AGAINST a background of calls for further resignations and suspensions in the wake of the Makin review (News, 15 November), the National Safeguarding Team (NST) has set out how individuals’ records will be assessed over the course of the next 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 establish 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 to date have been focused on establishing whether a person presents a current safeguarding risk, rather than assessing whether they should have acted differently to respond to their knowledge of the abuse.
On Monday, Church House published the four-stage process that will take place between now and the meeting of the General Synod on 10 February. Stage one is an “initial assessment of risk, examining if anyone criticised in the review is an immediate 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officers, cathedral safeguarding officers, and the NST, and has already resulted in permission to officiate being withdrawn from a number of individuals (News, 29 November).
The NST says that this first 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 aspects 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 be made. This will, in turn, be examined by senior members of the NST, plus two independent and one senior lawyer in the National Church Institutions’ (NCI) legal office, after which decisions will be made to determine what action will be taken in respect of individuals, including, where appropriate, disciplinary action. The final stage is “robust external scrutiny” of those decisions by an independent barrister. If a decision is taken to make a complaint under the CDM, the respondent will then have “the opportunity to have input into the process”, it says.
While some individuals — including the Archbishop of Canterbury — are criticised by Mr Makin, many are not. Rather, an account is provided of their (alleged) knowledge, accompanied by, in some cases, their explanation of their response. In some instances, there is documentary evidence that an individual knew of the abuse.
In other cases, individuals have denied knowledge of the abuse, or of its severity. In explaining their decision not to report the abuse, a range of explanations have been given, including a belief that others were taking action; a belief that they were sworn to secrecy; or a belief that the victims did not want action 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 all authorised clergy, licensed readers and lay workers, churchwardens, and PCCs must have “due regard” to safeguarding guidance issued by the House of Bishops. Safeguarding guidance states that, if the alleged victim is a child, then an automatic referral to statutory services must be made. When it comes to vulnerable adults, the approach is taken on a case-by-case basis, with the risk to others taken into consideration.
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 on a range of factors. In the absence of statutory guidance before 2016, this will include what legal duties office-holders had at the time, drawing on relevant case law.
The Makin review states that, while the concept of safeguarding was in its infancy in the 1980s, “the importance of protecting of children from physical harm was a widely known societal issue of concern,” and that “reliance on the then current legal and cultural framework is not a reasonable explanation for the level of actions taken, particularly by those that read the Ruston Report.”
The latest Guidance on Penalties, issued by the Clergy Discipline Commission, states that “intentional disregarding of safeguarding policy will likely lead to removal from office and a limited prohibition”. It continues: “Where the cleric has been neglectful or inefficient in the performance of safeguarding duties (regardless of how the allegation is framed) it may be appropriate to impose a rebuke. However, account should be taken of the respondent’s age, experience, and seniority. Where the misconduct takes place over a prolonged period of time and has put others at risk, removal from office and a limited prohibition should follow.”
While core group assessments have ruled that both Archbishop Welby and the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, acted in line with safeguarding policies at the time, the Makin review suggests that this may 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 in the diocese, who also serves as Bishop for Episcopal Ministry in the Anglican Communion, had “stepped back from her ministry in 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 this time 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 formal 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 “failed to 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 “did not act sufficiently”. Lord Sentamu, who also received a disclosure of abuse from the survivor, has consistently defended his actions, arguing that, in line with the national policy at the time, safeguarding 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 internal NST investigation. The reviewer’s position was that “no Church law excuses the responsibility of individuals not to act on matters of a safeguarding nature.” Complaints under the CDM did not proceed against most 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 deal with safeguarding process failures — many of which would not constitute “serious misconduct”. The group observed that “the culture, expectation, and legal responsibilities on clergy around safeguarding have recognised a new category of discipline concerning process failures — e.g. failing to follow a policy — rather than what might be termed ‘personal failing’ (e.g. adultery) which was always (and to some extent still is) the main area addressed in church discipline. This requires a more comprehensive approach rather than the narrower focus of ‘serious misconduct’ under the CDM.” Under the new Clergy Conduct Measure, a new “misconduct” track has been introduced.
One of the recommendations of the Core Group convened to consider 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 action was taken on this.
The Makin review recommends the creation of an “escalation policy” for church officers to follow “when they are dissatisfied with the response or where there is no update from; Police, LADO [local authority designated officer] and other statutory services to a report of allegations”.