(addendum added 20 June)

OK, this is going to sound technical, but it matters, particularly as this concerns safeguarding.

First, the context. Once you are on General Synod, all sorts of strange things happen. You have the opportunity to ask a formal, public ‘Question’ for which a written answer is supplied in advance, and then a supplementary to which the answer, given in person, will then appear in the record of the meeting.

As a result of a Question I asked in February 2023, I now know there may be another stage: when you are informed that the answer to the supplementary was wrong. But what happens then? How do other people find out that it was wrong?

A warning: if you want to know what happened at Synod, I wouldn’t rely on the site claiming to be a ‘Record of past meetings’ with its list of ‘Reports of Proceedings’. As of two days ago, that only went up to July 2022, although now it includes February; the result of someone writing in to ask that this be organised more transparently. In general I’ve found one is better off with this one, then go down to each Synod meeting listed, and scroll down until you reach ‘Business done, voting results and report of proceedings’. It isn’t easy to find anything unless you know already where it will be, or you have a useful key word for which to search.

If you work your way through the material for the February 2023 Synod, you’ll find there, under Question 56, that I asked whether the Independent Safeguarding Board has been ‘subject to scrutiny by the Audit Committee of the Archbishops’ Council in relation to its formation and operation and, if so, with what outcome?’ The question was addressed to the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council but was answered on their behalf by Maureen Cole (the Chair of the Archbishops’ Council Audit Committee). She said no, it had not been subject to scrutiny, and added that the Archbishops’ Council ‘receives regular updates on safeguarding matters, including with regard to the work of the ISB’.

I then asked a supplementary picking up the answer to an earlier question on the independence of the ISB: ‘As the answer to question 49 clarified, the Archbishops’ Council created and paid for the ISB and so, as the Audit Committee has the power to request an audit of the board’s operation, have its members requested this and, if so, with what results?’ Maureen Cole replied: ‘We do not have the ability. We are not the Audit Committee of the ISB. We are the Audit Committee of the Archbishops’ Council. The thing that we can do and we have got included in the safeguarding risk is actually the governance and set-up. Archbishops’ Council are monitoring this situation, so we have to wait and see.’ I was also supported by Ian Paul (House of Clergy) and Clive Billenness (House of Laity), both of whom are members of the Audit Committee, who intervened to clarify the point that members of that Committee had asked to review the ISB, but this had been declined by the Archbishops’ Council.

But was that the end of the matter? No. 

On 1 March William Nye, the Secretary-General, forwarded to me a letter from Mrs Cole, with the same date, making a correction to the answer she gave. I thanked him, and asked whether this correction would be sent to members – the answer was that this is not routinely done when an answer needs correcting, and it would not be done in this case. However, an annex would be added when the proceedings of the February 2023 meeting were published. They are now online – I don’t know when they went up – but there is no sign of the annex. Perhaps it is buried so deeply that I can’t locate it; the Church of England website has become increasingly unfriendly even to the casual user.

So, for the record, here is what Mrs Cole wanted to say as the amended version (I have emboldened what I think are the most significant points):

When you asked in your supplementary about the power of the Archbishops’ Council’s Audit Committee to audit the work of the Independent Safeguarding Board, I replied that the Audit Committee did not have the ability to do that, as it is the Audit Committee of the Archbishops’ Council, not the Audit Committee of the ISB. At the time I gave the answer, I gave it in good faith, believing that the Audit Committee did not have that ability.

However, I have since looked into this matter further, and examined the arrangements under which the ISB operates during its present phase of work. They are as set out by Jamie Harrison in his answer to Question 49, to which you made reference. The members of the ISB currently operate as contractors to the Archbishops’ Council; but I was not familiar with this at the point when I answered your supplementary question. As a result of my follow up since Synod, I now realise that I have should have said that the AC’s Audit Committee does have the ability to commission an internal audit of all or of aspects of the work of the ISB, but that it has not done so. In answer to your specific question about members of the Audit Committee asking that there be such an audit, yes, it is the case that some Audit Committee members have suggested this. But we have not included such an internal audit in our audit plan for the Archbishops’ Council. The Council’s director of risk and assurance does not consider that, considering the degree of risk involved, it should be a priority for inclusion in the Council’s audit plan. However, this is an issue which the Council’s Audit Committee can keep under review.

It may be helpful if I add, for the avoidance of doubt, that the answers to the questions, and my clarification above, relate to internal audit. As to external audit, it is of course the case that the Archbishops’ Council’s expenditure on the work of the ISB will be subject to audit by our external auditors, just like any other item of AC spending. I do not suppose that that is what you had in mind, but I just wanted to clarify that distinction.

I am sorry not to have given a fully accurate answer to your supplementary question, but my answer was given in good faith, and I am happy to correct it.

William Nye assured me in two separate emails on 6 March and 17 April that this would appear as an annex to the February 2023 Proceedings. So far, it does not. It’s probably an oversight, but it’s an odd one, after the amount of correspondence I’ve had since February. Considering that safeguarding is rightly in the public eye at the moment, it worries me.

Addendum:

Following this blog post being brought to his attention, William Nye wrote to me again on 20 June. He stated that “It was an administrative error that the wrong version was uploaded to the website. But I am sorry both that the mistake was made, and also that you had to chase us about it again. Having discovered, via your blog, that we had uploaded the wrong version, I asked staff to correct this, and you will now find an up-to-date version on the website. Here is a link: Updated Report of proceedings Feb 2023.pdf (churchofengland.org) I, and the Synod Team, are sorry that this error was made.  I will take the opportunity to remind staff about the importance of timely and accurate corrections.”

As the Report still doesn’t have pagination throughout, it remains tricky to find my original question (the Search feature is the answer) and the correction to the blog appears on an unnumbered page immediately after p.221.