Clergy Conduct Measure (HC 221)
House of Commons · General Committees · 23 Jun 2026 · 32 speeches · Official Report
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)
The Chair
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...
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,...
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.