Response to Wilkinson-Jay proposals
on Tuesday, 17 December 2024 at 5.04 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England, General Synod, Safeguarding
The Church Times has this report: Synod to vote in February on future of church safeguarding
For background and context see Safeguarding and independence.
The new document mentioned can be found here: Wilkinson-Jay Response Group – Emerging Proposals
This describes the two models (out of the original four) between which the General Synod will be asked to make a choice in February. It’s worth the time to read the whole of this document to get the sense of where the Response Group is heading.
The differences are summarised by the Church Times this way:
- 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”.
They don’t get it. They really don’t. Neither option is independent. Model 3 – no way, no way at all . Takes 2 secs to reject. Model 4 – no way, Takes 10 secs to reject. the synod still governs policy and legislation. The safeguarding team is restricted to operational decisions, the professionals are embedded in the diocese and cathedrals, so will be influenced by them One aspect not covered are the qualifications necessary to be a professional. My own view is that being a communicant parish member should NOT be required. The position requires external views (like an external examiner).… Read more »
Intention and motivation are much more important than structures. Safeguarding is far too often safeguarding the reputation of the Church not empathy and love for victims. “Independent” can too often mean unaccountable. Who is going to appoint the safeguarders ? What is their motivation in making appointments ? Are the voices of victims and former victims going to be heard ? So long as the existing safeguarders stay in post, I am not optimistic that things will change. The motivation of safeguarding should be to heal suffering and provide justice. Safeguarding should not be treated like an insurance claim. Synod… Read more »
Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panels: in the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham, the panel is the bishops, archdeacons, other senior diocesan staff and the diocesan safeguarding advisor.
So a complaint to them is to complain about the people you are complaining about.
And the Independent Chairs? The one in S&N was happy to opine, in response to a complaint I made about Bishop Paul Williams safeguarding failures, that everything was fine – even before any investigation into what I was saying.
Of course, Archbishop Stephen Cottrell dismissed the complaint, as all complaints about bishops and safeguarding failures have been dismissed.