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 CommentsThis post will be updated as the meeting proceeds.
The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this weekend. The timetable is here, the papers are here.
Live Video etc
All sessions are streamed live on YouTube and remain available to view afterwards.
Friday afternoon
Saturday morning and afternoon
Sunday
Monday morning
Monday afternoon
Monday evening
Tuesday morning
There is an official Twitter account.
Order Papers
OP1 – Friday afternoon
OP2 – Saturday morning
OP3 – Saturday afternoon
OP4 – Sunday afternoon
OP5 – Monday morning
OP6 – Monday afternoon
OP7 – Monday evening
OP8 – Tuesday morning
Business done
Friday 8 July 2022 PM
Saturday 9 July 2022 AM
Saturday 9 July 2022 PM
Sunday 10 July 2022 PM
Monday 11 July 2022 AM
Monday 11 July 2022 PM
Monday 11 July 2022 EVE
Tuesday 12 July 2022 AM
Official press releases
Archbishop of York’s Presidential Address
Synod endorses plan to reach net zero carbon by 2030
Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech in Synod debate on the war in Ukraine
General Synod welcomes £3.6bn investment in mission and ministry
General Synod safeguarding session
Synod debates review of Strategic Development and Lowest Income Communities Funding
More funding needed for palliative care, General Synod hears, in debate on Assisted Suicide
Synod hears of suffering of Ukrainian citizens as it votes to condemn Russian invasion
Synod backs motion affirming disabled people in the life and ministry of the Church
General Synod calls for stronger age verification for pornography websites
Global Anglican Communion given greater voice in choice of future Archbishops of Canterbury
Synod welcomes new report setting out proposals for Clergy Conduct Measure
Archbishop of Canterbury pays tribute to Her Majesty The Queen at General Synod
Press reports etc
Church Times
Synod approves net-zero routemap after climate protest
Five overseas Anglicans will help choose the next Archbishop of Canterbury
Love knows no boundaries, Bishop Poggo tells Synod congregation
Synod rejects assisted dying by a large majority
Synod debates what justice might look like in Ukraine
Government must legislate to protect children against porn, Synod resolves
Synod strongly supports swift overhaul of clergy discipline
What happened at the General Synod in York?
David Pocklington at Law & Religion UK
Synod endorsement for “net zero” plan
Synod vote on “assisted suicide”
Synod members’ blogs
Andrew Nunn
A long weekend in York
Hot air
The Garden of England
A day of rest
From pounds to PCCs to porn
Wonderfully made
Nick Baines
General Synod: Ukraine
Jo Stobart
General Synod (8-12 July, 2022)
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:
The Questions (and Answers) for this weekend’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod were published today. The Question sessions (on Friday and Saturday evenings) will be devoted to supplementary questions.
Questions Notice Paper July 2022
Questions Notice Paper Annex – Q168
Update
The original version of the Questions Notice Paper contained a number of errors (listed in Notice Paper 11) and has been replaced (at the same URL) by a corrected version.
3 CommentsUpdated again 1 July
On 25 May, as previously reported, the Church of England reported that its Independent Safeguarding Board would conduct a review on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council and the Diocese of Oxford, see Christ Church safeguarding review for further details.
On 15 June (apologies for delay in reporting) Christ Church Oxford announced: Christ Church appoints the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC to lead its Independent Governance Review.
Christ Church, Oxford has today appointed the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC to lead an independent review into governance of the Foundation, after its Governing Body voted overwhelmingly to endorse the former Attorney General for England and Wales as chair of the review…
…The Independent Governance Review, which is expected to report in 2023, will make recommendations that the Governing Body will carefully consider, to ensure that Christ Church’s statutes, by-laws and governance arrangements meet the needs of this unique institution in the 21st century…
Criticisms of the Church of England review were expressed in a letter to the Archbishops’ Council from Martin Sewell and others, dated 13 June, published here on 20 June: Independent Safeguarding Board and the Percy review.
(I also provided a recap of ISB history and other related links in a separate article here.)
All these developments were reported in the Church Times on 24 June. Regarding the criticism of the ISB Percy review:
…A Church House spokesperson said this week: “The Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB, was set up in 2021, following a decision by the Archbishops’ Council and House of Bishops to provide independent external scrutiny and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding activity. This includes overseeing the work of the National Safeguarding Team, NST, which along with Oxford diocese referred this issue to the ISB.
“Its remit is also to advise on how an independent presence on safeguarding should work in the long term. The ISB operates independently in that it decides its work programme, it sets its own terms of reference for its work, and it can scrutinise any aspect of the Church’s safeguarding activity that it chooses. General Synod received a full presentation and paper on the work of the ISB at its February Synod.”
Update 30 June
The Church Times has a further report on 30 June: Nye backs Independent Safeguarding Board for Oxford review
…In a letter to Mr Sewell, sent on Wednesday of last week, Mr Nye clarifies the limited nature of the ISB review. Having been asked by the Archbishops’ Council and the diocese of Oxford to look into the church safeguarding aspects of the Christ Church dispute, “the ISB agreed that it would undertake a review of these safeguarding matters, as part of its oversight remit, in order to learn any lessons. This would include looking at whether these issues should have been dealt with as safeguarding matters at all. This is entirely consistent with the ISB’s remit…”
…In the letter, Mr Nye also accuses Dr Percy of launching “a series of personal attacks on the professional standing and competence of the chair of the ISB, extending to contacting other clients of her work, with a view to discouraging them from employing her”.
Approached for a response, Dr Percy called the accusation “baseless”, but declined to comment on an allegation made to a third party and not directly to him.
Mr Sewell said on Tuesday: “William’s letter really doesn’t answer many of our questions, and we are pressing him again. I am happy, however, to explain why nobody should be surprised that a measure of frustration and anger has crept in, at the end of lengthy correspondence between Dr Percy and the ISB.
“It has completely ignored his most significant complaints and failed to answer reasonable process enquiries. This comes on top of four years of intensive bullying by College and Church alike. The Church and its agents are alleged to have actively promoted a false narrative of serious risk which was abandoned on the day after settlement….”
Updates 1 July
Updated 29 June
Following last week’s release of the papers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod there have been a number of press reports and online comments.
Church Times
Porn, but not Pride, on General Synod’s York agenda
New report on Clergy Discipline Measure to go to General Synod
Wedding fees should be slashed, Blackburn diocese argues
David Pocklington Law & Religion UK July Synod: plans for “net zero carbon” by 2030
Telegraph
Scrap ‘unjust’ wedding fees to make marriage more affordable, urge vicars
Wealthy church parishes could give to poorer neighbours under C of E plans
Porn site age verification would stop ‘distorted’ sexualisation of children, say clergy
There is a Press release from the Church of England today about the agenda for next month’s meeting of General Synod; it is copied below. There is a second press release about one particular item on the agenda: Synod to consider plans for net zero carbon Church by 2030.
General Synod meets at York next month with debates from Ukraine war to online safety
23/06/2022
The war in Ukraine, climate change, online safety and the Church of England’s plans to increase its spending on mission and ministry are among a series of issues to be debated by the General Synod next month.
The stage at General Synod in York.
Members of the General Synod will meet at York University in July to debate a range of topics from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, to protection of children and young people from online pornography.
Other subjects on the agenda include plans by the Church Commissioners to distribute £3.6 billion to the frontline work of the Church of England between 2023 and 2031, announced earlier this year by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Further debates will include the route map for churches, dioceses and Cathedrals to achieving net zero carbon by 2030 (see separate press release) and a call for the Church of England to commit to working towards the removal of all remaining barriers to full participation for people with disabilities in the life and ministry of the church.
A Guildford Diocesan Synod motion will urge the Government to pass legislation requiring pornographic websites to have age verification systems preventing access by people under the age of 18.
Members will also debate a Private Member’s Motion opposing assisted suicide and calling for more funding for palliative care.
Other debates include a report outlining a proposed overhaul of legislation governing clergy discipline. There will also be a presentation on safeguarding, and discussion on its future oversight followed by a separate debate.
The General Synod will meet at York University from Friday July 8 to Tuesday July 12. This is the first time the Synod has met in York in person since the pandemic.
1 CommentPapers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod are now available online. There is a list (with links and a note of the day scheduled for their debate) in numerical order below the fold.
GS 2256 Agenda July 2022 (more…)
35 CommentsUpdated again Thursday 23 June
This article summarises the various steps taken in the course of creating this new Church of England body.
On 15 December 2020, the Archbishops’ Council issued a press release, as we reported here: Independent oversight of safeguarding proposed.
On 25 February 2021, the Archbishops’ Council issued another press release, reported here as Proposals on NST independent oversight published which links to a lengthy paper authored by Malcolm Brown and brought to the February 2021 General Synod.
The Church Times reported: Synod members hear significant changes planned for church safeguarding.
Appointments to the ISB were announced:
Although the Archbishops’ Council reported that the ISB proposal was included in their agenda, first here (para 3), and then here (para 7) nothing else was announced until February 2022. We then reported: Recent Church of England Safeguarding reports. This links to GS 2244 which includes as an Annex (starts on page 11 of the PDF) the first report from the Chair of the newly constituted Independent Safeguarding Board. This is worth reading carefully.
The same article also links to Gavin Drake’s follow-on motion which you can read in full here.
The Church Times reported on what happened in debate:
And then on 26 May, this press release came from the Church of England which we reported as Christ Church safeguarding review. It links to the full text of the Terms of Reference for that review.
Updates
For an understanding of how the Diocese of Oxford views this review, see this extract from June 2022 Oxford Diocesan Synod Questions.
For information about the objections that have been raised to this review, see:
A letter on this topic has been sent to all members of the Archbishops’ Council signed by Martin Sewell, a General Synod member from Rochester diocese, and also by a number of other General Synod members.
The letter itself is contained in a PDF file which can be read here. It is well worth reading this in full.
For more of the background to the formation of the ISB, look here.
There is an online public petition related to this, over here.
What follows is the text of the covering email from Martin Sewell, which summarises the content of the letter.
Dear Archbishops and members of Archbishops’ Council,
I enclose a letter signed by members of General Synod which expresses our concern that Archbishops’ Council has prematurely engaged the newly evolving Independent Safeguarding Board in detailed case work which it is not yet properly authorised or suitably equipped to handle with the independence, resource and competence the role requires. We specifically raise a number of specific questions which we believe need to be urgently addressed by Archbishops’ Council.
After a lengthy and discreditable history of response to complaints in Safeguarding and its associated Clergy Discipline issues, nobody objects to the idea of the Church placing itself under effective outside scrutiny. Some of us have campaigned vigorously for the creation of just such a Board in previous General Synods, and you will recall that the recent February Synod considered a following motion that sought to begin a process to debate and vest the ISB with the very independence responsibility and associated powers that will make the Board the kind of constitutional creature that IICSA had in mind to save us from a repetition of the failures and scandals of the past.
That debate was cut short by a procedural motion, approved by a newly elected Synod comprising 60% new members and the matter was not brought to a conclusion. What exactly the ISB is, and what it can and cannot do, constitutionally and practically, given its low resource and part time nature, remains very much “unfinished Synod business”. In our view General Synod has an important continuing role to ensure the success of the ISB project.
We note with respect and gratitude that both Archbishops opposed the truncation of the debate by the use of a procedural device: it did us no favours and is part of the reason we are in this currently unsatisfactory position today.
When the Chair of the ISB addressed us (and her address to Synod is worth a second hearing by Archbishops’ Council) she was plainly seeking to lower expectation and to emphasise the incremental character of their approach to the role. She told us that its members were assessing and growing their understanding of the role within our complex institution, in what was described as “Phase One” of the project. That limited scope of current activity disappointed some of us, but the opportunity to fully articulate those concerns was denied.
What nobody knew or anticipated from that debate, was that only a few weeks later, the members of the ISB would be offered, and would embrace, responsibility for the devising, timetabling, structuring, implementation and personal execution of the most complex and serious Case Review in the history of the Church, and moreover that they would attempt to do so at speed. The members of the ISB have many qualities and much experience; devising and conducting complex case reviews does not appear to feature within their past skill set. In no other national Institution would such a task be delegated to novices. At the Diocesan Synod at Oxford this weekend it was confirmed that the Dr Martyn Percy Case Review is the first such piece of work the Board and its members will have ever have attempted. This is not the case on which to “cut your teeth”.
Put simply, this is a disaster waiting to happen for the reasons contained in our detailed letter. It is especially troubling if, as we understand, the Percy case is not the only matter pressed upon the ISB at short notice.
The ISB needs to be established with the confidence of all parties, and that is unlikely to be the case given the way these reviews are being hurriedly constructed. There is no shame in having second thoughts which we urge you to undertake without delay, asking the ISB to pause its work in this field whilst our objections are evaluated by all concerned. It is essential that the ISB is established with confidence in its independence, constitution, integrity and competence. That confidence must be built on sure foundations if it is to fulfil the role intended for it. Our questions are designed to help Archbishops’ Council review the problem areas to give the ISB its best opportunity to become what we all want it to be.
We hope Archbishops’ Council will discuss the questions we raise with the same care with which we have formulated them, and that the answers will be made available in good time so that they may be scrutinised at the upcoming General Synod in July.
29 CommentsUpdated 6 June – this is now available online.
The General Synod of the Church of England will meet in York on 8-12 July 2022. The outline timetable has been circulated to Synod members and is copied below.
GENERAL SYNOD: JULY 2022
OUTLINE OF BUSINESS
Full details of each item will be on the agenda
Friday 8 July
2.00 pm – 7.00 pm
– Opening worship and introductions
– Welcome from the Anglican Communion guests
– Presidential Address
– Business Committee Report
– Routemap to Net Zero Carbon
– War in Ukraine
Not later than 5.45pm
– Questions
Saturday 9 July
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
– Opening worship
– See of Canterbury Membership of the Crown Nominations Commission
– Independent Review of Lowest Income Communities Funding and Strategic Development Funding
– Spending plans of the Church Commissioners and Archbishops’ Council
2.00 pm – 7.00 pm
– Safeguarding and Independence
– Diocesan Stipend Fund (Amendment) Measure – first consideration
Diocesan Synod Motion: Lincoln Diocese
– Insurance Premium Tax
– Church of England Pensions (Application of Capital Funds) Measure – first consideration
Not later than 5.55pm
– Questions
Evening: CNC candidates market place
Sunday 10 July
2.30 pm – 6.45 pm
– Introduction to group work – Living in Love and Faith and Vision & Strategy
– Group work
Private Members’ Motion: Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester)
– Assisted Suicide
8.30 pm – 9.30 pm
– Extended Act of Worship during which voting for CNC central members will take place
Monday 11 July
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
– Opening worship
– Presentation on Archbishops’ Council Annual Report
– Archbishops’ Council 2023
– Annual Budget Amending Canon 42 – first consideration
2.00 pm – 6.30 pm
– Affirming and Including Disabled People in the Whole Life of the Church
– Church Funds Investment Measure – first consideration
– Resourcing Ministerial Formation
– Miscellaneous Provisions Measure and Amending Canon No 43 – first consideration
8.00 pm – 10.00 pm
Diocesan Synod Motion: Canterbury Diocese
– Review of qualifications for PCC membership and entry on the church electoral roll
Diocesan Synod Motion: Guildford Diocese
– Age verification on pornography websites
Followed by compline
Tuesday 12 July
9.00 am – 12.30 pm
– Opening worship
– Loyal Address
– Amendments to the Standing Orders for the membership of the Canterbury Crown Nominations Commission
– Clergy Conduct Measure Implementation Group
– Announcement of election of Central CNC members
– Farewells
Not later than 12.30pm
– Prorogation
Deemed business:
– Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2022,
– Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2022,
– Code of Practice under the Clergy Discipline Measure,
– Pensions Rules (Amendment) Scheme
Contingency business:
Diocesan Synod Motion: Blackburn Diocese
– Reduce parochial fees for marriages
Deadline for receipt of questions: 1200 hrs Tuesday 28 June
8 CommentsThis post will be updated as the meeting proceeds.
The Church of England’s General Synod is meeting this week. The timetable is here, the papers are here.
Live Video
All sessions are streamed live on YouTube and remain available to view afterwards.
Tuesday afternoon
Wednesday morning
Wednesday afternoon
Thursday morning
Thursday afternoon
Order Papers
OP1 – Tuesday 8 February PM
OP2 – Wednesday 9 February AM
OP3 – Wednesday 9 February PM
Erratum to Order Paper 3
This erratum also contains an error – the word “update” should be deleted from the first line of paragraph (b).
OP4 – Thursday 10 February AM
OP5 – Thursday 10 February PM
Business done
Official press releases
Archbishop of Canterbury’s presidential address to General Synod
Lack of action on racial justice is ‘chilling’, Lord Boateng tells Synod
Archbishop Justin’s remarks in racial justice debate
Racial Justice: update to Synod on racial justice work
Synod approves legislation to help churches meet carbon-reduction target
Unanimous backing from Synod for call to protect child survivors of trafficking
Synod invites engagement on ideas to simplify Church of England’s governance
structures
Synod invites engagement on ideas to simplify National Church Institutions governance structures
Synod unanimously condemns persecution of Christians around the world
Farewell to the Bishop of Liverpool, Paul Bayes
Press reports
Church Times
The strong thrive, the weak suffer: Welby challenges the pandemic narrative
Lord Boateng holds Synod’s feet to the fire over Church’s racism record
C of E safeguarding yet to come good, says new Independent Safeguarding Board
Full steam ahead for cleaner church boilers, General Synod agrees
Archbishop quizzed about selection of Appointments Secretary
New border proposals undermine current anti-slavery legislation, Synod hears
Bishop Seeley tells Synod of short- and long-term financial pressures
BBC
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby criticises delay in removing slavery plaque
The Telegraph
Justin Welby suggests Cambridge college should remove slavery-linked donor plaque
The Living Church
C of E Synod: Financial Woes, Safeguarding & Boilers
Members’ blogs
Andrew Nunn
Looking out
FOMO
Old boiler
The last lap
Give us our Archbishop back?
Helen King
General Synod, February 2022: what felt most bizarre
Jo Stobart
General Synod (February 2022)
Updated
On Monday, Kaya Burgess published an exclusive report in The Times, provocatively headlined Behold the Bishop of Brexit as church models itself on politics, and there was also a leader article The Church should eschew the temptations of political intervention. There was then a follow-up report on Tuesday (today): Church of England: Brexit bishop idea fails to inspire clergy. All this refers to an as yet unpublished document presented to the College of Bishops last September.
The above items are of course behind a paywall. Fortunately, the Church Times (some free access permitted) has now published a detailed analysis of the same original document. This gives a clearer account of the document, and makes it sound more sensible than earlier reports had suggested. I recommend reading the CT article carefully:
Madeleine Davies Fewer dioceses, specialist bishops: Archbishops’ confidential paper revealed in detail.
Update 12 February
The Church Times has: Leader comment: Bishops in the driving seat.
The text of the consultation document (PDF) is now available here.
Further update: The full text of the consultation has also been published by the Church Times here.
37 CommentsThe Church of England’s General Synod meets from Tuesday to Thursday of this week. There are links to the papers here and to the Questions here. Safeguarding is on the agenda for Wednesday and there are several questions on this topic – see our article here.
Other news and comment includes:
David Pocklington Law & Religion UK “Net zero” and the faculty jurisdiction
The Telegraph Your net zero push could force churches to close or leave our parishioners shivering, Welby is warned
Helen King sharedconversations February 2022 General Synod – before it starts
Gavin Drake General Synod Update February 2022
Church Times General Synod to focus on race, trafficking, and persecution
The latest Letters to the Editor include three on the proposed changes to the membership of the Crown Nominations Commission.
The Questions (and Answers) for next week’s meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod were published today. The Question sessions (on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons) will be devoted to supplementary questions.
Questions Notice Paper February 2022
Question 34 Noticeboard Information
Question 35 Noticeboard Information
Question 36 Noticeboard Information
Question 99 Noticeboard Information
Updated Sunday evening
General Synod will be considering this subject on the morning of Wednesday 9 February. No doubt there will also be numerous Questions on the topic at the sessions on either Tuesday afternoon, or Wednesday afternoon. The Questions and Answers can now be found here. Items 53, 59, 67-74, 83 are relevant (I may have missed a few). Subject lines are listed at the end of this article.
The main document under consideration on Wednesday morning will be GS 2244, which will be the subject of a presentation, at which the Standing Committee has decided will include an opportunity for questions.
A follow-on motion has been filed, which challenges the practice of not allowing debate on this report, and you can read the motion here. Asked to explain it, Gavin Drake said:
“The ongoing failure to ensure effective safeguarding by parts of the Church is one of the most significant issues facing the Church of England today. Much concern has been expressed about the work, focus and effectiveness of the National Safeguarding Team and other national safeguarding functions of the Church and these have not been addressed. It is wrong that the NST should be given an opportunity to present an unchallenged “defence” of their work which ignores the very many real concerns that exist. The follow-on motion will allow proper challenge to the report and enable Synod members to express their view on the actions of the NST.”
There are a number of other recently pubished items that relate to Safeguarding:
If you are unclear what the problem is in relation to the Trevor Devamanikkam case, this earlier TA article may help: Matt Ineson challenges the National Safeguarding Team. The update says:
6 CommentsAs stated at General Synod (November 2021), the independent lessons learnt review into the case of Trevor Devamanikkam, commissioned by the National Safeguarding Team, was referred to the Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB, for advice on how to proceed, due to delays in the process.
The Chair, Maggie Atkinson, has now responded and recommended that the review progress to publication as a very necessary part of the Church’s learning on safeguarding. She noted that this will take some time to complete given the reviewer will need to refresh her work so far and pick up what now needs to be done.
There is an ongoing invitation to the survivor to contribute and this will remain open throughout the closing phases of the reviewer’s work.
The ISB intends to contribute an initial chapter to the review outlining why it has taken as long, the stages and personnel changes it has gone through, and why the report is now being published, noting that the reviewer Jane Humphreys, is an independent expert with no C of E connections.
Following last week’s release of the papers for next month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod there have been a number of press reports and online comments.
Church Times
General Synod to focus on race, trafficking, and persecution
Archbishops’ Council reckons up progress made/not made on racial equality
Angry response to parish reorganisation gives Commissioners pause
Faculty-system reform blows cold air on old-style boilers
Law & Religion UK Their latest round-up includes a summary of the proposed changes to the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules – scroll down to “Net zero” and the faculty jurisdiction.
Daily Mail Church of England will encourage priests to install more carpets and cushions to help buildings retain heat in bid to reach ‘net-zero’ carbon emissions
The Telegraph Church of England set to take ‘softly, softly’ approach by relaxing rules on cushions
Martin Sewell Archbishop Cranmer Is the Church of England about to ban prophets from Synod?
These items are not explicitly on the agenda, but may well come up in Questions.
Ian Paul Psephizo On the appointment of senior leaders in the Church
Church Times – letters from Rebecca Chapman and John Brydon (scroll down)