The Business Committee of the General Synod set up an elections review group in 2011. This group has now reported and its proposals will be considered at next month’s meeting of Synod. There are two reports and this article deals with the first of these.
The papers sent to members are all available online. GS 1901 contains the full report of the Elections Review Group. The Business Committee has divided its response into two reports (GS 1901 and GS 1906). This post looks at only the first of these; there will be a later posting on GS 1906.
GS 1901 – The work of the Elections Review Group: First Report by the Business Committee
GS 1902 – Draft Amending Canon No.32
GS 1903 – Draft Convocations (Elections to Upper House) (Amendment) Resolution
GS 1904 – Draft Clergy Representation (Amendment) Resolution
GS 1905 – Draft Church Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution
GS 1902-05x – Explanatory Memorandum
Amongst what the Business Committee considers to be non-controversial proposals are these two.
I will now look at the more controversial proposals, which all concern the membership of General Synod.
Allocation of seats between the two provinces
In 2010 the allocation was calculated on the basis of a 70:30 split between the Provinces of Canterbury and York, which resulted in a slight weighting in favour of York in both Houses. If there were no weighting the split would be 72:28 in both houses. Synod will be given the opportunity to remove the fixed 70:30 split.
Diocese of Europe
At present this diocese is treated as being too small to justify the normal minimum of three clergy and three lay seats in Synod, and has two of each. It now has more clergy and members of electoral rolls than some English dioceses, and Synod will be asked to give it the same minimum of three members in each house as all English dioceses.
The only other diocese with fewer than the normal minimum number of members is Sodor and Man, but the review group found no reason to change this.
Seats for Suffragan Bishops
There are currently four elected places for southern suffragans on Synod. It is proposed to increase this to five. The number of northern suffragans would remain at three. Although the main reason for the change is the desire to increase representation of minority views in the House of Bishops, there is another curious reason given. This is that if the proposals for reorganisation of dioceses in Yorkshire goes ahead, the number of diocesan bishops will be reduced by two, and the net effect would actually be a reduction in the size of the House of Bishops. To me this seems like a reason to increase the number of northern suffragans. [I should declare an interest here as I live in a northern diocese.]
Universities constituencies
There are currently six places for clergy who work in universities: one each from Oxford, Cambridge, London, other southern universities, Durham & Newcastle, other northern universities. There are a number of perceived difficulties with these places.
The Business Committee therefore proposes to abolish the university places. However, Synod rejected the same proposal in 2004 and the Business Committee recognises that this might happen again. So there are alternative proposals to substantially reform the arrangements for these places. Details are in GS 1901.
Co-option of ethnic minority individuals
The review group considered a proposal to co-opt some ethnic minority individuals to Synod because of their under-representation amongst elected members. The proposal was rejected. The view was taken that more effort should be put into encouraging members of ethnic minorities to stand for election.
I was amused by the fax point. Email I could have understood…
I think it’s more than a little dangerous to propose abolishing the university seats, for three reasons. Firstly, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are peculiar jurisdictions. Among other things, that means that pastoral statements from bishops are not binding on either clergy or laity who are among the “Chancellor, Masters and Scholars” of either university. That independence from the bishops is enshrined in public law (Order in Council of 21st June 1636), and since 2005, it has been of some practical importance in creating a pair of havens where it is possible for civil partnership blessings to take place.… Read more »
The constituencies for the university seats may be large, but the point the Business Committee makes is that the actual electorate is both tiny and in some cases even unknown. If the seats aren’t abolished, there certainly needs to be some radical reform.
Dear Helen,
I think the position I’ve persuaded myself into (having not thought very much about this before last night) is that Cambridge University (and presumably, by analogy, Oxford University too) ought to have a seat in the House of Laity as well as its existing seat in the House of Clergy. In that case, the electorate would be the full quarter of a million or so people I mentioned, not just the thirty people to whom GS 1901 alludes.
Pace Feria, I am not sure that it is correct that the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the two universities are outside the jurisidiction of the Bishops of Oxford and Ely. A couple of Oxford colleges chapels are considered to still be under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lincoln, but the rest are certainly under the ecclesiasitical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. (Rule of thumb: who consecrated the college chapel? In all cases it will probably have been the diocesan bishop) I think that Cambridge college chaplains are licensed by the Bishop of Ely. As for lay members… Read more »
Simon: ‘I am not sure that it is correct that the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the two universities are outside the jurisidiction of the Bishops of Oxford and Ely’ They are indeed – confirmation in modern times can be found in P. Barber, 1995, _Ecclesiastical Law Journal_ *3*(16):299-312. As I said, the legislation governing this is an Order in Council of 21st June 1636, the relevant clause of which is: ‘on the behalf of both Universities, that though they were to be visited by the Archbishop and his successors, yet that they should not be visited by the Bishop… Read more »
It seems rather bizarre to me to retain separate representation for Oxford and Cambridge universities and abolish it for the rest! Do we still live in the nineteenth century?
Helen: ‘Do we still live in the nineteenth century?’ You’ve rumbled me. Yes, I am rather inclined to regard the period between 1829 and 1865 (after the emancipation of Catholics, before the removal of the Oath of Supremacy from the public consecration service for bishops) as a golden age for Church governance [although as we know, it wasn’t at all a golden age for social justice, nor for popular democracy]. But on a more serious note: a special position in the electoral system for Oxford and Cambridge follows naturally from basing the electoral system on dioceses, because Oxford and Cambridge… Read more »