For previous items, see More safeguarding updates.
Surviving Church has published this article by David Lamming: Will General Synod be allowed to debate the Independent Safeguarding Board? It appears that at present the answer is No.
Update
Hattie Williams has a further detailed update in the Church Times: ISB remains off the Synod’s agenda despite members’ concerns
…By Friday, Mr Sewell had been informed by the Acting Clerk to the Synod, Jenny Jacobs, that the chair for the safeguarding items (the Dean of Southwark, the Very Revd Andrew Nunn) had ruled the motion out of order because it was not compliant with Standing Orders. Specifically, the following motion was not “relevant to and within the scope of its subject matter” of the original NST motion.
Mr Sewell and David Lamming, a former Synod member, redrafted their motion to refer to a previous motion from Dr Gibbs, carried by the Synod during its July sessions last year, which had requested “regular updates on progress at each group of sessions, especially concerning the strengthening of independent accountability and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding work at all levels” (News, 15 July 2022).
Over the weekend, however, this, too, was ruled out of scope, again, on the grounds that: “The ISB is not a workstream for which the NST is responsible.”
Can someone raise a point of order in Synod to object that the rejection was ultra vires?
That point could be made (or question asked) during the traditional debate, on the first day of each group of sessions of the Synod, on the motion proposed by the Chair of the Business Committee to ‘take note’ of the report of Business Committee, when it is in order for members to comment on the absence of a particular item of business from the agenda.
“On its website the ISB state: ‘We exist to ensure the Church of England delivers its safeguarding responsibilities We also provide independent oversight of the National Safeguarding Team (NST).’ ” Then shouldn’t it be the independent safeguarding board itself that decides whether to carry our the review of safeguarding in the Christ Church case? The Archbishops’ Council should not be able to decide which safeguarding reviews the Board takes on. That would be interference, that could potentially amount to ‘We don’t want you looking into this independently. We’ll find someone else.’ Meanwhile, will the Archbishops publicly apologise to Martyn Percy for… Read more »
I think I’d reply to this with another question- does any large and hierarchical organisation? I want to be clear- this answer has no reference to Dr Percy as I know nothing about his case. I spent the final 10 or so years of a very long social work career in ‘heavy end’ child protection and safeguarding. By the time any complaint reaches the point of external investigation the balance of power is very uneven. The organisation – not just a religious one, though things there are even in more confused still by the ‘F’Word- foregiveness – someone who has… Read more »
In a speech on 6 February during the debate on the Business Committee report, Martin Sewell called on Archbishops Justin and Stephen to exercise their power (as joint Presidents of the Synod) under Standing Order 4(3) to add a debate about the ISB to the Synod agenda. (The terms of the motion would have to be settled – not necessarily precisely as tabled by Martin.) In his speech in reply to the debate the Chair of the Business Committee, Robert Hammond, said: “The Presidents will have heard what you said.” Currently, a response is awaited. (Written at 1.45pm Tuesday 7th… Read more »
Martin Sewell’s revised motion (omitting the footnote references). That this Synod: A. Notes (i) the motion, moved by the Bishop of Rochester (lead bishop on safeguarding) on 9 July 2022 during the group of sessions of Synod in York and ‘very clearly carried on a show of hands’, by paragraph (d) of which Synod requested “regular updates on progress at each group of sessions, especially concerning the strengthening of independent accountability and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding work at all levels”, and (ii) that independent oversight of the Church’s safeguarding work, including the quality of the work of the National… Read more »
Further to my comment three days ago (see above), those who followed the Synod proceedings on the livestream will have noted that the Presidents, although having ‘heard’ what Martin Sewell said during the Business Committee Report debate on Monday, did not exercise their powers under SO 4(3) to add a motion about the ISB to the Synod agenda, and that the debate on item 14 to ‘take note’ of the NST report [GS 2293] was relatively low key with, in the end, items 13 and 14 taking up just an hour of Synod’s time. Perhaps this was inevitable, given the… Read more »