Message from Bishop Rachel, 18 February 2025

During the meeting of the General Synod last week there was much mention made of power and trust. For me, this all highlights the primary importance of paying attention to relationship which sits at the heart of who God is, and who we are called to be as followers of Christ participating in God’s mission of reconciliation.

Lament of wounded relationship, abusive relationship and failed relationship, and the need to have right relationship built into processes and governance, is pertinent in all our discussions regarding safeguarding.

As many of you know, a key item during the meeting of the General Synod was a focus on how to embed greater independence into the Church of England’s safeguarding. The debate had a good overall tone, and people were committed to a Church in which all are welcomed, safe, heard and valued; a church in which we do not mark our own homework (a frequently repeated phrase); and in which the voices and trauma of those with lived experience of abuse are heard and responded to well. I was glad that, in a desire to act more justly and robustly, there was frequent mention of the desperate need to take action regarding our complaint, discipline and governance processes. I was relieved that we took some steps in the right direction during other synodical business.

Many will be aware of the broad content of the options which were put before Synod regarding independence in Safeguarding (as outlined in the Synod paper GS2378 Future of Church Safeguarding). These were described as Models 3 and 4 as they related to the original four models presented to General Synod last July, following the reports by both Dr Sarah Wilkinson and Professor Alexis Jay. Since then, much work has been done by a Response Group overseen by Bishop Joanne Grenfell, the Lead Safeguarding Bishop.

As the opening page of GS2378 states, both models include “an external Scrutiny Body to deliver, among other things, an end-stage complaint process, commissioning of an ongoing programme of audits of diocesan and cathedral safeguarding, and accreditation of safeguarding professionals. Both models include transfer of safeguarding staff to an external employer. Model 3 transfers most of the staff currently employed by the National Safeguarding Team (NST) in the Archbishops’ Council, and Model 4 transfers staff employed by the NST and safeguarding staff from cathedrals and diocesan teams.”

Bishop Joanne was clear that the Response Group members were not unanimous in favouring Model 4, and that what she most wanted was to ask Synod to choose between the two options. However, as there is no legal synodical provision for this, Bishop Joanne brought a motion for adopting Model 4 and then welcomed an amendment proposing Model 3. However, there was then a further amendment to that amendment, brought by Bishop Philip North, which some informally referred to as option 3.5. The aim of this amendment was to ensure we agreed getting on with everything in Model 3, whilst at the same time furthering work to rigorously explore the implementation of Model 4, and ensure the feasibility and effectiveness of transferring safeguarding teams in dioceses and cathedrals to the same external employer as the NST.

The concerns around Model 4 are primarily around the responsibility of the Diocesan Boards of Finance which are set up as charitable companies, and the requirements of trustees regarding safeguarding. Whilst in principle it should be feasible for a DBF’s trustees to delegate their powers to an external body in relation to safeguarding, there is currently no existing example and so some of the concerns relate to whether or not we can deliver this well, such that a new structure is truly safer. Yet, it is also fair to say that Bishop Joanne and the Response Group have been very clear in recognising the serious work which would need to be undertaken to implement Model 4, and there was no sense that they have been naïve about it.

When Bishop Philip’s amendment to Model 3 was voted on it was carried in all three houses of Synod, thus removing the option of voting on Model 4. Following a further amendment to add in a final point, we voted on the motion as amended and it was overwhelmingly passed:

‘That this Synod:

1. 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;
2. affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
3. 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 31 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;
4. and 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.”

Bishop Joanne’s opening speech, the above amended motion, and the final voting figures, can all be read in this short summary: Synod votes on next steps for independent safeguarding | The Church of England.

You may have seen a letter from a large group of diocesan safeguarding professionals, which was sent to members of General Synod ahead of the debate. It expressed concern about Model 4, linked here: 250205-CofE-Safeguarding-Professionals-Letter.pdf. Interestingly, concern was also echoed by Jim Gamble, the Lead Auditor of the INEQE Safeguarding Group, who has now carried out independent safeguarding audits across  a number of dioceses (see Opinion from Jim Gamble – Ineqe Safeguarding Group).

Gloucester was audited by INEQE just over a year ago in February 2024 Safeguarding in the Diocese of Gloucester – Diocese of Gloucester, and whilst we must never be complacent, it should give you confidence in our culture, processes and excellent safeguarding team. However, I am also aware that INEQE audits have not yet been carried out across all dioceses, and I doubt that there is consistency across every cathedral and diocese in the Church of England regarding both practice and resource. I believe we need to pay attention to this as we find the right way forward, and therefore for me this was a strong argument in favour of Model 4.

For the record, I actually voted against Bishop Philip’s amendment, but then voted in favour of the final motion as amended to ensure that we do indeed take some significant steps in embedding greater independence in safeguarding.

In reality, I think that where we have reached is probably not that different from where we would be now be if we had voted for Model 4. That is to say that we would still have moved to bring in independent scrutiny as soon as possible, whilst beginning the long and hard work to agree the mechanisms by which bishops and charity trustees can uphold their responsibility for safeguarding, in a model which transfers safeguarding professionals across the cathedrals and dioceses to an external body. However, while we have agreed that the work will be undertaken to fully explore Model 4, we have not ultimately committed to it, and I am deeply sad that we have failed to give a clear and definitive message to our nation in ways that people can understand and trust. I want to echo Bishop Joanne’s words in saying that I am sad that we have “missed the opportunity to say unequivocally to victims and survivors that we hear their concerns about trust and confidence in the Church.”

Personally, I hope that we stay committed to robust exploration of Model 4, and that a clear timetable is established for bringing findings back to Synod. And in this, as in all our business, I hope we will keep relationship at the heart, keeping our eyes on Christ.

Almighty God,
who alone can bring order to the unruly wills and passions of sinful humanity:
give your people grace so to love what you command
and to desire what you promise,
that, among the many changes of this world,
our hearts may surely there be fixed where true joys are to be found;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.    (This week’s Collect)

This comes with my continued thanks and prayers.