CHURCH OF ENGLAND (DIOCESES MEASURE) (Hansard, 15 December 1977)

§ Mr. Terry Walker (Second Church Estates Commissioner)

I beg to move, That the Dioceses Measure, passed by the General Synod 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. The Church of England today has 43 dioceses. In 1830 there were only 26, but the number was gradually increased over the 100 years from 1830 to 1930.

The dioceses vary considerably in size. In most cases, the diocesan bishop now has the help of one or two suffragan bishops, but in the smallest dioceses—for example, Portsmouth—there is no suffragan bishop. In the largest dioceses there are three suffragans or, in one case, four.

In recent years there has been a good deal of debate about the role of the bishop. The debate has involved both theological and practical issues. We all expect a bishop to be a public figure in the wider community as much as in the Church. In his diocese, he is the father in God to his clergy and people. In his person and office, he expresses at one and the same time the continuity of the church in that diocese and its visible link with the wider Church. A bishop today is very different from his predecessor of 100 or even 50 years ago. In these days he is not a distant prelator figure. Instead, he expects and is expected to be much closer to the people of his diocese and to be much more readily available to them than his predecessors ever were. He still has his role of the leader of the church in his diocese and, more widely, a role of leadership in the secular community, but he is also an encourager and enabler—someone to whom clergy and people constantly turn for advice, for guidance or for encouragement.

1112 In this setting, many people have come to feel that the position of a suffragan bishop is most unsatisfactory. In practice, the suffragan has something less than the fullness of episcopal authority and responsibility which is at the heart of the work that a bishop does. The reason lies in the fact that a suffragan is very limited in his authority. He receives a commission from the diocesan bishop which sets out the responsibilities that he is to exercise, but there are some which, as the law now stands, the diocesan bishop cannot delegate, even if he wants to. Moreover, the arrangements that one diocesan bishop makes can be swept away at a stroke by his successor in office.

All this has led many people to argue that there should be only one bishop in each diocese—in other words, that the suffragans should be upgraded to full diocesan status, even if it means that we have to have, say, 120 diocesan bishops instead of the present 43. However, there has been little support for a suggestion of this kind. The prevailing view both in the General Synod and in the Church at large is that the better course by far is to develop and expand the effective devolution of authority from the diocesan bishop to his suffragans. The aim is that the suffragans should have full authority for a given geographical area and that it should be possible to give permanence to such an arrangement extending beyond the term of office of the existing diocesan bishop if such arrangement represent the considered judgment of the diocesan and suffragan bishops, their clergy and their lay people.

In recent years, side by side with this debate about the nature of a bishop's authority and of his pastoral oversight, there have been discussions in the Church about boundaries. It has been suggested that the Church ought to redraw the boundaries of its dioceses to match the reorganisation of local government. But opinion within the Church has been largely against this—and is likely to remain so, at least until we are sure that the present local authority boundaries are to last.

There are many other reasons for not changing diocesan boundaries. There are strong feelings of loyalty to existing dioceses. It has been helpful both to the Church and to local authorities for the 1113 Church's administration to remain constant while secular local government has in many cases been in turmoil. For example, in some parts of the country, continuity in the local administration of education has effectively been provided by the churches.

It has been easy for the existing dioceses to find ways of relating to the new local authorities, despite boundary differences, and the bishops prefer to get on with the real work of the Church instead of being distracted by the complexities of continuing reorganisation. But while there is no enthusiasm for any wholesale redrawing of diocesan boundaries, the feeling is that it should be possible to make changes where, after due consideration, people in the dioceses concerned conclude that such changes are warranted.

Therefore, the Measure has three main ingredients. First, there is provision for the redrawing of diocesan boundaries, including, if it should be necessary, the dissolving of existing dioceses and the creation of new ones. Secondly, there is provision for a diocesan bishop to be able to delegate to his suffragans full responsibility for a particular area of the diocese or for a particular piece of work, subject to the right of his successor as diocesan bishop to revoke or vary those arrangements. Thirdly, there is provision that the diocesan bishop may, with the consent of the diocesan synod and the concurrence of General Synod, delegate responsibility for an area on a permanent basis—that is, so that the arrangements will bind successive diocesan bishops unless all concerned, the diocesan, the suffragans, the diocesan synod and the General Synod, are ready to approve different arrangements.

A common factor in all three ingredients is that the initiative in any matter will lie with the diocese or dioceses concerned. In all three cases there is a requirement that the diocesan bishop must have the support of his diocesan synod for any change. If there are to be reorganisation schemes, including boundary alterations or the dissolution or creation of dioceses, there is ample provision for interested parties to make representations—provisions which are strengthened by the General Synod at the suggestion of the Ecclesiastical Committee. But while 1114 the initiative at all stages is to be local, the General Synod's approval will be required in the first and third of the three situations that I have described—reorganisation, and cases where there is a permanent delegation of authority.

The Measure accordingly provides for the General Synod to set up a Dioceses Commission—in effect, a committee of about a dozen people. In any case in which the General Synod is involved the diocese concerned will have to consult the Commission, which will be available to advise the General Synod on the desirability and feasibility of particular proposals and to advise dioceses in framing the proposals. It is not expected that there will be a great rush of work, although it is known that two dioceses have proposals which they will want to bring to the Commission and the General Synod if the Measure is approved by the House. Over the years the Dioceses Commission will build up an accumulation of experience, enabling it to advise the dioceses on how best to frame proposals and ensuring that local developments are broadly consistent with the pattern being formed in the country at large.

When this Measure came up for consideration in another place, some people asked whether it had any constitutional implications. As I see it, there are no constitutional implications. The Measure will not affect the number of bishops26—who sit in another place, nor will it affect the rule of seniority that governs the order in which they take their seats, or the way in which bishops are appointed by the Crown.

If, in future, the boundary of a diocese is altered, or a diocese is abolished or created, it will not be a matter for Parliament. Surely this is in line with the desire of most of us that detailed Church business should no longer come to the House. Equally, it is right that there should be some limits to the powers devolved upon the Church, and this will not give the General Synod the right to create new provinces or to create three or four archbishops. In such cases the Church would have to come to Parliament, and that is not unreasonable for an established Church, given the wider public interest involved.

This Measure is an enabling one for the Diocese of the Church of England 1115 to use if it wishes to do so. It is a piece of machinery that can be used in respect of particular dioceses if that is desired. It places responsibility for local changes precisely where that responsibility should lie with the people on the ground, subject of course, to proper safeguards.

The object of the Measure is simply to enable a bishop—diocesan or suffragan—to do his job more effectively and I hope that the House will approve it.