A VIDEO message from Professor Alexis Jay was shown to the General Synod on Saturday afternoon, introducing her report, The Future of Church Safeguarding, published last week (News, 23 February).
Professor Jay had spent six months consulting people across the Church to explore make safeguarding and its scrutiny “truly independent”, she said, and had drawn on the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which she chaired (News, 21 July 2023).
The must act to enhance safeguarding was urgent, Professor Jay said. She recognised that she was recommending sweeping change, but this was mandatory after a “collapse in trust and confidence, principally amongst victims and survivors”. She spoke of poor data collection, inequity of funding across dioceses, various approaches to identifying concerns, and other problems.
“Safeguarding within the Church today falls below the standards expected in secular organisations,” she said. “These weaknesses are usually not a mirrored image on the safeguarding professionals inside the Church, however the processes they must work inside.”
A “person-centred culture” through which the welfare of the kid or vulnerable adult was paramount should be created, she continued. “Regrettably, I need to advise you that this still doesn’t occur in every single place across the Church.” Some people still believed, wrongly, that the safeguarding failings of the Church were now previously, Professor Jay said. She had interviewed individuals who had been caught up in safeguarding processes over the past five years and who still experienced harmful errors.
Her report advisable the creation of two latest charities, each funded by the C of E, but operationally and legally independent, she explained, to deliver safeguarding and scrutinise its outsourcing. There would still be local safeguarding teams based within the dioceses, and no amalgamation right into a centralised team.
Professor Jay acknowledged the efforts that had been made to enhance safeguarding within the C of E in recent times, but said that too many victims and survivors felt that the situation was now at an “all-time low”. The 42-diocese model meant that there was an excessive amount of inconsistency and variable treatment, and created too many conflicts of interest, which undermined confidence.
“Communication typically is seen as very poor. These weaknesses will persist until the delivery of safeguarding is faraway from the diocesan management structure and placed into an independent body.”
She had also heard examples of the “weaponising of safeguarding”, which was why she had advisable that the Church standardise its definitions of safeguarding and challenge erroneous beliefs that continued to be held. She also criticised those that believed that safeguarding ought to be “rooted in scripture” and that every one safeguarding officers should be practising Christians.
Professor Jay acknowledged that there could be many questions on how her latest independent safeguarding model may very well be established, but she encouraged Synod members to review her report fastidiously and support its full implementation.
A debate on a motion from the lead safeguarding bishop, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), followed. The chair reminded speakers to conduct themselves in a sensitive and considerate manner.
Introducing her motion, Dr Grenfell conceded that the Church had “not yet gained the trust and respect” of survivors.
She thanked Professor Jay for her work, and Sarah Wilkinson for her report on the collapse of the Church’s Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) (News, 15 December 2023). She could “hear the wisdom” of those that said that the Church mustn’t rush its response, but additionally of those that emphasised the urgency of the necessity for change.
Some were “wary of outsourcing safeguarding” to a latest independent body but Professor Jay’s suggestion would still mean that safeguarding was delivered on the local level, Dr Grenfell said.
“You’ll know out of your dioceses the various improvements which have been made in safeguarding in recent times,” she said. It was “time to take the very best of what we’ve learnt” and move forward, guided by best practice.
She also attempted to reassure Synod members that the choice remained of their hands, notwithstanding the involvement of a “response group” that had been convened to steer the implementation process. “Any recommendations from the response group would still come back to you for a choice,” she said.
The Archbishop of Canterbury also acknowledged the “absence of confidence” in safeguarding. There could be victims and survivors within the chamber, he said; so members must tread fastidiously. “We have had a really long journey to where we are actually, and it has not been a superb journey.” As soon as he became Archbishop, he had realised how inadequate safeguarding resources were, and he praised the subsequently huge increase in spending. All the safeguarding professionals within the Church were attempting to do the correct thing, he said, and “deserved our confidence”.
“I even have a profound commitment to organising a system that has no conflicts of interest: independent safeguarding that can not be blunted in its impact.” It must work well for victims and survivors, not only looking back at what had happened. but additionally stopping future events, he said.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesArchbishop Welby
Archbishop Welby deeply regretted and apologised for the crisis across the ISB, he said: he had been in “an excessive amount of of a rush”. The Church must, due to this fact, move only as fast as was smart this time, and resist the lure of a “quick fix”.
Of the ISB’s disbandment and its fallout, he said: “This was an extended drawn-out terrible disaster for those involved.” In every disaster, there should be blame, responsibility, and accountability, he said. But “Please don’t blame staff from the ground of Synod,” he continued: they were overworked and human, after all they made mistakes, but they may not answer back. Safeguarding staff had received “appalling abuse”, he said, driving some into breakdowns.
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, suggested that two separate debates were needed: on whether independent safeguarding should occur, and on how. When it got here to independent scrutiny, there was little question that this could occur, but how was more complex. He regretted that the Jay review had bypassed the “whether” query, going straight to the “how” of operational independence. This, he suggested, had “silenced and disempowered the people on the front line delivering the improved outcomes of safeguarding all of us seek”: diocesan safeguarding officers (DSOs) and their teams.
The Jay report also risked a second round of “botched and rushed implementation”, Dr Beasley said. He pointed to a letter of concern sent to the Archbishops’ Council from 62 DSOs in 32 dioceses. Their concerns weren’t even mentioned within the report.
“Please, allow us to not repeat the mistakes made in organising the ISB,” he said. “IICSA didn’t recommend operational independence of safeguarding decision-making.” The other IICSA recommendations were still being implemented by DSOs, he continued, and bypassing this with the Jay report would serve only to disillusion local safeguarding professionals and make safeguarding less effective. “I urge you to vote against the amendments and for the motion,” he concluded.
Ruth Allen (Guildford), a parish safeguarding officer, said that she was often unappreciated and heavily criticised. But, when she had needed to launch a safeguarding investigation into an allegation of non-recent abuse just a few years ago, she had been pleasantly surprised at how well-run it had been. Evidence had been collated and the allegation had been substantiated; appropriate motion had been taken inside months; the victims had been well-supported, and the person accused had been offered pastoral care; a lessons-learned review had been helpfully run; and a risk-management plan had been put in place. The Charity Commission had later acknowledged that every one policies and procedures had been adhered to.
The diocesan safeguarding team wanted reassurance that any significant changes of safeguarding delivery could be “fully evaluated before implemented”, she said. Contrary to Professor Jay, Ms Allen strongly believed that the handling of safeguarding allegations ought to be “rooted in scripture”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe interim chair of the National Safeguarding Panel, Kashmir Garton (Worcester)
The interim chair of the National Safeguarding Panel (News, 9 November 2023), Kashmir Garton (Worcester) said that its members had not been interviewed by Professor Jay. The Synod must respond and learn from past events, and make significant improvements, to “rebuild trust and confidence at every level”. The implications of the Jay report were to make “radical” changes, and it was essential, due to this fact, that the response group “seek the advice of widely” and bear in mind work that had already been done to enhance safeguarding structures.
In a maiden speech, the Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) said that safeguarding “had not been adequate”, but cited the overhaul of safeguarding within the diocese of Chester for instance of the way it may very well be done well without complete operational independence. A “trauma-informed approach teaches us that it’s only as safety is more established [that] you would possibly begin to heal”, she said. In Chester, there had been “culture change” led by the bishops and safeguarding staff, who had worked independently from clergy, but in a “holistic and integrated way”, ensuring that “no disclosure was left unanswered and no vulnerable person falls through a spot.” Independent delivery “might undermine the message that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility”, she said, and splinter the “holistic approach” to church safeguarding.
IN THE two days between the publication of the Jay report and the Synod on Friday, a series of mutually exclusive amendments had been tabled. Because later amendments would lapse if earlier amendments were carried, the proposers were invited to stipulate their propositions before the amendments were formally moved.
Peter Adams (St Albans) spoke to his amendment, to switch the motion entirely with one which, he said, was “unambiguous” in agreeing with Professor Jay’s plan for independent safeguarding. There was an urgent need for a renewed apology and a latest group to oversee the delivery of a latest safeguarding structure, he said. He proposed that a latest board be formed immediately with survivor representation, elected Synod members, and figures from the House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council. The concerns raised by DSOs would must be addressed on this process, he said.
Clive Billenness (Europe) then spoke to his similar amendment, which might require the Archbishops’ Council to attract up a Measure immediately to implement Professor Jay’s recommendations, a Measure that would begin its synodical process in July. Survivors, in addition to lawyers and academics, had mostly believed that safeguarding mustn’t be under the Church’s control. “Why don’t we just accept the recommendation given to us?” he asked. Every minute spent debating this was one other minute without independent safeguarding scrutiny, he said. “Please allow us to begin this process soon.”
Another amendment, from Martin Sewell (Rochester), would replace the motion with a less complicated one accepting all of the reports’ recommendations. Urgency was paramount, he reiterated. Professor Jay had spoken of the importance of a culture change, however the hierarchy were still attempting to insist that they may control the method and that the Synod should simply trust them. “That doesn’t appear like changing the culture. That must go,” he said. He understood the anxieties that DSOs felt, but this was merely a structural reorganisation; no one was proposing to throw good DSOs out of the Church. “But the tail can’t wag the dog here: survivors are purported to come first.”
All three amendments were then moved. Dr Grenfell resisted the primary, despite welcoming “lots of its constructive suggestions”. The work that needed to be done now was “deep and wide engagement”, not a rush to implement a report that had been published for barely 100 hours, she said. Not enough members stood to support a debate, so the amendment lapsed.
Mr Billenness then moved his amendment, but once more Dr Grenfell resisted it. Similarly, consultation and engagement were required before implementing any recommendations, she said. “There is lots to digest, and there are loads of views. Building a consensus gives us essentially the most likelihood to construct an enduring change. Please let this technique of engagement occur.”
A debate on the amendment followed. The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, urged the Synod to vote against a proposal that, he said, would make the Church “less protected”. The Jay report moved straight from diagnosis to solution, without considering other options or what other organisations had done. His first response on reading the report was relief that he could be “released from sleepless nights” worrying about safeguarding issues: “But that’s bad,” he said, “because I should feel the heavy burden of responsibility.”
The best technique to shirk responsibility could be accountable another person, equivalent to the proposed latest charity. If the Church outsourced safeguarding, it will need a tighter definition, but a wider non-statutory definition had served the Church well, he said. This was a large experiment, which had never happened in some other charity. “I would like to be held accountable for my very own safeguarding practice, and I would like convincing these proposals will deliver that accountability.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Thelfall-Holmes (Liverpool), a latest member of the Archbishops’ Council, said that she had signed off on the response to the Wilkinson report, but now that she had seen the Jay report, she backed the amendment. “The time for debate on whether we’d like an independent body for safeguarding is past,” she argued. The breakdown of trust had made that query moot. “It obviously isn’t working. We must do something else.” Professor Jay had told the Church what it needed to do. “Please can we just get on and do it.”
The chair of the Council’s finance committee, Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council), strongly opposed Mr Billenness’s amendment, which required an independent lawyer to draft a Measure to implement the Jay report. The Legal Office was greater than able to doing this, he said, and would achieve this more cheaply. “This wouldn’t be an appropriate use of charitable funds,” he said.
Mr Billenness then used the Standing Orders to retort that he didn’t lack confidence within the Legal Office, but wanted solely to construct in further independence.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, backed the amendment. Her DSO had welcomed the Jay report, and her diocese had pioneered collaboration with survivors over safeguarding. The Church had no selection, she said, but to implement the recommendations in full to rebuild the boldness of survivors. These latest bodies might as a substitute be a resource for other denominations for the longer term, and would show “leadership by the Established Church”. Delay was unacceptable.
Andrew Gray (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) also backed the amendment, despite its “punchy” timeline. He rejected the concept outsourcing safeguarding meant that it was not the Church’s responsibility: it was commonplace for other organisations to outsource their HR work without abdicating their responsibilities as an employer. Both local safeguarding teams and the national Church had tried hard, but “now we have to start out making moves to get this right.”
Drafting a Measure may very well be done alongside a consultation with existing DSOs, he suggested. When it got here to money, if the Church could afford to spend £100 million on apologising for its involvement within the slave trade two centuries ago, he said, it could surely find the money to make an apology for inequities today.
A motion for the closure was carried, and the amendment was lost in a vote by Houses: it was lost by 27-8 among the many Bishops, with two recorded abstentions, and by 95-62, with seven recorded abstentions, by the Clergy, despite being carried by 83-80 by the Laity, with eight recorded abstentions.
Mr Sewell moved his first amendment, that the Synod “accept the suggestion of [the Jay and Wilkinson reports] in full and the necessity to proceed with as much urgency pretty much as good governance will allow”. Dr Grenfell resisted this on the idea that more time was needed to “digest” the Jay report. “I do hear and take seriously the sense of urgency,” she said, but “there isn’t a consensus” about exactly proceed, and a wider consultation was required.
Jane Rosam (Rochester) said that the “failures” outlined within the Jay and Wilkinson reports made her wish to hang her head in shame. The response group that had been assembled included “among the very individuals who led to this fiasco”, she said, and who could, due to this fact, not offer the change that was needed.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, urged the Synod to withstand the amendment and never bypass proper consultation. He spoke of his experience within the Redress Scheme project. This had involved careful engagement with survivors, which had brought significant progress and a “sharpened focus”, he said. The Church must not take a “high-handed and autocratic” approach by sacrificing collaboration within the interests of speed.
The Revd Vincent Whitworth (Manchester) said that each reports highlighted essential lessons. Time was needed for careful consideration of the choices, and the Synod should reject efforts to rush into accepting all of the recommendations. “Let’s not make the identical mistake again,” he said. He was, specifically, unsure whether handing over operational safeguarding independence was smart. “Do we would like an independent safeguarding system, or a simpler one?” he asked.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle), supporting the amendment, said that the welfare of youngsters and vulnerable adults should be paramount. “We must get on” with this, she urged. Survivors and victims thought that any delay amounted to “kicking the can down the road”.
The amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 26-4, with 4 recorded abstentions; Clergy 111-46, with nine recorded abstentions; Laity 87-73, with five recorded abstentions.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Robert Thompson (London)
Mr Sewell then moved his next amendment, which listed individuals whom the Synod would hold answerable for the ISB debacle and the broader collapse of confidence in safeguarding, so as of priority: the Archbishops, the Archbishops’ Council, the Secretary General, the lead bishop for safeguarding, and the “senior secretariat” officers. He insisted that this was not an aggressive amendment, but about “clearing the air” that so the Church could move forward properly. “We must say we’re truly sorry corporately,” he said, in order that survivors could hear it clearly.
In response, Dr Grenfell said that lots of those named would happily accept that things must have been done higher, but described it as an “indiscriminate amendment which has no constructive goal at its heart”. It was not helpful to disregard the systemic failings identified within the Wilkinson review and pin blame simply on just a few individuals. The amendment lapsed.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) then moved her amendment, which added two apologies to the present motion, each endorsing the apology already made by the Bishops and adding a company synodical one for failures to properly scrutinise the ISB. Members had voted to not debate a paper brought by the previous ISB chair Maggie Atkinson in 2022, she reminded the Synod. “We didn’t take heed to or understand the expert in front of us,” she said. By the time of the “automobile crash” of July 2023 (News, 14 July 2023), it had been too late, she said. “Saying sorry is just step one: we’d like to take responsibility, as we were improper.”
Dr Grenfell was completely happy to just accept the amendment.
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, was ambivalent in regards to the amendment, but criticised its wording as incoherent.
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool) thanked the Archbishops’ Council for apologising within the reports, and now urged them to be “brave” and implement the complete independence as advisable by the Jay report.
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) said that apologies were owed not simply to the previous ISB members, but additionally to the survivors working with it. “This is our Grenfell Tower, but there are greater than 71 individuals who have died,” he said. Not enough people within the chamber recognised the gravity of the situation, he suggested. “Apology after apology won’t do,” he said. He had called for each Archbishop Welby and Mr Nye to resign; nothing else would come near healing the breach after the “automobile crash” of last July’s meeting.
Alison Coulter (Winchester), a member of the Archbishop’s Council, supported the amendment and apologised herself. “I even have felt the complete fury of the Church upon me, I’m very aware of my very own shortcomings and I apologise to you, to the Church, and to victims and survivors.” It was essential to just accept corporate responsibility and apologise together.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Sewell then moved his next amendment, so as to add an apology on to the previous ISB members. “They got here to serve us, to assist us, to try to rescue us. . . They got here with burnished credentials and so they left in essentially the most horrible way,” he said. Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves were continuing to supply unpaid support to survivors, which the Church was not. That was true Christianity, Mr Sewell said.
Dr Grenfell, resisting the amendment, said that, given the complexities of the collapsed relationships with the ISB, there was no point in an apology from the Synod, which had not been involved.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) was unsure vote on the amendment, which would come with each Maggie Atkinson and Meg Munn, in addition to Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves. Not all of those people had been well treated by other members of the Board, he said. “We have to pay attention to what an apology might signal to all 4 members.”
Mr Billenness said that the Wilkinson report told a story of well-intentioned people making mistakes, and “we’re all answerable for that occuring.” All 4 members of the ISB were owed an apology, he argued. He urged the Synod to support the amendment.
It was carried by 167-106, with 80 recorded abstentions.
Mr Sewell then moved his next amendment, to remove every part in the unique motion except thanking Dr Wilkinson and Professor Jay. The Synod ought to be very wary about nodding through the Archbishops’ Council’s plan for responding to the 2 reports, he said, and raised questions on the credentials and records of a few of those chosen to form the response group.
Dr Grenfell, resisting the amendment, said that it will quash any meaningful discussion of the 2 reports.
Archbishop Welby spoke again to say that some people, particularly Mr Nye, had been criticised who had no right to reply. “I do hope that there is perhaps restraint, and even apology, for bashing around individuals who can’t answer. I just don’t think it’s a Christian, or a correct, technique to behave.” He emphasised that he was not referring to himself: “Go for me by all means,” he said, but “please think in regards to the staff, and all of the work they do.”
The Revd Mike Tufnell (Salisbury) attempted to make a degree of order to ask whether the consequence of carrying the amendment in query, then failing to hold any of the next amendments, would remove all requirement for further motion in response to the reports.
The chair ruled that it was not technically a degree of order, but confirmed that his evaluation was correct.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford) said that a transition was needed to an independent pre-delivery body that may run the consultation needed on the recommendations. Other practical matters related to finance and governance must also be brought forward. The motion to realize that had not been tabled, but, if the Synod worn out the motion, because the amendment suggested, it will send a message.
The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) echoed Mr Bennet’s speech, urging members to vote for the amendment in order that later consequential amendments is also debated. He noted that Synod had not been formally notified of the make-up of the Response Group, and that there was some lack of clarity as to what role other groups may need, including one other newly convened group of survivors.
Mr Tufnell said that the Synod had “got right into a little bit of a pickle”, saying that it was too dangerous to hold the amendment in case nothing else passed and the motion was left empty with nothing but apologies and no call to motion. “We must trust due process and bishops with the unique motion,” he said.
The Revd Darren Miller (Canterbury) asked whether apologies could be struck out if this amendment was carried.
After some procedural wrangling through points of order, a vote was eventually called, and the amendment was defeated.
The Revd Bruce Bryant-Scott (Europe) was now unsure in regards to the major motion and the small print. “I’m fearful we may stop to own safeguarding,” he said. Safeguarding professionals had not been properly consulted; their competence had been disrespected and disregarded, he said. He was also anxious in regards to the Jay report’s “dismissal of religion and theology”, which, he said, could prompt even greater resistance to safeguarding amongst church people.
The Archbishop of York said that he was “deeply sorry” for his part within the safeguarding crisis. “But what I really need is for there to be motion.” The Wilkinson report told the Church the way it had gone improper, and the Jay report showed it “where it could get it right”. He personally backed the recommendations, but said that it was essential to honour safeguarding professionals and conduct a correct consultation. Victims and survivors were probably “fed up” with words and apologies at this point, he said. He had bumped right into a survivor earlier, who had said: “You are usually not my enemy, but you’re not yet my friend.”
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, welcomed each reports and the decision to implement an independent safeguarding structure as soon as possible. This was no reflection on the flexibility of existing DSOs, but more was required, notably higher involvement with survivors. She was concerned about comments made about fears of rushing: “How long have we needed to get this right?” She also commended trauma-informed training for all.
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) said that a “sea change” in safeguarding was mandatory, but wouldn’t be possible if the people previously involved were managing the subsequent steps. A fresh approach was needed.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley
The Bishop of Reading, the Rt Revd Olivia Graham (Southern Suffragans), said that she had “hesitations in regards to the unintended consequences about operational safeguarding being faraway from the dioceses”. She also said that the “regular, slow, unglamorous work” at parish level was crucial to creating the Church safer, but operational independence risked organising a narrative that safeguarding was “something that is finished to them” fairly than something through which they were actively involved. “Spiritual abuse is a thing, and it goes on in our churches,” she said.
“We need motion,” Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans) said, commenting on the extra challenges that a deaf person would face in making a safeguarding disclosure. “There are barriers they face before they even begin to talk,” she said, and, because of this, “it might be difficult to speak the intensity” of what they’ve experienced.
Adrian Clarke (London) said that he was sexually abused as a baby and fully understood the necessity for an independent body. But he had reservations about how safeguarding was getting used as a weapon for those against a “Christian message going forward”. He wanted the Church to adopt fully an approach of “innocent until proven guilty”. Anybody may very well be considered a vulnerable adult now, and clergy were frightened of the making of false or misleading allegations against them at any time.
One of the deputy lead bishops for safeguarding, the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty (Northern Suffragans), said that there was an absence of humility within the Synod. External experts and survivors had each told the Church that safeguarding needed to be done in another way. “I’m struck that we’re reluctant to let go of safeguarding,” she said. The Church still didn’t pay enough attention to power and conflicts of interest. “It is the need to guard the institution that catches us out, after we cannot see clearly or independently.” Do not find reasons that these recommendations cannot occur, she said, but as a substitute “move with haste.” Survivors were asking how the identical individuals who disbanded the ISB may very well be trusted to take forward the Jay recommendations. “How can we ensure we are usually not doomed to repeat the mistakes now we have made?” she asked
Summing up the talk, Dr Grenfell said that point to digest the recommendations didn’t amount to delay, but was mandatory to work through the problems. “We know that a lot still needs to alter before we are able to say now we have a healthy culture across the church.”
After a count of the entire Synod, the motion as amended was carried 337-21, with 20 recorded abstentions. It 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 mandatory 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 because of this of the ISB formation, structuring, resourcing, implementation, and management for which they weren’t responsible.
