Most of the electronic voting lists from last month’s meeting of General Synod were published online some weeks ago, and I linked to them here. These contain the names of voting members and how they voted.
The lists for two procedural motions were omitted, but they are now available. Both were motions ‘That the Synod do pass to the Next Business’ and both were carried. The effect of such a motion is that the substantive motion lapses, and the same (or a similar) question cannot be reconsidered in the remaining lifetime of the Synod without the permission of the Business Committee and the general consent of the Synod.
The first was during the debate on item 13 as amended by item 33 (see Order Paper III for Saturday afternoon).
That this Synod noting the wider discussions about the culture and governance of the House of Bishops
a) welcome the decision to undertake an independently led review as proposed in GS Misc 1412 and the importance in the proposed Terms of Reference of the section on Culture and Ways of Working and
b) request that the Report of the Review be published in full and that the cost of the Review be met by the Archbishops’ Council.”.
The second was at the end of Sunday’s debate on the Archbishops’ Council Annual Report. This prevented a debate on Martin Sewell’s following motion on the working of the Audit Committee (see item 35 on Order Paper V).
It seems that a majority of the house of laity in both cases voted “against” and wanted more time to discuss these issues. I’m not sure I understand the process properly, but if this had been a counted vote of houses would the motions to move to next business have failed?
Counted votes by houses are not permitted for procedural motions. But if, hypothetically, they were, then neither of these would have been carried as there was not a majority in favour in the House of Laity.