Updated Wednesday
On 2 September we reported in Living in Love and Faith – Listening on the publication of several voluminous documents containing the collation of the 6000 responses that the LLF project had by then received. We included links to three items which attempted to place these reports in some context.
More recently, Church Society has issued a strongly worded critique: Response to Listening With Love And Faith. This page is an executive summary of their criticisms, and the full 20-page report is available separately as a PDF. Copies have been sent to all members of General Synod.
Helen King has written this in response: Living in Love and Faith: some thoughts on the Church Society’s report.
Update
The LLF team has replied to Church Society. You can read the responses from both Brendan Research and Church Army’s Research Unit here: LLF Response to Church Society Analysis (total 6 pages). This also has been sent to all General Synod members.
7 CommentsThe Anglican Network in Europe which describes itself as “an authentic expression of Anglican church life and mission, authorised and supported by the Archbishops of the Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon)”.
We have reported on this several times in the past:
GAFCON announces its “missionary bishop”
GAFCON consecrates a Bishop for Europe
The ANiE now has two constituent units: the Anglican Mission in England and the Anglican Convocation Europe.
More recently, it announced an intention to consecrate four additional bishops, two for AMiE (Lee Munn and Tim Davies), and two for ACE (Ian Ferguson and Stuart Bell). See GAFCON’s Europe Branch to Consecrate 4 Bishops.
Three of these men were consecrated bishops on Friday 21 October, at a service held at the Vineyard church in Hull (East Yorkshire). The chief consecrator was ACNA primate Foley Beach, the preacher was Rwanda primate Archbishop Laurent Mbanda, and Nigerian primate, Archbishop Henry Ndukuba presided at Holy Communion. (The consecration of Stuart Bell has been deferred until March next year.)
Andrew Atherstone was present, and has written a very detailed account which is well worth reading in full: New Anglican Bishops for England and Europe
There is a video recording of the service.
The official ANiE press release is here.
59 CommentsThe Church Times reports: New Dean of Canterbury comes under fire from GAFCON Primates
PRIMATES allied to the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) have condemned the Archbishop of Canterbury for “refusing to prevent” the appointment of the Very Revd David Monteith as Dean of Canterbury Cathedral (News, 14 October). They have urged Archbishop Welby to repent. Lambeth Palace has responded by saying that the statement is inaccurate.
The subject of Dean Monteith’s appointment takes up a large section of the communiqué issued by the Primates of North America (ACNA), Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, All Nigeria, and the Indian Ocean after a meeting of the GAFCON Primates Council meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, which ended on Wednesday…
And it concludes:
…A spokesperson from Lambeth Palace on Friday described the statement as “inaccurate in a number of ways including the nature of the Anglican Communion, the appointment of the Dean of Canterbury, and the understanding of civil partnerships in England”.
Lambeth also confirmed, in answer to a question from the Church Times, that the Archbishop was engaged in ongoing WhatsApp conversations with Primates. These are described as “closed and private groups and as a matter of policy, all conversations remain private and confidential”.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has published its final report. There are three documents:
And a very short press release which links to a media pack which in turn links to a one page summary.
I will add links to media reports, and responses from other organisations as they become available.
The UK Government has responded:
The Church of England has responded:
There are two press releases about this. The first one, copied immediately below, is on the Safeguarding pages. The second, much longer one, is on the general news pages, National report on Church of England’s second past cases review published.
I have put the additional text into a PDF file, available here.
And there are separate press releases relating to the National Safeguarding Team, Lambeth Palace, Bishopthorpe Palace, and each diocese (follow the links below).
Press Release from Safeguarding pages:
Past Cases Review 2
The Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2) was run in all Church of England dioceses between 2019 – 2022.
Past Cases Review 1 (PCR1) was commissioned because of several Church of England clergy and church officers being charged with sexual offences against children. PCR1 was conducted between 2007 and 2009. In May 2016 concerns were raised regarding the judgements presented from PCR1. An Independent Scrutiny Team concluded that whilst the review was well motivated and thoughtfully planned, limitations existed in relation to its execution. As a result, Past Cases Review 2 (PCR2) was commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council in 2019 as part of the overall commitment to improving the way in which the Church responds to allegations and concerns.
The National Report was published in October 2022.
Read the National Report
Published in October 2022 by the National Safeguarding Steering Group
Other reports
Diocesan reports
The reports of findings in Dioceses are published on local diocesan safeguarding pages.
Key Documents
Please see our FAQs section for more information on PCR2.
PCR2 follows a report in 2018 into the original PCR (2007-2009) which revealed shortcomings both in the process and final result.
29 CommentsUpdated Wednesday 5 October
Our most recent report on this was published on 2 September: Living in Love and Faith – Listening.
The Campaign for Equal Marriage in the Church of England has recently posted these articles:
Helen King has posted these items at Shared Conversations:
Colin Coward has posted at Unadulterated Love:
The Church Times reports: Bishops say meetings with LGBTQ reps at Lambeth Palace were fruitful
I will add links to any further relevant articles that are published.
The LLF Roadmap currently (updated 5 October) says [plus exact dates as reported to TA]:
| Sep-Oct | Next Steps Group | Members of the Next Steps Group of bishops are holding meetings with representatives of 21 organisations and networks representing a wide possible range of views relating to identity, sexuality, relationships and marriage. The organisations are listed below. * |
| Sep | College of Bishops | This meeting, which was to initiate the bishops’ process of discernment and decision-making, was cancelled because of the death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Instead bishops are doing some reflective work individually ahead of the meeting in October. |
| Oct | College of Bishops | Bishops will gather for two days to begin the discernment process, including considering proposals for a way forward, the implications for formal decision-making, and how this will be communicated to members of General Synod and the wider Church. [31 October – 2 November] |
| Dec | College & House of Bishops | Bishops will gather for two days to finalise proposals and reflect on what is needed to support the decision-making processes in General Synod. [12 -14 December] |
| Jan 23 | College of Bishops | Bishops will finalise proposals to bring to Synod in February. [17 January] |
*The list of organisations and networks is:
| The Society | Mosaic | Affirming Catholics |
| Society of the Holy Cross | Church Missionary Society | CEEC |
| New Wine | USPG | The Church Society |
| HTB Network | Changing Attitude (England) | Living Out |
| One Body One Faith | Campaign for Equal Marriage | Evangelical Group of GS |
| Diverse Church | Ozanne Foundation | The Junia Network |
| GS Human Sexuality Group | Society of Catholic Priests | Inclusive Church |
24 Comments
Updated yet again, Wednesday 28 September
Numerous recent news reports have described how The Revd Mpho Tutu van Furth, the daughter of Desmond Tutu, was not allowed to officiate in a Church of England building at the funeral of her godfather, Martin Kenyon. Here is a selection of such links:
Monday’s newspapers contain letters to the editor about this, see
Tuesday’s Church Times contains a lengthy report, Hereford bar on Canon Tutu van Furth over marital status sparks widespread reaction. Note this paragraph:
Lambeth Palace refused to comment, and directed all press enquiries to the diocese.
The Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation has issued this press release:
Tutu Legacy Foundation dismayed at the callous position of the Church of England
A message from the Bishop of Hereford to his diocese has been published on Twitter by The Campaign for Equal Marriage in the CofE, which has also posted this article: “Churlish and hurtful”. This message is also copied below the fold.
The procedure for clergy outside the British Isles obtaining the relevant archbishop’s permission to officiate is described in detail on this CofE web page: scroll down to the heading Overseas (“Archbishop’s”) Permissions to Officiate (OPTO)
The Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 can be found here.
The House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage dated 2014, can be found here.
167 CommentsUpdated Saturday and Tuesday
Church of England press release
As part of the church-wide engagement with the Living in Love and Faith resources, everyone who took part was invited to share their learning, insights and reflections. Over 6,000 responses were received, through questionnaires, focus groups, creative responses and a variety of other forms. These responses have been gathered into a report, Listening with Love and Faith. This is accompanied by a more detailed technical report and a reflective essay entitled, Friendship and the Body of Christ. These and the LLF resources will support the bishops in their ongoing discernment process as they seek to discern what they believe God is saying to the Church of England today.
Updates
Three articles that provide some context for these documents:
Nic Tall Living in Love and Faith – What the Church of England Really Thinks
Updated 20 August
The letter reported below was discussed in this article dated 12 August, from Surviving Church: Martin Sewell writes further to the Charity Commission about Safeguarding failures.
We have reported previously on the issue of whether the Independent Safeguarding Board is indeed an independent body in any meaningful sense. See below for links to earlier articles.
Martin Sewell has written a Letter to the Charity Commission setting out in comprehensive detail (13 pages) the relationship between the Archbishops’ Council and the Independent Safeguarding Board. This has now been copied to the Secretary General (William Nye) and all members of the Council.
It is well worth taking the time to read the whole letter, which urges the Charity Commission to investigate further the operations of the Archbishops’ Council. The letter also notes (para 34):
I am sharing this letter with some aggrieved parties and think you will see the full extent of the problem when those who have written to me share their stories with you on a private and confidential basis. I am inviting them to do so, so that you can better understand the widespread and deep malaise of which Archbishops’ Council has long been aware, but as yet has been indecisive or evasive in its response.
Previous articles (which include links to many of the documents mentioned in the letter):
We reported on this previously here: London diocese: Update on fraud investigation.
Today, the Birmingham Mail reported this development: Former church official from Dudley accused of ‘defrauding charity of more than £5million’
36 CommentsA former church official from Dudley accused of clocking up “more flights than globetrotting broadcaster Alan Whicker” has appeared in court charged with defrauding a charity of more than £5 million. Martin Sargeant worked as operations manager for the Church of England’s Diocese of London from 2008 until his retirement in 2019 and was clerk of the City church grants committee.
The 52-year-old is accused of defrauding the charitable trust – set up by an Act of Parliament in 1891 to support and fund the restoration of churches and chaired by the Archdeacon of London – of about £5.2 million over 10 years. Sargeant is also charged with money laundering after allegedly spending the funds on gambling and flying more than 180 times with British Airways..
…The fraud charge alleges Sargeant abused his position as operations manager to make a gain of about £5.2 million between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2019. He is accused of fraudulently requesting grants for funding for dysfunctional churches to steal the money by transferring funds through church bank accounts he controlled as part of his job.
The money was then allegedly moved into accounts he controlled and that were in his name, before Sargeant spent it on “personal entertainment or frivolous things like gambling,” said Mr Packenham. Magistrates decided the charges were too serious to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court and sent the case to Southwark Crown Court, where Sargeant will appear at a later date.
Updated Friday
The Church Times today (Thursday) has this report: Independent safeguarding chair steps back after second data-breach
THE chair of the fledgling Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Professor Maggie Atkinson, has stepped back from her role after a second complaint that she breached data and confidentiality was upheld…
You read that right: a second complaint.
Earlier, there was this Church Times report: Information Commissioner’s Office upholds survivor’s complaint against chair of ISB
But today’s report says:
..The Church Times understand that Dr Gibbs’s statement refers to a separate incident…
The statement from Bishop Jonathan Gibbs is here: Statement on ISB from lead safeguarding bishop. In full, it reads:
“A complaint to the National Church Institutions from a data subject about a data and confidentiality breach by the chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Professor Maggie Atkinson, has been upheld. We have notified the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Archbishops’ Council has made a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission.
We have apologised to the data subject for the distress caused and the chair has been asked to step back from her role as we await a response from the ICO. We would like to stress that the rights of individuals to protect their data and our duty to use that data properly in any aspect of our work is paramount.
The ISB was set up in 2021, following a decision by the Archbishops’ Council and House of Bishops to provide vital independent external scrutiny and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding activity. The 2020 IICSA report gave momentum to this decision. This independent oversight continues to be a key part of making the Church a safer place for all, but it will take time to embed its work to ensure it has the confidence of all concerned. We are in contact with the other members of the ISB, who will continue in their work and there will be further updates in due course.”
Update
The Church Times added this later:
33 CommentsA statement from the ISB later on Thursday said: “The ISB regrets it has been necessary to ask Maggie Atkinson Chair of ISB, to step aside whilst the ICO investigates. We support their decision. The ISB recognises and is grateful for all the work undertaken to date by Maggie. The ISB acknowledges the importance of keeping personal data safe. The work of the ISB continues with the shortly to be published first report into survivor experiences authored by Survivor Advocate Lead Jasvinder Sanghera CBE.”
In view of the references now being made to the 1998 conference, and in particular to the adoption then of Resolution I.10, I thought it might be helpful to reproduce the commentary on the latter that I wrote at the time.
The full extent of those reports can still be found on the web, here: Unofficial News from the Lambeth Conference. But to save you ploughing through all of that, I have extracted those parts which relate specifically to the debates on sexuality, and put them into a PDF, which is available here. As you can see, if you are bothered to look, it was far from a straightforward process to agree what emerged.
20 CommentsThe Church Times today has several items about safeguarding in the Church of England. Each of them is worth reading in full. Here are the links, with only brief quotes from each.
Survivors dismayed by delays to Church’s national redress scheme
SURVIVORS of church-based abuse and their advocates have expressed dismay both at further delays to the national redress scheme promised by the Church of England and that the cost of it is to be met by dioceses and PCCs…
…In a written question to the General Synod, published two days before the meeting in York, Tina Nay (Chichester) asked whether the timeline for the full redress scheme was on track, in line with the “15 to 18 months” given by the lead bishop for safeguarding, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, in a BBC interview in October 2020.
Responding, Dr Gibbs wrote that the comments had been made before a project team had been employed (in April 2021), and that, having researched other schemes of a similar scale, and owing to a planned procurement process and possible legislation, the full scheme was now due to be final completed in 2024 or 2025, with a pilot phase to be completed in 2023…
Links to items mentioned in this article
- General Synod Questions and Answers on Safeguarding
- Update on national Redress Scheme 06/07/2022
- Letter from Andrew Graystone (scroll down) which concludes this way
…Still more alarming was the news from the Chair of the Finance Committee that the costs of redress will not be met wholly by the Church Commissioners, but by individual parishes, dioceses, cathedrals, colleges, and so on. Nothing in the Church’s recent history of caring for victims suggests that this will go well. When the scheme eventually opens, I fear that we will see an ugly and protracted scramble as each institution seeks to minimise its responsibilities. Some colleges, cathedrals, and dioceses that are likely to face multiple claims, such as Sheffield, Chester, and Chichester, may well be bankrupted by it. More importantly, this process will pitch survivors into a nightmare of long and costly legal battles, sometimes with multiple church bodies.This is not what redress should look like. The re-dressing of survivors’ wounds is not a drag on resources, but a missional opportunity for the national Church. It is a chance to do justice, and to begin to reverse the mainstream perception that the Church doesn’t care for those whom it has wounded.Where the national Church is serious about missional issues such as racial justice or the environment, funds are provided by the Church Commissioners. Surely, we need the same commitment from the Commissioners, together with a far greater urgency, in doing justice for those whose lives have been devastated by their contact with the Church.
Information Commissioner’s Office upholds survivor’s complaint against chair of ISB
A COMPLAINT by a survivor of clerical abuse that the first chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Professor Maggie Atkinson, broke data-protection rules during their correspondence, has been upheld by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)….
And, by the way, the twice promised website for the ISB has still not yet appeared at the time of writing.
There is a further letter to the editor, just below the one from Andrew Graystone. This one is from David Lamming about the ISB, and its role in relation to the Christ Church Oxford dispute. He concludes:
29 Comments…There is a clear need for the fully independent inquiry that Dr Percy is seeking. The problem is that the issue is at one and the same time too small and too big. It is too small to justify a formal inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 (which would need to be ordered by a government minister), such as the current Infected Blood inquiry. But, in embracing both Christ Church Cathedral and the College, it is too big for either to handle.
Moreover, any inquiry would need to investigate the role of Oxford diocese and the NST as an agent of the Archbishops’ Council. All these bodies are charities, and it is for this reason, I suggest, that the Charity Commission should step in and appoint a judge-led or senior-lawyer-led inquiry with wide terms of reference. Only such an inquiry would be truly independent and command the necessary confidence.
Questions continue to be asked about whether the Independent Safeguarding Board is indeed independent in any meaningful sense. The most recent example was Question 5 which was answered last night by the Bishop of Rochester as shown below.
Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q5 When interviewed by the BBC Sunday programme about the refusal of victim Matt Ineson to co-operate with the Review into his own case, Public Inquiry Specialist and regulatory expert Kate Blackwell QC identified the necessary features of best practice for such a review as follows:
1. It must be search for the truth to shed light on what has gone wrong;
2. Scrutiny of complex issues should be done through a panel of independent experts each bringing levels of excellence from various perspectives;
3. It goes without saying that the panel must have complete independence from any party; and
4. It must engender complete faith in the survivors.
She publicly opined that the Devamannikam Review did not meet those standards and the victim has refused to participate.
Did the Archbishops Council specifically consider each of these principles before determining that the Independent Safeguarding Board was the optimal forum in which to address the various complaints of Dr Martyn Percy that for four years, he has been the victim of institutional bullying within the Christ Church Foundation in which several Oxford clergy and Diocesan advisors are alleged to have participated?A The ISB exists to provide independent scrutiny and oversight of the Churchs safeguarding activity, to hold the Church to account for our actions as part of the ISBs remit to learn lessons from safeguarding matters. Given its remit the ISBs view was that there were likely to be lessons to be learned, the Archbishops Council and the Diocese of Oxford referred to the ISB the Churchs safeguarding activities in the last two years with respect to Dr Martyn Percy and Christ Church Oxford. They considered that it would be within the ISBs remit and the expertise of its members. They did not specifically consider the contents of the interview by Dr Blackwell. This is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all the issues around Christ Church. That would go well beyond the remit of the ISB. It is not, nor intended to be, a public inquiry.
Overnight, Martin Sewell has written to his GS colleagues:
Dear GS friends,
At Q&As yesterday I raised the issue that the ISB had transitioned from being a body scoping out its plans for future activity in February, to becoming, a few weeks later, a fully functioning Independent regulator, self confident ( despite no prior experience in the role) to invent its own Terms of Reference , its own process and implementing that in connection with the most complex case to arrive in the CofE for decades.
Evidently it thinks it needs neither the support of a supportive steering group which the Reviewer in the Fr Alan Griffin recorded he found so valuable, neither is there a quality assurance process in place. Already it has fallen foul of the Information Commissioner for mishandling data. There has been an adverse adjudication.
I asked Bp Jonathan how we could hold the ISB accountable and was told that that ship had sailed; it is asserted that it is now fully independent and beyond our reach.
I and others are by no means clear that this has actually constitutionally happened yet and if so, how? How did it make that leap without any decision recorded by Archbishops’ Council, or indeed General Synod ? There is no Measure handing away authority, so we all remain in the dark. What happened to the scrutiny stage? Where was the approval of this process? How did all this happen without any accountability?
As you know, some of us recently asked such questions in two letters to Archbishops’ Council and have yet to receive any meaningful response. The matter is not resting there.
I enclose a detailed letter sent to the Archbishops and ISB late yesterday evening by lawyers instructed by Dr. Percy; the letter is drawn by people who actually possess significant skills and experience in the field of devising and conducting proper fair functional reviews – and it shows.
I invite you to read it before the Safeguarding debate and ask the five questions devised by the late Tony Benn to ask of those in power.
What power have you got ?
Where did you get it from ?
In whose interests do you use it ?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?Put bluntly by asking detailed informed questions, Dr Percy’s lawyers are undertaking the due diligence work that ought properly have been done by the members General Synod, but we have been sidelined. That is unacceptable and it will not end well
The ISB cannot hold the confidence of anyone subjected to its process until all these questions have been resolved. Members of the House of Clergy representing those most at risk ought properly to take this especially seriously.
Do read the letter , it is thorough forensic and powerful. We need answers.
Yours sincerely
Martin Sewell
Rochester 390
In connection with the letter (also linked above) there is also a press release.
47 CommentsThe Metropolitan Police has confirmed that Martin Sargeant, former Head of Operations in the Two Cities, has been charged with fraud and money-laundering, dating back to between 2009 and 2019. Mr Sargeant left the Diocese in 2019, following a review of his role instigated by the new Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally. At the time there was no suspicion or evidence of criminality but, last year, the London Diocesan Fund (LDF) made a report to the Action Fraud unit of the Police, and a serious incident report to the Charity Commission, after a parish raised concerns about funds they had not received.
Over the past year, the LDF has worked closely to support the Police and to maintain the confidential, sensitive nature of their complex investigation at the Police’s request. Trustees of the LDF were first informed on a confidential basis, with permission of the Police, earlier this year. Any church or other organisation known to be relevant to these enquiries has already been approached as part of the investigation. The fraud is historic in nature, and does not relate to Common Fund or the present day funding of parishes. The Police’s work has involved extensive analysis of financial records relating to both the Diocese and the individual over a long period and the securing of a court order to freeze the individual’s assets. The total sum of money involved is believed to be in the region of £5m, affecting a number of different organisations.
Richard Perry, Chair of the London Diocesan Fund’s Audit and Risk Committee:
“Following the reporting of our concerns to the Police, our priority has been to support their work, and to do all we can to secure the defrauded funds. Our independent auditors have also carried out an urgent review of our present-day financial controls, to confirm they are robust. A second independent inquiry will report to the London Diocesan Fund’s trustees and look at what happened and how, and will make any further recommendations for the future, once the current case has been closed.”
The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, said:
“This appears to be a gross betrayal of trust for all those who knew and worked with this individual. After I came to the Diocese in 2018, his role was reviewed and he left the following year. While there was no evidence of anything inappropriate at the time, with the further information that has subsequently been uncovered, it now seems he exploited his position for personal gain.
“I want to thank the Police, and the London Diocesan Fund’s financial team, for their work over the past year, as they continue to investigate the extent of this complex fraud that was perpetuated over a decade.”
The LDF continues to support the Police with their investigation but will not be able to comment further publicly at this time.
23 CommentsUpdated 12 July
This news story is now reported in a fourth place:
This news story is reported in three separate places:
There are varying amounts of detail in these accounts, but what is notable is that Church of England officials are also implicated in the handling of this matter.
From the Church Times:
…Gilo also welcomed the mediation from EIO “over their repeated public dissembling around the review into my case. The bishop mandated to implement the review recommendations [the then Bishop of Crediton, now the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally] and the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, remained silent to every question and request for help on this. Eventually a Subject Access Request revealed complicity between the Archbishops’ Council, NST, and Ecclesiastical, and showed they had sought to work together on reputational management.”
And his earlier comments in September 2020 can be found here: Thoughts on the Elliott Review ‘translation’ by Archbishops Council.
From Surviving Church:
Ian Elliott, the internationally recognised safeguarding expert and reviewer, has said:
“I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and welcome the agreement to reach a mediated settlement with Ecclesiastical Insurance regarding the dissembling that has marked their response to the review that I undertook of a historic abuse case for the Church of England. Over the course of the years since I produced the report, EIO have made comments on national television, on their website, and in evidence to the Inquiry (IICSA), regarding the accuracy of my assessments, claiming that they were flawed. These damaging statements are completely untrue. Despite this, they were never publicly withdrawn and no attempt has ever been made by EIO or the Church to set the record straight. Telling the truth is important and when that does not happen, trust is damaged and lost.”
From Insurance Business:
A spokesperson for the Church of England, which was not involved in the settlement and was unable to comment on it but was involved in the Elliott Review, said that “the rights of survivors and victims to protect their data and our duty to use that data properly in any aspect of our work is paramount.”
“We will continue to unreservedly apologise for the Church’s poor response to survivors and victims, as highlighted at IICSA, and are committed to engaging with them to inform our future work,” the spokesperson said.
As Andrew Greystone says (Surviving Church)
I wish the House of Bishops in England would step up and take responsibility for the damage the church has done. Instead, victims and survivors of abuse in the Church of England find the church’s hierarchy resistant at every stage. It’s not that the bishops don’t care about justice and healing for victims of church abuse. Some certainly do. It’s just quite low on their list of priorities.
As Gilo and many others know only too well, every engagement with the church on this issue is an uphill struggle. Some survivors who have already lost years to fighting to have their voices heard, fear that they will face further years of legal battles to persuade the church to make redress.
Bishops need to understand that healing for victims of abuse is not a drag on the mission of the church. It IS the mission of the church.”
From Insurance Post:
2 CommentsRichard Scorer, head of abuse law team at Slater and Gordon and Gilo’s solicitor in this case, said: “The outcome of this case speaks for itself. Ecclesiastical initially treated the claim as a claim for a minor data breach. But it has now paid substantially more by way of damages than would ordinarily be paid for a simple breach.
“In addition, its CEO Mark Hews has provided an unreserved apology, and it has agreed to a further mediation about the wider issue of its public treatment of the Elliott review. By settling the matter in this way, it has in reality acknowledged that this data breach occurred in a wider context of EIO failings towards survivors, some of which were explored in IICSA, and that those failings significantly aggravated this data breach. I hope that these events will be part of an urgent and radical reshaping of EIO’s behaviour towards survivors, and the full implementation of the Elliott report”.
There are 11 Questions to the House of Bishops on Safeguarding, all to be answered by the Bishop of Rochester. They are all listed here.
Mrs Kat Alldread (Derby) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q3 Please can you tell us how many cases have been referred to the Independent Safeguarding Board for their review and the dates of those referrals?
A One case has been referred. The date of referral was 08 April 2022.
Mr Clive Billenness (Europe) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q4 Paper GS 2263 (Update on Safeguarding) states at Paragraph 18 that the Independent Safeguarding Board can scrutinise or review how the Church has handled a particular case.if it decides to after a case has been referred to it. Have criteria and procedures been published about such referrals of cases – e.g., who may refer a case, in what circumstances, and on what basis will the ISB decide what cases to scrutinise?
A Review activity by the Independent Safeguarding Board will vary in different cases.
Referrals to the ISB could come from a range of possible sources, including individuals; parish or diocesan safeguarding bodies; the NST; clergy, or the NCIs. Its remit is to bring forward lessons and to recommend and promote best practice.
Decisions are reached on a case-by-case basis after consideration as to whether the ISBs remit covers what is requested. The ISB will decide on whether the Board should undertake a review, and if so, what its nature should be.
This approach is comparable to that seen in case review sub-committees of safeguarding partnerships or boards in wider society, where a range of actions may or may not follow their deliberations.
Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q5 When interviewed by the BBC Sunday programme about the refusal of victim Matt Ineson to co-operate with the Review into his own case, Public Inquiry Specialist and regulatory expert Kate Blackwell QC identified the necessary features of best practice for such a review as follows:
1. It must be search for the truth to shed light on what has gone wrong;
2. Scrutiny of complex issues should be done through a panel of independent experts each bringing levels of excellence from various perspectives;
3. It goes without saying that the panel must have complete independence from any party; and
4. It must engender complete faith in the survivors.
She publicly opined that the Devamannikam Review did not meet those standards and the victim has refused to participate.
Did the Archbishops Council specifically consider each of these principles before determining that the Independent Safeguarding Board was the optimal forum in which to address the various complaints of Dr Martyn Percy that for four years, he has been the victim of institutional bullying within the Christ Church Foundation in which several Oxford clergy and Diocesan advisors are alleged to have participated?
A The ISB exists to provide independent scrutiny and oversight of the Churchs safeguarding activity, to hold the Church to account for our actions as part of the ISBs remit to learn lessons from safeguarding matters. Given its remit the ISBs view was that there were likely to be lessons to be learned, the Archbishops Council and the Diocese of Oxford referred to the ISB the Churchs safeguarding activities in the last two years with respect to Dr Martyn Percy and Christ Church Oxford. They considered that it would be within the ISBs remit and the expertise of its members. They did not specifically consider the contents of the interview by Dr Blackwell. This is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all the issues around Christ Church. That would go well beyond the remit of the ISB. It is not, nor intended to be, a public inquiry.
Updated 9 July
A Private Member’s Motion has been tabled at the General Synod relating to the use of Issues in Human Sexuality in the ordination process. The text of that motion is copied below:
Vocations process and Issues in human sexuality
Revd Mae Christie (Southwark) to move:
‘That this Synod request that the House of Bishops remove any requirements relating to Issues in Human Sexuality from the Vocations (Shared Discernment) Process.’
In connection with the above, there is also a Question, published today, which is also copied below:
The Revd Mae Christie (London) to ask the Chair of the Ministry Council:
Q62 When and by what mechanism was Issues in Human Sexuality formally written into the Selection Criterion of the Church of England?The Bishop of Chester to reply as Chair of the Ministry Council:
A We do not have a record of the date or the mechanism by which Issues in Human Sexuality was formally written into the former Selection Criteria. Unfortunately, since the information is not readily available it could not be obtained within the time-frame available for responding to Synod questions.
The answer is quite extraordinary. Maybe some of our readers can help out here?
PS Mthr Mae has not moved dioceses.
For the benefit of those wondering what exactly was in the former selection criteria about this,, here’s the wording:
E 5: Candidates should be able to accept the standards of sexual morality expected of ordained ministers
Evidence for this may be drawn from a candidate’s capacity to:
And in the new (current) selection criteria, it says this
Update
The following supplementary question was put on Friday evening by Mae Christie
If it cannot be established that IHS was inserted into the discernment process , having been ordered so by the House of Bishops, and is therefore in place illegitimately, will the house of bishops, in coordination with ministry division, consider removing it from the shared discernment process with immediate effect?
Another question related to Safeguarding.
Mr Paul Waddell (Southwark) to ask the Chair of the Finance Committee:
Q55 In February 2020 John Spence told Synod that This is not about affordability, it is about justice. . . The funds for redress will be found. How much money has been budgeted for redress payments to survivors of church abuse, and where does it appear in our budgets for the coming year?
Canon John Spence to reply as Chair of the Finance Committee:
A That commitment stands but the speed of progress is dependent on numerous factors. The redress scheme must be survivor focussed and not limited by existing budget lines.
Appropriate responsibility for redress needs to be taken at every level of the Church. On the subsidiarity principle, costs should be met by the most appropriate body and all responsibility should not fall on the national Church.
The national Church future spending plans include an allowance towards redress scheme costs, but a formal budget has not yet been set. The matter of where redress scheme payments will be included in future budgets and the budget level will be considered as the work on developing the redress scheme is progressed.
The costs of the project to develop a redress scheme are within the safeguarding line of the Archbishops Councils budget. This work is being overseen by a Project Board which includes survivor representatives.
In two earlier TA articles (first this and then that one) , we have linked to criticisms (first here and then here) of the ISB’s current role in relation to the Oxford Christ Church investigation. We also linked earlier to the text of a reply from William Nye to the first of the two letters of criticism.
Among the Questions for the General Synod in York this weekend, there is one which relates directly to this.
The Revd Canon Simon Talbott (Ely) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q123 Given the material that members of the Archbishops’ Council have been copied into relevant to the case of Dr Percy, have any of them submitted a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission and if not, why not?Canon Dr Jamie Harrison to reply on behalf of the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
A There have been long-running and some public exchanges with the Archbishops’ Council and members of General Synod and others relating to the process followed by the National Safeguarding Team and Dr Percy. This includes some correspondence directly with the Charity Commission, following which discussions took place between the Council and Charity Commission senior officers. Recent correspondence from Dr Percy and some Synod members sets out a difference of views as to how best to introduce independent oversight into Church of England safeguarding. The Archbishops’ Council does not assess that such correspondence meets the threshold for a serious incident report.
Given this is question number 123, it seems unlikely that supplementary questions will occur.
What is this Charity Commission Serious Incident Report procedure?
An explanation is here: How to report a serious incident in your charity
And there is a lot more detail here.
The relevant category in this case is presumably
which is elaborated as: