by Tim Wyatt, Church Times
Urban poverty and the parliamentary ping-pong about clergy discipline also feature
A NEW model for quasi-independent safeguarding is on the General Synod’s agenda next month, as are urban poverty and the parliamentary ping-pong about the Clergy Conduct Measure.
Much of the debate in the build-up to the meeting, to be held in Church House, Westminster, from 9 to 13 February, has focused on the House of Bishops’ decision to bring the Living in Love and Faith programme to a formal end (News, 16 January). A motion of endorsement is to be debated on the Thursday (12 February).
Other business includes proposals to outsource Church of England safeguarding to a new independent body, which were approved in principle last February (News, 14 February 2025); but implementing that decision has not been straightforward.
The plan originally approved last year called for the National Safeguarding Team (NST) to be transferred to a new independent charity, and a second outside organisation to be set up to scrutinise all church safeguarding. Diocesan and cathedral safeguarding teams would remain employed by their respective dioceses and cathedrals.
Since, then, however, the working group has concluded that this would require years of ponderous legislative processes. Survivors and others wish to move faster, and so a new model has been drawn up, a Synod paper explains.
One new independent body would be created — provisionally titled the Church of England Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). It would be overseen by a board, which would have a majority of non-church members.
The ISA would take on the functions of the current NST, handling national casework and drawing up policies, led by a new official, the Chief Safeguarding Officer. Local teams would be supervised but not directly managed by the ISA.
For further independence, the operational casework led by the Chief Safeguarding Officer would not be accountable to the ISA’s board, but to another external regulatory body. “In this way, the charity would secure independence of safeguarding judgements whilst retaining proper oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of safeguarding operations,” the paper says.