THE draft Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM), designed to herald a recent system for clergy discipline, received final approval on the Wednesday afternoon.
Before the controversy, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, in her position as a Privy Councillor, assured the Synod that the King was content with the draft Measure, on condition that it impinged on some royal prerogatives.
The Revd Kate Wharton (Liverpool), a member of the steering committee, began by paying tribute to the late Geoffrey Tattersall, a Synod and committee member who died last month (News, 10 January).
Special amendments were needed, she continued, to resolve issues regarding clergy serving in Royal Peculiars. There were further changes related to clergy with spent criminal convictions.
The Synod took note of the report, and moved on to special amendments.
Ms Wharton explained that, after extensive consultation with the Royal Household and the Deans of Westminster and Windsor, the draft Measure would bring clergy serving in Royal Peculiars throughout the disciplinary structures for allegations of great misconduct, but not for grievances or non-serious misconduct. If removal from office was the penalty in any such case, it will must be confirmed by the King first.
Bishop Mullally, as Dean of the Chapels Royal, thanked the committee for working to be sure that the “privileges and interests of His Majesty were preserved”, while still improving transparency and accountability for clergy affected.
The amendments were carried.
Ms Wharton then moved an amendment to supply for including a cleric’s name on a national list after a criminal conviction. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act meant that some convictions became “spent” after a specific amount of time. This amendment would allow work to be done on this matter and brought back to the Synod later for approval.
The amendment was carried, as was one other technical amendment that finalised the brand new rules already agreed for Royal Peculiars.
The Synod then moved on to the final-approval stage for the draft Measure. Ms Wharton said that the laws seemed more vital today than when it began its journey, two years earlier. Discipline was all the time controversial by its very nature, she said, especially as clergy “on the coalface of parish ministry” were vulnerable.
“The system have to be fair and proportionate,” she said, and people principles had been baked into the Measure; the foundations attributable to be debated by the Synod in July would give the Measure a flexibility that the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) lacked.
The CCM’s core principle lay in dividing complaints into three pathways, depending on the severity of the allegations. There can be streamlining of bureaucracy, the abolition of the 12-month time-limit for complaints of great misconduct, the mixing of safeguarding professionals into the method, higher protection against vexatious complaints, and more information-sharing between dioceses and provinces. Deposition from Holy Orders had been reintroduced for probably the most serious offences.
Some vital things weren’t covered within the CCM, she said, similar to disciplining the laity, but she urged the Synod to provide the Measure final approval, anyway. “To say we’d like to implement these reforms looks like an understatement in light of recent events,” Ms Wharton concluded. “The current system is sick, and we’d like a healthier one to take us forward.”
The Archbishop of York said that the CCM had been a protracted time coming, but he was delighted that the Church had finally come to the brink of change. The CCM would help the C of E to construct a “significantly better future”, he said, referring to frustration with the CDM. He particularly praised the Vicar-General of York, the Rt Worshipful Peter Collier KC, who, he said, had delayed his overdue retirement to shepherd these proposals through.
Archbishop Cottrell welcomed the reforms related to tackling vexatious complaints and the centralised investigation of great misconduct, in addition to the implementation of recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. “This measure is a vitally vital constructing block in getting our processes fit for purpose,” he concluded.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds) strongly supported the CCM, at the same time as a lay person. It was vital for the laity to trust that their clergy worked inside an up-to-date conduct system, she said.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that the Prolocutors had gathered an ad-hoc group to organize guidance for what rules clergy should live by. This would now be formalised and brought back to the Synod in July. He asked members to support the Measure and the revision of guidelines for conduct of the clergy, which were included. “This is about, at root, a rule of life — a faculty of obedience to God’s will.”
Amanda Robbie (Lichfield) said that her husband was one in all the clergy who had been affected by vexatious complaints. Some priests had spent hundreds of kilos defending themselves, she said, and her husband had suffered from lifelong health issues due to the stress endured. She praised the brand new rules on vexatious complainants, and urged members to maintain engaged on drafting the foundations and code of conduct when these returned in July.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, said that the CCM would help the Church to revive its trust in society. The Measure opened the best way for all diocesan chancellors to play a component in tribunals, she said, and training was under approach to prepare them for this.
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, also welcomed the measure, but asked who was liable for ensuring that there have been the proper variety of assessors and panels, and keeping all the things under review. Could there be multiple Deputy President of Tribunals, as an illustration, to be sure that there have been no delays or backlogs?
The Revd Shaun Morris (Lichfield) backed the motion, but raised concerns in regards to the support offered to a cleric subject to a criticism. There needed to be someone alongside respondents with expertise in the method, he said, in addition to a “pastoral heart”. He also raised the issue of clergy being unable to pay for independent legal advice, and asked whether legal aid may very well be built into the code of practice.
Rebecca Hunt (Portsmouth) said that her colleagues on the Christian Legal Centre had defended several clergy who had faced abusive proceedings under the CDM, by which the difficulty had actually been a pastoral breakdown or theological differences. Many were left traumatised and stressed by the experience; so she welcomed the reforms. She particularly praised the brand new grievance track to maintain more minor matters out of tribunals, referring to at least one case of a vicar who was the topic of a CDM criticism for not visiting a parishioner in hospital.
Helen Lamb (Oxford) had been encouraged to see the Church wake as much as its HR responsibilities lately, but warned members that HR procedures didn’t neatly map on to the C of E’s structures. Every church was a “hospital for sinners”, she said; so it needs to be no surprise when things went flawed. She urged everyone to maintain a way of pastoral care and graciousness quite than all the time move to formal disciplinary proceedings.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that the excellence between misconduct and serious misconduct made an enormous difference to possible sanctions and the procedures for resolving complaints. Currently, no definition was given within the Measure for this distinction, which was attributable to are available the foundations.
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury), said that the diocese of Canterbury was highly depending on retired clergy, and asked what financial support was offered to them once they were the topic of complaints.
The Archdeacon of Ashford, the Ven. Darren Miller (Canterbury), said that, as an archdeacon, he had managed to move off possible CDM complaints before they reached the tribunal. But, when some reluctantly needed to go forward in his name, he found this tough, as he desired to be a pastor to the respondent, but needed to put that aside. He asked whether the foundations of the CCM were flexible enough to be modified in the long run when, inevitably, circumstances demanded that they have to be.
Final approval was given in all three Houses: Bishops 25-0; Clergy 128-0, with one recorded abstention; Laity 145-0, with two recorded abstentions.
