INTRODUCING, on Monday, a motion on the next 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 new “foundations” for its safeguarding, as it changed its policies, processes, and culture, Dr Grenfell, who is the lead bishop for safeguarding, said. She thanked the two reviewers whose reports earlier this year had informed this work: Sarah Wilkinson (on the disbanding of the Independent Safeguarding Board), and Professor Alexis Jay (on the future 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 different ways forward on safeguarding reform. The group had hoped to identify some areas of consensus, and had not proposed anything that was “unworkable”, given the strength of feeling across the Church. She was determined not to make the mistakes of failing to listen carefully 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 find out whose job it is to take governance decisions here,” she told members, to an uneasy ripple of laughter across the chamber. How much more difficult might this be for a vulnerable person in crisis? Her group was trying to make safeguarding simpler and less daunting for parishes. The Church should not leap first to organisational models without first deciding what their functions were, she warned. Clear, costed decisions about what this structure would be brought in February, once the functional decision had been taken. “No change is not an option,” she said.
Dr Grenfell urged members to undergo more trauma-informed training, which her group had completed on Professor Wilkinson’s recommendation. The Church was still waiting for the Government’s response to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), but this would 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 light”. She told a story about a 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 only place in the village which addressed safeguarding. The parish safeguarding officer was able to redirect them appropriately. The Church should be the safest organisation around, but always learning, she concluded.
The chair then addressed a further motion proposed by Clive Billenness (Europe), which called for the Church immediately to move to create Organisation B, the second independent charity recommended by the Jay report, which would carry out scrutiny of safeguarding work. The motion argued that, unlike Organisation A, which would carry out operational safeguarding work, Organisation B had found broad support across the Church. The chair determined, however, that, under the standing orders, this motion was contradictory to Dr Grenfell’s motion, and if the first motion was carried it could not be taken.
Dr Grenfell explained that her motion specifically made reference to concerns about Professor Jay’s recommendation that spiritual abuse be removed as a category, and the part played by bishops in decision-making on safeguarding, as these were important 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 disappointment that the Response Group had not proposed a new model, but said that rushing into this without proper analysis would be a mistake. “Safeguarding is a high-risk area, and should be implemented with appropriate structures,” she said. The Synod had an opportunity to redraft safeguarding to “rebuild the trust that has been damaged” and reinspire confidence. “We know we have not got this right in the past, but we can work towards getting it right in the future.” She highlighted how non-safeguarding matters were being referred to safeguarding officers due to insufficient resources elsewhere, such as HR. She was glad that this issue would be addressed in the ongoing 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 safe, not more, he argued: a crisis should not 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 in the dioceses had changed his mind. This would have meant outsourcing safeguarding and allowing another organisation to be blamed for safeguarding failures. He praised the second route laid out in the papers, which kept responsibility for children and vulnerable adults within the Church. “That sacred responsibility cannot be outsourced.”
Clive Billenness (Europe) said that Dr Grenfell’s paper was excellent, but urged members to vote it down so that his following motion could be taken. It had been more than 100 days since the last meeting of the Synod, but, despite the very complicated questions being raised, it was time to “make a start”, which he could not see in the papers. “We need to show we are beginning to get on with things, which is why later I will be asking for a plan.” Not welcoming Dr Grenfell’s report did not mean that the Synod was not noting or acknowledging it, but the time had come for action.
The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, recalled her dismay in February at the lack 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 value of independent scrutiny. Her view was now that Dr Grenfell’s motion was the best way forward.
Margaret Sheather (Gloucester) said that members should support the motion “as a whole” rather 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 in the diocese of Sheffield should 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 always the best option.
Canon Judith Maltby (Universities and TEIs) was also a convert to the direction of travel in the paper. She understood the plea from bishops to retain responsibility for safeguarding, but with that must be accountability, she warned. An enhanced Organisation B with teeth — and the ability to receive complaints — could provide that which could not be set aside by episcopal authority. What if a bishop or an archbishop was a bad 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 previous day.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), backed Bishop North’s analysis and opposed Mr Billenness’s motion. What happened at the national level was very different from the diocesan level, he said. Safeguarding was not a “car crash”, but well delivered at the local level, improving all the time, he said. “If everything is safeguarding then nothing is safeguarding,” he also said, noting Ms Ryder’s complaint that too much was drawn up to the top level, and that definitions had to be tightened. The “attackers and defenders” slugging it out at a national level should sort themselves out and not “impose their drama” on the rest 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 least on a par with the very best charities in the UK”, and matched findings in other dioceses. This good work needed to continue, he said.
Peter Adams (St Albans) was encouraged by progress and the quality of the debate, and by hearing his concerns about operational independence echoed by others. But he found himself aligning with Mr Billenness in wanting to back both this motion and the subsequent one calling for immediate progress on setting up Organisation B. The mood of the Synod now had been much more constructive on this issue in comparison with last July, but should go further, he said.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) thought that the motion was the best way forward, not least for survivors. The focus on spiritual abuse was helpful, she said, and called for its definition to be maintained in the Church’s safeguarding policies, as it captured the specific nature of the harm that takes place.
The Revd Dr Susan Lucas (Chelmsford) asked members to support the motion, and not Mr Billenness’s following motion. Being heard was about asking “the right and the deep questions on the record”, she said. Organisational form must follow function, and she praised Ms Ryder’s approach.
Dr Andrew Bell (Oxford) referred to a question he had asked about Professor Jay’s remit, which the Archbishop of York had answered by saying that she was “simply asked to provide options for independence”. Dr Bell welcomed the fact that the motion did not make a decision about the model to be introduced, but to analyse the practical options further.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) was saddened and disappointed to hear angry voices which were not confident about progress in safeguarding in the previous day’s debate about Soul Survivor. She sought further reassurances that survivors’ voices were being heard in the plans, and that they could help shape the structures. Had Ms Ryder spent time with survivors and laity, as well as the House of Bishops? The Response Group must pay attention to power, she said.
The Archbishop of York expressed “sadness and shame” about 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 had to be more consistency between dioceses, and he praised the safeguarding professionals in his own diocese who had helped him. Being independent did not necessarily mean that safeguarding was not embedded in diocesan structures, he argued, giving the example of his registrar.
Responding to the debate, Dr Grenfell said that Organisation B was not being brought forward now, as Mr Billenness wanted, because the redeveloped structure for safeguarding needed to be worked on in a joined-up manner, not constructed piecemeal. She also wanted the Church not to discard the good work that was already being done, but nonetheless to move “as far as is wise”.
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 analysis of the options set out in the paper to be undertaken for the General Synod in February.’