😔 Church of England: Safeguarding

• The debate focused on the Church of England’s safeguarding practices and the need for urgent reforms to address ongoing issues affecting victims and survivors of abuse within the Church.

• Luke Myer, who secured the debate, highlighted the experiences of survivors, noting their frustration with the Church’s slow and complex safeguarding processes. He mentioned specific cases such as that of Mr X, whose abuse allegations have gone unaddressed for many years.

• There was a strong call for the Church to establish a fully independent safeguarding structure, as recommended by Professor Alexis Jay’s report. This recommendation was not fully supported by the General Synod, which only agreed to external scrutiny rather than a complete operational independence.

• Various MPs shared constituents’ harrowing experiences and stressed the need for the Church to be a safe place, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and a victim-centered approach in safeguarding reforms.

• Marsha De Cordova, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, expressed disappointment at the Synod’s decision and emphasized the necessity for the Church to move swiftly towards full independence in its safeguarding operations.

• The Minister for Safeguarding, Jess Phillips, acknowledged the severity of the issue and confirmed the government’s commitment to implementing mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, as proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill.

• The debate underscored the urgency of making tangible changes in the Church to rebuild trust and ensure the safety and well-being of all its members, particularly survivors of abuse.

The parliamentary session on Church of England safeguarding shows a moderate level of disagreement. While there is a consensus on the urgency and necessity of addressing safeguarding issues and supporting victims, differing opinions and frustrations arise on how to achieve these goals effectively. Here is a detailed analysis of the session’s content to explain the rating and provide examples of disagreements:

1. General Agreement on Importance and Urgency: All speakers agree on the critical nature of the issue and the need for urgent action. For example, Luke Myer emphasized the importance of listening to survivors and the need for the Church to act quickly, which was echoed by many contributors like Marsha De Cordova and Richard Baker, showcasing a united front on the core problem.

2. Disagreement on Implementation: The primary source of disagreement centers on the implementation of safeguarding reforms, particularly regarding the independence of these structures. The General Synod’s decision to opt for model 3 (external scrutiny body) instead of model 4 (fully independent safeguarding) elicited disappointment and criticism from several members. For instance, Marsha De Cordova expressed significant disappointment over the Synod’s choice not to back a wholly independent model, highlighting that it did not go far enough in ensuring transparency and accountability.

3. Differing Perspectives on Accountability and Change: There is a disagreement on the pace and nature of the reforms required. Speakers like Polly Billington and Sean Woodcock called for more significant structural changes within the Church, suggesting that current leadership and power structures need reevaluation to facilitate meaningful change. This contrasts with others who acknowledge progress but stress the need for continued action, such as Jonathan Davies, who appreciated the Church’s efforts but was concerned about its ability to embed lasting cultural change.

4. Interventions and Responses: Throughout the session, interventions such as those from Dawn Butler and Jim Shannon echoed and reinforced the sentiment that the Church’s actions have not met expectations. Responses from speakers like Luke Myer and Marsha De Cordova to these interventions consistently show a desire for more action, yet they do not challenge the fundamental agreement on the need for better safeguarding but rather emphasize their frustration with the Church’s current approach.

5. Government’s Role: There was some discussion around the role of government intervention in ensuring the Church implements effective safeguarding measures. While the Minister Jess Phillips acknowledged the government’s steps regarding general safeguarding enhancements (e.g., mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse), she clarified the government’s limits in enforcing changes within the Church, suggesting a moderate disagreement on the extent of government involvement.

Examples of disagreements:

• Marsha De Cordova: ‘It was a huge disappointment to me that the Synod chose not to back a wholly independent model of safeguarding.’
• Polly Billington: ‘…a small number of people who are refusing to let go of that power, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is impossible to change that culture, so the structures of the Church itself need to change.’
• Sean Woodcock: ‘…the decision of the General Synod on this issue is entirely regrettable and one to be lamented by this House.’

Overall, while the session does not exhibit strong, polarized disagreements that disrupt the debate’s flow, the moderate level of differing opinions on the specifics of implementation and change within the Church justifies a rating of 2.