AGAINST a background of calls for further resignations and suspensions within the wake of the Makin review (News, 15 November), the National Safeguarding Team (NST) has set out how individuals’ records will probably be assessed over the course of the following ten weeks.
The review concluded that many members of the clergy knew of the abuse. The task now falls to dioceses and the NST to determine whether failings to report such knowledge constitute a disciplinary matter. Mr Makin writes in his report that the Church must “learn from this in revising current guidance on investigating clergy through the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM)”.
The NST’s investigations thus far have been focused on establishing whether an individual presents a current safeguarding risk, slightly than assessing whether or not they must have acted otherwise to reply to their knowledge of the abuse.
On Monday, Church House published the four-stage process that may happen between now and the meeting of the General Synod on 10 February. Stage one is an “initial assessment of risk, examining if anyone criticised within the review is a right away safeguarding risk of harm to others”. This work is being undertaken by diocesan safeguarding officers, cathedral safeguarding officers, and the NST, and has already resulted in permission to officiate being withdrawn from a variety of individuals (News, 29 November).
The NST says that this primary stage may give rise to other processes at diocesan level, including disciplinary of capability procedures “which hold people to account for failures of safeguarding, conduct, or other points of leadership responsibility, or for actions which have caused reputational harm”.
The second stage of the NST process is a “more in-depth assessment” made by regional safeguarding leads, after which recommendations will probably be made. This will, in turn, be examined by senior members of the NST, plus two independent and one senior lawyer within the National Church Institutions’ (NCI) legal office, after which decisions will probably be made to find out what motion will probably be taken in respect of people, including, where appropriate, disciplinary motion. The final stage is “robust external scrutiny” of those decisions by an independent barrister. If a call is taken to make a criticism under the CDM, the respondent will then have “the chance to have input into the method”, it says.
While some individuals — including the Archbishop of Canterbury — are criticised by Mr Makin, many aren’t. Rather, an account is provided of their (alleged) knowledge, accompanied by, in some cases, their explanation of their response. In some instances, there’s documentary evidence that a person knew of the abuse.
In other cases, individuals have denied knowledge of the abuse, or of its severity. In explaining their decision to not report the abuse, a spread of explanations have been given, including a belief that others were taking motion; a belief that they were sworn to secrecy; or a belief that the victims didn’t want motion to be taken. The review also acknowledges that church officers who knew of the abuse include survivors of it.
The current national guidance is that each one authorised clergy, licensed readers and lay employees, churchwardens, and PCCs should have “due regard” to safeguarding guidance issued by the House of Bishops. Safeguarding guidance states that, if the alleged victim is a toddler, then an automatic referral to statutory services should be made. When it involves vulnerable adults, the approach is taken on a case-by-case basis, with the danger to others considered.
Failure to report, as set out in statutory guidance (Managing Allegations), is prima facie misconduct, as defined by the CDM. Whether proceedings are initiated depends upon a spread of things. In the absence of statutory guidance before 2016, it will include what legal duties office-holders had on the time, drawing on relevant case law.
The Makin review states that, while the concept of safeguarding was in its infancy within the Eighties, “the importance of protecting of kids from physical harm was a widely known societal issue of concern,” and that “reliance on the then current legal and cultural framework isn’t an inexpensive explanation for the extent of actions taken, particularly by those who read the Ruston Report.”
The latest Guidance on Penalties, issued by the Clergy Discipline Commission, states that “intentional disregarding of safeguarding policy will likely result in removal from office and a limited prohibition”. It continues: “Where the cleric has been neglectful or inefficient within the performance of safeguarding duties (no matter how the allegation is framed) it could be appropriate to impose a rebuke. However, account ought to be taken of the respondent’s age, experience, and seniority. Where the misconduct takes place over a chronic time frame and has put others in danger, removal from office and a limited prohibition should follow.”
While core group assessments have ruled that each Archbishop Welby and the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, acted according to safeguarding policies on the time, the Makin review suggests that this will likely not be sufficient, concluding that Archbishop Welby had a “personal and moral responsibility” to go further.
On Tuesday, the diocese of London confirmed that Dr Jo Bailey Wells, an honorary assistant bishop within the diocese, who also serves as Bishop for Episcopal Ministry within the Anglican Communion, had “stepped back from her ministry within the Diocese of London, pending a safeguarding risk assessment”.
Dr Bailey Wells was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s chaplain from 2013 to 2016, and liaised with the diocese of Ely after a Smyth survivor made a disclosure in that diocese in 2013. She told the Makin review that she was “extremely busy” at the moment with safeguarding referrals, and that this referral was “not particularly remarkable” (is it not clear whether these two phrases are direct quotes). The Makin review records that she told the NST that safeguarding was not a proper a part of her job as Chaplain to the Archbishop.
Failure to act on disclosures of abuse has been considered in other lessons-learned reviews, including the 2023 report into the late Trevor Devamanikkam (News, 11 May 2023). This concluded that several bishops had “did not act” on multiple disclosures of abuse made by a survivor, Matthew Ineson, over a decade.
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, acknowledged that he “didn’t act sufficiently”. Lord Sentamu, who also received a disclosure of abuse from the survivor, has consistently defended his actions, arguing that, according to the national policy on the time, secureguarding was solely the responsibility of the diocesan bishop and safeguarding officer, and that he was following canon law. This was also the conclusion of the interior NST investigation. The reviewer’s position was that “no Church law excuses the responsibility of individuals to not act on matters of a safeguarding nature.” Complaints under the CDM didn’t proceed against a lot of the clergy named, as they were deemed “out of time”.
The 2022 report of the Clergy Conduct Measure implementation group concluded that the CDM was not well-equipped to take care of safeguarding process failures — a lot of which might not constitute “serious misconduct”. The group observed that “the culture, expectation, and legal responsibilities on clergy around safeguarding have recognised a recent category of discipline concerning process failures — e.g. failing to follow a policy — slightly than what could be termed ‘personal failing’ (e.g. adultery) which was at all times (and to some extent still is) the fundamental area addressed in church discipline. This requires a more comprehensive approach slightly than the narrower focus of ‘serious misconduct’ under the CDM.” Under the brand new Clergy Conduct Measure, a recent “misconduct” track has been introduced.
One of the recommendations of the Core Group convened to think about the Devamanikkam case was that the NST should send a communication to bishops and senior staff “impressing the importance of not assuming a disclosure was being handled elsewhere”. There was no evidence from subsequent minutes that motion was taken on this.
The Makin review recommends the creation of an “escalation policy” for church officers to follow “once they are dissatisfied with the response or where there isn’t any update from; Police, LADO [local authority designated officer] and other statutory services to a report of allegations”.
