THE General Synod voted on the Tuesday to create an independent body to scrutinise its safeguarding work, but stopped in need of outsourcing all safeguarding functions to an external organisation.
Before the controversy could begin, Sam Margrave (Coventry) made a degree of order to object that an amendment in his name had been withdrawn — something that, he angrily insisted, he had not done.
The chair began to clarify that Mr Margrave had emailed the Clerk to the Synod to withdraw it late the previous night. An irate Mr Margrave, nonetheless, began shouting over the chair, demanding that his amendment for “full independence” be restored to the order paper and calling the situation a “disgrace”. Unable to stop him from talking, the chair threatened to adjourn the sitting of the Synod.
The dispute centred on an email sent by Mr Margrave at half past midnight, which the Clerk had interpreted as withdrawing his amendment. The Clerk replied at 5.30 a.m. asking for clarification. Mr Margrave didn’t reply until 8.30 a.m., at which point the order paper had been finalised. In any case, it was considered by the Clerk that Mr Margrave’s amendment was covered by one other, which was on the order paper, being proposed by Martin Sewell (Rochester).
After one other procedural objection — in regards to the order during which the amendments can be taken — had been dismissed by the chair, the session was in a position to proceed, starting with a presentation by the independent co-chair of the Response Group that had developed the proposals, Lesley-Anne Ryder.
She told the Synod that one in every of the ways during which the Church was losing the “trust and confidence of the nation” was that the principles under which it operated were obscure. She cited the terms of service for clergy and the problem of removing priests from certain posts for example. The Church had reasons for these rules, she said, but “in the true world, those reasons don’t make sense.”
“You have created structures which confuse people, and cause suspicion,” she said, and it “wasn’t adequate” to suggest that the systems should remain because that was the best way things had at all times been done.
“You mustn’t be tempted to cover behind the networked nature of the Church,” she said, as an excuse for inconsistency between dioceses; and suggested that moving staff from diocesan teams to a latest national body was possible.
The Church needed help from safeguarding experts in addition to survivors because it designed latest structures, she said, though she acknowledged that there was disagreement inside the Response Group about what the model needs to be.
There was no collective suggestion from the Response Group, she said, but she herself endorsed Model 4. There was no reason that, “in time”, it couldn’t change into a highly effective system. “Synod, that is your moment, please use it properly,” she concluded.
Opening the controversy, the chair explained that the Synod was, unusually, being asked to think about multiple option concurrently, which was not straightforward under its Standing Orders. Hence, there was a thicket of amendments, some consequential on others.
The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), the lead bishop for safeguarding, moved her motion. She thanked the Synod for its advice and challenge over the past yr because the Church of England wrestled with reforming its safeguarding procedures. “What is the very best we are able to do to make our Church as secure as possible?” she asked.
Contrary to some messages from beyond the chamber, the Church’s popularity wouldn’t depend solely on the Synod’s decision today, she reassured the members. In fact, there was much that everybody agreed on: effective scrutiny of safeguarding work through a latest statutory body; high-quality parish safeguarding officers; evenly resourced and skilled operational work throughout the dioceses; and complaints processes that offered resolution and closure.
The pain of victims and survivors was on the forefront of everyone’s minds on the Response Group, she said, as was the “deficit of trust” within the Church. Members had disagreed passionately but graciously, and she or he urged the Synod to follow its example.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe independent co-chair of the Response Group, Lesley-Anne Ryder
“We need to move forward, not simply to end a painful and shameful time of reckoning about church abuse, but in order that we decide in regards to the form of culture we wish to construct.” Both Model 3 and Model 4 would represent “considerable progress”, she said. Both would introduce independence for audit, complaints, and scrutiny functions to assist the Church to learn and improve.
In each models, the Church would retain responsibility for policy development, something that the Charity Commission had advised couldn’t be outsourced. Policy and guidance would proceed to be dropped at the ground of the Synod.
But Model 4 would bring all diocesan and cathedral safeguarding officers into the brand new independent operational safeguarding body, together with the National Safeguarding Team. This was the model that Dr Grenfell would vote for, she said, so that everybody could have a “consistent, high-quality response” in a timely manner. This couldn’t be refrained from bringing all staff into one body, managed together, and with consistent skilled development.
The officers would proceed to work embedded within the dioceses, having a seat on the table locally, but can be employed independently. This would help to reassure people and rebuild trust, Dr Grenfell said, answering the concerns of each Parliament and the Charity Commission. “They don’t believe we are able to do things ourselves; so we want to set things up so there will be no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”
Making this “radical change” wouldn’t be easy, she admitted. Trustees of charities must proceed to carry responsibility and accountability for safeguarding, but this may very well be delivered by commissioning an external supplier, based on their legal advice. More questions were still to be answered, but the problems raised were “how-tos”, not “why-nots”, she said.
The Dean of Blackburn, the Ven. Peter Howell-Jones (Northern Deans), referred to his experience within the case of Canon Andrew Hindley (News, 14 August 2024), saying that he had seen “first hand” the systemic failings of safeguarding processes.
“This is about current handling of safeguarding cases,” he said, not non-recent issues. Current practice was “abusive” and prioritised “self-protection”, he suggested, and what was needed was a relinquishing of power. The Church was not able to doing safeguarding itself, he said, and so this needs to be outsourced.
The independence needed to increase to the design of the brand new structures, and survivors needs to be intimately involved in the method.
Shayne Ardron (Leicester) said that she intended to vote for Model 3, and gave the instance of a leg brace: the Church needed an external brace, however the pins needed to be internal for healing to be promoted “from inside”.
“We can’t pretend that all the things is superb, but nor do I believe we are able to outsource all the things,” she said. Independent scrutiny was vital, since the Church mustn’t be marking its own homework — but outsourcing was just a little bit like asking another person to really do the Church’s homework, she said.
She called for diocesan teams to be given more resources: entral funds needs to be used to enable greater consistency of safeguarding practice.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova MP, said that the past few months had been an unprecedented crisis for the Church of England, and MPs, including her, had “rightly expressed concern and anger” for the reason that publication of the Makin report on John Smyth.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesKashmir Gorton (Worcester)
“This have to be a watershed moment for the Church: these failures can never occur again,” she said. The Synod must display to Parliament and the general public that it was committed to vary. Good work was occurring each within the national team and in parishes across England, she said, but safeguarding needed to be transparent, accountable, and consistent — trusted by the general public and by survivors.
Model 4 was, subsequently, one of the best ways forward, she argued. Yes, implementation would take time and resources, but Model 4 “can be that first step towards restoring trust”. If the Church desired to honour victims and survivors, change had to start today. She pleaded with the Synod to let her pass on “excellent news” when she reported to her parliamentary colleagues later this month.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, a former lead bishop for safeguarding, said that the present debate was a part of a “greater set of issues” for the Church. “Culture eats structure for breakfast,” he warned. It was not poor structures that had prevented Iwerne camp leaders’ reporting Smyth. It had not been poor structures that led to bishops’ not putting victims on the centre of their considering when making safeguarding decisions. It was culture — focused on the institution of the Church — which was so “subtle and so powerful that at times we don’t even realise it is occurring”.
Model 3 would give the C of E the very best likelihood to counteract this culture, leaving safeguarding officers working in and for his or her dioceses. But, whatever route was taken, he urged members to remain focused on culture change, starting with “profound repentance, which ends up in change in hearts and minds, in addition to structures”. The tendency to institutional self-protection needed to be rooted out, and replaced with putting the interests of survivors at the center of all that the Church did.
Kashmir Garton (Worcester) acknowledged that many survivors felt that the Church couldn’t be trusted to do its own safeguarding, but she couldn’t support Model 4. She recalled how, a decade ago, many probation staff had been outsourced to personal corporations, but, after seven years, all those staff had been brought back into the general public sector. This experience offered a salutary warning of the pitfalls in attempting to implement Model 4. Model 3, nonetheless, would allow safeguarding professionals to proceed in-house, to assist to shape safeguarding culture. “Just as we’re seeing signs of improvement, Model 4 will introduce uncertainty on this critical area,” she warned. “Safeguarding have to be done by the Church, not to it.”
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) spoke in favour of Model 4. The Church was at a tipping point. “The current system has failed, and keeps on failing,” she said, arguing that this technique prioritised the institution over justice. Survivors demanded full independence with consistent national processes and “external scrutiny with real teeth”. The easier option of Model 3 was only a half measure, and wouldn’t eliminate inevitable conflicts of interest. “The Church must prioritise justice and safety over convenience. Vote for Model 4: vote for accountability, vote for justice, vote for survivors.”
Stephen Hogg (Leeds) said that he was not confident that Model 4 may very well be delivered quickly enough. Moving a whole bunch of staff to a latest body was not a simple process, and risked negatively affecting the culture of church safeguarding.
“This will take years to establish, and it is going to be a large distraction, potentially, for our safeguarding teams,” he said. The complexities also threatened a “governance nightmare”. Model 4 risked “kicking the can down the road”, and Model 3 was a “higher, quicker solution”. He urged members to vote for the latter.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that the clergy weren’t, by and huge, “accountable for what we do”. “We won’t fix the safeguarding until we fix the HR,” he said; but concerns about accountability weren’t fully addressed by the structures being proposed, and, to this end, he called for consideration of knowledgeable association for the clergy. His favoured option for safeguarding was the Bishop of Blackburn’s proposal, tabled as an amendment, for an intermediate option between Models 3 and 4, but he said that the discussion mustn’t end there.
Canon Valerie Plumb (Oxford) said that, as a survivor, she bore a “thorn in her side” for the remaining of her life. She felt “unsafe” as a girl and a priest attempting to minister in a “despicable landscape”. “If we wish to rid ourselves of this darkness, effective motion have to be taken now.” The Church owed it to survivors to make things right. That meant holding those that had failed accountable. Do the best thing for the Church, survivors, and the Kingdom, and vote for Model 4, she urged.
Robin Lunn (Worcester) said that he had canvassed opinion within the diocese of Worcester in a survey, consulting cops and other safeguarding experts. Overwhelmingly, people had supported Model 4, he said. All knew that it was not an ideal fix, but “any mistakes can be for the best reasons,” he said. He wanted clarification from Dr Grenfell that funding can be the identical for either option, and that outsourcing wouldn’t result in redundancies. The “tumour” of safeguarding failures needed to be cut out of the Church.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester)
The Revd Nicki Pennington (Carlisle) said that every one within the Church deserved protection from abuse, and the tending of their wounds. Calls for radical change through Model 4 were compelling, but she was concerned that it couldn’t deliver effective safeguarding. She had spent 25 years as a social employee before ordination, which had taught her that interfaces were places where safeguarding problems slipped through the cracks. Model 4 introduced latest interfaces between different organisations, raising this risk and creating weaknesses in processes. Resourcing safeguarding within the parishes didn’t appear to have been considered on this conversation. Would there be more funds for diocesan safeguarding officers who were faced with an ever-expanding role, she asked.
The Revd William Harwood (Truro) said that he was a victim of church-related abuse, and was determined to challenge the powers that had permitted and covered up abuse. “Any change is being hampered by a secretive, self-protecting House of Bishops,” he said. They had not put victims and survivors on the centre, but were attempting to “protect their power base”. New bishops were needed to rebuild trust: culture couldn’t change until the House of Bishops modified. Why was the Bishop of Newcastle a lone voice within the House, he asked. “You should not alone. You should not the bishop of negativity: you’re the bishop of courage and transparency,” he told her, to some scattered applause across the chamber. Model 4 was one of the best ways forward, he said, as a chance to vary the culture.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), revealed that, as a young person, she had been abused by a family friend. The longer-lasting scars had been caused not by the abuse itself, but by her parents’ clumsy response, years later. They weren’t “bad people”, but simply out of their depth. That was the position that the Church was putting its leaders in. Most bishops weren’t attempting to cause harm, but were using their power in ways in which they weren’t expert in. There were good people on either side of this debate on Model 4, she said, but that route was probably the most “serious” response, despite its complexity and price.
The C of E was too complicated, she argued, however the Synod could sort this out, turning 85 different safeguarding employers into only one. Victims and survivors had overwhelmingly told the Church that Model 4 was their preference. A “postcode lottery” was not acceptable, and speakers in favour of Model 3 were largely coming from contexts where safeguarding was already working well, and were, subsequently, unaware of other places where it was failing. She reiterated that fixing safeguarding was only one a part of a broader piece of labor within the Church.
The Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty (Northern Suffragans), deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, said that “gold standard independent safeguarding delivery alone won’t be enough.” The decision the Synod was taking wouldn’t affect the “radical change” needed in HR, accountability, and governance — a degree that she said she would keep making “until we do something about it”.
Listen rigorously to the recommendation of external safeguarding experts and survivors, she said. “We have to to go that extra mile, for now we have broken trust with survivors and with our nation.” That meant selecting Model 4. “Our safeguarding crises just could also be providing us with the humbling that we want, but, Synod, I urge you to be bolder.”
Mr Sewell then moved his amendment, to call for “total independence” moderately than “greater independence”. He recalled how the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) had collapsed largely due to a failed definition of what independence actually meant. Independence must mean that the body delivering safeguarding must behave “objectively, impartially, and consistently without bias or conflicts of interest”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller
Model 3 would fail this test, as the first accountability of diocesan safeguarding officers (DSOs) would still be to their diocese. It simply “recycled current problems into the longer term”. He attacked the DSOs promoting Model 3 as simply protecting their very own interests and the “multi-million-pound safeguarding industry” that was backing them. Total independence would threaten their healthy contracts with the Church, he said, which was why Model 3 was the “supplier’s preference”. Model 4 would allow the secular world to take over safeguarding, which was essential, as they might do it higher. He urged the Synod to vote for Model 3.
In response, Dr Grenfell said that she valued Mr Sewell’s perspective, but that the Response Group had change into very alive to the complexity of what independence meant. Adding the word “total” wouldn’t help matters, and legally the Church needed to retain some control over safeguarding, based on the Charity Commission. She resisted the amendment in order that each Model 3 and Model 4 could proceed to be debated properly.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that he had previously backed Model 3, but had now modified his mind. He had consulted his diocesan safeguarding team, who mostly supported Model 3, but he now disagreed. Bishops weren’t managers, but shepherds, and his concern was not with the detail of the proposals, but with rebuilding trust. Model 4 was the one solution to ensure a “cultural reset” and rebuild trust. Inserting the word “total” was too vague, nonetheless, and wouldn’t add much to the motion. He would vote against the amendment, but for the primary motion and Model 4.
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool) said that she was conflicted. She had concerns in regards to the part played by charity trustees, and the way they might find a way to retain enough oversight over latest safeguarding models to discharge their legal duties. None the less, Model 4 was the one way forward.
Clive Billenness (Europe) said that voting for the amendment would mean getting Model 3 on the best way anyway, as no “sane programme manager” would try to maneuver all 85 local safeguarding authorities to the brand new body in a single go. The decentralised structure of the C of E meant that there would at all times be inconsistencies of delivery.
The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Mark Tanner, spoke in favour of “simplicity and transparency”, which was what the amendment offered, he said. He remained cautious about the way to make it work, but the controversy was in regards to the direction of travel, not the main points. Survivors told him that they wanted simplicity, and the amendment can be helpful in providing that.
Philip Baldwin (London) also supported the amendment and Model 4, especially because it created consistency across dioceses and represented radical change. “We have to alter the facility dynamic around safeguarding and be brave,” he argued: “no more conflicts of interest, no more cover-ups.”
The Revd Joy Mawdesley (Oxford) opposed the amendment as cutting off further debate. No other organisation had placed all safeguarding functions into an external body: “It is untried and untested and subsequently dangerous.” Model 4 would also undermine the mantra “Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility,” which was starting to vary the culture of the Church. An external organisation would create a disconnect between parishes and people elsewhere, if safeguarding was another person’s responsibility. She knew that not all survivors were of 1 mind, and a few did support Model 3, as did many safeguarding practitioners within the Church.
Mr Sewell’s amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 26-6, with 4 recorded abstentions; Clergy 128-34, with six recorded abstentions; Laity lost by 126-46, with 12 recorded abstentions.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally
Robert Hammond (Chelmsford) then rose to introduce his motion, which might amend Dr Grenfell’s motion, in order that Model 4 was taken off the table. He did so in his capability because the chair of the Business Committee, neutrally, but said that he had to attract members’ attention to an open letter opposing Model 4 and signed by greater than 100 diocesan safeguarding officials.
In response, Dr Grenfell said that she welcomed the prospect to check the 2 models and help the Synod to make its alternative. Whatever model was chosen, there remained more work to do to refine the main points in order that it may very well be brought back for full legislative scrutiny.
The Archbishop of York said that he had been ordained in a C of E without safeguarding training, officers, and even policy. When he was a curate, a teenager had made a disclosure to him, nevertheless it was “sheer luck” that a social employee in his congregation had helped him to make a very good response. “Even as a latest bishop, 21 years ago, the diocese where I served only had one half-time safeguarding officer,” he recalled.
He had seen the changes remodeled the past years, and didn’t wish to do anything to undermine diocesan safeguarding officers. These teams had been a key a part of the Church’s journey towards becoming a safer body. “But I actually have also lived with the inadequacies of our processes — I believe I’ll know greater than most how unsatisfactory that is,” he said. He had also seen the shortage of consistency between dioceses, and knew that trust was broken. Therefore, he can be voting for Model 4. He insisted that the alternative was not between listening to victims on the one side, and diocesan safeguarding teams on the opposite: “We must hearken to each.” Model 4 would mean that diocesan teams remained embedded within the dioceses.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), a member of the Response Group, said that there was expertise from each outside experts and survivors on the group. He said that changes in statute and regulation may lead to culture change, referring to examples equivalent to seatbelt laws, or the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces. His concern was the way to be as independent as possible while remaining embedded in dioceses.
The Vicar General of York, the Rt Worshipful Peter Collier KC, said that cathedrals were especially dangerous places for safeguarding, with choristers, outside contractors, large workforces, and ever-changing congregations. Cathedral Chapters, equivalent to the one which he sat on in York, took their safeguarding responsibilities very seriously, and were answerable to the Charity Commission. Model 4 would stretch good governance, as they might not find a way to pick out their very own provider of safeguarding services. What would occur if the skin body’s interests diverged from the Chapter, he asked, on condition that the last word recourse of fixing provider of safeguarding was not open to cathedrals?
James Wilson (Manchester) said that, although things may be improving in safeguarding, they did so “from a low base”. Professor Alexis Jay had written in her report that the diocesan model was incompatible with a high-quality and accountable safeguarding system. Consistency of resources and practice across dioceses was mandatory, he said, and this may very well be delivered only by Model 4.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, said that the choices needs to be based on evidence, and probably the most substantial body of evidence available to the Church was the outcomes of the INEQE audit programme. He referred to the primary annual report from the audit programme published earlier within the month (News, 14 February), and said that it had not received the eye that it deserved. “Safeguarding have to be done by the Church, not to the Church,” he said, quoting from NEQE’s lead auditor, Jim Gamble. “INEQE favours option three, as, on balance, do I,” Bishop Mounstephen said, although he was “open to persuasion”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen
The amendment was lost.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, then moved his amendment, which offered a hybrid mix of the 2 models, endorsing Model 3 while further work to attempt to iron out the problems with Model 4 continued.
Bishop North said that Model 4 presented serious problems, and that the information that the Jay review had used to succeed in its conclusions had been strongly challenged. INEQE had done a more comprehensive audit, and had come to very different conclusions. He also raised the issues of the indissoluble contract between dioceses and cathedrals and the independent safeguarding provider, which had been raised by Judge Collier. The Church should listen rigorously to the 106 safeguarding professionals who opposed Model 4, he said. He described implementing it as “eye-wateringly complicated”, and too slow. “In an try to change our popularity, we’ll make it worse” if nothing was seen to vary for years, he said.
Model 3 may very well be implemented right away, while details for Model 4 may very well be worked out later — representing clear, radical progress to change into a safer Church, while due diligence was accomplished on Model 4. “This amendment is in regards to the very opposite of long grass,” he insisted. He was offering a “third way” between the bruising binary debate that the Synod had already had, avoiding winners and losers. If Model 4 turned out to be too radical to deliver, his amendment would mean that some independence had still been brought in regardless moderately than all progress lost.
Dr Grenfell said that selecting a straight Model 4 would probably look quite just like Bishop North’s proposal, as they might naturally begin with creating the scrutiny function first. But bolting Model 4 on to an existing Model 3 later can be clunky and difficult. The amendment would add more uncertainty and delay things. “You can’t set off and not using a vision of what the tip point might seem like.”
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, praised parish and diocesan safeguarding teams, and paid tribute to survivors. Independent safeguarding and mandatory reporting were required, she argued, quoting words from Baroness Butler-Sloss (chair of the Ecclesiastical Committee in Parliament), who called for urgent motion on behalf of the Church. She opposed the amendment, warning that there was an excessive amount of inconsistency between the dioceses, despite the heroic efforts of DSOs. The concerns in regards to the complexities of this model could still be overcome, and they need to be overcome, she said. Operational safeguarding must not be kicked into the long grass.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) backed the amendment, and Model 3 as a staging post. Over time, independently managed safeguarding teams would change into remoter from the front-line parish safeguarding officers, he warned. He called for an choice to be available for local safeguarding bodies to be put under “special measures” if performance was less than scratch.
The Revd Paul Langham (Bristol) said that the analogy of homework was imperfect, nevertheless it gave some clarity on the disagreement. “We are all agreed that we should always not be allowed to mark our own work; we disagree on whether we should always proceed to do our own work,” he said. What mattered was not “giving the looks of radical change, but achieving the best radical outcomes”, and supported Bishop North’s amendment.
Professor Helen King (Oxford) said that, despite quite a few briefings and meetings, she had found it difficult to make her mind up in regards to the options. She had been looking forward to hearing about “Model 3.5”, as proposed by Bishop North, because she didn’t like binaries. But it wouldn’t work, she said. She favoured Model 4.
Busola Sodeinde (London) said she felt neutral between Model 3 or 4, as the important thing issue was not structure, but trust and culture. Many businesses relied on specialised manufacturers to create core parts of their products; so outsourcing was not necessarily unimaginable. But all must remain chargeable for safeguarding, regardless. Bishop North’s amendment was the very best solution to a more robust model and restored trust.
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, said that he had found the Makin debate the day before today “deeply moving”, especially hearing from a survivor how traumatising they’d found the Church’s mishandling of their report. In the sunshine of that, was it “judicious” to maneuver to a wholly untested safeguarding system in Model 4? “We are at risk of calling for the creation of an entity that is just too big to fail,” he warned. Currently, if one safeguarding team failed, it didn’t mean that others can be affected. If the Church invested all safeguarding in a single monopoly provider, when problems arose, there can be no recourse to alternatives. “We would find ourselves within the worst of all possible worlds,” he said, worse than the collapse of the Independent Safeguarding Board.
The Revd Robert Thompson (London) reminded the Synod that Parliament and the general public were watching. He supported Model 4, recognising that it had drawbacks. But, even under Model 4, safeguarding would remain the responsibility of all within the Church (with the identical training and promotion), however the individuals who delivered it could not be open to manipulation by senior staff. Trust within the Bishops was at all-time low, he said. The arguments against Model 4 didn’t match as much as the crisis in confidence. The Church needed to signal that it was serious about change.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesVicky Brett (Peterborough)
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) was previously a child-protection lawyer. There needed to be responsible management of safeguarding procedures, she said. Safeguarding reforms needed to associate with other work on discipline and conduct. She also had concerns that registrars were being asked to get too involved, without the best background or training.
Bishop North’s amendment was carried in a vote by Houses: Bishops 23-14, with one recorded abstention; Clergy 114-65, with two recorded abstentions; Laity 106-86, with three recorded abstentions.
Mr Billenness then moved an amendment requesting the establishment of a public body, “The Church of England (Safeguarding Independence) Transition Board”, to develop the structure of a latest independent body to oversee safeguarding activities on behalf of the Church.
Dr Grenfell resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Mr Margrave then moved his amendment, to ask the Government to reform charity law in order that true, full independence may very well be achieved for the Church in the longer term. An ombudsman model moderately than an Ofsted-style body can be aligned with the desires of most survivors, he argued. Safeguarding professionals needs to be completely free to pursue what they thought was best, with none implicit pressure from their employer. Model 3 didn’t go far enough, and neither did Model 4, but to go further would wish a change within the law, he said.
Dr Grenfell resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Mr Margrave then moved his next amendment, so as to add words “lamenting and repenting” of the Church’s failures in safeguarding.
Dr Grenfell resisted the amendment, arguing that repentance needed to be more rigorously planned than “tacked on to the tip of a motion about something else”. She asked members to honour the method under way with the Redress Scheme, which was exploring the way to show corporate repentance, and would shortly bring ideas to the Synod.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) said that much of the controversy had focused on technicalities, but there was also a time to be sorry to survivors and to “the Lord Jesus Christ for blemishing his name”. He supported the amendment.
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) said that she, too, didn’t think the Church could ask for forgiveness enough, and would also support the amendment. “It doesn’t matter if it was tacked on — apologies are apologies.”
Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) said that language may very well be improved in the longer term, however the Church, nevertheless, still meant its apologies today, and so should pass the amendment.
The Archdeacon for Rural Mission, the Ven. Sally Gaze (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), said that it was right to ask for forgiveness to those that had been hurt.
Samuel Wilson (Chester) said that institutional apologies may very well be said without really meaning very much, in the event that they were unspecific and vague. This amendment was one in every of those.
The amendment was was carried by 315-24, with 36 recorded abstentions.
Fr Stephen Maxfield (Greek Orthodox Church) said that there may be consequences for other denominations within the UK if the Established Church had an independent body accountable for its safeguarding.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) warned against complacency. “The radical change that we so need must occur not only in our structures, but in ourselves,” she said. She asked for attention to be paid to to how power operated within the Church.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) supported independent safeguarding and the motion as amended: “People own what they create.”
The Archdeacon of Oxford, the Ven. Jonathan Chaffey (Oxford), acknowledged that some can be upset that Model 4 wasn’t being taken forward immediately, but this approach allowed the Church to construct on its progress.
Canon Paul Cartwright (Leeds) was “sad” that the Church had decided to go to Model 4 via Model 3 and fearful that the last word destination might never be reached. He called on the House of Bishops to make sure that momentum was not lost.
The Bishop in Europe, Dr Robert Innes, said that a straight move to Model 4 would have been very difficult for his diocese, under a plethora of various Continental charity regulations. He paid tribute to diocesan safeguarding officers and thanked them for his or her efforts.
Catherine Stephenson (Leeds) recounted the story of a friend who had been sexually abused by a teacher. Her friend found it hard to relate to the labels of “victim” or “survivor”, and didn’t wish to be defined by them. Her friend preferred Model 4, but she urged the Synod to vote in favour of the motion as amended, nevertheless.
After a couple of moments of silent reflection, the amended motion was put to the vote. It was passed 392-9, with six recorded abstentions.
That this Synod:
(a) thank all those involved in Church safeguarding, particularly the victims and survivors who give so generously of their wisdom and experience, often at great personal cost, and parish safeguarding officers who ensure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those that support them in dioceses;
(b) affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding within the Church of England;
(c) thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding within the Church of England, and, noting the numerous reservations around model 4 in paragraph 62 of GS 2378 and the legal advice from VWV dated thirty first January 2025, endorse model 3 as the best way forward within the short term and call for further work as to the legal and practical requirements mandatory to implement model 4;
(d) lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they’ve experienced and proceed to experience within the lifetime of the Church.
