NORWICH DIOCESAN SYNOD

Minutes of a meeting held via Zoom on Saturday 20th March

Attendees: House of Bishops – 2 representatives House of Clergy – 46 representatives House of Laity – 37 representatives Please note that not everyone attended the whole meeting, and this is reflected in the voting.

The Chair was taken by Kandi Kammoun (Chair of the House of Laity), who welcomed Rosemary Pearce (Interim Diocesan Secretary) and Mark Jeffries, the new Chair of the DBF Executive Committee. Other guests were welcomed for items 3, 4 and 5, and Synod gave its consent for them to speak if necessary.

OPENING PRAYERS

Led by Pam Spychal (Great Yarmouth).

1. THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10th OCTOBER 2020

The minutes were approved and will be signed as a true record once the COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.

2. ANY MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising.

3. CLERGY CARE AND WELLBEING

Synod was asked to approve the following motion:

‘This Synod:- 1. Welcomes and adopts the Covenant for clergy care and wellbeing; 2. Notes the resources available on the national website;

1

3. Calls on all Deanery Synods and PCCs to discuss and adopt the Covenant; 4. Calls on all Bishops, Bishop’s Staff, Cathedral & Clergy Chapters, Deanery Synods, PCCs, congregations and the wider Church, both clergy and laity, to engage in the “Big Conversation” about Clergy Care and Wellbeing; 5. Calls on parishes to report at their 2022 APCM on their progress with discussion and adoption of the Covenant; 6. Calls on Deanery Synods to report to Diocesan Synod on adoption in March 2022; 7. Calls on Bishop’s staff to report to Diocesan Synod in March 2022 on their response to the covenant and where relevant, its specific recommendations.

A video presentation was shown by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond and Jane Keeton, a copy of which will be uploaded to the Diocesan website at https://staff.diocesan.co.uk/comfiles/view?id=1.

Feedback from small groups around the following questions was received by the Clergy Wellbeing Forum via Zoom chat. They will discuss it at their next meeting.

• Laity – how do our clergy know we care for them? Clergy – how do I know my laity care for me?

• Laity – what are our clergy finding challenging right now, and how could we help? Clergy – what am I finding challenging right now, and who could help?

• Laity – what are our clergy finding rewarding and life affirming at the moment? Clergy – what am I finding rewarding and life affirming at the moment?

Following this The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond invited comments and queries from Synod. In proposing the motion and answering comments and queries he mentioned that the intention was to include all clergy, as we seek commitment to starting an ongoing conversation and the process of creating a culture in the whole church that cares for and comprehends clergy well-being.

The Revd Charles Read (General Synod) commented that the project tends to focus on stipendiary clergy, and perhaps needs to remember that clergy wellbeing should include that of non-stipendiary clergy who often have to balance Christian ministry alongside a secular job.

The Revd Peter Leech (Blofield) queried whether there was sufficient time for PCCs to feed back to Diocesan Synod on this.

Harry Verney (Heacham and Rising) suggested that the demands on churchwardens also needed to be looked at. Time spent by churchwardens on paperwork limits the amount of time that they can spend on supporting their clergy.

The Chair concluded this item and asked Synod to approve the motion. The motion was proposed by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond and seconded by the Bishop of Thetford.

2

The result was as follows:

In Favour 72 Against 0 Abstentions 1

The Chair was taken by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Chair of the House of Clergy).

4. A PRESENTATION ON THE GOVERNANCE REVIEW

The following motion was received by Synod: -

This Synod approves the recommendations in the Governance Review pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, with recommendations iv and vi adapted as in the paper of 16th March 2021 from the Interim Diocesan Secretary, and tasks the Interim Diocesan Secretary to begin their implementation, and approves the changes to the Standing Orders and the terms of reference for the Bishop’s Council of Trustees’

Synod members had been invited to take part in workshops in advance of the meeting to explore the recommendations in detail.

The Bishop of Norwich welcomed Mary Chapman who had chaired the Review Group and was extremely grateful to her and the Working Group which worked with her. Mary had vast experience both in her professional life as well as in Non-Executive Directorships and her work with the Archbishops’ Council in chairing the Audit Committee. He had been keen that the group was chaired by someone of experience so that our governance should not only be healthy and purposeful, but should also fulfil the principles of good governance that the Charity Commission outlines.

Mary Chapman spoke of the questions that the pandemic had asked of us and how we respond to them. Other dioceses had followed this path and their experiences had been vital to the work of the Review Group. Good governance was crucial, not only in terms of compliance but also so that decision-making was transparent and trustworthy.

The Revd Margaret McPhee (Norwich North) asked how close we were to implementing the recommendations.

The Revd Dr Steven Sivyer (Great Yarmouth) was supportive but expressed concern that in the proposals almost everything fed into the Bishop’s Council of Trustees but almost nothing fed into Diocesan Synod. What assurances can be given that the ordinary elected members of Diocesan Synod can bring items to its agenda?

The Revd Graham Wilkins (Humbleyard) had shared some of the recommendations with Deanery Chapter and questions had resulted mainly around where power is held in this structure, particularly around the Nominations Committee where people are nominated rather than directly elected. It would be good if this could be talked about with the rest of the Diocese.

3

In response, The Very Revd Jane Hedges ( Cathedral and member of the Review Group) agreed that Diocesan Synod was a vital part of the work of the Diocese. The Nominations Committee was intended not only to make things more open but also to ensure that committee members had the requisite skills.

The Ven ( and member of the Review Group) commented that Diocesan Synod would be much more engaged as these reviews go through. For the Bishop’s Council of Trustees and the Agenda Planning Group, more meetings will be taking place with a clearer path through to Diocesan Synod and other bodies. This will enable people to be more engaged, and there is a real desire to work with Diocesan Synod so that everyone is involved. If the proposals were to be implemented today, then the intention is that changes will take place in Autumn 2021 when the new session begins.

Susan Bunting (Diocesan Director of Finance and member of the Review Group) agreed that openly advertising posts with a view to getting people with the relevant skills can only be advantageous to the Diocese.

Susan Martin (Dereham in Mitford and member of the Review Group) urged Synod to look at the proposals in the wider context and support the motion. This now allows us to have a fully compliant governance structure. Previously we have not been compliant with a lot of the regulatory recommendations.

The Revd David Smith (St Benet at Waxham and Tunstead) commented on his experience in another diocese with similar structures and commended the findings of the review to Synod. He felt that there was a disconnect between the Standing Orders and the Terms of Reference, in particular where six additional members of the laity were proposed to be appointed by the Bishop’s Council of Trustees. This latter is the Standing Committee of Diocesan Synod, and it is not up to it to appoint members of Synod.

The Revd Martin Young (Norwich East) was broadly supportive but expressed concern that the Bishop’s Council of Trustees would consist of seven members of the Bishop’s Staff as well as six further members being appointed by the Nominations Committee chaired by the Bishop of Norwich. As well as removing inertia the proposals placed a responsibility on Diocesan Synod to hold the Bishop’s Council of Trustees accountable. He suggested that the Nominations Committee could be chaired by someone other than the Bishop of Norwich, and that a review could take place on strengthening the work of Diocesan Synod as a consultative body.

In response, Susan Bunting advised that the Nominations Committee would be chaired by a layperson rather than the Bishop of Norwich.

Mary Chapman commented that the requirements for membership when bringing together the Bishop’s Council, DBF Executive and other bodies are governed by various church laws. The challenge is to put together a central group of Trustees that complies with these regulations but is not so unwieldy as to be ineffective. This could be described as a centralisation of power, but this depends entirely on the accountability of the group and is

4

why improving the effectiveness of Synod is key. It is the responsibility of the Nominations Committee that the process is clear, transparent and gives confidence in the outcomes.

Gerald Palmer (Dereham in Mitford) expressed concern that the process seemed one- directional. As a member of the Board of Education he wanted this body to be able to feed things into the Bishop’s Council of Trustees.

Harry Verney (Heacham and Rising) suggested that Diocesan Synod should start slightly later and finish slightly later. He also mentioned his experience in another diocese, where a separate Finance Committee had the ability to set Parish Share figures.

The Revd Tim Yau (Bishop’s Appointee) questioned how future forums such as the Mission Forum chaired by the Archdeacon of Lynn might feed into things?

The Ven Karen Hutchinson commented that the organisational diagram was deliberately not complicated with the various forums. The forums have the capability to feed their ideas and suggestions into the appropriate bodies.

Mary Chapman commented that the Bishop’s Council of Trustees would be decision-makers in certain statutory matters. Work needs to be done around where decisions are made on matters not bound by statute. That said, creating more committees could make it unclear as to where decisions are taken.

The Chair concluded this item and asked Synod to approve the motion. The motion was proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and seconded by Susan Martin.

The result was as follows:

In Favour 83 Against 0 Abstentions 1

The Chair was taken by Kandi Kammoun (Chair of the House of Laity).

5. AN UPDATE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Synod was asked to approve

‘The Environmental Working Group, a Sub-Group of the Social, Community and Environmental Concerns Forum, asks the Synod to: (a) adopt the Proposed Diocesan Environmental Policy as the Environmental Policy for the ; (b) recognise that further urgent work towards the 2030 zero-carbon target is required, and will be undertaken as part of the development and implementation of the new Vision for the Diocese.’

The Bishop of Thetford introduced the item by commenting that the issue of climate change continues to grow in importance and urgency. The Bishop of Norwich has been appointed

5

Lead Bishop for the Environment for the National Church, and it is important that we as a diocese support him.

The full environmental policy from which the summary policy is drawn was made available to members at the June 2020 Synod, where agreement was given for a report to be commissioned on the costs of implementing the policy. The report was not completed in time for October’s Synod, and although it has not been possible to provide exact costs given the constraints under which that work was done, the Diocesan Property Department has made a start by ensuring that all our properties have a current energy performance certificate. This will give us a picture of the scale of the challenge we face in reducing our carbon emissions. In most cases this will be done by retrofitting our properties to improve their energy efficiency. We may also be able to have new build replacements and in some cases we may be best to dispose of old properties.

Working with the Bishop’s Council of Trustees, the Property Executive will work to ensure that we have a realistic but ambitious plan for the next nine years with detailed costs and proposals. If we fail to do this, we will leave ourselves exposed as the energy performance targets for domestic properties will become more demanding. We also need to look at how we manage our Glebe land and making sure that our investment policy is consonant with our environmental policy.

Rather than delay we feel we should press ahead, whilst acknowledging that more work needs to be done. By adopting this policy Synod will be giving a strong steer to the Bishop’s Council of Trustees about reaching net zero carbon in relation to property owned by the DBF.

Barbara Bryant (Bishop’s Press, Projects and Research Officer) gave a presentation on A Rocha’s Eco-Church initiative and confirmed that we have registered our commitment towards achieving the status of an Eco-Diocese. At the heart of the initiative is an online survey tool to enable churches to record what they are doing to care for God’s earth, as well as reflecting on what more they can do and acting accordingly. A wealth of resources covering all aspects of church life can be found on A Rocha’s website as well as our website.

There are three awards – Gold, Silver and Bronze – and as part of the bronze level we need 10% of our churches to register with the Eco-Church scheme. 36% of our churches are already registered, with 5% of those already having their Bronze award. Barbara urged all members to register their church at www.ecochurch.arocha.org.uk.

The Revd Canon David Longe gave an update on the workings of the Environmental Working Group. When the General Synod paper came out in 2019, the Environmental Working Group was formed as a sub-group of the Social Concerns and Community Concerns Forum to look at the Diocese’s environmental policy issued in 2006. The thrust of the Group now is to encourage, engage and support the Diocese and the parishes as we move to zero carbon in 2030. The policy needs to be constantly reviewed and reshaped by an ongoing discussion in the Diocese. The motion was commended to Synod.

6

The Revd Michael Asquith (Lothingland) queried the absence of the word ‘mission’ in the ‘five marks of mission’. He expressed concern about the cost we were being asked to vote for, not only to the Diocese but also to individual churches.

Harry Verney (Heacham and Rising) spoke of his experience with heat pumps, and asked whether there were funds available, either from the Diocese or from the National Church, to help with the costs of environmentally friendly heating.

Paul Dunning (Diocesan Director of Education) asked whether listening to the voices of children and young people could be added to the policy, and he suggested that we also add encouraging Eco-Schools.

In response to the questions, the Bishop of Thetford confirmed that it should be ‘the five marks of mission’ in the policy. In relation to the costs for DBF properties this cannot be provided upfront which is why we are looking to do work on scoping three vicarages; this will give us a better idea of what we need to plan for the next ten years. The policy has an aspiration to reach net zero carbon, and it is important that we adopt it on these terms. It was not possible to answer the question of possible funding, but this is no doubt something the group would be looking at. The comments about listening to the voices of children and encouraging schools to become Eco-Churches were good, and these aspects will undoubtedly be part of the future policy.

The Very Revd Jane Hedges, Dean of endorsed the policy and commented that Norwich Cathedral had signed up to be an Eco-Cathedral, and already had its Bronze award. Citing the example of public engagement during the Cathedral’s bird watch event, the Dean commented that the Church’s work on the environment was a good, missional way to increase our engagement with our communities.

The Revd Andrew Whitehead (Ingworth and Sparham) commented that one of his churches held the Silver award. He commended the Eco-Church survey for its simplicity and speed and agreed that the initiative was all to do with lifestyle, preaching, liturgical content and things which many churches have already been doing, rather than about the physical things such as installing heating. The cost of not doing anything to take the policy forward would be greater than the costs, but this was more about our value system as a diocese and ‘who we want to be’ rather than a purely cost issue.

Dr Roger Wood (Humbleyard) commented on the policy that had been circulated as well as the accompanying document, with regard to a lack of mention of sustainability. His hope would be that the policy would be less inward-looking and look outside of our Diocese.

Jennie Vere (Redenhall) urged members to be aware of the Board of Education’s initiative to be launched in the Summer – Our World, Our Planet. We have 140 schools and academies across the Diocese, representing a huge number of children’s voices that will be involved in several activities around this subject. She urged members to welcome children into our churches and listen to their voices, as this will lead to parents and communities sharing that vision.

7

The Bishop of Thetford endorsed the idea that this an area where there is huge scope for collaboration and drawing in our wider communities, particularly our young people. When he was Team Rector of St Mary’s, Welwyn, the first church to install ground source heat pumps, it was remarkable how the wider community had wanted to be involved. This area is indeed a crucial part of mission.

The Chair concluded this item and asked Synod to approve the motion. The motion was proposed by the Revd Canon Nigel Tuffnell and seconded by the Revd Lydia Avery.

The result was as follows:

In Favour 81 Against 1 Abstentions 2 The Chair was taken by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Chair of the House of Clergy).

6. An update on the Emerging Diocesan Vision

Synod was asked:

TO APPROVE the Vision and Priorities for our life together for the period 2021 – 2026 and TO COMMISSION interlinking strategies to bring this vision and priorities to fruition.

The Bishop of Norwich commented that this was coming back to Synod as the incorrect poll had been put up at October’s meeting. Although Synod had voted overwhelmingly for the poll, it had not voted on what had been discussed. It had been hoped that an update on the work could be brought to this Synod, but other work had had to take precedence. In the new paper the priorities have moved so that we become prayerful, pastoral and prophetic as we are transformed by Christ.

Kandi Kammoun (Chair of the House of Laity) commended the vision, commenting that there are five keys interwoven throughout the vision – tell, teach, tend, transform and treasure, representing the five marks of Anglican mission. We will equip people in evangelism (‘tell’), we will deepen our prayer life and learning (‘teach’), we will promote and equip the variety of lay and ordained ministries to hear God’s call and selflessly respond in loving service (‘tend’), we will seek to address the growing inequalities in our society to become a safe church for all, embracing diversity and radical Christian inclusion (‘transform’) and we will work to ensure that ecological concerns are integral to our life together (‘treasure’). Each of the priorities is powered by a powerful imperative commitment – “we will”, comparable to Jesus’s words “do this”. We have the opportunity to make the commitment to God, to each other, to our communities, to our world and to ourselves.

The Revd Tim Yau (Bishop’s Appointee) asked how this vision meshed in with the vision of the National Church of England in the 2020s, a church where mixed ecology is the norm and where we are called to be a younger and more diverse church.

The Bishop of Norwich thanked Kandi Kammoun for her affirmation and theological reflection, and the Revd Tim Yau for his passion in getting behind the vision. There is no

8

disconnect between this vision and the emerging national vision, the latter being Jesus Christ-centred in a humbler, bolder and simpler way. The vision before you is a vision for this diocese over the next five years initially, with some resources to be made available from our existing teams to help churches live out the vision of being Jesus Christ-centred and Jesus Christ-focused.

The Chair concluded this item and asked Synod to approve the motion.

The result was as follows:

Proposer: Bishop of Norwich Seconder: Kandi Kammoun

In Favour 83 Against 0 Abstentions 3

7. AN UPDATE ON THE CHURCH PLANTING AND REVITALISATION PROGRAMME

The Archdeacon of Lynn gave a presentation on the Church Planting and Revitalisation (CPR) programme, a copy of which will be uploaded to our website at https://staff.diocesan.co.uk/comfiles/view?id=1. Alternatively, a hard copy can be provided upon request to Graham Cossey.

Referring to the presentation, The Revd Heather Wilcox (Depwade) queried why the pandemic had affected the programme when parish ministry had continued online.

The Archdeacon of Lynn replied that the CPR programme had for a short time furloughed some staff who were actively going into schools. A lot of work had however been done online as well as the replanning of the programme, although much of the work involved getting out into schools and the community, and thus had been curtailed.

Following the conclusion of this item the Chair was taken by Kandi Kammoun (Chair of the House of Laity).

8. AN UPDATE ON THE DEPLOYMENT REVIEW AND THE CENTRAL SERVICES REVIEW

The Bishop of Thetford commented that work on the deployment review currently consisted of conversations with specific deaneries and benefices. In the Thetford episcopal area places with vacancies and where retirements were happening have been prioritised, giving us the opportunity to look at new ways of working together. In the Lynn area the strategy has been to work with whole deaneries to come up with their plans. In both cases the energy is currently at the local level, with both clergy and PCCs making suggestions on new ways of working.

The Bishop of Norwich reminded Synod that he had commissioned Andy Brooke, former Diocesan Secretary of the Diocese of London, and Alan Cruickshank, formerly of the Central Strategy Unit, to undertake a review of our central services which took place in November,

9

December and January. This was entirely funded by the Church Commissioners, and sought to align the functions of our central services with the proposed new Diocesan Vision, to ensure that our parishes can flourish as well as reducing central expenditure due to the challenging financial situation that the Diocese is in. The report is complete and has been shared with the Senior Leadership Team of Directors, the Bishop’s Staff and with the Remuneration Committee. Much in the report is sensitive, and the report is being held by a small group, with decisions delegated to the Remuneration Committee by the DBF Executive.

We are looking to make savings across most of our central teams through budget and procurement savings, reorganisation, not replacing some posts, deciding that some are no longer required, and increasing income in different ways. Additional services may need to be provided, for example in safeguarding and bringing HR in house. DBF staff have been kept informed as we work through the recommendations, with advice taken as we go. This is led by Rosemary Pearce, supported by Susan Bunting, and they will report back regularly on progress. The Bishop of Norwich asked for the prayers of Synod, particularly for DBF staff during what is an unsettling and difficult time.

The Revd Peter Leech (Blofield) commented that the deployment review had three strands – reduction in clergy, buildings and investing in lay ministry, and asked what the timescale was for the buildings and lay ministry conversations.

The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Chair of the House of Clergy and Norwich South) said that his deanery synod was grateful to have seen the papers showing deprivation indices and other statistics, but he was concerned that some parishes involved in potential reorganisations had not seen the policy. He asked what was being done for all to have access to this information.

The Revd Martin Greenland (Blofield) asked where non-parochial clergy fell, whether under the Deployment Review or the Central Services Review.

The Bishop of Thetford agreed that the other strands were important to the deployment review. We have prioritised areas in or about to be in vacancy, although Bishop’s Staff has already started to discuss models of ministry. The buildings issue may take a little longer, however some work has been done on the terms of reference. Regarding information being provided to all, contact will be made with the Communications Team as the intention was that this should be provided on the website.

The Bishop of Norwich spoke of the complexity with some clergy posts, whereby non- parochial clergy could fit in to both reviews. There are also some parochial clergy who are on the DBF payroll, so there is work to do in unpicking this.

10

9. AN UPDATE ON DIOCESAN FINANCES

A presentation was given by the Director of Finance, a copy of which will be uploaded to our website at https://staff.diocesan.co.uk/comfiles/view?id=1. Alternatively, a hard copy can be provided upon request to Graham Cossey.

The Revd Dr Steven Sivyer (Great Yarmouth) asked whether the monthly Parish Share updates could include updates from parishes and benefices where the contribution was lower than could be expected.

Susan Martin (Dereham in Mitford) asked about the likely cost of redundancies under the Central Services Review.

Harry Verney (Heacham and Rising) asked what the stipend for an incumbent in the Diocese was.

Susan Bunting commented that she would be happy to provide some extra detail on her monthly report where helpful. Regarding redundancy costs, there are no figures available as yet as the recommendations are currently sitting with the Remunerations Committee. Not all of the recommendations are likely to be taken up, and a lot of thought is needed on restructuring. The current stipend is £27,000 but there are other costs to add on (pension, housing costs, training and so on).

Following the conclusion of this item the Chair was taken by the Revd Dr Patrick Richmond.

10. DIOCESAN AND GENERAL SYNOD ELECTIONS IN 2021

Stuart Jones (Diocesan Registrar) advised that Diocesan Synod elections will take place between 1st June and 15th July. If benefices had not elected their Deanery Synod lay representatives from 2020, then this needs to be done in this year’s cycle of APCMs. Names should be sent to Ben Tooke (Diocesan Finance Officer, [email protected]) who will be acting as the Diocesan Electoral Registration Officer. Diocesan Synod elections are run in each deanery, and it is important to have a competent list of electors ready for 1st June. There are three weeks for nominations to be invited and a further two weeks for the votes to be cast.

The deferred General Synod elections will take place later in the summer. The existing General Synod will be dissolved around 13th July and the list of qualified voters will be set at 6am on the day of dissolution, so again it is important that each deanery has a competent list of electors ready. There are four weeks for nominations from roughly the end of July, followed by a further week for candidates to send in their election address and a three- week period for voting. The results will be announced in the second or third week of October.

11

David Griffith (Thetford and Rockland) commented on the tight schedule and his experience in getting the nomination form completed. He asked whether there was some help available for this.

The Revd Charles Read (General Synod) informed Synod that in the forthcoming General Synod elections the number of clergy representatives for the Diocese has reduced from four to three. He advised that a small group were working on a means of encouraging people to stand for Synod elections at various levels, and the fruits of this would become apparent. We are also hoping to have hustings for General Synod this year.

Stuart Jones (Diocesan Registrar) advised that we would be encouraging people to make use of email for the Diocesan Synod elections, to enable nominations to be sent in as easily as possible. We will hope to enable everything to be done electronically for General Synod elections, using a system run by Civica.

Douglas Bain (Blofield) asked whether, as an ex-officio member of Diocesan Synod he could also apply to be elected. The Diocesan Registrar replied that was possible.

11. GENERAL SYNOD UPDATE

A report had been previously circulated from Caroline Herbert (General Synod Member).

12. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER 71

There were none.

13. PROMULGATION OF AMENDING CANON NOS 40 AND 41

The Interim Diocesan Secretary promulgated the following: -

“I give notice that, at its November 2020 group of sessions, held remotely, the General Synod resolved that Amending Canons Nos. 40 and 41 be made, promulged and executed.

Amending Canon No. 40 makes provision relating to religious communities and Amending Canon No. 41 makes miscellaneous amendments to the Canons.”

The Bishop of Norwich thanked Bill Husselby, the outgoing chair of the Norwich Diocesan Board of Finance, and introduced his successor, Mark Jeffries. Bill had been a member of the DBF for sixteen years, serving as Chair for the last eight years, and had done a huge amount to support the mission and ministry in the Diocese. He was thanked for his work as well as his care, compassion and kindness. Mark had been a National Senior Partner for Mills and Reeve and has a wealth of experience as a Non-Executive Director of various bodies.

12

The Bishop of Norwich also thanked Karen Hall as she entered retirement for her work not only with Diocesan Synod, but also on Statements of Particulars for clergy, Pastoral Schemes and patronage.

The Bishop of Norwich then brought Synod to a close with prayer.

Signed ………………………………………………..

Date ………………………………………………..

13