Yesterday, the Church of England’s General Synod debated and voted on two proposed models (labelled 3 and 4) for independent safeguarding in the Church of England, and passed the following motion
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) 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.
Details, including voting figures, are in an official press release: Synod votes on next steps for independent safeguarding.
Reactions to Synod’s vote include the following.
I tried to listen to the debates, but I have a day job to attend to. I’m part of a team ensuring that when you turn on the lights, the lights turn on. Can someone summarise – I think that option 3 + amendment was put to the vote and passed. Was option 4 ever put to the vote? Or was it not put to the vote because option 3 + amendment passed? What would have happened if option 3 + amendment had failed, and then a subsequent vote on option 4 also failed? What would have happened if option… Read more »
Andrew Brown’s contrary reaction might be of interest to those who are open to different opinions https://andrewbrown.substack.com/
I have added this to my article.