THE Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Sophie Jelley, who’s the lead bishop for lay ministries, introduced consideration on Friday afternoon of the National Ministry Register Regulations 2026.
A National Register of Clergy had been created, but now it was time to create a register for lay ministers, as originally beneficial by the Gibb report (News, 30 June 2017). This would cover deacons, licensed lay ministers (LLMs), Readers, and others working in Bishop’s Mission Orders.
Titles varied widely from diocese to diocese, Bishop Jelley said, but all of those licensed under the canons could be included, except those licensed in bespoke arrangements by the local bishop only. As with the clergy register, every diocesan bishop could be liable for collating information on lay ministers of their diocese and sending this to the Archbishops’ Council. This register is to be published online and available to everyone.
CHURCH HOUSE YOUTUBEThe Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Sophie Jelley
The biggest challenge could be ensuring that each diocesan record was complete. On rare occasions, there is perhaps safeguarding or other reasons to withhold some details about a minister from the register, the Bishop explained. She was also bringing some minor technical changes to the clergy register, which had already been launched.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) had long argued that lay ministers, including Readers akin to himself, needs to be held to the identical safeguarding standards because the clergy. He agreed that the priority must have been establishing a national register, as for clergy, and received “with great delight” the confirmation that one for lay ministers was following.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) recalled the 2017 Gibb report, in response to the Peter Ball scandal, which first had beneficial the national clergy register. He had experience of collating an analogous register for GPs within the NHS, and it had been “right and proper” to establish the clerical register before the lay one. He was unconvinced, nonetheless, by amendments to expand the remit of the lay ministers to be included on the register, because it was sometimes hard to discover those under authorised ministry quite than nationally licensed.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC (ex officio), backed the motion as each a lawyer and Reader. The register was hugely vital for safeguarding reasons, she argued: it had been unclear whether John Smyth’s being an authorised Reader had given him more authority than he actually had. Anyone contributing to the Church’s public ministry needs to be publicly identifiable, she said.
Dr Chris Angus (Carlisle) argued that churchwardens also exercised a type of lay ministry, often taking services in rural areas that lacked clergy.
Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth) wondered whether there have been any deaconesses left within the Church, who were specifically named within the regulations.
John Wilson (Lichfield) raised the difficulty of deanery or diocesan lay chairs, who, he said, were often hard to discover.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) was a Reader, but not held a licence, and asked why people like him weren’t to be included. He suggested that every one Readers who had ever been authorised should appear, even when their licences had since lapsed.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle), a lay-ministry development officer and Reader, urged the Synod to support the register to make sure greater clarity and safety. She lamented the massive number of practice across dioceses concerning local lay ministry, and argued that it was right not to incorporate all these on the national register yet.
Josile Munro (co-opted) asked whether pioneer ministers, who may very well be lay in her diocese, could be included on the register.
Bishop Jelley said that lay ministers were invaluable across the Church, but there was huge variety and complexity on this space. She hoped that this work could be a legacy to honour the victims and survivors of abusers akin to Ball and Smyth. She told Ms Docherty that the C of E didn’t actually understand how many deaconesses remained, and would discover this through the lay register’s establishment. To Ms Munro, she said that any lay pioneer who was an LLM would seem on the register.
A motion to think about the regulations was carried.
Clive Scowen (London) moved his amendments, which might expand the list of those included on the register. The underlying rationale for the register was that anyone holding themselves out as authorised by the Church for ministry may very well be verified. Some lay ministry was authorised on a neighborhood, even undocumented, basis, but, in recent many years, quite a lot of ministries had grown that were authorised in writing by bishops, along with the canonical categories of deaconess, lay employee, and Reader, he said. These went by many names, but this didn’t need to be an issue if the category may very well be identified on the register. He subsequently argued that anyone authorised in writing, by a bishop, was “readily definable” — all competent bishops’ offices must have a record of those to whom they’ve given authority to minister, he said. He saw no reason why a ministry needed to be nationally recognised or recognised in law to count for the register.
Bishop Jelley disagreed with the amendment. There was not a shared understanding across dioceses of what it meant to be an authorised lay minister, she said, and if members of the general public were to ascertain this register, it could probably cause more confusion than clarity. She welcomed the chance to report back to the Synod on this particular matter, nonetheless.
The Revd Charlie Skrine (London) said that the clergy register was a “incredible thing”, because the lay register could be, but he couldn’t support Mr Scowen’s amendment, and didn’t see the equivalent practical have to register individuals who held only local and informal authorisation. “This will make it so broad as to be unworkable.”
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) agreed that the amendment was too vague to be workable. “Safeguarding is determined by clarity; this introduces ambiguity.” Trying to cover all local and informal positions would create excessive administrative burdens, she said. There were about 2000 distinct titles inside lay ministry, covering about 40 posts, a previous data exercise had found. “If we broaden the scope of this, then 42 dioceses will make 42 interpretations,” she warned.
Canon Andrew Dotchin (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) wondered whether a churchwarden could be covered under the amendment.
Responding, Mr Scowen accepted Mr Skrine’s argument that the risks of an LLM arriving at an unknown parish demanding to be recognised were small. But, it was more plausible that they might attempt to pass off the bishop’s authority at a non-church institution, he said. He denied that his amendment would create excessive ambiguity, but accepted that he had not persuaded the Synod; so attempted to withdraw the amendment.
This was too late, nonetheless. The amendment was lost.
Bishop Jelley moved that the regulations be approved, telling Mr Scowen that she desired to work with him to be sure that they might see “more lay ministers practising safely”.
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) said that each member of each congregation had a ministry. “For the entire body to flourish, we want every member to flourish of their particular ministry.” It could be impractical to have every body within the C of E on the lay register, he said, and praised the balance struck under the regulations.
Sam Wilson (Chester) emphasised the importance of safeguarding, and asked whether Bishop Jelley and her team had checked out expanding the register to cover children, youth, and family ministers.
Bob Chambers (Chichester) also recognised the safeguarding concerns, and emphasised that legal and operational complexities weren’t a sufficient impediment to justify not providing the best possible standards of safeguarding. “Efforts will proceed to explore how we are able to most appropriately be sure that those that are authorised in whatever form, at whatever level, carry that authorisation in such a way that it can’t be misconstrued or misapplied in such a way that it would cause others harm.”
The motion to think about the regulations was carried.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
