Fourth in a series of guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.
By Anon & Friends
No. 4: Redefining ‘Independent Review’
Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.
Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.
These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true. The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.
In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.
….this is not the first time that Archbishop Cottrell has deliberately misled General Synod. On 30th May 2024, the Church of England’s NST issued the following press release (Christ Church, Oxford: Safeguarding practice review suspended):
The review group overseeing the independent review into the handling of alleged safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford has announced that it is suspending its work.
The Safeguarding Practice Review was announced in November and commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese. Members of the review group were to consider evidence relating to the alleged safeguarding issues with a view to appointing and instructing an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience. That has been unable to happen despite the efforts of the review group members. This has meant no further progress can be made on the review. Stakeholders have been informed of this and support offered.
Victims are unlikely to accept unregulated, non-professional and non-independent “support” from their abuser. That notwithstanding, it is worth recalling what Dr Percy was seeking. As set out in the unaltered text of Martin Sewell’s questions 40 and 41 at GS in July 2023, it is Dr Percy’s
“complaint into the deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding allegations, with intent to cause harm to [him], perpetrated by senior clergy, church lawyers and church PR.” [see page 3 of the Appendix to the Report of Proceedings, July 2023].
In answers to these questions, Archbishop Stephen Cottrell said (see Report of Proceedings, July 2023, pages 80-82; our emphasis):
“…. the Archbishops’ Council recognises the importance of this Review into the handling by the Church of safeguarding allegations made against Dr Martyn Percy and is giving it active consideration proposing to work jointly with the Diocese of Oxford. We hope, in the near future, to be in a position to consult all interested parties on a proposed way forward.
Synod members will understand that we should consult all of the interested parties first before making further details public…it is my strong view and my consistent view that it is in everyone’s best interests and to everyone’s benefit – obviously especially Martyn Percy himself – that an independent review takes place of the issues and concerns that have been raised and I look forward to that happening.”
Despite the promise made above, the Review Group (RG) was set up without any consultation with Dr. Percy who raised the following issues:
- The RG membership had not been at any stage discussed with Dr. Percy. The RG would not engage directly with Dr. Percy, and would not address concerns expressed by him about potential loss of impartiality due to perceived conflicts of interest in their proposed terms of reference with consequent risk of bias.
- Dr Percy put to individual RG members concerns about their previous professional connections with those complained about, which created reasonable perceptions of conflicts of interest. Even when these were pointed out, one declined to reply in substance, and the rest declined to reply at all to the points made.
- In the light of this, the RG was not demonstrably independent, or even competent. Yet again, General Synod were presented with an inevitable (but avoidable) perception of the Church of England ‘setting and marking its own homework’ on safeguarding.
In these circumstances Dr Percy did not consider it possible to safely engage with the RG, both in his own interests and, as a matter of principle, on behalf of others being offered similarly unsatisfactory reviews or complaint resolutions. His decision is entirely congruent with Professor Alexis Jay’s conclusion that responsibility for safeguarding should not remain with an institution where there is little trust in its ability to perform key functions with unquestioned and unquestionable impartiality.
General Synod and all interested parties were promised an “Independent Review”. The Archbishop of York promised that to General Synod. But this was not delivered. Not for the first time, it appears that the concerns of a complainant have not been recognised or action taken to address them. Independence and impartiality are inseparable concepts in the secular world. We must now ensure that they are also embedded throughout Church Safeguarding and its underpinning culture.
There was no consultation. The membership of the group and its Terms of Reference were non-negotiable, and no attempt was made to consult with Dr. Percy until after these conditions were imposed on him. In July 2024, the Archbishop of York was asked this question by Mr. Sewell to address what he had told General Synod in July 2023. He was asked to explain why the review of Dr. Percy’s case had not gone ahead. He stated:
“Accepting entirely the good faith of that expressed commitment, can you please make enquiries and set out with particularity the extent to which that promise of consultation was actually delivered in practice?”
The Archbishop answered:
“As Synod will be aware, a review group was formed to oversee an independent review into the handling of alleged safeguarding issues involving the former Dean of Christ Church Oxford. Its terms of reference and membership can be found at the link here.
The Group consulted extensively with interested parties. Whilst some progress was made, it became clear that it was not possible for all parties to reach the necessary level of agreement to allow the review to proceed. Accordingly the review group suspended its work. This is deeply regrettable as it leaves various voices unheard, many of whom would welcome a review on the lines that was suggested. For ease I have reproduced the latest statement from the review group below.
The review group overseeing the independent review into the handling of alleged safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford has announced that it is suspending its work. The Safeguarding Practice Review was announced in November and commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese.
Members of the review group were to consider evidence relating to the alleged safeguarding issues with a view to appointing and instructing an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience. That has been unable to happen despite the efforts of the review group members. This has meant no further progress can be made on the review. Stakeholders have been informed of this development and support offered. It will now be for the Archbishops’ Council and Oxford Diocese to consider any next steps.”
None of the above is true.
Parliament must now act with great urgency to stop any further misconduct, conflicts of interest, and cover ups. They must put victims and survivors first and end the misinformation constantly put out by senior figures in the Church. Parliament must put an immediate end to the powerlessness of survivors in the face of systemic failures and stop the abuse of quasi legal processes which prioritise reputation management above all else.
Can the prioritisation of reputation management be seen in an INEQE audit survey form for Carlisle? (They may be the same in other audits). The victims and survivors survey states:-
“Eligibility
The audit will focus on the preceding 12 months. We are therefore interested in your feedback on the Church’s safeguarding improvement journey as well as any incidents referred to the diocese or cathedral during that period.
This survey is seeking your views if you are:
over 18 years old now (not withstanding that the abuse you suffered may have occurred at an earlier time) and,
someone who is a victim or survivor of some form of Church related abuse or harm within the Diocese of Carlisle or Carlisle Cathedral (at any time) or
someone whose experience has been reported to and/or dealt with by the Diocese of Carlisle or Carlisle Cathedral in the last 12 months.”
I also notice that the following is strongly emphasised in orange:-
“If you reported your abuse within the last 12 months, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:”
Note the repeated emphasis on “…the preceding 12 months”, “within the last 12 months…” and “…in the last 12 months”. Yet the last safeguarding audit for Carlisle was eight years ago in 2016. So of the subsequent years, there is only an interest in the most recent improvements. One might wonder whether the Diocese has matters that that were reported, perhaps during the preceding year, that it might want to avoid coming under scrutiny during the audit. Or it may have matters that were reported over 12 months ago that are still ongoing, but maybe a senior clergy person has declared the matter closed in order that it cannot be taken into account during the audit because it has been “…dealt with by the Diocese of Carlisle or Carlisle Cathedral in the last 12 months”.
It may also be notable that these INEQE surveys do not appear to be accompanied by an opportunity to talk with the auditors. Under the fairly recent SCIE audit for Lambeth, contributors had the chance to meet with the auditors. Is the audit process being watered-down?
https://ineqe.com/churchofengland/carlisle/
The 12month timescale is for all dioceses and is in my experience standard audit practice, as the focus is what is happening now, which may be better or worse than what came before.
I can confirm that I and other survivors I know have spoken to the INEQUE audits in other dioceses and my understanding is that is possible in all audits. I will try to confirm that, as I agree with you it’s vital that option is there.
Ineqe cannot be trusted. They’re not independent and are providing a vanity service to the NST and Archbishops’ Council. Ineqe are subject to multiple complaints over misrepresentation of their role and conduct. Victims should not engage with this organisation. They are not safe or trustworthy.