RULES accompanying the new Clergy Conduct Measure will come before General Synod next month. This follows a vote in the House of Lords on Wednesday to send the Measure to the King for Royal Assent.

Notes accompanying the Rules state that the “overriding objective” at their core, “mandates that all complaints must be dealt with justly, fairly, expeditiously, and proportionately, alongside a strict duty for all parties to co-operate with the proceedings”.

A report from the Clergy Discipline Commission, also published last week, records a “significant increase” in the number of cases being referred for formal investigation — from 12 in 2024 to 25. In 2025, 119 allegations of misconduct were made under the Measure against priests or deacons, compared to 71 in 2024.

The Commission expresses concern about “difficulties in convening a tribunal panel and finding dates and venues for hearings” and “the lack of attention” by some diocesan bishops to their nominees to the York or Canterbury Provincial Panels. It was also concerned by the length of time it took once a decision had been made to refer an allegation to a disciplinary tribunal panel for a hearing to take place.

The new rules do not stipulate a timeframe in which a hearing must be held, but they do include deadlines for the various stages of a complaint. For example, the lead assessor tasked with deciding whether a complaint should be allocated as a grievance, complaint of misconduct or complaint of serious misconduct must do so within 14 days.

They also set out a list of 14 powers the Chair of a tribunal or court may exercise on hearing a complaint, which are designed to ensure more robust case management. These include “a general power to take any step, or make any other order, for the purpose of managing the proceedings in accordance with the overriding objective”.

For complaints of misconduct, the lead assessor may give permission for the complaint to proceed outside of the 12-month limitation period, “where the assessor is satisfied that there was a good reason for not bringing the complaint within time”. A Code of Practice, which will be set before General Synod at a later date, will give examples of what constitutes a “good reason”.

The Measure itself entailed the abolition of the one-year limitation period for allegations of serious misconduct.

Under the new rules, the President of Tribunals may order that a diocesan safeguarding officer, the national director of safeguarding, or a member of the national safeguarding team become a party to a complaint “where satisfied that an issue relating to the safeguarding of a child or vulnerable adult arises in the complaint”.

Another rule protects vulnerable witnesses, by prohibiting respondents from personally cross-examining them in certain cases, such as those involving alleged sexual misconduct.

The CCM was presented in the House of Lords last week by the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, who was a member of the committee which drafted the rules. He told peers that “by triaging cases effectively from the outset, the Measure seeks to ensure that every complaint is handled appropriately and at the right level of seriousness. Crucially, this will, we believe, lead to a much quicker process.”

Data set out in the Clergy Discipline Commission’s report indicates that most of the allegations made in 2025 — 60 per cent — were made by complainants who were not archdeacons, churchwardens or persons nominated by a PCC. It is assumed, the report says, “that most of these ‘other’ complainants were safeguarding professionals”.

One quarter (26 per cent) of allegations were dismissed by bishops in 2025. No further action was taken by bishops in 20 per cent of cases. Eleven cases were referred to a bishop’s disciplinary tribunal. There were no complaints referred by diocesan bishops to conciliation in 2025, and the report says that the Commission “continues to be extremely concerned” by this “underuse”.

There were 15 new suspensions — up from four the previous year — of which only four resulted in a finding of misconduct.

The report notes a “substantial increase” in allegations made against bishops: from four to 11. Four cases against bishops or archbishops were referred for formal investigation, compared to none in 2024.