Meeting of the National Safeguarding Panel, March 2024

This meeting was an opportunity for the Panel to engage with members of Archbishops’ Council in a discussion about the Wilkinson review and Professor Jay’s report. The Panel were joined by one member of Archbishops’ Council and apologies were received from other members who were unable to join.

Learning

The Panel asked about the actions that the Council took that may have contributed to the differing views between the Council and the ISB. They were advised that there were misunderstandings and miscommunication on both sides as each tried to fulfil their own duties; the Council was wanting to progress to full independent scrutiny of safeguarding with phase 2 and the ISB to undertake work with survivors that could not be shared with the Council. This led to difficulties in communication and the efforts made to resolve these did not help to progress matters. Arbitration was considered but was felt to take too long.

The Panel noted from the Wilkinson report that the former ISB members advised they were not consulted on the appointment of the replacement chair. They were informed that the Council had a legal right to appoint a chair and took the decision to appoint an interim chair who was well-respected in safeguarding and had made progress as the longstanding chair of the National Safeguarding Panel. This appointment was intended to maintain continuous and stable governance.

Risk assessment

The Panel asked why the termination of the ISB was undertaken precipitately and without risk assessing the ongoing ISB reviews. They were advised that the Council had not undertaken this decision precipitately as they had spent several months considering various options. The Council did not know the numbers of survivors and victims in the ISB reviews and could not undertake a risk assessment without this information. The Council still do not have this information and it is believed that if this information was requested it would not have been shared. Data management is therefore a key factor and it is critical for survivor confidence that their data and information is held securely. This area was covered in detail in the Wilkinson review.

There was discussion around the Glasgow report which highlights victims and survivors that are vulnerable and suicidal, and the deep impact on those affected. The Archbishops’ Council was not aware of the vulnerability of those affected and this is an important area for the council to learn about. It was noted that the Glasgow Report was not commissioned by Archbishops’ Council. The process around the cancellation of contracts, communications and sequencing is a lesson to learn.

Trauma-informed training

The Panel noted that the Wilkinson review highlighted the lack of trauma training for members of the Council and asked how this was being addressed. Training has been held and members who were part of the Redress Board were trained last year and found this really useful. Training is on the Archbishops’ Council agenda for members to reflect on what has been learnt. They would be open to the suggestion for future training to be co-delivered with survivors.

Scrutiny and governance

The Panel raised the point that survivors had reported a low level of confidence in the Response Group as it was currently constituted and asked how this would be addressed. The Panel were advised that members of the Response Group were aware of this and Bishop Joanne was reviewing the Terms of Reference to build more confidence and they would be securing a wide range of survivor views as well as from the two survivors on the Group. The Group would also have an independent chair to strengthen external representation on the Group.

Panel recommendations

The Panel made 15 recommendations covering NSP offering support and adding value to the development and refinement of the work of the Response Group, to feedback their observations on the Wilkinson review and Jay recommendations and follow up how the ISB published report and its recommendations will be progressed. For the Archbishops’ Council the recommendations covered areas regarding the Response Group representation, how the learning gained from past recruitment and risk management will be applied in future, and how data will be managed and information on survivors shared following the issues highlighted by the Wilkinson review.

***

See the 2023 annual report of the National Safeguarding Panel.