Some more detail of the Terms of Service debate is worth recording. Geoffrey Tattershall introduced it by reminding us of the intention to move from Freehold to Common tenure - the most important aspect of this change being that it continues to regard clergy as office holders rather than employees. He suggested that the main matters of concern were the retention of freehold alongside the introduction of common tenure and the related issues about property as well as the proper provision of employment tribunals. In this respect he emphasised the importance to the steering group of striking a fair balance between incumbents who have freehold and licensed parish clergy who do not. The legislation proposed offers security for all based in law rather than the possession of freehold - it was this aspect of the Measure, he concluded, that ultimately gave equality and coherence to a new culture of office holding in the Church.
In the debate that followed it proved that Mr Tattershall had been accurate in his projection of concern.
A significant group of very persistent speakers and amenders sought to ensure that Freehold remained and this meant that they had brought forward amendments to every clause of the measure that related to Freehold. Closely linked to this is the manner in which property would be held when it was no longer seen to be held by the clergy. Whilst the Measure as drafted had put in place a strong process for objecting to the sale of parsonage houses the question of who was deemed to 'hold' them is one over which strong feelings are held. So that whilst the Bishop of Dover might re-iterate that 'to all intents and purposes' it was the Diocese that is practically responsible for property and not either the parish or the individual clergyman or woman there were many who felt that parsonage houses had been provided for clergy and for parishes not Dioceses. Add to this the (almost certainly unfounded) fear that whole clergy families would be required to uproot themselves from home and hearth at the whim of the evil 'Diocese' and a powerful strength of feeling was generated - indeed there are powerful arguments to be made on each side of this issue as another speaker made a powerful case for feeling as secure in the rented accommodation of his childhood as he now does in a Bishops' Palace!
Yesterday an amendment brought by Father Benfield to remove part of Clause 7 of the Measure was passed and led to the later withdrawal of the entire clause by the Steering group who have been 'sent back to the drawing board' - not for the first time. Clearly the question'In whom is the ownership of a parsonage house properly to be vested?' is one that will vex us for a while to come.
On balance Clause 7 and the housing issue was probably defeated partly because there were those who saw the strength of feeling of others and were unwilling to overrule it and also because there remained a real uncertainty about the 'right' place for this property to be held -rather than because there was a determination not to move from Freehold to Common Tenure.

This debate continued across lunchtime!!


During lunch there is always the opportunity to attend fringe meetings of synod and on Tuesday I attended a meeting organised by the Reverend Lynda Barley who conducts and analyses Church statistics for the National Church. In some respects the picture is not surprising and matches my experience. However the surprise is always the number of people (some 85% of the population) who enter a church building at some time whether for worship, services that offer ministry at life changing moments (or 'rites of passage') and the quite large numbers of people who come across our thresholds as 'spiritual visitors'. Coming to Synod and to meetings such as this reminds me of the obligation I have to keep our church building alive and prayerful for the sake of those who just slip across the threshold whether we notice or not.

When all the business relating to clergy terms of service is finished two further debates take place. Both are Private Members motions. The first comes from Tom Benyon a member of our own Diocese and is on the subject of Casinos. The motion is passed but is also significantly amended by the Mission and Public affairs division in a 'friendly' way. The debate is a good one with many members wishing to speak - including a clergywoman who ahd worked on the floor of a Casino (serving tea and coffee) to earn money as an undergraduate. The second is a debate on Bible Availability in Churches.


Wednesday morning begins with a Eucharist in the Central Hall debating Chamber. Although this is not without its logistical difficulties it is good to worship in the place that we also debate and it is good to share communion in a place where, inevitably we disagree because things matter to us. It is also good to be led by our Archbishop who, in preaching to Synod, is always inspirational. The next item on the Agenda is the Fees debate. Partly as a result of a motion from our Diocesan Synod a few years ago a fees review group was set up – Moira Astin who presented the debate on our behalf has been on the group who have produced the new scale of fees and also an accompanying booklet. I am very supportive of the central intention of this report that the occasional offices are one of our best opportunities for mission and must be done well. The opportunity to pay retired and NSM priests and Readers properly for their ministry by charging a ‘ministry’ fee is also a good one. But there are other issues raised in the accompanying document that I want to speak against – in particular a greater centralisation of both fee payment and booking funerals. Unfortunately so do rather a lot of other people and the debate goes on and on and fails to address the main issues in the schedule of fees. An adjournment is moved. This is most unsatisfactory because the legislation for the proposed fee structure cannot now progress until further debate is had and Synod can work out exactly where its disagreement lies. It has the advantage of giving us all a rather longer lunchtime than usual – very welcome on a beautiful sunny day and very rare!

At lunchtime I attend a meeting of the Buildings division at which we hear most interesting descriptions of the way in which Hereford Diocese supports its buildings in Mission and also the way in which a short term appointment of a Deanery Buildings Officer is supporting the development of mission in churches in this most disadvantaged area with a view to making the most of Olympic presence in 2012.

This afternoon is a busy one with three very different and very important debates.
The first is a Diocesan Synod Motion from Durham Diocese requesting the commissioning of a Eucharistic Prayer for use when children are present. They ask for one prayer – others want more than one; Durham wants a prayer for children – others ask that special prayers are written for use with young people as well. As always we hear speeches in favour and against. Amongst those who speak against the main arguments are that there is already sufficient flexibility and that children are not helped by watered down liturgy. Amongst those who speak for it there is a wide range of experience and many indications of circumstances where such work would provide a valuable resource. There is also a financial statement – the cost of a Eucharistic prayer is £10,000 (meeting and subsistence costs and secretariat support) a second would be more expensive but not twice as much – do they come cheaper by the dozen, I wonder? Later in debate somebody points out that since much time would be spent debating which prayer of several proposed to authorise then more may, eventually be less costly!

Following this rather ‘churchy’ debate we enjoy one of those outward facing debates, this one on Mental Health, in which Synod is always at its best. Archdeacon Arthur Hawes who proposes the report and a motion calling for improvements in services and care for those with mental health problems and calling attention to problems posed by the criminal justice system. One of the great joys of Synod is that whatever subject is debated there is always a great wealth of experience and expertise which means the quality of debate is always very high. For me two facts shouted from the introduction that the mental health ‘industry’ is the second largest ‘employer’ worldwide – the largest is the Chinese Red Army!! Even more striking is the reduction of more than 100,000 beds for mental health patients in a five year period that has been matched by an increase of 40,000 in the number of people with mental health problems held in prison.
The last debate of the day is on the Anglican Covenant. In July Synod asked that it should have the opportunity to see and comment on the response that had been made by the Archbishops to the Covenant Drafting group following our debate at York. In the end we had two drafts in front of us – the response and the work of the Covenant Drafting group done in January. Opinion differed. As to whether this was a document for ‘Mission’ and to be welcomed with enthusiasm – or a document of division and exclusion. In truth it is a document of parts. There is much to welcome in the early part of the document that aims to celebrate what we share as Christians and because a genuine attempt is being made to find a way of relating as Anglicans that involves neither centralisation not atomisation (Christina Baxter). However the appendix that sets out a legal form of exclusion remains a major stumbling block and raises questions about whether it is in the spirit of a Covenant to speak of exclusion.