An adjournment debate was held in the House of Commons on Monday evening, on Church of England Safeguarding. The full transcript of the debate is available here.
A video recording of the entire day (starting at 2.30 pm) is available here. The adjournment debate began at 8.33 pm and concluded at 9.32 pm.
The Church Times has published this news article: Commons debate airs ‘disappointment’ at direction of church safeguarding
Thank you, Simon, for posting this. As foreseen at Synod, and advised and commented on at the time by Marshs Decordova, the Commons is ‘disappointed’ by the beloved and benighted Established Church. Well ‘disappointed’ is the way the Church Times puts it, in shall we say ‘parliamentary language’. I am sure that textual analysis would show a rather more angry response. A simple search using <Control F> reveals to me 33 uses of the word ‘Independent’ in juxtaposition to ‘Safeguarding’. A number of references are made by speakers to the large number of attendees to a debate so late in… Read more »
If you watch the debate on BBC iPlayer you will see that the so-called “large number of attendees” was fewer than about a couple of dozen MPs (with only two MPs on the opposition benches) out of 650 MPs – i.e. less than 4% of the Commons membership. This paltry attendance is not recorded in Hansard. In her winding-up speech the Minister, Jess Phillips, said “we will set out a clear timeline for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report on child sexual abuse.” The final IICSA report was published in October 2022 – nearly 2½… Read more »
One of the main arguments at Synod for going for model 3.5 was speed I think those who voted for it were looking for swift action to establish external scrutiny and also model the feasibility of model 4. It is now up to those responsible to produce the swift action that is undoubtedly needed rather than move at the glacial speed of most Church of England affairs!!
Thank you for posting this. If we, the CofE, want to continue to be the National Church, we have to get our act together and stop being manipulated by emotionally performative Bishops in General Synod who, quite frankly, should know better.
’emotionally performative’…yes.
I do not understand your comment. Bishops in the synod debate expressed views for and against the motion. As did those in the other two houses. I find this is a highly pejorative take on what was a very long and gruelling debate for all present. And very dismissive of the ability of synod members to come to their own view on this issue. I for one think they made the right decision.
David, I agree – and hence my letter in the Church Times on 28 February.2025. Will those MPs who took part in the adjournment debate (no doubt lobbied by constituent members of General Synod – no criticism, but to be noted) press the Government to implement the IICSA recommendations, in particular recommendation 2 as set out in my earlier comment on this thread, which is not supportive of what has been labelled CofE ‘Model 4’? The Government / Parliament has found time to debate the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill, to remove the prohibition on a person of… Read more »
The Bishops have a variety of styles. Many have a range of public speaking modes to suit a variety of occasions. Some have a very small operational range. If you find my comment perjorative, so be it. “Performative” is the phrase that was used by people present in the Chamber. In the fullness of time we will find out if Synod made the right decision. By the end of this month a letter must be sent to the Chief Executive of the Charity Commission explaining what actions are being taken. I cannot recall a time when our Church was in… Read more »
Agreed. I think those supporting Option 3 or 3.5 underestimate the extent of the loss of trust in our bishops, Archbishops’ Council, leading C of E civil servants, and safeguarding systems. I, and many other survivors – who have been at the sharp end of the dysfunction – have no confidence in any of these bodies to set up a better system. There have been too many vested interests and too much ineptitude – and sometimes downright malice. With Synod’s failure to pass Option 4 I’ve given up on the C of E, and doubt it will ever improve. I’m… Read more »
Profound House of Commons adjournment debate which Luke Meyer, MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, led. I recommend all TA watchers find time to engage with it. Parliament is angry with the leadership of the Church of England, but it recognises that it cannot tell the General Synod how to do its processes. MPs present completely understood the Model 3/Model 4 safeguarding debate. William Nye, Secretary-General of the Archbishops’ Council, was called out in the debate. The theme was of an institution with power being held by a few people who are refusing to let go of that power. The decisions… Read more »
Anthony. I find it hard to call a gathering of a handful of MPs a ‘profound Commons debate’, still less evidence that ‘Parliament is angry’ with the CofE. Is it not more obviously a sign Parliament is not actually that interested?
“Is it not more obviously a sign Parliament is not actualy that interested?”
There it is a nutshell. At what point is the entire idea of establishment really well beyond its sell-by date?
It was not a debate about establishment.
Of course it wasn’t.
The idea that the government “is not actually interested” is a clear indication that the Church of England might as well be dis-established.
David, I share your view. I was watching the long silence after the report was posted and pondering a comment along the lines of yours. Anthony has vast experience in this field which I most certainly respect, but it seems to me that while the engagement was serious, it was delivered by v few parliamentarians. I see nothing to comfort those who rumble periodically on this site about dissatisfaction in Parliament with the CofE, which will sort things out. It’s a minority interest, however well grounded.
The number of MPs who will be present for a particular debate is often very small. The number of occasions when the house is full, other than for PMQs or some contentious statement or division, is very small. Usually it’s people with an interest in the topic who intend to speak. I don’t think you can infer much numbers.
Of course Parliament is not that interested, as evidenced by the very high percentage of MPs not swearing allegiance on the Bible these days. The House of Commons is representative of the people. Contributors to the debate acknowledged that Parliament doesn’t have much influence over the General Synod, although one member stated that increasing the powers of the Ecclesiastical Committee was being looked at. But on the other side of the coin, shocking given the Church of England’s privileges and responsibilities as the church by law established, not a single bishop was seen in the gallery for the debate; certainly… Read more »
A few commentators here (David Lamming, David Runcorn, Anglican Priest and Aljbri) have commented on how few MPs were present. It is important to understand that this was an adjournment debate – this is 30 minutes at the end of each day’s business in which an MP gets to raise an issue, usually of only local importance, and put concerns on the record with a response from the government. There are rarely more than two or three MPs in the chamber for these debates; and the speakers are usually only the MP moving the debate and the government minister. So… Read more »
Thank you Gavin for your observations, better informed, if I might say so, than those of commentators who seem to be adopting the Frank Drebble/ Naked Gun position: ‘Move along; nothing to see here’. By my count, fifteen of the twenty or so attendees (from all parts of the House) spoke, with knowledge and feeling. Many debates at times earlier in the day have fewer. No MP as far as I am aware was voted in for their interest in the church, unlike Synod members, for whom, one hopes, the Church is rather more central. Several (most?) of the MPs… Read more »
“pleaded”, I suggest. “pled” (which I always thought a mistaken form) is according to the OED “(chiefly Scottish and U.S.)”
“Pled” is fine. Having had a Scottish education….. she pled not guilty….. he pled guilty….. common reporting many years ago. Of course, I shudder when I hear or see “Firstly”…. Oh dear…..first, secondly, thirdly.
Not in English English, only, I suspect, under American influence — perhaps Scots influence too, but I fancy US cultural influence is more pervasive, e.g. US films and tv cop series. (I agree about “first” but “secondly” etc, though peronally I regard this as a bit of an affectation, albeit one that I myself follow.)
The use of adjectives instead of adverbs irritates me – but apparently ‘go fast’ was an expression used even by Charles III, and the OED says fast can be both an adjective and an adverb. But I fear for the half-life of adverbs.
https://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/a-quick-thought-about-fast-and-quickly
I read the transcript, and saw there were significant contributions. But I also had the impression that they wanted the church to get its own house in order. On the one hand, we have establishment, on the other hand parliament felt they had little ability to effect change. It seemed inconsistent.
Surely, for example, they could insist that the church acts inside the law, not outside?
I don’t want to waste time reading through the transcript again, but it was an impression I was left with.
Some quotes – surely the government is perfectly within its rights to tell the CoE what to do if it is contravening the laws of the land or the policies of the charity commission?: Does he agree that the Church of England and all charitable bodies must be subject to the law of the land in exactly the same manner, whether religious or non-religious? I have previously raised in the House the possibility of holding the Church of England accountable to the public through being subject to the strictures of the Freedom of Information Act. I was advised that that… Read more »
You are of course right about adjournment debates, and they are something I happen to have had direct experience of during my working life. My concern is that for Parliament and the government sorting out the CofE (not really my problem as a member of the SEC) is more complex and time eating than the high quality adjournment debate might suggest. And this forum tends to assume that a cavalry of the right minded is forming up just over the hill to sort things out. I would love to understand whether this cavalry is expected to sort out safeguarding or… Read more »
I feel you are very right. The vision may be clear, but the strategy and tactics are not. But at least the vision should be established and agreed (or maybe disestablished!). The state and church are so intimately intermingled legally and culturally and economically that extracting them would take significant effort. But a direction of travel can be set. Maybe start with reform of House of Lords, and clearer guidance on the precedence of secular laws over ecclesiastical laws. Reform of House of Lords does not necessarily mean that wise bishops are excluded – just that their rights are not… Read more »