When I was appointed to the role of Second Church Estates Commissioner in October 2024, I was honoured to take up the position.
However, I could not have foreseen the storm that was about to engulf the Church and erode so much trust and good faith.
Since the publication of the Makin Review, following many prior reviews, that exposed historic safeguarding failures and more recent failures – including the most recent revelation about David Tudor – many MPs, including myself, have rightly expressed concern. We have received correspondence from constituents, distressed clergy victims and survivors.
Today (Tuesday 11th February), General Synod – the Church of England’s Parliament – had the opportunity to commit to real change to its approach to safeguarding. In my maiden Speech this morning, I made clear that today must be a watershed moment for the Church to change its culture and approach and vote for a wholly independent safeguarding body.
The Church must show victims, the public and Parliament that it is serious about tackling safeguarding failures and, ultimately, keeping people safe.
That’s why I asked General Synod to vote in favour of Model 4, which would bring about independent safeguarding operations, an independent complaints process, an independent scrutiny function, and independent audits.
Bringing those responsible for safeguarding from across the Church under one body would have brought about much-needed consistency of approach in dealing with abuse.
It is also the approach preferred by victims and survivors and a recommendation of the Jay Review (on the Future of Church Safeguarding).
Despite this, today Synod effectively dropped Model 4 and instead replaced it with Model 3 – that only provides for independent scrutiny of safeguarding. Model 3 is less robust and does not include making the Church’s safeguarding operations wholly independent. I am deeply disappointed that we did not get the opportunity to vote for Model 4.
It is worth noting that the majority of laity members, who provide fantastic services and support on the frontlines of Church work, voted against removing Model 4. They understand all too well that recent safeguarding failures means the Church has not proved itself capable of marking its own homework in any capacity.
Independent safeguarding operations would have brought us closer to a transparent, accountable, and consistent approach to safeguarding.
The motion that passed today did call for further work on the practical and legal implications necessary to implement Model 4. I hope that work will be taken up with energy and will be following these developments closely.
The decision taken today puts back the progress we need. The road to rebuilding trust and confidence in the Church remains long.
