The House of Bishops has issued the paper HB(24)A6 which states that a meeting of the House of Bishops will be held on Wednesday 18 September 2024 at St Hugh’s College, Oxford. The Bishop of London to move:
‘That this House, acknowledging the difficulties in the recent CNC processes as set out in HB(24)30 welcome the recommendations as set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of that paper[*] and request that work be undertaken to bring the proposals to Synod.’
Amendments to the motion should be notified to the Secretary (William Nye), copied to Simon Gallagher and the Registrar (Alexander McGregor) by 5pm on Monday 16 September. In line with Standing Order 27(6) each amendment should be accompanied by details of two supporters.
An Order Paper detailing the final business will then be produced by 5pm on Tuesday 17 September and made available on the website. The Chair may at his discretion under SO 26(4)(a) permit an amendment to be moved without due notice having been given.
The relevant paragraphs in HB(24)30 are:
11. The current CNC processes are included in the General Synod Standing Orders (SOs 136 – 141A), which could be considered and (subject to agreement) be changed by Synod in February 2025. There is also the power for the CNC to report to General Synod on matters of general concern within its responsibility (SO 136(4)). The failure to have appointed twice should be deemed an expedient matter for the CNC to give an account of its actions and a report could be submitted for General Synod to discuss as a take note motion in February 2025.
12. Under SO 136(3) the CNC “must agree upon the name of one candidate for submission to the Prime Minister.” Repeated failure to do so implies failures in the CNC, which the General Synod should seek to remedy. The following changes are being proposed to improve the likelihood of each CNC making a nomination. These are to remove the secret ballot, change the threshold required for a nomination, to give the presiding Archbishop an additional vote in the event of a deadlock and the mandated resignation of the Central CNC members should they fail to make a nomination on three occasions during a five-year term.
a) Remove the secret ballot. Voting for a nomination takes place in a secret ballot (SO 141(6)). This allows members of the CNC who are not wishing to make a nomination from those interviewed able to conceal the fact, and ensures the process is not open or transparent. The most commonly expressed concern about the CNC is that members could participate in blocking candidates while being able to deny the fact due to the secret ballot. It is proposed that SO 141(6) should be amended to turn the secret ballot into an open ballot to ensure that CNC members are accountable to the rest of the CNC for their voting and to improve transparency and trust
b) Change the threshold required for a nomination and the removal of abstentions when calculating the vote. SO 141(6) requires “at least two[1]thirds of the total number of the voting members of the Commission” to vote in favour of a nomination. However, “at least two-thirds” of the 14 members of a normal CNC is 10 out of 14, or 71.4% of the vote. Note that 10 votes in favour of nomination are required even if some of the members entitled to vote choose to abstain. This places a high bar to clear for a nomination to be made and underlies the failure of two recent CNCs to do so. Changing the threshold to “at least 60% of the total number of votes cast” would require 9 out of 14, or 64.2% of the vote. This would place the threshold much closer to the intended two-thirds while retaining the need for a super[1]majority to approve a nomination. In the case of the Canterbury CNC, where there are 17 voting members on the Commission, a two-thirds majority would require 12 votes (70.5% of the total) while a 60% majority would require 11 (64.7% of the total). If abstentions do not count towards the required threshold, there is still at least 50% agreement required even if the required threshold is reduced to 60% and the Chair has a casting vote (see (c) below).
c) Presiding Archbishop additional vote should three consecutive votes between the final two candidates fail to meet the threshold for nomination. It is the practice of the CNC to vote in rounds until the necessary threshold to secure a nomination is reached. Early rounds tend to rule out candidates with limited support. However, in later rounds a deadlock can occur with repeated rounds continuing to fall short of the required number of votes. It is proposed that an amendment be made to Standing Orders to provide the presiding Archbishop with one extra casting vote should the CNC reach a point that it is unable to secure a nomination. This extra vote would tip the balance in the instance of the CNC being just short of agreement, but would not alter the outcome if the CNC was two or more votes off being able to nominate a candidate. [Note that under the current composition of the CNC (14 for most nominations, 17 for Canterbury), there would still need to be a supermajority among the votes from the members other than the presiding Archbishop/Chair to guarantee an appointment. At the 2/3rds majority there would need to be 8 out of 13 (61.5%) voting in favour, at the 60% level it would be 7 out of 13 (53.8%). For Canterbury it would be 10 out of 16 at the 2/3rds level (62.5%) and 9 out of 16 (56.3%) at the 60% level].
Additional changes
13. The following wider changes are also proposed to be considered at the February 2025 General Synod:
a) Changes to Vacancy in See Committees Regulations. The imbalance of Vacancy in See Committees (ViSC), which can make them unrepresentative should also be addressed. Whilst there is not time to change the Regulation before the next triennium of ViSCs being elected, it is proposed that this should still be addressed for the longer term.
I. The main change would be to ensure that no more than one clergy person and one lay person can serve from any one parish or church community. Where there are ex-officio members on the ViSC, e.g. General Synod members, this would prevent other clergy or laity from their parish being able to be elected. The only time more than one priest or more than one lay person could serve from the same parish or church community would be when they are all ex-officio members. When it comes to electing the six CNC members to the CNC from the ViSC, it is proposed that there should be a restriction of only one person (either clergy or lay) per parish or church community.
II. It is also proposed that there is a reserved place among the clergy places for one priest who is female, should a priest who is female be standing for election. This would also extend to lay representatives, ensuring at least one place for a female lay person should one stand for election. [The requirement for female representation already exists in the Canterbury CNC regulations for the five representatives from the Anglican Communion, so there is a precedent. The Canterbury CNC reps from the Anglican Communion are also required to include some of Global Majority Heritage, and GMH representation on all CNCs has already been addressed through amendments to Synod Standing Orders agreed in July 2024 (see paper GS 2355). It would, therefore, make sense for the representation of women (including in a voting capacity) to be included in wider CNCs].
III. An early review of the ViSC Regulation could also provide an opportunity to consider/implement the recommendations of the Independent Reviewer, Canon Maggie Swinson, on the process leading to the nomination of the Bishop of Blackburn, namely:
a) Should a suffragan bishop be eligible to Chair the ViSC?
b) The introduction of a minimum timetable for diocesan consultations
b) A ‘Code of Conduct’ for CNC members. While it would not be enforceable, a Code of Conduct could be called upon if the actions of members are failing to fulfil their function. Other Committees have found it useful that there is a Code of Conduct for Synod members, which can be referenced if there is a need to highlight behaviour that falls short of the expectations of the Code. The need to affirm the ‘Five Guiding Principles’ would be included in the Code.
Longer-term review
14. As well as the above proposed changes to the General Synod Standing Orders and the Vacancy in See Committees Regulation, a longer-term review of the CNC elections may be necessary to address more widely held concerns about the operation of the CNC and representation amongst the Central Members, including gender, disability, geography (there is only one Central Member from the Northern Province) and church tradition. It is proposed that further consideration for changing the election to the Central CNC membership should happen after February 2025, so as to keep changes to Standing Orders and the ViSC Regulation separate from changes to the Central CNC member elections.
[*] There is an inconsistency between the two papers in the naming of relevant paragraphs/sections. This post has been updated to include paragraph/section 11.
Update: 11 September 2024 at 18:38.