The Archbishops’ Council has today, 2 August, announced this: Next round of independent safeguarding audits
INEQE Safeguarding Group has been appointed by the Archbishops’ Council to carry out the next round of independent external audits of Church of England dioceses and cathedrals, starting in January 2024. They were appointed after a full and open tender process, which included survivor representation…
This is the only official Safeguarding statement from the Church of England since the announcement of Alexis Jay’s appointment on 20 July, before which there was the 12 July announcement relating to Meg Munn’s departure.
We have heard nothing further of any independent investigation into what when wrong in relation to the disbanding of the ISB.
Update 25 July Written Questions to Church Commissioners:
Ben Bradshaw MP (Lab, Exeter): To ask the Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, with reference to the announcement by the Archbishop of York of an independent inquiry into the decision to close down the Independent Safeguarding Board, if he will publish a copy of the inquiry’s finings once available.
Andrew Selous: The Archbishop of York has committed that the findings of this review will be made public.
But even more urgent, we have heard nothing about arrangements for the care of those survivors who were already engaged with the former ISB board members.
Jasvinder Sanghera wrote, on 31 July: IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
Five weeks have passed since the body established to provide much needed independence to safeguarding across the Church of England (CofE), was disbanded by the Archbishops’ Council.
They could have used this whole experience to raise the bar higher for victims and survivors, instead, they lowered it, leaving those harmed by the Church in greater distress and limbo. The consequences have been devastating.
We have recently been informed that the Church of England is considering its options, however, this is without regard for what this lack of urgency and care means for these victims and survivors. I wish to enlighten you, as it continues to be irresponsible and unsafe not to speak out about these lives…
Do read the whole article. It concludes with this:
I was pleased to hear that Professor Alexis Jay has been appointed to lead on a plan for future safeguarding and sincerely hope her plans include searching for truth which include engaging with us. The Church of England, especially the Archbishops are now relying on Alexis Jay’s justifiably high status and reputation on safeguarding issues, to give confidence to abuse survivors, most of whom continue to share how they cannot trust the Church.
However, this appointment should not have been the priority, it was the 12 victims and survivors who deserved to be and remain a priority. We are remaining the Data Controllers of their information which consists of their unique experiences and pain, as the majority have requested that no data is to be shared with the Church of England, due to the sheer lack of trust. As we find ways forward regarding the data, I received an email with an option from the Secretary General, which was to simply destroy the data which he does acknowledge ‘survivors may find unwelcome’. This option demonstrates a lack of understanding and compassion towards victims and survivors who have experienced first-hand church abuse.
I find it interesting that Professor Jay states she will quit if the Church interfere. Steve and I had many a day when we wished to walk but we chose to stay as victims and survivors begged us not to quit as they felt the ISB was their last hope. We stayed and faced every challenge in the interest of independent safeguarding. Our last resort was to serve a Dispute Resolution Notice on Archbishops’ Council, which clearly detailed the interference we were experiencing and whilst we awaited mediation, a few days later, we were removed.
What, if anything, has changed? If not now, when?
And what about those who have not yet made their complaints against this unjust and incompetent “safeguarding process”. When do we have an opportunity to point out the serious, cruel wrongs against us?
Jasvinder is right to point out that the first and most urgent responsibility the Archbishops’ Council has is to secure safe transmission of data to somebody trusted by survivors whose engagement with, and trust in, the ISB was abruptly shut down. That has still not been carried out, and is an urgent priority. The vital thing is that a person is, or people are, recruited who those survivors themselves trust. Given the shambles recently inflicted upon then, that will be no easy task and the Archbishops’ Council are pretty much obliged to let the survivors head up any recruitment process… Read more »
Well, as a survivor i know who i would appoint , the only ones i know to be safe , J&S
Agreed.
Trevor, from the information I have it has been acknowledged that in the future others may want to complain so, at least on paper, it looks like that has been considered however before anyone gets too excited any review will now have to comply with the new LLR protocol which came into force on Monday and which was overwhelmingly voted in by Synod and though it was not presented as such, I suspect, overwhelmingly voted against by survivors. The new protocol is to have bland, strongly anonymised reviews without holding anyone to account and a maximum of six recommendations. The… Read more »
Dear Trisha,
If what you say is correct, it seems that no wrongs are going to be put right, and that people in positions of trust are not going to be called to account. I agree with you that such a process is a charade, and simply prolongs indefinitely the cruelty to survivors. I am appalled at such continuing injustice and incompetence, which Lord Carlile condemned as the worst he had ever seen in a safeguarding process.
There was precious little time to debate the safeguarding review document in Synod. I made a speech criticising it for doing too little. However it was obviously very much better than the previous one, which is why it got passed. In Synod questions in July it became apparent that there is no systematic follow-up of the recommendations which are made. Inevitably it was Gavin Drake who identified the point: Mr Gavin Drake (Southwell & Nottingham) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council: Q30 In the February 2022 Group of Sessions, I asked the Archbishops’ Council (q 46) to publish a list of all… Read more »
Thanks Mark, I agree that keeping track of recommendations is important but in the new reviews there will be six recommendations allowed, any more and the review can be rejected. There is a clear statement of fact that reviews will not be for providing accountability or justice, which survivors have very little other recourse to at this present time. As I said previously if the complaints proceedure for clergy abuse survivors fell in line with other statutory services complaints processes the new review protocol would be better viewed but at this time with CDM not fit for purpose yet the… Read more »
My critique is twofold: a learning lessons review is only useful if lessons are learned. While reviews remain on the shelf the only lessons are learned by the people who conduct them, and they are not properly disseminated to the wider church, or consolidated to identify common themes across diverse contexts. More significantly and culturally, reviews as specified do not learn lessons about what to do when things go wrong. They do not ask what has happened to the survivors and whether further action is required; nor do they reflect on and learn from what has happened in the communities… Read more »
“Autocorrect is your enemy” – and ‘seeks’ to avoid – in para 4
One cannot help but notice the speed with which Church House has acted to put up the right signals – yet the absence of cultural change on display. It’s another case of “ we call the shots here”. Any body sensitive to what has been exposed through outsider pressure would have welcomed those who have exposed the problems to become co-workers in putting it right, but no: the brutalism goes on – “ we are in charge – be grateful for what we are giving you”: except we are not. In the sacking of SCIE we see another group unafraid… Read more »
A few weeks ago, trust in the Archbishops’ Council to oversee safeguarding affairs was shot to pieces at General Synod and in the media. It begs the question: should they be involved in any way when it comes to safeguarding decisions and appointments? Are they safe? The victims of the abrupt destruction of the ISB have still to be addressed… their data (all the rawness of their opening up, their wounds) still held in limbo. I believe the AC are seeking someone to manage those cases? But if they do that, have they agreed with those ISB survivors about who… Read more »
I looked Ineqe up Online, and read their website They are based in Belfast and as far as I understood their pitch without contacting them, are involved in improving safeguarding and online security mainly directed at schools. If you are an organisation eg LA insured by Zurich you can apply for their services at no extra charge. I could not find any part of their organisation which appeared to undertake work with survivors of abuse – they seemed to me to have a predominantly preventative pitch. So it depends on what the AC was looking for- and Ineqe clearly have… Read more »
As one of the approx 30 U.K. survivors of John Smyth, one of approx 130 worldwide victims, i was groomed into the John Smyth cult by Simon Doggart and a current senior Church figure in 1981. I am one of those 70 + victims who refused the sharing of that of my personal data that ‘belonged’ to Jasvinder & Steve. I will certainly not be sharing my data with Ineqe, or with any other body under serious investigations by the ICO. Since Peter Hancock & Emily Denne ‘left C of E Safeguarding’ in 2020?, Jasvinder has been the only ‘Church… Read more »
It is shocking that despite so many knowing about your case and your pain , you are still “invisible”.
We seem to have a similar experience.
FAOD, the ‘current senior Church figure’ is a current serving Diocesan Bishop
Clearly the ABC are not fit to make safeguarding decisions.
And yes, most of us would want to select J&S.
What a mess this is and the members of ABC dont want to talk.
Ineqe are currently under serious investigation by the Information Commissioners Office for failures in GDPR compliance and data breach. Ineqe are also being investigated for noncompliance with the Equality Act. And have been reported to the Charity Commission. Ineqe present their work as being “independent”, but as Steve Reeves for the ISA pointedly noted at Synod, the CofE mean by that “semi-detached”. Lawyers working with victims have already noted that Ineqe and others will tell abuse victims they are producing a piece of investigative work that is “independent”. Then victims and survivors get very aggrieved when their personal disclosures are… Read more »
Martyn, I could find absolutely no trace of what you are saying when I searched extensively for Ineqe online, so if your information is correct this is even more worrying – and so presumably it can’t be assumed that the AC knew at the point of employing them?
I guess the SCIE were “sacked” because they steered the church towards part2 the survivor survey , when the church wanted survivor experiences covered up.
The neednt have worried because my diocesan website makes no mention of part2.
It is shocking that they were even asked to conduct the audit ignoring the victims.
If anyone knows of a diocese which does admit to part2 i would love to read it so i can compare with Derby.
I have no idea regarding the suitability of INEQE but a bit of a reality check on the sacking of SCIE. Survivors were consulted regarding the commissioning of the next round of audits and though SCIE performed better when it came to later reviews in the early days their methodology was appalling and led to jig-saw identification (complaints to ICO and some audits changed accordingly) they didn’t include the survivors voice and then produced a token survey that raised no more than 50 responses. Mainly though in the auditing process they found ‘jobs for the boys’ DSAP and DSA and… Read more »
Of course they only got 50 responses ; thats because they never bloody well told anyone .
I didnt find out about it until it was over.
The church doesnt want victims to know anything.
My Diocese wont even tell me who the PSO is for my church and they wont tell me how to contact the Safeguarding management group.
I have found a reference to the independent review in the published written answers to Church Commissioners Questions, dated 25 July. I have updated the original post accordingly.
I don’t have any knowledge of Ineque, although I have respect for Jim Gamble’s work in the past. I’m glad that at least the brief this time includes meeting with victims. My main concern is that William Nye (who seems to be leading the work on behalf of Council) still has not met with Jas & Steve to discuss how we are to be consulted on what is to happen with our reviews/complaints and our data. NST have secured some options & are still working on others, but we haven’t yet been asked by Council what we want. Personally I… Read more »
It would be nice to think that a “humbler” church would understand the importance of offering survivors agency. A system in which the centre feels the need to keep control will inevitably – it seems to me – replicate patterns of behaviour many survivors will have encountered in their abuse.
“It would be nice to think that a “humbler” church would understand the importance of offering survivors agency…” and “A system in which the centre feels the need to keep control will inevitably.”
That is exactly the point, Mark. Thank you.
In abuse, agency is so often cruelly taken away. An absolute priority of an offending institution should be giving agency back again. That doesn’t make everything right but it demonstrates contrition.
The obvious first action and first question over the problem with the data should be:
“What do you want us to do?”
The compassionate logic of the situation should dictate a speedy process for acting on the abrupt and reckless harm done to survivors by the Archbishops’ Council what is now well over a month ago. I was told by a Council member that “we got it wrong appointing Meg Munn” and more generally that “we messed up” and “we are all accountable”. Fast forward many weeks and it’s “Lessons learned” and the AC carries on in control. Where are the survivors in all this? 1.Basic decency would necessitate that (this time) the survivors whose data was shared in good faith with… Read more »
Jane,
Who is/are ‘we’?
This is an interesting question, since my diocese have unjustly labelled me a perpetrator on the basis of very false accusations. It is THEIR abuse about which I want to complain loudly and clearly. Any attempt I make to try and show them how wrong they are is met either with silence, or by a statement that the case is closed. If it is all a charade, then I think that the press or the BBC are perhaps the people whom I should contact. What do others think?
Trevor, clearly what you do is up to you but I have always found that journalists follow their own agenda so helpful outcomes can not be guaranteed. Have you thought about contacting the Lucy Faithfull foundation? Donald Findlater, one of their directors is extremely experienced in church protocol and may be able to offer some advice. I appreciate the website places the emphasis on offenders but it has a far wider range of experience than that and may be able to offer some constructive guidance.
https://www.lucyfaithfull.org.uk/our-people.htm