By David Lamming (General Synod member 2015-2021)

A few days ago on this blog, Synod member Martin Sewell posed the question, “General Synod and Safeguarding Issues: Will the problems be faced? (24 January 2023).  One of the major problems concerns the rôle and functioning of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB).  Related to this is the fact that the Board’s chair, Professor Maggie Atkinson, remains ‘stepped aside’ following the upholding by the ICO of complaints of data protection breaches.  Recently, also, the ISB has been told by the Archbishops’ Council that it is no longer to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ review into aspects of the long-running saga at Christ Church, Oxford.

On its website the ISB state: “We exist to ensure the Church of England delivers its safeguarding responsibilities  We also provide independent oversight of the National Safeguarding Team (NST).”  This function of the ISB was recognised in a paper, GS 2263, presented to Synod at York in July 2022, which stated (at paragraph 19): “The ISB liaises with, and oversees the quality of the work of the NST.” Especially given the ISB’s difficulties, not least of which is that of its supposed independence, one might have expected that the ‘Safeguarding’ item on Synod’s agenda on Thursday would include a report from the ISB.

Only seven months ago in York, Synod passed a motion, in terms proposed by the lead bishop on safeguarding, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, that included a request by Synod for “regular updates on progress at each group of sessions, especially concerning the strengthening of independent accountability and oversight of the Church’s safeguarding work at all levels.” (Emphasis added.)  However, there is not even a mention of the ISB in either of the two published briefing papers for Synod, GS 2293 (‘Update from the National Safeguarding Team’ and GS Misc 1335 (‘Update from the National Director of Safeguarding’), both referred to in Martin’s blog.  Moreover, the two active members of the ISB, Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves, in a statement posted on the ISB website on 2 February, revealed that they had wished to be able to update Synod but were rebuffed: “Despite attempts to secure an opportunity to update Synod in person, no time was made available.” https://independent-safeguarding.org/general-synod-2023/ They added, “We do not believe that the importance of ISB work is consistent with a ‘fringe’ activity“—which suggests that a fringe meeting had been offered to them as an alternative.

Jasvinder and Steve go on in their report to identify a number of issues regarding the ISB’s rôle and work, in particular the vexed question of its supposed independence – one of the issues mentioned in Martin’s ‘further motion’ referred to below.  They say:

“The current position of the ISB in the Church’s infrastructure is unsustainable. The Archbishop’s Council trustees provide the funding for the Board’s operations and acts as the employer of its staff, subject to task management by the ISB itself… In its first year, the ISB has experienced multiple instances in which its independence and freedom to operate has been hampered. The ISB does not consider that it is sufficiently independent from those it is responsible for scrutinising. The independent minds of board members need to be supported by an independent body, the operation of which cannot be frustrated by the Church.”

The safeguarding item on the Synod agenda comprises a presentation, with Q&A, followed by a motion (to be proposed by Dr Gibbs) to ‘take note’ of the NST report GS 2293.  Under Synod standing orders, such a motion cannot be amended but, if it is first carried, a ‘further motion’ can be moved under SO 105(6).  This provides, so far as material:

“… any member of the Synod may, after giving due notice, move a further motion arising out of the report which— (a) expresses approval or disapproval of the report in whole or part, or (b) is otherwise relevant to and within the scope of its subject matter.”

In the absence of a specific report or agenda item and as reported in the Church Times last Friday, Martin Sewell tabled such a motion. (“Motion will question ISB’s absence from Synod agenda” Church Times, 3 February 2023, page 6. The full terms of the motion were set out in a comment that I posted on Martin’s blog.)  However, after the paper went to press last Wednesday, Martin was informed by the Acting Clerk to the Synod that his motion (which had been duly seconded) had been ruled out of order by the ‘Chair of the debate’ after receiving legal advice, on the basis that the report to which it is a following motion is a report of the NST and the ISB is a creature of the Archbishops’ Council, not the NST.  The full reasoning, after, citing the terms of SO 105(6) was:

“A motion which says, “The report should have covered subject X”, when subject X is outside the scope of the report, cannot qualify for this purpose; to hold otherwise would be to negate requirement (b).  And [the Chair] does not consider that the matters you wish to raise with regard to the ISB are “relevant to and within the scope of its subject matter”.  The scope and subject matter of the report are to “provide updates to the General Synod of the following workstreams of the National Safeguarding Team”.  The workstreams are then listed.  The ISB is not a workstream for which the NST is responsible.  It is the responsibility of the Archbishops’ Council, with the ISB accounting directly to the Council for its performance, rather than through the NST.  The proposed following motion, being concerned with the ISB, is therefore not a further motion within SO 105(6).”

One might have thought that an item of business headed in the Synod agenda as simply ‘Safeguarding’ (see GS 2283, page 13) would enable a motion to be tabled concerning the very body set up to oversee the safeguarding functions of the NST.  But no, it is clear that those running the Synod do not wish to see the problems of the ISB aired in Synod and subject to debate by Synod members, notwithstanding the motion agreed in July 2022. A revised motion, quoting Synod’s resolution last July and thereby seeking to overcome the objection, was tabled by Martin but also rejected on Friday on the same grounds.

The effect of the Chair’s ruling is that neither Martin’s original motion nor his revised motion will appear on a Notice Paper for the information of Synod members when they arrive in Church House on Monday, as he requested.  But it is questionable whether this is lawful and whether the Chair—at this stage, simply the member of the panel of chairs designated to chair the safeguarding items of business on 9 February—has the power before Synod meets to make such a ruling. Martin raised this issue with the Acting Clerk to the Synod in an e-mail on Friday as follows:

“I note that you refer me to SO 15(2) concerning the powers and duties of the Chair.  However, that SO is one of a group of standing orders headed ‘General Procedures at a Group of Sessions’ (emphasis added) and I cannot see in it or elsewhere in the SOs any provision enabling someone who has merely been designated to be the Chair of a particular session to make a ruling in advance of the session.  By contrast, in respect of rulings on questions, there is provision, but when the Synod is not in session, the person to make the ruling is the Chair of the Business Committee: see SO 113(5).

It seems to me, therefore, that the ruling Andrew Nunn has made, apparently on legal advice, is ultra vires and void. If I am wrong about this, please let me know and direct me to the provision in the SOs relied upon.”

As I write this on Sunday evening, an answer is awaited.

What next?  Synod members may well share the view that the issues surrounding the ISB are both urgent and important.   SO 4(3) of the Synod’s standing orders empowers the Joint Presidents of the Synod (i.e. Archbishops Justin and Stephen) to “direct the addition to the agenda at any time of such urgent or other specially important business… as seems to them desirable.”  This power was exercised in 2016 to add to the Synod agenda a motion enabling a debate about the outcome of the Brexit referendum, and again in 2017, following the General Election of that year—neither of which matters, unlike the supervision of C of E safeguarding, directly concerned the Synod.

Recently, in an article published in the January 2023 issue of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal, Bishop Pete Broadbent, a member of the Synod for some 36 years prior to his retirement as Bishop of Willesden in 2021, wrote this:

“The platform tactic (from those leading debates and carrying forward the business of Synod) has been to attempt to keep questions about the Church’s safeguarding practice, past and present, off the floor of Synod. Attempts to inquisite [sic] the shortcomings of the National Safeguarding Team, the past failures of Bishops and the various ‘lessons learned reviews’ (from which we never seem to learn very much) have been seen off and resisted, leaving victims, survivors and those campaigning on their behalf with the sense that justice will never be done or seen to be done.” (Pete Broadbent: Reflections on the Workings of General Synod, (2023) 25 Ecc LJ 19-31 at page 25.)

Is it too much to hope that our two archbishops will heed these words and use their power under SO4(3) to ensure that Synod is enabled this week to discuss the very issue it requested to be updated about just seven months ago?