A message from General Synod members Canon Lucy Davis and Canon Peter Adams following debates in February. Sent to clergy, readers, churchwardens, parish safeguarding officers, for sharing locally.

You may have seen various reports and discussions about what happened at General Synod last month regarding independent safeguarding in the Church of England. For some people, especially parish safeguarding officers who volunteer so much of their time to help make our churches safer places, this may have been dispiriting and have given the impression that the wider Church of England does not share their commitment to safeguarding and transparency.

As two members of General Synod from the Diocese of St Albans, we would like to set out what happened at Synod and how we believe it will contribute toward making the Church of England an institution that puts the needs of victims, survivors, and vulnerable people first. 

The Revd Canon Lucy Davis 
Vicar of St Andrew’s Bedford and Dean of Women’s Ministry 
Canon Peter Adams 
Lay Chair of St Albans Diocesan Synod 

  • Model 3: Keeping safeguarding staff employed within dioceses and cathedrals, while creating a fully independent body to oversee safeguarding practices, carry out audits, and handle complaints. 
  • Model 4: Establishing a fully independent body both to oversee safeguarding (as in Model 3) and to employ all safeguarding professionals in the Church of England, removing their employment from dioceses and the national church entirely. 
  • General Synod voted for an immediate ‘Model 3.5’ 
  • An independent scrutiny body will be set up as a priority, likely on a statutory basis with legal authority to enforce its recommendations 
  • Further work will be carried out to explore the legal and practical challenges of moving to Model 4 in the future 
  • Synod also formally lamented and repented for the Church’s past failures in safeguarding

What does this mean for safeguarding in our diocese? 

Addressing misunderstandings 

We understand that there has been frustration at how this decision has been communicated. Some media reports have wrongly suggested that Synod voted against independence. In reality, Synod has committed to greater independence than ever before, with a phased approach to ensure it is legally and practically workable. 

We also acknowledge the deep pain caused by the Church’s past failures in safeguarding. The commitment to independent scrutiny is one step in addressing this, but true safeguarding change requires a continued cultural transformation across every level of the Church. 

For those who would like to read more, the following resources provide further detail: