THE acting chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB), Meg Munn, has accused the Archbishops’ Council of being “slow to listen” to experts — and the Archbishop of Canterbury of “undermining” her work — as she resigns all her safeguarding responsibilities within the Church.
Ms Munn, a safeguarding professional and a former MP, is also the independent chair of the Church’s National Safeguarding Panel (NSP).
After weeks of silence as disputes about the functionality and future of the ISB escalated, Ms Munn released an explosive personal statement to the Church Times on Wednesday morning explaining her decision to cease working for the Church, and finally giving her side of the story of the ISB’s demise.
In it, she speaks of being unsupported by the Archbishops’ Council, which appointed her; says that the other two members of the ISB arbitrarily changed their brief; and calls the ISB “a huge waste of money”. But she also says that safeguarding in the Church of England is not in crisis, praising the professionalism of many diocesan and national safeguarding officers.
Last month, the Archbishops’ Council announced that it was disbanding the ISB and sacking two of its three board members: Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves. Ms Munn, who had been appointed its acting chair in March (News, 31 March), would stay on temporarily, the Council said, for “business continuity” before her contract was also terminated (News, 23 June).
The decision had been taken after almost a year of internal disputes over the ISB’s governance, which began when the original chair, Professor Maggie Atkinson, stepped back over allegations that she had breached survivors’ data (News, 5 August 2022). Professor Atkinson later resigned, and Ms Munn was appointed acting chair until the end of 2023.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesMeg Munn, who last addressed the Synod in July 2022
The appointment, made by the Archbishops’ Council without consultation, was met with dismay by survivors who perceived a conflict of interest given Ms Munn’s work on the NSP. This criticism was taken up by Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves, and the pair issued a formal dispute notice to the Council.
In her statement, Ms Munn strongly denies a conflict of interest, saying that the plan had always been for the ISB and the NSP to work together to formulate phase two, a truly independent safeguarding body to oversee the Church’s work.
On Sunday, the General Synod, meeting in York, heard presentations about these events from a survivor of abuse, four Archbishops’ Council members, and — in an unexpected turn of events and a debate about standing orders — the two sacked members of the ISB.
Ms Munn was also present in the chamber that day, and though at one point it was suggested by the Archbishop of York that she also speak, she declined.
She begins her written statement: “I felt a combination of astonishment, incredulity, and growing anger at what happened during the safeguarding débâcle at General Synod on Sunday. . . Quite what such a spectacle was meant to achieve I do not know, it certainly did nothing to help safeguarding in the Church of England.
“For me, it reinforced my concern that the Archbishops’ Council has been slow to listen to those with organisational and safeguarding expertise.”
Ms Munn explains that she had been appointed as acting ISB chair on a temporary contract and had allocated herself two to three days a week for the work, “and in the expectation it would be time-consuming, turned down four requests to work with projects overseas.
“Unfortunately, despite warm words from [Archbishops’] Council members, over the three months that followed, they failed to support me as Chair in developing plans for phase 2 of the ISB, indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury actually undermined me.”
Upon her appointment, she said, “I was requested specifically to go back to ‘first principles’ in developing proposals for a fully independent body” — the purpose of phase two of the ISB. Ms Munn claims that she found no evidence of scrutiny activity or of any significant body of work to develop phase two, besides one report presented to the Council, which, she says, “was found to lack necessary detail”.
She accuses the two existing board members of “routinely” ignoring emails, failing to respond to reasonable requests, and declining to have meetings.
“I was staggered at this unprofessional behaviour, particularly when concerned with such an important issue as safeguarding in the Church. Their stated reason was that being Chair of the ISB was a conflict of interest with my chairing of the NSP, a role they knew I was due to finish in the summer. As a paper, endorsed by last year’s Synod, set out that the NSP and ISB would work closely together on phase 2, there never was a conflict of interest.”
She further explains: “The Archbishop of Canterbury intervened. He wrote to all three members of the ISB urging that we work co-operatively. However, rather than endorsing the reasons for my appointment and stating he expected professional behaviour from everyone, he indicated a desire ‘to move as swiftly as possible towards the appointment of a substantive new Chair’ — a statement that was no doubt taken as a signal by the two ISB members that they could continue their behaviour as they would soon be rid of me.”
Archbishop Cottrell, she says, had attempted to gain the co-operation of Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves on behalf of the Council, but the pair had issued their dispute notice, “making progress impossible”. After the Council announced it was disbanding the Board, it had “requested I continue to undertake some safeguarding planning work”, she says.
Ms Munn goes on to express her “surprise and concern” at hearing Archbishop Welby state during the Synod that he and Archbishop Cottrell had wanted to delay the announcement.
“I was further dismayed when members of the Archbishops’ Council failed to fully explain and confirm their decision to appoint me as acting chair.
“I was further outraged when it was suggested that I should speak to Synod to explain the Archbishops’ Council’s decision. Again, and very publicly, the Archbishops’ Council failed to support me and explain their own decision-making. It was not my role to defend them from questions and attacks from the floor!”
Until now, Ms Munn writes, she had “chosen not to respond to many untrue and unfounded statements in the media and on Twitter, many from anonymous sources. Safeguarding professionals would never publicly comment on individual cases and investigations, and certainly not have conversations on social media with children or alleged perpetrators.
“Safeguarding is too important and deserves considered and careful debate in appropriate settings. A number of survivors have contacted me, distressed at the way these issues have been handled.”
She continues: “Regretfully I have concluded that I cannot rely on the support of the Archbishops’ Council in any future safeguarding work with the Church of England. Until they are prepared to act on professional safeguarding advice, sensible and achievable plans will not be put in place.”
Ms Munn puts the total cost of the ISB to date as “over £730,000 — with many dioceses struggling to fund their safeguarding work, this must be considered a huge waste of money”.
She concludes by thanking the people who had supported her, including survivors, independent chairs of Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Partnerships, members of the NSP, professional and safeguarding staff across the Church, clerics and lay people. Archbishop Cottrell had also “been generous and concerned in his support but he could have been stronger on Sunday at Synod.
“My five-year appointment as Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel ends this summer and I will be chairing my final meeting shortly.”
On Wednesday, Ms Sanghera disputed Ms Munn’s account, saying that they had met once, and that it was “a disaster. She came in undermining us. . . she was the unprofessional one.”
A Church of England spokesperson thanked Ms Munn for “the professional scrutiny she has brought to the Church’s safeguarding work” over this time. “Her contribution has been invaluable, and she has worked professionally at all times.
“We are very sorry that she has decided to leave her work with the Church but understand and absolutely respect her decision. We are aware there are lessons to be learnt as we move forward to the next steps in independent scrutiny and are sorry about events in the past few weeks that led her to feel unsupported.
“We wish Meg well and will build on the excellent work she has established through the NSP.”
In a joint statement on Wednesday, Archbishop Welby and Archbishop Cottrell said that Ms Munn had brought “huge expertise, rigour and dedication” to the position. “We are of course saddened that she has chosen to stand down, but we understand and respect her decision.”
They added: “The remit of the interim chair of the ISB and the other members was always to develop proposals to appoint a permanent independent chair and additional board members. That work was always intended to move forward at pace towards the independent scrutiny that the Church urgently needs. This has been a very difficult period for all concerned and we regret recent events.
“We remain committed to moving swiftly towards a new safeguarding scrutiny body that is fully independent of the Church.”
On Wednesday afternoon, the former ISB chair, Professor Atkinson, published her own six-page criticism of the ISB and the treatment that led to her resignation. She writes that she is “not easily cowed [but] have become so during 2023, though only in this setting”. And she writes of the “steadfast and silent refusal to meet to resolve matters” by the other two ISB members.
She concludes with a reference to the Synod debate on Sunday afternoon, and writes: “The un-Christian treatment of Meg Munn that afternoon, had it been meted out to me, would have made me do as she did: walk out. That she has now walked not only out, but away, sad as it is and dismaying as it will be to many, is richly deserved.”
In her covering note, she adds: “I could not be sadder than the latest crazy fireworks display has made me.”