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
“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 following ‘further motion’ was tabled with the Clerk to the Synod this morning (1st February) and will be moved by Martin Sewell, pursuant to Standing Order 105(6), at General Synod next Thursday afternoon, 9th February, if the motion to be proposed by Bishop Jonathan Gibbs to ‘take note’ of the report GS 2293 is carried: That this Synod notes with concern: (a) the contents of the briefing paper for General Synod members from the House of Survivors, written by survivors of abuse (copy annexed); (b) the complete absence in the report, paper GS 2293, and in the ‘Update from… Read more »
Can I publicly thank David Lamming for the meticulous work he puts in, reading Synod papers and offering his advice to ensure that the complex procedures are complied with in cases such as these. His commitment to good process puts many of us elected members to shame
I will absolutely be supporting this motion.
Looks good but the Chair is not bound to call/make time for it; depends on time taken on the main debate often. A smart Chair will gauge the mood and go for the close allowing for the following motion. My attempts at following motions were mixed! Won one, lost one. Assumes the take note is carried!
Frankly, the whole Christ Church and Oxford Diocese affair merits broader external enquiry (with the sought review of safeguarding, but extended beyond the very constrained time period framed for the ISB). For a person to be appointed from inside the Church of England (ie non-independent) will result in concerns of cover up, bias against Martyn Percy, damage limitation etc. So it will be interesting to see what the Archbishops’ Council mean by “another person” after this ongoing total train crash with the ISB. Given the suffering and harm done to Martyn Percy, it is unconscionable that this review of safeguarding… Read more »
I agree that such an inquiry might be desirable, but it can and will never happen. Assessing the full picture would require the cooperation of many parties whose interests would not be to cooperate. There is no one body, other than the state itself, which could mandate the cooperation of all parties — and it seems extremely implausible that this is important enough for the state to set up something like IICSA for this. The Church, in the shape of the Archbishops’ Council has no power to compel the secular trustees of Christ Church, for example.
That’s very well-argued. I guess what I hope is the “another person” appointed (because that is what’s most likely to happen) is selected to be credible, professionally, reputationally, and with demonstrable independence. That is more likely to happen if pressure is brought to bear, and expectations placed in the public domain.
Actually, it’s not as complex as you assume. The ChCh scandal probably has the best recorded audit trail of emails: there is not much need for extensive oral evidence. The important focus needs to be on identifying the Salem Witch Trial culture which built institutional bullying
Will whoever takes over the ‘Christ Church Review’ have new and wider Terms of Reference necessarily replacing the vague, limiting and inadequate ones proposed for the ISB? Often quoted, but never acted upon, are the dubious ‘risk assessment’, its true authorship, any unauthorised augmentation of its original contents (and by whom) and its subsequent use; there’s also the C of E’s involvement in the core group which was set up containing people who were required to stand down in circumstances of obvious and blatant conflict of interests. My recollection is that the ISB wasn’t briefed to look into either of… Read more »
The ISB has posted this extraordinary and combative statement on its website earlier today, 1 February 2023: The ISB was today informed of the Archbishops’ Council meeting last week, in which it was 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 now be led by another person. The ISB are extremely disappointed that they were not informed of this decision before this morning. Furthermore, we are surprised to hear about this decision, as we remain poised and ready… Read more »
Dioceses are breaching GDPR requirements in handling safeguarding information left, right and centre. When I renewed my clergy DBS disclosure, not so long ago, I had to submit everything via an unsecured email address – no choice in the matter, just instructed to do it. Thankfully, my forms do not need to include any information relating to safeguarding issues, either as survivor or because of allegations raised against me. But I have recently had to informally advise several clergy whose forms do need to disclose information of one kind or another of their right to have their data handled securely… Read more »
[ISB statement, 1 February 2023 continued:] The recent ICO ruling against the ISB regarding a data breach is related to the conduct of the Chair. We wish to sincerely apologise to those impacted by these data breaches and assure you that measures have been taken to improve systems. We wish to assure you all that your personal data is safe with current ISB members and the team. However, we remain of the view that further information is required to assure ourselves and those we serve before the situation with the Chair can be satisfactorily resolved. The ISB made a recommendation… Read more »
It’s hard to see a future for the ISB. This extraordinary response is another nail in the coffin.
I am usually not one to worry too much about grammar but there are occasions when demonstrating highly precise English is needed. That’s true generally of the ISB and, whereas this document is less formal and doesn’t necessarily require it, it does paint a picture of the ISB. Others may have a different view, but to my mind the standard of English in this document is deficient.
In amongst all the negativity about the ISB can I just say a huge public thank you to the survivor representative, Jasvinder, who has not only been an amazing advocate, challenging the people and the system involved in the appalling mess of a CDM I brought against a senior clergy person, with skill, determination and professionalism but also for being incredibly ‘real,’ human and caring.
She certainly made some forceful comments about the lack of attention paid to the ISB’s report in December 2022. That may account for the apparent desire on the part of the Archbishops’ Council to provoke the Board into dissolving itself.