THE Church’s outsourcing of its safeguarding work to an independent body was endorsed overwhelmingly by the General Synod on the Wednesday afternoon, in a vote by 354-1 with three recorded abstentions.
The Synod welcomed an update, endorsed the direction of travel set out within the report, and looked forward to considering proposals where mandatory.
The Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, Dr Joanne Grenfell, who’s the lead bishop for safeguarding, gave the opening presentation. She said that any reforms to really strengthen safeguarding must “carry the boldness of the entire Church and, crucially, victims, and survivors”.
She handed over to Dame Christine Ryan, the chief chair of the Safeguarding Structures Programme Board, which is implementing the reforms.
Dame Christine got here into post last October from a profession in governance and regulation. She had spoken with survivors, safeguarding professionals, staff and clergy, volunteers, and more, and skim previous reviews and reports. Her first remark was that “this can be a Church ready to vary — there may be deep commitment to do what is correct.” She praised the deliberation undertaken, but said that actual change had been too slow to occur. The regulators, Parliament, and the general public would not tolerate incremental improvements — only a recent safeguarding system that was credible and accountable.
Synod members must be reassured, nevertheless, that safeguarding was higher in point of fact than in perception, Dame Christine said. She acknowledged that this alone was not enough to revive trust. Safeguarding was too often experienced as overly complex and inconsistent. Decision-making was unclear and too dispersed. “The Church can find itself within the invidious position of being each pastor and judge.” This perpetuated a safeguarding culture that may very well be vulnerable to exploitation, and where poor practice could go unchallenged, she said. People needed to trust the system.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesChristiana Olomolaiye (Bristol) begins the controversy
She had also discovered how complex the Church was, even though it was not uniquely so. Other organisations had successfully navigated complex reform, she reassured the Synod. “It is time to remove that complexity, which is why I even have realigned this work right into a single, unified vision.” She believed that this recent model may very well be delivered at pace if the Synod voted in favour of it.
At the center of this was the creation of a national charity, provisionally called the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). She hoped that her paper would resolve several tensions, principally around independence and complexity. The charity can be overseen by a majority-independent external board, and its chief safeguarding officer can be accountable to outside regulators. There would even be a uniform complaints process, which could begin as soon as this 12 months, with none laws.
The ISA would act as knowledgeable “anchor” for local safeguarding teams, at the same time as they remained legally accountable to diocesan trustee bodies, she explained. This was not about replacing safeguarding teams, but giving them improved resources, training, and support, Dame Christine said. All this may begin to rebuild a healthier culture. “My ask today is easy: endorse this direction of travel. The cost of delayed motion will probably be measured within the harm that it enables.”
Dr Grenfell moved the motion, acknowledging that a special approach had been presented just 12 months ago. But the context had modified, and so, too, had the Church’s approach. “I find Dame Christine’s approach to be persuasive due to her external perspective.” The C of E had a “powerhouse of experience, dedication, and care”, and this recent model wouldn’t replace this, but “fortify it through enhanced expert supervision”. What was now on offer was a single, unified system to bring together scrutiny and delivery, while separating out operational decisions from leadership. “This separation is the one option to rebuild lasting trust.”
Dr Grenfell knew that many members were nervous that independence would undermine the “embeddedness” of local safeguarding. This recent model had found a option to “square that circle”, although some details were still to be ironed out. “We have done the pondering, put within the hard yards, debated, discussed, and discerned,” she said. Now, Dame Christine had shown the Church how you can implement this in a single vision, reducing complexity. This would end the cycle of constant structural reform, freeing the Church’s leaders to look out at mission somewhat than inwards at structures.
Christiana Olomolaiye (Bristol) was shocked that the ISA would exclude “churchpeople” and would mainly consist of “non-church people”. The board should include individuals with Christian compassion and provides priority to those that knew the workings of the Church of England, she argued. If people were an element of Christian culture and had the skill, the skilled expertise, and the qualifications, they must be on the board, she said.
The Bishop of Tewkesbury, the Rt Revd Robert Springett (Southern Suffragans), who’s the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, argued that a whole-system approach that connected scrutiny, delivery, and an end-stage grievance process was needed. He praised this as an independent system that had the statutory ability to intervene, in order that it couldn’t be said to be the Church “marking its own homework”.
Peter Adams (St Albans) welcomed the method, but opposed the soon-to-be-proposed amendments. He was concerned about pace, and that the amendments might reset the method. Lessons were still being learned from the Soul Survivor case, he said, particularly on good governance at a neighborhood level.
The Revd Lesley Jones (Durham) praised the plan as a option to “regain trust”. True separation was mandatory, she said, besides bringing the suitable individuals with the suitable skills on board. “We must be concentrating on mission,” she said. “This is a window of opportunity to set our house so as. Let’s do it.”
Nicola Denyer (Newcastle) was cheered to listen to that the C of E was no more complicated than other organisations. She praised the brand new model for its “clarity, recognition of local expertise, and the importance of victims and survivors’ voices being at the center”.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, Dr Joanne Grenfell, who’s the lead bishop for safeguarding
The Revd Trudi Oliver (Rochester) had had an “excruciating” time putting in proper safeguarding procedures in three rural churches, receiving pushback over DBS checks from one PCC. There remained a number of ambiguity over whether PCC members needed to be DBS-checked or not, and the e-manual from the National Safeguarding Team was unhelpful, she said. “I’m really hoping this recent process will result in clarity for what must be easy questions.”
On behalf of the Revd Robert Thompson (London), who was recovering from surgery and will not be present, Robert Zampetti (London) moved an amendment. This would set an 18-month deadline to bring back legislative proposals to the Synod. Direction alone was not the identical thing as delivery, he said. The query was not what the Church desired to do, but “when it is going to actually do it”. The Charity Commission had been clear that independence was mandatory and have to be implemented at pace. His amendment didn’t demand completion by July 2027, and didn’t “short-circuit due process”, but good intentions without delivery weren’t enough: survivors and regulators were asking for “evidence of momentum”.
Dr Grenfell said that, while she wouldn’t be upset should the amendment be carried, she would resist it for imposing “excessive detail and inflexibility”. She desired to move even faster than July 2027. “Setting the date doesn’t really add much.”
The Revd Dr Catherine Shelley (Leeds), who had been a child-protection lawyer before ordination, said that speed was crucial. A deadline can be helpful, and, if it may very well be done quicker, a lot the higher. Delays and complexity had caused real problems on the bottom, she said.
The amendment was defeated.
Mr Zampetti moved a second amendment, which might require detailed options for transferring local safeguarding staff to the employment of the brand new ISA to be drawn up and dropped at the Synod by July 2027. This wouldn’t mandate immediate restructuring, he said, but would be certain that the Synod was not asked at a later point to make an “irrevocable” decision without proper information. The paper left unresolved what safeguarding independence meant at a neighborhood level, he said.
It was not about making a call now, but doing preparatory work to avoid further delays. Safeguarding professionals needed “clarity and stability” to do their jobs well, he said. “We cannot credibly endorse independence in principle without establishing what it might mean in practice.”
Dr Grenfell was completely happy to listen to the strength of feeling, but couldn’t vote for the amendment. Every focus have to be given to the general design of the brand new ISA, she said, and never be distracted by exploring other options at the identical time. This was the recommendation of the independent safeguarding expert. “Please trust them. We have found a way through to make essentially the most effective change occur quickly.”
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, said that the paper contained strong proposals had built on what the Synod had voted for the previous 12 months. He reminded members why “Option Four” had been rejected the previous 12 months, and warned that, if the amendment were to be carried, it might ignore the recommendation of huge numbers of independent safeguarding professionals, in addition to auditors.
Lt. Gen. Robin Brims (Newcastle) was disenchanted, suggesting that the paper lacked details. He was in favour of the amendment, which, he said, “forces clarity” and “injects urgency”.
Joel Plant (Youth Representatives) didn’t support the amendment, since it didn’t seek advice from the unique Synod paper on safeguarding structures.
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool) was sympathetic to the amendment, but told members that they need to take heed to Dr Grenfell and reject it. If the Synod could move towards independent safeguarding, “a lot the higher”, but rushing the method would “actually create much more problems”.
Michaela Suckling (Sheffield) understood why members can be in favour of total independence, but urged them to vote against the amendment. She spoke of Doncaster Council and its decision to make its children’s services independent, for example of how this had did not work and had wasted money.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), a member of the Archbishops’ Council, also resisted the amendment: work needed to “progress at pace”.
The amendment was lost.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesSynod members take heed to the controversy
The Revd William Harwood (Truro) backed the most important motion wholeheartedly. He described himself as a survivor of church-based abuse. “God draws near to the broken-hearted. Will we do the identical?” Could the Church walk with survivors, not as an adjunct to the institution, but as integral to decision-making, he asked.
Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) asked for more clarity about “non-church members”. Was this solely for individuals who weren’t members of the Church of England or weren’t Christians generally?
The Archbishop of Canterbury praised the labor and listening that had procured this recent direction of travel “through what has gave the look of intractable change”. The Church have to be a model to others in the way it protected children and responded to abuse and the misuse of power, she said. She supported the motion as a smart recent approach, which may very well be “delivered at pace”. It blended independence on decision-making while retaining responsibility, allowing safeguarding professionals to pursue impartial judgements without abdicating charitable duties. “This is just the subsequent step: earning people’s trust inside and out of doors the Church will take greater than only one motion,” she warned.
Alison Coulter (Winchester) said that the past five years had been “painful” for her and others on the Archbishops’ Council, as that they had faced their failures around safeguarding. “It has been humbling, and really clear we’d like to do higher.” She paid tribute to the victims and survivors who had been on the Safeguarding Structures Programme Board along with her, offering their wisdom. The parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee had told the Synod that it expected the Church to “fix” safeguarding at pace, she said.
Dr Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) praised the paper, but said that the ISA would haven’t any specific authority to insist that the Church comply with its decisions. He also said that it mustn’t seek to “reinvent the wheel” where dioceses already had good practice. The Synod should oversee the independent overseer, he said.
Fr Stephen Maxfield (Greek Orthodox Church) asked about para-church organisations run by Anglicans but out of the control of the Church of England. Was the Synod certain that the brand new ISA would have power over such organisations?
Dr Brendan Biggs (Bristol) observed that the chief safeguarding officer would report back to each the ISA board and an external regulator. Who was this regulator, he asked: wouldn’t it be the Charity Commission? Asking in regards to the independent ombudsman who would handle complaints, he insisted that there needed to be independence between the group deciding on safeguarding cases and the body handling complaints about these decisions.
Dr Grenfell said that the independent members of the board may very well be Christians, survivors, and even churchgoers, but that they might not be church officers. She also clarified that the backstop accountable body is perhaps a committee in Parliament, but, whatever it ended up being, this needed to be outside of the Church, and never a commercially tendered organisation.
Read more reports from the General Synod Digest here
