Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as well as the local social cohesion that many noble Lords have mentioned, we need national cohesion. We need events that bring us all together, such as hosting an Olympics, a royal wedding or a Coronation. Some of the best of these events are hosted for us by the established Church.

I take note of the apology from the most reverend Primate. I am mindful of not throwing stones—I was a government Minister in the Department for Education during the pandemic—but I believe that there are more actions, some of which I will outline, that need to be taken at speed, as well as words that are needed for the victims. One has only to glance at social media to know that the actions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in her demeanour yesterday in your Lordships’ House spoke more than words to many of the victims.

I am aware that, for many, the state of the high establishment is irrelevant. Many people cannot name the archbishops and the historic resignation has passed them by. But for victims and these national moments of cohesion, the integrity of this institution matters. I note just one connection to a victims’ network related to another review by the Church of England on Soul Survivor. I also covered safeguarding while in the department and I am on the PCC of my local church.

I am also aware that, under the Standing Orders, I must not ask questions of the Church of England, only questions about matters for which His Majesty’s Government are responsible. Could the Minister outline for victims of abuse within the Church of England, in the absence of an independent structure, to whom they should send their concerns? I have signposted various internal Church of England reviews, internal staff and maybe even MPs. I am also now aware of Safe Spaces.

If I was contacted about a school, I would send them to Ofsted. If it was about medical treatment, I would send them to the CQC. If it was about a mosque, of course, the Charity Commission would be seized of this matter. Even here in Parliament, there is an independent safeguarding board. There is still no trusted independent avenue of redress for victims to go to, and that has been the case for too long. I guess the synod and legal processes of the Church of England make our Erskine May look like a “Dummies guide to legislating”, but no one is above swift best practice when it comes to having robust safeguarding processes.

I ask the Minister: is it the Charity Commission, the Minister’s own office or the Victims’ Commissioner to whom these people should go currently? Can the Minister look at ensuring that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommendation to put in place such an independent structure, which was given to the Church of England about four years ago, could have such a timetable?

The failure to achieve that in a timely manner is only one example given to the Select Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House, on which I served, where victims come forward at great personal cost to a public inquiry but recommendations are not enacted. I am mindful that the Government are usually the biggest culprit in that, but the good offices of the Government could be used to deflect the temptation of the long grass for the Church of England when the scrutiny of the media may have moved on to other matters.

Safeguarding issues are also making some people nervous about getting involved with young people. Volunteers and employees doing such work are one of the building blocks of local social cohesion. We need a better way forward. Reviews of the Church of England such as those of Makin and Scolding are being queried, with no one really knowing what a proper independent review is. What are the standards for an independent safeguarding review? We call it that, but are we clear what independence is? How many chairs of IICSA were there before Alexis Jay was settled on? Can the Minister please consider whether, akin to the Nolan principles, there should be standards or principles of what an independent review is and who can be an independent chair? They could be used by many institutions.

A proper inquiry or review heals wounds and brings cohesion if it engages victims properly. It was humbling to learn on the Select Committee that Bishop James Jones, the retired Bishop of Liverpool, chaired the Hillsborough review on a non-statutory basis, meaning that there was no power to compel witnesses or documents and victims did not even request lawyers, such was their trust in the panel—so it is possible. But when it comes to statutory reviews, His Majesty’s Government, and in these circumstances the Church of England, have to give away some of their power and control and allow the victims to be consulted in creating terms of reference by an independent chair, at the very least.

While I appreciate that there have been laudable attempts by the Church of England to engage survivors, the lack of independence has hampered that process. Introducing standards for a safeguarding review should ensure justice for victims but also for those whose careers are affected by outcomes. Much uncertainty for parish clergy has been created by suspensions and a resignation following the Makin review.

While I thank God for our free media, without which there would have been precious little redress, being able to garner media pressure should not be the sole criterion for sanction. While they might not command the same sympathy as the P&O ferry employees, clergy are in fact not employees and are outside virtually all the normal protections of employment legislation.

There are other institutions struggling with redress processes and culture—the CBI, Yorkshire County Cricket Club and the BBC, to name but a few—but those that are able to swiftly implode, clear out some of the staff and the board and reset the culture, such as Yorkshire County Cricket Club, seem to be able to resurrect themselves. The BBC and the Church of England, with their unique governing structures, seem to be vulnerable to grinding victims and staff through multiple spin dryer-like internal processes.

The nation needs—that is a lofty claim, I know, but I believe it is the nation—a swift, independent, probably judge-led redress for these victims and any other historical cases or reviews to be dealt with before a new Archbishop of Canterbury takes office or there is a royal occasion to host. We also need to know whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who called publicly for the most reverend Primate’s resignation and for a root-and-branch clear-out, is the Church of England’s equivalent of Alan Bates to the Post Office.

It is the victims who need this the most. They are crying out for redress on social media. This was a torrid case of abuse. Particularly at this time, to think that men were beaten until they bled is devastating to us as Christians. The most reverend Primate is right: this is putting a strain on our trust. I could not help thinking, as I prepared this speech, of victims in South Africa abused in the last years of John Smyth’s life who would not have so suffered had the police and Church authorities in the UK told their South African counterparts earlier and more effectively—victims who then watched the established Church host and the Archbishop crown our King. How can this not be a matter for His Majesty’s Government?