It was impossible to listen to the File on 4 programme ‘The Priest and the Payoff’ without an intense degree of sadness and shame. Whilst the failure in this case was spread across many different agencies, the heart of the problem lay with a church that is hidebound by heavy legal structures and processes many of which are not fit for purpose. This has caused years of needless suffering, traumatisation and re-traumatisation to survivors, some of whom have suffered life-changing harm. It has imposed an immense and intolerable strain upon those at the heart of the case and has resulted in the tragic loss to public ministry of Rowena Pailing, one of the most gifted priests I have ever served with.

There must be learning from this case, and that learning must result in change. Without real change, any apology is empty and hypocritical.

In the full interview I gave to File on 4, I outlined three areas in which I feel urgent change is necessary.

First, the status of risk assessments. In File on 4, a safeguarding expert asked why, if an independent and professional risk assessment had concluded that a priest was a risk, that priest was not immediately removed from office. The answer is an alarming one. No such action was taken because no legal path was available. A bishop can mandate a risk assessment. But he or she then has no legal authority to act on its conclusions.

In 2014, following the Visitation of Chichester Diocese, GS1941 was presented to Synod which was a consultation on legislative changes raised by the Visitation report. This document presented the option that the bishop or a tribunal could be given the power to remove a cleric altogether from office if the risk assessment concluded there was a safeguarding risk (para 30). This proposal received ‘very heavy criticism’ and was not taken forward. General Synod in 2014 therefore took a clear decision that clergy who are assessed as a risk should be able to continue in office. It is that decision that has led to the crisis at Blackburn Cathedral and to such suffering to survivors.

This issue must be addressed as a matter or urgency. The church will not be safe unless we are able to remove clergy and officers who demonstrably pose a danger to children and vulnerable adults. The decision made in 2014 must be revisited and a failure to do so in the light of the Blackburn case would be unconscionable.

Second, the terms and condition of clergy. The freehold lay at the heart of this case. It is not possible to prevent a priest with the freehold from ministering because they ‘own’ their office as if it were a piece of personal property. In 2009 the freehold was replaced with common tenure. However I am less than convinced that this has made much of an improvement. Such strong security of tenure is at odds with a modern safeguarding culture in which accountability is critical. To be a safer church we must address this issue.

In the Church Times in June 14th 2024, I wrote an article about clergy terms and conditions which focused on the eroding financial package that clergy received. Now seems to me to be the time for a major review of clergy terms and conditions which will bring them into the twenty first century. Such a review needs to look not just at the remuneration package offered to clergy, but at common tenure.

There are a number of possible options. But in my view the best way ahead is for clergy to become employees of the Diocesan Board of Finance with all the transparency and mutual accountability that offers. There are many misperceptions that employee status would bring negative restrictions. As a priest who has been an employee (during which time I felt the strongest sense of support and security I have known in three decades of ministry) I believe that there are ways in which clergy can enjoy the same freedoms in ministry they have now whilst also enjoying the protections of employee status. An advantage of this way ahead is that most disciplinary matters would be settled through an HR process rather than through long and clumsy legal procedures.

Third, the Clergy Discipline Measure. The process is well underway to replace the CDM with a new Clergy Conduct Measure passing through Synod. The CCM represents a significant improvement and will address many of the current weaknesses.

However any disciplinary process is only as good as those who administer it. It is critical therefore that the Church of England engage only those lawyers and judges who will attend to cases in a timely way and make just and fair determinations that are based on the evidence with a focus on that which will keep the church safe.

To reinforce this we need to have a mechanism to appeal against poorly argued or unjust determinations to avoid another situation similar to that which arose in Blackburn Cathedral.

Along with colleagues, I will be seeking ways to explore and advance these goals. Unless there is change, the suffering of victims and survivors of this and other cases will continue.

+Philip Blackburn