Under legislation expected to receive Parliamentary approval and Royal assent this summer, a national body will be given sweeping powers to recommend the closure or reorganisation of dioceses and the scrapping of suffragan or assistant bishop posts.

The legislation was initially drawn up three years ago, partly in response to criticism that the Church was becoming increasingly top-heavy, stifling grass-roots growth.

With many parts of the Church shedding staff -- and the numbers of stipendiary clergy shrinking at a rate of about 100 a year -- critics have long complained that dioceses and episcopal posts appear almost immune from such cuts.

This is primarily because the only people who can permit them are the bishops themselves -- the ecclesiastical equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas.

The newly-constituted Dioceses Commission will, however, be able to initiate reforms, though the final decision will be left in the hands of the General Synod.

In some cases, the body will be able to freeze the appointment of a new bishop until the viability of the post had been investigated.

It could even, in theory, recommend the creation of new dioceses, perhaps by dividing up larger ones, or create new suffragan bishoprics to serve more than one diocese.

Most of the pressure will be towards simplification, however.

Critics point out the each of the 44 dioceses has its own costly bureaucracy that often duplicates the work of its neighbours.

Though many are already combining posts, a number of them could be merged or scrapped to free up more cash for urgently needed mission initiatives.

Moreover, as churchgoing has declined and full-time clergy are in ever shorter supply, the number of suffragans and area bishops has increased.

There is a widespread view that there are too many dioceses in the north of England and smaller areas such as Portsmouth might also be vulnerable.

How will the bishops react to such proposals? They are likely to regard such radical cuts as welcome as a hole in the head.

It would, after all, be unnatural if they were not fiercely protective of their patches.

They are currently undergoing a bout of navel gazing about what it means to be a bishop, an activity that, it seems, has been inelegantly dubbed "bishopping".

Various working parties have been set up to produce reams of papers on what it means to be a bishop in the modern world.

Many of the bishops feel that their roles are so tied up with Synodical bureaucracy and red tape that they have lost sight of their real purpose, enthusing the Church.

They are even proposing to hold an annual collective residential meeting over three nights to debate the big issues at leisure, and renew their increasingly fragile sense of collegiality.

Many want to see their roles transformed from managers of genteel decline into the new, fearless cutting edge of the Church's fight for survival.

The logical conclusion of such thoughts may be that the bishops, far from contracting, should be reinforced.

Such proposals are unlikely, however, to find favour with the large conservative grouping within the General Synod that has lost faith in the leadership of the episcopate.

The conservatives were deeply disappointed by what they saw as the bishops' lacklustre performance over the Sexual Orientation Regulations, with only a handful of them turning up to vote in the House of Lords.

Privately bishops argue that had they opposed the Government over this issue, they would have handed Labour critics further ammunition to exclude them from a reformed House of Lords.

But such explanations fail to assuage the suspicions of conservatives that they are more interested in placating liberals than strenuously upholding official Church policy.

Without any signs that the bishops are prepared to offer firmer leadership, this grouping, at least, is unlikely to be sympathetic to arguments for the creation of yet more of them.

---Jonathan Petre is the religious affairs correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and a regular contributor to The Church of England Newspaper