I have more than once complained that it is difficult to penetrate the complexity of safeguarding organisations at the national level of the CofE. Most people become bewildered at the plethora of organisations with the word safeguarding attached to them. Janet Fife wrote a very helpful glossary on this blog in an attempt to demystify the way things work in the CofE. http://survivingchurch.org/2020/12/15/alphabet-soup-a-glossary-of-safeguarding/ One of the issues that helps to muddle the situation still further is the fact that when survivors are included in a national body working for safeguarding, we cannot know for reasons of confidentiality who these survivors are. Are we to take on trust that the survivor members of the group are true representatives of this group and that they are in constant touch with others in a similar situation? There is no way that we can know whether the survivor representatives on the new Redress Scheme Project Board or the National Safeguarding Survivors Group (NSSG) are reaching out to others to gauge their opinions and ideas. If there is in fact a lively interchange and proper communication between these ‘official’ survivors and others who remain suspicious of these groups, I am ready to be corrected. All I can say that the survivors I know do not feel safe at present to engage with any of the national Church structures. For a variety of reasons, they stand apart from them.
One individual who works tirelessly for the cause of survivors at General Synod and in many other ways is the retired lawyer and Synod member Martin Sewell. He has been an occasional contributor to Surviving Church and has taken a prominent part in supporting the cause of survivors, becoming especially involved in the case of Dean Percy. As a lawyer, he brings all his analytical skills to the table and helps the rest of us understand the legal complexities of the structures set up by the CofE. He was one of the authors of the so-called Micah 6:8 letter. http://survivingchurch.org/2020/08/12/letter-to-charity-commissioners-over-concerns-about-church-of-england-safeguarding/ This was addressed to the Charity Commission (CC) and drew their attention to the failings of CofE safeguarding processes. As far as I can tell, this 2020 letter was never replied to but it was a significant support to survivors in the way it articulated some of their longing for justice and transparency in the safeguarding processes.
Recently Martin Sewell has written a further letter to the CC. This time it is not a letter which supporters were invited to sign. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Sewell-letter-to-Charity-Commission-Earner-5.8.2022-v.2-9.8.2022.pdf It is a letter of some 13 pages, so it requires to be read more than once to extract its meaning. In essence it is claiming that the CofE has gone beyond its level of competence in trying to resolve numerous failings in the safeguarding sphere. Its efforts to set up safe and independent structures to bring support to the survivor community are failing. There are two key case studies where these failures are explored, the Dean Percy case and the anomalies and problems for the CofE in setting up the so-called Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB).
Sewell does not mince his words in the CC letter. He looks back over the last few years of safeguarding activity in the Church and finds that word ‘incompetent’ is a good description for what has gone on. He mentions the Matt Ineson affair and the Makin review on John Smyth, now 800 days late. More recently we have had the failures revealed in the Fr Griffin case and of course the never-ending Percy scandal. Martyn Percy has written a detailed complaint to the Archbishops’ Council (AC) about the many legal and moral failures in his case. He still awaits a complete response to the many issues he raised. What the AC have put in place is a ‘lessons learned’ enquiry from the body set up less that two years ago, the ISB. This was commissioned before the Chair of the Group, Maggie Atkinson, was required to ‘step back’ from her position at the request of the AC. Given the fact that Atkinson was the most experienced of the three (part-time) members of the ISB, it is hard to see how they are equipped to tackle the much-needed review of the issues in the Percy affair even if they had their full complement of members. Having lost their Chair, the ISB will find it difficult to function effectively even with the most straightforward of commissioned tasks. According to Sewell’s detailed analysis of the problems surrounding the ISB, the needed expertise is simply not there to undertake something as complex as examining the Christ Church affair and the questionable behaviour of certain clergy in the Diocese of Oxford
Apart from the issue of whether it has the competence to do a technically complex task, the ISB is also critiqued by Sewell’s letter for its questionable claims of independence. For such a group of people to claim to be independent when they have no legal identity apart from the group that brought them into being (the AC), is impossible to do. As we have discussed on this blog before, independence requires a number of conditions to be in place. The ISB is appointed and paid for by the AC. Also, recently, the AC has shown itself to have the power to compel the Chair to ‘step back’. There appears to be no other body in any way involved in overseeing the ISB’s work. When these questions over legal and independent status were raised by synod members in July, the answers that were given were vague and confusing. It seemed to Sewell that senior members of the CofE had not thought through or worked out what structures were needed to provide a robust system of independent safeguarding for the Church. His purpose for writing to the CC was an attempt to again force the CofE to put in place a system that would ensure a level of adequate professional competence in the whole safeguarding enterprise. Victims and survivors need to know that they will receive a hearing and justice from the Church. Those accused of abuse would also need to know that they would receive a proper hearing and that their story too would be heard and considered impartially.
Readers of this blog will know many occasions in the history of CofE safeguarding when impartiality has not been preserved. From the refusal of a serving diocesan bishop to cooperate with the police when trying to protect Peter Ball from prosecution, to the appalling treatment in court of Julie MacFarlane at the trial of her abuser, the Church has often shown a determination to protect itself at all costs. Many clergy live in dread of the power of the CDM and the fear of being considered dispensable when the reputation of the wider institution is under attack. We must be grateful when so much effort and money is being spent on institutional self-defence by the church, that we have these few individual legal voices, notably Martin Sewell and David Lamming. They are there in the public arena defending victims and the wrongly accused. I have no notion how much in total the CofE spends on itself for legal and public relations purposes, but the sums must be counted in the millions. On this other side, for the defence of the survivors and the wrongly accused, the total sum is infinitesimal in comparison. Lamming and Sewell are, fortunately for the cause, both now retired and each contributes much of their available time to the task of bringing light, truth and justice into the Church. It is bizarre that they are opposed by senior members of the CofE when they are working so hard to preserve impartiality, integrity and honesty in the Church. Surviving Church applauds them and all that they do for justice and for the needs of abuse survivors as well as the falsely accused.
In addition to the issue of ‘independence’, or rather the self-evident non-independence, of the ISB there were the announcements that it would not decide issues of fault and, ostensibly, would just conduct a ‘lessons learned’ type of review limited to a short period, setting its own terms of reference but with these preconditions already defined by the Church. On another blog I have identified just two episodes which need to be investigated but would appear to be outside the contemplation of the ISB’s remit: (1) the “risk assessment” used in the CDM and (2) the NST core group which, initially, included members with obvious, indeed blatant, conflicts of interests who were required to stand down. Lack of training would be the kindest excuse for this debacle, but that in itself would indicate culpability in such a serious context. There are, of course, other matters as well. It may well be that Martyn Percy’s solicitors have already set these out in detail to the Charity Commission.
I do admire those fine people who are prepared to tackle the C of E in this way. They do so despite the tsunami of faffing about which floods efforts towards any sense of accountability and even effectiveness.
In other parts of society, dysfunctional disorganisation on this scale would result in “special measures”, the appointment of administrators or receivers or some other sanction externally dictated. The lumbering Anglican Church just muddles on on its lengthy downward trajectory. I suppose it’s all too vague and nonspecific for the Charities Commission to do anything about it.
Having no external accountability and sanctions is actually a disadvantage for any organisation with a purpose, because it is all to easy to lose focus. However what is left of the Church gives the impression it has long since forgotten what it is there for. In this respect I see no feasible change in the status quo. Until the money runs out. Don’t hold your breath.
Working in social care, where thankfully it is very rare to have to red flag a charity, I think that while Martyn’s letter is commendable and as any of us in the church knows, accurate, it has been written with the C of E lens on and not the CClens on. Since the pandemic many charities have ceased to exist and with that the CC has shrunk, becoming under resourced, therefore in order for a case not to fall between the cracks reporting in the way they require is essential. There is an online form for serious incidents which asks for a brief description of the concern and evidence. I hope this has been sent with the letter so the CC has to look at it and respond.
Also with the CC lens on a quick glance at the church website tells you that there is a redress scheme and interim scheme which has just been extended to fill up any gaps between dates and which the church has committed large amounts of money to. There IS an independent body where someone has just breached data protection but were asked to step back while the matter was reported properly, and there are plenty of case reviews. The fact that the Makin review is long overdue means the church has continued to pay Mr. Makin a lot of money to get it right and not terminated his contract regardless and someone not wishing to take part in a review does not fall in the CC remit. Many complainants in social care worry about taking part in reviews in case something emerges that they would rather not. The CC is just concerned that serious case reviews do happen.
I hope Martyn gets somewhere but from my experience unless there is a provable mishandling of charity funds or beneficiaries that are in immediate danger the CC is too stretched to properly respond.
To some extent I agree, but the redress scheme, and similar, cannot address Martyn Percy’s complaints that there was a series of events which arguably ought to have been reported as serious incidents and were not. Let’s be clear: these are allegations of misconduct even if they do not necessarily meet a criminal standard. The CC specifically states that it is concerned about all incidents which can bring the charity into disrepute.
Paraphrasing Steve, this scenario would not be possible in ‘the outside world’. Knowingly acting with a conflict of interest in a quasi-judicial role (NST core group) was inexcusable. I have been in a rural magistrates’ court where the Chairman immediately withdrew from the Bench when a case was called involving a defendant whom he knew. That level of impartial integrity is automatic at all levels in our judiciary. Nothing less should be expected of C of E core groups.
Isn’t the problem that the C of E feels it can ‘mark its own homework’ and doesn’t really like the idea of any truly independent scrutiny? I see the ISB as the secondary issue here, but what has so far been revealed about it rather supports the point.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make Rowland.
I do not disagree with you or Martyn’s letter but in order to mobilise an under resourced department when competing with the hundreds of other concerns they deal with information supplied has to be extremely concise with evidence and on the correct form. Or else what can happen is it can fall through the gaps and someone who has already worked 60 hours will have a skim read, look at the church’s website and see all the good things happening that serves to reassure them. If complaints are not strongly focused they become, as Steve Lewis says, all a bit too vague for them to deal with. That is why I said that I hoped the correct form had been submitted with the letter and which will offer a summary.
No, I didn’t miss the point at all! I said that to some extent I agreed with you.
On another blog I have said that there should be a chronological bullet-point list of the unreported serious incidents. Bullet-points will overcome any risk of being ‘skim-read’ which ought not to happen anyway. This is a high-profile case which is already well-known to the Charity Commission.
Anyway, these are simply my views; nothing that I say makes any difference! Martin Sewell may wish to respond to your comment.
People are being encouraged to write to the CC in support of Martin’s letter, giving their own experience of malfeasance or abuse on the part of the C of E. I understand that a number have already done so, and that some of those are significant players. Perhaps some of them have used the online form.
I have no idea how the CC works, but I hope they wouldn’t be inclined, or able, to ignore an avalanche of complaints about a high-profile organisation like the C of E.
Another link. This tells you everything you need to know about the Charity Commission and who runs it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission
We know that some things have happened in Church which are truly wicked. We want it fixed and are trying various ways of going about it, such as attacking the charitable status (with significant tax and other benefits) of some of the member organisations.
Titus charitable trust was formed many years ago. Basically it was designed to assist leaving Iwerne’s baggage in the past as an insurance against John Smyth’s misdemeanours catching up with them in the future, and their having to pay for his crimes.
This was a strategic and carefully prepared defence. You can be sure all the requisite forms were filled in correctly, but at a higher level, clever people figured out what could be done to minimise future problems for the organisation. So far they won, in financial terms, as far as I can tell.
A similar level of insight and expertise at strategic level will be needed in countering the abuse of charitable status of many churches, for example, indeed more so, because so many factors act in resistance to change.
Such expertise does exist, but rarely resides in a single individual. Teamwork will be needed. Someone who knows the detailed inside workings of the CC, having worked there, would top my list. But in this case the brief is different: it’s not how to scam the system to max out the benefit for dodgy trustees, but how to enforce the system, using the system as it stands, in the likely most effective way, to protect smaller people with generally less money.
This isn’t usually a particularly attractive commercial proposition, and is why this “new” venture hasn’t already taken off. People want to be paid. And they don’t want to risk losing everything if they make a tactical error or even fill in the dreaded form incorrectly.
With Martyn Percy’s case he obtained crowd funding because supporters could grasp his cause and get behind it. The next big case will require similar support if not a great deal more, to have any chance of success. That said, I believe it to be possible.
Steve, if you have not already seen it, the Charity Commission has published this concise guide of examples of serious incidents. You will see that as well as the examples of what to report, they equally indicate ones not to report!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/752170/RSI_guidance_what_to_do_if_something_goes_wrong_Examples_table_deciding_what_to_report.pdf
Note at the very end, the catch-all “Any other type of incident that appears serious and likely to damage reputation or incur loss of charitable funds/assets”. That appears to cover Martyn Percy’s situation.
Thanks, and of course this clarity is useful, but if anything would increase the number of incidences of people might report if aware of it, in my estimation.
However what we don’t know is much about their internal politics. Resource restriction will clearly limit the amount of investigatory and enforcement work they can do. Many cases will fall through the cracks as has been mentioned. Who decides when and how much to do with the cases we have in mind? Some of this will be in a procedural manual, but most won’t.
I was recalling my colleagues working in VAT, which can be a lucrative consultancy. Without exception they all used to work on the other side, ie for HMRC. They know how things work. It will be the same thing here, unless I’m very much mistaken.
Steve, the Charity Commission is a very different kind of animal from what I think you have in mind. More reading, if you are interested, but I have linked their main website in a reply to Janet, above.
Hi Rowland, I suspect we’ve been living on different planets. I suppose it is possible an organisation is exactly what it says it is on its website, and that is all it is. That would be a first for me.
Anyway, best wishes, Steve
A belated reply. That may well be true of many organisations, but I have formed a firm impression that the Charity Commission is an exception. Unlike HMRC and most government departments, it is independent of any ministerial supervision or involvement. Indeed it has quasi-judicial powers and a history of taking robust action against miscreants but, of course, the test is always whether there has been a breach of charity law or other misconduct bringing the charity into disrepute to justify intervention. I don’t think I’m living in ‘never-never land’ in this particular instance!
Thank you to Stephen for explaining the situation so clearly and to those of you who sent the links to CC. We all hope Martin’s letter has the effect and response it deserves. We are desperate for change and justice.