For previous items, see More safeguarding updates.
Surviving Church has published this article by David Lamming: Will General Synod be allowed to debate the Independent Safeguarding Board? It appears that at present the answer is No.
Update
Hattie Williams has a further detailed update in the Church Times: ISB remains off the Synod’s agenda despite members’ concerns
…By Friday, Mr Sewell had been informed by the Acting Clerk to the Synod, Jenny Jacobs, that the chair for the safeguarding items (the Dean of Southwark, the Very Revd Andrew Nunn) had ruled the motion out of order because it was not compliant with Standing Orders. Specifically, the following motion was not “relevant to and within the scope of its subject matter” of the original NST motion.
Mr Sewell and David Lamming, a former Synod member, redrafted their motion to refer to a previous motion from Dr Gibbs, carried by the Synod during its July sessions last year, which had requested “regular updates on progress at each group of sessions, especially concerning the strengthening of independent accountability and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding work at all levels” (News, 15 July 2022).
Over the weekend, however, this, too, was ruled out of scope, again, on the grounds that: “The ISB is not a workstream for which the NST is responsible.”
Updated Thursday and Friday
My previous post on this topic is here: Church Safeguarding: Updates for General Synod
Some more recent items:
Church Times Hattie Williams Disputes undermine effectiveness of the Church’s Independent Safeguarding Board
THE Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has upheld a third complaint of a data-breach made by a survivor against the chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Professor Maggie Atkinson, the Church Times has learned.
This paper also understands that, despite being informed of this, the Archbishops’ Council, who employ the ISB as independent contractors, has recently reinstated Professor Atkinson’s access to her ISB email account against the wishes of the two other ISB board members.
The two have requested that her access be removed until they are reassured and can assure survivors that their data is safe…
and the report continues with a great deal of detail on the confusion, ending with:
“…However, due to ongoing concerns about the current working relationships, the Council agreed at its January meeting that members should enter into a dispute-resolution process to ensure this important independent work can continue with effective collaborative working between its members. This will enable the ISB to reach decisions including on outstanding work and to provide services to the Church agreed in its contract.”.
Read the whole report if you can.
The Acting Bishop of Lincoln has written this letter: The Retirement of the Dean of Lincoln, The Very Reverend Christine Wilson. It concludes:
…It is well-known that Dean Christine was caught up in the safeguarding debacle leading from allegations made against the Canon Chancellor. He was subsequently found not guilty; but both the Bishop of Lincoln and Dean Christine were disciplined for a reporting error with regard to the safeguarding breach. Dean Christine voluntarily stepped away from her duties. The Bishop was suspended. Later the Bishop received an apology from the National Church for the undue duration of his suspension. Perhaps because the Dean’s situation was more informal and local, she received no corresponding recognition. A subsequent independent review of the case found that Dean Christine paid too high a price for her mistake, which she apologised publicly for on her return to work. The review, conducted by a senior and highly-esteemed barrister, also found that Christine was never a threat to children or vulnerable adults as had been asserted.
Of course, the first priority of the Diocese was to ensure that no breach of process could possibly lead to a vulnerable adult being hurt. The Court finally determined that there was no case to answer; but the two senior leaders involved paid the price in the meantime. That price has been high and provides a media narrative which will linger for a long time. However, the whole matter can now be seen in perspective, and Dean Christine should in the years ahead be allowed to celebrate her many achievements in ministry under God, as I am celebrating today.
Archbishop of York Press Release: Bishopthorpe Palace publishes its Independent Safeguarding Audit from SCIE and the full text of the audit report is here.
Church of England Press Release: Statement on ISB and Christ Church review
The Archbishops’ Council, at its meeting last week, has agreed that the review of the handling of safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Dr Martyn Percy, originally referred to the Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB, should be led by another person.
All parties have been informed of this decision and next steps will be announced in due course.
The Archbishops’ Council and the Diocese of Oxford originally referred the review to the ISB early in 2022 and Terms of Reference were announced in May. In the autumn, the ISB announced it was pausing work on the review due to finite resources, current workload and a desire to study the outcomes of other independent reviews into Christ Church.
Due to ongoing concerns about current working relationships and the conclusion of the ICO investigation into the Chair the Council also agreed at its January meeting that the three ISB members should enter into a dispute resolution process to ensure this important independent work can continue with effective collaborative working between its members. This will enable the ISB to reach decisions including on outstanding work and to provide services to the Church agreed in its contract.
The ISB, was set up to provide vital scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding work and we remain committed to this principle and would like to thank members for their work to date.
Church Times:Review of Dean Percy case will not be conducted by Independent Safeguarding Board
…Early last year, the ISB had agreed — at the request of the diocese of Oxford and the Archbishops’ Council — to undertake a review of the quality of earlier safeguarding investigations into what became a long and protracted dispute between the college authorities and Dean Percy (News, 24 June 2022). The Secretary-General of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, later defended the ISB’s ability to do so, after its competence and capacity to investigate were questioned by a General Synod member, Martin Sewell (News, 1 July 2022).
Last October, however, the ISB “paused” its review indefinitely because it was not confident in its own independence and resources (News, 21 October 2022).
On Wednesday, the Archbishops’ Council announced that the Christ Church review “should be led by another person” — the day after the Church Times reported that a third complaint of a data breach had been made by a survivor against the ISB, and that this had been upheld by the Independent Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The complaint concerned an email exchange between the survivor and the chair of the ISB, Professor Maggie Atkinson.
Updates
Statement from the ISB about the Cbrist Church review
Church Times Member’s motion to tackle exclusion of Independent Safeguarding Board from Synod
The full text of this motion as originally submitted appears in the comments below.
Report from the ISB to General Synod
15 Comments“The Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) is committed to sharing its thinking and emerging findings. Despite attempts to secure an opportunity to update Synod in person, no time was made available. We do not believe that the importance of ISB work is consistent with a ‘fringe’ activity. This paper is published in accordance with our commitment to transparency and accountability.”
The General Synod has an item on Safeguarding scheduled for the afternoon of Thursday 9 February.
Presentation under SO 107
Note: the Business Committee has determined under SO 107(3) that this presentation should include an opportunity for questions.
The Bishop of Rochester to move:
‘That this Synod do take note of this Report.’
There are two synod documents relating to this topic
A group of survivors has also published a briefing for synod members which can be found here. This is something that all synod members should also read.
Martin Sewell has written an article for Surviving Church which discusses this, see General Synod and Safeguarding Issues: Will the problems be faced?
The Church Times has published a detailed report on all this, see Survivors of abuse in the C of E still feel threatened — and so do church staff helping them.
See also a more recent post.
7 CommentsThe Church of England issued this press release this morning.
Bishop of Stepney to be new lead safeguarding bishop
16/01/2023
The Bishop of Stepney, Joanne Grenfell, is to be the Church of England’s new lead safeguarding bishop, taking over from Bishop Jonathan Gibbs who leaves the role at the end of March, when his three-year term ends.
Bishop Joanne, who will attend the House of Bishops, will work closely with the national director of safeguarding, Alexander Kubeyinje, who took up the role in September. As the Church continues to develop its safeguarding practice, there will be a particular focus on responses to and implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA and the Church’s second Past Cases Review, PCR2, published at the end of 2022.
Bishop Joanne will chair the National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG), the delegated House of Bishops body responsible for making national safeguarding decisions, and will work closely with the deputy lead bishops for safeguarding, the Bishop of Bristol, Viv Faull and the Bishop of Birkenhead, Julie Conalty.
Both as a former archdeacon and currently as an area bishop in London Diocese, Bishop Joanne has chaired a number of safeguarding reviews and currently is the diocesan safeguarding lead, working closely with the Bishop of London. Bishop Joanne also chairs the national working group looking at the Seal of the Confessional.
Bishop Joanne said: “I believe that how the Church of England deals with safeguarding is of the utmost importance. It reveals our values and identity as a Church and is therefore a matter of spiritual integrity. I am committed to working for culture change, drawing on the wisdom of survivors and engaging with NST colleagues and leaders across the Church of England. My aim is that together we will not only prevent church-based abuse now, but also deal honestly, thoroughly, and proactively with what has previously been perpetrated and covered up.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said: “I am grateful to Bishop Jonathan who, as lead safeguarding bishop, has led the Church’s response to the IICSA and PCR2 reports, leading on the response both to the recommendations and the important calls for change from survivors. While recognising the safeguarding failures of the Church, Bishop Jonathan has been committed to seeking change in our safeguarding culture and practice.
“I am now very pleased to welcome Bishop Joanne to the role of lead safeguarding bishop. I commend her commitment and experience as well as her willingness to take up this role, which is a vital part of the work of the Church. I am aware of the immense time commitment that this role rightly involves and pray for Bishop Joanne as this new chapter begins.”
7 CommentsThe Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its final report on 20 October 2022.
The Church of England’s initial responses were reported here.
Today, the National Safeguarding Steering Group, the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council have published a joint response to recommendations in relation to the safeguarding work of the Church of England. It’s a six-page PDF, available here. The covering press release is over here.
Following the October report publication, there was also a response from the (then new) National Safeguarding Director, reported here.
An earlier report relating to the Seal of the Confessional, was reported in this further roundup of responses.
7 CommentsChristopher Peak was the registrar to the Diocese of Gloucester between January 1985 and November 2012. During this period he also represented the then-bishop of Gloucester, Peter Ball, in his personal capacity, when indecent assault allegations were made against the bishop. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, in response to a complaint from the National Secular Society, found this constituted a conflict of interest with his official duties towards the diocese. Mr Peak has accepted their findings, and has agreed to permanently remove his name from the roll of solicitors maintained by the SRA.
The matter is reported in detail as follows:
Solicitors Regulation Authority Christopher Peak
Law Society Gazette Retired solicitor agrees to quit roll over conflict of interest in defending bishop
National Secular Society Solicitor struck off for conflict of interests in defending bishop
25 CommentsThe Church Times reports (under the news story about further delay in the review of the John Smyth case):
Charity Commission appeal. A letter has been sent to the Charity Commission asking it to investigate the Church of England’s safeguarding practices. The 51 signatories include lay and ordained church members, survivors, and some elected members of General Synod.
The signatories express concern about safeguarding policies and practice in the Church of England, referring to “a highly dysfunctional church culture” that is “uniformly poor in responses to allegations of abuse”.
The Church lacks any “functional leadership” in safeguarding, the letter says; “current safeguarding processes, bodies, panels, and their personnel are incompetent, ineffective and unfit for purpose.”
A Church of England spokesperson said: “The Church is committed to the highest standards of safeguarding and this is carried out by professionals both nationally and in its 42 dioceses who support parish safeguarding officers who work in every church across the country. The Church is always open to scrutiny of its processes and will listen and respond to concerns when raised.”
See here for the full text of the Open Letter to the Charity Commission.
41 CommentsPress release from the Church of England
Smyth Review: update from independent reviewer
13/12/2022
December 2022
The independent reviewer, Keith Makin, has confirmed that the Learning Lessons Review is now reaching its final stages. This message has been relayed to the victims and survivors with whom the reviewers are in contact. The review team has analysed previously unpublished documents, including contemporaneous correspondence and notes from the relevant period. The material gathered, including testimonies, written statements and witness statements has been extensive, and far greater than originally envisaged. The next stage will be consultation with victims, as part of the review team’s commitment to put victims at the heart. This is intended to begin in the week commencing 9 January 2023. Once this is completed, it will be followed by a representations process involving individuals and organisations who will be named and criticised in the published report. If you wish to be part of the consultation with victims, and are not already in contact with the review team, please contact Keith Makin at keith.makin@independentreviews.live.
The review team and NST regret this necessary further delay, which they recognise will understandably be disappointing for victims and survivors.
The NST has arranged continued support for victims through Nina Tanner, a specialist Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA). The formerly named Splitz organisation have changed their name to Fear-Less.org.uk Home – Fear Less (fear-less.org.uk) but still provide the same service to victim and survivors. Nina remains the independent lead for support for the victims of John Smyth and fulfils the same role as before. If you need support, she can be contacted on Nina.Tanner@fear-less.org.uk or on 07825 741751. If you have been affected by this latest update and need support, please do contact Nina.
The NST continues to look into every clergy person of whom they have been informed, within the scope of the Terms of Reference, who may have failed to disclose Smyth’s abuse.
11 CommentsUpdated 25 November
Clergy Discipline Measure – Penalty
The following is a record of a penalty imposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the consent of the respondent bishop under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003:
Name: The Right Reverend Peter Hullah
Penalty: Prohibition for life
Date Imposed: 1st August 2022
Brief Summary: Sexual misconduct involving two different women on two separate occasions.
———
This story has been reported in the Mail, and Times, and Telegraph so far. And now also the Church Times (scroll down).
The two offences occurred (according to the Mail) in 1985 and 1999. Peter Hullah was Bishop of Ramsbury (suffragan in Salisbury) from 1999 to 2005. From 1992, he was headmaster of Chetham’s School in Manchester, where there were multiple complaints of sexual misbehaviour by staff, but not by Hullah.
The new complaint, regarding these offences, was dealt with in the Province of Canterbury, during the summer of this year, but was not made public at that time.
The Telegraph reports
A spokesman for Mr Hullah said he had agreed to the sanction in August instead of contesting the allegations before a Church tribunal.
And:
A Church of England spokesman said: “We can confirm that Peter Hullah has now been prohibited from ministry for life following a complaint under the clergy discipline measure brought by the national safeguarding team.
“We would like to acknowledge the courage and offer an unreserved apology on behalf of the Church to those who came forward to share their experience; support has been offered to all involved.
“The Church expects the highest standards from those in leadership and there can be no excuses when this does not happen.
“We will continue to listen to all those who come forward and to work together to make the Church a safer place for all.”
It. is very disappointing that this decision was not published at the time, as the relevant procedures were amended only this July at the General Synod, to ensure this would happen. However, even before this change, the procedure said
“Where a penalty by consent has been agreed with a bishop brief particulars of the misconduct should be made public by a notice placed on the diocese’s website.”
GS 2281X (dated May) contains the following:
Publishing Penalties
9. All penalties imposed under the CDM are made public. Penalties imposed by a tribunal are published on the Church of England tribunal webpage, administered by the NCIs.
10.The current guidance provides that where the respondent admits misconduct and the bishop imposes a penalty by consent brief details of the case should be placed on the diocesan website. Further, it states that penalties imposed other than by a tribunal – i.e. under sections 30 and 31 CDM 2003 – should be made public.
11.To ensure a consistent approach to the publishing of penalties the proposed amendments to paragraph 312 provide that publishing penalties by consent and penalties imposed under sections 30 and 31 will no longer be the responsibility of the diocese or province. Upon a penalty being agreed the diocesan or provincial registrar will send the relevant details to the President of the Tribunals, who will cause them to be published on the Church of England website. The name of the respondent, the date penalty was agreed or imposed and the statutory ground of misconduct (e.g. “doing an act in contravention of the laws ecclesiastical”, “neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office”, “conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders”) -but not any details of the particular misconduct – will be published.
12.Paragraph 311 is deleted as being no longer being necessary consequential upon the amendments to paragraph 312.
Further update
The Church Times reports this explanation of the delay (emphasis added):
28 CommentsOn Thursday, a notice of the sanction was posted on the website of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In July, the General Synod voted to amend the CDM Code of Practice to require that “brief particulars” of a penalty against a bishop that is agreed by consent are posted “on the Church of England website” (News, 15 July).
Before this, only penalties by consent against a lower-ranked cleric were required to be published, not sanctions agreed between a bishop and an archbishop.
Because the case against Bishop Hullah was settled after the Synod had voted to amend the Code of Practice but before the Clergy Discipline Commission rubber-stamped the changes, it was unclear whether, when, and where, the notice had to be posted.
Publication of the IICSA final report was reported here, along with initial responses from the Church of England.
Other religious bodies:
Church Times news reports:
Earlier in the month, the Church of England announced this: Further work on Seal of Confessional:
The House of Bishops has commissioned further work on the Seal of the Confessional, building on the report and interim statement from the previous working party published in 2018/2019 and originally set up in 2014.
The new working group will take account of relevant findings, if any, that there may be in the final report from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), due to be published on October 20.
The group which will meet over the next 12 months will bring together theologians, Church leaders and safeguarding professionals along with other advisers as part of the wider reference group. The voices and experiences of survivors will be critical to this work and will be included, but not named, in the group…
Forward in Faith also issued a Statement on IICSA’s final report and the Seal of Confession.
15 CommentsChurch of England press release
IICSA statement from National Safeguarding Director
25/10/2022
I have read the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report and it makes for harrowing reading. The report contains recommendations for 15 major institutions which have clearly failed children; this includes the Church of England and I welcome the initial response from our lead safeguarding bishop, Jonathan Gibbs.
I have been in post now for 38 days and as the new National Director for Safeguarding it is my role and responsibility to drive and support the many programmes of work that are currently underway, to make the Church a safer place where the voices of our most vulnerable are not only heard but valued. The voice and participation of all victims and survivors of abuse are paramount and should be the golden thread in everything we do to improve our safeguarding policies and practices. We are committed to the development and implementation of a survivor engagement framework with victims and survivors.
I am extremely sorry for the hurt and mistrust caused by the Church’s lack of safeguarding, we know that we need to learn from these lessons and ensure that we have stringent preventive measures in place to avoid these terrible experiences happening to others.
In the coming weeks dates will be provided by engage.safeguarding@churchofengland.org to offer survivors and victims an opportunity to meet with me to raise concerns and give their views on the National Safeguarding Team, NST and wider safeguarding improvements in the Church.
I would be particularly interested in hearing from young people about how we may improve the voice of the child in the Church. If you would like to take part or provide your views, please do contact the same address above. (Please note parental consent would need to be provided for those children/young people under the age of 18)
Should you need to discuss any matters with me directly, I would ask you to email. My social media is not monitored daily, and while an important awareness tool, I do not use it for direct engagement, so you may not receive a response. But I would like to ensure that all comments or complaints are recorded and tracked so please do email me on the address above or via the form at the bottom of this page A Safer Church | The Church of England
I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible in the near future, particularly survivors and victims of any type of abuse and relevant groups and/or organisations.
Editor’s note: The college at Oxford is, of course, Christ Church and not Christchurch. I have not corrected this error in the ISB’s statement.
The website of the Church of England’s Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) was finally launched yesterday.
Today the ISB has published a statement saying that it was pausing its review into the quality of earlier safeguarding investigations at Christ Church. This is copied below.
Christchurch review
A statement from the ISB
The ISB has upon invitation from the Diocese of Oxford and the Archbishops Council agreed to undertake a review into the quality of earlier safeguarding investigations at Christchurch. A copy of the published TOR is available here. A call for evidence has gone out and a timetable published. To date ISB has not started a qualitative review of the submitted evidence. The current constitution of the ISB, with the Chair currently stood down, places considerable additional capacity restraints on the limited resources of the ISB. The wider ISB work undertaken to date is in part set out in the newly launched website.
The question of independence is quite rightly a regular challenge to the ISB. The ISB does not currently operate as a stand-alone separate legal entity and this is something actively under consideration ahead of embarking upon the second phase of the ISB’s work in developing a pathway to embedding long lasting independent scrutiny and oversight of safeguarding within the COE.
The ISB is aware that other independent Reviews into Christ Church have been concluded and as such the ISB wishes to analyse those reviews to determine whether the ISB can usefully add to the body of independent work completed to date when weighed against the ISB’s finite resources and its current workload particularly directed towards the survivor community.
For these reasons the ISB has decided to pause the work on the Review pending consideration of other ISB priorities and the extent to which the ISB can usefully add to the work carried out by others and recommendations made.
One of the very clear functions of the ISB is to hold the COE to account for implementation of safeguarding best practice. To the extent the ISB endorses the recommendations made independently by other responsible bodies relating to Christ Church, they will seek assurance that those recommendations are implemented.
Survivor Advocate
Independent Safeguarding Board
[The review’s terms of reference are attached to the statement.]
10 CommentsThe 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 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):
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.”
The 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.
Press release from the Church of England
National survivor survey to inform Church’s safeguarding work
18/07/2022
A vital national survey to understand how victims and survivors would like to be involved in the development and implementation of a Church of England survivor engagement framework, has been launched today. This framework will set out how victims and survivors of abuse will inform the Church’s work to develop and improve safeguarding.
The anonymous survey will run for two months and is open to any victim or survivor who would like to engage with the Church to inform its work. The questions were formed with survivors who have provided valuable input and feedback in terms of content and promotion of the survey.
The National Safeguarding Team (NST) is committed to the development and implementation of this framework with victims and survivors. The Team already engages regularly with a number of victims and survivors and wishes to see more people engaged with different strands of its work.
The survey is not about asking questions relating to victims and survivors’ past or present experiences of abuse, harm or neglect but to understand better how victims and survivors would like to be involved in developing the framework, in what ways and what formats. Its purpose is to listen to victims and survivors, including those who have not engaged with the Church previously, about how they would like to be involved in developing and implementing this framework and enable victims and survivors of any form of abuse to engage in different workstreams in the Church, including its response to victims and survivors of abuse.
The anonymous survey is available on the survivor engagement webpage of Church of England’s website and runs for two months from 19 July until 18 September 2022. Learning from the survey will inform a publicly accessible report, which will include key themes and next steps to develop the framework and will be published on the same webpage.
Bishop Julie Conalty, deputy lead safeguarding bishop for survivor engagement said: “The survivor voice is vital to our ongoing safeguarding work in the Church. It is not just about listening but acting on what we hear. This survey is part of the Church’s commitment to meaningful, transparent and impactful survivor engagement work. I hope we can learn from those who come forward and share their views to develop this new framework.”
Notes
Survivor engagement is about enabling survivors and victims of any form of abuse to have a say and active role in making the Church of England a safer place for all.
In November 2021, the National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG) endorsed NST’s strategy to develop a survivor engagement framework.
9 CommentsQuestions 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 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”.