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.
I was in the congregation when said Independent Chair was introduced on “Safeguarding Sunday” where it became obvious that her regard for the diocesan and her close working relationship with him seemed to me to completely undermine the notion of her structural independence. My question to the bishop in relation to safeguarding arrangements regarding the establishment of a new rural resource barn church in 2016 was met with “you’ll love the person I’ve appointed when you meet”.
so, think of an independent police complaints body. The police decide policy and legislation. The safeguarding professionals have offices in the major police precincts.The safeguarding professional are ex copper.
Who would believe it?
Suffer the little children to come to me.
I once had a drunk ex con living at a Cyrenians hostel when i worked there try to convince me that Jesus wanted children to suffer……..
Totally blind.
Are we back to the fiction of the Independent Safeguarding Board? How can an organisation be said to be “independent” if the decision on where to base its staff is taken away from it?
So the Christmas message from the Church of England is ‘business as usual chaps.Would you like to come to a church near you and contribute to our funds?’ TA has so far only had oblique references to the BBC File on 4 report about the Chelmsford diocese safeguarding scandal, XX Cottrell has made his customary ‘nothing to see here- I was powerless ‘ speech and there is a Change.org petition circulating demanding he resigns. He of course is digging in to see if things blow over for him because survivors are only collateral . And , old chap, we can’t… Read more »
Yes, it is very disappointing, but in my limited experience they live in a cacoon, a world within (or without) a world.
Which of the bishops or synod members are pushing for a truly independent body?
I’m with you on the collection. I support Spurs, and sometimes wonder whether I should change allegiance to Arsenal, Spurs are too stressful. Got a nice active Baptist church along my road.
I was doing fine until I got to the words “I support Spurs”… You and Bishop Pete would need to be de-radicalised before you could become gooners. I appreciate it’s been a long wait since 1961 to be champions again. That said, I suppose it must be character-forming. It’s almost the definition of faith and hope.
Anathema to the Woolwich Wanderers.
I’m enjoying the similarity in that post between Cottrell and collateral elsewhere on my phone Cottrell got autocorrected to correctly (!) no definitely not!
This issue is existential for the C of E and rightly so. To stand in the way of fully empowered, fully independent safeguarding scrutiny of clergy, readers and volunteers (same as in umpteen other organisations / fields of work, most obviously schools and hospitals) is actively to damage our Church. This is a very clear “You’re with me or you’re against me” one – no grey area, no fudging, no faffing and waffling (or regretting or lamenting) in synod (or anywhere else) will do; only action, direct, clear – and swift.
You say “such as schools and hospitals have” – what model do they have?
Surely to some extent it follows the same pattern of staff within the school – then some staff at the LA level (although now very few – more likely multi-academy trust) – and then finally a panel outside of the department for education.
That doesn’t sound a million miles from what’s proposed.
Is this a complete joke! As Nigel says how is either model independent, both models will break down within months leaving more expensive mess to clear away. As I was told at my Jay interview there needs to be a complete overhaul of staff so only externally accredited people or those that have sat on Ofsted/CQC boards work in an independent safeguarding model. This had been diluted in her report to ‘moved across where appropriate.’
These models will bring about further public ridicule, further loss of trust, and another few nails in the coffin of the church. Really disappointed.
Well since >95% of GS members are a complete joke when it comes to safeguarding and about as much use as a Chocolate teapot, they will no doubt vote one or other of these proposals through (given that neither appears to be in the least ‘Independent’, it really doesn’t seem to matter which) before retiring to the tea room for a cosy chat with their bishop and congratulating themselves on a job well done. The idea that one day GS might actually do their job and hold the AC, the ‘Lead Safeguarding Bishop’ (an oxymoron in itself), the NST &… Read more »
If you want things to be different my advice to you is to commit to 5 years from 2026 and get yourself voted onto General Synod. Once there attempt to get your voice heard! It isnt easy. The vast majority of those who I talk to, particularly the GS members from my own diocese, are very determined to get this right but getting to speak in a debate is a rare opportunity. I believe I spoke 3 times at York on different issues and was probably one of those who spoke most. Yes you can try to modify the motions… Read more »
So Simon – in your experience how do GS members get invited to actually speak?
Obviously, it is not just whether it is independent or not, it is whether it is seen to be independent by the population at large, and by the victims. As you say, public ridicule.
Another analogy – Covid parties at no. 10 – investigated – by somebody with offices at no. 10.
Being new to this discussion I hesitate to ask what might be a stupid question…… but will, anyway……….. where does financial control lie, in these developing models? Who decides how much to spend on safeguarding, and where and how it should be spent?
No matter how independent it is, I don’t see how introducing a new body helps us at all. There’s a core organisational/cultural issue of lack of clear lines of accountability, and leaving things up to other people. Surely a new body will just give one more place to pass the buck to?
One issue that is consistently not addressed is the functional accountability of office holders (including bishops). The effective independence of office holders is guarded with a passion. Until that is properly addressed any system will have a point of failure built in.
Mark (like me one of those useless people on GS) is absolutely right. We have both made this point repeatedly on the floor of Synod and elsewhere, as have other GS members. I made it too in an interview with the Jay Response Group, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one. The question that needs answering is: what is the process if the bishop is the ‘bad or incompetent actor’ in a safeguarding case?
or what is the process if “the bishop/priest is the ‘bad or incompetent actor’ in a ANYTHING case” Ofcourse if Clergy had unions they may argue the other way – imagine a situation in a school where a teacher is accused and then fired – -but the police decided there was no case to investigate. One could easily imagine a situation where union reps would have a field day and someone would be taken to court… Let’s also remember the case of the vicar who committed suicide because of an allegation that was found to be untrue. I think balance… Read more »
Absolutely right Mark – and the revisions to the Clergy Discipline Meassure currently going through GS still contain no clear definition of Misconduct! We set ourselves up to fail. Time to recognise office holding belongs to a bygone age.
Perhaps an independent organisation can ‘police’ a new independent organisation which can then ensure the CofE is a safe .
If you believe in magical thinking, maybe.
Not if all the existing diocesan safeguarding teams are fired, or at least asked to re apply to a national independent safeguarding team. They may be excellent people, but constrained by the organisation structure and culture.
Professor Alexis Jay was interviewed on the Today programme this morning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00261fb
She starts at 1:10 Seems on point and sensible. I support everything she says, and I have been merely incoherently echoing her views, unknowingly.
Professor Jay made an important point about the need to move away from the assumption that some kind of “independent” structure nonetheless leaves control at diocesan level. Is the unspoken assumption that “the Bishop is in charge” being seriously challenged anywhere in this endlessly protracted non-decision making?
… and the excellent swordsman of truth Rev Jonathan Aitken took the opportunity to describe +Helen-Ann Hartley as out on her own from the other 150 or so bishops. As a prison chaplain he must spent a lot of time with folk claiming their innocence …
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00261ft
at about 35 mins in
Why, oh why will the CofE not accept the evidence/ findings/ advice of Wilkinson, Jay, Sangera, survivors and others supporting the need for radical change- repentance?
Voices in the wilderness indeed crying …
All things considered one might have thought that Mr Aitken would be rather more circumspect.
The answer to your question about accepting the evidence seems to be: because they don’t want to and because they don’t have to and because no one can make them
I’m not fully decided on the point, but I can see an argument for externalising the “case handling” part of the job – i.e. receiving reports of concerns and dealing with them.. I really struggle to understand how one can remove all preventative safeguarding function from the Church, though – things like advising (parishes and bishops), local audit, training, etc. Is Model 4 really saying that the Church should have no responsibility for preventative safeguarding at all, save what the external body suggests it might do? That seems very odd. If not, then how does this work when currently the… Read more »
Of course, all church officers have a shared responsibility, and shoud be trained. They are at the front line of preventative measures. But they should kick any case management upstairs to a national body. It isn’t rocket science – other organisations manage it.
If i see a coach at my athletics club shouting at an athlete in a disrespectful way, I would hope I would bring it up with our local safeguarding officer, who woudl follow the defined process. The same with any parent who observes something. We are all responsible.
“If i see a coach at my athletics club shouting at an athlete in a disrespectful way, I would hope I would bring it up with our local safeguarding officer,”
But that sounds like what happens now.
The PSO (parish safeguarding officer) would refer it to the DSA for advice and for them to do something next.
Although “shouting in a disrespectful way” sounds like it could cover a lot of ground…..
‘Run faster, put some effort into it’ is not allowed. ‘Great running’ is allowed.
‘Lose some weight’ is definitely a no-no, particularly for teenage girls.
This can maybe be related to ‘spiritual abuse’.
The problem with elevating issues is when the issue is at the diocesan level. I will comment what URC, for example, does in a second.
Would you ever exercise some judgement as to whether a quiet constructive word in local personal conversation might be the first step, rather than an immediate referral of any possible verbal impropriety straight to an official safeguarding channel, with the interpersonal consequences that might imply?
Coaches do not do ‘quiet words’! I’m not sure about the details, but for example, a coach (who is not the athlete’s coach, but they know each other) says ‘you have grown a lot in the last year’. The athlete then complains to her own coach. who reports the case. The athlete deems it inappropriate. The two coaches have not historically always seen eye to eye. It is communicated, via the club safeguarding offices, to UK athletics. UK athletics sit on it for years. I think they are still sitting on it. If they ever took any action, it would… Read more »
So your suggestion is that the Church would have parish volunteers armed with a phone number of a national case handling body to call if something has gone wrong, but no professional safeguarding specialists on staff?
that’s what I call independent. Surely an option? URC and other organisations manage it, but I can also imagine a diocesan staff advisor to help. I wouldn;t say any parish volunteer, they would need to be trained and have experience, but most parishes would have a suitable candidate?
Check what the URC does, and see if it makes sense. Of course, the CoE is different because of different views on the ‘theological’ role of bishops. Apparently, the funny hats and lavish cloaks are meant to signify something. I think others have commented how the safeguarding issue is but one example of the issue of ‘authority’ – in this regard, so-called God-given authority or apostolic succession makes the CoE different to other secular or reformist organisations. I know ritual can serve a useful role, and I also know CoE is well known for its magnificent processions, but……things fall apart,… Read more »
But half of that already happens?!
Each parish is meant to put up numerous posters (including in toilets so you can take down information in private) of who to talk to if you need to contact someone about safeguarding.. it will have parish rep, the diocese, and a number of independent charities.
This makes me a bit confused.
Yes, at the moment we have a mixture of parish volunteers and diocesan professional staff. The proposal seems to be to remove the professional staff into another organisation, leaving the Church itself with no paid safeguarding experts to call its own. This is odd because it leaves the Church receiving only the service standard that the external body wishes to, and is able to, provide.
An independent safeguarding provision is certainly no silver bullet. Independence is a relative and relational term and the devil (probably quite literally) is in the detail. You can’t really ever have ‘total’ independence. This set of proposals rather neatly demonstrates that fact. Tinkering with one or two things really won’t significantly change the culture within the CofE. The many issues being discussed in TA are all integral to the dysfunctional culture and need addressing urgently: the lack of accountability at the top, the old boys and girls networks, the fragmented structures that allow the frenzied buck passing, the secrecy, the… Read more »
Weren’t the Wilkinson and Jay reports just that?
Analysis paralysis. In my day job, we often have to look at processes and tools to support those processes. The first question should always be: how does it work at the moment? What are the problems? what do other organisations or groups do? I just read some of the Wilkinson Jay document and comments on TA. Depressing. It is really very simple. In my athletics volunteer led organisation, we have a safeguarding officer (used to be the local vicar), any issues or concerns would be reported to her, She would then communicate the concern with UK athletics, who would review… Read more »
This is a tip of a very large iceberg. Beneath extreme violent and sexual abuse there is a mountain of less serious or obvious abuse that neverthess can cause acute and prolonged distress to victims like me. I am absolutely not arguing for a witch hunt, but aren’t priests supposed to CARE ? Isn’t that part of their job ? Isn’t abuse of power something that is discussed at theological college ? Do ordinands ever talk to victims ? My case should have been addressed within my parish, it only escalated to to a CDM because nobody would listen. But… Read more »
Did you find any help outside the church? Family and friends? Statutory authorities, charities,…
Surely one basic principle of a system with any kind of “independence” would be that no Bishop should investigate a complaint in their own diocese?
Now that is a very interesting idea, a lot of problems seem to come because essentially bishops are investigating people they themselves know, have responsibility for, and in many cases will have appointed to some role or other.
Isn’t that what pastoring implies?
That is the conflict.
The bishops may deserve this, and it may well be inevitable.
But if disciplinary decisions – monitions, penalties, removals from post etc. – are no longer episcopal decisions we will have re-invented the nature of ecclesiastical oversight. The bishop will no longer be the one who represents in his person the co-location of (and tension between) justice and mercy seen in Christ. Maybe such theologising is impossible in the current context, but we should be aware of the ecclesial identity we will lose if we ‘sub-contract’ or even abdicate church discipline to the saeculum.
The bishop will no longer be the one who represents in his person the co-location of (and tension between) justice and mercy seen in Christ.
Does anybody hold those views? Maybe my evangelical and reformist tendencies are biasing me.
I thnk this issue may be one of the core contradictions. You did well to expose this.
Well in all sorts of ways we have been moving towards more and more functional understandings and praxis of priesthood, and away from the symbolic and ontological. This may be inevitable and unstoppable, but let’s be aware of what we’re doing and the consequences it may bear on our self conception as church.
At worst we cease to see ourselves as the bride of Christ, God’s creation and initiative, and become just another human society, locating its esse in an impoverished list of more and more things to do.
Be to the flock a shepherd…Be so merciful that you be not too remiss; so minster justice, that you forget not mercy.
The combination of justice and mercy, discipline and pastoral care in the 1662 ordinal (et passim).
see my comment about URC I am about to post.
Bishops should not be investigating safeguarding complaints at all. It should be left to (properly) independent safeguarding professionals
Bishops should be responsible for implementing the outcomes of investigations – from further training to removal of licence, and everything in between. That means implementing, not taking outcomes as mere suggestions.
Respectfully disagree. The bishop must be more than a simple functionary, rubber stamping the dictate of an administrator (who then becomes the true locus of authority in the church). The bishop must have scope to formulate and exercise their own judgement on these matters (for which they must also be accountable for), after receiving the advice of others.
I’m surprised that there’s no link to Radio 4’s File on Four programme on TA.
Alexis Jay made clear: All safeguarding cases, complaints, concerns and issues were to be referred to an Independent Body… “at the first available opportunity”. And the Church would be obliged to implement whatever decisions the Independent Body took, within a prescribed timescale. It would be misconduct (under CDM) to delay, or fail to refer, any complaint, concern or enquiry at first opportunity; or to fail to implement any decision prescribed by the Independent Body. The Independent Body should operate with its own independent legal advisors, completely separate to the Church’s legal advisers. * * * * * Now ask yourself:… Read more »
At the heart of many of the scandals of the Church over safeguarding have been issues of power and influence. One of the things that goes wrong if safeguarding is not fully independent is that people who are ‘marking the homework’ and have friendships and networks can be unduly influenced or exploited. We see that in cases like Bishop Ball (and others). There is also the problem not only of abusers influencing people. but people in power trying to interfere and influence outcomes. In addition there is ‘groupthink’ and culture, pressures not to speak out, criticism if somebody does. But… Read more »
You have hit the nail right on the head. Professor Jay on R4 yesterday was talking about all the ? 46 bishops wanting to hold onto power. I had quite a long stint as a LADO… the C of E is not the only church to struggle with safeguarding . The idea of patriarchal authority runs very deep in religious institutions, and this then is dealt with by an awful lot of victim blaming- confused with wanting to forgive the perpetrator (who was probably Lead Astray) With the honourable exception of one diocesan safeguarding adviser who had a supportive bishop… Read more »
Susannah I strongly support what you have written. For me safeguarding raises fundamental questions about what the church is for and what it does. Is the Church of England a community in which we care for one another? At the moment Safeguarding is treated as a kind of insurance claim based on the legal liability the church.has to victims. And like all insurance policies its function is protecting the policy holder not caring for the victim. Does a parish care for its young people ? When I underwent basic safeguarding training there was no.mention.of this. Adolescence can be a very… Read more »
One of my anxieties in all this is that by undertaking wholesale reform we disrupt the best of the safeguarding practices that now exist at local level. In my own diocese of Chichester much work has been undertaken over the years to strengthen and make effective safe guarding procedures and certainly at a parish level I believe the procedures in place have considerably reduced the risk of abuse taking place. That has been driven by our history as a Diocese. Yes reform is badly needed but whatever form this takes it is essential that good practice being undertaken today is… Read more »
When preparing to open a new private healthcare establishment a few years ago, the Head of Social Work was responsible for setting up the safeguarding procedures. All referrals within the establishment went to him (to ensure that all of the information required was present), and he sent all referrals to the local authority to see if they met the threshold for investigation. They would then be investigated by the independent local authority team, not internally. He was very clear that this decision-making was in the hands of the independent local authority team and should not be done in-house. I understand… Read more »
No reason at all, it is very simple, but it means losing power and control.
Absolutely Correct. Unfortunately power & control are not things that CofE hierarchy will give up even an inch unless forced.
By the way I did enjoy Simon Eyre’s suggestion that Chi Dio was now a haven of good practice. It must be a different Chi Dio in a parallel universe.
Thank you Francis. Chichester Diocese is a large and diverse one. Im not suggesting its perfect just that what has been done has I believe made it a safer place than in years gone by. My own Deanery of Eastbourne has been badly affected over the years but I know many of the parishes are determined to do all they can to prevent abuse recurring. Our own PCC is rigorous about mandatory training, has safeguarding as a standing item on the PCC agenda for each meeting and a high awareness of safeguarding as our church is increasingly used by many… Read more »
Sadly I am not nearly so sanguine about situation in Chi. From my on-line observation most parish safeguarding statements offer no more than the boilerplate example produced by the diocese, and this advocates the slow & steady up the ladder protect the institution approach that goes against the whole concept of whistleblowing. Worse still, the current basic safeguarding module never has a priest (or even a deacon) as the perpetrator in any of its scenarios, and the reference to the appalling saga of Peter Ball is grossly underplayed.
I have commented elsewhere on how this has become a quagmire, and it should be very simple and urgent, Jay is very clear. I suggested looking at other organisations, and others have contributed examples, with bemused faces. I looked up URC yesterday, and it has this: https://urc.org.uk/safeguarding/safeguarding-good-practice/ in particular https://urc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/P7.pdf which contains the wording: If there is an immediate threat of harm, the police should be contacted. Where it is judged that there is no immediate threat of harm the following will occur: • The concern will be discussed with the Synod Safeguarding Officer and a decision made as to… Read more »
The Moderator being the Big Brother I suppose? (I would have added ‘or Big Sister’, but that may have been taken as a safeguarding offence).
The URC process seems to be very similar to the current process where an allegation is received in the Church of England (at least in my experience). From my own experience of being involved i reporting allegations, they were reported to the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor (equivalent of the Synod Safeguarding Advisor) who recorded details on the Case Management System, reported to the LADO and local police – who undertook an investigation, the results of which informed action taken by the church (which was itself reported back to the LADO, whose agreement was required before closing the case). This also seems… Read more »
What do you see, if anything, are the problems at present within the CoE? How do the processes compare with your experiences? Is the problem the processes, or the processes not being followed? Would a teacher, where the police decide not to prosecute, have their case handled by the head teacher? Is it useful to always include the LADO/police so that multiple allegations may be coordinated?
I have (fortunately) never been in the position of managing anything involving a teacher not being prosecuted, but my understanding is that where there is no prosecution then there would be one of two outcomes – an investigation by the professional body (General Teaching Council) or, if that did not result in a conviction, an internal disciplinary process within the school (which would be according to their own policy, but would normally be undertaken by the HT with appeal to the governing body). The LADO would be informed and able to intervene at each stage, and may express views or… Read more »
I don’t see how this mare’s nest will ever be sorted unless Parliament steps in. I don’t understand how any large organisation can make its own rules and determine if and when they are broken, how they can get away with it in this day and age. The bishops desperately cling to every little shred of power and control when they know full well they aren’t able to keep us safe in the very Church they purport to lead. It’s time to call time on this whole sorry saga of pain, betrayal, and incompetence.
Part of the cultural point is illustrated by a conversation I once had with a bishop about a safeguarding situation. It turned quickly, and to my mind a little unexpectedly, to “what can I do for the person I know” rather than “what needs to be done for the person/people I don’t know”.
The idea of “one of us” has to be reformed – victims and survivors need to be included in “us”
There’s been a lot of energy around this topic. Maybe I could try to summarise, if you might indulge me one more time? There seem to be several problem/solutions. – the support given to victims – the image of the CoE amd the effect on evangelism – the role of the bishopric (shepherd, servant, authority, boss, intermediary) – the effectiveness of the organisational structures (GS, diocesan bodies) – how the CoE process interact with national and statutory bodies, incl. police – how the CoE safeguarding processes handle claims against church authorities above the parish level – the level of independence… Read more »
I’m confused myself. This all started with great heat. then gradually contributors seem to be saying it is working OK at present, at least at the parish level.
and the processes are similar to other organisations. So what is the problem?
Nigel, as a former Anglican turned URC, I’ve been very interested to read the mentions of the URC in this thread. I can add some brief reflections in an entirely personal capacity: – Having had prior experience of Anglican safeguarding, I would say that URC processes and policies are ‘better’. I use that word guardedly, as we can never be complacent. Regarding processes, not having bishops involved is (in my view) a huge positive. For our equivalent of a CDM, cases are heard by a panel of trained members, both clergy and laity (I’m one of the pool, though I’ve… Read more »
Pt II The false genesis of affirmation, which takes the form of the negation of the negation and is produced by the negative, is substituted for the complementarity of the positive and the affirmative, of differential positing and the affirmation of difference. Furthermore, if the truth be told, none of this would amount to much were it not for the moral presuppositions and practical implications of such a distortion. We have seen all that this valorisation of the negative signified, including the conservative spirit of such an enterprise, the platitude of the affirmations supposed to be engendered thereby, and the… Read more »
Two questions arise in respect of safeguarding which have not been mentioned enough so far: Whatever independent body/bodies we have in the safeguarding sphere, what powers will they have to compel people to do things they might not want (or be inclined) to do? (Including paying for the necessary work – who sets the budget?) How do Church of England bodies and officers continue to own their own proper part in safeguarding? If it becomes the remit of an external body, it could cease to be on the agendas of our Synods, for example. That will free up time, of… Read more »
As I understand things, the Makin review’s conclusions are that the CofE has cultural blind spots concerning things like speaking truth to power, codes of conduct, cover up, whistle blowing and independent review. And sometime soon our CofE is going to have to face up to the reality that such cultural blind spots are affecting decision making well beyond the realm of safeguarding. As concerns Makin and Jay, for the CoE not to opt for all safeguarding staff transferring to to a seperate nationwide organisation with independent governance will be seen as dodging the issue, (again). I think anything less… Read more »
It depends whether you are thinking about operational safeguarding – which is most of the work and requires working with parishes to support a safety culture, and being in the meetings where the agenda is shaped. That is easier to do as an insider. The presenting issues have little to do with this aspect. Even with an independent organisation the phenomenon of “regulatory capture” is well known – where, in order to be operationally effective, an external regulator compromises on independence (for example, to earn a place on a busy agenda, to obtain timely information). I think the DSOs are… Read more »
It’s worth revisiting the recommendations and comments in the Jay Report….. ”We recommend the creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding. These charities will be funded by the Church but structurally independent of them, in order to ensure that safeguarding decisions are implemented in full, and not subverted, to provide fully independent scrutiny and to mark an unambiguous change of culture. Operational safeguarding is not compatible with best practices whilst its management and accountability remains within the 42 dioceses. It was clear from our engagement, however, that dioceses operate their… Read more »