THE General Synod voted on the Tuesday to create an independent body to scrutinise its safeguarding work, but stopped short of outsourcing all safeguarding functions to an external organisation.
Before the debate could begin, Sam Margrave (Coventry) made a point of order to object that an amendment in his name had been withdrawn — something that, he angrily insisted, he had not done.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 explain that Mr Margrave had emailed the Clerk to the Synod to withdraw it late the previous night. An irate Mr Margrave, however, 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 did not 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 another, which was on the order paper, being proposed by Martin Sewell (Rochester).
After another procedural objection — about the order in which the amendments would be taken — had been dismissed by the chair, the session was able 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 of the ways in which the Church was losing the “trust and confidence of the nation” was that the rules under which it operated were difficult to understand. She cited the terms of service for clergy and the difficulty of removing priests from certain posts as an example. The Church had reasons for these rules, she said, but “in the real world, those reasons don’t make sense.”
“You have created structures which confuse people, and cause suspicion,” she said, and it “wasn’t good enough” to suggest that the systems should remain because that was the way things had always been done.
“You mustn’t be tempted to hide 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 new national body was possible.
The Church needed help from safeguarding experts as well as survivors as it designed new structures, she said, though she acknowledged that there was disagreement within the Response Group about what the model should be.
There was no collective recommendation from the Response Group, she said, but she herself endorsed Model 4. There was no reason that, “in time”, it could not become a highly effective system. “Synod, this is your moment, please use it wisely,” she concluded.
Opening the debate, the chair explained that the Synod was, unusually, being asked to consider more than one option simultaneously, 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 year as the Church of England wrestled with reforming its safeguarding procedures. “What is the best we can do to make our Church as safe as possible?” she asked.
Contrary to some messages from beyond the chamber, the Church’s reputation would not depend solely on the Synod’s decision today, she reassured the members. In fact, there was much that everyone agreed on: effective scrutiny of safeguarding work through a new statutory body; high-quality parish safeguarding officers; evenly resourced and professional operational work throughout the dioceses; and complaints processes that offered resolution and closure.
The pain of victims and survivors was at the forefront of everyone’s minds on the Response Group, she said, as was the “deficit of trust” in the Church. Members had disagreed passionately but graciously, and she urged the Synod to follow its example.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe independent co-chair of the Response Group, Lesley-Anne Ryder
“We have to move forward, not just to end a painful and shameful time of reckoning about church abuse, but so that we come to a decision about the kind of culture we want to build.” Both Model 3 and Model 4 would represent “considerable progress”, she said. Both would introduce independence for audit, complaints, and scrutiny functions to help the Church to learn and improve.
In both models, the Church would retain responsibility for policy development, something that the Charity Commission had advised could not be outsourced. Policy and guidance would continue to be brought to the floor of the Synod.
But Model 4 would bring all diocesan and cathedral safeguarding officers into the new independent operational safeguarding body, along with the National Safeguarding Team. This was the model that Dr Grenfell would vote for, she said, so that everyone could have a “consistent, high-quality response” in a timely manner. This could not be done without bringing all staff into one body, managed together, and with consistent professional development.
The officers would continue to work embedded in the dioceses, having a seat at the table locally, but would be employed independently. This would help to reassure people and rebuild trust, Dr Grenfell said, answering the concerns of both Parliament and the Charity Commission. “They don’t have confidence we can do things ourselves; so we need to set things up so there can be no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”
Making this “radical change” would not be easy, she admitted. Trustees of charities must continue to hold responsibility and accountability for safeguarding, but this could be delivered by commissioning an external supplier, according to their legal advice. More questions were still to be answered, but the issues raised were “how-tos”, not “why-nots”, she said.
The Dean of Blackburn, the Ven. Peter Howell-Jones (Northern Deans), referred to his experience in 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 capable of doing safeguarding itself, he said, and so this should be outsourced.
The independence needed to extend to the design of the new structures, and survivors should be intimately involved in the process.
Shayne Ardron (Leicester) said that she intended to vote for Model 3, and gave the example of a leg brace: the Church needed an external brace, but the pins had to be internal for healing to be promoted “from within”.
“We can’t pretend that everything is fine, but nor do I think we can outsource everything,” she said. Independent scrutiny was vital, because the Church should not be marking its own homework — but outsourcing was a little bit like asking someone else to actually do the Church’s homework, she said.
She called for diocesan teams to be given more resources: entral funds should 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” since the publication of the Makin report on John Smyth.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesKashmir Gorton (Worcester)
“This must be a watershed moment for the Church: these failures can never happen again,” she said. The Synod must demonstrate to Parliament and the public that it was committed to change. Good work was going on both in the national team and in parishes across England, she said, but safeguarding needed to be transparent, accountable, and consistent — trusted by the public and by survivors.
Model 4 was, therefore, the best way forward, she argued. Yes, implementation would take time and resources, but Model 4 “will be that first step towards restoring trust”. If the Church wanted to honour victims and survivors, change had to begin today. She pleaded with the Synod to let her pass on “good 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 current debate was part of a “bigger 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 at the centre of their thinking 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 happening”.
Model 3 would give the C of E the best chance to counteract this culture, leaving safeguarding officers working in and for their dioceses. But, whatever route was taken, he urged members to stay focused on culture change, beginning with “profound repentance, which leads to change in hearts and minds, as well as structures”. The tendency to institutional self-protection had to be rooted out, and replaced with putting the interests of survivors at the heart of all that the Church did.
Kashmir Garton (Worcester) acknowledged that many survivors felt that the Church could not be trusted to do its own safeguarding, but she could not support Model 4. She recalled how, a decade ago, many probation staff had been outsourced to private companies, but, after seven years, all those staff had been brought back into the public sector. This experience offered a salutary warning of the pitfalls in trying to implement Model 4. Model 3, however, would allow safeguarding professionals to continue in-house, to help to shape safeguarding culture. “Just as we are seeing signs of improvement, Model 4 will introduce uncertainty in this critical area,” she warned. “Safeguarding must 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 system 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 would not 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 could be delivered quickly enough. Moving hundreds of staff to a new body was not an easy process, and risked negatively affecting the culture of church safeguarding.
“This will take years to set up, and it will be a massive 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 “better, quicker solution”. He urged members to vote for the latter.
The Archdeacon of London, the Ven. Luke Miller (London), said that the clergy were not, by and large, “accountable for what we do”. “We won’t fix the safeguarding until we fix the HR,” he said; but concerns about accountability were not fully addressed by the structures being proposed, and, to this end, he called for consideration of a professional 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 should not end there.
Canon Valerie Plumb (Oxford) said that, as a survivor, she bore a “thorn in her side” for the rest of her life. She felt “unsafe” as a woman and a priest trying to minister in a “despicable landscape”. “If we want to rid ourselves of this darkness, effective action must be taken now.” The Church owed it to survivors to make things right. That meant holding those who had failed accountable. Do the right thing for the Church, survivors, and the Kingdom, and vote for Model 4, she urged.
Robin Lunn (Worcester) said that he had canvassed opinion in the diocese of Worcester in a survey, consulting police officers and other safeguarding experts. Overwhelmingly, people had supported Model 4, he said. All knew that it was not a perfect fix, but “any mistakes will be for the right reasons,” he said. He wanted clarification from Dr Grenfell that funding would be the same for either option, and that outsourcing would not lead to redundancies. The “tumour” of safeguarding failures had to be cut out of the Church.
Geoff Crawford/Church TimesThe Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester)
The Revd Nicki Pennington (Carlisle) said that all in 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 could not deliver effective safeguarding. She had spent 25 years as a social worker before ordination, which had taught her that interfaces were places where safeguarding problems slipped through the cracks. Model 4 introduced new interfaces between different organisations, raising this risk and creating weaknesses in processes. Resourcing safeguarding in the parishes did not appear to have been considered in 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 at the centre, but were trying to “protect their power base”. New bishops were needed to rebuild trust: culture could not change until the House of Bishops changed. Why was the Bishop of Newcastle a lone voice in the House, he asked. “You are not alone. You are not the bishop of negativity: you are the bishop of courage and transparency,” he told her, to some scattered applause across the chamber. Model 4 was the best way forward, he said, as an opportunity to change the culture.
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), revealed that, as a teenager, 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 were not “bad people”, but simply out of their depth. That was the position that the Church was putting its leaders in. Most bishops were not trying to cause harm, but were using their power in ways that they were not expert in. There were good people on both sides of this debate on Model 4, she said, but that route was the most “serious” response, despite its complexity and cost.
The C of E was too complicated, she argued, but the Synod could sort this out, turning 85 different safeguarding employers into just 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, therefore, ignorant of other places where it was failing. She reiterated that fixing safeguarding was just one part of a broader piece of work in 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 will not be enough.” The decision the Synod was taking would not affect the “radical change” needed in HR, accountability, and governance — a point that she said she would keep making “until we do something about it”.
Listen carefully to the advice of external safeguarding experts and survivors, she said. “We need to to go that extra mile, for we have broken trust with survivors and with our nation.” That meant choosing Model 4. “Our safeguarding crises just may be providing us with the humbling that we need, but, Synod, I urge you to be bolder.”
Mr Sewell then moved his amendment, to call for “total independence” rather than “greater independence”. He recalled how the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) had collapsed largely because of 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 primary accountability of diocesan safeguarding officers (DSOs) would still be to their diocese. It simply “recycled current problems into the future”. He attacked the DSOs promoting Model 3 as simply protecting their 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 would do it better. 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 become very alive to the complexity of what independence meant. Adding the word “total” would not help matters, and legally the Church had to retain some control over safeguarding, according to the Charity Commission. She resisted the amendment so that both Model 3 and Model 4 could continue to be debated properly.
The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, said that he had previously backed Model 3, but had now changed his mind. He had consulted his diocesan safeguarding team, who mostly supported Model 3, but he now disagreed. Bishops were not managers, but shepherds, and his concern was not with the detail of the proposals, but with rebuilding trust. Model 4 was the only way to ensure a “cultural reset” and rebuild trust. Inserting the word “total” was too vague, however, and would not add much to the motion. He would vote against the amendment, but for the main motion and Model 4.
Nadine Daniel (Liverpool) said that she was conflicted. She had concerns about the part played by charity trustees, and how they would be able to retain enough oversight over new safeguarding models to discharge their legal duties. None the less, Model 4 was the only way forward.
Clive Billenness (Europe) said that voting for the amendment would mean getting Model 3 on the way anyway, as no “sane programme manager” would try to move all 85 local safeguarding authorities to the new body in one go. The decentralised structure of the C of E meant that there would always 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 how to make it work, but the debate was about the direction of travel, not the details. Survivors told him that they wanted simplicity, and the amendment would be helpful in providing that.
Philip Baldwin (London) also supported the amendment and Model 4, especially as it created consistency across dioceses and represented radical change. “We need to alter the power 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 therefore risky.” Model 4 would also undermine the mantra “Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility,” which was starting to change the culture of the Church. An external organisation would create a disconnect between parishes and those elsewhere, if safeguarding was someone else’s responsibility. She knew that not all survivors were of one mind, and some did support Model 3, as did many safeguarding practitioners in the Church.
Mr Sewell’s amendment was lost in all three Houses: Bishops 26-6, with four 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 would amend Dr Grenfell’s motion, so that Model 4 was taken off the table. He did so in his capacity as the chair of the Business Committee, neutrally, but said that he had to draw members’ attention to an open letter opposing Model 4 and signed by more than 100 diocesan safeguarding officials.
In response, Dr Grenfell said that she welcomed the chance to compare the two models and help the Synod to make its choice. Whatever model was chosen, there remained more work to do to refine the details so that it could 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, or even policy. When he was a curate, a young person had made a disclosure to him, but it was “sheer good fortune” that a social worker in his congregation had helped him to make a good response. “Even as a new bishop, 21 years ago, the diocese where I served only had one half-time safeguarding officer,” he recalled.
He had seen the changes made over the past years, and did not want to do anything to undermine diocesan safeguarding officers. These teams had been a key part of the Church’s journey towards becoming a safer body. “But I have also lived with the inadequacies of our processes — I think I may know more than most how unsatisfactory this is,” he said. He had also seen the lack of consistency between dioceses, and knew that trust was broken. Therefore, he would be voting for Model 4. He insisted that the choice was not between listening to victims on the one side, and diocesan safeguarding teams on the other: “We must listen to both.” Model 4 would mean that diocesan teams remained embedded in the dioceses.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), a member of the Response Group, said that there was expertise from both outside experts and survivors on the group. He said that changes in statute and regulation could lead to culture change, referring to examples such as seatbelt laws, or the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces. His concern was how 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 risky places for safeguarding, with choristers, outside contractors, large workforces, and ever-changing congregations. Cathedral Chapters, such as the one that 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 would not be able to select their own provider of safeguarding services. What would happen if the outside body’s interests diverged from the Chapter, he asked, given that the ultimate recourse of changing provider of safeguarding was not open to cathedrals?
James Wilson (Manchester) said that, although things might 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 necessary, he said, and this could be delivered only by Model 4.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, said that the decisions should be based on evidence, and the most substantial body of evidence available to the Church was the results of the INEQE audit programme. He referred to the first annual report from the audit programme published earlier in the month (News, 14 February), and said that it had not received the attention that it deserved. “Safeguarding must 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 blend of the two models, endorsing Model 3 while further work to try to iron out the issues with Model 4 continued.
Bishop North said that Model 4 presented serious problems, and that the data that the Jay review had used to reach its conclusions had been strongly challenged. INEQE had done a more comprehensive audit, and had come to very different conclusions. He also raised the problems of the indissoluble contract between dioceses and cathedrals and the independent safeguarding provider, which had been raised by Judge Collier. The Church should listen carefully to the 106 safeguarding professionals who opposed Model 4, he said. He described implementing it as “eye-wateringly complicated”, and too slow. “In an attempt to change our reputation, we will make it worse” if nothing was seen to change for years, he said.
Model 3 could be implemented straight away, while details for Model 4 could be worked out later — representing clear, radical progress to become a safer Church, while due diligence was completed on Model 4. “This amendment is about 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 rather than all progress lost.
Dr Grenfell said that choosing a straight Model 4 would probably look quite similar to Bishop North’s proposal, as they would naturally begin with creating the scrutiny function first. But bolting Model 4 on to an existing Model 3 later would be clunky and difficult. The amendment would add more uncertainty and delay things. “You can’t set off without a vision of what the end point might look 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 action on behalf of the Church. She opposed the amendment, warning that there was too much inconsistency between the dioceses, despite the heroic efforts of DSOs. The concerns about the complexities of this model could still be overcome, and they must 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 become remoter from the front-line parish safeguarding officers, he warned. He called for an option to be available for local safeguarding bodies to be put under “special measures” if performance was not up to scratch.
The Revd Paul Langham (Bristol) said that the analogy of homework was imperfect, but it gave some clarity on the disagreement. “We are all agreed that we should not be allowed to mark our own work; we disagree on whether we should continue to do our own work,” he said. What mattered was not “giving the appearance of radical change, but achieving the right radical outcomes”, and supported Bishop North’s amendment.
Professor Helen King (Oxford) said that, despite numerous briefings and meetings, she had found it difficult to make her mind up about 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 key 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 impossible. But all must remain responsible for safeguarding, regardless. Bishop North’s amendment was the best way 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 previous day “deeply moving”, especially hearing from a survivor how traumatising they had found the Church’s mishandling of their report. In the light of that, was it “judicious” to move to an entirely untested safeguarding system in Model 4? “We are in danger of calling for the creation of an entity that is too big to fail,” he warned. Currently, if one safeguarding team failed, it did not mean that others would be affected. If the Church invested all safeguarding in a single monopoly provider, when problems arose, there would be no recourse to alternatives. “We would find ourselves in 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 public were watching. He supported Model 4, recognising that it had drawbacks. But, even under Model 4, safeguarding would remain the responsibility of all in the Church (with the same training and promotion), but the people who delivered it would not be open to manipulation by senior staff. Trust in the Bishops was at rock bottom, he said. The arguments against Model 4 did not match up to the crisis in confidence. The Church had 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 had to be responsible management of safeguarding procedures, she said. Safeguarding reforms had to go along with other work on discipline and conduct. She also had concerns that registrars were being asked to get too involved, without the right 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 new 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 so that true, full independence could be achieved for the Church in the future. An ombudsman model rather than an Ofsted-style body would be aligned with the wishes of most survivors, he argued. Safeguarding professionals should be completely free to pursue what they thought was best, without any implicit pressure from their employer. Model 3 did not go far enough, and neither did Model 4, but to go further would need a change in the law, he said.
Dr Grenfell resisted the amendment, and it lapsed.
Mr Margrave then moved his next amendment, 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 carefully planned than “tacked on to the end of a motion about something else”. She asked members to honour the process under way with the Redress Scheme, which was exploring how to show corporate repentance, and would shortly bring ideas to the Synod.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) said that much of the debate 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, did not think the Church could say sorry 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 could be improved in the future, but 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 say sorry to those who had been hurt.
Samuel Wilson (Chester) said that institutional apologies could be said without really meaning very much, if they were unspecific and vague. This amendment was one of those.
The amendment was was carried by 315-24, with 36 recorded abstentions.
Fr Stephen Maxfield (Greek Orthodox Church) said that there might be consequences for other denominations in the UK if the Established Church had an independent body in charge of its safeguarding.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) warned against complacency. “The radical change that we so need must happen not just in our structures, but in ourselves,” she said. She asked for attention to be paid to to how power operated in 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 would be disappointed that Model 4 wasn’t being taken forward immediately, but this approach allowed the Church to build on its progress.
Canon Paul Cartwright (Leeds) was “sad” that the Church had decided to go to Model 4 via Model 3 and worried that the ultimate destination might never be reached. He called on the House of Bishops to ensure 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 different Continental charity regulations. He paid tribute to diocesan safeguarding officers and thanked them for their 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 did not want 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 few 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 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.
