Information	Where to find us
Media Centre	Home

home / media centre / review recommends talent pipeline for future senior appointments

Communication resources

Tell us what you think about our website

What is RSS?

For media inquiries only, contact the Press Office.
Tel: 020 78981326
Fax: 020 78981636
E-mail: cofecomms@c-of-e.org.uk

news EXTRAS

Working with the media

Useful links

External links to resources for parish magazine editors

Review recommends talent pipeline for future senior appointments

18 June 2007

Future senior office-holders in the Church of England could be identified and developed through a ‘talent pipeline’, a new report recommends. It also calls for greater diversity among such office-holders, welcoming the work to ensure that women are not discriminated against and calling for greater effort to ensure that the holders of senior appointments broadly reflect the diversity of the clergy from which they are drawn.

Talent and Calling, published today, is the report of a review group appointed in response to a General Synod motion which called for a review of the law and practice regarding appointments to the offices of suffragan bishop, dean, archdeacon and residentiary canon. (The method of diocesan bishops had been reviewed previously and therefore did not form part of the group’s remit.) The group was chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling.

The report, which will be debated by the General Synod in July, recommends a set of improved models for appointments made by bishops. These proposals both reflect current best practice in the Church and in wider society and also allow for an appropriate degree of flexibility.

The group concluded that the Church should not propose ending the active role of the Crown in making certain cathedral appointments. The report sets out for the first time in detail how these appointments are currently made. It also recommends significant improvements to that process.

The group recommends the ending of the Crown’s right to make appointments in two circumstances – when the diocesan bishopric is vacant and when the previous post-holder has become a diocesan bishop.

The report calls for the development of a ‘talent pipeline’ whereby those with potential for senior office in the Church can be identified and developed. It also calls for a greater diversity among senior office-holders, welcoming the work to ensure that women are not discriminated against in the appointment of deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons, while calling also for a greater effort to ensure that the holders of senior appointments broadly reflect the diversity of the clergy from which they are drawn.

The report records the group’s view that it would be more appropriate for the right to appoint the Deans of Bradford and Sheffield Cathedrals (currently vested in independent trustees) to be shared formally with the bishops of those dioceses.

Notes

The group’s recommendations are listed below. The full report is available on the July 2007 Synod page.

Currently:

- Suffragan bishops are nominated by diocesan bishops with the concurrence of the relevant archbishop.

- Archdeacons are appointed by diocesan bishops.

- 12 cathedral deans and about 120 residentiary canons of cathedrals are appointed by diocesan bishops; 28 cathedral deans and 23 residentiary canons are appointed by the Crown.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 3: Identifying and Developing Talent

1. In section 3.5 we make a number of recommendations for improvements to the Preferment List.

2. We recommend that the Preferment List should be developed as a search facility along the lines set out in section 3.6, and that good practice guidelines should be developed, and adopted by the House of Bishops, to support this.

3. In section 3.7, we make a number of recommendations for good practice in the use of ‘search’ as a means of identifying candidates, either in addition to or instead of advertising. We recommend that the ASA produce good practice guidelines to assist dioceses with the use of ‘search’.

4. We recommend that a scheme offering structured support, training and development opportunities to those identified as having potential to serve as church leaders at the highest level (as described in section 3.8) should be adopted.

5. We recommend that bishops consider how they can help to avoid or mitigate the negative effects of disappointment on the part of their clergy (see section 3.9).

Chapter 4: Fostering Diversity

6. We recommend that the ethnic background of those on the Preferment List should be recorded. Bishops should be asked to indicate which (if any) of those currently on the List from their dioceses are from a minority ethnic background. (See section 4.3.)

7. We recommend that if it proves to be the case that the proportion of minority ethnic clergy on the Preferment List is less than the proportion among the clergy overall, diocesan bishops should be asked positively to look for minority ethnic clergy who might either be qualified for inclusion on the Preferment List or might be developed in such a way that they might be qualified later on (see section 4.3).

8. We recommend that bishops should be asked to indicate which (if any) of those currently on the List from their dioceses are from a conservative evangelical background. Bishops should be asked positively to look for clergy from this constituency who might either be qualified for inclusion on the Preferment List or might be developed in such a way that they might be qualified later on (see section 4.4).

9. We recommend that efforts be made to persuade both those responsible for making appointments and those whom they consult that while the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod remains in force its prohibition of discrimination should be adhered to (see section 4.5).

10. We also recommend that bishops should be asked to indicate which (if any) of those currently on the List from their dioceses are ‘traditional catholics’. Bishops should be asked positively to look for clergy from this constituency who might either be qualified for inclusion on the Preferment List or might be developed in such a way that they might be qualified later on. (See section 4.5.)

11. We recommend that in respect of each post, bishops should be asked to complete and return to the ASA a form detailing the gender and ethnicity of candidates considered, so as to make monitoring possible (see para. 4.6.5).

Chapter 5: Choosing Suffragan Bishops

12. We recommend that when suffragan bishops are chosen, the possibility of an existing suffragan being translated from another see should be borne in mind (see para. 5.2.6).

13. We recommend that the archbishops indicate that they expect an agreed process to be followed in choosing those with whose nomination they will be asked to concur (see para. 5.6.1).

14. In the sections 5.6.2-9 we make recommendations about the elements of that agreed process. In the process the archbishop will be represented by the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments (ASA), who will report to, and receive guidance from, the archbishop as necessary.

Chapter 6: Appointing Archdeacons

15. We recommend that a ‘core’ role specification, covering those responsibilities of an archdeacon that cannot be delegated, should be drawn up so that it may be included in each archdeacon’s role specification (see para. 6.1.6).

16. We recommend that when archdeacons are appointed the possibility of appointing an existing archdeacon from the same or another diocese should be borne in mind.

17. We hope that the House of Bishops will adopt the common framework set out in sections 6.3.2-9 as a minimum standard that will apply in all dioceses (see para. 6.3.1.1).

Chapter 7: Cathedral Appointments by Bishops

18. We recommend that the process for the appointment of the deans of the twelve cathedrals of which the bishop is patron should be based on that recommended for the appointment of archdeacons in section 6.3, but with the adaptations set out in section 7.2.

19. We recommend that the process for appointment to residentiary canonries by bishops should always include the elements set out in section 7.4.

Chapter 8: The Role and Practice of the Crown

(a) Crown Deaneries

20. We recommend that the right both to appoint to the 28 Crown deaneries and also to choose the person to be appointed should continue to rest with the Crown (see section 8.3).

21. We recommend that the process for appointment to Crown deaneries (incorporating the modifications that we propose in section 8.4) should be set out in a public statement by the Prime Minister (though not in such a way as to preclude further development and an appropriate degree of flexibility). Such a statement should record publicly that the aim of the process is to reach agreement with the diocesan bishop on a final shortlist of candidates with whose appointment the bishop would be content.

22. In the interests of openness and transparency, we recommend that whenever a Crown deanery falls vacant, a notice should be inserted in the church press similar to that which now appears when a diocesan see is vacant. This would invite those who wish to do so to send comments (including names for consideration) to the PMAS. (See para. 8.4.4.)

23. We recommend that, in addition to the consultations undertaken by the PMAS, the Chapter should be encouraged to submit a statement to the PMAS and the Bishop about the needs of the Cathedral, and should be given the opportunity to discuss the statement with the Bishop (see para. 8.4.5).

24. We recommend that references should normally be passed on to the bishop in full. Where, exceptionally, it is judged necessary to exclude material from a reference in order to protect confidentiality (for example, information about positions for which the candidate was previously considered), the reason for the excision should be stated. (See para. 8.4.6.)

25. We recommend that the bishop should be allowed, if he wished, to talk in confidence with up to three people from his diocese (after agreement with the PMAS) during the process of deliberation about names, in order to seek their comments and advice. These people would not constitute an ‘appointing group’ and might well not meet as a group at all. They would not themselves meet the candidates under consideration, and would not necessarily meet the PMAS. Their role would be to act as ‘sounding boards’ for the bishop. (See para. 8.4.7.)

26. We recommend that in future the Prime Minister’s letter offering the appointment to the candidate should state that final endorsement of the appointment would depend on discussions between the candidate and the bishop and between the candidate and the PMAS (see para. 8.4.8).

27. We recommend that full information should be given to the candidate. This should include, for example, information about the financial aspects of occupation of the deanery and about the financial position of the cathedral. We recommend that the candidate should also see any statement of needs drawn up by the bishop and/or the chapter. (See para. 8.4.10.)

28. We note that the PMAS usually discusses with diocesan bishops candidates from their dioceses whose names are not on the Preferment List but which he notes for possible appointment to a Crown appointment. We recommend that this should invariably be the case. (Para. 8.4.11.)

29. Where for any reason it becomes necessary to withdraw an offer of appointment, we recommend that, in addition to the debriefing which we understand that the PMAS offers in such circumstances, the PMAS should ensure that arrangements for personal, ministerial and spiritual support are made in discussion with the candidate’s diocesan bishop. (See para. 8.4.12.)

(b) Crown Canonries

30. We recommend that the process for appointing to residentiary canonries should always include the elements set out in section 8.7.

31. We recommend (as the Howick Commission did in 1964) that the Crown’s right to appoint to an office vacated by the office-holder becoming a diocesan bishop be abolished, and that instead the appointment should be made by the person or body who would otherwise have made it. (See section 8.8.)

32. We also recommend that the Crown’s right to appoint to offices in the patronage of a diocesan bishop during a vacancy in the diocesan see should be abolished, and that the patronage should instead vest in the bishop to whom the other functions of the diocesan have been delegated (or, where the patronage had already been delegated to an area bishop, in that bishop). (See section 8.8.)

33. Meanwhile, we recommend that the Crown should simply appoint the person chosen by the person or body who would have the right to appoint if such legislation were to be passed.

Chapter 9: The Deaneries of Bradford and Sheffield

34. We have considered carefully the responses of Simeon’s Trustees and the Sheffield Church Burgesses Trust to the proposal we put to them. Although we respect the genuine convictions reflected in their letters and are grateful for their thorough examination of the proposal, we remain persuaded that it would be better for the trusts to agree formally to include the bishop in the patronage arrangements in each case, as set out in para. 9.4.6. The publication of our report will give them and others an opportunity to reflect or reflect further on the issues of perception that we have identified. The possibility remains that the trusts might wish to reconsider their position if, as a result, it became clear that there would be a general welcome for the proposal in para. 9.4.6.