A miracle! The Charity Commission has finally taken public action in response to the ongoing safeguarding fiasco at the Church of England and its Archbishops’ Council.
Last week, the Charity Commission’s chief executive, David Holdsworth, wrote to those members of the General Synod who are also charity trustees. This must mean most, if not all, General Synod members, because membership of the General Synod comes with automatic membership of a parish’s Parochial Church Council (for laity). Clergy are automatically members of their PCC. And bishops are generally chairs of the Bishops’ Council, which in most cases is the trustee body of the diocesan board of finance.
In his letter, Holdsworth says: “The Commission understands that the safeguarding related business to be considered by the Synod in February is intended to rectify the inadequacies highlighted by various past reviews and reports.
“All charity trustees have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. Trustees should ensure that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose and enable them to effectively discharge their duties in relation to safeguarding. This includes being satisfied that, where concerns are raised, appropriate action is taken in a timely manner and processes are in place so that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up.
“It is therefore important that, as a trustee of a Church charity attending the General Synod in February 2025, you remain aware of your legal trustee duties during debate and voting on relevant Synod business such that you are satisfied the changes will enable you to comply with your duty to take reasonable steps to keep all who come into contact with your charity safe.”
If Synod members keep this warning in mind as they consider the bulk of the safeguarding business at this month’s meetings, they will reject them all.
Because none of the proposals being put to Synod will make any improvements to safeguarding whatsoever.
I’ve already addressed many of the failures in much of the Synod’s safeguarding agenda items.
Read that post for the detail, but in summary:
- New Safeguarding Risk Assessment Regulations which do not address the serious and long-known problem whereby a bishop can force a priest to undergo a risk assessment, but then has no power to take action in response to the risk assessment. Why is this “serious lacuna” not being addressed in the new regulations?
The phrase “serious lacuna” was used by the former Bishop of Blackburn, Julian Henderson – presumably with the case of Canon Andrew Hindley in mind – when he asked for urgent action to close this gap. - The draft Clergy Conduct Measure is supposed to be a replacement for the much-criticised Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). The CDM has been criticised by complainants and respondents alike; by bishops and archdeacons, and by victims and survivors. It is not fit for purpose.
The Archbishops’ Council did an awful lot of work to getting to this “take it or leave it” final approval stage of the replacement.
Unfortunately, the new Clergy Conduct Measure does not address ANY of the criticisms of the current Clergy Discipline Measure. The use of unaccountable secret kangaroo courts, supposedly independent but actually “owned” by the Archbishops’ Council, continues; as does the unaccountable Clergy Discipline Commission and the taking over of complaints by Church of England lawyers.
Under the CDM, complaints were investigated by “the Designated Officer.” The Designated Officer would submit his report to the President of Tribunals and if the President decided a tribunal should be held, the Designated Officer would “prosecute” the case (not the complainant).
Under the new Clergy Conduct Measure, complaints will be investigated by an “Investigations and Tribunals Team”. The Investigations and Tribunal Team will submit their report to the President of Tribunals and if the President decided that a tribunal should be held, the Investigations and Tribunals Team would “prosecute” the case (not the complainant).
The Designated Officer is a barrister, employed by the Archbishops’ Council as a member of the Legal Office of the National Church Institutions
The Investigations and Tribunals Team will be “one or more” lawyers who are employed as “members of the Legal Office of the National Church Institutions”
So what has changed, other than names? How will this new measure make any real or significant difference to the flawed system in place now? - Independence in Safeguarding will be a a key focus of this next meeting of the Synod. But the proposals do not provide anything which can be described as “independence”.
When Steve Reeves, a former member of the Independent Safeguarding Board addressed the General Synod in July 2023, despite the best efforts of senior Archbishops’ Council lawyer to stop him, he said this: “It’s clear to me that when the Archbishops’ Council talks about independence they do not mean independence in the way that you or I or the average person in the street means independence. It means semi-detached. When they talk about trust, they mean obedience; when they talk about communication, they mean loyalty.”
And what has been presented to Synod: two proposals, neither of which is independence. Both models sees the staff of the current National Safeguarding Team being transferred to a new “independent” body which will continue to be controlled by the Archbishops’ Council.
All sorts of reasons are given, including the much-used tactic of “legal advice”. In this case, the report to Synod says that “legal advice to the Response Group confirms that charities such as the Archbishops’ Council, Cathedral Chapters and Diocesan Boards of Finance can delegate safeguarding functions to an external supplier. . .
“As set out in the appended legal advice, this is a delegation of functions and the underlying accountability remains as at present. Charities cannot delegate their underlying duty to be responsible for good safeguarding. It follows that the Archbishops’ Council . . . Bishop or Cathedral Chapter (as relevant) will need arrangements to monitor the performance of the operational function and to be able to change provider if the service provided is not of the required standard.”
Ah, so semi-detached. As Steve Reeves, so eloquently described it in July 2023.
If the Church of England REALLY believe this, why do diocesan safeguarding teams ALWAYS take over the management of actual safeguarding cases that arise in parishes (parishes being separate charities from the diocesan board of finance); and why does the Archbishops’ Council ALWAYS take over the management of actual safeguarding cases that arise in dioceses, if they consider them to be complex or involving senior clergy?
Legal advice can only tell people what the law says. The thing about the Church of England, though, is that it is a law maker. The General Synod can change Acts of Parliament. And it can pass Measures which have the same status as an Act of Parliament. So legal advice which says a body can’t do something because “the law says so” is very incomplete when it comes to the Church of England.
And in any event, none of this is needed. With proper independence of safeguarding, The parishes, dioceses, cathedrals, Archbishops’ Council and other Church of England charities would retain responsibility for the prevent aspect of safeguarding: policy development, training, safer recruitment, and so on.
The independence comes in the form of a response body to investigate and take action on safeguarding incidents.
Elsewhere, such independent bodies do not prevent action by the “main” body. For example, NHS trusts can take action against doctors, nurses and other medical staff. But that doesn’t preclude investigation or properly independent tribunals by the GMC’s Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (for doctors), the Nursing and Midwifery Council (for nurses); or the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (for other staff).
In the same way, a school, academy trust or local education authority can take action to discipline a teacher for misconduct; but that doesn’t prevent investigation or properly independent tribunals by the Teaching Regulation Agency.
The approach of the Church of England under the two proposals to be debated, is so different from other bodies do. And it isn’t joined up. Under the proposals, the Archbishops’ Council’s secretive kangaroo tribunals, chaired by Archbishops’ Council contracted lawyers, whose charging decisions are advised by Archbishops’ Council’s employed lawyers remain the sole people able to remove a priest from office, no matter how clear the safeguarding risk.
And the blanket of secrecy on the process prevents proper scrutiny of the decisions. We know, because of a leak to the BBC, that Canon Andrew Hindley did not face a clergy discipline tribunal because no permission to proceed was given. Why? We don’t know, because – despite no legal requirement to do so – the President of Tribunal’s office do not publish such decisions; and they warn others not to do so, with powerless threats of a referral to the High Court for contempt if they do so.
No – the models for “independence” in safeguarding for Synod to consider this month provide no independence.
Which is odd, because on that same Sunday afternoon in July 2023 when Steve Reeves spoke of the Archbishops’ Council meaning “semi-detached” when they use the word “independence”, the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, also addressed Synod.
“This is a watershed moment,” he said. “We can’t get this wrong again. We can no longer think that we can deliver these things ourselves. . . Not only do we need independent oversight and scrutiny of safeguarding, we also need independent help on deciding how best to do it and implement it.”
And so Professor Alexis Jay was commissioned to come up with those proposals. Rather than debating those, the Synod is instead debating two options put forward by an Archbishops’ Council commission “Response Group” which do not deliver what is being promised.
As the Charity Commission watch proceedings in Synod this month to consider whether the changes passed by the Synod really will “rectify the inadequacies highlighted by various past reviews and reports”, I hope they will not be taken in by the lies, half-truths and obfuscation that will inevitably flow from members of the Archbishops’ Council (such practice is now a routine part of the Archbishops’ Council approach to Synod members – just look at the Questions’ Notice paper when it is published on 6 or 7 February if you don’t believe me). The Charity Commission, like the Synod, need to look at the detail. Not the explanations.
If they did, they would conclude that the safeguarding measures being put before the Synod this month WILL DO NOTHING AT ALL to “rectify the inadequacies” of the current safeguarding practice in the Church of England.
Synod members: Be bold. Stand up and say “NO MORE”. Don’t be complicit in the ongoing re-abuse of victims and survivors.
I’m a priest who sits as a tribunal judge (panellist) for several of the professional regulators. They aren’t perfect, but they most certainly are independent of the registrant’s employer. In several, the body that organises and oversees the tribunal is a semi-detached arm of the regulatory body, so there is even some degree of independence from the other functions of that regulator – education and training standards oversight and maintaining the register. I’m firmly convinced that the only way in which the C of E can hope to have a disciplinary tribunal process that is in any way just and which operates ‘without fear or favour’ is when it is wrestled from the control of the denominational and diocesan hierarchies and the national church institutions.
Two key aspects of that independence in the professional regulators is that panels tend to include a lay member – someone who has never been a registrant or would be eligible to be a registrant – and they have a legal adviser who is not the same person (or even from the same firm) contracted to provide the legal services to the regulator to shape, investigate and/or present the case against the registrant. My view is the term ‘lay’ when applied to clergy discipline should be someone who is not a member of the C of E or has attended a C of E church within a defined period of time. Anything that bursts the collusive bubble of the ‘small world’ of influence is what’s now needed.