THE draft Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM), designed to bring in a new system for clergy discipline, received final approval on the Wednesday afternoon.
Before the debate, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, in her position as a Privy Councillor, assured the Synod that the King was content with the draft Measure, given that it impinged on some royal prerogatives.
The Revd Kate Wharton (Liverpool), a member of the steering committee, began by paying tribute to the late Geoffrey Tattersall, a Synod and committee member who died last month (News, 10 January).
Special amendments were needed, she continued, to resolve issues relating to clergy serving in Royal Peculiars. There were further changes related to clergy with spent criminal convictions.
The Synod took note of the report, and moved on to special amendments.
Ms Wharton explained that, after extensive consultation with the Royal Household and the Deans of Westminster and Windsor, the draft Measure would bring clergy serving in Royal Peculiars within the disciplinary structures for allegations of serious misconduct, but not for grievances or non-serious misconduct. If removal from office was the penalty in any such case, it would have to be confirmed by the King first.
Bishop Mullally, as Dean of the Chapels Royal, thanked the committee for working to ensure that the “privileges and interests of His Majesty were preserved”, while still improving transparency and accountability for clergy affected.
The amendments were carried.
Ms Wharton then moved an amendment to provide for including a cleric’s name on a national list after a criminal conviction. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act meant that some convictions became “spent” after a certain amount of time. This amendment would allow work to be done on this matter and brought back to the Synod later for approval.
The amendment was carried, as was another technical amendment that finalised the new rules already agreed for Royal Peculiars.
The Synod then moved on to the final-approval stage for the draft Measure. Ms Wharton said that the legislation seemed more important today than when it began its journey, two years earlier. Discipline was always controversial by its very nature, she said, especially as clergy “at the coalface of parish ministry” were vulnerable.
“The system must be fair and proportionate,” she said, and those principles had been baked into the Measure; the rules due to be debated by the Synod in July would give the Measure a flexibility that the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) lacked.
The CCM’s core principle lay in dividing complaints into three pathways, depending on the severity of the allegations. There would be streamlining of bureaucracy, the abolition of the 12-month time-limit for complaints of serious misconduct, the integration of safeguarding professionals into the process, better protection against vexatious complaints, and more information-sharing between dioceses and provinces. Deposition from Holy Orders had been reintroduced for the most serious offences.
Some important things were not covered in the CCM, she said, such as disciplining the laity, but she urged the Synod to give the Measure final approval, anyway. “To say we need to implement these reforms seems like an understatement in light of recent events,” Ms Wharton concluded. “The current system is sick, and we need a healthier one to take us forward.”
The Archbishop of York said that the CCM had been a long time coming, but he was delighted that the Church had finally come to the brink of change. The CCM would help the C of E to build a “much better future”, he said, referring to frustration with the CDM. He particularly praised the Vicar-General of York, the Rt Worshipful Peter Collier KC, who, he said, had delayed his overdue retirement to shepherd these proposals through.
Archbishop Cottrell welcomed the reforms related to tackling vexatious complaints and the centralised investigation of serious misconduct, as well as the implementation of recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. “This measure is a vitally important building block in getting our processes fit for purpose,” he concluded.
Professor Joyce Hill (Leeds) strongly supported the CCM, even as a lay person. It was vital for the laity to have confidence that their clergy worked within an up-to-date conduct system, she said.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that the Prolocutors had gathered an ad-hoc group to prepare guidance for what rules clergy should live by. This would now be formalised and brought back to the Synod in July. He asked members to support the Measure and the revision of guidelines for conduct of the clergy, which were included. “This is about, at root, a rule of life — a school of obedience to God’s will.”
Amanda Robbie (Lichfield) said that her husband was one of the clergy who had been affected by vexatious complaints. Some priests had spent thousands of pounds defending themselves, she said, and her husband had suffered from lifelong health issues because of the stress endured. She praised the new rules on vexatious complainants, and urged members to keep engaged on drafting the rules and code of conduct when these returned in July.
The Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, said that the CCM would help the Church to restore its trust in society. The Measure opened the way for all diocesan chancellors to play a part in tribunals, she said, and training was under way to prepare them for this.
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, also welcomed the measure, but asked who was responsible for ensuring that there were the right number of assessors and panels, and keeping everything under review. Could there be more than one Deputy President of Tribunals, for instance, to ensure that there were no delays or backlogs?
The Revd Shaun Morris (Lichfield) backed the motion, but raised concerns about the support offered to a cleric subject to a complaint. There needed to be someone alongside respondents with expertise in the process, he said, as well as a “pastoral heart”. He also raised the problem of clergy being unable to pay for independent legal advice, and asked whether legal aid could be built into the code of practice.
Rebecca Hunt (Portsmouth) said that her colleagues at the Christian Legal Centre had defended several clergy who had faced abusive proceedings under the CDM, in which the issue had actually been a pastoral breakdown or theological differences. Many were left traumatised and stressed by the experience; so she welcomed the reforms. She particularly praised the new grievance track to keep more minor matters out of tribunals, referring to one case of a vicar who was the subject of a CDM complaint for not visiting a parishioner in hospital.
Helen Lamb (Oxford) had been encouraged to see the Church wake up to its HR responsibilities in recent years, but warned members that HR procedures did not neatly map on to the C of E’s structures. Every church was a “hospital for sinners”, she said; so it should be no surprise when things went wrong. She urged everyone to keep a sense of pastoral care and graciousness rather than always move to formal disciplinary proceedings.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that the distinction between misconduct and serious misconduct made a big difference to possible sanctions and the procedures for resolving complaints. Currently, no definition was given in the Measure for this distinction, which was due to come in the rules.
The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Canterbury), said that the diocese of Canterbury was highly dependent on retired clergy, and asked what financial support was offered to them when they were the subject of complaints.
The Archdeacon of Ashford, the Ven. Darren Miller (Canterbury), said that, as an archdeacon, he had managed to head off possible CDM complaints before they reached the tribunal. But, when some reluctantly had to go forward in his name, he found this hard, as he wanted to be a pastor to the respondent, but had to put that aside. He asked whether the rules of the CCM were flexible enough to be changed in the future when, inevitably, circumstances demanded that they must be.
Final approval was given in all three Houses: Bishops 25-0; Clergy 128-0, with one recorded abstention; Laity 145-0, with two recorded abstentions.
