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 new paper presented to the House of Bishops earlier this month confirms.
The Emerging proposals paper was produced by the Response Group created to respond to both 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 both the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to request that members choose between two options. Both represent a significant change to the Church’s delivery of safeguarding, with implications for the jobs of hundreds of people.
Under one model, all diocesan and cathedral safeguarding teams would remain in their current structures, with no “direct changes” to their terms of employment. But national safeguarding functions and staff would be transferred outside the Archbishops’ Council to a separate organisation. Diocesan safeguarding advisory panels (DSAPs) would provide scrutiny over safeguarding work in dioceses, parishes, and cathedrals, with the DSAP chair acting as the first 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 within 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 best ways to deliver safeguarding according to what is 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 provide a “final stage resolution function to resolve complaints, according to agreed and published eligibility criteria”.
Under both models, the Synod, advised by the House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council, would govern safeguarding policy and legislation.
In July, the Response Group presented four possible models to the Synod. The first two would have introduced varying degrees of independent scrutiny, but retained operational safeguarding within the Church. Consensus has now moved towards some degree of operational independence.
The paper states that, in the light of advice from the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops, the two models will be “developed further” before February. It emphasises that “No decision has been taken.” The revised models, rationale, and analysis will be published in January, in preparation for the February meeting. A central aim is to address actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
The paper states: “We are working carefully to understand the implications and consequences of transition to a new model, recognising that no decisions about the models, or potential consequences of transition to a new model, has commenced or will commence until firm proposals are agreed by General Synod.
“Some options may require legislation, commissioning, new structures, or complex change, and will require detailed proposals and planning, especially around the governance of new organisations. Implementation may take time, and this will need to be worked through carefully.”
Both options will necessitate legislation, given the proposal to create an independent scrutiny body on a statutory basis.
The second recommendation, entailing the transfer of all operations to a new external body, is the closest to meeting the recommendation of Professor Jay, who called for the creation of two new independent bodies: Organisation A, which would do operational safeguarding, and Organisation B, which would offer scrutiny of this work (News, 21 February). Her report concluded: “A complete change of culture is needed to restore trust and confidence in church safeguarding.”
In February, many Synod members argued for an immediate acceptance of these recommendations. But, in the end, the Synod endorsed a plan for Dr Grenfell to run a process of “deep engagement” to consider different models of safeguarding reform (News, 24 February). The new paper is the latest 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 people in church governance positions opposed this development.
Only three bishops who responded to the survey said that they backed a new, independent organisation to take on the Church’s safeguarding brief; two-thirds said that they disagreed; and the rest 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, recommended that the C of E move to “operational independence of safeguarding decision-making”, but fell short 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 last 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 will not be sufficient to make safeguarding in the Church consistent, accountable and trusted by those who use its services,” she wrote.
Anybody who wishes to join the mailing list to share feedback with the Response Group on this work is invited to email jayresponse@churchofengland.org.