I WAS watching the live stream of the General Synod in July. That might make me sound a bit of a church-politics nerd, but questions about clergy retirement housing were being addressed (Synod, 12 July), and I am the chair of CHARMERS, the independent fellowship of residents in Pensions Board housing.

My jaw dropped at one point as the chair of the Pensions Board, Clive Mathers, was speaking about the processes in place for those who need to take early retirement owing to health issues. It all sounded wonderful. He described an approach that ensured that sick clergy were supported at every stage, and said that there was conscientious communication between the housing team and individual dioceses.

I wondered whether he believed that these processes were genuinely being followed, or was simply ensuring that the Synod thought that they were. I have yet to encounter a single circumstance in which this has been the case. I believe that things could be improved quite easily; later, I will offer some suggestions.

FIRST, I will go back to the start: my own experience of early retirement. In 2017, I retired at the age of 56 because of a degenerative health issue. My initial experience of the process of acquiring Pensions Board housing was not good. I was losing everything: my home, ministry, community, and income. I had hoped to experience the same level of compassion as was expected of me in my everyday ministry.

I turned, distressed and fearful, to my bishop, Dr John Inge. His intervention changed everything. Within a couple of weeks, Cath Porter, then head of housing, was sitting in my living room and sorting out the problem. I now have a lovely home adapted for my needs, which I was fully involved in choosing and adapting.

When the work on my new home took longer than expected, and I had retired from my post, my diocese simply provided me with a licence to live in the vicarage without asking for any rent. During the time that I was on sick leave, and until I moved into the house, my bishop visited me several times and offered me the pastoral support that I needed. He put me in touch with another priest who had recently experienced ill-health retirement, for moral support. A local retired priest brought me communion every week for 18 months. I was held in the embrace of the Church at my darkest time.

If only this were the experience of others who find themselves in the same situation; but it is not. The retired priest who supported me had retired when he had three dependent children, and was told that he could have only a two-bedroom house because two of them were at university. He had to fight for a house to accommodate the whole family.

I hoped that things had changed; but, recently, a priest with two teenage children and an adult disabled child was told that he could not have a four-bedroom house; no meaningful explanation was given, other than that this was policy. His adult child had to be placed in supported accommodation; a week later, she was attacked by another resident. I was appalled to know that our Church had separated a family in this way.

When you are sick, the approach of those given the task of supporting you is crucial. Yet the housing team is still getting it wrong, seven years after my bishop intervened, and a lack of pastoral sensitivity is resulting in further suffering.

One retired person was repeatedly given conflicting information by two housing officers; the stress was further impacting his health, and I had to ask a senior member of staff to intervene twice. Repeated poor engagement suggests that there is a training need here, and it would be good to involve early-retired clergy in its provision. Better still would be to have specially trained officers to handle these cases, leaving others to continue their normal retirement-housing work.

DIOCESES are also inconsistent in their pastoral support. Some bishops never visit long-term sick clergy; others consider it part of their pastoral duty. Since the adaptation of houses for the sick and disabled frequently overruns, clergy often need to remain in vicarages after retirement, and then a serious issue about charging rents arises. Some expect to be paid a full market rent, while others ask clergy to pay the equivalent of their Pensions Board rent.

The actual policy, according to Ms Porter, now head of Customer Service and Transformation, is that the Board pays the diocese the equivalent of its rental price, and the cleric pays nothing. What is needed is a clear communication of policy through the House of Bishops and the communication of good practice between the dioceses.

In all of this, it is vital to acknowledge that the housing team is so poorly funded that it is unrealistic to expect it to perform consistently to the highest standard. The service is funded on significant debt, in the form of bonds used to buy the properties.

In 2023, the Archbishops’ Council agreed a grant of £9 million, which was used to reschedule this debt (News, 13 October 2023). Its only other funding comes from an annual approach to the Synod for a grant from the Church Commissioners. In 2024, this was £6.1 million, which is expected to cover all costs, including staff and maintenance contracts. Were the Commissioners to fund Pensions Board retirement housing adequately, the team would be able to serve sick clergy in early retirement better.

The Revd Dr Eva McIntyre is chair of CHARMERS, the independent fellowship of residents in Pensions Board housing.