THE General Synod stopped short of transferring all safeguarding functions to an external organisation, at least in the short term, after a charged debate on Tuesday.
After hours of discussion, all three Houses — Bishops, Clergy, and Laity — voted for an amendment moved by the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, which pivoted the motion towards outsourcing the National Safeguarding Team (NST) while further study would go into how diocesan teams could be added later to this new independent body.
The shadow of months of controversy after the publication of a series of safeguarding failures — most notably in the Makin report on the John Smyth affair, which ultimately led to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury — hung over the debate.
Several speeches referred to a lack of trust in the Church, and the need to make a radical change to rebuild the trust of both abuse survivors and of the public. Others, however, warned that pursuing full independence, nationally and locally, was an untried model that raised legal and technical challenges.
In the end, Bishop North’s proposal, which he presented as a compromise middle-ground solution, won the day.
Speaking to reporters after the debate, he said that he was aware that his amendment would look like kicking full independence into the long grass, but he insisted that this was not his intention.
“What would have been irresponsible would be to vote for something we could not implement and then have to come back to Synod to apologise,” he said. “That would have been a disaster.”
Instead, he argued that his approach meant that deliverable forms of independence could be brought forward straight away, while full independence could return to the Synod in the future, once the remaining issues had been resolved.
But the lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), said that she was very disappointed in the result. “I think the Church has missed a huge opportunity to send a message to victims and survivors that we hear their concerns about trust and confidence.”
She told the Church Times that she was determined to continue working on delivering fully independent safeguarding.
The motion, as amended by Bishop North, called for the implementation of Model 3, while “further work as to the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement Model 4” was completed.
Under Model 3, two independent bodies would be established: one to offer scrutiny and resolve complaints about church safeguarding, and a second to absorb the NST and carry out operational safeguarding work.
Model 4 would be the same, except that all cathedral and diocesan safeguarding officers would also be transferred to the new independent body and no longer be employed by their dioceses or cathedral Chapters.
THE debate began with contention, as a lay member, Sam Margrave (Coventry) protested that one of his amendments, calling for “full independence”, had been cut from the order paper. The chair attempted to explain the clerk’s reasoning: that Mr Margrave had withdrawn the amendment in an email at half-past midnight, and that, in any case, it overlapped with another amendment that was on the order paper.
Mr Margrave, however, was not placated, and, before leaving the podium, shouted that the decision was a “disgrace”.
In a presentation that preceded the debate, the external co-chair of the Response Group that had brought the proposals forward, Lesley-Anne Ryder, told the Synod: “This is your moment: please use it wisely.”
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe external co-chair of the Response Group, Lesley-Anne Ryder
The complexity of the Church’s current systems had contributed to the loss of “trust and confidence”, she said, citing rules related to the employment terms of the clergy which “in the real world . . . don’t make sense”.
Speaking as an observer of the Church of England, she said that it had “created structures which confuse people, and cause suspicion”, and suggested that, “in time”, Model 4 could be a streamlined and effective system.
Both models of future safeguarding would represent “considerable progress”, Dr Grenfell said.
The motion in her name endorsed Model 4 because, she said, it would best ensure consistency across church safeguarding. “We need to set things up so there can be no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”
Both models contained provision for an independent scrutiny body, and with either option the Church would retain responsibility for the development of safeguarding policy, as this was something that the Charity Commission had advised could not be outsourced.
Early speeches in the debate on the main motion alternated between endorsements of Model 3 and Model 4.
Speaking in favour of keeping diocesan safeguarding teams in the employment of the Church, Shayne Ardron (Leicester) said that the Church must not “pretend that everything is fine, but nor do I think we can outsource everything”. Central funding for diocesan teams would help to create consistent safeguarding provision across the Church, she said. Currently, this frontline work was funded entirely by the dioceses themselves.
An independent scrutiny body was required so that the Church would not be marking its own homework, but Model 4 safeguarding risked trying to outsource the homework itself, she said.
The Dean of Blackburn, the Very Revd Peter Howell-Jones (Northern Deans), referred to his well-publicised experience with safeguarding concerns about a priest at Blackburn Cathedral (News, 14 August 2024). “This is about current handling of safeguarding cases,” he said, suggesting that current practice was “abusive” and prioritised “self-protection”.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, said that the focus on structures was misplaced. It was not poor structures that had prevented Iwerne camp leaders’ reporting John Smyth, he said, but a culture “so supple and so powerful that at times we don’t even realise it is happening”.
Model 3 would give the Church the best chance of changing that culture from within, he said, but urged members to focus on culture change regardless of which option that was taken forward from this meeting.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova MP (ex officio), made her first speech to the Synod since her appointment in October (News, 7 October 2024). The past months had been an unprecedented crisis for the Church, she said, and must be a “watershed moment”.
Choosing Model 4 would be a “first step towards restoring trust”, she said, and a demonstration to Parliament and the public that change was under way.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova MP (ex officio), makes her first speech to the Synod since her appointment in October
That change would be too slow under Model 4, argued Stephen Hogg (Leeds). It would take years to set up a new body to undertake operational safeguarding, and it threatened a “governance nightmare”. A “better, quicker solution” to improving safeguarding provision was to opt for Model 3, he said.
The Revd William Harwood (Truro) endorsed Model 4. He began his speech by saying 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, before singling out the Bishop of Newcastle as a “bishop of courage and transparency”, to scattered applause across the chamber.
The Revd Nicki Pennington (Carlisle) acknowledged that the calls for radical change via Model 4 were compelling, but that she had concerns about whether such a system would be effective. Before being ordained, she had been a social worker for 25 years, and her experience taught her that the more “interfaces” there were in any system, the greater the likelihood was that cases would fall through the gaps.
The Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty (Northern Suffragans), said that whatever the Synod voted for — and she hoped that it would be Model 4 — “radical” change would still be needed in HR, accountability, and governance. “Gold-standard independent safeguarding delivery alone will not be enough,” she said, but it was a necessary step. “We need to go that extra mile; for we have broken trust with survivors and with our nation,” and that meant choosing Model 4.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) then moved his amendment, to call for “total independence” rather than “greater independence”. He characterised diocesan safeguarding staff as simply protecting their own interests in a recent letter in which more than 100 had argued against Model 4 (News, 5 February). He urged Synod members to hold their nerve, and pass safeguarding into the hands of fully independent structures.
In an unscripted speech, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that he had previously backed Model 3, but had recently changed his mind, and was now of the view that Model 4 was the only way to effect a “cultural reset” and rebuild trust. He didn’t support Mr Sewell’s amendment, as he thought that it was too vague, but confirmed that he would be voting for Model 4, “counter-intuitively” going against the advice of his diocesan safeguarding staff.
The Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Mark Tanner, said that “simplicity and transparency” should be at the heart of the Church’s ambitions, and that this was articulated in the amendment. He was cautious about how change would be delivered, but the debate was about the direction of travel and not detail, and so he supported the amendment.
The Revd Joy Mawdesley (Oxford) spoke against the amendment, saying that it would by default support Model 4 and cut off further debate. No other organisation had placed all safeguarding functions into an external body: “It is untried and untested, and therefore risky.” Model 4 would also undermine the mantra “Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility,” which was starting really to change the culture of the Church, she said.
The amendment fell by large margins in all three Houses.
The Archbishop of York spoke against Model 3, arguing the Church needed a “step change in the way we do safeguarding” — though he pledged to support whichever option was eventually chosen. It wasn’t a matter of choosing between supporting safeguarding teams or listening to victims and survivors, he said: instead, Synod should do both.
Huge improvements had no doubt been made in the decades since he first entered ministry, but he had first-hand knowledge of the “inadequacies of our processes”, he said.
In a reference to the David Tudor case when he was Bishop of Chelmsford (News, 20 December), he said that he knew “more than most how unsatisfactory this is”.
The Vicar-General of York, the Rt Worshipful Peter Collier, warned that Model 4 presented governance and legal challenges. He quoted the lead auditor from the INEQE Safeguarding Group, Jim Gamble, who had said on Monday: “Don’t tamper too much with what is actually working now, based on what didn’t work before.”
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, also cited Mr Gamble and the INEQE audit programme. Its first annual report, published on Monday (News, 10 February), had not received the attention that it deserved, he said, as the audit programme amounted to the most substantial body of evidence available to the Church. That evidence should inform the Synod’s decision, he said, and it favoured Model 3 — although he remained “open to persuasion”.
James Wilson (Manchester) invoked another safeguarding expert in Professor Alexis Jay In her report last year, Professor Jay had suggested that the diocesan model was incompatible with a high-quality and accountable safeguarding system, he said. He called for the Synod to endorse Model 4 and resist the amendment.
The amendment was lost by a show of hands.
Bishop North then moved his ultimately successful amendment, which endorsed Model 3 “as the way forward in the short term” while further work took place on the “legal and practical requirements” of Model 4. He said that this approach offered a way out of the binary debate that the Synod had been having, and meant that change wouldn’t be lost if, as some feared, Model 4 proved to be impossible to implement. “In an attempt to change our reputation, we will make it worse” if, in pursuing Model 4, change took too long, he said, whereas a hybrid model meant that change could get under way immediately.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, spoke against the amendment. It gave no guarantee of swift action, she said, and concerns about the complexities of Model 4 could be overcome. Model 4 was the only answer to inconsistency between the dioceses, she said, supporting it strongly.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, speaks against the amendment
Bishop North found support, though, from the Revd Paul Langham (Bristol), who argued that what mattered was not “giving the appearance of radical change, but achieving the right radical outcomes”.
The Bishop of Bath & Wells, Dr Michael Beasley, also spoke in support of Bishop North’s amendment. He asked whether it was “judicious” to adopt an untested safeguarding model, and warned that there was a danger that, if it failed, the Church would be left in an even worse position.
The Revd Robert Thompson (London), however, spoke against the amendment. Even under Model 4, safeguarding would remain the responsibility of everyone in the Church, but the people delivering it would not be open to the danger of being manipulated by senior staff. The Church had to send a strong signal that it was serious about change, he said.
When it came to the vote, Bishop North’s amendment was carried in all three Houses: Bishops 23-14, with one recorded abstention; Clergy 114-65, with two recorded abstentions; Laity 106-86, with three recorded abstentions.
A further amendment, moved by Mr Margrave, was carried, adding an expression of lament and repentance for the Church’s failures in safeguarding, and a recognition of the harm suffered by victims and survivors.
Speaking after the debate, Bishop North conceded that he could offer no guarantees on timelines when it came to further work on Model 4. But he argued strongly that some parts of Model 3 could begin almost immediately, while the remaining legal and regulatory concerns around full independence were worked out.
The full motion, as amended:
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 make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
(b) affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
(c) 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;
(d) 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
