THE SINS OF COMMISSIONERS
Sandra Barwick on why
the Bishop of Oxford is taking the Church to court
THE Right Revd Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, is a 'mischievous man'. This is a surprise, especially to the Bishop in ques- tion. But it could be true, since the description comes from no less an author- ity than Ian Gow MP, Conservative mem- ber for Eastbourne, and is imperishably recorded in Hansard for last month: hope', said Mr Gow, 'this mischievous bishop will not be considered as a candi- date for Archbishop of Canterbury.' As Mr Gow suggests by his flattering attention, the mischief in which the Bishop is engaged is no small matter. He has impudently decided to test the truth of an assertion of the Church Commissioners, the body that controls most of the Church of England's vast financial resources, that the law forces them to make the maximisa- tion of their assets their priority.
This is a claim familiar from many past disputes. Must the Church Commissioners sell this piece of land to a property com- pany for luxury flats, instead of sheltered homes for the elderly? Alas, has come their reply, the law compels us to take this course: we must get the best return. Must the Church Commissioners invest in com- panies with assets in countries which abuse
their citizens? Unfortunately, they have said, the law forces us to seek the highest profits wherever they are to be found.
So often has this claim been made that it has begun to take on the gravity and force of a Fortieth Article, distinguished only from the other Thirty-Nine by being taken more literally. Only the mischievous would hear in the Commissioners' words a distant echo of the apologies of the Carpenter's friend the Walrus as he set to work on his oyster companies: 'With sobs and tears he sorted out those of the largest size, Hold- ing a pocket handkerchief before his streaming eyes.'
Eminent charity lawyers, no doubt in- fected by the playful spirit which Mr Gow deplores, have told the bishop, and the Christian Ethical Investment Group, that the Commissioners' interpretation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Act, 1840, has all along been wrong and that the Church has enough flexibility under law to allow ethical considerations more influence over the investing of its monies.
`I'm niggled', says the Bishop of Oxford, `by the Church Commissioners' accusing me of being adversarial. It it they who have appealed to the law throughout, and to the law, therefore, they must go. It seems to me they're being very contradictory. I do think it's in the interest of the Church Commissioners to resolve this issue. I accept that they have to get a reasonable rate of return to pay for the clergy and their pensions, but the idea that the max- imum return has to be secured regardless of ethics seems to me to be sub-Christian.
`The Commissioners invest half their £1.1 billion equity portfolio in companies with interests in South Africa. Repeatedly they sell land for luxury housing when homes are needed for the poor, the old, the disabled. They should be able to make church land available on long leases for low-cost housing, and they should be able to invest in the inner city to create local employment.'
The Church Commissioners are now faced with an opportunity to find out what the truth of the matter is in the High Court, and their behaviour does not suggest they are grateful. The Bishop, possibly in a spirit of innocent optimism, offered them the opportunity to pay the likely £25,000 legal costs of his action against them which seeks to prove that they are mis- taken about their financial duties. It has not been accepted.
`I'm getting a very great deal of grass- roots support,' says the Bishop. 'Some £20,000 has come into the fund [set up to pay his costs] nearly all of it in £5, £10, £20 notes, not from people who are very well off — though some bigger donations have been made — but from people who feel this is a proposal which should be tested.' Such feelings are rational, and rationality at this juncture is welcome, because the Church of England appears to have a split personality on this issue. The Archbishop of Canterbury and senior bishops besides, including Durham, have condemned profit-as-prime-motive-of-society in Mrs Thatcher's Britain. Yet the speakers' very salaries come from the application of just such principles. The only modification is such ethical considerations as the Church Commission accept will not have any de- leterious effect on profit: they do not invest in companies whose main business is in arms, tobacco, gambling or alcohol, nor directly in South Africa.
This apparent hypocrisy in the Church exists partly because there is a split in power. For years the General Synod, the elected body of the Church, has pressed for entire disinvestment from South Africa without effect, for the Church Commission is not answerable to the Synod but to Parliament and the likes of Mr Gow. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury (who has been refusing to comment publicly while privately writing to Oxford asking him not to sue, on the grounds that the Commis- sioners might end up with less flexibility than at present), the Archbishop of York and all bishops, including Oxford, are ex officio Church Commissioners, but they have little impact on the Commission's workings. Yet the power the Church's money represents — the Commissioners manage assets worth £3 billion — is im- mense. That it is the Bishop of Oxford who is now attempting to change the established order has come as a surprise, for many of his views on theology and politics are traditional. He has argued for disinvest- ment from South Africa for some years, and for the ordination of women priests, but he supports the existence of a nuclear deterrent and his religious beliefs lean to the Catholic side. He seemed a safe, rather than mischievous man, conventional enough for the initial odds on him to be next Archbishop of Canterbury to be 5 to 2, though he has always said he does not want the job.
Perhaps because he has not a radical's experience the bishop is surprised by the Commission's unwillingness to pursue a matter which has been debated within the Church for some five years. 'The fact that they are so reluctant to pay my costs suggests they want to hang on to their position come hell or high water; they don't want flexibility,' he told me. 'I'm no Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. I wouldn't have undertaken this case unless I thought we would win.'
If the case, which may be heard this autumn, is successful, the Church Commis- sioners will have to decide whether or not to appeal; it will be an awkward decision to explain. If the bishop fails, or if the Church Commissioners' appeal overturns him, then he and his supporters will seek to have the law changed. In that struggle the views of the next appointment to the office of Canterbury will be crucial, though few of the contenders, perhaps wisely for their ambitions' sake, have made their positions on this issue clear.
Previous page
