As Chair of the National Safeguarding Panel (NSP), I want to share some reflections from our most recent meeting. My hope is that this offers the wider Church a clearer sense of how safeguarding work is being scrutinised nationally, where progress is being made, and where important questions remain.
At our most recent meeting of the National Safeguarding Panel, I was struck again by how complex and yet profoundly human this work is. Safeguarding can sometimes feel like a maze of reviews, working groups and governance structures — but at its heart, it is always about people: survivors, worshipping communities, clergy, volunteers, and everyone who deserves a safer Church.
We began by looking ahead to our upcoming Development Day, which acts as a rare pause in the rhythm of panel business. These days give us space to lift our gaze, reflect on whether our work is genuinely making a difference, and think about the future shape of safeguarding across the Church. Questions about our impact, our priorities, and even our own wellbeing surfaced quickly — reminders that scrutiny work carries its own emotional weight.
One of the most significant updates came from the National Safeguarding Team: the Church’s Redress Measure has now received Royal Assent. The next step — appointing an independent, non‑Church‑affiliated chair — feels vital. For those who have experienced harm, redress must never look like an internal process policing itself; it must feel fair, transparent, and centred on survivors from start to finish.
We also delved into the work of the newly formed Learning Outcomes Working Group. Its task — coordinating recommendations from safeguarding reviews — may sound procedural, but it’s a much‑needed antidote to years of duplicated or fragmented learning. Still, concerns emerged. Survivors will not be members of the group itself, and while we were assured their voices will shape the work in other meaningful ways, the Panel was clear: lived experience must be genuinely embedded, not referenced from a distance.
Throughout the meeting, one theme kept resurfacing — the need for better data. If we are to ask tough questions, we need reporting that shows change, not just activity. Measures that track real progress, identify risks, and highlight gaps will be essential if scrutiny is to remain robust and honest.
A major portion of our time was devoted to scrutinising the Church’s response to the Makin Review recommendations. Many have already been accepted or completed, but the Panel raised important concerns: Without access to action plans and trackers, how can we properly scrutinise progress? Are we honouring the intent of each recommendation, not just the process? And are we connecting learning across different reviews so that the same failures do not recur?
These questions led naturally into a wider reflection on the role of the NSP itself. We do not manage cases — and should not — but strategic scrutiny requires sight of the right information at the right time. We agreed several recommendations to help strengthen that relationship, including clearer tracking of our own recommendations, better support for independent reviewers, and more transparent communication with the wider Church.
We closed by looking outward. External expectations are rising, especially from the Charity Commission, which is calling for sharper, more independent safeguarding scrutiny. This will be a key issue at the upcoming General Synod. Responding well is not optional; it is central to rebuilding trust.
I ended the meeting reminded that every line in every safeguarding document represents someone’s story — of harm endured, courage shown, or hope kept alive. Progress won’t be measured only by frameworks or policies, but by whether survivors feel heard, whether risks are reduced, and whether our Church continues to move toward a culture that is genuinely safer for all.
Please continue to pray for all those engaged in this work, especially victims and survivors, and for wisdom, humility and courage across the Church.
Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. And scrutiny, done well, is an act of service to the whole.
Explore more on these topics