Church of England measures passed by the General Synod have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament before they can receive Royal Assent. Before this they are reviewed by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. The Church Times has reported that two draft measures have not been well received by the committee.
Ecclesiastical Committee concerned about power dynamics in National Church Governance Measure
Concerns about the “huge power” enjoyed by the body set to replace the Archbishops’ Council were voiced in Parliament last week, during a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Convened to consider the National Church Governance Measure, which is set to overhaul the National Church Institutions (NCIs), the Committee heard lengthy criticism by Danny Kruger, the MP for East Wiltshire who defected from the Conservatives to Reform last month. His concerns were focused on Church of England National Services (CENS), a new charity replacing the Archbishops’ Council, that will be responsible for distributing funds allocated by the Church Commissioners…
There is an uncorrected transcript of the Committee’s public meeting at which it took evidence from Church representatives here.
Clergy conduct batted back to General Synod
The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament is expected to send the draft Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM) back to the General Synod for further consideration rather than approve its passage into law.
On Wednesday, the Church Times understood that the Measure had been rejected as “not expedient”, on the basis, primarily, of concerns about the default expectation in the CCM that tribunal hearings would be held in private.
The publication of a report confirming the parliamentary decision and setting out the reasons behind it is expected to be published next week…
The report has not yet been published; when it is it will be published here.
I was on the steering committee for the National Governance Measure, and I think the points made in Parliament were mainly rehearsed in detail on our deliberations (we didn’t address the point on how Crown appointments are made …). What is clear to me, in relation to the “huge power” issue is that the arrangements proposed do not increase the power at the centre, and in fact bring it closer to Synodical scrutiny whilst respecting the role of the charity trustees. Arrangements for scrutiny beyond questions in Synod are in the legislation, and the financial framework is brought to Synod… Read more »
(Perhaps) it is time that the Church of England had ‘due regard’ to its accountability to Parliamentary scrutiny. I note references to low public confidence in the CofE, ‘marking its own homework’ on safeguarding, and that ‘legitimate, proper and pointed observations’ are made. .Maybe the church ‘under new management’ will ‘take note’ of a need to give greater attention to shortcomings in Synod beyond ‘Questions’, with ‘issues’ relating to such as same-sex matters, assisted dying and church closures coming up. Time to wake up and wise up.
Am I right in thinking that in the 1930s and 40s the German National Church virtually replaced the cross with the swastika?
Is that a warning?
No, it is not a meaningful warning here. The constitutional position is that Parliament always has the last word. I for one am delighted to see MPs taking their responsibilities seriously. Have they ever provided any check on the functioning of the Archbishops’ Council? And has not one of the Church’s problems been a lack of transparency and accountability? If we want Parliament to step aside from its duties, then that would equate to disestablishment – and there is no consensus for that anywhere – and it would mean Parliament placed accountability in an arm’s length body such as the… Read more »
A number of matters trouble me. 1) This committee has a significant number of new members who have no background in understanding how synodical processes work and the degree of attention to detail that is given to Measures through those processes. 2) There has clearly been significant lobbying of members by those who did not achieve what they wanted through the synodical process. 3) It is clear from the CCM meeting that they (including the 2nd Church Estates Commissioner!) could not grasp or were not willing to accept that the Rules could not be written until the Measure was in place… Read more »
I share the Committee’s concern about rules which can be imposed without democratic scrutiny or laws where the mechanism is left to a Statutory Instrument. Many pro democracy groups have similar concerns. It’s a very solid reason for a revising and review committee or chamber to reject the Measure.
There has always been a problem with the way in which we draft the primary legislation but don’t show the working on the rules or code of practice. I wonder whether we ought at least to produce “dummy” rules to stand alongside the legislation so that the Parliamentarians can see the drift of what we intend. I can see why they think they are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
This is a very sensible suggestion and it cannot be beyond the wit of someone to devise a form of words to approve draft rules to be approved in principle and appended to the re-presented measure.
It is obviously problematic for any church body to have its carefully considered proposals (on any matter) rebuffed by a secular organ of state, especially due to the primary influence of a Reform MP. No other religious body in the UK would suffer such humiliation. But this system is integral to Establishment, so defenders cannot credibly express any complaint about it. This is part of the price the Church pays for clinging on to its constitutional privileges, but no leader will admit that it is even a price.
Totally agree.
Many Church of England clergy do not have access like most workers to an Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal established by this Measure takes its place in many ways. Parliament should scrutinise the Measure AND the rules to ensure the rights of that class of worker are protected.
I also don’t have a problem with Parliament reviewing the creation of a Statutory charity. If the Church of England just wanted a committee without tax exemption privileges then it could avoid the scrutiny.
We should recognise the influence the conservative evangelical Danny Kruger, now Reform MP, will have on the Parliamentary Committee. Just last month Farage appointed Prof James Orr, a right-wing anti-abortion theologian as a senior adviser to Reform, a close friend of JD Vance and Paul Marshall. Marshall himself a trustee of HTB (The Alliance) and growing influencer / owner of right wing media outlets and benefactor to religious institutions (eg St Melitus) and who has also expressed a desire to break down the BBC. Our ABC-elect will need our prayers and support in discerning the principalities and powers at work… Read more »
It is a bit strong to equate Danny Kruger and the others you mention with ‘Principalities and Powers’. In fact, Mr Kruger recently gave the most spirited defence of Christianity in the public sphere and Parliament we have seen in decades. You can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JlYf_VGv64
Maybe so, back in July. But put that speech now in the context of Reform, Farage and Orr. Harnessing the cloak of Christian acceptability as a strategy hides, in my opinion, malign intent to shift the ground of politics and institutions. Do have a read of this: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/30500
To describe Kruger’s speech to an empty Chamber of the House of Commons as a “spirited defence” of Christianity is hugely debatable. Firstly it fails to acknowledge the bias in his interpretation of the Gospel and reading of Scripture. Secondly in terms of history, scripture and tradition, on every point his speech was shallow, superficial and in many ways deeply disturbing. And before you ask, yes I did listen to the whole speech. I thought it an appalling partisan re scripting of the Christian faith. Now add to that the fact that Kruger has defected to a far right fascist… Read more »
Grace and truth, as St John’s Gospel says.
The CCM was debated at length and voted for by an overwhelming majority in General Synod. The batting back of this to General Synod will only result in yet further delay in implementing it. For me the main flaw in an otherwise very well thought through process was the lack of insistence on adequate legal representation for those standing accused by provision for either a compulsory indemnity insurance (as all practising doctors have) or proper independent representation provided at the expense of the CofE. This would ensure a fairer process and help to protect clergy from the scenario where they… Read more »
Let me know if I am misreading Parliament on the clergy discipline measure or not ? My understanding was that with the CDM measures what Parliament was concerned about was the lack of public hearings in Clergy Discipline matters? We see this in Australia where only one Diocese Newcastle in NSW publishes the final determinations. Most other Dioceses including Melbourne Perth Adelaide and Sydney do not publish the determinations or hearing transcripts but only the result. A result that is hidden away on a National synod web page and impossible to find by public search unless you have a working… Read more »
Richie – I note you refer to Australia and the fact that no decisions are published expect in the Newcastle diocese. Here the full written judgment of the tribunal is always published on the CofE website (link here). There you will find the judgments in relation to all cases decided going back to the first one in 2007. In those circumstances sitting in private is not sitting in secret as there is a full account published of who said what in the course of the hearing and a fully reasoned judgment as to the decision and the penalty. It would seem… Read more »
Thank you Peter,
It looks trying to compare Oceania to the CofE is problematic.
Your clarity in response is really helpful. It actually looks like these reforms could assist those of us in Australia and NZ in reframing our own canon law.
Thanks again
Thank you peter Could you clarify if all clergy would be likely to be eligible for ecclesiastical legal aid and what proportion of the likely legal costs would be likely to be covered. To be honest I had missed this obligation placed on their bishop of informing them of their right to representation and legal aid
Everyone can apply. Obviously this will be a new Measure that the Legal Aid Commission will need to get its head round, but I see no reason why there should not be eligibility for anyone who faces a complaint of misconduct or serious misconduct. The Commission usually receives an estimate from the lawyer as to the work that is to be done and what that lawyer will charge for that work. The Commission then decides how much it will pay towards that, perhaps saying that 10 rather 15 hours would seem to them to be reasonable, and they will not… Read more »
Over 2,000 CofE clergy belong to the faith workers branch of Unite the Union and we frequently support members in their responses to CDM complaints so there is already a considerable body of independent expertise available to those who make the choice to join us. Including access to legal advice. We’ve argued against its deficiencies and helped shape the new CCM. I find this last ditch ambush by the Ecclesiastical Committee shows little or no understanding of the processes and thought gone into it and the complaint about delay in replacing CDM whilst simultaneously adding to that delay to be… Read more »