Members approved a motion (amended) that endorses ‘Model 3′ first while doing further work on ‘Model 4’ (both models are outlined in the Future of Church Safeguarding Synod paper).
The approved motion includes:
- Setting up an external scrutiny body, which is likely to be on a statutory basis in order to give it “teeth” and so would require legislation
- Transfer of most functions currently delivered by the National Safeguarding Team (NST) – except policy development – to an external employer, eventually and after all development, consultation and legislative processes complete
- Further work to determine the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement model 4 which would involve the transfer of safeguarding teams in dioceses and cathedrals to the same external employer as the NST.
- Lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church
The original motion from the lead safeguarding bishop, Joanne Grenfell, endorsed Model 4. Speaking after the debate she said: “We have missed the opportunity to say unequivocally to victims and survivors today that we hear their concerns about trust and confidence in the Church.
“I am committed to working with where we have got to today continuing to do feasibility around model 4 as well as moving swiftly to set up a statutory body for scrutiny, audits and complaints.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said: “I support independence in Safeguarding.
“I’m disappointed that the Church is now going to do that in two stages, but I fully commit myself to work towards implementing synod’s decision and making it happen.”
Bishop Philip North, who brought the amendment to the original motion said: “Synod has voted almost unanimously for real progress in independence in safeguarding.
“What we’ve got is a strong endorsement of moving immediately to setting up an independent scrutiny body and more work to ensure that operational independence is legally and practically deliverable.
“This gives us a chance to make immediate progress on what we can achieve whilst not slowing down the pace on more fundamental change.”
Full motion as amended
‘That this Synod:
- 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 make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
- affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
- thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England; and, noting the significant reservations around model 4 in paragraph 62 of GS 2378 and the legal advice from VWV dated 31st January 2025, endorse model 3 as the way forward in the short term and call for further work as to the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement model 4;
- and lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church.”
General Synod voted in this way:
- For: 392
- Against: 9
- Abstain: 6
Speech from the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding
Joanne Grenfell, 048, Southern Suffragans and Lead Bishop for Safeguarding
Synod, thank you for your deep commitment to making the Church safer for everyone. For your encouragement, advice, wisdom and challenge throughout the last year since we received the reports of Dr Wilkinson and Professor Jay. For your prayerful responses.
I want to begin by asking us to consider the vision for safeguarding in the Church of England that we share.
Not which option before us today we prefer – we will get onto that – but what is the absolute best we can do, to make our Church as safe as humanly possible.
I was asked last week by a journalist whether I thought that the outcome of this debate would save the reputation of the Church. No Synod decision alone can bear that weight.
But what we can do today is play our part in developing the best foundations to support the work of our excellent safeguarding professional colleagues and volunteers. We can continue to support the culture transformation that needs to be owned by every member of our churches, from archbishops to curates, youth workers to vergers, churchwardens to cathedral chapter members.
Before we get into the detail, let me outline some non-negotiables in our shared vision:
- A healthy church culture, with trusted and effective safeguarding at its heart
- A strong preventative culture, led by local parish safeguarding officers who are clear about their roles and supported in their practice
- Careful and trauma-informed support for all who come forward to report
- Effective scrutiny of the Church’s safeguarding work through a new statutory body which can identify and spread best practice, leading the way through learning into a culture of continuous improvement
- Operational safeguarding where the best of current practice becomes the norm, evenly resourced, with the same quality and timeliness of work in every place
- Safeguarding professionals whose independence of judgement is respected and protected, rooted in diocesan and cathedral teams, accredited, and supported by continuous professional development.
- Complaints processes which offer resolution and finality, to help people find closure and rebuild their lives.
Last year, you gave me a mandate to ask, advised by a Response Group, how we might best develop new structures, effective and trusted, to underpin a healthier and safer church culture. We began that work aware of the pain carried now by victims and survivors of abuse. We were aware throughout that our safeguarding colleagues, and many volunteers, have already brought about considerable change. We were also aware, and became ever more aware, of the deficit of trust and confidence in which the whole Church is currently working, in the eyes of so many.
The group have modelled passionate and principled disagreement. They have grappled with understanding each other’s perspectives, not assuming the worst of anyone who takes a different view but trying to see what might be lacking from their own perspectives. They have been supported by a staff team who have researched, consulted, and engaged widely. Synod, it’s a model I invite you to take up as you debate the options today, trusting that God will guide us in all wisdom.
We have to move forward. Not just to end a painful and shameful time of reckoning about church abuse, but so that we as a Synod come to a decision, in a proactive and healthy way, about the kind of culture that we want to build.
We have two models before us.
Both models would be considerable progress. The Response Group members take differing positions on which would be best. There are indeed different ways to solve this. Together, let’s try to find the best one.
We need change, at the very least, around independence of audit, complaints, and scrutiny functions.
We need scrutiny functions to have “teeth” to ensure that their scrutiny leads to change.
We have learned that a rigorous independent audit programme helps us to learn and improve.
We absolutely must sort out our complaints processes, which are difficult to understand and navigate, can feel passive or defensive, and look different everywhere you go.
Both models outlined in the paper contain the elements I have just described.In both models, we retain responsibility for policy development. The Charity Commission has been clear that we cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility in this area, and we would not want to. Synod, you approve such policy here routinely and will continue to do so.
I will say more in a moment about governance responsibility.
Where model 4 differs from model 3 is in bringing together the staff from 85 charities – the Cathedrals in the Cathedrals Measure, the dioceses in the Church of England, and the Archbishops’ Council – into one external employer.
Why? The aims of this model, which is the one which I support, are to bring sufficient consistency, timeliness, and evenness of resourcing to our operational safeguarding provision. I want everyone who has safeguarding contact with any part of the Church of England to have a consistent, high-quality response, overseen in a timely manner, supported by even and adequate staffing resource.
I do not believe we can do that adequately without bringing those staff into one external body, where they are independently line managed, where their decision making is quality assured, and where they receive consistent professional development and accreditation.
Of course, those safeguarding professionals would still need to be embedded in local teams, because we want them to have a place at the table, to be influencers of change. But they would belong to a bigger and more robust body too, a body which would also give them greater credibility through independence.
As well as issues of efficacy, trust and confidence matter. I am aware of the scrutiny of Parliament and hear their considerable concern. We have also heard most strongly from the Charity Commission that issues of trust must be addressed.
Although we know that so much has changed and improved in church safeguarding, we need to hear victims and survivors telling us that they do not have confidence that we can do this ourselves. To restore trust, we need to set things up in a way that means there can be no actual or perceived conflicts of interest or undue pressure exerted from anyone inside the Church.
The paper has described honestly the challenges of making such a radical change. We have included legal advice. You may have seen further legal advice commissioned by diocesan secretaries, which I welcome.
The Charity Commission, whose advice is in the paper, has been very clear with us that trustees of charities must hold responsibility and accountability for effective safeguarding. They have clarified that trustees can fulfil these responsibilities under charity law by commissioning an external supplier to deliver safeguarding services.
But yes, this is complex. We must make sure that contract design and commissioning arrangements are carried out carefully and with sufficient rigour to reassure the trustees of all 85 charities that safeguarding is being delivered well.
There is further work that needs to be done if you agree this direction of travel. But the issues being raised are “how tos”, not “why nots”. The prize of joined up, consistent safeguarding, well and evenly resourced, with trusted independence of judgement in decision making, does, I believe, make it worth aiming for this change.
Synod, despite the best skill and commitment of our safeguarding professionals and volunteers – colleagues whom I value and trust – we haven’t got the right climate in which the general public can say that they have trust and confidence in us.
I encourage you now to debate the matters before you, seeking to find the best possible structures to support excellent safeguarding, to rebuild the trust and confidence of everyone we serve, and to be the safer Church we are called to be.
