Church vote on safeguarding ‘a punch in the gut for survivors'

Yahoo

11-02-2025

A Church of England vote which delays fully independent safeguarding has been branded a 'punch in the gut' for victims of abuse.
Representatives of survivors said the outcome was 'incredibly disappointing' and showed the Church had decided to 'keep it in the family'.
Victims had pleaded with the Church's parliament to endorse a new model which would have seen all Church-employed safeguarding officers transferred to a new independent body.
But the General Synod instead voted for a less independent model 'as the way forward in the short term' and for 'further work' to be done to implement the move to full independence.
The endorsed model (option three) would see most national staff move to a new outside non-Church body, but other diocesan and cathedral officers remaining with their current Church employers, although no firm timeline has been given for work to begin on this.
Synod voted 392 in favour, nine against and six abstained on the final motion.
Former chairwoman of the national Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) Professor Alexis Jay, who previously led a review into church safeguarding, said the vote had been a missed opportunity to improve safeguarding.
After hours of debate at Church House on Tuesday, an amendment from Bishop of Blackburn Philip North was supported by a majority of Synod members.
Proposing it, he told those gathered: '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 it was a delay, 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.'
Speaking to reporters afterwards, he 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'.
Asked for his response to victims' reaction, the bishop said: 'I think what I would really worry about is making promises to survivors, to the nation, to the Church, that we couldn't then deliver.'
He 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'.
That option would have seen all safeguarding officers currently working in dioceses, cathedrals and the national Church transferred to work for a new independent organisation.
The Church has been plagued by safeguarding controversies over the years, with a damning report into serial abuser John Smyth leading to the resignation of Justin Welby as archbishop of Canterbury.
His temporary stand-in, Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell has also faced calls to quit over failures in handling abuse cases, and admitted this week the Church has 'failed greatly' on safeguarding.
Addressing Synod on Monday, he said he had 'long believed that greater independence is the missing piece in the safeguarding jigsaw'.
Backing model four, he told those gathered how he had 'lived with the constraints of the inadequacies of our processes and their lack of scrutiny and I think I may know more than most how inadequate and unsatisfactory this is, for me, but it's not about me, it's for victims and survivors who have been an continue to be hurt by our church because of this'.
The more independent model of safeguarding was also supported during the debate by Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally and Bishop of Leicester Martyn Snow, with the latter describing it as a 'cultural reset'.
Bishop of Newcastle Helen-Ann Hartley, who has been strongly critical of Church leaders including Mr Cottrell, said she had abstained in the final vote and felt 'really disappointed' by the outcome.
She told Sky News: 'I'm afraid what this looks like is that we're just kicking the can down the road and we are failing our duty to victims and survivors. And I'm really desperately sorry and quite angry about that.'
She said she felt there had been 'a certain amount of confusion and a bit of scaremongering I have to say among some of my colleagues about what would happen if we tried to go to complete independence'.
Among concerns Mr North laid out to Synod were a claim that the data upon which model four was based is disputed, that the option could present 'nightmareish law', and that 'large numbers' of independent safeguarding professionals had said the option 'could make the church less safe'.
Prof Jay told Times Radio: 'All of the events over several years have caused victims and survivors to become very disillusioned with the Church and this will do nothing to address the issue: the trust and confidence that needs to be restored.
'It's retaining control of safeguarding for whatever reasons, one of which could well be for the protection of reputation.
'The culture of the church facilitated it becoming a place where abusers could hide.'
Abuse lawyer David Greenwood, who stood in solidarity with victims outside the venue ahead of the vote, said the result was 'incredibly disappointing'.
He said: 'Many have worked hard on the attempt to bring full independence to the church safeguarding process.
'This vote represents a rejection of secular standards in safeguarding and will lead to children continuing to be at risk in the church.'
Andrew Graystone, a longtime advocate for abuse survivors, said the vote showed the Church had decided to 'keep it in the family'.
He said: 'If you are abused by a vicar, you will still be expected to report it to a bishop.
'Safeguarding staff will still be located in church offices, employed by the very same bishop.
'The Church of England had an opportunity to start to rebuild trust, by admitting that it needed expertise from outside.
'But instead they have chosen to keep it in the family.
'Shocking arrogance, and a punch in the gut for victims and survivors of abuse.'
Bishop Joanne Grenfell, the Church's safeguarding lead also expressed her regret, saying: 'I am disappointed that we have not done today, or we may not do today as much as we could've done today.
'We need radical change to both our culture and our structures.'