Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-25)
29 JANUARY 2004
THE RT
REV JOHN
GLADWIN, THE
RT REV
GEORGE CASSIDY,
THE RT
REV IAN
CUNDY AND
MR WILLIAM
FITTALL
Q20 Chairman: These are the livings
which are not under the patronage of the Lord Chancellor.
Rt Rev Ian Cundy: In a society,
college or an individual we have to sign the document to say that
we are happy that this nomination is made. We do not have to do
that with Crown livings. I have to say that we are consulted assiduously
by the present officials about appointments. One other thing I
think I would say about the present officials is that they also
regularly visit the parishes which are in the gift of the Lord
Chancellor. They have an on-going knowledge of the parish which
may not be the case with a society or with a college or even sometimes
with an individual. I think although the safeguards are not there
as they are in the Measure, in practice it makes very little difference
and I think consultation goes on equally well.
Rt Rev John Gladwin: From my experience
of it with officials who also, I think, have a very high and good
quality of conversation with the clergy they are considering to
nominate particular livings there are very good relationships.
I have no anxiety about the actual practice as it is at present.
Rt Rev George Cassidy: There is
a very heavy relational element in this. The bishop working closely
with any patron I think most bishops find that the Crown and the
Lord Chancellor have been particularly assiduous in keeping that
relationship sweet and good so that, for example, a bishop is
never put in a position whereby either the Crown or the Lord Chancellor
would want to nominate someone to a living and the bishop would
say, "Over my dead body; no I couldn't possibly give Jo Bloggs
a licence, it would go against my conscience." That never
occurs.
Rt Rev Ian Cundy: It is also true
to say that if we, ourselves, wish to suggest names to Mr Wheeler
he is delighted to have names from us. He always asks.
Q21 Chairman: Given the position
you described earlier, finding people to do the jobs is the bigger
part of your problem.
Rt Rev John Gladwin: Sometimes
one is saying to him, "If you can find someone you know who
fits this brief, help us".
Q22 Chairman: Based on your experience,
would many outcomes be different if the patronage reverted to
the Church? One of our witnesses gave us a written submission
in which he quoted the bishop as saying, "He would not have
readily connected my name with such an appointment".
Rt Rev John Gladwin: Is the outcome
that might be different and has to be considered the one Ian mentioned
about width of knowledge? There is a danger when the bishop alone
appoints in a diocese that you do not as readily as you could
bring new people into the diocese from elsewhere. At least a variety
of patronages—and particularly the Crown and the Lord Chancellor—does
offer that opportunity.
Mr Fittall: I think the thing
is quite difficult to predict and a dimension that we have not
introduced into this yet is how it would feel different for the
parochial representatives in that situation. Under the 1986 Measure
generally the representatives of the PCC can ask the patron to
advertise. Some choose to ask and some patrons do choose to advertise.
Obviously that can lead to a situation in which a number of people
come forward and are seen in the parish. I think I am right in
saying that for perfectly good reasons it is the practice with
the Crown appointments to offer one at a time. Whether in practice,
if these 400 parishes tended to advertise or get the new patron
to advertise, you would get different outcomes I find that very
difficult to predict. I had experience in my own parish about
20 years ago—not with a Crown patronage—where there
was a patronage society whose policy was just to give you one
at a time. It does create a slightly different dynamic from a
situation in which you know there are three or four candidates
or the bishop may have told you there are three or four. I think
it is very hard to know whether that would be an improvement or
a difficulty, but it would be a possible change.
Q23 Chairman: I think one you mentioned
earlier that if this were to pass to the Church there are likely
to be different views as to how it should be exercised, who should
exercise it within the Church (whether it was the Diocesan Board
of Patronage, bishops as such or some other structure). Is it
going to be difficult to proceed with that option if it is not
clear where the option is leading?
Rt Rev George Cassidy: I think
some of us may have done a little lateral thinking on this. When
I arrived at the diocese I serve fours ago I discovered the cathedral
had no patronage and when His Grace the Duke of Devonshire remitted
to me patronage of a particular living I suggested to him that
he might like to give it to the cathedral and he was delighted
to give it to the cathedral. I have been trying to build up their
patronage ever since. In my own mind I know that if the Government
decided to remit to me the 22 livings for the Diocese of Southwell
I would immediately give them to the cathedral, again to keep
the link, to diversify the base of patronage.
Q24 Chairman: Is there any set view
on that?
Rt Rev George Cassidy: No, not
at the moment.
Rt Rev John Gladwin: My view would
be that it should come to the bishop and the bishop should then
sort the matter out. If it is going to be handed over inside the
Church system then I think the Lord Chancellor should be encouraged
to hand it to the bishop. The bishop might think, with the parishes,
as to what is the best way of handling that thereafter.
Rt Rev Ian Cundy: One of the complexities
of handing it to the Diocesan Board of Patronage in a situation
where you have joint patrons—say you have five parishes
in a benefice, five different patrons of which the Board of Patronage
is one—that is a very difficult dynamic to handle; you have
four individuals and one body. What we normally do is ask the
Board of Patronage to nominate one person to act on their behalf.
However, the Board, in a sense, has a right for all of them to
be involved in the process. I think there are complexities about
that which would have to be looked at in every situation. That
is why if, the decision were to be to hand it to the Church, I
think we would have to have our internal process of deciding how
we handle it and possible make different decisions in different
dioceses, different decisions with different benefices.
Mr Fittall: It was quite clear
when there was a discussion among some members of the House of
Bishops on this, one bishop said (neither bishop I quote is here)
that the Diocesan Board of Patronage looks after a lot of parishes,
they are a very effective body, they work very well, he would
have no difficulty if it came to the Church and the Diocesan Board
did it. Another senior bishop said, "I have recently persuaded
my Diocesan Board of Patronage to transfer their patronage to
me because they did not have very many parishes, they did not
meet very often and they had to re-learn the process every time
they did it because it only came round every few years."
I think there is a diversity and I think, when you were asking
earlier if we would be happy if the Government facilitated a diverse
outcome, that is not something that was explicitly discussed at
the Archbishop's Council at the House of Bishops, but I think
if the Government gave an option—there might be better or
less good ways of doing that—I do not think there would
be any difficulty in the Church about diverse outcomes.
Rt Rev John Gladwin: Bishops could
facilitate that.
Q25 Peter Bottomley: Presumably it
would be impossible for the Government to take the most practical,
least change option of—as I think George Cassidy put it
once to me—moving two filing cabinets, but also to say that
if any particular parish which was either one of those two which
the Lord Chancellor has oddly or the large number which the Lord
Chancellor took control of on behalf of the Crown, to actually
say to the Parish, "If you do not want to go to the Crown,
would you like to propose who you do want to go" to and then
have some decision making body. In those circumstances, who do
you think should be the decision making body? Should it be the
residual Lord Chancellor's position to say whether they would
go with the bulk—the 400 or so—to the Crown?
Rt Rev John Gladwin: I think the
Lord Chancellor must be satisfied that the actual patronage outcome
is reasonable. We would need some advisory way of working with
the Lord Chancellor whereby at the end of the day he must be satisfied
that the outcome is: a) workable and b) acceptable.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed. We have some more witnesses now. You are welcome to leave
or stay as your timetable permits.
| 
