
Church of England should rethink automatic secrecy of misconduct hearings, say MPs
The clergy conduct measure is intended to propose the existing clergy disciplinary measure, which has been extensively criticised for failing to tackle allegations of serious or sexual misconduct against clergy.
Under the terms of the new measure, when an allegation of misconduct is made against clergy 'the tribunal or court is to sit in private except in a case where' certain conditions are met, such as a public hearing being requested by the defendant.
MPs and peers sitting on the ecclesiastical committee told church representatives on Tuesday that members of the public had expressed concern to them about the new proposals.
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the chair of the committee and a former head of the courts, urged the witnesses 'to look at sitting in public, because that's an issue which a number of people have raised, and I share the concern. It is fair to say family courts sit in private, but we do try to sit in public when we can.'
Al Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat MP for Surrey Heath, said that 'the fact that it is private by default and public by exception certainly has raised more than one eyebrow'. He continued: 'The fact that I've had as much correspondence as I have suggests that you have perhaps got this the wrong way round.'
Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for East Wiltshire, said that the measure would leave the Church of England out of step with other disciplinary systems. 'My understanding is that most comparable tribunals in the secular space – whether that's in respect of medical practitioners, even police misconduct hearings, the bar, military court service – the default setting in those cases is that the proceedings will be public,' he said.
Edward Dobson, the church's legal adviser, disputed the characterisation of the measure. 'These are not secret hearings,' he said. 'These are private hearings, where the evidence is taken in private, and it is important to distinguish between those two concepts.'
He said the General Synod, the Church of England's legislative assembly, had rejected an amendment for hearings to ordinarily be public. 'It was felt very strongly that the interests of children in particular, vulnerable adults, those giving evidence, were best met, and evidence was achieved best, with a broad confidentiality,' he said.
Clive Scowen, who moved the amendment, said: 'My view is that, because of the genuine public interest in the conduct of the clergy of the established church and the current climate of openness and transparency concerning judicial proceedings generally, hearings should be in public unless the tribunal finds there is a good reason for them to be in private.'
He said that even though his amendment had been rejected, 'the new measure as a whole is a great improvement on the current legislation' and he hoped parliament would approve it.
According to minutes of the proceedings where Scowen's amendment was rejected, a committee of the General Synod discussed how 'other professional tribunals, such as General Medical Council hearings, sit in private due to the confidentiality of patient information'.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
However, a spokesperson for the GMC said that this was wrong, and that the GMC did not hold hearings. The spokesperson said that when the GMC had concerns about doctors, it presented evidence to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, and that such hearings were ordinarily public.
A spokesperson for House of Survivors, a campaign group for victims of clerical abuse, said: 'Secrecy as a starting point is not a good look. There are situations and times where private hearings may be called for. But that should be much better judged in each situation, rather than a blanket approach.'
The spokesperson stressed that the group believed the Church of England should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, from which it is immune. 'The Church of England has gotten away with far too much secrecy. A lot of problems are to do with a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, at a very senior level,' he said.
In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support for rape and sexual abuse on 0808 802 9999 in England and Wales, 0808 801 0302 in Scotland, or 0800 0246 991 in Northern Ireland. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at ibiblio.org/rcip/internl.html
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
No apology needed for Robert Jenrick
I heard Dr Krish Kandiah's Thought for the Day on Radio 4 and agree with Alf Dubs and Tina Beattie – he was absolutely spot-on with his forthright comments on Robert Jenrick's appalling article (BBC apologises over Thought for the Day 'xenophobia' claim against Jenrick, 13 August). Jenrick was unquestionably xenophobic and, in my and many others' view, racist in his disgraceful terminology. I have volunteered with asylum seekers and refugees for some years and met and taught hundreds. The overwhelming majority are good, decent people, often highly skilled professionals and the sort of technical workers this country is crying out for. If Jenrick knows next to nothing about them, it's because he hasn't bothered to find out before voicing his ill-informed opinions. The BBC should not have apologised. The world needs people like Dr Kandiah, Lord Dubs and Marian Budde, the brave bishop who preached so eloquently at Donald Trump's inauguration service, to speak truth to power and call xenophobia and racism exactly that when they hear JohnsDerby I don't understand the BBC's reaction to the Thought for the Day that mentioned Robert Jenrick. The head of the Sanctuary Foundation, Krish Kandiah, quoted the shadow justice secretary as having said: 'I certainly don't want my children to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally, and about whom we know next to nothing.' Kandiah went on: 'These words echo a fear many have absorbed – fear of the stranger. The technical name for this is xenophobia. All phobias are, by definition, irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact.' All true and topical, if trenchant. So why is it objectionable? If Jenrick doesn't want to be associated with the echoing of xenophobic fears, maybe he should stop echoing xenophobic de BrunnerBurn Bridge, North Yorkshire It seems that nowadays you can't call a xenophobe a xenophobe. It's political incorrectness gone JuliansRomford, London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.


The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Councillors who revoke 20mph limits and LTNs risk being held liable for road deaths
Re Sadiq Khan's article (Dear Britain, it's now clear: 20mph zones save lives and don't slow traffic. Implement them, 12 August), many people are unaware of the outstanding success of 20mph limits and low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in saving lives and preventing injuries and crashes, because the research and statistics are only being reported consistently by the BBC and the Guardian. People who rely on some of the other media outlets will have seen these policies characterised as unpopular, 'hated' or a 'war on drivers'. The failure to report impartially is a distortion of the truth that is misleading the public and politicians, and leading to pressure to revoke these life-saving measures. Highway authorities have a statutory duty to promote road safety, a duty to have 'due regard' to the needs of elderly and disabled people, and a common law duty of care to all road users not to be negligent. On top of this, councils have duties relating to public health, and policies relating to active lifestyles and the prevention of obesity, all of which are supported by creating safer streets. Councillors are obliged to ensure their decisions are reasonable and based on relevant considerations. While councillors and officers are protected by statutory immunity, this protection does not extend to deliberate or reckless wrongdoing. The science and evidence are totally clear: revocation of 20mph limits or LTNs will lead to crashes, injuries and deaths. Councillors and their advisers who pursue such actions risk being held personally liable for the harm that ensues. Robert HuxfordDirector, Urban Design Group Sadiq Khan describes the safety benefits of 20mph limits in urban areas. Hopefully, the increased carbon emissions from the petrol and diesel cars being driven at inefficient speeds will be balanced out by the smoother overall traffic flow and the much greater efficiency of electric vehicles at low speeds. There are even greater benefits to be had from a lower national speed limit of 55mph as road transport decarbonises, but that does not have a champion since the idea was recommended and then inexplicably dropped by the Climate Change ScharfAbingdon, Oxfordshire I congratulate Sadiq Khan on the excellent progress he has made. I would ask, though, whether more speed cameras can be installed. There is a road from Putney to Wimbledon which is 20mph along its whole length, with just one speed camera. Once past this camera, cars speed up and overtake drivers who are maintaining the speed limit. Sadiq should ask councils to install more cameras with the carrot of letting them keep the ensuing PritchardWimbledon, London As a reluctant pedestrian, following a stroke, I have to walk miles along urban roads, using a robust walking stick. It's essential – not for balance but to vent my anger at threatening drivers who speed past and often instinctively veer towards the pavement away from oncoming MorganPoole, Dorset Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.


The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Raising VAT rates would let Rachel Reeves fill budget black hole and enable growth
Tax rises appear increasingly likely. Polly Toynbee discusses some possible tax changes, including VAT (Both left and right agree taxes must rise. Time for Labour to get creative, 12 August). My view is that a 2.5 percentage point rise in the average VAT rate is the most viable option to raise sufficient revenue without reducing growth. Toynbee also discusses possible changes to inheritance tax and the introduction of a wealth tax. These policies may be redistributive but are unlikely to raise substantial revenue. As an example, Norway currently imposes a wealth tax that raises less than 3% of its non-petroleum tax revenue. Given the urgent need for revenue, a VAT raise is likely to be the UK's best option. First, VAT raises significant revenue, at about 17% of total UK tax revenue. This means that a 2.5 percentage point increase may raise as much as £21bn yearly. This is roughly five times more than what it is expected the government will raise from the stricter taxation of non-domiciles. Second, VAT poses limited harm to growth. Since it also applies to people who are outside the labour market, it dampens work incentives less than income taxes do. A VAT rise may partially replace the government's failure to reform disability benefits. In addition, increases in VAT do not reduce incentives to save, as costs go up by the same ratio today and in the future. And third, VAT can be quite progressive. While new savings are unaffected, old savings that people spend in the future are subject to VAT increases. Most importantly, while the VAT rate is flat, using the revenue to support public services disproportionally benefits the poor. This means that raising sufficient revenue may be most important for BergLecturer, Trinity College, University of Cambridge Anent Polly Toynbee's tax suggestions for Labour, if it regains its heart, may I add two. The best taxes not only raise money but also do societal good. So why not use one to address climate, inequity and safety issues, by taxing cars by their weight and annual mileage as reported at the MOT test? Both relate directly to their energy SeatonEmeritus professor of environmental medicine, University of Aberdeen