Church of England: Safeguarding
Debate between Dawn Butler and Marsha De Cordova(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on securing this extremely important debate, and on the way in which he so eloquently set out the issue, the challenges, and the action and next steps that need to be taken. I share his desire to see survivors of abuse treated justly, with dignity and respect, and for perpetrators to be fully held to account. Like him, I look forward to a time when we all have our confidence in the Church of England’s safeguarding practices fully restored.
When I was appointed Second Church Estates Commissioner last October, I could not have foreseen the storm that was about to engulf the Church. Since the publication of the Makin report, which exposed the devastating abuse inflicted by John Smyth, MPs—myself included—have received correspondence from constituents, local clergy, and victims and survivors. Indeed, in this debate we have heard from many Members from across the House about the many challenges that this issue has raised for them. They have rightly expressed their concern about the historical and ongoing failures to keep people safe in the Church—the one place that anybody would expect to be a place of safety and sanctuary. They have also expressed concern about what looks to be a lack of consistency and transparency in the Church’s approach to safeguarding and disclosures of abuse.
Dawn Butler
One of my constituents told me that they could not go back and tell their parents what was happening to them because it was at the church, which was supposed to be a place of sanctuary where they were safe. To find out that those at the head of the Church would move abusers to another church, instead of moving them out of the Church and into jail, just added another insult to injury. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to stop now?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with her 100%.
These failures are not new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland highlighted, before the Makin review there was the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Over the past nine years, there have been multiple reviews into safeguarding abuses in the Church of England—multiple reviews with multiple recommendations, I might add. There have been some positive steps and changes, and I commend the work of the national safeguarding team and many people in our local parishes and dioceses around the country, who have all been working incredibly hard, but I think we can collectively agree that more needs to be done. Victims and survivors have been waiting for too long. We have come to a point where both Parliament and the public need to see the Church fully committed to change.
We have to ensure that safeguarding is transparent, accountable, consistent in its approach to disclosures of abuse, and trusted by the public, congregations, clergy and, most importantly, victims and survivors. That is why, at the General Synod in February, during my maiden speech, I made clear my support for the Church’s safeguarding operations to be wholly independent of the Church. That was the approach put forward by the Church’s lead bishop for safeguarding, Joanne Grenfell, and it was known as model 4. That approach would have created independent safeguarding operations, an independent complaints process, an independent scrutiny function and independent audits. It was supported by Professor Alexis Jay, who was the author of the report “The Future of Church Safeguarding”, known as the Jay review, and by local clergy in my constituency of Battersea. They made it clear to me that, while they are getting on with the day-to-day work of the Church, serving and supporting their local community on the frontline, they want to see the Church as an institution show some humility. Like me, they do not think that the Church should mark its own homework.
It was therefore a huge disappointment to me that the Synod chose not to back a wholly independent model of safeguarding. Instead, it opted for the creation of an external scrutiny body to examine the Church’s safeguarding practices. That approach was known as model 3, and it will see the transfer of most of the functions currently delivered by the Church’s national safeguarding team, except policy development, to an external employer.
Although model 3 includes looking at some of the practicalities of creating a fully independent safeguarding body to take on all the Church’s safeguarding work, I do not believe that that was the approach that needed to be taken, as I have outlined. It is vital, however, that the work is taken up with urgency and at pace. At present, there are no clear deadlines and no clear plan for taking the work forward. I believe we need to see a clear plan if we are to give victims and survivors, and the public, hope that the Church will really transform its approach to safeguarding, and the safety of those who are part of it.
It was right that the Synod voted to
“lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church”,
but we need to remember that keeping people safe and ensuring accountability is the best way to honour victims and survivors of abuse. Some are probably watching today’s debate; some may even be here in person. They will be listening, and they will know better than any of us that there is still a long way to go. The Church must treat its work on independent safeguarding operations as a matter of urgency. We need no more blocking; we just need action, because action will speak louder than any words that any of us say here today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland for his commitment to seeing this change through. He should be commended for his relentlessness in ensuring that this place has the opportunity to debate the issue. This is one of the first Adjournment debates on an issue that affects the Church, and it is important that many hon. Members have chosen to be in the Chamber, to contribute and to raise such important issues.
As I said when the Makin report was published in November last year, this has to be a watershed moment for the Church to transform both its culture and its safeguarding structures. Unless that happens, what will happen to the Church? Many of us here are Christians and followers of Jesus, so we want to see the Church change. The Church is a voice for the voiceless, as many of us know, and I hope I will not find myself in this Chamber in a year or two repeating the same sentiment.
Black History Month
Debate between Dawn Butler and Marsha De Cordova(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to take part in this debate on the Floor of the House in Government time for the first time ever. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) for her excellent speech. It is a pleasure to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. Talking about footballers, Raheem Sterling is from Brent—a proud Brent boy—as is Rachel Yankey, and they do amazing things in the community.
I thank the Minister for her moving and excellent speech. I am sure the Nigerians would disagree about jollof rice, but I will try not to get too involved in that. As she said, she is the first woman of Ghanaian decent at the Dispatch Box. I remember that when I stood at that Dispatch Box in 2009, and I was the first black woman ever to stand there as a Government Minister, it was so moving and I almost felt as though I had the weight of history on my shoulders. I congratulate her on that, and also on the Windrush announcement. That is a phenomenal announcement, and a lot of people today will be very grateful for it. I would like to thank Wendy Williams, Jacqueline McKenzie, Martin Forde and Patrick Vernon for all the work they have done on Windrush.
Reclaiming narratives is important for this Black History Month, because it is not about explaining black history, but about reclaiming some of the narratives out there changing some of the assumptions. I always remember a teacher saying to me at school, “Don’t assume, because when you ‘assume’ you make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’.” When I met Pam, whose family owned a cotton farm in Mississippi for over 100 years, I was expecting all these stories about uprisings and everything, and she just told me about the entrepreneurship, the sustainability and the fair pay. I was so enthralled by her story—mytunika.com—that I purchased the shirt I am wearing today, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for helping me iron it.
The thing about business is that it is easy for someone to make huge profits if they do not have to pay people, if they do not have to provide accommodation, if they do not have to treat them fairly and if they can treat them as if they are nobody. No one with a conscience or any compassion would say that is a good business model, but six years ago, in 2018, I received a message, as did everybody else in the country, to inform me that we had finished paying the reparations owed. The message said:
“The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”
I was absolutely shocked when I received that message. I thought, “I won’t consent to my taxpayer’s money paying slave owners compensation.” The British Government paid £20 million, which was 5% of GDP at the time, and that is now the equivalent of about £100 billion. This money was paid to compensate slave owners for lost capital associated with freeing slaves—40% of the UK’s budget. So there is a precedent for paying reparations for slavery; it has just been paid to the wrong people.
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech, and I must say her shirt is lovely. She is making a vital point about reparations, and does she agree that while it is important that we look to the future, we must also have that discussion about reparations, because both she and I are descendants of those who were enslaved?
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend. I understand that the Prime Minister has said we have to look to the future and that he is dealing with 14 years of corruption and mismanagement by the Conservative Government, but we do have to consider reparations because it is the right thing to do. This question makes me wonder whether it would ever be conceivable that this decision would be made today. Would we pay traffickers for their loss of trade? Would we pay pimps for their loss of trade? It is a ridiculous assertion.
So I thought to myself, who made this decision and how was it made? Obviously, it was made in Parliament. Back then there were no women, no black people, no people of colour; it was just white men and they made that decision. And we only finished paying nine years ago, so it is still very current.
While the British Government have not disclosed a complete list of the recipient individuals and firms of bonds related to compensation for slaves, researchers at University College London have compiled a list of over 46,000 current individuals and groups who have received Government payouts related to the abolition of slavery. Many powerful British families, including current business and political elites in the United Kingdom, are among the recipients uncovered by the UCL team. So when we hear the arguments that to make our money—to make our millions—we just have to work hard and pull ourselves up by our boot straps, that is not quite the full story. That is why the narrative needs to be reset, and structures created in order to uphold a white supremacist view need to be revisited and restructured.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Dawn Butler and Marsha De Cordova(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marsha De Cordova
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those working across all faiths to ensure that there is good, strong community cohesion, and I congratulate the retiring bishop. That is important across constituencies that, like Reading, have diverse communities with diversity in faith.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Marsha De Cordova
It is so important that we celebrate women who have been ordinated. Tuesday 12 March 2024 marked the 30th anniversary of the first ordinations of women as priests in the Church of England, and about 6,500 women have been ordained since 1994. Women now make up about one third of the clergy in England, and obviously this proportion is growing. Many services of celebration have taken place across the country to recognise the considerable contributions that these women have made and continue to make to the Church. However, as we all know, there is still a long way to go and much more work to be done in this area.
Dawn Butler
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent job she is doing today, and on her appointment. I want to highlight one particular woman, Bishop Rose. In 2007, she was appointed chaplain to Her late Majesty the Queen, the first ever black female to hold that role. In 2010, she was the first ever black female appointed as chaplain—the 79th chaplain—to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Since 2019, the Right Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin has been the Bishop of Dover and the Bishop in Canterbury—Britain’s first ever black female bishop. Will my hon. Friend join me in honouring Bishop Rose?
Marsha De Cordova
I take great pleasure in honouring the great Bishop Rose. As we all know, it is Black History Month, so there is double cause to do so. The diocese of London marked the anniversary, and there have been several services marking it across the country, in which 180 women have gathered to share their experience of ministry over the past 30 years. We all know what a difference Bishop Rose made to this place, including to me personally when I first came here seven and a half years ago. I should also pay tribute to Tricia Hillas, the Speaker’s chaplain for a period of time, another great and amazing woman. I am so proud of the role that women are playing in the Church. They are breaking down barriers and smashing those glass ceilings. Long may that continue.