ALL safeguarding teams, including diocesan and national staff, could transfer to an external nationwide organisation if General Synod members vote in favour of such a model in February, a recent paper presented to the House of Bishops earlier this month confirms.
The Emerging proposals paper was produced by the Response Group created to answer each the Future of Church Safeguarding review, by Professor Alexis Jay (News, 27 July), and to Sarah Wilkinson’s report on the demise of the Independent Safeguarding Board (News, 15 December).
Rather than present a single proposal to the Synod, the lead safeguarding bishop, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, has secured the approval of each the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to request that members make a choice from two options. Both represent a major change to the Church’s delivery of safeguarding, with implications for the roles of tons of of individuals.
Under one model, all diocesan and cathedral safeguarding teams would remain of their current structures, with no “direct changes” to their terms of employment. But national safeguarding functions and staff could be transferred outside the Archbishops’ Council to a separate organisation. Diocesan safeguarding advisory panels (DSAPs) would offer scrutiny over safeguarding work in dioceses, parishes, and cathedrals, with the DSAP chair acting as the primary point of escalation for complaints.
Under the second, more radical option, all safeguarding teams, including diocesan and national staff, would transfer to a separate nationwide organisation with independent governance. Local professionals would “remain embedded inside dioceses and cathedrals”, but be line-managed by the external delivery body. This body would act independently from the Church, and, the paper explains, “make its own operational decisions as to the very best ways to deliver safeguarding in response to what’s already set out in practice and code”.
Both models would entail the creation of a “scrutiny body”, created as a statutory body. Possible functions include commissioning or delivering safeguarding inspections and audits, and work to “quality assure” the accreditation of safeguarding practitioners. It would offer a “final stage resolution function to resolve complaints, in response to agreed and published eligibility criteria”.
Under each models, the Synod, advised by the House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council, would govern safeguarding policy and laws.
In July, the Response Group presented 4 possible models to the Synod. The first two would have introduced various degrees of independent scrutiny, but retained operational safeguarding throughout the Church. Consensus has now moved towards some extent of operational independence.
The paper states that, in the sunshine of recommendation from the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops, the 2 models might be “developed further” before February. It emphasises that “No decision has been taken.” The revised models, rationale, and evaluation might be published in January, in preparation for the February meeting. A central aim is to deal with actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
The paper states: “We are working rigorously to know the implications and consequences of transition to a recent model, recognising that no decisions in regards to the models, or potential consequences of transition to a recent model, has commenced or will start until firm proposals are agreed by General Synod.
“Some options may require laws, commissioning, recent structures, or complex change, and would require detailed proposals and planning, especially across the governance of recent organisations. Implementation may take time, and this can must be worked through rigorously.”
Both options will necessitate laws, given the proposal to create an independent scrutiny body on a statutory basis.
The second advice, entailing the transfer of all operations to a recent external body, is the closest to meeting the advice of Professor Jay, who called for the creation of two recent independent bodies: Organisation A, which might do operational safeguarding, and Organisation B, which might offer scrutiny of this work (News, 21 February). Her report concluded: “An entire change of culture is required to revive trust and confidence in church safeguarding.”
In February, many Synod members argued for an instantaneous acceptance of those recommendations. But, in the long run, the Synod endorsed a plan for Dr Grenfell to run a technique of “deep engagement” to think about different models of safeguarding reform (News, 24 February). The recent paper is the newest update on this work.
The Response Group has already conducted a survey of 2000 respondents, which found that, while most survivors and parish representative were in favour of operational independence, most safeguarding professionals, senior clergy, and other people in church governance positions opposed this development.
Only three bishops who responded to the survey said that they backed a recent, independent organisation to tackle the Church’s safeguarding transient; two-thirds said that they disagreed; and the remainder reported that they were unsure (News, 31 May). There was a broad support for independent scrutiny.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), chaired by Professor Jay, advisable that the C of E move to “operational independence of safeguarding decision-making”, but fell in need of recommending fully independent structures.
Diocesan safeguarding advisers have warned that “removing safeguarding teams from diocesan or cathedral employment risks undermining the considerable cultural changes the C of E has made over the past decade at parish and diocesan level” (News, 23 February).
Professor Jay warned, in her report, of “wide variations” in safeguarding practice across the dioceses. “Further tinkering with existing structures is not going to be sufficient to make safeguarding within the Church consistent, accountable and trusted by those that use its services,” she wrote.
Anybody who wishes to hitch the mailing list to share feedback with the Response Group on this work is invited to email jayresponse@churchofengland.org.
