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 outline 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 best interests of the Church of England in building trust with survivors, clergy, Parliament, and the 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 would deter vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence. The amendment had not been debated.
But the Ecclesiastical Committee was in favour of its recommendation, believing this to be “an important point of principle that the Church should 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 in which the tribunal or court were satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to sit 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 recommendations would 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 constitution — hallelujah!” she said. A presumption in favour of public hearing applied in most other proceedings. But the person presiding would be able to make the hearing private “for good reason” — such as the hearing of vulnerable witnesses.
The Third Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Robert Buckland, spoke of “the important balance that has to be maintained between the devolved powers that General Synod enjoys and exercises vigorously and the need for there to be the scrutiny and surveyance by the democratically elect parliament. It would be far worse if powers had been devolved and then this institution was simply forgotten.”
The Committee’s decision, he said, was a reminder that “in the public arena parliamentarians are taking a very keen interest in the life and reputation of our Church.” The Committee had expressed disappointment that a full set of rules 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 rules had always been made by secondary legislation and this was a task for the Synod, whose position should not 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 their ministry and are supported in 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 at 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 should be heard in public. He was cautious, however, about a clause that “perpetuates one of the most 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 outcome which will create uncertainty, lack of clarity, and conflict in the clergy respondent.” The threat of having 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 not to attend, but he had not wanted to seem uncooperative.
“The experience was very horrendous,” he said. “If the clergy are going to engage 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 lack of independent oversight for Church of England National Services (CENS) — something that he had consistently raised concerns about. Parliament did not enact self-regulating legislation — a point made by the Committee. “The NCIs cannot legitimately oversee themselves, as happens at the moment.”
Karen Czapiewski (Gloucester) emphasised the principle of open justice.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) said that the default in other institutions was to hold tribunals in public. The amendment would give “quite a wide discretion” to the tribunal about exercising a private sitting, besides listing specific circumstances in which this would apply.
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) endorsed Mr Robbie’s comments. The CCM was “not yet perfect. . . People cannot sit back thinking this is safe.” There were hundreds of people who were respondents under the flawed Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) who still hoped that there would be redress for the suffering that they had endured.
The Southern Prolocutor, the Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), spoke in favour of “appropriate, helpful, and wise external scrutiny” exercised by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The rules and the guidelines must 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 in which it was satisfied that sitting in private was in the interests of justice or such circumstances as the rules 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 recommendation 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 would remain possible to ensure “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 rules, 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 private hearing. Had it been carried, the Ecclesiastical Committee might still have found fault.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) spoke of disciplinary hearings in a previous career and “the fear and pain that both sides . . . can sometimes bring and the distress that that can lead to”. Open justice was “a very good principle, but, like divine justice, the Church’s justice needs to 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 how to help vulnerable witnesses.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs), who is the Principal of Trinity College, Bristol, was against the amendment, but said that he would vote in favour anyway. It was important 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 aims of the CCM was to “introduce the possibility of more processes being like HR processes rather than criminal proceedings”. For many matters, it was “not automatically in the public interest for the proceedings to be in public and to treat clergy as if 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 important not to complete the business “without carefully acknowledging the consequential impact of it. Transparency of process is a laudable principle and one we are happy to support, but we must be mindful of the effect on all those involved. . . The media isn’t generally so interested in the misdemeanours of solicitors or accountants and many others, but it is so very quick to shine a spotlight on to any hint of a story involving clergy, and that impact is, of course, felt not just by complainants and respondents, but by their families, colleagues, parishes, and many more, more widely. If media reporting and social-media comment were contained to factual reporting of the final outcome of proceedings, that would be one thing. But the reality is so very different, as many in this chamber know to their cost.”
The amendment was carried.
Archbishop Mullally welcomed the amended Measure.
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester) returned to a point that he had attempted to make earlier about a lack 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 kind 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 other side of these complaints are people whose lives are affected, too.” Like clergy, these people often lived in the communities affected. Clergy might well be able to be represented by a lawyer provided by a union or insurance company, but the same might not 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