HL Deb 10 December 2002 vol 642 cc169-71

6.49 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I hope that this Measure and the subsequent Church of England (Pensions) Measure will not delay the House too long.

Your Lordships will be aware that the Church of England has a system of synodical government, which gives representatives of clergy and lay people a role with bishops in the government of the Church at all levels. Although those principles are long-standing, the actual system of synodical government came into being with the passage of the Synodical Government Measure in 1969 and was established in 1970.

About 20 years later, it was decided that the time was right to review the position and a review was conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, between 1993 and 1997. The report of that group concluded that there was overwhelming acceptance within the Church of the principles of synodical government and attachment to the general form that it took. In particular, the co-operation of representative clergy and laity with bishops in the Church was widely valued. The report affirmed the principles of openness, accountability and subsidiarity and sought to strengthen confidence in the operation of synodical government. Where the structures were working well, the report recommended that they should be left alone; but in other cases, there was evidence of over-bureaucracy and the stifling of individual responsibility or initiative. In those cases, the report made recommendations for change.

Consultation on the Bridge report revealed a number of divisions about its recommendations. It was therefore decided to give priority to a first-phase package of proposals that had extensive support among those consulted. It is essentially those uncontroversial proposals that form the basis of the Measure. They relate mainly to synodical government at parish level, where the Bridge report concluded that all was working well and that only minor changes were needed. Larger, more controversial, issues arising in relation to the General Synod will be dealt with subsequently.

The main proposals in the Measure—to be found in the schedule—provide for amendments to the church representation rules, made under the 1969 Measure, that make detailed provision for a number of matters relating to synodical structures. A number of those changes are intended to confer more flexibility or lighten Church structures. Examples include the reduction in the minimum size of diocesan synods from 150 to 120, new arrangements for calculating the number of lay representatives on parochial church councils and a power for another cleric to chair a PCC in the absence of the minister—if the minister, the PCC and the bishop give their consent.

Other changes affecting the position of PCCs include a new requirement that lay people aged 18 or over should have had their name on the electoral roll of a parish for at least six months before being eligible for election to its PCC or the deanery synod. That requirement—which is less onerous than the qualifying period of 12 months recommended by the Bridge report—is considered to be desirable protection against a sudden influx of new members with little previous involvement in parish life.

In addition to making changes to the church representation rules, the Measure also makes a number of other miscellaneous changes to legislation relating to Church life at diocesan level. Those include the lightening of certain committee structures—always welcome in the life of the Church—and an amendment to the functions of diocesan synods to enable them to approve the annual budget and accounts of the diocesan board of finance. The latter change reflects an increasing desire to enhance strategic management by bringing policy and finance together.

The changes to synodical government effected by the Measure may at first sight seem somewhat amorphous and modest in themselves. But taken together, they nevertheless represent a valuable and uncontentious first stage in the process of synodical reform and development, to which the Church stands committed. They have been passed by the General Synod and found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)

Lord Newby

My Lords, I declare an interest as a clergy spouse. We on these Benches support the measures. I have only two points to make. First, they once again represent the extreme deliberation—if not slowness—with which the Church of England deals with change. They are extremely modest and have taken a long time to reach this point. Secondly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford mentioned the possibility of incomers flooding a PCC. The thought of entryism in the Church of England is a new concept to me. I suspect that for many clergymen and women, the thought of a lot of new people wanting to be on the PCC would be only too welcome a novelty. But I am sure that a period of six months will not deter people too much, so, as with the other proposals in the Measure, we will support it.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford

My Lords, I welcome that contribution. We are discussing not membership of PCCs but attendance at annual meetings. There are occasions when contentious issues are around and a little campaigning goes on. The provision provides a little discipline.

On Question, Motion agreed to.