"SAFEGUARDING STRUCTURES BOARD" VS FAITHFUL RESPONSIBILITY PROPOSALS

I confess to not having been aware of the existence of this board prior to the release of its proposals. Nor was my colleague informed about it in his discussions with Archbishops Council. So we were surprised to see this paper, GS2429 (click to read/download) which tries to move Synod on from the 2025 Option 3.5 solution to the next stage.

The key features (my emphases) are:

• A vision for a new charity, provisionally named as the Independent Safeguarding Authority. This charity will be an operationally independent organisation, led by a majority-independent non-executive Board. Executive functions of the charity will be led by a Chief Safeguarding Officer, whose operational safeguarding responsibilities will be a protected function of the charity and not subject to Board discussion or determination.

• A plan for a new, standardised complaints handling process comprising:

  • A standard mandatory process for each Diocesan Board of Finance and other relevant Church bodies to follow; and

  • A national external ombudsman-style body to provide resolution of complaints after processes within Church bodies have been exhausted.

Well, it's a start. But it's still a long way from true Independence and also fails to address many issues that affect victims, the general public, parishes and dioceses.

These are my key takeaways when comparing the Board's proposal (SSB) and Faithful Responsibility's (FR):

1. The SSB proposal seems to be, if I’m being rude, a resurrection of the Independent Safeguarding Board but made more independent.  That is not a good starting point.

2. SSB creates a nominally independent charity for oversight, whereas the Council envisaged in FR remains under the aegis of the Church of England. Adding another layer of legal complexity to the process is advantageous in terms of public perception but we question if it would actually add anything.

3. Both bring consistency and a measure of independence to the development of policy and procedure, training, audit, etc. and, critically, to complaint resolution.

4. Unlike FR, SSB does not directly address  the lack of trauma awareness in those involved in handling concerns, though it could be easily added.

5. Unlike FR, SSB does not clarify in canon law the responsibilities and accountability of church officials.  It could be easily added.

6. Unlike FR, SSB does not address the disparities in resources and allocation of those resources between dioceses.

7. Unlike FR, SSB does not address the filtering of initial reports or the collation of data from different dioceses, though it does seek to standardise procedures.

8. Unlike FR, SSB does not address the  disparity of advice between dioceses, though it does seek to standardise approach.

9. Unlike FR, SSB does not address the difficulty for potential reporters in who to contact or how.

10. Unlike FR, SSB does not address the Iwerne (John Smyth) issue of church officers operating in non-CofE contexts, though it could be easily added.

11. Unlike FR, SSB does not provide an efficient, independent, connected system to aid parishes in safer recruitment and reduce the risk of potential abusers escaping across diocesan lines, though it could be added.

12. Unlike FR, SSB does not change who controls the local teams.  SSB l leaves them with the local diocese.  There’s too many disasters demonstrating why this will not satisfy the press or public.  And it would still leave a (probably all) future Archbishop open to criticism of their handling of at least one, if not multiple, cases.

Chat GPT’s conclusion, when simply asked to compare the two proposals, was that they were reasonably aligned, in most areas, except in terms of control of local teams (diocese vs independent).  It then concluded:

“GS 2429 aligns well with Faithful Responsibility in its insistence on independence, accountability, survivor-centred practice, and system-level responsibility. Its weakness lies not in direction but in depth: it is structurally faithful, but only partially explicit about moral ownership, repentance, and consequences when responsibility is breached.”

Thinking Anglicans have published their own assessment of GS2429 based on Gavin Drake's comprehensive assessment, which deserves careful scrutiny.

Gavin also curates a website dedicated to church safeguarding, churchabuse.uk

Survivors Voices is a group I came across through one of their folks signing up to Faithful Responsibility (signing in allows you to comment on blog posts).

Whilst this letter was sent to Synod a year ago, it is worth reading or re-reading.

My final comment on this is that in every PCC I know of, Safeguarding is the first item on each agenda. In General Synod, the most important issue is given a few hours on the 3rd day (Click for link to synod agenda.) The National Safeguarding Team's report to Synod will be considered alongside GS2429 and two unrelated topics in the Safeguarding session at Synod. Are they really taking this seriously?