Only people interested in the arcane way that the Church of England is financed will be interested in this post. However, yesterday, at Southwark Diocesan Synod, I moved a motion to as the Archbishops’ Council to assess the status and accountability of the Church Commissioners. There was more, but an amendment cut off the end. The motion read: “THIS SYNOD requests an urgent review by the Archbishops’ Council of the status and accountability of the Church Commissioners[, together with their commitment to an ethical investment policy, with a view toward bringing the financial resources that are currently under the control of the Church Commissioners fully under the stewardship of the Archbishop’s Council and accountable to the Church and to God through the General Synod].” The italicised part was amended out of the final resolution.
The Church Commissioners are the successor body of Queen Anne’s Bounty, founded in 1704 to assist the clergy in parishes in poor areas of the country. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were set up in the 19th Century to take over other funding for the Church through the transfer of lands belonging to dioceses and bishops. These bodies were amalgamated in 1947 to form the Church Commissioners.
In the early part of the 20th Century, several social housing estates were formed in South London due to the work of Octavia Hill, a reformer and housing campaigner. They were named after her, and one of these estates is in our Deanery of Southwark and Newington. The Church Commissioners owned these estates, and let them to people who would have trouble renting conventional housing.
Recently, the Church Commissioners decided they were “overexposed to the UK residential property market” (according to their 2005 Annual Report) and sold the properties to a consortium which is going to sell the flats to yuppies as they fall vacant. Meanwhile a social housing association (which is a front organisation for the new owners of the estate) will administer the flats. These houses will be removed from the social housing stock in South London.
The Church Commissioners were lobbied, picketed, and met with in order to get the estates to be sold to a real social housing landlord, who would preserve them as social housing stock. They not only refused, but were considered to be quite rude and underhanded in the way they sold them. The sale was announced on the Friday before a meeting of General Synod (the national legislature of the Church of England), where questions were to be put to the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam-Smith. It was a fait accompli by the time the meeting convened. General Synod was not best pleased.
As a result of this, our Deanery wished to pass a motion to censure the Church Commissioners. After discussion, we decided that, better than censure, we would ask for a review of the status and accountability of the Church Commissioners. We feel that they are not accountable in the normal course of events (as no consequences follow if they do not take heed of General Synod’s directions on investment and disinvestment) and something needs to be done.
We believe the Church Commissioners are worried about this motion, as Mr. Whittam-Smith actually asked to come to Synod and speak to us about accountability. He came (a true Tory grandee of the old style, white coiffed hair and all) but rambled on for much longer than his allotted time. Then, I moved this motion (using my maiden speech in Synod to do so), and after the amendment was debated and passed, the shortened motion was also passed. I was complimented on the speech by several people in a position to judge the quality of such things.
This will be one to watch. I understand that the motion may be debated in General Synod as early as February 2007, which is a meteoric speed for a motion coming from a Deanery. Normally these take three or four years to work their way up to General Synod. If passed, the review will take place and probably report sometime in 2008. I hope that true accountability of the
didn’t the church commissioners manage to lose / squander quite a significant chunk of their capital in rather questionable real estate dealings in the 1980s or 90s?
you’re right, they deserve to be on a MUCH shorter leash than they are.