The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued the following statement today.
Independent Safeguarding Board: Statement by the Archbishops
02/05/2023
“As Meg Munn starts her role as Acting Chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board, we affirm our confidence in her and her ability to lead the Board’s important work. Working with the two existing Board members, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, she has agreed to bring forward options on the scope and terms of reference of a fully independent safeguarding board by the autumn of this year. The process will involve widespread consultation especially with survivors and with others in the Church.
In addition, the Board have been asked to develop proposals for a process to appoint a permanent independent Chair and additional Board members.
“Meg brings her experience of scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding work in her role as Independent Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel since 2018. She also brings her previous experience as a senior safeguarding professional in local authorities and as a government minister and Member of Parliament. We look forward to welcoming all three members of the Board to the Archbishops’ Council next week.”
So the Archbishops don’t pay any heed to the Church Times letters ??
Deaf as posts, both of them. If they don’t see the problem, the problem is THEM.
Or they don’t recognise a conflict of interest even when it is staring them in the face. Richard Sharp resigned as BBC chairman on the basis of a ‘possible perceived conflict of interest.’ The Church, surely, should at least apply the same standard. In the interests of the C of E and the integrity of the ISB, Meg Munn should announce that she will stand down as ISB acting chair, regardless of her stated experience and the Archbishops’ support.
We live in hope. Does this mean that finally CofE leaders have got the message and they are going to establish a truly independent ISB?
If so, well done to those who have rightly persevered in demanding genuine independence.
I think if our Dear Leaders had really got the message about the need for independence, they would have gone about this in a completely different way. Ms Munn has a serious conflict of interest here, so I don’t think she can be relied on to avoid conflicts of interest in setting up an ‘independent’ body. She doesn’t enjoy the confidence of existing board members either, which won’t make her task any easier.
Lets see what ‘fully independent’ actually means and what ‘widespread consultation’ actually means. How can developing proposals on a process to appoint a permanent chair and more people onto the not independent safeguarding board fit with this? We shall see – actions speak louder than these perpetual games with words. I wonder why I don’t have trust or confidence in Canterbury or York to deliver…..
The Archbishops are one thing, and anyway rather preoccupied at present. I’m not sure General Synod get it either. Where is the overwhelming cry for an properly independent structure, call it Ecclesiastical Ombudsman Service if you must? Soul Survivor is the latest scandal being investigated internally. Victims and survivors deserve much better, and with more intentional focus.
I think with Soul Survivor (which my own children attended) the disturbing corollary that follows is the question of how long were the concerns known about, without the issues being escalated to CDM level, and if these matters were known to others in the Church of England, where were the immediate safeguarding procedures? Presumably the Archbishop of Canterbury was unaware of these incidents when he awarded the man in question an award at Lambeth Palace in 2020? Once again, should the Church be marking its own homework on issues like these? The case for truly independent safeguarding oversight is very… Read more »
For me, the issue is one of credibility: is the archbishops’ statement credible? I think not, and that a belief that it could be found credible is both naive and insulting.
Let’s deal with it properly post Coronation.
So we have now got to the Thursday after the Coronation and there does not seem to have been a stampede to deal with the issue does there? Following Susannah Clark’s post above I looked up Soul Survivors (which had passed me by- there has not been much external publicity about it that I have seen) I also read the statements issued by the trust with attached comments from the investigators, and my jaw is still dropping. Where is the statement from the bishops that thr C of E takes the safeguarding and protection of all its young members as… Read more »
I fear we need a ‘Lemmings Review’ of ‘Lessons Learned’ from following bishops and archbishops and their safeguarding advice and practice as the C of E jumps off the proverbial cliff.
Having advised union representatives in at least two high profile cases against survivors of ecclesiastical based abuse, my belief in the credibility of the house of bishops is at an all time low.