From the Revd Alan Fraser
Sir, - I'm sorry, but did Lambeth
Palace really respond to the urgent and serious concerns raised by
two of the most senior child-protection officials in East Sussex
with the words: "Any process of suspension involves jumping through
several hoops and we are by no means certain that the evidence for
such a step will be sufficient. I would add that the Church is not
like other organisations in terms of its employment arrangements"
(News,
14 September)?
If so, this is very possibly the most
mealy-mouthed defence of church inaction which I have ever
read.
As a Christian for whom child
protection is a fundamental part of my working life - and who has
been through church training that emphasises the importance of
removing any opportunity for even the impression of impropriety to
take hold - I find it depressing and alarming in equal measure to
see church officials answer "long-standing concerns and
frustrations about the way in which Lambeth Palace [is]
investigating the handling of safeguarding matters within the
Chichester diocese" with an effective shrug of the shoulders.
I have no idea whether the Bishop of
Lewes, the Rt Revd Wallace Benn, is guilty of any failures or not,
and I have no wish to impugn his reputation or integrity. But I do
know that in any organisation where child protection is taken
seriously, people against whom serious and credible allegations are
made are suspended while these are investigated. In this instance,
the Church has commissioned a report, and a thorough investigation
has been conducted - with the Bishop still in situ.
Yet, even after the report publicly
acknowledges failings, and the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group
advises Lambeth Palace of its intention to take action against the
Bishop under the Clergy Discipline Measure, Lambeth Palace is still
arguing that there is insufficient evidence to warrant even
suspension.
It is important to note that
suspension is a neutral act that does not imply or presume guilt.
It is undertaken as much for the protection of the adult concerned
as for the protection of any children. But, equally, it is also
invoked for the protection of the organisation on whose behalf the
person concerned is acting. The Church of England's reputation, and
therefore its ministry, across the whole of Sussex and beyond is
being damaged by our apparent refusal or inability to take
appropriate action promptly.
Failure to follow correct
child-protection procedures in Chichester diocese was alleged in
2007 - and openly acknowledged in 2011 in Baroness Butler-Sloss's
damning Historic Cases Review. As recently as this month, the
Archbishop's commissaries' interim report has acknowledged that
child protection in the diocese continues to be inadequate (News, 7
September).
It is, therefore, insulting to the
intelligence, let alone the professional integrity, of Mr Dunkley
and Ms Pattison to suggest that there might still be insufficient
evidence to warrant a neutral suspension. In any other organisation
that works with children (including my own), suspension may well
have been invoked at the time it first became apparent that
convicted paedophiles were being allowed to work in the diocese
unchecked (i.e. in 2007/08). But even in an organisation as tardy
about child protection as the Church appears to be, it is surely
indefensible that suspension was not invoked after the Diocesan
Safeguarding Advisory Group wrote to Lambeth Palace in November
2011 advising of its intentions in respect of the Bishop. And yet
here we are, years after the story first broke and months after
failings were uncovered and reported on, and the best Lambeth
Palace can manage is a resigned "There's nothing we can do."
Until we can live up to our promise
"to bring the Church's safeguarding procedures into line with all
other organisations that work with children", I very much regret to
say that the best advice we can give to children, their carers, and
vulnerable adults may well be to stay away from the Church of
England for their own protection.
ALAN FRASER
Chief Executive, Birmingham YMCA
Will Steel House, 109 Grosvenor Road, Aston, Birmingham B6 7LZ
From Mrs Sue
Jackson-Fraser
Sir, - Those of us who live and
worship in Lewes share many of the Revd Bernard Coote's
frustrations (Letters, 14 September)
about the way the whole child-protection issue is reflecting on the
Church's standing in wider society. It is becoming increasingly
difficult for us to justify in good conscience the Church's
approach to those outside who are looking on, incredulous, as the
Bishop of Lewes continues in post, five years after concerns were
first raised.
The response to Matt Dunkley and
Cathie Pattison's desperate call for Bishop Benn's immediate
suspension typifies the problem. Apparently, they are powerless to
act, because the Church is "not like other organisations". How
sadly true that statement is.
Would we have had to wait five years
for the Church to act if it had been discovered that women were
being licensed to Resolution A parishes in the Lewes episcopal
area? I suspect not; and that is the context in which Lambeth
Palace's comments will be viewed.
Given the endless time and effort we
are expending on the women bishops issue, it seems to everyone
outside the Church that we are attaching greater importance to the
exclusion of women from public ministry than we are to the
exclusion of convicted paedophiles. That cannot surely be
right.
SUE JACKSON-FRASER
Cherith, Prince Edwards Road, Lewes, East Sussex
From Canon Judith Maltby
Sir, - The recent disturbing interim
report on safeguarding in the diocese of Chichester makes a telling
assessment about the erosion and dilution of the authority of the
diocesan bishop, and concludes: "Although delegation is essential
in practice for the exercise of episcopal ministry, this should
never be allowed to undermine the overarching position of the
diocesan."
The Archbishop's commissaries go on to
comment: "Confidence can only be restored to the diocese in
relation to its safeguarding work if its leadership can complete
the transformation needed into a united and trusting group of
people focused on their duty to ensure the Church is safe for
children and vulnerable adults."
This timely and important report puts
our debate over the admission of women to the episcopate into a
wider context. The Archbishop's commissaries remind us that lines
of episcopal authority exist in the Church to protect the
vulnerable. It is not simply about "authority", but even more so
about accountability.
Does the Measure we now have before
us, as well as any Code of Practice that is to follow, weaken or
strengthen our safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults
within a diocese? To make anything but this question our foremost
concern at the General Synod in November would be a failure at the
profoundest level by the Church of England of its duty to ensure
the safety and flourishing of the most vulnerable in our care.
JUDITH MALTBY
General Synod member, Corpus Christi College, Oxford OX1 4JF