The difficulty many feel is that to leave the phrase \u201d\u02dcmale bishop\u2019 in the draft Measure insufficiently recognises where that particular point comes in the argument people are trying to make. It doesn\u2019t go to the root of it. In other words the theological conviction is not about male bishops as such: it arises from certain other convictions. And one of my questions about the draft Measure is whether anything can be done there, and \/ or in the Code of Practice, to overcome the resistance that is felt to that phrase, and to do better justice to what it rests upon. If I\u2019m right about the two fundamental principles, that\u2019s not a substantial change in the Measure. But it does of course then raise the question of how, whether in Measure or in Code, we do proper justice to this second point about theological integrity and pastoral continuity and ecclesial integrity; how we do that without over-legislating, over-prescribing in way that creates parallel church identities by default. And that I suppose is what a couple of years ago the Archbishop of York and myself were feeling our way for in the now notorious \u201d\u02dcarchbishops\u2019 amendment\u2019. If you look at some of the background literature that was provided at the time with that amendment, precisely the two principles with which I began were enunciated as the principles on which that amendment was based. Whether we were right or not to cast it in that form, I\u2019m not at all sure. But looking forward to the debate later today, I would quite like Synod\u201d\u201dno, I\u2019d very much like Synod\u201d\u201dto consider whether leaving a door open for the bishops to revisit some of those questions in the light of where we have got to might not a good idea at this juncture.<\/p>\n