Presidential Address to Synod, March 2025
Friends, let me begin by reading the familiar words of Psalm 121.
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills – from where will my help come?
2 My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
3 He will not let your foot be moved; he who keeps you will not slumber.
4 He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is your shade at your right hand.
6 The sun shall not strike you by day nor the moon by night.
7 The LORD will keep you from all evil; he will keep your life.
8 The LORD will keep your going out and your coming in
from this time on and forevermore.
I offered an exposition of that Psalm at our first Parish Safeguarding Officers’ day in 2023, making the point that forms of that little word ‘keep’, which come six times in the last six verses, could equally be translated ‘guard’ or ‘safeguard’. Let me read those last six verses again:
3 He will not let your foot be moved;
he who safeguards you will not slumber.
4 He who safeguards Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The LORD is your safeguarder; the LORD is your shade at your right hand.
6 The sun shall not strike you by day nor the moon by night.
7 The LORD will safeguard you from all evil; he will safeguard your life.
8 The LORD will safeguard your going out and your coming in
from this time on and forevermore.
Friends, safeguarding doesn’t just matter to God. Safeguarding is characteristic of God and I hope it will seem entirely obvious and appropriate to you that I want to make safeguarding the principle focus of this Presidential Address.
When this Synod last met, it was very soon after the publication of the Makin Report into the abominable abuses of John Smyth and the subsequent resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed, if you were there, you will probably recall that Archdeacon Malcolm and I sought to address those events head on at the outset of the meeting – after which we kept a minute of silent prayer together for a safer church.
But since then we have all been shaken by at least three subsequent developments, one before Christmas and two afterwards – the first two of which led to calls for the resignation of the Archbishop of York. I want to note, however, that none of these terrible events reflect the work of safeguarding at parish level, and do not reflect on the quality of work by PSOs and volunteers in local congregations. It’s really important to say that.
First, in December, BBC File on 4 published its investigation into the case of David Tudor, a priest in the Diocese of Chelmsford deprived of office in October last year after a complaint made against him under the Clergy Discipline Measure relating to historic sexual offences against girls under the age of 18. You will recall, and may well share, the widespread sense of consternation that he was allowed to continue in post for so long after concerns about his behaviour first emerged. In some quarters, that sense of consternation led to the first calls for the resignation of the Archbishop of York who had been the Bishop of Chelmsford for a decade until 2020.
Then in January came the Channel Four documentary, disclosing complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment against the Bishop of Liverpool, John Perambulath. The documentary led swiftly to his resignation and to the revelation that one of the complainants was his colleague, the Bishop of Warrington, Bev Mason. Again, there was widespread consternation that these complaints had not been addressed and resolved by proper process and as a matter of urgency. You may remember that by the time the Bishop of Liverpool resigned, the Bishop of Warrington had not been able to exercise her ministry in the Diocese of Liverpool for over 500 days. 500 days! Again there were calls for the resignation of the Archbishop of York, and these intensified after Channel Four broadcast some concerns about the meetings of the CNC, the Crown Nominations Commission, which had resulted in Perambulath’s appointment.
Finally, last month, there was the debate at General Synod, at which we debated two potential models of independence in safeguarding for the Church of England, called models 3 and models 4 because the two least ambitious models (1 and 2) had already been rejected. Model 3 envisages the creation of an independent scrutiny body to review the management of casework in the Church of England and the outsourcing to a second independent body of the work currently done by the National Safeguarding Team, while Diocesan Safeguarding Officers and Teams would remain employees of the relevant Diocesan Board of Finance, supervised through the regional model arising from the IICSA recommendations. Model 4 envisages that DSOs and their teams would also be outsourced to the independent body, together with the National Safeguarding Team. Broadly speaking, model 3 was preferred by the safeguarding professionals within the Church of England, including our own Safeguarding Team; and by INEQE, the body which is currently undertaking an audit of safeguarding in Dioceses. Model 4 was strongly preferred by Professor Jay, who published a review of Church Safeguarding review last year and who previously chaired the IICSA enquiry. Model 4 was also preferred by most victims and survivors.
The decision of the Synod was reported with dismay on national TV and radio, in print and on social media. ‘Church of England rejects independent safeguarding’ was the blunt headline. ‘Church of England lets down survivors once again’. ‘Church of England rejects option 4’. The optics were undeniably horrid, and frankly I would be surprised if, on Wednesday 12 February, you were not feeling thoroughly discouraged by the whole sorry mess.
The cumulative impact of these events has been deeply demoralising and at various points over the past four months I myself have felt despondent and even ashamed about the institution I serve. The first thing I want to say this morning is that if this recent crisis has tested your loyalty to the Church of England and has made you question your place in it, I understand that. That’s not an over-reaction. We have repeatedly let down those who have looked to us for refuge; we have failed very publicly for at least a decade to prioritise the needs of survivors; and in the process, we have brought the Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute. We, and when I say ‘we’ I do especially mean we bishops, should hang our heads in shame.
Having said that, I do want to try to provide some context. In what follows I am not attempting to excuse or justify anyone or anything; but I think it might be helpful to clarify a few things. I want to make two points, one about the decision of the General Synod and one about the other three terrible revelations.
First of all, then, General Synod. I do understand the backlash following the vote last month. I realise that the decision we took was a further deep disappointment to most survivors, at a time when they had already had their fill of disappointment. But as a matter of fact, I do also believe the decision taken at Synod offers the best path to a safer church, so let me try to say why.
Those who reported ‘Church rejects model 4’ could in fact equally have reported ‘Church rejects model 3’ – but no-one did report it like that. Given the binary choice between model three and model 4, what Synod voted in favour of was actually for 3.5 or 3.7: we voted for model 3 as a stepping stone towards a more thoroughly explored model 4.
You see, model 4 has its risks. No other institution has ever outsourced its safeguarding. There is no precedent to learn from. No university, or NHS trust, no large charity or local authority has tried it. And the Charity Commission, on hearing of the possibility, reminded us that if the Church of England did adopt model 4, it would still retain the Governance responsibility for safeguarding, even if we outsource the operation. The Bishops would still retain responsibility for safeguarding. And that raises questions: what would we do if we became dissatisfied with the work of the independent body? What if their values and goals began to diverge from those of the Christian Church? How would an independent body itself be held to account? And just what would it involve if we were to transfer 42 Cathedral safeguarding teams and 42 Diocesan teams into one independent employer, given that the terms and conditions of safeguarding teams are not standard. At present, a DSO in Sheffield might not be paid the same as a DSO in Leeds, any more than the Diocesan Secretary or Director of Finance. What would TUPE look like from 84 charities to one employer, 85 charities if you include the National Safeguarding Team? Diocesan Safeguarding teams were also concerned that an independent employer might not encourage or even permit safeguarding professionals to spend a significant proportion of their time supporting parishes and individuals to engender a more healthy safeguarding culture, and that their work might end up being restricted to case management alone. The rejection of model 4 has been reported as if the Bishops were determined to retain control of safeguarding. We are not. Most of us would like nothing more than to relinquish not only control but responsibility. And there’s the rub. We can’t relinquish responsibility. We should not relinquish responsibility. So we are trying to ensure we find the model which enables us to exercise that continued responsibility well.
It was for these sorts of reasons that safeguarding teams also favoured model 3 not model 4. But on the other hand, model 3 has shortcomings. At present there is a real unevenness of resource, performance and culture across the 42 Dioceses and 42 Cathedrals. Not every Diocese has the same size of safeguarding team, relative to the number of parishes. Not every Diocese offers the same training in the same way. Not every Cathedral relates to its DSO in the same way. And surely we desperately need consistency and best practice across the board. Model 4 would certainly make that achievable.
So what we voted for was to get the independent scrutiny body underway and to begin the process of transferring the NST to independent employment, but not to stop there, as if model 3 is job done. We also voted to explore further model 4, and possibly multiple versions of model 4, so that we can be satisfied that the benefits will outweigh the costs. We did not reject model 4, we just determined, I believe wisely, that model 4 is not yet sufficiently formed for us to adopt it with confidence. That’s the General Synod and my first point.
Secondly, as far as the three scandals are concerned, and I do think they are, in their different ways, scandals, I hope to God that they will prove to be a watershed in the life of our church. Although the Smyth story is atrocious, the cover up in the 1980s utterly reprehensible, the lack of follow-through by Archbishop Justin and others since 2017 lamentable, although that is all true, it seems to me that the lessons to be learned are relatively clear and the recommendations of the Makin Review relatively easily applied. I may be fooling myself, but I believe that to be true.
But the other two cases are trickier. A few weeks ago, a prominent lay person in this Diocese challenged me: ‘How long is it going to take for the House of Bishops to sort out safeguarding? How difficult can it be?’ And part of what the Tudor case in particular has shown us, and maybe also recent events in Liverpool, is that it can be very difficult indeed, for this reason. The structures, systems and processes which make up the Church of England were mostly laid down organically centuries ago and they are proving unfit for a present-day culture which values scrutiny, transparency and accountability. I’ll say that again because it’s important: the structures, systems and processes which make up the Church of England were mostly laid down organically centuries ago and they are proving unfit for a present-day culture which values scrutiny, transparency and accountability.
The most obvious illustration of this – and this may even come as a surprise to some of you lay people here – is that clergy are not employees; they are office holders. As such, they are not subject to employment law. Although a legal process of pastoral reorganisation can lead to the dispossession of a priest, parish clergy cannot be made redundant in the ordinary way. They cannot be sacked or be made subject to a performance management process. Clergy are not subject to ordinary HR.
There was another debate at General Synod, hardly reported at all in the media, which ended in the adoption of a new Clergy Conduct Measure, which will in effect replace the Clergy Discipline Measure with something much more refined, much less of a blunt instrument. That is a huge step forward, and our own Archdeacon Malcolm was part of the group which has been working on it. It’s a huge step forward, but it is still not ordinary HR.
A significant part of the problem in the Tudor case, and I suspect also in the Liverpool case, is that ordinary HR did not apply. In other words, the Church of England has an HR crisis as well as a safeguarding crisis. And it may be that part of the solution to our present ills is to bring office holder status to an end and for the clergy to become employees, subject to ordinary HR. Had that been the case, I do believe the Tudor case and the Liverpool case could have been, would have been, brought to a just conclusion much more quickly. Again, I may be fooling myself, but I believe that to be true.
I must stop. Friends, in this address I am not trying to excuse anyone or anything. I am not trying to minimise offences or failings. I can assure you that have felt the woes of the past four months keenly. And I am committed, deeply committed, to navigating the way to a genuinely safe, and survivor focused Church of England. But I am wanting to say that there is no magic switch we can flip which will get us there overnight. Independence in safeguarding will be a big part of the solution, but it will not be the whole solution. Nothing less than a wholesale reform of our structures, systems and processes (perhaps especially in HR) will get us to where we need to be. May God help us get there.