The Church of England’s General Synod has today passed a motion to opt for a hybrid independent safeguarding model – going against calls from the lead safeguarding Bishop and the Archbishop of York to create a more independent body.
After several major safeguarding scandals, the denomination's legislative body was presented with two models of reforming safeguarding – Model 3 or Model 4.
In the July 2024 Synod, the Church was presented with four models, but Model 1 and Model 2 were discarded due to not going far enough towards independence.
Both 3 and 4 involve a new, independent body through which safeguarding issues are reported and overseen. Both involve safeguarding staff being present in every local parish. The key difference is that Model 3 involves the new independent body of people employed by the Archbishop’s Council, whilst Model 4 involves the new independent body of staff currently employed as safeguarding officers within local dioceses. This would move safeguarding staff to a new employer; currently, they are employed by their diocese.
The lead safeguarding Bishop, Rt Rev Joanne Grenfell, purported Model 4. She argued that this would “retain local knowledge and relationships” – whilst removing potential conflicts of interest.
During the debate, proponents of Model 4 raised the example of recent allegations against the Bishop of Liverpool, John Permumbalath. They argued that when the Bishop of a diocese has a safeguarding complaint levied directly against them, the current system – and that of Model 3 – results in a potential conflict of interest, as staff effectively have to investigate their own employer.
The Bishop of Blackburn, Rt Rev Philip North, proposed an amendment opting for a third way – by which Model 3 is adopted in the short term, with a view to implementing Model 4 in the longer term. He argued that transferring the employer of safeguarding staff would be a drawn-out process which would divert time and focus away from safeguarding staff.
“Option four (the more independent model) is eye-wateringly complex and will take years to implement, assuming it is implementable. No organisation has done anything on this scale before and during those years, not enough will change when the Church and the nation are demanding change now."
He rejected the idea that he was delaying, saying "the two processes can run concurrently, not consecutively so this amendment is about the very opposite of long grass".
He added: "Whilst we implement three, we can establish a definitive view on whether option four is legally deliverable."
The amended version of the motion passed – meaning that a new body will be created, but safeguarding staff will stay under the employment of their diocese. 392 members voted in favour of this option. Nine voted against it, and six absented.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Bishop Philip said Synod had voted "almost unanimously for a far greater degree of independence in safeguarding, for independence of scrutiny, for a far-strengthened role for DSAPs (diocesan safeguarding advisory panels), to ask questions about how we address inconsistencies, to a stronger regional system, and about funding for safeguarding".
Yet, many were disappointed on behalf of survivors. Clive Billenness, Member of the Archbishop’s Council and representative for the diocese of Europe told Premier he was “intensely disappointed” at the result.
“The Archbishop of York and the Bishop for safeguarding brought to us something they spent a year working on, and fundamentally, it's been overthrown this afternoon because people said, ‘Oh, it's all going to be too difficult’.”
Outside the Synod gathering in Church House, one survivor has been protesting against Model 3. Christian experienced abuse as a child. He told Premier that for safeguarding staff to remain employed by their diocese means the church is effectively “marking its own homework”.
Bishop Philip North said option four is "still very much on the table" and will return to Synod "in a form where we know that legally it can be implemented".