Luke Myer
Main Page: Luke Myer (Labour - Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)Department Debates - View all Luke Myer's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I declare my role as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I am grateful that we have been granted this opportunity to discuss a serious matter of importance to our constituents, to the Church of England, and most importantly to the victims and survivors of abuse. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who are here on behalf of their constituents.
As a Member of Parliament and a Christian who believes in the Church and the positive, powerful role it plays in our communities, I believe that the stories of survivors and their calls for change must be heard, both here today and by the General Synod of the Church of England. For those in the Chamber, in the Gallery and at home, it is important to note that this debate may include difficult matters. I trust that it will be a measured debate. This is a sensitive topic, and I know that Members on both sides will want to advance the interests of those who have suffered abuse within the Church.
My constituent Dame Jasvinder Sanghera will be known to Members across the House for her campaigning on abuse of many kinds. She served as the survivor advocate on the Church of England’s independent safeguarding board. In this role, she worked closely with survivors, some of whom join us today. My team and I have worked with her since my election last year. Along with her colleague Steve Reeves, she has advocated for survivors by escalating their cases for review, challenging processes and pushing for justice. I commend her and her work.
In preparation for this debate, I met members of the group of survivors involved with the independent safeguarding board sample cases—they call themselves the ISB 11. I have heard stories that I will never forget. What struck me most is that they see themselves as survivors not only of the initial abuse they received but of the Church’s safeguarding process—one that has forced these brave and courageous people, who have stood up to power, to re-live, lengthen and even amplify the abuse they have received.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the way he is setting out this debate. Does he agree that independent safeguarding is paramount? As he said, survivors of abuse have had to re-live it over and over. This is an establishment where they should have felt safest.
Luke Myer
I could not agree more; that is the crux of my speech. It is essential that the victims and survivors are heard. I am grateful to the Minister and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, both of whom are leaders on these matters, for being here to hear the stories and to respond.
The stories include that of Mr X, who was the first and only survivor to have an ISB case review published. Throughout his life, Mr X has sought justice after he was abused by three individuals in the Church. He ended up having his business and livelihood destroyed by civil litigation and he is yet to see justice. Another survivor told me of an ongoing, decades-long fight for justice. West Midlands police commented on the case:
“it doesn’t normally take 20 years for a complaint to be investigated”.
Another survivor, a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that she now has a heart monitor because of her severe panic attacks. She told me:
“The priest that abused me still lives in my area. The community has ostracised me and I am now housebound, I want the truth to come out. Jas and Steve have supported me the best they can, at one point we talked every week. If they had not been there I think I would have taken my life.”
Another survivor told me that he feels that previous recommendations have fallen on deaf ears, with steps to protect perpetrators rather than to support victims. Perhaps most harrowingly of all, one of the ISB 11, who is just over 18 years old, having initially suffered abuse at the age of eight, is still fighting for justice. At such a young age, he has already been waiting over half his life to see justice. I have no doubt that many Members across this House will have heard similar stories.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate and for setting out what has happened in such measured terms. Mr X is a constituent of mine. I spoke to him this afternoon, and he described to me the catalogue of betrayals that he has been subject to from the age of 12 until now at the age of 56, initially through the abuse and then through subsequent failings by the Church of England. I thank my constituent for retelling his story to me; it is the 28th time that he has had to re-tell the story to a stranger. I thank him for sticking his neck out to try to get change. He told me that he has lost the ability to walk away from this. Does the hon. Member agree that it is only through meaningful accountability from the Church of England that he will get justice?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who I spoke to beforehand, for securing the debate. I, like others, seek some level of legal process, whatever that may be. Does he agree that the Church of England and all charitable bodies must be subject to the law of the land in exactly the same manner, whether religious or non-religious? Those working with vulnerable adults or children should have training and background searches, whether they are in a church hall or a local community hall. Safeguarding has to be of the same standard across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Justice is what we are after.
Luke Myer
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. His point reminds me of a line from the second report by Alexis Jay; I spoke to her at the weekend and she reiterated this to me. It says that that the
“Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations”,
whether those be local authorities or anything else.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. He is right that many constituencies have been affected. Members will have constituents who have suffered abuse in a place where they should have felt very safe. It is the same for the constituent who contacted me: he participated in football activities and experienced abuse as a young child that has affected the whole of his life. His mental health has been shredded.
There has been a lack of accountability, a lack of seriousness and slow pace from the Church of England when it comes to taking such cases seriously and giving people the justice they feel is necessary. The Church just does not seem to be catching up with the expectations of modern society and the safeguarding that happens in every other institution and organisation that works with young people and vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Church really has to pull its socks up and get its act together if it is to restore the faith that this country should have in this most honoured of institutions?
Luke Myer
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a real champion for her constituent and all her constituents. Sadly, the case that she has outlined is all too familiar and like many other cases across the country.
We owe it to the survivors and others who have endured physical, emotional and spiritual abuse to highlight the serious shortcomings in the Church’s safeguarding structures. Too often, while instances of abuse may have lasted moments, the Church’s processes for investigating and reviewing these cases have been painfully slow, frustrated and needlessly complex. It cannot be right that the systems intended to support survivors often further traumatised them.
I, too, have been told stories of those who tragically have taken their own lives in the view that their perpetrators will never face justice. Survivors tell me of feeling trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of uncertainty and distress. One told me that they will not feel fully comfortable while this issue is
“kept within the walls of the Church.”
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s efforts in getting the debate held. I have previously raised in the House the possibility of holding the Church of England accountable to the public through being subject to the strictures of the Freedom of Information Act. I was advised that that was unsuitable because it is technically not a public body, and yet it is an institution and part of the fabric of this country.
It is unconscionable for people who use and revere this institution to find that they are not safe in it, that instead it protects its own—it protects perpetrators—and that the people right at the top use the excuse of legal constructions or institutional formations to justify not pursuing these situations. Does my hon. Friend agree that as legislators we must argue for greater transparency in the Church of England, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about other public bodies?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member gets back to his feet, I should say that, although I can see that this is a serious and important debate, interventions must be short.
Luke Myer
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who has had a long career holding powerful people to account in many different ways. As she outlined, this is a case of an institution for which it is difficult to get accountability and transparency. I am glad that we have this forum to discuss these issues, but Parliament itself is quite limited in how it can hold the Church to account.
I sit on the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has to wait for Measures to come forward from the Synod to be approved. There is some discussion as to whether that Committee ought to have greater powers to hold the Church to account, but the broader point is the same as the one I made earlier, which is that the Church falls below the standards required of other organisations.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and for the way in which he is doing so. Does he agree that the technical nuances that caused the Church of England to go for option 3 rather than option 4 could be overcome by formulating a process of accountability around the safeguarding structures within the Church of England, to ensure that any provider of such services had a strong line of communication in order to hear what is needed in places such as York, where we have a cathedral, which I understand is where some of the challenges are coming from?
Luke Myer
I agree with my hon. Friend. Various issues were raised at Synod, and one of them was around the Charity Commission. I have discussed this precise issue with Professor Jay, and it is her view that there is nothing in this that cannot be resolved. I understand that the Charity Commission is taking a direct interest in safeguarding at the moment, and I hope that an arrangement can be made on that, but the point that my hon. Friend makes is right. There are too many blockers, culturally and in terms of technical details, but what the Church needs to do is move forward with pace and make sure that victims and survivors see justice.
It is our responsibility in this House to do all we can to urge the Church to act so that these failures are addressed, survivors’ voices are heard and meaningful, sensible and effective reforms are implemented. We touched on one of the main reforms earlier, and I will come to that in a moment, but before I do, let me be clear that I have the utmost respect for local clergy up and down the country who are doing so much work within our communities. I also respect the laity and all the volunteers who are doing good work to keep people safe, including the church wardens and the local parish safeguarding officers. They too are let down by systemic failure and many of them are crying out for change. In fact, it is my understanding that the sample carried out by the Church’s response group to the Jay report finds that not only survivors, but the majority of local clergy support the recommendations.
I also wish to recognise the work of many members of the General Synod, and in particular Clive Billenness, a lay member of the Synod who represented the Diocese in Europe and was a powerful ally of victims and survivors. He sadly passed away just last month, and I know that survivors truly valued his efforts and contribution to their cause. I also recognise the work of my own constituent, Father Adam Gaunt of Loftus, who has helped me to understand the structures of Synod and is working on the abuse redress scheme as well.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Speaking as a member of the Church of England and someone who has served on parochial church councils and as a church warden, I recognise how important it is that we move forward. He mentioned moving forward a moment ago, but in order to do that, is it not necessary for the leadership of the Church to take a lead on this? I say this with the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) listening to the debate. Surely the sooner we have a new Archbishop of Canterbury who can lead the Church and hopefully provide dynamic leadership for that institution, the better. Only then can the Church of England move forward.
Luke Myer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Church has been making various decisions on this, but it has not been moving forward with the required pace. My intention in bringing forward this debate is to shine a light on that and urge it to act with pace. I thank him for making that point.
I have listed various individuals and groups within the Church, and my intention in this debate is not to diminish or tarnish any of their contributions but to highlight how processes have not functioned and how survivors have been let down, and what we can do as a House to encourage the Church to implement better structures.
The journey of safeguarding reform in the Church is long and complex. It runs from the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 through the past cases reviews in the 2000s, the Chichester visitation in 2012, the establishment of the national safeguarding panel and national safeguarding team in 2014 and 2015, the Stobart review in 2018, the Social Care Institute for Excellence report in 2019, the Chichester/Peter Ball investigation in 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA—by Professor Jay, the Elliott report in 2020, the Wilkinson report in 2023 and the further Alexis Jay report in 2024 to the recent Makin report, among others.
We have had plenty of reports, but while some improvements have been made, there remains “systemic underlying vulnerabilities” arising from the Church’s safeguarding structure. Survivors have told me that there are complex, hard-to-navigate structures and slow, institutionally defensive responses. Around 2020, calls for an independent structure to oversee safeguarding practices emerged.
The Archbishops’ Council debated what that should look like—whether to create a fully independent body or to establish a board for the oversight of safeguarding, which would develop further independence. That board became the ISB, which was established in 2021. There were problems that affected the ISB, as the Wilkinson review explored, but its work was important. It built trust with victims and survivors. In fact, Mr X told me that he was
“initially sceptical of the ISB when it was set up”
but said that it went on to
“provide a ray of hope for the survivor community”.
By 2022, the ISB had started reviewing cases and making recommendations, with the first published in November that year, but, as Wilkinson found, there was a “lack of trust” between the ISB and the Church’s safeguarding structures concerning
“how the recommendations should be implemented.”
As issues escalated, ultimately, in June 2023 the board members were sacked and the board disbanded.
Wilkinson found that
“no risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council members about the effect of”
this decision
“on victims and survivors who were engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews”.
She went on to say that it
“showed lamentably little trauma-informed regard for the vulnerability of the individuals with whom the ISB were working”.
I have heard from some of the 11 survivors, who suffered mental distress after the decision. Three landed in emergency mental services, and two developed serious suicidal thoughts. Mr X called it an “obliteration of hope.” The treatment of survivors here is itself a serious safeguarding failure. It is clear that the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council has questions to answer.
Around the time of the dissolution of the ISB, Professor Jay was invited to provide recommendations on the way forward. Her report said that “the only way” in which safeguarding can be improved is by making it
“truly independent of the Church.”
The central problem is that the complexity of the Church means that rather than one approach, there are 42 different dioceses, each with different safeguarding systems. Safeguarding practitioners have said that this limits effective safeguarding. Professor Jay noted in her report:
“Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations.”
Lesley-Anne Ryder, the independent co-chair for the response group to Jay, said to Synod that
“this level of complexity is incomprehensible. It is counter productive”.
She said that it is
“One of the ways in which you are losing the trust…of the nation”.
The complexity creates a patchwork of different approaches. Some dioceses do implement robust safeguarding practices, and some have independent sexual violence advisers. The diocese of Newcastle has four permanent staff members with key safeguarding roles, including a caseworker and a training lead.
I pay tribute to the Bishop of Newcastle, whose leadership on the issue has been commendable. I met her last year to discuss these matters, and she has much support in the country and, I am sure, the House. Other dioceses, however, lack such comprehensive systems, often relying on bringing in external consultants. It is simply not acceptable that the experience of survivors should vary depending on where they live. There must be a unified and consistent system that is evenly resourced with the same quality of support, respecting the independent expertise of safeguarding professionals.
Professor Jay recommended the
“creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding.”
It is that issue that went before the General Synod last month. While Synod voted in favour of setting up an external scrutiny body, it only backed the principle of an independent operations body. That is deeply disappointing—a two-stage approach for an issue of such urgency, when survivors have already waited decades, moving from one system to another with no sign of any meaningful resolution. One survivor told me that he first reported his abuse over 40 years ago. Any further delay in delivering justice for survivors is simply unacceptable.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. The agreement of the Synod to
“affirm its commitment to greater independence”
going forward is an important step, but the decision on operations did not follow the recommendation from Professor Jay and many other specialists and professionals, or the preference of many survivors. I believe that more delay will simply confirm the survivors’ view that the Church is kicking the can down the road. Having spoken to Synod members, I do not think that that is the intention, but the reality is that, as things stand, this patchwork of procedures remains, and the Church effectively continues marking its own homework. That is clearly not acceptable.
We will hear from the Minister shortly. It is a welcome step that, earlier this year, the Government agreed to implement Professor Jay’s IICSA recommendations on safeguarding and abuse. That makes it all the more pressing that Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church be implemented, too. As Mr X said to me:
“This is a critical point for the Church.”
Scripture teaches us to
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.”
The Church ought to be a place of refuge, of grace, of trust. Yet, for far too many, it has been a place of harm. We have seen apologies, report and reviews, yet survivors still tell us that they are unheard, ignored and left to fight alone for basic justice. That must change. The Church’s safeguarding structures must be independent, transparent and accountable. Its days of marking its own homework must end. Survivors must be not just consulted but placed at the heart of reform. Let us be absolutely clear: protecting the reputation of an institution must never, ever come before protecting the safety of a person.
The test of faith is not in the easy moments but in the hard truths, and the hard truth is this: trust in the Church will only be restored when every survivor who steps forward is met with compassion, justice and meaningful action.