APOLOGIES and accountability were demanded, and offered, during Saturday’s General Synod debate on safeguarding, but no decisive next steps were approved.
Amendments that will have committed the Church of England to a latest, alternative safeguarding system were rejected in favour a period of consultation.
The debate focused on two reports: Dr Sarah Wilkinson’s report on the demise of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) (News, 11 December 2023), and the report compiled by the previous chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), Professor Alexis Jay, which was published only three days before (News, 21 February). Much of the controversy targeting this latter report, which really helpful the creation of two independent charities to perform and scrutinise the Church’s safeguarding work.
A series of amendments were proposed which called for the urgent adoption Professor Jay’s recommendations, notwithstanding uncertainties aired for the reason that report was released about how the proposed changes will affect safeguarding staff currently employed at diocesan and national level (News, 23 February).
At the outset of the controversy, the lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, the Rt Revd Joanne Grenfell, conceded that the Church had “not yet gained the trust and respect” of survivors of church-based abuse.
She thanked Professor Jay and Dr Wilkinson for the work they’d done, and warranted members that the response group, the creation of which was being proposed within the motion, would seek the advice of on the subsequent steps and produce its findings to the Synod for a choice to be made.
“This is urgent work. It shouldn’t be straightforward, nevertheless it deserves thorough, balanced, courageous, and open-hearted consideration, to assist us together to achieve a spot where the Church could be each secure and trusted,” she said.
It was an approach that she was to repeat in response to arguments for the immediate and wholesale adoption of Professor Jay’s recommendations.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, who has recently turn into a member of the Archbishops’ Council, said that “the time for debate on whether we want an independent body for safeguarding is past”, and urged the Church to “get on and do it”.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, also spoke in favour of considered one of the amendments endorsing Professor Jay’s recommendations — a position which it transpired was a minority one amongst her episcopal colleagues.
Dr Hartley said that she didn’t feel the Church had a alternative about adopting the proposals, and suggested that the novelty of the proposed structure shouldn’t be a reason for resisting it’s creation. Rather, the Church of England had a possibility show “leadership” in creating independent bodies to take over safeguarding.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, nevertheless, spoke against the immediate rubber-stamping of Professor Jay’s recommendations, and it was his view that prevailed.
If safeguarding was outsourced, a tighter definition of the term could be required — but a broad definition of safeguarding had “served us well”, he said. It allowed for investigation of non-statutory sorts of safeguarding, corresponding to spiritual abuse, he said — a category that the Jay report suggested needs to be removed.
The proposed latest structures would remove safeguarding responsibilities from bishops, but, he said: “I need to be held accountable for my very own safeguarding practice, and I want convincing that these proposals will deliver that accountability.”
In a vote by Houses, an amendment to request a draft measure based on Professor Jay’s proposals to come back before the Synod in July, brought by Clive Billenness (Europe), was carried narrowly within the House of Laity: 83-80, with eight recorded abstentions.
But the amendment was rejected firmly by the House of Bishops (27-8, two abstentions), and the House of Clergy (95-62, seven abstentions).
Other bishops who argued in favour of a consultation period before making any decisions included the Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, who expressed concern about how a shift to operationally independent safeguarding would affect current staff employed within the dioceses.
He was also frightened that a hasty decision would result in a “botched and rushed implementation” of the reports’ findings.
The latter point echoed a brief speech made by the Archbishop of Canterbury firstly of the controversy, who said that the Church should act “as fast as is sensible”.
In this context, he offered an apology for his actions regarding the ISB, accepting Dr Wilkinson’s finding that he had been in “an excessive amount of of a rush”.
APOLOGIES were the article of the 2 amendments which were successfully added to the motion — one offered to “survivors impacted by the matters described inside the Wilkinson report”, the opposite to the members of the ISB for “stress, harm and skilled embarrassment”.
For some, nevertheless, apologies didn’t go far enough.
“Apology after apology after one other bloody apology is not going to do,” said the Revd Robert Thompson (London). He called on Archbishop Welby and the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye, to “embody” the apology by resigning.
His speech was met with scattered applause. The next, during which a member of the Archbishops’ Council, Alison Coulter (Winchester), expressed her apology, was more audibly supported.
Proposing the amendment to increase an apology to the members of the ISB, Martin Sewell (Rochester) said that Steve Reeves’s and Jasvinder Sanghera’s continued, unpaid, support for survivors demonstrated “true Christianity”.
Another of Mr Sewell’s amendments identified a variety of individuals whom he said were chargeable for the “collapse” of “confidence within the safeguarding culture of the Church of England”. Those identified were the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the opposite members of the Archbishops’ Council, including Mr Nye, the lead bishop for safeguarding, and “senior secretariat members”.
His amendment was resisted by Bishop Grenfell on the idea that it was “indiscriminate”, and had “no constructive goal at its heart”. Those identified would need to apologise, she suggested, even when some — like herself — weren’t in post on the time that the ISB was disbanded.
The amendment lapsed as not enough members stood for the amendment to proceed to debate.
At times, procedural issues threatened to distract from the substance of the controversy.
The short notice at which the amendments had been drafted meant that they overlapped in places, and the structure of Mr Sewell’s raft of proposals meant that, if one were passed but later amendments fell, there was a risk that the ultimate motion wouldn’t include any requirement for further motion.
“None of us want that,” the Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) said, in an intervention urging members to reject the amendment in order that they didn’t risk saying nothing.
The amendment was defeated in a vote by show of hands, prompting a cry of “shame” from Jane Chevous, a survivor and considered one of those that were awaiting a review when the ISB was disbanded.
She told the Church Times that she thought survivors didn’t have confident within the response group that had been announced, because of the involvement of people that is perhaps considered chargeable for the present situation — a degree which was made by several members throughout the debate, including the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty, who’s deputy lead bishop for safeguarding.
Bishop Conalty added that she was “struck” that the Church was “reluctant to let go of safeguarding”, and urged it to “move with haste” towards adopting the recommendations made by experts.
Ms Chevous also expressed frustration and never with the ability to speak in the controversy, despite having requested to accomplish that (News, 20 February). “They’re talking about listening but they’re not doing it,” she said.
In the ultimate a part of the controversy, the Archbishop of York joined Archbishop Welby in expressing an apology for his part within the safeguarding crisis, and suggested that he backed the implementation of Professor Jay’s recommendations, but wanted a period of consultation first.
It seems likely that Archbishop Cottrell represented the views of many: the motion as amended was carried 337-21, with 20 recorded abstentions.
A press release issued by Church House after the controversy gave some more detail in regards to the next steps that will be taken: an internal team running “deep engagement” with diocesan safeguarding staff “ to unpick reactions on different elements and develop detailed proposals”, together with a survey for parish safeguarding officers and volunteers.
There would even be wider engagement with stakeholders, including a selected “survivor and victim focus group”.
The final motion read:
That this Synod thank Sarah Wilkinson and Alexis Jay for his or her work and request that the method set out in paragraph 12 of GS 2336 for forming a response to, and considering any vital implementation of, their recommendations be pursued as a matter of priority.
That this Synod adopt and endorse the apologies expressed by the Archbishops to the Survivors impacted by the matters described inside the Wilkinson Report, and specifically acknowledge and apologise for its own collegiate shortcomings inside the scrutiny process.
That this Synod apologise to all members of the previous Independent Safeguarding Board for the stress, harm, and skilled embarrassment they’ve endured which have arisen in consequence of the ISB formation, structuring, resourcing, implementation, and management for which they weren’t responsible.
