Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: †Emma Lewell

† Atkinson, Lewis (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

† Collinge, Lizzi (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)

† De Cordova, Marsha (Second Church Estates Commissioner)

† Franklin, Zöe (Guildford) (LD)

† Kane, Chris (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)

† Kitchen, Gen (Comptroller of His Majesty's Household)

† Murray, Chris (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)

† Nash, Pamela (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)

Obese Jecty, Ben (Huntingdon) (Con)

† Platt, Jo (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co op)

† Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)

† Scrogham, Michelle (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)

† Sewards, Mark (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)

† Swallow, Peter (Bracknell) (Lab)

† Swayne, Sir Desmond (New Forest West) (Con)

Thomas, Cameron (Tewkesbury) (Ind)

Vickers, Martin (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)

George Stokes, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Hudson, Dr Neil (Epping Forest) (Con)

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 23 June 2026

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221)

Members may remove their jackets, because I am going to remove mine—it is too hot.

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Lewell. I know that for many colleagues across the House the prospect of being on a Delegated Legislation Committee considering Church of England legislation is not the true highlight of their parliamentary week—and in this weather; I am so sorry. However, while our setting today might be routine, the legislation before us is anything but. The Measure is a cornerstone of the Church of England’s ongoing vital reform of clergy discipline and safeguarding.

During the passage of the Measure through the General Synod, the Church acknowledged that the current system has not served complainants well; they have far too often found the process to be retraumatising, opaque and painfully slow. Equally, it has not served clergy well, leaving many in a state of prolonged anxiety and limbo. The new Measure is the result of six years of detailed work to address that situation. To that end, the Clergy Conduct Measure will replace the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 in its entirety. It is clear that the system was not fit for purpose: it was outdated and needed reform to better protect and support individuals.

Before I turn to the detail of the Measure, hon. Members will see from the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee that it initially found the Measure “not expedient” on the basis that clause 31(3) provided that the tribunal hearings were to be held in private by default. I am pleased that the Church withdrew that and the General Synod looked at the issue again. In February, the Measure was amended for hearings to be in public by default.

Concerns were also raised about the working relationship with the Church. The Church has assured me that it recognises the need to work collaboratively with the Ecclesiastical Committee and with Parliament. It should know that robust parliamentary scrutiny is not a hurdle to be cleared, but an essential part of ensuring that our legislation is fair and transparent and commands public confidence; we are, after all, legislators.

The Measure at the heart of the new system is proportional. It introduces three different tracks to allocate complaints to: as a grievance, as misconduct or as serious misconduct. Each track has its own procedure for investigation and resolution of the complaint, and by triaging cases effectively from the outset, the Measure seeks to ensure that every complaint is handled appropriately and with the right level of seriousness. Crucially, that will lead to a much quicker process. Justice delayed is justice denied, both for those raising complaints and for those facing them. By streamlining investigations and hearings, the system seeks to end the agonising multi year delays that have so heavily characterised the current process.

The Measure also makes vital strides in aligning safeguarding and discipline processes. The one year limitation period will be abolished for allegations of serious misconduct, meaning that those who have been seriously harmed by the Church will be able to bring a complaint regardless of when the alleged conduct took place. In cases involving children or vulnerable adults, safeguarding professionals will automatically become party to the complaint, providing critical input into the decision making process. That alignment will be significantly better for both complainants and respondents, ensuring that safeguarding is not treated as a separate silo but is central to the disciplinary framework.

Alongside that, new statutory duties are placed on bishops to implement support for all those affected by a complaint, and there are significant protections for the clergy through the introduction of restraint orders against those who persistently harass them with vexatious complaints. For the most serious cases where the cleric is prohibited from ministry for life, the outcome of deposition from holy orders has been reintroduced.

The new system provides greater protections for vulnerable witnesses and ensures that those who have the immense courage to come forward and report abuse or misconduct are properly supported and shielded throughout the proceedings. The Measure will be supplemented by rules made under secondary legislation, which will be considered by the General Synod next month. Ideally, the Committee would have had the rules alongside the Measure, and I hope going forward that the Church will look at ways to implement this. Should that legislation pass the General Synod, it will be laid before Parliament under the negative procedure.

Behind every clause of the Measure, and behind every complaint that it will eventually govern, are real human beings. There are victims seeking justice, congregations needing leadership and clergy dedicating their lives to service. The Church has listened to survivors, to the clergy and to Parliament in devising this new system. The Measure is serious and comprehensive, and it is a response to those voices. I am pleased to commend it to the Committee today.

I am as surprised as I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, for I was nominated by the Committee of Ways and Means to chair the Committee, only then to discover that I was to have the pleasure and honour of serving on it.

This is a most welcome Measure because it reverses a very unwelcome modern trend—namely the trend to reduce discretion and to centralise decision making. The method by which the lead assessor will assess the different levels of complaint, whether grievance, misconduct or serious misconduct, enables him to have the decisions on the outcome of those complaints for grievances dealt with at the local level. Even where the threshold for misconduct is reached, if it is at the lower end of the scale, the lead assessor still has the discretion to have the matter resolved as a grievance.

Nothing used to infuriate me more, as an assessor on the board of courts martial, than seeing a number of what I regarded as trivial cases come before us that, frankly, earlier in my career would have been settled and resolved by the commanding officer. Because they went through this litigious procedure, it wrecked careers and put officers and men under a huge amount of strain. We have heard from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, about the trauma that people accused of offences go through with prolonged procedures, so I welcome that provision.

The other thing I welcome about this Measure is the provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants. The Church, like our constituency parties, is a voluntary organisation—although I sometimes wonder why I volunteer when I am subjected to some of the more gruesome modern liturgies. Nevertheless, it is a voluntary organisation in that, overwhelmingly—exclusively—the congregation is voluntary, and a significant amount of the clergy are now non stipendiary.

We all know from our experience of handling our own voluntary organisations that character clashes and differences emerge. It was always said that, when it came to any kind of selection, the local candidate was at a disadvantage because, if they know you, they know they do not like you. Therefore, these provisions for dealing with vexatious litigants are most welcome. On that basis, I will certainly be voting for this Measure.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very thorough welcoming of this Measure, and for wanting to ensure that we support it. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a progressive step forward. It brings much transparency to the process and more fairness to all, whether that is a complainant or somebody being complained about. I welcome the fact that he will be supporting this Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.