GS Misc 765 B
1. Mr Archer’s motion calls for a review, undertaken by a working party chaired by a person independent of the Archbishops’ Council and the Synod, both of
(a) the offices of suffragan bishop, dean, archdeacon and residentiary canon (including their functions, demands and requirements in a changing Church), and of
(b) the law and practice regarding appointments to those offices.
This paper sets out some of the past work that has been undertaken on reviewing these offices. With regard to appointments, it sets out some of the developments in practice that have been implemented and which are in progress. Many of these were stimulated by the Reports Working with the Spirit: Choosing Diocesan Bishops – a review of the Operation of the Crown Appointments Commission and related matters (GS 1405, published in 2001) and Choosing Diocesan Bishops: The Report of the Steering Group appointed to follow up the recommendations of Working with the Spirit (GS1465, published in 2002). A paper updating the Synod on the implementation of Choosing Diocesan Bishops is also being circulated (GS Misc 770).
2. The four offices mentioned fall into two groups: suffragan bishops and archdeacons play a part in the oversight of the diocese as a whole, whereas the functions of deans and residentiary canons as such are primarily focused on the cathedral. However, residentiary canons in particular may also have wider diocesan roles and the Cathedrals Measure 1999, mentioned in paragraph 7 below, has played a part in facilitating this (the possibility of a single person holding office both as an archdeacon and as a residentiary canon is, of course, well established).
3. Previous reports on episcopacy have touched on the office of suffragan bishop and its functions. These include a report published in 1990, Episcopal Ministry (GS 944, the report of the Archbishops’ Group on the Episcopate, chaired by Miss Sheila Cameron QC, now Dean of the Arches and Auditor), and the more recent report, Suffragan Bishops (GS Misc 733), circulated to the Synod last year. In addition, the work of suffragan bishops had been studied by the Archbishops’ Review Group on Bishops’ Needs and Resources (chaired by Professor Anthony Mellows), whose first report, Resourcing Bishops, was published in 2001.
4. The functions of a suffragan bishop and the area, population and number of parishes for which he is responsible vary a good deal from diocese to diocese. In some dioceses, much of the day-to-day episcopal oversight of areas within the diocese is carried out by suffragan bishops under area schemes made under section 11 of the Dioceses Measure 1978. In others, oversight has been delegated by the diocesan bishop to suffragans under section 10 of the 1978 Measure on the basis of informally constituted areas. Other dioceses have other forms of delegation under section 10: for example, a single suffragan bishop who takes responsibility for particular aspects of the diocese’s life and ministry across the diocese as a whole. In each case, the precise responsibilities delegated vary.
5. There are five suffragan bishops who have distinctive functions and responsibilities. The day-to-day oversight of the whole of the Diocese of Canterbury has been delegated to the Bishop of Dover; for most practical purposes he is in effect the diocesan bishop for the Diocese of Canterbury. The Bishops of Ebbsfleet, Richborough and Beverley are suffragan bishops in the Dioceses of Canterbury and York, but most of their time is spent on duties carried out under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993 in other dioceses of their respective provinces. The Bishop of Fulham undertakes similar duties in the Dioceses of London, Southwark and Rochester. Any further review of the office of suffragan bishop and its functions would need to engage with this variety.
6. Unlike the office of suffragan bishop, the office of archdeacon has not been the subject of a recent review. Many of the duties of archdeacons are laid down in legislation.
7. As to the functions of deans and residentiary canons, a Commission was established by the Archbishops in 1992 under the chairmanship of Lady Howe ‘to examine the future role in Church and nation of the Cathedrals of the Church of England and to make recommendations as to how best that role could be fulfilled, including proposals for their government and support’. Examination of the role and work of cathedrals necessarily involved some examination of functions of cathedral clergy.
8. The Commission’s report, Heritage and Renewal, was published in 1994 and resulted in the Cathedrals Measure 1999[1]. The legislative work on this Measure included, in particular, further detailed examination of the role of the dean and of the chapter (which includes both the dean and of the residentiary canons, with others). The Measure required each cathedral to prepare a fresh constitution and statutes, and this process, which was completed in 2002, provided a further opportunity for cathedrals to re-examine the functions of their residentiary canons.
9. ‘The methods of appointment of area and suffragan bishops, deans, provosts, archdeacons and residentiary canons’ were reviewed by a working party, chaired by the late Sir William van Straubenzee, which was appointed in 1987. Its report, Senior Church Appointments (GS 1019) was published in 1992.
10.nbsp;nbsp;The formal processes for appointment to each of these offices is distinctive. The choice of suffragan bishops and archdeacons is effectively made by the diocesan bishop (though for appointments to suffragan sees, the agreement of the archbishop of the province is required). In the case of suffragan bishops (including area bishops), the diocesan bishop sends to the Prime Minister a petition with two names; this is accompanied by a letter from the archbishop of the province supporting both names but preferring the first. According to Senior Church Appointments (para 5.4), “The Prime Minister has, for at least the last hundred years, advised the Sovereign to accept the first-named person (provided he is available for appointment)”.
11. Archdeacons are appointed by diocesan bishops (except that when an archdeacon becomes a diocesan bishop his successor is appointed by the Crown). Thus in practice the Crown has for many years had a purely formal role in the appointment of suffragan bishops and no role in the appointment of archdeacons, except where the vacancy arises as a result of an appointment to a diocesan see. Similarly, the Crown plays no part in appointing the great majority of residentiary canons of cathedrals (about 130 out of about 160), the deans of fourteen former ‘parish church cathedrals’ or the Dean of Gibraltar[2]; most of these appointments are also made by the diocesan bishop.[3]
12. All of these appointments (except appointments to the office of Dean or residentiary canon which are in the gift of the Crown or some other person or body other than the diocesan bishop) are governed by the Senior Church Appointments Code of Practice (GS Misc 455), which was approved by the House of Bishops, after consultation with the former Standing Committee, in June 1995. This was the result of reflection by the House and the Standing Committee on the van Straubenzee report. A copy is attached.
13. A further strand is the work of the review group chaired by Baroness Perry. Its report, Working with the Spirit: Choosing Diocesan Bishops – a review of the operation of the Crown Appointment Commission and related matters (GS 1405, 2001), made various recommendations relating to senior appointments, which were deemed to be outside their terms of reference by the follow-up Steering Group. However, the Steering Group report, Choosing Diocesan Bishops (GS 1465, 2002), drew attention to the fact that the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments would be preparing for the House of Bishops proposed improvements to the system for identifying potential candidates for preferment. This work is in progress (see also paragraphs 20 –23 below).
14. The Crown’s normal role in cathedral appointments[4] is, therefore, to appoint 28 cathedral deans (including the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford), appoint about 30 of the about 160 cathedral canonries, and appoint to offices in the Royal Peculiars of Westminster Abbey and St George’s, Windsor.
15. The van Straubenzee report recommended that “arrangements should be introduced under which the preliminary steps leading up to the appointment of deans and provosts should be the same” (para. 6.14). In the case of deans appointed by the Crown, the appointing group would, with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, recommend two names (para. 6.20), and the archbishop of the province would recommend the name preferred by the bishop to the Sovereign (para. 6.22). (The latter part of the recommendation relied on the working party’s belief that the Sovereign could be advised other than by a minister of the Crown.) With regard to the Crown canonries, the report noted that the matter would be addressed by Lady Howe’s commission, but expressed the hope that “those responsible for advising on appointments to canonries in the gift of the Crown and of the Lord Chancellor” [who is responsible for appointments to some of the Crown canonries] would “operate in a similar manner” to that which the report proposed for canonries in the gift of the diocesan bishop (para. 6.52).
16. Heritage and Renewal (the Howe report) recommended in 1994 that “the Church should seek to open discussions with the Crown about the prospects for the introduction of a single system of appointment to cathedral posts ... characterised by openness and a structured approach to consultation” (chapter 8, recommendation 1). The Senior Church Appointments Code of Practice approved by the House of Bishops in 1995 did not extend to the processes for appointments to deaneries or residentiary canonries in the gift of the Crown. The then Secretary General’s covering note simply referred to the Howe Commission’s recommendation and indicated that “the possible application of the Code to Crown appointments is an issue which will be considered in the context of any such discussion” with the Crown (para. 4).
17. The Follow Up Group appointed to oversee implementation of the Howe Report reported to the Synod in 1996. Its report (GS 1219X) included the Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Cathedrals Measure. It commented on the recommendations concerning the appointments and terms of service of cathedral clergy as follows:
“The Group decided not to consider the proposals on the appointment and terms of service of cathedral clergy (Chapter 8). This issue is one aspect of the larger question of the terms and conditions of all bishops and clergy which is the subject of a separate study by the Clergy Conditions of Service Steering Group. The Group understood that some cathedrals had made representations to that body.” (para. 5)
18. Appointments to deaneries and canonries which are in the gift of the Crown or other persons or bodies other than the diocesan bishop are not within the scope of the Senior Church Appointments Code of Practice. In making such appointments, however, the Crown also seeks to reflect the underlying principles of wide consultation, and openness of process combined with confidentiality in respect of individual candidates, set out in the Code. Moreover, the Code of Practice does not, of course, set out to deal with the law on appointments, but is confined to setting out (in a non-statutory context) good practice.
19. When a Dean is to be appointed by the Crown, wide ranging consultations are undertaken by Downing Street with representatives of the cathedral community, the diocese and wider society more generally. The purpose of these consultations is to help identify the needs of the post and the characteristics and skills thought desirable in the candidate. Names of possible candidates come from a variety of sources including the consultation, the Church of England’s ‘preferment list’ and the diocesan bishop himself, who will usually undertake his own research on candidates. The Crown works closely with the diocesan bishop to identify candidates who meet the needs of the post. The aim is to reach agreement on the preferred order of names to be submitted to the Prime Minister. The Archbishop of the Province concerned is made aware of likely names and has an opportunity to comment.
20. As to Crown canonries, the underlying principles are the same, but the detailed methods may vary from place to place taking into account the views of, in particular, the dean and chapter concerned.
21. Several key themes emerge from the reports of the groups chaired by Baroness Perry and Professor Clarke which can be extended to other senior appointments. Both reports have provided a catalyst to changing practice in senior appointments.
The main themes include:
The reports also emphasise the importance of understanding the role for which candidates are being considered.
22. In January 2005 the House of Bishops agreed that the documentation developed by the Crown Nominations Commission, and supported by them in July 2004, as part of the process for choosing diocesan bishops, would be extended to assist with the selection of suffragan. Individuals who might be considered as future suffragan bishops will be asked to complete a personal statement on their gifts and ministry, to provide three references against a structured format and either to send a CV or update their Register of Ministers form. In addition a nomination statement will be provided by their bishop. This paperwork will be provided to bishops and their advisory groups to assist them in their consideration of candidates. Implementation arrangements for this are now underway. The House also noted the importance of a wide candidate pool; another development from the work on Choosing Diocesan Bishops has been that candidates are increasingly nominated from a number of sources.
23. The House also agreed the extension to suffragan appointments of the use of documents, developed by the Crown Nominations Commission with input from the House, which set out the key elements of the role of a bishop and offer some theological reflections on episcopal attributes (see GS Misc 770 para. 5.4). As the Code of Practice indicates, consultation about the needs of the role and the skills and personal characteristics of the person to be appointed is critical in making any senior appointment.
24. As a result of the work on choosing diocesan bishops, and the subsequent extension of that work to suffragan bishops, individuals who might be considered for future episcopal ministry will either have already had, or will have over the next few months, a discussion about their participation in these arrangements. The intention is to get to a position where a similar approach would be adopted towards the wider ‘Preferment List’ (see para. 13 above) of possible candidates for other senior appointments.
25. Such changes require cultural shift as well as amendments to the process. Much turns on the work on the introduction of effective ministerial review discussions to enable individuals to develop a realistic understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and also of whether they have the potential for appointment to senior office in the future. Individual ability to give and receive feedback will be important. This was recognised as part of the implementation work on Choosing Diocesan Bishops.
William Fittall
Secretary General
January 2005
[1] The 1999 Measure does not apply to Christ Church, Oxford, or to the cathedral churches of the Diocese in Europe or the diocese of Sodor and Man.
[2] The only exception to the Crown’s lack of involvement in these appointments is that where a dean, archdeacon or residentiary canon becomes a diocesan bishop, his successor is appointed by the Crown.
[3] The Deans of two cathedrals are appointed by private patrons.
[4] apart from those mentioned in footnote 2 above.