The Ineqe Safeguarding Group has released its Second Annual Report covering the Independent Safeguarding Audits of the Church of England.
There is a covering statement from the Lead Auditor, Jim Gamble. This is copied in full below the fold.
The Church Times has published this news article: Church of England safeguarding progress being resisted at high level, says INEQE
The full report can be downloaded from here. Two paragraphs from the Foreword:
…In last year’s annual report, we expressed concern that some areas were delaying the adoption of recommendations, choosing instead to wait for the outcome of the Future of Church Safeguarding Report. We warned then that risk does not pause, meaning safeguarding cannot wait. A year later, only the excuse has changed: auditors now hear that some are waiting for the outcome of the Safeguarding Structures Programme. I wonder what we will hear next year, but our core message remains the same: ignoring evidence-based recommendations invites risk. While it makes sense to wait for decisions on wider structural issues beyond parish and diocesan operational delivery, stalling on the reconfiguration of frontline teams makes no sense. Furthermore, the audit identified no evidence that would justify delaying operationally independent Directors of Safeguarding covering dioceses and cathedrals.
Crucially, the primary inhibitors of progress do not stem from senior clergy, most of whom demonstrate a genuine desire for change. Instead, they are structural and, in certain cases, institutional. They arise from
a small group of influential senior officers at the diocesan level and certain individuals within the national Church. This resistance manifests in unhelpful and frustrating ways, such as a readiness to hide behind exceptionalism, canon law, tradition, and procedural defensiveness. It is evident in the pushback against recommendations designed to secure the operational independence of safeguarding (including the Director of Safeguarding role), in challenges to the scope of the audits, and in unresolved conflicts of interest, specifically, where those advising the Church as an institution are simultaneously expected to provide ‘safeguarding-first’ advice. Though those responsible are few in number, their impact is disproportionately significant, and this must be addressed…
Safeguarding Audits 2025 Annual Report.
Statement from Jim Gamble QPM, Lead Auditor
This annual report draws together two years of audit evidence, and its message is clear: the Church is on a positive trajectory. Yet once again we publish at a time of significant uncertainty about the future structures of the Church of England. At the time of our 2024 report, the intention was to implement the recommendations of Alexis Jay’s ‘Future of Church Safeguarding’ review. That has since been overtaken by the Safeguarding Structures Programme, whose outcome and direction remain, at the time of writing, unclear. This must be addressed urgently. The Church needs to set out the evidence that underpins its chosen path, and a firm timeline for moving beyond the current ambiguity. Real progress has been made; the last thing the wider Church now needs is drift. Whatever comes next must command the confidence of all stakeholders, and that confidence will be built on evidence, clarity and a meaningful timeline.
I hope the evidence-based findings of this report and its companion documents on choristers and on victims and survivors, highlighting both positive developments and critical obstacles, will inform the Church’s next steps. In my view, the Church must now demonstrate that it is learning: from the evidence of these audits, from its engagement with the Charity Commission, from listening to its frontline safeguarding teams and, above all, from the voices and experiences of victims and survivors.
Jim Gamble QPM
Lead Auditor
INEQE Safeguarding Group
Interesting that this report was not published before General Synod. In the interest of rebuilding trust, significant publications like this should, if at all possible, be issued in time for questions to be asked. There was a significant safeguarding review published the day after Synod too. The timing does not inspire confidence in leadership. And a report which criticises the centre will do little to encourage the hard working parish and diocesan officers. If you want to rebuild trust, hold yourself accountable.
Spot on. Smacks of gerrymandering to me which has no place in a Christian organisation.
Indeed, Mark. This report, the (excellent) review of the handling of Jane Chevous’s case after the ISB was closed down, and now the brief Chorleywood report from the diocese of St Albans. All conveniently coming out between Synod and the C of E’s annual shutdown for August.
I’m not sure when it was published. I had read extracts from it before it appeared on TA. It’s a substantial document, 113 pages, and I found it eventually on the C of E website. I haven’t waded through to the end (and think it unlikely that GS members would have had the time to do so if it had been available to them) and don’t know whether there is a publication date. Mr Gamble’s covering letter is undated – omissions which go totally against the grain for anyone with a legal background. But, realistically, the amount of reading matter… Read more »
Looks like it was published on 17 July (see e.g. https://anglican.ink/2026/07/17/ineqe-publishes-2025-independent-safeguarding-audit-of-the-church-of-england-significant-progress-threatened-by-institutional-resistance-and-drift/)
Thank you. I think Simon Cade has already made my point for me. That the report wasn’t published before GS can’t be laid at the C of E’s door. So many hasty comments about these matters turn out to be ill-judged.
My point is that external reviews of this kind should be requested to fit the Synod timetable if possible (and I used “if at all possible” in my original comment) – it may not always be possible, but it should be a high priority.
I agree, Mark
INEQE are independent, what, when and if they publish will have been up to them entirely. The only proviso is that the individual diocesan and cathedral audits are “fact checked” by the respective cathedral/diocese so it might in theory be possible to delay that a bit; but that would be a high risk strategy for the organisation concerned – the risk of INEQE saying publicly that their work is being obstructed by x diocese or cathedral would be, how shall we put it, focussing. There may be conspiracies, but that’s not one.
So the obvious question is: why don’t the archbishops discipline those responsible for blocking the necessary changes?
It’s a good question, Fr Dean. But I am uncertain that the Archbishops have the necessary powers. A slap on the wrist maybe, but not dismissal, which the situation now requires.
That’s the problem in a nutshell Malcolm. Amid the trust report’s cries for the front line to be accountable, what’s missing is accountability at more senior levels. A dear friend of mine went through a lengthy bullying and harassment case that took years for the Diocese to resolve, largely through incompetence and apathy. It was part dignity at work/HR and part safeguarding because of protected characteristics. They recounted to me one appalling meeting with an Archdeacon and HR officer in which the Archdeacon kept saying ‘the Diocesan Secretary has decided…’ and ‘the Diocesan Secretary thinks…’, with no mention at all… Read more »
A pretty damning statement. It’s sad. I may have said it here before, but were it not for the fact that the people in my village church and UB are my chums, I’d have left the Church of England over this whole mess.
In years to come, I hope it will be recognised that INEQE have done the Church of England an extraordinary service, both by their audits and by following up on them robustly in this way.
As a diocesan bishop it was a demanding but positive experience to be audited by INEQE and see our story of safeguarding change reflected in Jim Gamble’s first annual report which received considerable airtime in GS a year ago. Now retired and still rightly required to update my training and encourage this in my local village church I am dismayed by the apparent resistance. It is surely an abuse of power which must be called out.
They probably said that about Henry II in the 1160s.
Possibly, but it wasn’t a good idea to criticise a monarch then, as Beckett found out.
In a previous round of safeguarding training, we had to watch the documentary on Peter Ball. In that it became clear that people at local level raised concerns which were either ignored or dismissed by those further up the food chain. Sometimes, it seems as if little has changed in the intervening 30 or so years. But, hey-ho, those of us at the grassroots will keep ticking the boxes and jumping through the hoops.
Maybe we shouldn’t?
The Church’s Darkest Secret was not in fact a documentary, but in part a docudrama. The parts which were solely documentary performed an important service in exposing the depth of the Ball scandal and the C of E’s awful treatment of complainants and whistleblowers. The ‘re-enacted’ parts, however, owed more to imagination than reality. Truth is not served by muddying the waters in this way.
I am grateful to Simon for starting this new thread after I had raised the issue on an earlier thread. At the risk of repeating some of what I said there, I find this report deeply shocking but not even slightly surprising, since it only continues the attitudes at the top which have prevented a proper response to safeguarding for many years. As the report states, the problem lies not with clergy, still less with the many laity who act as local safeguarding officers and do the prescribed training and tick the boxes, but entirely within the secretariat and, in… Read more »
“The primary inhibitors of progress [are]…. a small group of influential senior officers at the diocesan level and certain individuals within the national Church.”
May we know whom we are discussing? If not, then why not? Most of us tire of a culture of secrecy which hints at cover-up. It saps morale and promotes distrust, exactly what we are working against. Perhaps in the interest of openness the “small group of influential senior officers” might out themselves and explain the position?
‘Never apologise, never explain’ is thought to be the motto and modus operandi of the royal family and its courtiers. Fat chance then of any transparency or accountability in the CofE when it chooses to appoint a former courtier as its principal lay officer!
I wish it were true regarding slavery.
“They arise from a small group of influential senior officers at the diocesan level and certain individuals within the national Church.” Isn’t such attitude at the root of years and years of coverup? So, isn’t it time to name the names? I guess that just a hint about names being named, would make the “unhelpfulness” be melt away. And if not, then they may need to be directed to take an “extended sabbatical”.
We are harking back to Harry Potter territory again aren’t we – not only full- blood bishops but also He – who -must not – be named ….
Maybe just Voldemort for short?
And I suspect Malcolm Dixon is right – the bishops can probably only slap him on the wrist if they feel very brave.
So will there be a proper investigation or will Ineque suddenly find some small print they hadn’t spotted means their contract ends sooner than they expected?
At least one name has been repeatedly named, but he seems to be without shame and impervious to embarrassment.
This report and contributions to this and related threads over too long a time testify to an ongoing distrust in the ‘management’ of ‘the Church’. The decision of General Synod, led by bishops, to NOT accept the Jay recommendations for independence in safeguarding, the sacking of the Independent Safeguarding Board do not speak well of Synod. The many examples of mismanagement of safeguarding by clergy, including ‘senior clergy’ are a continuing scandal, as is the failure to act upon the many reports published. Who appoints staff to ‘advise’ the church, on what advice, and to whom are they accountable. Evidence… Read more »
“exceptionalism, canon law, tradition, and procedural defensiveness.” I guess exceptionalism means the spiritual and moral authority of the hierarchy over priests and laity? Also in some cases the authority of clergy over members of their congregation. You don’t (or should not) get that in charities or public/commercial organisations. canon law – there seems to be some strange idea that canon law is above secular law. When it comes to safeguarding, secular law and good practice should be a starting point. tradition, procedural defensiveness – no more needs to be said I think exceptionalism is the core issue – it is… Read more »
I agree with much that you say, Nigel, but for me, in this context, exceptionalism means the view that the CofE is superior to the secular authorities (an Anglican form of ultramontanism, if you like!) and can choose to except itself from such secular laws as it thinks fit. And this at the same time as, because it is ‘the chiuch by law established’, its own laws ARE the law of the land. It can’t have it both ways! It is an arrogant view, as you say, and is likely to come to a head over safeguarding and the seal… Read more »
Canon law is distinct but it still has statutory force. Measures made by General Synod only pass into law following parliamentary approval by both Houses and Royal assent. The parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee vets all draft church legislation. A recent example of its powers resulted in the Clergy Conduct Measure being modified to require disciplinary hearings (other than in exceptional circumstances) to be in public, a reversal of the original draft provision. Similarly, contempt of an ecclesiastical court can only be dealt with by reference to the High Court.
The seal of the confessional is currently under consideration.
Readers may find it interesting to go back to the earlier TA article in which I linked to the INEQE review of the National Safeguarding Team:
Reforming the National Safeguarding Team
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/reforming-the-national-safeguarding-team/
An invaluable resource about C of E safeguarding with links to all the relevant documents:
https://lawandreligionuk.com/2026/07/30/church-of-england-safeguarding-reviews-and-reports/
David Pocklington, “Church of England Safeguarding: Reviews and Reports” in Law & Religion UK, 30 July 2026,
The Church Times online is currently running a report entitled ‘Campaigners call for removal of senior church officers ‘resisting’ safeguarding reforms’ which makes very interesting reading. The campaigners, including both complainants and respondents in safeguarding cases, have written to the Archbishops calling for the senior church officers who, according to an INEQE review, are resisting safeguarding reforms, to be “removed from influence”. The campaigners asked the lead auditor to release the names of the officers and he replied “They know who they are, the C of E knows who they are, and I also believe the Charity Commission knows who… Read more »
I have a copy of the letter and will publish it shortly
Thank you Simon. Power to those that dare speak truth to power.