THE question whether clergy should become employees could be asked this year, the Archbishop of York has said, on his first day holding the primatial functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In an “Epiphany letter” sent on Monday to all clergy, lay ministers, and congregations in the Church of England, Archbishop Cottrell writes first of the need to “become a safer and more accountable church”.
“The events of recent weeks, particularly the publication of the Makin Review, have sometimes felt as though we have been separated from the light and hope of Christ,” he wrote. “Reading reports of abuse, cover-ups, and institutional failure, we are confronted with a darkness that has harmed so many. To those who have been hurt, I offer my deepest apologies.”
Paying tribute to the work of parish safeguarding officers, safeguarding employees, clergy, and volunteers, he suggested that “significant progress” had been made.
“However, there is still more to do in order for us to become a safer and more accountable church, and for our processes to be trusted. Whether it is my decisions that are called into question or anyone’s within the church, our safeguarding practices must be subject to independent oversight and scrutiny.”
The letter goes on to mention “other things to consider this year. We must attend to issues around clergy well-being and do all that we can to increase the stipend level. It may also be the time to look again at clergy terms of service to increase accountability (including that of bishops) and possibly ask the question as to whether clergy should become employees.”
This question has already been raised in public discourse in recent weeks in connection with matters of safeguarding, clergy discipline, and the challenges of removing clergy from office. Last month, Archbishop Cottrell said that, in the case of David Tudor, who had served in the diocese of Chelmsford subject to safeguarding restrictions that prevented his being alone with a child, and had been banned for ministry for five years in 1989 for sexual misconduct, there had been “no legal grounds to take alternative action” until a new arrest was made in 2019 (News, 20 December 2024).
In August, the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, suggested that clergy should become employees of the diocesan board of finance, “with all the transparency and mutual accountability that offers” (News, 23 August 2024). This followed the case of Canon Andrew Hindley, who was paid a six-figure sum by the diocese after challenging a move to force him to retire (News, 14 August 2024). He had been assessed as a risk to children and young people, and was the subject of five police investigations and several suspensions. Because Canon Hindley held office under freehold, he could be removed only under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM); the BBC has reported that several attempts were made to bring a case.
“There are many misperceptions that employee status would bring negative restrictions,” Bishop North wrote in his blog in August. “As a priest who has been an employee (during which time I felt the strongest sense of support and security I have known in three decades of ministry) I believe that there are ways in which clergy can enjoy the same freedoms in ministry they have now whilst also enjoying the protections of employee status. An advantage of this way ahead is that most disciplinary matters would be settled through an HR process rather than through long and clumsy legal procedures.”
Office-holders (including most stipendiary and self-supporting parish clergy, and some chaplains who do not have a contract of employment or earn a salary) make up the single largest category among the clergy, although there are contractual elements to ministry under common tenure — the tenure on which all office-holders have been appointed since 31 January 2011.
Church House guidance on common tenure notes that “the great majority of office holders may remain in a particular post until they resign or retire”. They can be removed from office only through discipline or capability procedures, or the operation of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011.
The guidance lists a number of rights accrued to clergy office-holders, including the right of appeal to an employment tribunal if removed from office on grounds of capability. But it also notes that there is “no resort to an employment tribunal if an office-holder is dissatisfied at the end of a grievance procedure”.
Office-holder status has been subject to legal challenge in recent years. In 2023, an employment judge ruled that a former curate in training, David Green, while not an employee, was a “worker”, and that his case against Lichfield diocese could be brought to an employment tribunal (News, 18 August 2023). In 2020, a judge considering Dr Martyn Percy’s case against Christ Church, Oxford, where he was Dean, ruled that “an office holder can be in an employment relationship with an alleged employer”, and that his case could proceed (News, 6 October 2020).
In 2015, the Court of Appeal rejected claims from Unite that beneficed clergy with freehold should be treated as employees or workers, in the case of the Revd Mark Sharpe, who resigned from his post as Rector of Teme Valley South in 2009, claiming that he was bullied by his parishioners and hounded out of office (News, 8 May 2015).
In the early 2000s, the Archbishops’ Council was “attracted” to the idea of clergy as employees, according to a law professor charged with reviewing the terms under which clergy hold office. Professor David McClean told a fringe meeting at General Synod in 2006 that “better counsels prevailed” (News, 14 July 2006).
His review group was set up after a consultation by the Department of Trade Industry in 2002 on the employment status of “atypical workers”. The New Labour government had expressed concern that clergy lacked the employment rights provided by employment law, and noted that it had the power, under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act (1999), to extend employment rights to the clergy.
In 2003, most (5500) clergy held freehold, more than 1000 clergy had contracts, and the remaining 3500 — a growing number — had neither, operating instead under a bishop’s licence, which could be revoked at any time, and had to be renewed by the diocesan bishop every seven years. Parliament’s attention was drawn to the case of the Revd Ray Owen, who in 1999 began a three-year dispute with the diocese of Lichfield, after his seven-year term was not extended. He was supported by the trade union Amicus. The case was settled out of court in 2002, and was estimated to have cost the diocese £100,000 (News, 22 November 2002).
The McClean review group report, published in 2004, went beyond considering the employment rights of clergy without freehold or contract, to recommend replacing freehold with a common-tenure model, with clergy currently enjoying freehold given the opportunity to opt in. It also introduced a new “capability procedure”, under which clergy could be removed — a move that caused considerable concern. The aim was to create “new rights as well as clearer responsibilities”, with an obligation to take part in ministerial development review (MDR) one of the results.
The review proposed that all clergy would have access to the Government’s section 23 rights in the Employment Relations Act (1999) — interpreted for the Church and approved by General Synod — including the right to time off, maternity and parental leave, a detailed pay statement, a statement of terms and conditions of service, and the right to apply to an employment tribunal in case of a breach of those rights.
The report — subject to intense debate — gave rise to the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure, which received Royal Assent in 2009. Professor McClean said in 2006 that there had been “a great struggle until we retained the idea of office-holders”.
Aidan Hargreaves-Smith, an expert in ecclesiastical law, warned that, moving to employment would “risk changing our understanding of the nature of the priesthood” (Comment, 24 January 2003). “The Church of England maintains that the fundamental basis for ordination is vocation. Moreover, an incumbent exercises a priestly ministry in a parish in response to a call from God, not because of the terms of an employment contract. The distinction goes to the very heart of priesthood.” It would “bring those called by God to serve his Church into a modem employment culture in which the language of individual rights takes over from that of corporately understood responsibilities”.
In recent years, questions about clergy terms of service have been prompted by concerns about well-being. In May, the Revd Sam Maginnis, who chairs the Church of England Clergy and Employee Advocates (CEECA), part of Unite the Union’s Faithworkers’ Branch, warned that the status of the clergy as office-holders “must not be used to place increasing demands and expectations on clergy without offering reciprocal support structures and accountability of those making the demands” (News, 31 May 2024). CEECA has played a key part in calling for increases to clergy stipends (News, 31 May 2024).
Last year, the General Synod asked the Archbishops’ Council, Pensions Board, and Church Commissioners, to “work together with dioceses to explore ways in which the level of clergy pensions and stipends might be improved in a sustainable manner” (News, 1 March 2024).
Archbishop Cottrell’s Epiphany letter begins with an invitation to “look to the future with great hopefulness in Christ” and an expression of “deep gratitude for your faithfulness”. It sets out an invitation to “reflect deeply on what we expect from an Archbishop of Canterbury”.
On the matter of Living in Love and Faith, the Archbishop says that, as the Church considers the introduction of “bespoke services” for the Prayers of Love and Faith, there must be “provision for those who cannot support these developments”, including “delegated episcopal ministry”. But he warns that, “since the Makin Review itself warns how tribalism can endanger accountability and make oversight more difficult, we must not do this in a way that further breaks the Body of Christ”.
In recent weeks, the Archbishop has faced calls to resign over his handling of the case of David Tudor, during his time as Bishop of Chelmsford. His letter acknowledges that “some people have concerns”, but continues, “aware of my own needs and shortcomings I pledge myself to learn, and I pledge myself to do what I can to steer through the change we need on these important issues and to hold myself accountable, both to the processes we have at the moment and to the new ones we will introduce.”
It concludes: “Let us commit ourselves to becoming a Church that looks and sounds like Jesus: penitent, kind, and in tune with the will and purposes of God, the safer and more accountable Church I believe we are called to be.”