THE Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM) returned to the General Synod on the Tuesday morning. Given the Synod’s final approval in February 2025, it had then been deemed “not expedient” by the parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee in October.
Beginning his introduction with an overview of the constitutional settlement, the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, who chairs the Legislative Committee, said that the Ecclesiastical Committee had “sought to act in the most effective interests of the Church of England in constructing trust with survivors, clergy, Parliament, and the general public at large”.
The Committee’s principal concern was a clause providing that a court or tribunal sit in private unless certain exemptions applied. An amendment, brought by Clive Scowen in 2024, in favour of sitting in public by default had been resisted by the steering committee on the grounds that it will deter vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence. The amendment had not been debated.
But the Ecclesiastical Committee was in favour of its suggestion, believing this to be “a vital point of principle that the Church must be seen to be as transparent as possible and to regain the trust of the nation at large and that of Parliament”. If the Synod voted for the reintroduction of the Measure, Dr Warner would bring an amendment providing for meeting in public “except in circumstances through which the tribunal or court were satisfied that it’s within the interests of justice to sit down in private”.
The Legislative Committee had concluded that the three other concerns raised by the Ecclesiastical Committee were secondary, and no other amendments were required.
Dr Warner provided an update on the National Church Governance Measure, also deemed not expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. Further “very fruitful” discussions had taken place, and suggestions could be brought by the Legislative Committee to the Synod in July.
The Dean of the Arches, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis, spoke in support of the Measure’s reintroduction. “Open justice is a fundamental principle of our unwritten structure — hallelujah!” she said. A presumption in favour of public hearing applied in most other proceedings. But the person presiding would give you the option to make the hearing private “for good reason” — equivalent to the hearing of vulnerable witnesses.
The Third Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Robert Buckland, spoke of “the essential balance that must be maintained between the devolved powers that General Synod enjoys and exercises vigorously and the necessity for there to be the scrutiny and surveyance by the democratically elect parliament. It could be far worse if powers had been devolved after which this institution was simply forgotten.”
The Committee’s decision, he said, was a reminder that “in the general public arena parliamentarians are taking a really keen interest within the life and fame of our Church.” The Committee had expressed disappointment that a full algorithm had not been given to them before the production of their report. An “indicative set” had been supplied — about 75 per cent complete — but the foundations had at all times been made by secondary laws and this was a task for the Synod, whose position mustn’t be usurped.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesClive Scowen (London)
The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the shift to public hearings. Other “vital” work was under way, including “steps towards accountability and assurance that clergy are fit for his or her ministry and are supported of their ministry”.
The Chair of the House of Laity, Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), speaking of the history of the CCM, said that it was a “pity” that Mr Scowen’s amendment had not been debated on the time.
As a respondent who had had complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) dismissed, the Revd Neil Robbie (Lichfield) had taken part in early consultations on the CCM. He had argued that hearings must be heard in public. He was cautious, nonetheless, a couple of clause that “perpetuates some of the damaging CDM practices”.
The designated person handling a grievance would wear two hats: those of investigator and mediator. “This dual role creates a conflict of end result which is able to create uncertainty, lack of clarity, and conflict within the clergy respondent.” The threat of getting any evidence escalated back towards misconduct left the clergy respondent in a “tensioned place”. He had been called to a “extrajudicial meeting” for “a free-flowing conversation to magnify my barrister’s rebuttal of a diocesan registrar’s charges against me”. His barrister had advised him to not attend, but he had not wanted to appear uncooperative.
“The experience was very horrendous,” he said. “If the clergy are going to have interaction without fear in a process to resolve a grievance, then the delegated person cannot have conflicting goals.”
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) spoke of the National Church Governance Measure, which, he said, had received a “scathing” response from the Ecclesiastical Committee. The common theme was the dearth of independent oversight for Church of England National Services (CENS) — something that he had consistently raised concerns about. Parliament didn’t enact self-regulating laws — some extent made by the Committee. “The NCIs cannot legitimately oversee themselves, as happens in the mean time.”
Karen Czapiewski (Gloucester) emphasised the principle of open justice.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) said that the default in other institutions was to carry tribunals in public. The amendment would give “quite a large discretion” to the tribunal about exercising a non-public sitting, besides listing specific circumstances through which this might apply.
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) endorsed Mr Robbie’s comments. The CCM was “not yet perfect. . . People cannot sit back pondering that is secure.” There were tons of of people that were respondents under the flawed Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) who still hoped that there could be redress for the suffering that that they had endured.
The Southern Prolocutor, the Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), spoke in favour of “appropriate, helpful, and sensible external scrutiny” exercised by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The rules and the rules should be “well and properly brought forward”. Without trust, he warned, “the gospel is inhibited.”
The Synod agreed to reintroduce the Measure.
Dr Warner then moved the amendment providing that a tribunal or court sit in public, except in circumstances through which it was satisfied that sitting in private was within the interests of justice or such circumstances as the foundations may specify.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Prolocutor of the Lower House of the Convocation of York, Canon Kate Wharton (Liverpool)
The Northern Prolocutor, Canon Kate Wharton (Liverpool), referred to her work chairing the steering committee on the CCM. Its suggestion had been a default that hearings be heard in private. She had already apologised to Mr Scowen, she said, and now expressed support for the change, saying that it will remain possible to make sure “safety for all those involved”.
Carl Fender (Lincoln), a lawyer, said that the courts and tribunals had a “whole raft of arrangements to them to mitigate the impact of a victim having to face, eyeball to eyeball, their alleged abuser”. There were screens, the appointment of advocates, separate waiting rooms, and anonymity orders. These options could appear in the foundations, he said.
Clive Scowen (London) sought to correct the summation of his original amendment, which, he said, had been “far too timid”. It had reversed the presumption but kept a right for the respondent to insist on a non-public hearing. Had it been carried, the Ecclesiastical Committee might still have found fault.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) spoke of disciplinary hearings in a previous profession and “the fear and pain that either side . . . can sometimes bring and the distress that that may result in”. Open justice was “a excellent principle, but, like divine justice, the Church’s justice must be exercised with compassion and mercy as well.” The amendment was “quite blunt”, he said, and participants might need protection from “public scrutiny of their suffering”.
Ms Ellis spoke of the training that judges were undergoing, which included the way to help vulnerable witnesses.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs), who’s the Principal of Trinity College, Bristol, was against the amendment, but said that he would vote in favour anyway. It was essential to have on record why the Measure had initially had a presumption of hearings in private, he said, referring to the “traumatic impact” on clergy of the CDM and of the trauma of victims and survivors. One of the goals of the CCM was to “introduce the potential of more processes being like HR processes somewhat than criminal proceedings”. For many matters, it was “not mechanically in the general public interest for the proceedings to be in public and to treat clergy as in the event that they are almost being tried for something of a criminal matter”.
Aiden Hargreaves-Smith (London), a lawyer, spoke in favour of the proposals but said that it was essential not to finish the business “without fastidiously acknowledging the consequential impact of it. Transparency of process is a laudable principle and one we’re comfortable to support, but we should be mindful of the effect on all those involved. . . The media isn’t generally so excited by the misdemeanours of solicitors or accountants and lots of others, but it surely is so very quick to shine a highlight on to any hint of a story involving clergy, and that impact is, after all, felt not only by complainants and respondents, but by their families, colleagues, parishes, and lots of more, more widely. If media reporting and social-media comment were contained to factual reporting of the ultimate end result of proceedings, that will be one thing. But the fact is so very different, as many on this chamber know to their cost.”
The amendment was carried.
Archbishop Mullally welcomed the amended Measure.
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester) returned to some extent that he had attempted to make earlier about a scarcity of automatic formal provision of legal advice or provision for clergy respondents. In many other professions — including his own medical field — it was “absolutely mandatory to have some type of legal insurance cover”.
Ruth Abernethy (Guernsey) “begged” the Synod to be mindful of its language. While it was right to be mindful of the impact on clergy who were accused, “on the opposite side of those complaints are people whose lives are affected, too.” Like clergy, these people often lived within the communities affected. Clergy might well give you the option to be represented by a lawyer provided by a union or insurance company, but the identical won’t be true for the complainant.
Final approval was given, nem. con: Bishops 21; Clergy 142, with three recorded abstentions; Laity 149.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
 returned to the General Synod on the Tuesday morning. Given the Synod’s final approval in February 2025, it had then...){kind=link}