A synod paper published today, GS Misc 1341, is titled Independent Safeguarding Board: recent developments. I do recommend reading this document, which will be among those discussed at the General Synod on Sunday 9 July.
The BBC lunchtme radio news programme. The World At One, carried interviews with Bishop Julie Conalty, Deputy Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. and Alison Coulter, an elected lay member of the Archbishops’ Council.
A full transcript is available here (not yet checked for accuracy against recording). The BBC’s own audio recording is available here. Other audio recordings (courtesy of Mandate Now) can be found here (Conalty) and here (Coulter).
Statement from Archbishops’ Council on the Independent Safeguarding Board
21/06/2023
The Archbishops’ Council is committed to developing fully independent scrutiny of safeguarding within the Church of England, to ensure the Church is a safer place for all. This principle was agreed in the run-up to the publication of the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) into the Anglican Church in England Wales in 2020.
It is therefore with regret that the Council has come to the reluctant conclusion that, despite extensive efforts over recent months, working relationships between two members of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) and the Council have broken down.
The Board – made up of a chair, a Survivor Advocate and a third member – was set up by the Archbishops’ Council in 2021 as the first step towards a new system of independent scrutiny and the intention was always to move to a second phase.
It has been widely reported that there has been a dispute between two members of the ISB and the Council. Members of the Council and our experienced safeguarding professionals have been working constructively over recent months to put the ISB on a more sustainable footing.
Nevertheless, it has now become clear that that this is no longer viable with its current membership and that the dispute itself risks getting in the way of that urgent priority of moving to the next phase of establishing a new independent safeguarding body.
The Council has therefore agreed a reset. This will involve ending the contracts of two of the members of the Board, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, and of the acting Chair, Meg Munn.
The Council will be putting in place interim arrangements to continue the independent oversight of existing case reviews.
Those reviews will be carried out by independent experts qualified to conduct case reviews, just as at present, and they will be independently commissioned.
In the very immediate future, we have asked Meg Munn to provide business continuity for the remaining business of this phase of the ISB’s work. Case reviews will be overseen by one or more independent chairs of Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panels.
The Council will then move swiftly towards the second phase of independent scrutiny. We want to listen to all those with an interest, to learn the lessons of the work of the ISB in the last two years, and to find a way forward to establishing independent scrutiny on a firmer basis. We will engage with victims and survivors, with other independent voices, and with safeguarding professionals inside and outside the Church, to work with the Archbishops’ Council to design a permanent independent oversight structure.
The Council recognises that this news will be concerning and unsettling to victims, survivors and others. Members of the Council will be arranging an opportunity to meet with victims and survivors to hear concerns and discuss the situation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said: “We bitterly regret that we have reached this point and the Archbishops’ Council has not reached this decision lightly. We know this is a serious setback and we do not shy away from that – we lament it.
“But it is clear that there is no prospect of resolving the disagreement and that it is getting in the way of the vital work of serving victims and survivors. So the Council has very reluctantly concluded that we need a reset so that we can move swiftly towards a new scrutiny body that is fully independent of the Church.
“And in the immediate term we want to reassure victims and survivors that the work of independent case reviews will not stop.
“We recognise that this dispute has damaged confidence. But we believe this is the only way to get independent oversight of safeguarding back on track and move forward as quickly as we can.
“We also recognise that there are lessons for the Archbishops’ Council to learn from this and it is essential that we do so for the future.
…The purpose of the Redress Scheme is to demonstrate in tangible and practical ways that the Church is truly sorry for its past failings relating to safeguarding.
There will be a presentation and debate at the Church’s General Synod next month and it is hoped legislation will progress through Synod in forthcoming sessions after which it will need Parliamentary approval.
Following the Church’s IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) hearings, General Synod committed in February 2020 to a more victim and survivor-centred approach.
This included making arrangements to provide redress, which was recommended in IICSA’s final report for the Church of England and Church in Wales, published in October 2020.
The final overall IICSA report in 2022 for all its investigation strands recommended a national redress scheme. The Church remains committed to implementing a scheme specifically for people who have experienced abuse in the Church of England.
The Church’s national proposals for redress are about more than money; financial payments will be offered alongside therapeutic, spiritual and emotional support, acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the part of the Church, and apology and support for rebuilding lives.
Where possible apology will be from the institution where the abuse took place (or from a part of the Church appropriate to the survivor’s needs) in a format which is most appropriate to the survivor.
The victim and survivor working group* have laid out principles for this and are developing proposals for non-financial redress, following the wider consultation with other survivors.
All survivors of sexual, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse (including spiritual abuse) relating to the Church will be eligible to apply for redress.
The initial details of the scheme, released today, have been developed under the direction of the Redress Project Board, chaired by the Bishop of Truro, Philip Mounstephen; a victim and survivor working group* has been set up and operates at the heart of the process of developing the scheme and two members sit on the Board.
Along with the working group there continues to be extensive engagement and consultation with key stakeholder groups across the Church including a Finance Focus Group made up of diocesan secretaries and other professionals.
The Project Board has agreed that, to be as meaningful as possible, at least some responsibility for offering redress should be taken as close as possible to where the abuse was perpetrated, or harm was done.
The overall objectives of such a whole Church approach are:
Together, as one body, the Church of England must collectively show contrition for its failings, and for the pain and suffering that has occurred.
Nationally, the Church of England will set up a single point of access to the Scheme, to offer a consistent service and to minimise as far as practicable further delay and trauma for victims and survivors.
To the extent possible, the Church body which is nearest in governance terms to the source / perpetrator of the abuse should make a contribution to redress.
In order to deliver this consistent service around the country, through a range of institutions, legislation will be required because the Church of England comprises a large number of free-standing legal charitable bodies subject to the oversight of trustees or the equivalent. (more…)
The General Synod Private Member’s Motion mentioned in the above can be found here (scroll down). It reads as follows
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) to move:
‘That this Synod, being deeply disquieted at the continued controversies over the actual independence of Safeguarding structures within the Church of England, does not accept that an internal Church inquiry into the allegations of abuse and cover-up within the Soul Survivor network is either sufficient or right in principle.
It accordingly calls upon the Archbishop’s Council to commission, on agreed terms of reference with survivors, a report into those allegations from an independent King’s Counsel without delay.’
on Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 3.05 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Conferences, News
Updated
The Religion Media Centre held a day-long Religion Media Festival on Monday. The full programme of events is copied below the fold. Only a few of them have been reported on so far. If I find links to more reports I will add them, but so far all I have found is in this list:
Please click here [see below] to read a statement from the National Safeguarding Team and Diocese of St Albans which explains why the Bishop of St Albans has requested that Andy Croft voluntarily withdraw from any ministry until the investigation is concluded. Please see below for a statement from the Soul Survivor Watford Trustees.
A statement from the Soul Survivor Watford Trustees
After receiving new information from the National Safeguarding Team (NST) investigation into Mike Pilavachi, the non-staff Trustees of Soul Survivor Watford have decided to suspend two members of staff under HR processes: Senior Pastor, Andy Croft and Assistant Pastor, Ali Martin. The information submitted to the investigation relates to concerns over the handling of allegations that were raised before the NST investigation began.
While the investigation continues, the Trustees have asked Rev. Jon Stevens (Executive Pastor) to take on the interim leadership of Soul Survivor Watford, with senior support from Rev. Canon Tim Lomax (Bishop’s Visitor).
We are thankful to all those who have proactively shared their concerns with the NST and recognise that each of them has shown great courage in sharing their experiences.
If you would like to speak to anyone regarding this investigation, please be assured that any concerns raised will be treated with the utmost sensitivity and appropriate support can be given. Please contact Jeremy Hirst at the Diocesan Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@stalbans.anglican.org or Judith Renton, Ian Bowles or Anthony Clarke at the National Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@churchofengland.org who will listen to what you have to say.
For other concerns, please contact thirtyone:eight on 0303 003 1111, or the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056.
The NST statement mentioned above reads as follows:
Update on Mike Pilavchi investigation
08/06/2023
Statement from National Safeguarding Team and Diocese of St Albans
Soul Survivor Watford Trustees have announced today the suspension under HR processes of two serving members of staff following information submitted to the investigation into Mike Pilavachi which is being run jointly by the diocese of St Albans and the National Safeguarding Team, NST, according to House of Bishops guidance. This information relates to the handling of allegations and concerns raised in the Mike Pilavachi case and we cannot say anymore while this new strand of investigation runs its course. The Bishop of St Albans has requested that the senior pastor voluntarily withdraw from any ministry until the investigation is concluded. Support is being offered to all those involved.
Earlier, the suspension of Mike Pilavachi had been announced on 20th of May (scroll down on that page) and the original announcement of an investigation was made on 2nd April.
on Friday, 2 June 2023 at 1.53 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England
Christina Beardsley has written a paper with this title, which was published in Modern Believing in December 2022. Normally this publication is not available electronically without a subscription. The Liverpool University Press has kindly allowed it to be on Free Access for the calendar month of June 2023.
Trans People and LLF is available in two formats, as a web page, and as a PDF file. Here is the abstract:
Since the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) project began, gender-critical discourse has become increasingly prominent and trans people’s lives routinely debated in the British media. Gender diversity is respectfully handled in LLF‘s resources, but LLF‘s Next Steps Group (NSG) has proposed a working party on ‘gender identity and transition’ to consider current ‘societal debates’. This problematising of trans people conflicts with LLF‘s premise that ‘no person is a problem, or an issue’. The NSG’s proposed bibliography, setting gender-critical texts and gender-affirming texts side-by-side, could also undermine the Church of England’s trans-affirming policies and pastoral practice. As an alternative I offer a theological critique of three gender-critical texts contrasting them with a generous, tradition-sourced Christian anthropology.
In relation to this, readers may find it useful to see a letter, also written by Christina, to the Bishop of London in July 2021, which was originally published at Unadulterated Love. This letter sets out in detail the Church of England’s then current policy and practice in relation to trans people, and begins this way:
I understand, from the recent minutes of the May meeting of the House of Bishops that the House ‘agreed in principle to the formation of a working group on gender identity and transition under the auspices of the LLF Next Steps Group, details of which will be announced in due course.’
As I explained in my letter of May 21st 2021 my own view is that to convene such a working party suggests that trans people are a problem for the Church of England or that there is some uncertainty about their status as members of the Body of Christ.
Given the Church of England’s policy and practice in relation to trans people, I see no such problem or uncertainty. Here is my understanding of the current position of the Church of England regarding trans people…
A CONTINUING lack of communication, no co-ordinated case management, and poor pastoral support, has left a “heavy toll” on a vulnerable survivor of abuse, the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) has concluded in its first case review.
The review, redacted for legal reasons and dated March 2023, has been submitted to the Church’s Director of Safeguarding. It was written by Steve Reeves, one of three ISB Board members, and has been approved by the survivor whose case it relates, known as Mr X. The abridged version has been seen by the Church Times this week.
The abridged text of the Spindler review into the case of Mr X can be found here.
The full text of the concluding recommendations is copied here, below the fold.
Church Commissioners fund posts 5% return in 2022 despite challenging markets
London, 25 May 2023: The Church Commissioners for England, which manages the Church of England’s endowment fund, delivered a 5% return in 2022, a robust performance in the face of challenging market conditions.
“Our aim is to support the mission and ministry of the Church of England through providing as much funding as we can on a sustainable basis, year in, year out, come rain or shine – and achieving these returns in a year of double-digit inflation, an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is truly a testament to the skill and dedication of our investment professionals,” said Alan Smith, First Church Estates Commissioner. “As a result of our consistent strong returns over the long-term, we were able in 2022 to announce an increase in our distributions to the Church to £1.2bn over the next three years, a 30% increase over the previous three-year period.”
“Our focus on the long-term and genuinely diversified approach allowed us to be resilient in the face of strong economic headwinds in 2022, saidTom Joy, Chief Investment Officer. “Considering that equity and fixed income markets were under considerable stress, this is a very creditable result – and marks the fourteenth consecutive year of positive returns.”
The Church Commissioners 2022 results are published in its Annual Report.
The Church Commissioners for England manages the endowment fund of the Church of England in a responsible and ethical way. The portfolio is truly diversified across a broad range of asset classes to mitigate risk, and assets are invested with a long-term outlook. This approach has enabled the Church Commissioners to deliver an average annual return of 10.2% over the last ten years.
A document from the Church of England Evangelical Council, which has appeared on other forms of social media, gives an explanation of that group’s plans for further responses to the current LLF processes.
THE Independent Safeguarding Board has served the Archbishops’ Council with a formal dispute resolution notice, saying that the Council is continuing to frustrate its work and threaten its independence, while failing to put survivors first.
The notice was served on Wednesday afternoon in a letter sent by two of the three ISB board members: the lead survivor-advocate, Jasvinder Sanghera, and Steve Reeves. Its contents have not yet been made public. In it, they complain that the Archbishops’ Council has repeatedly blocked their work, compromised their independence, and refused to listen to both them and to survivors…
We will update this article again when any responses to the letter are published, or if other information (e.g. the full text of the notice) becomes available.
OPPONENTS of the commendation of blessings for same-sex couples circulated documents last week challenging the legality of the proposed prayers and expressing anxieties about their practical application.
Last week, the Church Society, a conservative Evangelical organisation in the Church of England, distributed a compilation of questions relating to the work of the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) implementation groups (News, 3 May)…
…In addition, a small group of General Synod members who opposed the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples in February issued “further commentary” on the proposals.
The note was emailed to Synod members late on Sunday evening by Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford), and signed by a further seven legal professionals who sit in the House of Laity, all of whom voted against the motion introducing the Prayers of Love and Faith (News, 9 February).
The two documents referenced can be read at the following links:
Dominic Grieve KC has completed his independent review of the governance of Christ Church and a report setting out his recommendations to the Governing Body.
Christ Church commissioned the review to ensure that its governance meets the needs of an Oxford University college in the 21st century. It has made a series of important recommendations, which are set out below.
Now that the review is complete, the Governing Body will consider its conclusions and the changes necessary to ensure that Christ Church has an effective system of governance in place. Implementing these reforms will require consultation with the University, the Church of England, and the Charity Commission, and the approval of the Privy Council and Parliament.
The press release linked above contains a 43 paragraph summary of the recommendations.
The full text of the review (218 paragraphs) is linked here.
Full text of statement issued on behalf of Soul Survivor complainants:
In a statement released through solicitor Richard Scorer of Slater and Gordon Lawyers, who is advising some of the complainants, a number of survivors of abuse in Soul Survivor said:
“The allegations against Mike Pilavachi are extremely serious. They clearly require comprehensive, independent and transparent investigation, covering both the allegations themselves and, crucially, the institutional response to those allegations, both within Soul Survivor and across the wider Church of England.
“Given the network of connections between Soul Survivor and the Church of England, we do not believe that any Church of England body, whether the Diocese of St Albans or the National Safeguarding Team, can plausibly conduct an independent, objective and transparent investigation at this time. There are simply too many connections between the Church of England and Soul Survivor, both at diocesan and national level, and too many potential conflicts of interest, for survivors to have confidence in the independence and transparency of any church-run investigation.
“By way of example, Justin Welby has been personally involved in Soul Survivor over many years. One trustee of Soul Survivor (until last month) is also a trustee of the Lambeth Trust, the Archbishop’s personal charity. A senior figure in Soul Survivor is the son of a senior Church of England Bishop. These are just some examples of the intimate and longstanding network of connections between Soul Survivor and senior figures in the Church of England.
“The days when churches could plausibly investigate themselves and mark their own homework are long gone. Accordingly, we call upon the Church of England and specifically the CofE National Safeguarding Team (1) to accept that a trusted independent agency should be appointed to conduct this investigation (2) to engage with survivors in the selection of such an agency and the drafting of any terms of reference, so that any investigation can be truly independent and have the confidence of survivors from the outset”
…The investigation, which is being led by safeguarding professionals from the National Safeguarding Team and the Diocese of St Albans, is independent from Soul Survivor and has my full support…
Throughout the course of the LFF project, Andrew Goddard has provided a series of analyses of various aspects of it. His latest article on the Psephizo website is the last of a three-part set, but first for context here are links to the preceding two items:
There has been some discussion, both on TA and elsewhere, of what form(s) of “differentiation” might be attractive to those dissenting from the proposals for action that have now emerged from the LFF process. Andrew now discusses these possibilities in considerable detail in this article:
Following the publication of the independent lessons learnt review into the Church of England’s handling of allegations against the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam, and the response of those criticised, the Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, having taken appropriate advice, yesterday required Lord Sentamu, Honorary Assistant Bishop in Newcastle Diocese, to step back from active ministry until both the findings and his response can be explored further.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, is fully supportive of this decision. The Diocese of Newcastle remains committed to the highest standards of safeguarding which seeks always to place victims and survivors at the heart of this vital work.
If you or anyone you are in contact with are affected by the publication of this report and want to talk to someone independently, please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or visit safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk
The full text of the statement issued yesterday by Lord Sentamu is available here.
Statement from Alexander Kubeyinje, Church of England’s national safeguarding director following publication of lessons learnt review into the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam
What happened in this case makes for incredibly harrowing reading and I apologise for the hurt and harm caused to the survivor. The review was to highlight failures and how the Church can and must learn from its past mistakes.
If we are to be true to our words that we want change then there is a responsibility that senior leaders would want and need assurances that lessons are learnt.
I support the Bishop of Newcastle’s decision completely as responding well to victims and survivors is a core part of the Church’s safeguarding and this review is part of this, we have a duty to and must do better.
Lord Sentamu said he had told the review what he told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) when it considered the matter – “namely that the action following a disclosure to the bishop of Sheffield was his and his alone in line with established safeguarding procedures and guidelines”.
He added: “I acted within the agreed procedures, rules and practice guidance on safeguarding, set by the House of Bishops and the Clergy Discipline Measure. Safeguarding is very important but it does not trump Church Law (which is part of the Common Law of England).
“And the law is not susceptible to be used as an excuse for exercising the role given to an archbishop. Church Law sets the boundaries for diocesan bishops and archbishops.”
The Bishop of Oxford has written to his clergy. The text of that letter is available here.
Update: The full text of Lord Sentamu’s statement is now available, as a PDF.
We have published several news reports recently, that relate to the Independent Safeguarding Board, here, and also here, and earlier over here. These provide some context for a letter from David Lamming published in the Church Times this week under the heading Church Interference with the ISBthat summarises the current difficulties:
Sir, — The Annual Report 2022-23 of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), written by the two members, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, and published on 24 April, blows away any remaining claim that the ISB is independent, stating on page 19 that it “currently exists within the structure of the National Church Institutions with oversight from the Archbishops’ Council”.
That servile relationship with the Archbishops’ Council is highlighted by the fact that Meg Munn has been imposed on the ISB as acting chair, in clear breach of the ISB’s terms of reference, which state that the Archbishops’ Council “ratifies” board appointments and that each member is appointed following a process that includes “public advertisement of vacancies” and “the use of expert recruiters to ensure a wide field”. Added to this is the obvious conflict of interest in appointing a person who also chairs the National Safeguarding Panel.
It is especially disturbing to note, according to the report in the Sunday Telegraph on 23 April, that neither board members nor abuse victims were consulted over the appointment of Ms Munn, and that the members were “instructed not to engage with victims on matters of ‘independence and the arrival of the chair'”. Given, too, the expressed lack of confidence in her by many survivors of abuse, Ms Munn must surely now state that she will not take up the role of acting chair, and the Secretary-General, William Nye, must give a full account of how her appointment came to be made.
In February, General Synod members were denied the opportunity to debate the ISB (News, 2 February; 6 February). Patently, such a debate must take place at York in July, when those responsible for the current débâcle can be held to account.