by Martin Sewell
On Thursday morning the Church of England announced that the Chair of the so called “Independent’ Safeguarding Board, Maggie Atkinson had resigned.
This latest act in the tragi-comedy which is the ISB, came at the end of a lengthy period of the Chair being “stood back” – in truth suspended by the Church – but even from that time, the Archbishops’ Council was still maintaining the fiction that it was not controlling the very body whose role was in part to hold its parent body to account. The announcement of both the “standing back”, and the resignation were published on the CofE website; this is not insignificant; a truly independent body would have been reporting its own comings and goings.
If you read the terms of the announcement – and we must now be clear that the news management is largely in the hands of the CofE Communications Department – it was all very respectful and amicable; evidently the Chair was leaving partly to spend more time with her family. If you believe this is the top and tail of the story, I have a lovely bridge in New York to sell you – ‘real cheap.”
Ms Atkinson’s resignation comes at the conclusion of a process of contractually “enforced conciliation” – an oxymoron – which was never likely to have a happy outcome after eight months of estrangement seasoned with findings of adverse data mishandling by the Chair. Survivors were reporting a loss of confidence in her, and one can hardly be surprised that the Survivor Advocate Jasvinder Sanghera took their concerns very seriously. Without survivor confidence the ISB is incapable of functioning properly.
As I ponder the facts and watch the consequences unfold over the next few weeks I am put in mind of the late political interviewer Robin Day who explained late in his career that he usually began an interview with one simple question in his mind. “Why is this bastard lying to me”?
Perhaps we are obliged to proceed with a little more Synodical decorum, but the sentiment is worth holding onto, as we doubtless hear developments, speculations, explanations and press statements assuring us that this time it will all be different.
Introducing Ms Atkinson to General Synod in February 2022 the Lead Safeguarding Bishop Jonathan Gibbs hailed the ISB as “ fully independent “ – a sentiment the new Chair echoed, Some members of General Synod were already slightly sceptical and were seeking clarifications
Modest attempts were made to encourage the development of key performance indicators and to endow the fledgling body with executive powers to hold bishops to account , but these attempts were swiftly closed down by a wrecking procedural motion; the writing was beginning to appear on the wall. The message was “Some are more committed to independence transparency and accountability than others.”
It has taken a lot of persistent questioning by interested parties to winkle out the truth about the constitutional position of the ISB. It is now conceded that the ISB is not an independent body in law. – indeed , when sued in Court by Dr Martyn Percy, a defence to this effect was filed in these plain terms!
What is not widely known is that not only has the then Chair fallen foul of the Office Information Commissioner for data breaches, but the advertisement for a Business Development Manager for the ISB was referred to the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled that it was misleading! The position was advertised by the CofE – so how was the position or the purported body “Independent “? The CofE was ruled to have advertised misleadingly to applicants about the role and function of the body to be served. Tragi-comedy had descended into farce. Luckily the successful candidate was not actually misled: he moved across from being Business Manager to the NST, so that’s alright then
But at least we now know that ISB was and is wholly and closely controlled in terms of ambit and resource by Archbishops Council. Two very serious questions flow from this?
When the ISB Chair and Lead Bishop were insisting the ISB was “fully independent” they may well have been speaking in good faith, but did nobody know this was false or erroneous? Perhaps one can accept that a bona fide error was made but this raises the equally concerning issue of lack of competence. Which is it?
Attempts to engage the Audit Committee in a clarifying investigation were resisted by the Archbishops at the last Synod. The Chair of the Audit Committee told Synod that oversight of the ISB was not within her committee’s scope of activity, but we now know that this too was mistaken. A letter from the Audit Committee Chair correcting that error was sent to the Synod Member who raised the question, but the correction has yet to be circulated to all Synod members.
So now we know that the Audit Committee can look into these matters and it needs to do so as a matter of urgency.
The appointment of Ms Atkinson’s temporary replacement brings additional important issues to light .The former MP Meg Munn who is taking over, currently numbers amongst her career portfolio of offices, that of member of the National Safeguarding Steering Group and Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel. Whether she and /or either of those bodies played any part in the original conceptualisation of the ISB or the current shenanigans is unclear. So much is and will remain unclear; General Synod has not been allowed to debate these problems and may not be in July.
One might have assumed that the interim role would have fallen to the Survivor Advocate who has been the de facto voice of the body, since Ms Atkinson has been “stepped back”. However, Jasvinder Sanghera appears to have been nudged aside, with Ms Munn imposed upon her and her colleague Steve Reeves without any notice, still less consultation, neither were survivors consulted.
One might be critical of the slow pace of change, and even perhaps of the naivety of the ISB members; sometimes they appeared to be talking a better game than they delivered within the complex and tangled institution that is the CofE.
What cannot be denied however is that Ms Sanghera and Mr Reeves have brought bona fides to their task and devoted a lot of time to talking to Survivors, gaining their confidence. The effects of the imposition of the Archbishops’ Council ‘s choice of Chair into this difficult situation without any consultation with the very group that has been abused and ignored by the Church for far too long, is yet another example of the arrogance of power that taints so much that the Church does in this area.
Already some survivors have told me that they have notified Ms Sanghera that they do not consent to their data being shared with Ms Munn. This hoists the Archbishops’ Council with its own petard. If the ISB is not a body in law, and if Ms Munn joins the other two members with self-employed contractor status only, in the absence of data sharing consents from each survivor individually, Ms Munn cannot be admitted to the very data she should have, in order to perform the tasks required. She cannot be passported into the office if the ISB has no formal identity, though she can, of course chair meetings. Having said that, those meetings have all the makings of being tense affairs given the circumstances and suspicions described above.
Of course, the cynic might think that this is intended to provoke a crisis and/or resignations leaving the field free for a second go at creating an ISB Mark II
This brings us back to our old friends “Transparency and Accountability”. Leaving aside how Ms Munn got to this position, how can she be contracted in one capacity to chair the National Safeguarding Panel – (which surely have some directive roles) whilst simultaneously chairing the very body that will evaluate the complaints from those suffering the allegedly unsound fruits of her labours elsewhere in the building?. Yet again one is driven to the conclusion that the Church of England cannot see a conflict of interest it does not like.
Worse still, if you were a new survivor thinking of bringing your issues to this organisation when others have testified to IICSA that the wished they had never done so, would you seriously entrust your safety and wellbeing to an organisation in this degree of disarray? I would not.
I am of those (many as I understand it) survivors and whistleblowers of Church related abuse who has categorically refused any of the extensive information and data that I had previously shared with Maggie Atkinson & Jasvinder to go anywhere near Meg Munn in whom I have zero confidence based on my historic interaction with her.
IMHO the best solution would be that Meg simply stands aside. I was not in the least surprised that the Archbishop’s Council offered her the role (it is entirely in line with the complete contempt the Church hierarchy has demonstrated to all survivors over the last thirty years at least) but I had hoped Meg would be sufficiently self-aware and mature such that she would turn down that invitation.
After all Jasvinder and Steve have been doing a perfectly good job these last seven months, given the absolute paucity of resources the Church has made available to them.
William Nye claims ‘The AC wanted to fill this important role quickly, rather than leaving it vacant for many months more. So they made an acting appointment quickly. Given that they did not go through the normal procedures for appointing ISB members which would have involved representatives of survivors and victims.’
Complete rubbish IMHO.
The only way I can rationalise the behaviour of the AC is that it’s a deliberate provocation to attempt to force Jasvinder & Steve to resign in protest, so that the current partial neutering of the ISB that the AC has achieved will then be converted into a complete destruction of any effective ISB.
I for one pray that Jasvinder & Steve will not be provoked into resigning, tempting though that must be to them
This is yet another chapter in a bizarre saga. Each one is characterised by an unusual level of incompetence to the point of farce, if it weren’t so concerning.
Many of us have worked with senior people in a number of walks of life. There are indeed machinations and devious moves at or near the top. Sometimes the skill and occasional wickedness can be of breathtaking subtlety, obscuring the trick to all but the most experienced/cynical or by freak random discovery to the unusually unfortunate observer.
These C/E blunders are in a completely different category, it’s embarrassing. It’s almost as if they still have no idea that they have to be aware anyone is looking at them. As if they have no need to think about scrutiny of any sort.
Readers of this blog will recognise the signs and symptoms of narcissism. Individuals with severe narcissistic personalities in leadership have had plenty of exposure on this and the other side of the Pond. I need not name examples, except to note that despite continuing uncovering of significant moral and other failures, they still believe wholeheartedly in their own narrative and are not dissuaded in carrying on their crusades to regaining power whatsoever.
The rest of us not possessed by this destructive condition, would be humiliated by barely 10% of their exposed failures, and would resign or otherwise withdraw from the limelight with immediate and prolonged effect.
Individual narcissism translates across to corporations or in this case to a Church, where the gazing with adoration at their own reflection eclipses any contact with reality. Try talking to a narcissist; you can’t get through to them at all, unless it’s what they want to hear. Plenty discover this but choose the path of people-pleasing to reassure themselves of a place as an adjunct to the esteemed centre. Reporting of truth brings expulsion. The narcissistic nexus is thus easily maintained particularly if there is significant wealth available and to be disbursed at will.
These recurring chapters are indication that literally nothing has got through to them. If you didn’t know that already, simply read the plethora of ignored messages from Survivors across social media, often screaming with pain.
What we can do of course is explain in different ways, to others who actually have functioning hearts and souls. It’s important not to overwhelm them, but to continue to provide simple reasoned cross referenced arguments to set out the basis of our experience. In fact that is what I believe is being done here and in other places too. Let’s keep it up.
I agree, the only conclusion that can be made is that an attempt is being made to get Jasvinder and Steve to resign so that ISB 2 can be set up and Meg Munn, by her complete lack of integrity and generosity of spirit, is entirely complicit in that.
There is also the concern that survivors sit on the NSP and this will compromise their position to speak freely about their feelings or in asking for their data not to be shared with Meg.
I wrote to Jasvinder copying Meg Munn in when the appointment was announced expressing my views. I do hope other survivors will also consider copying Meg into their correspondence so that Jasvinder does not feel so alone with the burden.
To me it seems, Jasvinder and Steve have been treated with the same contempt as survivors are and may therefore be feeling the same sense of anger, betrayal, frustration and hurt. I wish them strength and the knowledge that their battle does not have to be fought alone.
I add my voice to those above.
The shoehorning of Meg Munn into the role of ISB chair demonstrates contempt for the concept of independence, and scant regard for all complainants, victims and survivors. Munn has no track record in criticising safeguarding abuses, misconduct or incompetence, despite her roles with the NSP and the NSSG. And I suspect that Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves will quickly discover that Meg Munn has differing views from theirs of the role of the ISB and the ways it might hold the Church’s dysfunctional national safeguarding team and dioceses to account.
What little hope there was for the ISB has effectively been extinguished and emphatically stamped on by this appointment. What a tragic waste of time and effort, to say nothing of the huge sums of charitable money poured into this – and all to create the illusion of independent oversight that IICSA had demanded of the CofE, but which Mr. Nye had absolutely no intention of allowing. The ISB has become an ignominious initiative to be associated with: something pretending to be independent, but is not and was never going to be. The sooner all such appointments in the safeguarding circus of the Church are removed from the hands of Nye the better. This latter day Richelieu of the Church of England whose unaccountable court supercedes that of the gelded king in Lambeth Palace, continues to deepen the disrepute in which the Church finds itself.
Absolute madness. I was planning to meet with Jasvinder in York for the phase 2 isb discussions But that has now been cancelled. How two independent bodies can have the same chair is completely mad. Jasvinder was without question the person to lead the isb. obviously too honest, caring and just so human about the issues for JW to let her start spreading her truths about.
The carelessness and disregard that permeates almost every decision made by the hierarchy re safeguarding is well illustrated in this latest farcical appointment.
Might this item in the news today be the next step to shake things up in the C of E – in other words having to be like everyone else if mandatory reporting was to be legally enforced:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/02/reporting-suspected-sexual-abuse-to-be-mandatory-for-those-working-with-children
“When the ISB Chair and Lead Bishop were insisting the ISB was “fully independent” they may well have been speaking in good faith, but did nobody know this was false or erroneous?”
Or were the individuals making such statements being reckless as to the truth of their assertions? Did they make those assertions based on a credible supporting factual base and/or methodology?
Over the last 15 or so years recklessness as to the truth of an assertion made in a commercial contract (in other words, taking a punt on whether or not something is true) has been counted as a species of fraudulent misrepresentation, which generally breaks any attempt to limit liability. The absence of a credible supporting methodology will make it harder for a party to assert that there was no recklessness.
Given the funding arrangements of the ISB, some might wonder if it was always the case that ‘independence’ was difficult or impossible to realise, and that the ‘I’ was included in the title chiefly for PR purposes?
What I think is clear from this display is that (as many will have suspected all along) it is not really worth anyone’s while to engage with the Church, and that if effective reforms are to be made, they will need to be implemented by parliament and the government without reference to the Church’s wishes (and whether the Church likes it or not). Perhaps survivors’ groups should simply stop wasting time with bishops and Church officials, and should devote time to engaging solely with MPs and civil servants.
Yes, I reached that conclusion some 18 months ago. The C of E is so utterly lacking in goodwill, competence, and honest intent that trying to engage with it is a waste of energy. Ms. Munn’s appointment is yet another proof of that.
Many thanks (and I hope you are feeling better).
That being so, what I feel survivor’s groups need to do is to develop their own draft legislation and present it to some interested MPs. It might be worth engaging with a parliamentary agent (usually a Westminster law firm) to draft legislation.
The legislation should, I think entail the establishment of a regulator. The powers of the regulator could be analogous with those of the Information Commissioner. The main problem would then be one of finance and, as I see it, the regulator could be funded partly via a government grant and partly by a levy on institutions with safeguarding obligations (plus fines).
If a few well-chosen MPs had a bill in their hands it could the be presented to the Home Office and/or MOJ as a blueprint for something which could then become government business and would stand a better chance of being passed. If the government were to be chary of the cost and responsibility, the opposition (who seem likely to form the next government) might be more obliging. Or else the bill could chance its luck as private business.
I also think that this needs to be done sooner rather than later, whilst the political reverberations of IICSA continue to resound in Westminster and Whitehall. In year or two’s time the policymaking caravan might well have moved on, and IICSA will have joined the mountain of other largely forgotten government reports.
Apologies if this has been thought of already (as it probably has).
Yes, Mr Froghole. Many survivors and our supporters have realised this and are starting to engage with the public sector.
When Malcolm Brown was asked by the Church to respond to the IICSA recommendations (not the NST), survivors were given about two days to review his final draft report. I suggested that it shouldn’t take years to work out what would be required for independent oversight of safeguarding. All that was required was to set up a properly-resourced independent charitable foundation with a board of trustees to employ and supervise people with expertise in CofE safeguarding. And to give them authority to investigate allegations and to act against those abusing their positions within the Church.
To his credit, Malcolm read our input and I think that it is fair to say that he was blown away by the calibre of what we provided. He mentioned the idea about an independent foundation near the end of his 20-page report, buried deep in a long, dense paragraph. But it was, like most informed ideas presented by survivors and our supporters to the Church, ignored.
I had been struggling to understand this ingrained and consistent behaviour for some time. It was Fiona Gardner’s book ‘Sex, Power, Control: Responding to Abuse in the Institutional Church’ that analysed the situation and explained what was going on.
And then you, the good bloggers on Surviving Church and Thinking Anglicans, provided further input on the relationships between governments and religions. Bloggers explained how religions resist ‘interference’ by governments, and how public authorities are reluctant to ‘intervene’. This is because they are part of the same history and culture, which is particularly true for the established Church of England. But when there is a conflict, the law prevails.
IICSA cannot fail to have noticed that they too were ignored by the Church of England. I hope that they make their views known to policymakers.
What is needed now is more publication (books, articles and blog posts), working with the press to expose dangerous aspects of Church activities and engaging with our elected representatives and statutory bodies.
Keep up the good work, and thank you!
Well, the thanks is really for you Ms Stein, and to your colleagues, for the substantive efforts you have made!
I would make only two points. The Church is like a paper tiger (or Frank Morgan as the Wizard of Oz). The external appearance greatly flatters to deceive. It is really an unhappy confederation of often mutually antagonistic interests, adrift as if on a life raft in heavy open seas, and at risk of capsizing (or cannibalism) at any moment. It is therefore highly susceptible to buffeting by the state: think of how quickly it buckled when David Cameron told it to ‘get with the programme’ in 2012.
Also, unlike the 1980s and 1990s (at least until 1997) it now has very few friends indeed in positions of meaningful influence within the state. The default position of most senior officials and politicians is now complete neutrality in religious matters, which often conceals the atheistic or agnostic reality (for example, there are now 110 members of the parliamentary humanist group). The Church has effectively been evicted from the counsels of the state, and it leaders are not taken very seriously. Campaigners would do well to note that the Church is, at best, barely tolerated in government circles, and is more generally treated with disguised contempt. It would likely lose all of its privileges if only politicians could summon up the effort or knew what to do about the buildings. One of the reasons for that contempt is that its ‘establishment’ complicates the efforts of the state to appear neutral in its engagement with all faith communities. Almost the last card the Church can play are the provisions within the Human Rights Act 1998 which protect faith groups, and in this way they can use a statute intended to be ‘progressive’ (at least by Charter 88 and the Blair government) for defensive and reactionary ends.
The second is that I feel that a statutory body with teeth would be more effective than a charitable foundation. If a charity were to be established, it would require the co-operation of the Church (there would need to be a deal between the two), and my fear is that the Church will either not co-operate at all, or its co-operation will be, at best, half-hearted. My preference would be for a statutory body that would have the ability to have extensive investigatory powers (effectively pulling the Church into the bounds of FOIA), and to have the ability to impose large fines (even fining bishops and others). However, it would not be plausible to have a regulator solely responsible for the Church; it would need to cover all bodies and enterprises with safeguarding responsibilities. My main objection to IICSA was that its recommendations concentrated upon children; in my view any regulator should have supervision of all vulnerable people, regardless of age or background (the safeguarding of highly vulnerable and isolated aged people in poorly run care homes being a particular concern, for example).
Completely off topic, but I am going in for a hip replacement tomorrow. And today, my husband was taken in with what is probably a UTI. Great timing! Prayers please.
All the very best for your op EA and wishing a swift recovery to you both Steve
Prayers and best wishes for you both, Athena.
Very best wishes for it, EA. And I hope that the rehab is swift, and that they make you as comfortable as possible. I assume you are going to somewhere like the Hereford County or Worcester Royal.
Prayers for you both, EA, and hopes for a speedy recovery 🙏
As one of the survivor representatives on the NSP, I share concerns about this appointment. I’m keen to represent the views of other survivors at our next meeting in May. You are welcome to contact me via the survivorsvoices.org website.
With regards to proposing legislation, one route could be via the APPG on Faith & Safeguarding. The organisation 31:8 provides the secretariat, if you want to get on the list to attend their meetings. They were among others successfully worked to get faith leaders added to abuse of trust legislation making it illegal to have sexual relations with 16 & 17 year olds.
I should like to respond to those who have suggested involving ” a few well chosen M.P.s” From personal experience this would be an excellent idea but definitely ‘well chosen’, involving people who understand the situation.
In November 2020 at a time when we had submitted a formal complaint against a Canon and had been ignored (our complaint was that she had a conflict of interest and had withheld two significant pieces of evidence which might have exonerated Kenneth), I wrote to Kenneth’s MP. The reply was:
‘As this is a purely private investigation by a body outside of the public sector, the M.P. is unlikely to be able to have any significant agency or influence over the case’.
Recently I was told by two people who understand all the problematic issues surrounding safeguarding in the Church of England that:
‘If anything it seems MPs dont understand Parliaments relationship with the Church of England’.
I should be delighted to help with notifying any civil servants or MPs.
I have recently been busy compiling a CDM against the particular Canon above, which you will appreciate has been seriously time consuming. However, Janet I have been praying for you and hope you are now back at home. EA you also have our prayers and I hope you and your husband soon recover and that your operation went well.
Thank you for thinking of me, K, with all else you have on your plate.
I’ve been home for more than a week now, but mostly confined to bed. I have carers coming in to do basics, which is all that’s provided on NHS/ social services. It isn’t enough, but I have also had some valuable help from friends and neighbours and am asking my cleaner to do more than she normally would. The first few days were really tough but it’s getting better.
A happy Easter to you!
My son has been holding the fort. Rotten when you’re on your own, Janet. Himself spent a week “inside”, but is now home, and so am I. I reacted badly to the anaesthetic and was really quite poorly for three days. And they cut the codeine because they thought that was causing it. So all with less pain control! Bad days. Onward and upwards now. Happy Easter everyone! Yes, Hereford, Froghole. The actual op went well.
Glad the op went well, but sorry you had a tough time. At least you can now recuperate together.
You have been through a difficult time EA. Glad you are at home and now, hopefully, can move forward. Prayers for you both.