Updated to add link to appointment brief.
The Church of England is recruiting an “Executive Chair, Safeguarding Structures Programme Board”. The advert is copied below, and there are further details in this Appointment Brief. The advert refers to a paper (GS2378) but does not include a link. Those interested can find it here.
Executive Chair, Safeguarding Structures Programme Board
Location: UK
Recruiter: National Church Institutions
In February 2025, the Church of England’s legislative body, General Synod, voted on a motion brought by the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding on future structures for safeguarding in the Church of England. The motion was based on this paper (GS2378) which outlined the proposals. This work was the culmination of a response by the Church of England to two reports published in 2024 about safeguarding structures and operations. The General Synod motion, as amended, sets the direction of travel for safeguarding structures and operations in the future.
The Lead Bishop for Safeguarding Structures and her team are in the process of constituting a Programme Board, which will oversee two Project Boards delivering major workstreams. The day-to-day operation of delivering the work that General Synod has commissioned is the responsibility of the Safeguarding Structures Team. This team will support the Programme Board and Project Boards. The Executive Chair of the Programme Board will provide hands-on strategic leadership to ensure the successful delivery of the Safeguarding Structures programme.
The successful candidate will bring senior leadership experience from a public sector (Government or equivalent) organisation which delivers safeguarding, along with proven experience of planning and delivering large-scale, complex, organisational change and of chairing or leading governance bodies within complex programmes. With exceptional communication and interpersonal skills, they will be able to build and maintain effective relationships with a wide range of stakeholders and deal with intense media scrutiny. They will also have a commitment to transparency and accountability, and sympathy with the ethos, mission and work of the Church of England.
Saxton Bampfylde Ltd is acting as an employment agency advisor to the National Church Institutions on this appointment.
For further information about the role, including details about how to apply, please visit www.saxbam.com/appointments using reference FBUCA. Alternatively email Belinda.beck@saxbam.com. Applications should be received by midday on 13th June 2025.
Well SaxBam are well known and respected as one of the Rolls Royce of recruitment agencies, so I hope they can bring some substance, glitter and sparkle to this vital appointment.
The plan is for this person to work only 8-10 days per month, i.e. less than half-time. I would like to hear the reasons why this is thought to be the right way to proceed.
I think that this is the point at which I totally give up on the Church of England – X North has released a genie from its bottle which ensures that Safeguarding can continue as business as usual into perpetuity and no one will ever be safe in the C of E apart from those at the top of the AC 1)No money for settlements for victims and survivors but loads of it for Rolls Royce recruitment agencies. 2)A very part time appointment (probably not on very part time pay but I haven’t checked this ) to ensure that getting… Read more »
And all this is the fault of who you refer to as X .North?
Possibly Susanna is referring to +Philip North, whose speech in last July’s General Synod was largely credited with Synod failing to approve independent safeguarding.
As to (2)
This will be a 3-year appointment. It is anticipated that the successful candidate will be required to work 8-10 days each month. Remuneration will be a competitive consulting rate on a retained basis.
That would be very normal, and indeed considered be best practice, for a non-executive chair. The assumption would be that a non-executive director, which would normally include a chair, would either be working for several organisations, or would be semi-retired and bringing wide experience. In both cases a lot of value comes from the regular “hang on, this isn’t normal” or “what we did elsewhere was” interventions. In the finance sector the regulator regards a good set of them as vital oversee the operation of the board. The regulator has to interview them as part of their approval, and they… Read more »
How many hours of deliberation to arrive at this?
‘The Executive Chair of the Programme Board will provide hands-on strategic leadership …’ [my emboldening]
Is this an appropriate/ apposite form of words given sensitivities. Did Rolls royce advisors advise on this? IIRC Rolls-Royce went into liquidation back in the day, over the excesses of the RB211 jet engine ‘project’.
Do words matter, or is it only Smyth,sticks and stones that hurt victims?
Absolutely right. I suspect it’s the usual problem of those responsible for drawing it up not really knowing clearly what the role is for and is to do, including clear definition of boundaries and scope of authority. So often in the C of E non-clerical senior roles suffer from this problem and then language becomes so confused. With the right appointment, as you say, non-executive roles can be incredibly useful. My fear is with a 2-weeks turnaround for applications and the emphasis on previous public body experience, we will end up with not one of the many capable people working… Read more »
Given the manner of the post’s birth I would suggest it is not just those responsible for drawing up the brief who don’t know what the post holder is to do- apart from making all the unkind criticisms about ongoing safeguarding issues go away.
So hey ho for some magic thinking, model it on something we know is doing well, like financial services, and wait for a few miracles of an earthly kind.
Given what this says to victims and survivors, it is beyond embarrassing.
Thank you for this explanation of what has it seems become the normal UK practice in both commerce and government. The apparent confusion here between “executive” and “non-executive” is one aspect of this. But another aspect which I find troubling is the construction of three separate “boards”. Why does this work require so many separate committees?
It’s quite common to have a board, which is strategic, and something with a name a bit like a board, which is operational. In principle, the board is appointed by the shareholders, and represents their interests, while the operational organisation is appointed mostly by the CEO who is tasked with executing the main board’s strategic direction. But that’s how you run a bank, or a large retail operation, where you have a complex interplay of stakeholders and in the case of banks a regulator. Quite why a small task force within a church needs anything remotely as complex, still less… Read more »
The reference and link to GS 2378 is incomplete without also having a link to the outcome of the debate, and the exact wording of the resolution that synod appproved, see here https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/synod-votes-next-steps-independent-safeguarding
“They will also have a commitment to transparency and accountability…” Good luck with that! Whoever they appoint will find powerful structural resistance to both these things at the highest level of the CofE. Archbishops Council, the cabal of ecclesiocrats controlled by the Secretary General, and the senior bishops have consistently maintained the privilege of *unaccountability*. The culture which enables this lack of transparency is hardwired into the offices of both Palaces, and in the bureaucratic corridors of the NCIs. The protection is systemic. It also infects the workings of the NST. Isn’t this all just another bit of window-dressing from… Read more »
The thing is, setting up an ‘independent scrutiny board’ is a tautology. Unless you let go COMPLETELY, the body who will scrutinise your safeguarding will not be independent. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Jeremy, Yes, it’s not difficult to understand. In the Appointment Brief….. it declared..The Safeguarding Structure Programme Board is a delegated committee of the Archbishops’ Council. Well….. that would be a strong hint to avoid this at all costs!!