Decision

Findings & conclusions: Ampleforth Abbey

Published 12 July 2024

Applies to England and Wales

The administration, governance and management of Ampleforth Abbey (AAT)

The inquiry visited the Abbey in February/March 2017 to examine its governance and management, with particular focus on the approach to safeguarding, safeguarding processes and procedures and how they worked collaboratively with St Laurence Educational Trust (SLET) to ensure the safety of beneficiaries on the Ampleforth site. The inquiry team provided verbal regulatory advice to the AAT trustees in respect of their trustee responsibilities and risk management.

The inquiry found that there were a number of weaknesses and matters of concern in the administration, governance and management of AAT by the trustees in post at the time the inquiry was opened and, in the period, up to the appointment of the IM. The inquiry found that there were instances in which the AAT trustees did not fully comply with their responsibilities as trustees under charity law, which are detailed further below.

Upon her appointment in March 2018, the IM initially carried out a safeguarding review of the charities, which included an external audit which looked at the way in which individual safeguarding cases were investigated and managed (carried out by independent safeguarding consultants). The IM’s review looked at current practice at that time and the charity’s records for the past three years. It identified that the AAT trustees were all individuals from the monastic community. A number of the trustees were relatively new appointees, having either had no previous experience of charity trusteeship or having previously been a trustee some years ago. The IM found a lack of knowledge about what it meant to be a charity trustee and what good governance looked like. The inquiry found that the trustees therefore lacked confidence in how to discharge their duties effectively. In order to improve safeguarding practices at AAT, appropriate training and a review of the skillsets and expertise on the Board was required, as well as the right support and input from senior management with operational safeguarding responsibility.

The IM found that the AAT trustees did not always work as strategically as they should, particularly in relation to safeguarding and there was a tendency for the trustees to consider safeguarding reactively. The rationale for decision making was not always clearly recorded, sometimes with no audit trail showing how a particular decision had been taken and on what basis. The IM also found that the AAT trustees had not thought more broadly about safeguarding across the entire Ampleforth site (which they own) and across the range of its activities, instead focussing on particular matters of ongoing concern for the religious community.

The IM identified that the trustees’ obligations of loyalty to their brothers in the monastic community could have led to decisions being taken that were not always solely in the best interests of AAT. Whilst not a deliberate failing, it was a failure to recognise the potential negative impact of operating in such a closed structure with no external independent perspectives.

The IM found that communication between AAT and SLET was ineffective and required improvement. There was no formal communications framework/protocol or any effective formal dialogue taking place between the charities. The IM found that, at the time, the safeguarding committees of the charities did not address the needs and requirements of either charity adequately and there was ineffective communication and cross-working between them to ensure a holistic approach to safeguarding was taken. At the time, because of the significant issues facing the College in particular, it was the IM’s view that a joined-up approach to safeguarding was in the best interests of the respective charities and their beneficiaries.

The IM found that there was no comprehensive or reliable written record of complaints or allegations at AAT and an inconsistent system/protocol in place for identifying where policies and procedures were needed and the processes for drafting and adopting such policies. The inquiry found that some important safeguarding polices (such as relating to the Infirmary operated by AAT) were missing. The audit and assurance work carried out by independent safeguarding specialists in May – July 2018 following the IM’s appointment (which covered the policies used by AAT for the previous 3 years) identified weaknesses and issues across both charities, as well as specifically in relation to the safeguarding practices (across the site) at both the AAT and SLET. Across the site, it was identified that site security was inadequate and required improvement to effectively safeguard beneficiaries.

Management and handling of safeguarding incidents at AAT 

There were nine serious abuse allegations and/or convictions (both historic and recent) which the AAT trustees had been made aware of in 2014, 2015 and 2016 which were previously unreported to the Commission. The inquiry found that the trustees had failed to ensure that these matters were reported to the Commission at the relevant times as serious incidents (through a Report of a Serious Incident or “RSI”). This raised serious concerns about the adequacy of safeguarding which triggered the opening of the inquiry. The failure by the AAT trustees, in place during these periods, to ensure that these incidents were reported to the Commission constituted mismanagement in the administration of AAT.

In addition, between October 2017 and March 2018, the inquiry received five additional RSIs in relation to additional historic abuse allegations and recent serious safeguarding incidents involving pupils at the college (these reports came from both AAT and SLET). The inquiry considered these matters had not been reported to the Commission in a timely manner. The events reported in the RSI’s significantly undermined the information and assurances that had been provided by the AAT trustees at the inquiry visit in February and March 2017.

RSI reported in February 2018

One of the RSIs, received in February 2018, related to serious failings by certain AAT trustees in the handling of a serious safeguarding incident that took place in March 2017 that placed the pupils at the College at unnecessary risk. This incident involved the conduct of a member of the monastic community resident at the Abbey.

The inquiry identified that the acting superior at that time failed to recognise safeguarding concerns raised to him by individuals on at least four occasions and therefore did not refer concerns on to the safeguarding co-ordinator as required. This meant that children across the Ampleforth site were put at risk for an extended period of over nine months. The inquiry found that this constituted a failure to protect beneficiaries, a failure to act in the best interests of AAT and was mismanagement in the administration of AAT by the acting superior.

The acting superior had been aware, in his position as a trustee, of safeguarding concerns both historic and more recent, some of which had caused serious harm to individuals. The acting superior failed to ensure relevant procedures and policies were strictly adhered to and that any further concerns raised were managed appropriately to ensure student safety. The fact that the acting superior failed to recognise the concerns as safeguarding matters was particularly concerning to the inquiry. In November 2019, the inquiry disqualified the acting superior from acting as a trustee under section 181 of the Act for a period of three years based on its findings of misconduct and/or mismanagement.

The inquiry found that AAT had been exposed to significant reputational risks due to its failures to effectively manage safeguarding procedures and practices at Ampleforth and its failure to report incidents to the Commission. This has been compounded further by the ongoing concerns of statutory agencies throughout the inquiry about AAT’s ability to properly safeguard those who come into contact with the charity. This had substantially damaged public trust and confidence in the charity.

The inquiry found significant deficiencies in AAT’s handling of safeguarding matters and areas where its approach to safeguarding could be strengthened and improved. The IM reviewed the way in which the trustees of AAT managed safeguarding related matters and issues which impeded the trustees’ abilities to adequately protect individuals who come into contact with the charity. The IM’s report contained recommendations for improvement to AAT’s safeguarding procedures. These recommendations also consolidated recommendations for improvements arising from the Proctor report (appendix B) in the 12 months prior to the IM’s appointment and additional recommendations from the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) following its review of safeguarding plans and actions arising from an Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) inspection of the College in March 2018. The IM’s resulting recommendations consolidated her own findings, and those of the Proctor review and the LADO.

The IM oversaw the progress of the implementation of these recommendations which were implemented through the introduction of a Safeguarding Improvement Plan (‘SIP’), which contained detailed actions to implement the required improvements and defined timescales in which to carry them out. As this work developed, the SIP became a safeguarding development plan, a tool designed to promote continued safeguarding improvement work.

The IM supported the trustees of AAT to ensure changes to safeguarding practice were embedded across and throughout the charity and that a more professional culture was instilled in the way in which safeguarding incidents are managed and addressed. This included support in the recruitment of new and expert safeguarding trustees, new leadership of AAT and the appointment of experienced safeguarding personnel to manage safeguarding operations. Governance systems and oversight were also improved, giving the trustees better visibility through reporting to them at meetings.

Management of risks in relation to safeguarding

The inquiry found that the AAT trustees in post at the time of the opening of the inquiry were not taking adequate steps to manage safeguarding risks to children attending the College. These included risks arising from individuals at the Abbey who were managed under ‘safeguarding plans’ and under a ‘wayfarer’ scheme, which gave rise to risks due to the geographical proximity of the Abbey and College. The inquiry found there to be a lack of effective communication or collaboration between key safeguarding personnel around risk assessments which exposed beneficiaries to risks of harm.

Wayfarer Scheme

The Wayfarer Scheme involved AAT offering hospitality and shelter (including overnight accommodation) to guests visiting the Abbey in accordance with ancient traditions. However, guests were not subject to adequate background checks or risk assessments and their presence on the Ampleforth site posed a risk to the pupils due to the location of the Wayfarers’ room and a lack of adequate supervisory measures. In March 2018, the ISI conducted a regulatory compliance inspection of the College and identified potential risks to children arising from the offering of hospitality to ‘Wayfarers’ on the Ampleforth site. This practice was suspended in March 2018 and latterly, in June 2018, the decision was made to permanently terminate this practice with immediate effect.

Shortly before the appointment of the IM, in late February 2018, North Yorkshire Police became aware of an incident in which a Registered Sex Offender stayed overnight at the Abbey. Whilst no harm was identified from this incident and there was no reported contact with pupils at the College, this incident raised serious regulatory concern for the inquiry and partner agencies. The inquiry found that the trustees of AAT in place at that time were not taking adequate steps to manage the safeguarding risks arising from wayfarers visiting the Abbey.

Safeguarding Plans

At the time of the IM’s appointment, a total of five monks’ resident on the Ampleforth site were subject to safeguarding plans (formerly called covenants of care) or subject to some form of disciplinary restriction. Safeguarding plans were put in place to manage risks where an individual member of the monastic community posed any kind of safeguarding risk and, where appropriate, included restrictions on individuals from participating in activities in which children were involved or placed geographic restrictions on individuals on the Ampleforth site. Where appropriate, individuals were subject to supervision and monitoring to manage such risks. Other members of the monastic community subject to safeguarding plans were required to reside offsite in order to manage the risks they posed. The inquiry found that prior to the appointment of the IM, the status of any individual who resided at the Abbey who was subject to a safeguarding plan had to be cleared by Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and the AAT Safeguarding Commission in place at the time. Following her appointment, the IM conducted comprehensive risk assessments, in consultation with other statutory agencies, to determine if persons subject to safeguarding plans posed a risk to children or vulnerable adults such that a safeguarding plan is justified. Individuals whose continued residence at the Abbey posed an unacceptable risk to beneficiaries were moved permanently off-site.

Wider concerns and the Catholic Safeguarding Standards Agency (CSSA)

Throughout the inquiry, partner agencies have identified ongoing regulatory concerns in respect of the management of safeguarding at AAT. The North Yorkshire Safeguarding Children Partnership, the multi-agency safeguarding organisation for North Yorkshire identified recurring concerns during the inquiry as to the adequacy of safeguarding provision at AAT and a lack of confidence in these provisions and the charity’s culture and leadership. These concerns persisted despite the work overseen by the IM and work undertaken through the SIP to improve safeguarding at AAT.

AAT was subject to a case audit in January and February 2022 by the recently established CSSA. This audit raised no concerns of unsafe practice. It identified areas working well in addition to areas in need of improvement. In addition, AAT was then subject to a full baseline safeguarding audit by the CSSA in August 2023. This audit assessed the effectiveness of current safeguarding arrangements at AAT, concentrating on practice and developments during the last year. The audit found that AAT was meeting each of the eight standards examined, with exemplary demonstration in three of the standards.

Steps taken to strengthen safeguarding at AAT  

As has been reported above, the inquiry found evidence that there were significant weaknesses in AAT’s approach to safeguarding prior to and during the inquiry. The inquiry found evidence that beneficiaries were subject to risks of harm due to the way in which safeguarding incidents were managed and handled and the lack of a professional approach to safeguarding.

A key risk found during the inquiry was the lack of wider skills and experience within the AAT trustee Board, as the trustees were historically all from the monastic community. This risk was addressed during the inquiry through the appointment of new lay trustees which has complemented the existing skills and knowledge on the AAT Board.

The inquiry found that AAT suffered significant reputational damage from the historic abuse that occurred at Ampleforth. This has been compounded by the AAT’s handling and management of safeguarding incidents in the lead up to the inquiry and during it, which have contributed to the length of this inquiry.

The IM found that whilst the charities were supported in their work by separate committees, which reported separately to the respective charities, this approach did not adequately address the needs of AAT, exposing it to risks as it failed to recognise the inherent overlap in interests by virtue of the charities operating from a shared site for some of their activities. This has been addressed during the inquiry through the establishment of two new committees at AAT:

• AAT Safeguarding Panel: this is a standing panel of independent co-opted experts with appropriate safeguarding expertise which manages individual casework, and makes recommendations to the Abbot, via the Safeguarding Committee, in relation to the safeguarding arrangements for members of the monastic community about whom safeguarding concerns have been raised. The Panel operates in accordance with procedures set out by the CSSA
• AAT Safeguarding Committee: the role of this committee is to scrutinise, advise and report to the AAT Board on the overall performance and effectiveness of safeguarding across the activities of AAT, enabling the trustees to effectively discharge their duties with regard to safeguarding

Conclusions

This inquiry acknowledges but has not focused on the historic abuse that clearly occurred at Ampleforth and which resulted in significant harm to former pupils. As detailed in the IICSA case study (appendix A) into Ampleforth, children who attended the College and St Martins were subjected to appalling sexual abuse over decades perpetrated by both College staff and members of the monastic community.

The Commission’s examination of recent safeguarding at AAT has concluded that there were serious weaknesses in the charity’s approach to, and management of, safeguarding which exposed children on the Ampleforth site to unnecessary risk. These serious failures and the public exposure of these issues in 2016 damaged public trust and confidence and caused reputational damage to AAT which the Commission concludes constituted mismanagement by the trustees in place at that time.

The Commission identified serious failures in the way the charity dealt with safeguarding incidents, demonstrated by the handling of a safeguarding matter in March 2017 which resulted in a senior member of the monastic community resigning from their position and who was subsequently disqualified from being a trustee by the Commission. An IM was appointed to both AAT and SLET to assess the adequacy of safeguarding within the charities, identify areas for improvement and implement the changes required. The IM put in place a framework and infrastructure by which the AAT trustees could address necessary cultural change and ensure the effectiveness of safeguarding across the Ampleforth site, which has been developed further by the trustees in the intervening period since the IM was discharged. The IM worked with the trustees to help them better understand their safeguarding governance responsibilities, and to take a more professional approach to safeguarding.

The Commission notes the steps taken throughout the inquiry by the AAT trustees to improve safeguarding at AAT and across the site in collaboration with the trustees of SLET. With the support of the IM, the AAT trustees undertook a structured review of the corporate and governance structures in place and latterly, have taken steps to separate their governance and the physical site which they share with the College.

The Commission acknowledges the cooperation of the AAT trustees in place during the inquiry and the significant progress that has been made since 2017 to improve the governance and administration at AAT. The AAT trustees worked effectively and collaboratively with the IM to ensure timely progress was made to complete the actions within the SIP and with the inquiry regarding the Order issued under section 84. Changes to safeguarding practice are now embedded across and throughout AAT, and there is now a professional culture adopted in the way in which safeguarding incidents are managed and addressed. AAT has benefitted from the recruitment of new and expert safeguarding trustees, new executive leadership and the appointment of experienced safeguarding personnel to manage safeguarding operations.

AAT now has the foundations in place to ensure safeguarding is carried out effectively and the right personnel are in place to lead AAT in building on those foundations. The Commission acknowledges the recent positive audit conducted at AAT by the CSSA in August 2023 which demonstrates independent recognition of the effectiveness of AAT’s current safeguarding processes.