The Independent Safeguarding Board has today issued the following statement.
Statement: Percy -v- Independent Safeguarding Board Case Resolved
The Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) is pleased to announce a settlement in the case brought against it by Professor Martyn Percy, the former Dean of Christ Church Oxford.
Professor Percy brought the claim following his request to the Archbishops’ Council and Diocese of Oxford that there should be an independent review of the alleged weaponization of safeguarding by individuals and agencies within Church of England perpetrated against him. The Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese decided to commission the ISB to conduct this review. However, Professor Percy challenged the restricted terms of the draft terms of reference set out by those commissioning the review and the previous Chair of the ISB. In the event, the court dismissed the claim brought by Dr Percy against the ISB, in part because all parties agreed that the ISB was not a legal entity against which such a claim could be brought.
At the heart of the case is the need for a rigorous review of the processes and practices of the Church of England alongside other developments at Christ Church. The ISB consider that the original review’s published terms of reference would have needed significant amendment to ensure that any independent ISB review had sufficient scope and depth.
While the ISB’s review could have made progress, the absence of an Information Sharing Agreement with the Church of England significantly hampered the continuation of the work. The review was initially paused and then discontinued by the Archbishops’ Council which decided that it should be conducted by some other person. That individual has yet to be agreed. The ISB urges the Archbishops’ Council to act with urgency to ensure that an independent review is commissioned. Professor Percy’s assertion that such a review should be led by a KC or Judge has significant merit and is one with which the ISB concurs. (more…)
The Church of England is obstructing its own safeguarding panel by denying them their own computers, refusing to share data and treating them with “hostility”, whistleblowers have told The Telegraph.
The Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) was formed in January 2022 and tasked with scrutinising the work of the Church’s National Safeguarding Team (NST), as well as holding the Church to account regarding its safeguarding duties.
However, the ISB’s only two board members have come forward to claim that their experience working with Church officials is “an uphill battle and unnecessarily challenging”.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Jasvinder Sanghera CBE, who founded the Karma Nirvana charity which aims to end honour-based abuse, and Steve Reeves MBE, executive director of Global Safeguarding, raised the alarm.
They claim there has been “clear interference” with their work, a “lack of transparency” and a “reluctance to provide information” meaning that at times they have been “met with hostility”
Their concerns have been echoed by victims who claim that unless the Church revokes its “inappropriate and irresponsible” appointment of the new ISB chair as Meg Munn – the former foreign office minister who already holds posts within the Church of England – they will not only feel “re-abused” but they will also refuse to work with the ISB and share their testimonies…
And there is a great deal more detail, which should be read in full, if possible.
In a statement to Premier, Martin Sewell who is a member of General Synod said :
“These latest revelations confirm the serious concerns that I, survivors, and members of General Synod have repeatedly raised about the lack of independence in the Established Church’s responses to the IICSA enquiry. I thank the two ISB members for bravely aligning themselves with those of us calling for a comprehensive and open debate of this scandal on the floor of Synod.”
In a statement to Premier Bishop Joanne Grenfell, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop said:
“The Independent Safeguarding Board was set up to provide important external scrutiny for the Church’s safeguarding work and it is vital that the right structures are in place to do this.
“We look forward to working with them as they begin the next phase of their work to scope out what these structures are and to having conversations about concerns they have raised. An acting chair was put in place until the end of the year to ensure continuity and I look forward to working with all three Board members.
“We welcome their annual report (being published tomorrow) and note their comments around their work to date and desire to continue with this independent scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding. It is vital that we have independent scrutiny as this informs the core responsibility for all in the Church of ensuring good safeguarding in all our parishes kand settings across the country. This important work goes on every day of the year. “
House of Survivors has a useful ISB timeline on this page.
The response from Joanne Grenfell quoted by Premier can now be found here. It appears that it was not written as a response to the Telegraph article, but in order to link the ISB annual report to the CofE website.
The Church of England has this morning published the following statement from the independent reviewer in the Smyth case.
Statement from independent reviewer in Smyth case
18/04/2023
“I have made a report to the Police regarding matters that have come to light in recent weeks and in the course of my review, into the abuse perpetrated by John Smyth. I have subsequently passed extensive information to them in relation to this matter. This necessary development is in line with my obligations set out in the terms of reference for the review and in UK law and is therefore unavoidable. This impacts on the planned timescale for completion of the review, and I am aware from my regular contact with victims, of the distress that this is likely to cause them, their families, and others affected by this case. A further update on this will be provided as soon as is possible”. Keith Makin, independent reviewer
The National Safeguarding Team 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.
Professor Maggie Atkinson has resigned as chair of the Church of England’s Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB; in a statement she said she wished all concerned the greatest success in their crucial work on safeguarding.
The Archbishops’ Council has agreed the appointment of Meg Munn as the acting chair until the end of 2023. She will work closely with the two other Board members, survivor advocate Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves who have started developing plans for what independent scrutiny of the Church’s national safeguarding work will look like in the long term.
The ISB work will continue to sit alongside the Church’s National Safeguarding Panel of which Meg is also the independent chair and there will be updates on this in due course.
Speaking this week, Dr Atkinson said: “Changing family circumstances and ISB matters have meant that my presence even from a distance has become a distraction and therefore I decided to tender my immediate resignation to the Archbishops’ Council.
I wish all concerned the greatest success in their crucial work on safeguarding across the Church and will keep their endeavour in my prayers.”
Dr Jonathan Gibbs, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop, and member of Archbishops’ Council said: “I would like to personally thank all three board members for their work so far, particularly their important focus on responding well to survivors. I wish Maggie well as she leaves the Board and welcome Meg as she works with Jasvinder and Steve and builds on the existing work of the ISB. The Archbishops’ Council remains committed to this important principle of independent oversight as the ISB moves to its next phase.”
Meg Munn is a former MP and Government minister and a qualified social worker with extensive experience in senior safeguarding roles in local authorities. She has been the Independent Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel since 2018.
Meg said: “I am pleased to be asked to take up the role of Chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board. As I know from my work leading the National Safeguarding Panel, independent scrutiny and oversight is a vital part of the Church’s national safeguarding work. I look forward to building on that and the work of the Board to date.
I want to thank Maggie Atkinson for her work as Chair. She demonstrated a strong commitment to engaging widely to develop phase 2 of the Board’s work, an approach that I will follow.”
Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves said: ” We would like to thank Maggie Atkinson for her work and acknowledge this has not been an easy decision for her. While working with limited resources, we have met the various challenges of the past seven months. The work of the Board in raising the voices of victims and survivors has continued. We welcome Meg Munn to the role of acting Chair and look forward to our collectively work towards implementing the vision of the ISB.”
This is a detailed review of the many missteps in the short life of the ISB, which needs to be read in full. Here’s two extracts:
…This latest act in the tragi-comedy which is the ISB, came at the end of a lengthy period of the Chair being “stood back” – in truth suspended by the Church – but even from that time, the Archbishops’ Council was still maintaining the fiction that it was not controlling the very body whose role was in part to hold its parent body to account. The announcement of both the “standing back”, and the resignation were published on the CofE website; this is not insignificant; a truly independent body would have been reporting its own comings and goings.
If you read the terms of the announcement – and we must now be clear that the news management is largely in the hands of the CofE Communications Department – it was all very respectful and amicable; evidently the Chair was leaving partly to spend more time with her family. If you believe this is the top and tail of the story, I have a lovely bridge in New York to sell you – ‘real cheap.”
————-
…The appointment of Ms Atkinson’s temporary replacement brings additional important issues to light .The former MP Meg Munn who is taking over, currently numbers amongst her career portfolio of offices, that of member of the National Safeguarding Steering Group and Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel. Whether she and /or either of those bodies played any part in the original conceptualisation of the ISB or the current shenanigans is unclear. So much is and will remain unclear; General Synod has not been allowed to debate these problems and may not be in July.
One might have assumed that the interim role would have fallen to the Survivor Advocate who has been the de facto voice of the body, since Ms Atkinson has been “stepped back”. However, Jasvinder Sanghera appears to have been nudged aside, with Ms Munn imposed upon her and her colleague Steve Reeves without any notice, still less consultation, neither were survivors consulted.
One might be critical of the slow pace of change, and even perhaps of the naivety of the ISB members; sometimes they appeared to be talking a better game than they delivered within the complex and tangled institution that is the CofE.
What cannot be denied however is that Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves have brought bona fides to their task and devoted a lot of time to talking to Survivors, gaining their confidence. The effects of the imposition of the Archbishops’ Council ‘s choice of Chair into this difficult situation without any consultation with the very group that has been abused and ignored by the Church for far too long, is yet another example of the arrogance of power that taints so much that the Church does in this area…
Since the SCIE report on Lambeth Palace Safeguarding was published on 28 February, there has been a series of news and comment articles about it. Our reporting of it has been a bit disjointed so for clarification here is a complete record.
Our original 28 February report is here: Lambeth Palace safeguarding audit published. We then published links to six other items in the Comments rather than by amending the original post. We also mentioned two of these in our Opinion roundup on 4 March. Here are all the links:
The independent audit by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) of Lambeth Palace’s safeguarding arrangements has been published today.
The audit, which was conducted in March 2022, involved reviewing a wide range of documentation as well as talking to staff members and focus groups. The purpose was to gain a greater understanding of the policies and culture of safeguarding that exists at Lambeth Palace, the office and residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The SCIE audit was part of a national safeguarding audit programme covering Church of England dioceses, cathedrals and palaces, which is now complete. This national programme seeks to support safeguarding improvements across governance and leadership, organisational culture, policies and practice guidance, case-work, responsiveness to (and support of) victims and survivors of abuse, and recruitment and training, ensuring that all offices have the best possible practice in place….
full text of press release continues below the fold
Lambeth Palace will be producing an action plan in response to the SCIE audit and the Independent Safeguarding Board report ‘Don’t Panic – Be Pastoral’, as well as the recommendations of the recent Church of England-wide Past Cases Review 2 project, in which Lambeth Palace participated. This will be published in due course.
In January Bishopthorpe Palace published its own Independent Safeguarding Audit from SCIE which can be found here.
New safeguarding data from a three-year period has been published by the Church of England today. The data is for new concerns and allegations reported to the Church in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and relates to all its work, not just to Church Officers. The reports range from concerns about possible risk to direct allegations of abuse. There is more detail in the press release.
…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.”
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.”.
…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.
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.
…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.
“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.”
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.
The 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.”
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.
Christopher 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 Church Timesreports (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.”
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.
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 Telegraphso 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.”
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 Timesreports this explanation of the delay (emphasis added):
On 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.
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…
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 theinitial 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.
Alexander Kubeyinje, National Director of Safeguarding
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.]