Members
of the General Synod, the Church's parliament, voted for the new
measures for handling abuse allegations as it tries to restore trust
among survivors after multiple scandals.
Despite victims urging
the Synod to introduce a new independent body to oversee all
Church-employed safeguarding officers - it instead voted for a less
independent model.
This "short term" model would see most
national staff move to a new outside non-Church body, but cathedral
officers and other diocesan to remain with their current Church
employers.
The motion was passed with 392 votes in its favour. Nine people voted against it - and there were six abstentions.
The five-day meeting of the Synod is the first since Justin Welby resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury amid condemnation over safeguarding failures.
He stood down in November
after a report said he could and should have done more in the case of
paedophile John Smyth - who for years sexually and physically abused
more than 120 boys and young men.
The Bishop of Liverpool, John Perumbalath, has also just announced his retirement after accusations of sexual assault and harassment were made by two women - one a bishop. He denies any wrongdoing.
Survivors dismiss vote as 'fudge'
'High noon at Synod' – as one contributor called it – came and went with the Church of England unwilling to grasp a total overhaul of its safeguarding policies.
There will be significant change over safeguarding. But even after repeated abuse scandals – including one which cost the job of the Archbishop of Canterbury who was forced to resign in disgrace – there still wasn't a will for the most far-reaching plan on the table.
Members of the General Synod – the church's parliament – debated various models and argued over amendments. In the end it voted for what survivors of abuse called a 'fudge'.
Repeatedly speakers at the Church's parliament talked of the need to rebuild trust.
But there was confliction; division and suspicion over how that is done.
And there are clearly serious doubts about handing all safeguarding responsibility to an external body straight away.
Those who work with survivors believe this Synod wasted its opportunity. Bishops, clergy and laity also went against the recommendation of the most senior figures in the Church.
Perhaps all options miss the point that the Church needs an immediate culture change from within over safeguarding.
Is this vote about the practical ways to best implement safeguarding? Or does the 'fudge' vote mean the Church of England thinks it is above complete independent management and scrutiny?
The Bishop of Newcastle has told Sky News that she's "furious" with the Synod's decision.
One
survivor, Will Harwood - vicar of St John the Evangelist's Church in
Truro - told Sky News he's "concerned this seems like a fudge."
"At the top end of the Church, there are people who don't believe that they need to do more.
"There
is a real danger that people think they are doing everything they can.
Unfortunately - survivors of abuse don't think that.
"They don't feel like they're being heard, and they will come away from today feeling let down. "
Andrew Graystone, an advocate for abuse survivors, said today's vote signalled the Church had decided to "keep it in the family".
He said: "If you are abused by a vicar, you will still be expected to report it to a bishop.
"Safeguarding staff will still be located in church offices, employed by the very same bishop.
"The Church of England had an opportunity to start to rebuild trust, by admitting that it needed expertise from outside.
"But instead they have chosen to keep it in the family.
"Shocking arrogance, and a punch in the gut for victims and survivors of abuse."