It is highly desirable, in my view, that these discussions should henceforth take place together.

I also underline what the right hon. Gentleman said about the basis of the franchise. If here were plenty of money available and the Church had an extensive organisation of electoral registration and returning officers, no doubt it would be the Church's wish to have direct election from the parish up to the new synod. But, as we understand very well as parliamentarians, this is a very expensive process and thus I think that it is probably an agreeable half-way house, at any rate for the moment, that elections shall take place on a deanery as opposed to a diocesan basis, which is what they are at present with the present House of Laity.

I think, however, that it would not be proper for any avowed member of the Church of England to leave the House of Commons in any kind of doubt as to the importance and significance of this Measure, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. It is, in its way, a very historic document and represents the grant of another stage of self-government to the Church of England. I do not hide my own hopes that, in the course of years—and I mean in the course of years—the Measure will be superseded by another by which the Church of England, having operated this procedure effectively, as I believe it will, will be given totality of self-government, at least over its worship, the order of its services and the like. Therefore, I do not think that one should hide the importance of the Measure.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is sadly and wearily upon the consciences of many members of the Church of England the outcome of the vote in Convocations. It is relevant to this Measure in that so many of us had hoped that this new procedure would be one which our Methodist friends would, in the course of time, have shared with us. As we speak today, at any rate, that hope is not to be fulfilled, and an Anglican is uncomfortably in the position of knowing that his Church may be a very large Church in size, but the Methodist Church is the greater Church in stature.

1780 The most important thing about this Measure to me is that it is hoped that the new procedure, if the House so gives its assent and it receives the Royal Assent, will be operative by the autumn of 1970. If the Church of England therefore should delay until then making a second decision about Anglican-Methodist unity, it would, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, have to be under the operation of Article 8 of Schedule 2, which, as he also said, required the question to come down again to the diocesan synods because it is, in the words of that Article, a scheme for a constitutional union or a permanent or substantial change of relationship between the Church of England and another Christian body". That requirement is a very proper requirement in the Article. It is a very wise safeguard, but in the context of present matters it must be remembered that if we do run over next autumn the Church of England will then have to operate this lengthy procedure, and matters will then have to be referred back to the dioceses. Inevitably, the delay in achieving organic union by stage one will be put back by many years, and I therefore think that there are very many of us who profoundly hope that it may be possible during this coming year, before this Measure actually comes into operation, for the Convocations to have the chance of a second thought

I only add this one point if I may be allowed to say this word. I had not, previously, realised how many hon. Members of the House, on both sides, and how many members of the staff of the House have taken a personal interest in these particular proposals for union, and how widespread is the sense of sadness at the present stage of the negotiations.

With these words, I would hope very much that the persuasive speech by the right hon. Gentleman will commend the Measure to the House.