Church of England to increase oversight of abuse complaints – but safeguarding won’t be fully independent

The Church of England recently made a significant, yet controversial, decision in response to ongoing abuse scandals within its ranks. Despite growing pressure from survivors and advocates, the Church’s General Synod voted against implementing a fully independent safeguarding body. Instead, they opted for a model that maintains a level of internal control, a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from those directly affected by past failures. This decision comes on the heels of Archbishop Justin Welby’s resignation, who stepped down after a report highlighted his mishandling of abuse cases, particularly involving the notorious abuser John Smyth. Additionally, the Bishop of Liverpool, John Perumbalath, has retired amidst allegations of sexual assault, which he denies. These events underscore the Church’s struggle to address its safeguarding crisis effectively.

Survivors of abuse within the Church have expressed deep disappointment and frustration with the Synod’s decision. Many had hoped for a more radical overhaul of the safeguarding system, advocating for an independent body to oversee all cases. However, the chosen model falls short of their expectations, leading some to label the decision a “fudge.” Will Harwood, a survivor and vicar, shared his concerns, explaining that high-ranking officials within the Church often underestimate the need for more robust measures. He emphasized that survivors feel unheard and let down, as the decision fails to address their need for an independent and trustworthy system. Andrew Graystone, an advocate for abuse survivors, echoed these sentiments, criticizing the Church for choosing to “keep it in the family” rather than seeking external expertise, which he believes is a slap in the face for victims.

The new safeguarding structure will transfer most national staff to a separate entity outside the Church, while cathedral officers and diocesan staff will remain under Church employment. This approach aims to balance external oversight with internal control, reflecting a pragmatic middle ground. Proponents argue that this model allows for a smoother transition and maintains institutional continuity, which they believe is essential for effective safeguarding. However, critics argue that this compromise fails to address the root issue of the Church’s internal governance, leaving too much power in the hands of bishops and clergy who have historically been part of the problem.

The decision has also sparked internal dissent within the Church. The Bishop of Newcastle expressed her fury at the Synod’s decision, suggesting that not everyone within the institution is comfortable with the status quo. Her outspoken criticism highlights the divisions within the Church regarding how to address safeguarding issues. While some members of the clergy and laity support the decision, others believe it reflects a deeper resistance to necessary reforms. This internal conflict underscores the complexity of the issue and the challenge of achieving consensus on such a sensitive topic.

The broader implications of this decision are profound, as it raises questions about the Church’s commitment to cultural change. Survivors and advocates argue that without a fundamental shift in how the Church handles abuse allegations, the cycle of mistrust and failure is likely to continue. The Synod’s decision, which was made against the recommendations of senior Church figures, suggests that there is still reluctance to embrace radical reforms, even in the face of significant pressure and public scrutiny. This missed opportunity for more comprehensive change leaves many questioning whether the Church is truly willing to confront its past failures and adopt the necessary measures to prevent future abuses.

In conclusion, the Church of England’s decision to maintain internal control over its safeguarding processes, despite calls for independence, has left survivors feeling disillusioned and unheard. While the new measures represent a step forward, they fall short of the transformative changes many had hoped for. The coming months and years will reveal whether this compromise is sufficient to restore trust and prevent further scandals. However, for now, the decision serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges the Church faces in addressing its safeguarding crisis and the deep-seated need for fundamental cultural change from within.