Bill No 5

Introductory Speech for the Second Reading

Canon Philip Patterson - Down

Your Grace this bill seeks to reform the Synod in line with the principles set out in the Synodical Structures Working Group’s report of 2000 and the draft bill submitted last year for General Synod’s perusal. It will be apparent to members that the Bill presented this year is substantially the same as the draft Bill of last year (the only change being that, the irreducible number of clerical representatives has been raised from three to four). No doubt this disappoints some members, some may even be angry. Can I assure you, your Grace, that it is not that the Working Group has not listened to the points made in last year’s debate nor have they been oblivious to the editorials, comments and letters that have appeared in the Church of Ireland Gazette. Rather it is in the light of careful and reasoned consideration of these points that we present this Bill to Synod.

Last year, in the debate, the point was well made that participation in Synod is not just making speeches but it is also in the voting of members having listened to the speeches of others. Surely we all agree to that. Should the working group then have based its actions on the views of ten or a dozen members who spoke against the proposals of the Bill or on the majority of members who voted for the proposals of the Bill? Surely we are bound to listen to the majority. If we miss heard that majority then Synod will have the opportunity to make that plain to us today.

The principle of this bill is a return to the guiding principles used in 1870 when General Synod came into being. Namely that each diocese should be represented in proportion to the number of its clergy and that the lay representatives should be in the ratio of 2:1 of the clergy. In 1870 the proportion of clergy used was 10%. Unfortunately no provision was made to adjust representation in line with a changing demography of the Church and so we have the present imbalance. The present proposal is to use a 20% proportion of clergy as the base for calculating the diocesan representation to General Synod. That is twice the level used in 1870. Of course the church population of 2001 is such that, this increase of base will not increase the size of Synod but will actually result in a significant reduction in the overall size of General Synod. Much of the debate, out side of Synod, in this past year has been suggesting this is too drastic a reduction. But is it?

It has been suggested this will lead to an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy. I understand oligarchy to mean rule by a few, often self appointed and usually for their own benefit. ‘Few’ is normally counted in single figures! Democracy I understand as government by the people or their elected representatives. What we propose is a Synod of about 400 elected representatives. 400 is not few, they are not self appointed and they will not be legislating for their own benefit - I can’t see an oligarchy. The 400 elected members will reflect a fairer more equitable and balanced representation. I believe, with all my heart, that democracy is being enhanced not diminished. If for one moment there was a diminution of democracy or of the representation of the whole church, I would have nothing to do with it and would be in the forefront of the attack on it. If size is a issue let us be absolutely clear it is not an issue of fair representation or of lack of democracy.

It has been suggested that such a reduction is unfair to smaller southern dioceses. Does such an assertion bear any weight?

Under these proposals Tuam and Limerick would have twelve representatives each. Tuam has eight cures and Limerick has eighteen in what way are twelve representatives unfair to either diocese? Those who suggest there is some unfairness need to spell out to me what that unfairness is and how it can be redressed without being unfair to every other diocese.

It has been suggested that 30% of clergy is a more appropriate base to use. That this will be primarily to the benefit of the rural less populace dioceses. But would it?

At 30% Limerick still loses half its representatives while Dublin gains 12 and Down and Dromore gains 15. At 30% it is the large urban dioceses that are the winners. When 20% is used as the base as suggested by this Bill every diocese loses representation. When you move to 30% some dioceses loose representation and others gain more representation but it is the big dioceses that gain. If my memory serves me correctly the vast majority of speakers last year advocating a rise in the percentage base were from the large dioceses, but of course they were arguing the case for the small dioceses.

The dynamic for change where every diocese bears some of the pain as at a 20% base is very different from the dynamic of change at a 30% base where some diocese bear all the pain and others are totally unaffected and some others have a great buffer erected around them.

I hope you will acknowledge the integrity of the Working Group’s thinking in staying with this proposal that the base should be 20%. Everyone acknowledges that this review is very substantial. It is so substantial because no revision of the composition of the House of Representatives has been carried out in 130 years of its existence. The Church has changed so much in its demographic make up that this is inevitably going to be a painful change. Built into this Bill is an automatic review every third triennium so that never again will the levels of representation get so out of kilter as they presently are.

These reforms are bold, they require a high minded refusal of personal self interest, a commitment to fairness and the overall well being of the church. Let’s be bold. Let us demonstrate that we can act in the right way even when it hurts. After all we are

the people who have been called to a cross.

Your Grace this briefly outlines the intention of clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 is just the consequent tidying-up operation to have the appropriate table of representatives included in the constitution. My colleague Mr Denzil Auchmuty will introduce the provisions of clauses 3 and 4.