This letter was sent to all General Synod members on 13 March:
National Church Governance – update for General Synod Members – 13 March 2026. The full text is copied below the fold.
There is a news story about this in the Church Times today, 20 March:
Plans to reform Church of England structures ‘not expedient’ says Ecclesiastical Committee
There are numerous links to related documents here.
13 March 2026
Update for General Synod members on the National Church Governance Measure
Dear General Synod Member,
Members will be aware from the report and questions at the last Synod that the Legislative Committee decided to withdraw the draft National Church Governance Measure [GS2360] from consideration by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Legislative Committee has now decided that it will not be seeking to reintroduce the draft Measure to the Synod at its July 2026 meeting.
This is necessarily a summary message to inform Synod members of the position, and to ensure you hear it officially first. The Legislative Committee will of course bring a fuller report on this to the Synod at the next group of sessions.
The decision by the Legislative Committee comes in response to the position taken by the Ecclesiastical Committee in December which deemed that the Measure was not expedient, setting out four areas of concern: safeguarding arrangements; the scope of the delegated (order making) powers; aspects of the financial accountability framework; and the breadth of the Church of England National Services’ (CENS) charitable purposes.
Following an informal meeting with members of the Ecclesiastical Committee in January to explore these issues, members of that Committee made clear that their primary concern was in relation to safeguarding, which it felt should be prioritised ahead of further engagement with Governance reform.
At a meeting in early March the Legislative Committee considered two options: (i) to seek to reintroduce the Measure to the General Synod with amendments, or (ii) report on its withdrawal at this stage.
In light of the Ecclesiastical Committee’s expressed position, and the absence of clarity that amendments would resolve its concerns, the Committee concluded that reintroduction at this time would not be a simple or straightforward matter.
Next steps
The Legislative Committee will report on the withdrawal of the Measure to Synod in July 2026. The option for the draft Measure to be reintroduced and amended by Synod remains, although the earliest realistic date at which this could happen is February 2027. That level of delay could be damaging for the work of the NCIs.
The Legislative Committee also hopes that National Church bodies will reflect upon what changes can be affected by non-legislative and other routes without the requirement for statute to give effect to the policy intention which the Synod has overwhelmingly supported.
Whilst this is disappointing news, we respect the decision of the Ecclesiastical Committee which is committed to a constructive scrutiny process and seeks to promote trust in the Church’s governance. The trustee bodies affected are now being invited to review potential non-legislative opportunities to progress governance work over the coming months while the work on the future of safeguarding structures is progressed.
William Nye
Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council
Secretary General of the General Synod of the Church of England
Chickens coming home to roost? Parliament’s Ecclesiastical Committee is doing its job and has found the established church wanting, especially in regard of safeguarding. The ‘administrators’ of the church need to ‘wise up’ and show to the electorate’s representatives that they ‘get with the programme’. The church has the opportunity with a ‘refreshed programme board’ to do what is necessary, and not to complain but demonstrate real understanding and respect. Not only fine words required but fine actions. Exploring ways of ‘getting round’ the need to satisfy Parliament is not the answer. Any prophetic word out there; is it Lent?… Read more »
The email to synod members is dated 13 March. At the time of publishing this article on 20 March, there appears to be no mention on the CofE web page (linked above) of the decision, taken in “early March” to pause the programme. Perhaps the Church Times report will prompt the programme team to make an update?
Dear Simon , sorry not to have added changes earlier – the Governance Team has been a little overloaded this week – but I was on the case and trying to amend the page before the end of play today – thank you for the further prompt!
‘We respect the decision…’ then in the next sentence says he’s encouraging the relevant people to look for non-legislative ways to achieve the reforms desired, for which read ‘ways to get round the decision’. Ah yes, of course, I forgot….in the cloud cuckoo world of Billy Nye the Whitewash Guy words don’t mean quite what you think they do. I guess ‘respect’ now joins ‘independent’ and the plethora of others that our very own Sir Humphrey has redefined with the collusion of the purple brigade.
‘When I use a word’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone ‘ it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less’
‘The question is’ said Alice ‘whether you CAN make make words mean so many different things ‘
‘The question is’ said Humpty Dumpty ‘which is to be master- that’s all’
( Through the Looking Glass – Lewis Carroll)
At present we seem still to be saddled with Master Whitewash aka Humpty Dumpty – may he soon come off his wall
Amen to that, Susanna.
When did the Ecclesiastical Committee last deem a measure “not expedient”?
Last year, when they deemed the Clergy Conduct Measure “not expedient” on the grounds that the default position under the Measure was for Tribunal hearings to be in private, General Synod altered the Measure in February to make its default position public hearings, Hopefully they will now deem it expedient.
And before that it happened in April 2001 — the draft Churchwardens Measure was found inexpedient before eventual enactment as the Churchwardens Measure 2001. (It may have happened between those dates as well.)
Would I be right in thinking that Parliament is losing patience with the CofE and its GS?
With a bit of luck
I suspect you may be right, Father! Judge Collier mentions their view on the Clergy Conduct Measure, and the reason for that. They were rightly exercised about it as the level of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the default position on how professional conduct tribunals are conducted across the different professions was utterly astonishing for a proposing group with so many well informed and experienced legal minds. Synod was blatantly misled on this point as the Open Justice principle is absolutely fundamental to those processes, and worse, when the misleading information was identified by those better informed, nobody was interested in… Read more »
As ever the CofE wants to ride two horses at once: they want their disciplinary processes to be a legal procedure but not to have to comply with the principle of ‘open justice’. From my own experience as a union rep the CofE tries to impose confidentiality on the CDM process but this makes it difficult for a respondent to mount a defence if they cannot seek witness statements to support their case. It’s one sided because the complainants often sing like canaries; so the CofE’s desire to minimise bad publicity actually inhibits justice. The burden of proof in a… Read more »
It is not patience with the Church, I think, but trust in the GS etc that has been lost.
Well I was a member of the steering committee for this measure, and I am deeply disappointed that we will have to wait even longer for reform to structures that are both inefficient and ineffective. The diagnosis of the problems was carried out long ago. But things have happened since that show we need change as much as ever, and without it, time and energy will be diverted from the real priorities to dealing with the inbuilt disfunction and sclerosis of the current structures. Had we had the proposed structures in place, the chaos surrounding the independent safeguarding board would… Read more »
Thank you, Mark. This injects a measure of common sense into a discussion that was at risk of becoming unmoored from reality. The action of the Ecclesiastical Committee at the very least raises serious questions about the Church of England’s legislative independence. These proposals were the fruit of years of work, carefully considered after wide consultation, and attracted decisive support in Synod. They weren’t rushed. They had been shaped in response to criticisms and concerns. And now they have faltered because the Ecclesiastical Committee, which doesn’t seem to have entirely understood the proposals, has put them on hold. Presumably the… Read more »
There seems to be some conflict here between two different narratives. According to the Church Times report the ecclesiastical committee’s primary concern were “Concerns about the “huge power” enjoyed by the body set to replace the Archbishops’ Council” and (citing Danny Kruger) fears about “huge power held in the hands of a new charity which is unaccountable to Parliament or to Synod, to do what it likes”. There were ancillary concerns about the charitable objects of the CENS and about where accountability for safeguarding would reside in the new structure. Yet if one turns to William Nye’s letter, the concerns… Read more »