THE acting chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Meg Munn, has accused the Archbishops’ Council of being “slow to listen” to experts — and the Archbishop of Canterbury of “undermining” her work — as she resigns all her safeguarding responsibilities within the Church.
Ms Munn, a safeguarding professional and a former MP, is also the independent chair of the Church’s National Safeguarding Panel (NSP).
After weeks of silence as disputes about the functionality and future of the ISB escalated, Ms Munn released an explosive personal statement to the Church Times on Wednesday morning explaining her decision to cease working for the Church, and finally giving her side of the story of the ISB’s demise.
In it, she speaks of being unsupported by the Archbishops’ Council, which appointed her; says that the other two members of the ISB arbitrarily changed their brief; and calls the ISB “a huge waste of money”. But she also says that safeguarding in the Church of England is not in crisis, praising the professionalism of many diocesan and national safeguarding officers…
4. The Church Times story now also reports on a statement received from Maggie Atkinson.
The full text of that document is over here.
5. I’ve prepared a transcript of the presentations from the four Archbishops’ Council members to General Synod on last Sunday afternoon. It may still contain errors, and I would be glad to receive corrections for inclusion in a revised version.
7. I’ve now prepared a transcript of the presentation from last Sunday afternoon by Jane Chevous. This immediately preceded the Council presentations. As for item 5, please advise me if you find any errors.
9. There is also discussion of the ISB in the article A ‘Culture of Mistrust’ at General Synod by Rosie Dawson, which is linked in our Saturday Opinion article.
10. The final transcriptthat I have prepared is of the statements made by Steve Reeves and Jasvinder Sanghera, to “an informal meeting of General Synod members” in the course of last Sunday afternoon. As for items 5 and 7 above, this may contain errors, and please do notify me of any corrections for inclusion in a revision.
1. The Sunday afternoon session of General Synod was largely devoted to the ISB fiasco, and it did not go as planned. The video recording is available here. There is no substitute for watching it.
7. The order paper for this morning’s General Synod session is online here. It contains the text of Gavin Drake’s following motion. His background briefing paper is available here. As expected, there was only just time for him to present his motion, followed by one speech opposing it before time ran out. Although it was agreed to adjourn the debate until later in the morning, when that time came, a vote was then needed to suspend standing orders to actually allow more time than previous allocated, and this required a 75% vote of the whole synod in favour, which it did not receive: 175 voting in favour, 69 voting against, 17 abstentions. The agenda item therefore lapsed.
13. At the start of Tuesday’s session, the livestream failed to record the first few minutes, but apparently Martin Sewell sought to move an adjournment of the debate that was about to commence on approval of GS 2295, but was allowed only 2 minutes to speak. The adjournment request was then lost.
The speech which he was therefore unable to deliver is now available here.
1. Today at General Synod, very many supplementary questions about the ISB have been asked, and many of the answers were unsatisfactory. We’ll publish more on them in due course.
2. A specific problem was raised concerning two questions, 40 and 41, attributed to Martin Sewell concerning the safeguarding investigation relating to the treatment of Martyn Percy by the Diocese of Oxford and the staff of the Archbishops’ Council. This was originally assigned to the ISB but was later removed from them by the Archbishops’ Council. However, it turned out that the published questions were not the ones that he had asked.
The published questions and printed answers are here together with the original versions of Martin’s questions. The supplementary questions Martin Sewell asked are here.
7. The final action taken by the ISB on 5 July was to send this letter about the case of Mr X to both archbishops.
8. Christian Today publishes another Susie Leafe article: Trust falls over CofE safeguarding debacle. That includes a link to a video clip of the Archbishop of Canterbury responding to a question about how he had voted.
9. Steve Reeves has commented on Twitter about the request from the Archbishops’ Council to share details of those survivors involved in ISB review
For reassurance – we were asked by AC to share details of those involved in ISB reviews (only after we flagged the risk), but when we said that we would need consent and the timescale was too tight to do that, the public announcement went ahead. No data was shared without consent.
…A note at the foot of the letter, which has been sent to every bishop in the C of E, states that “all signatories are leaders of networks/organisations, but are signing in their personal capacities, recognising they cannot claim to speak for everyone that they lead.”
The full text of the letter, including the list of signatories, can be found here.
Yesterday, I tabled a “further motion”, or “following motion” to be debated at the General Synod this weekend, about the Archbishops’ Council’s decision to get rid of its Independent Safeguarding Board. The motion – which is available here with a full background briefing – was ruled “out of order” on the basis that the presentation on developments at the ISB, which will take place on Sunday afternoon (9 July) is a “free standing” presentation which isn’t linked to a report. Well, what on earth is GS Misc 1341, a report by the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, Mr William Nye, on recent developments with the ISB, if it isn’t a report?
I’m not easily beaten. And so I’ve amended the motion with a preamble which links it directly with the Annual Report of the Archbishops’ Council. This motion has been tabled and, like yesterday’s motion, has been supported by other Synod members.
I have heard that this one has been accepted as being in order – so Synod members will be able to debate the Archbishops’ Council’s handling of the ISB after all. The new motion is below. I will draft an amended version of the background paper as soon as possible…
This paper is provided in response to GS Misc 1341, which was written by the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, dated June 2023. The paper being presented to General Synod does not reflect the full picture and we provide this document to further inform General Synod members…
As @Jas_Sanghera_KN and I leave our formal roles on the ISB, we wanted to thank those who have engaged with us. We also wanted to demonstrate our commitment to transparency and honesty, by sharing additional context in light of recent Synod briefings.
2. The Archbishops’ Council has issued invitations to abuse survivors and organisations of survivors to meet online this week with council members. Details are here (PDF format). Some survivors have objected to these meetings on various grounds. See for example this tweet. (alt version in Comments).
4. Gavin Drake has tabled a following motion for General Synod to consider. The wording of the motion is:
This Synod —
is dismayed by the recent decision of the Archbishops’ Council to disband the Independent Safeguarding Board and terminate the contracts of its members;
notes that a Serious Incident Report has been made to the Charity Commission in respect of this governance decision;
recognises and laments that any working relationship between many survivors and victims with the Archbishops’ Council has been broken;
in consequence, calls upon the Archbishops’ Council, working with its Audit Committee, to commission an independent inquiry led by a senior lawyer (judge or King’s Counsel) into the safeguarding bodies, functions, policies and practice in and of the Church of England, to report within a maximum period of 12 months, and
requires that the report of that Inquiry be fully debated by the Synod to enable it to make decisions about future safeguarding in the Church of England.
He has also written a background briefing paper which needs to be read in full by every General Synod member (9 pages).
1.BBC Hardtalk has broadcast an interview with the Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin. This covers many other topics, but one small segment deals with safeguarding in general and the ISB in particular. You can find that starting at 12.30. Bishop Rose said she disagreed with both the Bishop of Birkenhead, Julie Conalty, and with Andrew Graystone, on this topic. Transcript now available.
2. The English Churchman has published this article: The End is Nye?
5. The Church Times has several relevant items, first of all four relevant Letters to the Editor, under the heading Disbanding of the Independent Safeguarding Board. They are from: nine survivors, another survivor who had an ISB case review pending, David Lamming, and Vasantha Gnanadoss.
…The Commission said the charity reported itself to the regulator and it is considering its response.
A spokesperson for the regulator said: “In line with our guidance, the Archbishops’ Council has reported a serious incident in relation to these matters. We will engage with the trustees to determine whether a regulatory response is required”.
A Church of England spokesperson said: “The Archbishops’ Council has already submitted a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission in relation to the independent safeguarding board, in line with the reporting criteria of the Charity Commission…
Update: The full text of the PDF is copied below the fold.
2. Today, Monday, on BBC Radio 4 WATO, there was an interview with Jasvinder Sanghera, which you can listen to over here, starting at 33.45, in which she refutes the claims made in earlier radio interviews by Alison Coulter and Stephen Cottrell. Transcriptnow available here.
You will be aware of the announcement from the Archbishops’ Council regarding the Independent Safeguarding Board.
We will continue to honour any reviews or complaints that are underway or are due to start. We will be in contact as soon as possible with survivors and complainants and reviewers to ensure these are completed.
The ISB is working with the Archbishops’ Council to put in place alternative arrangements to handle complaints while work is undertaken to develop an independent oversight body for safeguarding. Once the detail is in place an announcement will be made.
6.Church Times news article by Francis Martin: Row over Independent Safeguarding Board continues
This covers much of the same information as the items above, but with some important additional details.
Today, the BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday carried a segment in which three people were interviewed by William Crawley: Jane Chevous from Survivors Voices, Jasvinder Sanghera one of the sacked ISB members, and the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell.
The BBC programme is here: go to 31 minutes, 45 seconds for the start of this item. A transcript of the interview is available here.
Professor Nicholas Adams wrote a very detailed analysis of this interview on his Facebook page, and has kindly allowed me to reproduce his comments, which are here in a PDF, include suggestions for what the archbishop might more helpfully have said. Do read it all.
The sad news of the departure of the members of the Church of England Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), who have persistently pursued their mandate to provide independent oversight and support the work of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team, is a significant setback in the progress made. It also highlights serious flaws in the way the Independent Safeguarding Board is structured in that it reports into the same body, the Archbishops Council, who oversee the day-to-day national and regional safeguarding operations that the Board has been set up to scrutinise. If a body is to exercise true independence, it must be fully independent and free from the structures and influences that it is created to oversee.
Justin Humphreys, Chief Executive at Thirtyone:eight comments, ‘While the Church of England considers its next steps, the instinct to quickly rush to “reset” the existing model should be resisted. Time should be taken to properly learn the lessons of what went wrong and why, and with the help of appropriate external expertise they must give time to understand what is needed to ensure a true and fully independent review of its safeguarding operations. This process should include victims, survivors and those with lived experience. To simply recreate what was, would be a travesty and would almost certainly be doomed to the same outcome as the arrangements we have just seen collapse.’
A synod paper published today, GS Misc 1341, is titled Independent Safeguarding Board: recent developments. I do recommend reading this document, which will be among those discussed at the General Synod on Sunday 9 July.
The BBC lunchtme radio news programme. The World At One, carried interviews with Bishop Julie Conalty, Deputy Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. and Alison Coulter, an elected lay member of the Archbishops’ Council.
A full transcript is available here (not yet checked for accuracy against recording). The BBC’s own audio recording is available here. Other audio recordings (courtesy of Mandate Now) can be found here (Conalty) and here (Coulter).
Statement from Archbishops’ Council on the Independent Safeguarding Board
21/06/2023
The Archbishops’ Council is committed to developing fully independent scrutiny of safeguarding within the Church of England, to ensure the Church is a safer place for all. This principle was agreed in the run-up to the publication of the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) into the Anglican Church in England Wales in 2020.
It is therefore with regret that the Council has come to the reluctant conclusion that, despite extensive efforts over recent months, working relationships between two members of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) and the Council have broken down.
The Board – made up of a chair, a Survivor Advocate and a third member – was set up by the Archbishops’ Council in 2021 as the first step towards a new system of independent scrutiny and the intention was always to move to a second phase.
It has been widely reported that there has been a dispute between two members of the ISB and the Council. Members of the Council and our experienced safeguarding professionals have been working constructively over recent months to put the ISB on a more sustainable footing.
Nevertheless, it has now become clear that that this is no longer viable with its current membership and that the dispute itself risks getting in the way of that urgent priority of moving to the next phase of establishing a new independent safeguarding body.
The Council has therefore agreed a reset. This will involve ending the contracts of two of the members of the Board, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, and of the acting Chair, Meg Munn.
The Council will be putting in place interim arrangements to continue the independent oversight of existing case reviews.
Those reviews will be carried out by independent experts qualified to conduct case reviews, just as at present, and they will be independently commissioned.
In the very immediate future, we have asked Meg Munn to provide business continuity for the remaining business of this phase of the ISB’s work. Case reviews will be overseen by one or more independent chairs of Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panels.
The Council will then move swiftly towards the second phase of independent scrutiny. We want to listen to all those with an interest, to learn the lessons of the work of the ISB in the last two years, and to find a way forward to establishing independent scrutiny on a firmer basis. We will engage with victims and survivors, with other independent voices, and with safeguarding professionals inside and outside the Church, to work with the Archbishops’ Council to design a permanent independent oversight structure.
The Council recognises that this news will be concerning and unsettling to victims, survivors and others. Members of the Council will be arranging an opportunity to meet with victims and survivors to hear concerns and discuss the situation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said: “We bitterly regret that we have reached this point and the Archbishops’ Council has not reached this decision lightly. We know this is a serious setback and we do not shy away from that – we lament it.
“But it is clear that there is no prospect of resolving the disagreement and that it is getting in the way of the vital work of serving victims and survivors. So the Council has very reluctantly concluded that we need a reset so that we can move swiftly towards a new scrutiny body that is fully independent of the Church.
“And in the immediate term we want to reassure victims and survivors that the work of independent case reviews will not stop.
“We recognise that this dispute has damaged confidence. But we believe this is the only way to get independent oversight of safeguarding back on track and move forward as quickly as we can.
“We also recognise that there are lessons for the Archbishops’ Council to learn from this and it is essential that we do so for the future.
…The purpose of the Redress Scheme is to demonstrate in tangible and practical ways that the Church is truly sorry for its past failings relating to safeguarding.
There will be a presentation and debate at the Church’s General Synod next month and it is hoped legislation will progress through Synod in forthcoming sessions after which it will need Parliamentary approval.
Following the Church’s IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) hearings, General Synod committed in February 2020 to a more victim and survivor-centred approach.
This included making arrangements to provide redress, which was recommended in IICSA’s final report for the Church of England and Church in Wales, published in October 2020.
The final overall IICSA report in 2022 for all its investigation strands recommended a national redress scheme. The Church remains committed to implementing a scheme specifically for people who have experienced abuse in the Church of England.
The Church’s national proposals for redress are about more than money; financial payments will be offered alongside therapeutic, spiritual and emotional support, acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the part of the Church, and apology and support for rebuilding lives.
Where possible apology will be from the institution where the abuse took place (or from a part of the Church appropriate to the survivor’s needs) in a format which is most appropriate to the survivor.
The victim and survivor working group* have laid out principles for this and are developing proposals for non-financial redress, following the wider consultation with other survivors.
All survivors of sexual, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse (including spiritual abuse) relating to the Church will be eligible to apply for redress.
The initial details of the scheme, released today, have been developed under the direction of the Redress Project Board, chaired by the Bishop of Truro, Philip Mounstephen; a victim and survivor working group* has been set up and operates at the heart of the process of developing the scheme and two members sit on the Board.
Along with the working group there continues to be extensive engagement and consultation with key stakeholder groups across the Church including a Finance Focus Group made up of diocesan secretaries and other professionals.
The Project Board has agreed that, to be as meaningful as possible, at least some responsibility for offering redress should be taken as close as possible to where the abuse was perpetrated, or harm was done.
The overall objectives of such a whole Church approach are:
Together, as one body, the Church of England must collectively show contrition for its failings, and for the pain and suffering that has occurred.
Nationally, the Church of England will set up a single point of access to the Scheme, to offer a consistent service and to minimise as far as practicable further delay and trauma for victims and survivors.
To the extent possible, the Church body which is nearest in governance terms to the source / perpetrator of the abuse should make a contribution to redress.
In order to deliver this consistent service around the country, through a range of institutions, legislation will be required because the Church of England comprises a large number of free-standing legal charitable bodies subject to the oversight of trustees or the equivalent. (more…)
The General Synod Private Member’s Motion mentioned in the above can be found here (scroll down). It reads as follows
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) to move:
‘That this Synod, being deeply disquieted at the continued controversies over the actual independence of Safeguarding structures within the Church of England, does not accept that an internal Church inquiry into the allegations of abuse and cover-up within the Soul Survivor network is either sufficient or right in principle.
It accordingly calls upon the Archbishop’s Council to commission, on agreed terms of reference with survivors, a report into those allegations from an independent King’s Counsel without delay.’
on Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 3.05 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Conferences, News
Updated
The Religion Media Centre held a day-long Religion Media Festival on Monday. The full programme of events is copied below the fold. Only a few of them have been reported on so far. If I find links to more reports I will add them, but so far all I have found is in this list:
Please click here [see below] to read a statement from the National Safeguarding Team and Diocese of St Albans which explains why the Bishop of St Albans has requested that Andy Croft voluntarily withdraw from any ministry until the investigation is concluded. Please see below for a statement from the Soul Survivor Watford Trustees.
A statement from the Soul Survivor Watford Trustees
After receiving new information from the National Safeguarding Team (NST) investigation into Mike Pilavachi, the non-staff Trustees of Soul Survivor Watford have decided to suspend two members of staff under HR processes: Senior Pastor, Andy Croft and Assistant Pastor, Ali Martin. The information submitted to the investigation relates to concerns over the handling of allegations that were raised before the NST investigation began.
While the investigation continues, the Trustees have asked Rev. Jon Stevens (Executive Pastor) to take on the interim leadership of Soul Survivor Watford, with senior support from Rev. Canon Tim Lomax (Bishop’s Visitor).
We are thankful to all those who have proactively shared their concerns with the NST and recognise that each of them has shown great courage in sharing their experiences.
If you would like to speak to anyone regarding this investigation, please be assured that any concerns raised will be treated with the utmost sensitivity and appropriate support can be given. Please contact Jeremy Hirst at the Diocesan Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@stalbans.anglican.org or Judith Renton, Ian Bowles or Anthony Clarke at the National Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@churchofengland.org who will listen to what you have to say.
For other concerns, please contact thirtyone:eight on 0303 003 1111, or the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056.
The NST statement mentioned above reads as follows:
Update on Mike Pilavchi investigation
08/06/2023
Statement from National Safeguarding Team and Diocese of St Albans
Soul Survivor Watford Trustees have announced today the suspension under HR processes of two serving members of staff following information submitted to the investigation into Mike Pilavachi which is being run jointly by the diocese of St Albans and the National Safeguarding Team, NST, according to House of Bishops guidance. This information relates to the handling of allegations and concerns raised in the Mike Pilavachi case and we cannot say anymore while this new strand of investigation runs its course. The Bishop of St Albans has requested that the senior pastor voluntarily withdraw from any ministry until the investigation is concluded. Support is being offered to all those involved.
Earlier, the suspension of Mike Pilavachi had been announced on 20th of May (scroll down on that page) and the original announcement of an investigation was made on 2nd April.
on Friday, 2 June 2023 at 1.53 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England
Christina Beardsley has written a paper with this title, which was published in Modern Believing in December 2022. Normally this publication is not available electronically without a subscription. The Liverpool University Press has kindly allowed it to be on Free Access for the calendar month of June 2023.
Trans People and LLF is available in two formats, as a web page, and as a PDF file. Here is the abstract:
Since the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) project began, gender-critical discourse has become increasingly prominent and trans people’s lives routinely debated in the British media. Gender diversity is respectfully handled in LLF‘s resources, but LLF‘s Next Steps Group (NSG) has proposed a working party on ‘gender identity and transition’ to consider current ‘societal debates’. This problematising of trans people conflicts with LLF‘s premise that ‘no person is a problem, or an issue’. The NSG’s proposed bibliography, setting gender-critical texts and gender-affirming texts side-by-side, could also undermine the Church of England’s trans-affirming policies and pastoral practice. As an alternative I offer a theological critique of three gender-critical texts contrasting them with a generous, tradition-sourced Christian anthropology.
In relation to this, readers may find it useful to see a letter, also written by Christina, to the Bishop of London in July 2021, which was originally published at Unadulterated Love. This letter sets out in detail the Church of England’s then current policy and practice in relation to trans people, and begins this way:
I understand, from the recent minutes of the May meeting of the House of Bishops that the House ‘agreed in principle to the formation of a working group on gender identity and transition under the auspices of the LLF Next Steps Group, details of which will be announced in due course.’
As I explained in my letter of May 21st 2021 my own view is that to convene such a working party suggests that trans people are a problem for the Church of England or that there is some uncertainty about their status as members of the Body of Christ.
Given the Church of England’s policy and practice in relation to trans people, I see no such problem or uncertainty. Here is my understanding of the current position of the Church of England regarding trans people…
A CONTINUING lack of communication, no co-ordinated case management, and poor pastoral support, has left a “heavy toll” on a vulnerable survivor of abuse, the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) has concluded in its first case review.
The review, redacted for legal reasons and dated March 2023, has been submitted to the Church’s Director of Safeguarding. It was written by Steve Reeves, one of three ISB Board members, and has been approved by the survivor whose case it relates, known as Mr X. The abridged version has been seen by the Church Times this week.
The abridged text of the Spindler review into the case of Mr X can be found here.
The full text of the concluding recommendations is copied here, below the fold.
