The latest proposal for reforming Church of England safeguarding structures is contained in this document
which is due to be considered on Wednesday 11 February at 2.00 pm. Its Executive Summary reads:
In February 2025 the General Synod voted decisively for greater independence in the Church of England’s management of safeguarding. This report sets out the work that has been done since then to turn this decision into reality and, in particular, to deliver change at pace. It includes the following.
- A vision for a new charity, provisionally named as the Independent Safeguarding Authority. This charity will be an operationally independent organisation, led by a majority-independent non-executive Board. Executive functions of the charity will be led by a Chief Safeguarding Officer, whose operational safeguarding responsibilities will be a protected function of the charity and not subject to Board discussion or determination.
- A plan for a new, standardised complaints handling process comprising:
- A standard mandatory process for each Diocesan Board of Finance and other relevant Church bodies to follow; and
- A national external ombudsman-style body to provide resolution of complaints after processes within Church bodies have been exhausted.
The General Synod is asked to welcome this update, endorse the direction of travel set out in it and look forward to considering detailed proposals in futures Groups of Sessions.
Gavin Drake has written a comprehensive briefing paper (linked below) and a shorter blog which we linked to earlier today in our previous Opinion article. I found his analysis very helpful, and recommend its reading in full.
Blog: Delay and control: the problems with the Archbishops’ Council’s safeguarding plans
Briefing: The Church of England and independent safeguarding: why GS 2429 falls short
This briefing examines the Archbishops’ Council’s latest proposals for independent safeguarding, set out in GS 2429, and assesses them against the commitments, expectations, and regulatory requirements that have accumulated since the collapse of the Independent Safeguarding Board and the commissioning of the Jay and Wilkinson reviews.
Its focus is narrower and more fundamental. It is not an assessment of the diligence, competence, or good faith of safeguarding professionals. Instead, it asks whether the governance and accountability model now proposed is capable of delivering genuinely independent safeguarding in practice, or whether it preserves institutional control behind the language of reform. In that sense, GS 2429 is not merely a technical plan but a test of whether the Church is prepared to accept external constraint and independent authority as the price of restoring trust.
GS 2429 must be understood not as an isolated policy document but as part of a long chain of commitments and failures. IICSA, the creation and collapse of the ISB, Parliamentary scrutiny, the commissioning of Professor Alexis Jay, and the Charity Commission’s intervention have progressively narrowed the scope for delay. The question is no longer whether the Church intends to improve safeguarding, but whether it will do so in a way that transfers power and accountability away from the structures that have repeatedly failed victims and survivors.
Gavin refers repeatedly to the original report by Alexis Jay which recommended a system of total independence. This report is still available on the Church of England website but its annex of legal advice is not. For those interested here is a copy.