INTRODUCING, on Monday, a motion on the following steps to reform church safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), told the General Synod that she was attempting to be as transparent as possible.
Everyone agreed that the Church of England needed latest “foundations” for its safeguarding, because it modified its policies, processes, and culture, Dr Grenfell, who’s the lead bishop for safeguarding, said. She thanked the 2 reviewers whose reports earlier this yr had informed this work: Sarah Wilkinson (on the disbanding of the Independent Safeguarding Board), and Professor Alexis Jay (on the long run of safeguarding) (News, 21 February).
In February, Dr Grenfell convened the Response Group after the previous Synod vote, and their paper now outlined some “indicative models” which could offer alternative ways forward on safeguarding reform. The group had hoped to discover some areas of consensus, and had not proposed anything that was “unworkable”, given the strength of feeling across the Church. She was determined to not make the mistakes of failing to listen fastidiously again, she said.
The independent co-chair of the Response Group, the businesswoman and NGO leader Lesley-Anne Ryder, took over the presentation. She had been “struck by how complex the systems and processes” of the Church were. “Seriously — I cannot easily discover whose job it’s to take governance decisions here,” she told members, to an uneasy ripple of laughter across the chamber. How way more difficult might this be for a vulnerable person in crisis? Her group was attempting to make safeguarding simpler and fewer daunting for parishes. The Church mustn’t leap first to organisational models without first deciding what their functions were, she warned. Clear, costed decisions about what this structure can be brought in February, once the functional decision had been taken. “No change isn’t an option,” she said.
Dr Grenfell urged members to undergo more trauma-informed training, which her group had accomplished on Professor Wilkinson’s suggestion. The Church was still waiting for the Government’s response to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), but this may not delay the Church’s progress, she said. The Church must unite around Jesus, “turning to him in repentance and commit to walking together into the sunshine”. She told a story a couple of non-churchgoer in a rural village who had come across a difficult safeguarding situation, and who had found a parish poster with contact details — the one place within the village which addressed safeguarding. The parish safeguarding officer was in a position to redirect them appropriately. The Church must be the safest organisation around, but at all times learning, she concluded.
The chair then addressed an extra motion proposed by Clive Billenness (Europe), which called for the Church immediately to maneuver to create Organisation B, the second independent charity advisable by the Jay report, which might perform scrutiny of safeguarding work. The motion argued that, unlike Organisation A, which might perform operational safeguarding work, Organisation B had found broad support across the Church. The chair determined, nevertheless, that, under the standing orders, this motion was contradictory to Dr Grenfell’s motion, and if the primary motion was carried it couldn’t be taken.
Dr Grenfell explained that her motion specifically made reference to concerns about Professor Jay’s suggestion that spiritual abuse be removed as a category, and the part played by bishops in decision-making on safeguarding, as these were vital topics for further detailed consideration.
Kashmir Garton (Worcester), the interim chair of the National Safeguarding Panel, backed the motion, and praised the widespread consultation that lay behind it. She was aware of the frustration that the Response Group had not proposed a latest model, but said that rushing into this without proper evaluation can be a mistake. “Safeguarding is a high-risk area, and must be implemented with appropriate structures,” she said. The Synod had a possibility to redraft safeguarding to “rebuild the trust that has been damaged” and reinspire confidence. “We know we’ve got not got this right previously, but we will work towards getting it right in the long run.” She highlighted how non-safeguarding matters were being referred to safeguarding officers as a result of insufficient resources elsewhere, reminiscent of HR. She was glad that this issue can be addressed in the continued work.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesClive Billenness (Europe) moves his motion
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, praised the “measured” approach taken by Dr Grenfell, despite frustrations from elsewhere over the delay in implementing the Jay recommendations, which, he suggested, were based on a “deeply flawed” methodology. To move ahead on that basis would have made the Church less protected, no more, he argued: a crisis mustn’t spook the C of E into making hasty, ill-judged decisions, nor should progress made at diocesan level be risked by national panic. Bishop North said that he used to argue for full independence, but safeguarding professionals within the dioceses had modified his mind. This would have meant outsourcing safeguarding and allowing one other organisation to be blamed for safeguarding failures. He praised the second route specified by the papers, which kept responsibility for kids and vulnerable adults inside the Church. “That sacred responsibility can’t be outsourced.”
Clive Billenness (Europe) said that Dr Grenfell’s paper was excellent, but urged members to vote it down in order that his following motion might be taken. It had been greater than 100 days for the reason that last meeting of the Synod, but, despite the very complicated questions being raised, it was time to “make a start”, which he couldn’t see within the papers. “We need to indicate we’re starting to get on with things, which is why later I can be asking for a plan.” Not welcoming Dr Grenfell’s report didn’t mean that the Synod was not noting or acknowledging it, however the time had come for motion.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, recalled her dismay in February at the shortage of engagement with the Jay and Wilkinson reports (News, 26 February), but she had learned more since then by engaging with victims, survivors, and the Response Group. Her diocese had recently undergone an independent safeguarding audit, which had shown her the worth of independent scrutiny. Her view was now that Dr Grenfell’s motion was the easiest way forward.
Margaret Sheather (Gloucester) said that members should support the motion “as a complete” somewhat than unpicking one piece out of it, as Mr Billenness had suggested.
Michaela Suckling (Sheffield) could see why full independence was tempting, but said that the experience within the diocese of Sheffield must be a warning against this. When children’s services had been in crisis, they were placed in an arms-length body, before being taken back into the council’s remit. Her experience as a nurse working in children’s services convinced her that operational independence was not at all times one of the best option.
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) was also a convert to the direction of travel within the paper. She understood the plea from bishops to retain responsibility for safeguarding, but with that have to be accountability, she warned. An enhanced Organisation B with teeth — and the power to receive complaints — could provide that which couldn’t be put aside by episcopal authority. What if a bishop or an archbishop was a nasty actor, she asked. Her confidence had been shaken by how the bishops voted against Robert Thompson’s Private Member’s Motion on Soul Survivor the day past.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), backed Bishop North’s evaluation and opposed Mr Billenness’s motion. What happened on the national level was very different from the diocesan level, he said. Safeguarding was not a “automotive crash”, but well delivered on the local level, improving on a regular basis, he said. “If the whole lot is safeguarding then nothing is safeguarding,” he also said, noting Ms Ryder’s grievance that an excessive amount of was drawn as much as the highest level, and that definitions needed to be tightened. The “attackers and defenders” slugging it out at a national level should sort themselves out and never “impose their drama” on the remainder of the Church, he said.
The Bishop of Dudley, the Rt Revd Martin Gorick, supported the motion. A recent audit of the diocese of Worcester had suggested that it was “at the least on a par with the easiest charities within the UK”, and matched findings in other dioceses. This good work needed to proceed, he said.
Peter Adams (St Albans) was encouraged by progress and the standard of the talk, and by hearing his concerns about operational independence echoed by others. But he found himself aligning with Mr Billenness in wanting to back each this motion and the next one calling for immediate progress on establishing Organisation B. The mood of the Synod now had been way more constructive on this issue as compared with last July, but should go further, he said.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) thought that the motion was the easiest way forward, not least for survivors. The deal with spiritual abuse was helpful, she said, and called for its definition to be maintained within the Church’s safeguarding policies, because it captured the precise nature of the harm that takes place.
The Revd Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford) asked members to support the motion, and never Mr Billenness’s following motion. Being heard was about asking “the correct and the deep questions on the record”, she said. Organisational form must follow function, and he or she praised Ms Ryder’s approach.
Dr Andrew Bell (Oxford) referred to a matter he had asked about Professor Jay’s remit, which the Archbishop of York had answered by saying that she was “simply asked to supply options for independence”. Dr Bell welcomed the incontrovertible fact that the motion didn’t make a call concerning the model to be introduced, but to analyse the sensible options further.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) was saddened and dissatisfied to listen to indignant voices which weren’t confident about progress in safeguarding in the day past’s debate about Soul Survivor. She sought further reassurances that survivors’ voices were being heard within the plans, and that they might help shape the structures. Had Ms Ryder hung out with survivors and laity, in addition to the House of Bishops? The Response Group must concentrate to power, she said.
The Archbishop of York expressed “sadness and shame” concerning the failures of the Synod’s safeguarding discussions last July. The Jay and Wilkinson reports had been sobering reading, but helpful challenges to the Church. Although he had sympathy with Mr Billenness, he would vote for Dr Grenfell’s motion. The Church had made mistakes before by moving too quickly, he warned. There needed to be more consistency between dioceses, and he praised the safeguarding professionals in his own diocese who had helped him. Being independent didn’t necessarily mean that safeguarding was not embedded in diocesan structures, he argued, giving the instance of his registrar.
Responding to the talk, Dr Grenfell said that Organisation B was not being brought forward now, as Mr Billenness wanted, since the redeveloped structure for safeguarding needed to be worked on in a joined-up manner, not constructed piecemeal. She also wanted the Church to not discard the nice work that was already being done, but nonetheless to maneuver “so far as is smart”.
The motion passed on a show of hands:
‘That this Synod thank the Response Group for its work, welcome the progress update set out in GS 2364, and noting that feedback has identified concerns with:
(a) Professor Jay’s recommendations on spiritual abuse and the definition of safeguarding; and (b) the role of bishops in decision-making on safeguarding cases, ask for detailed evaluation of the choices set out within the paper to be undertaken for the General Synod in February.’
