Further Work
Since our First Report
2.1.1 Since our First Report
was published in April we have
presented it to the Bishops' Conference
at their Low Week meeting,
had a further meeting with the bishops,
met representatives of the religious orders at a meeting
arranged by the Conference of Religious,
met a range of Catholic and other organisations (see
Annex B), and
received written comments and further contributions
from 35 respondents.
Generally, our First Report
has been welcomed but these further discussions and contributions
have assisted our understanding of the issues, and have
led us, together with other work we have done, to refine
and add to our conclusions and recommendations. This chapter
works through these issues and will be of particular interest
to those who have read the First Report. The
next chapter summarises the whole of our analysis and
conclusions and recommendations.
Vulnerable adults
2.2.1 We have received several comments
suggesting that our work might be extended to cover the
arrangements the Church should make to protect vulnerable
adults, such as those with learning difficulties. A number
of other comparable organisations have a single set of
arrangements to cover children, young people and vulnerable
adults. Such an extension would go beyond our remit and
our expertise. We do, however, commend the Church to consider
the need for policies and arrangements in this area, and
note that many of the systems we recommend may be capable
of extension to cover vulnerable adults as well.
Canon law
2.3.1 In making our recommendations we
have been concerned to set out what the Church needs to
do to protect children and deal with allegations about
abuse. We are not expert in canon law (the Church's own
code of law) but believe that for the most part our recommendations
are compatible with canon law. If any difficulties do
emerge in this regard we trust and expect that the Church
authorities will deal with them responsively.
Organisation
...in the parish
2.4.1 Everyone we have talked to has
confirmed the critical importance of the parish to effective
child protection. But concerns have also been expressed
about the scale of the action that will be necessary to
raise and maintain local awareness of the issues, and
to put and keep in place the arrangements we have recommended.
We are under no illusions about either the commitment
or the resource implications, but we believe that parishes
and the whole Church are ready to meet the challenges
posed by our recommendations.
2.4.2 Within the parish, the Child Protection
Representative (First Report, Recommendation
5) has a key role. Doubt has been expressed about whether
sufficient volunteers will come forward to fill these
posts given the onerous nature of the responsibilities.
We understand that the parishes that have already moved
in this direction have in fact had little difficulty in
finding suitable people willing to take on these responsibilities.
Nonetheless, this concern underlines our view that a primary
purpose of the diocesan and national arrangements is to
give the parishes practical and moral support and to make
their task as easy as possible. And we believe there may
be particular value in the Parish Child Protection Representatives
within each deanery meeting together regularly and forming
a network to provide each other with mutual support and
help and to make collective arrangements for such matters
as training.
2.4.3 We recommended in the First
Report that the parish priest should appoint these
Child Protection Representatives. On reflection, however,
we believe there may be more merit in their being appointed
by the diocesan Child Protection Coordinator, following
appropriate consultation within the parish, which would
increase independence and transparency.
...in the diocese
2.5.1 A key issue here is to what extent
policy should be developed and agreed nationally and to
what extent each diocese, reflecting the formal independence
of bishops and dioceses, should develop its own. Our view
is that the most desirable outcome would be a single set
of policies adopted throughout the Church in England and
Wales (including religious orders). So, while we recognise
that bishops and religious superiors are each fully responsible
for their own policies and arrangements, we recommend
that they work together through the National Child Protection
Unit (see Recommendation 16) to develop and implement
such a single set of arrangements.
2.5.2 A number of respondents have commented
on our observation (First Report, para 5.7) that
the diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinator (CPC) need
not be a child care professional. We do, however, remain
of this view provided that the CPC is adequately trained
and can readily draw on appropriate professional expertise
whenever she/he needs it. We note the value of having
full-time professional child care expertise within the
diocesan (or religious order) team or, as in at least
one case that we know of, shared between two or three
dioceses (or religious orders). We also stress that it
is essential that very close liaison is maintained between
the CPC, the statutory agencies and the statutory Area
Child Protection Committees. (Each local social services
authority has an Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC)
which means that in some dioceses there will be a significant
number of ACPCs to deal with; however, the benefit of
close working relations is likely to be large.)
2.5.3 We said in the First Report
that we did not consider it essential for CPCs to be priests
(para 5.6 and Recommendation 8). Some of our respondents
have wanted us to go further and to require CPCs to be
lay people largely on the grounds that the position in
which the Church finds itself has led to a lack of confidence
in CPC priests. We do not feel that this is a necessary
step, but we do emphasise the need for all Catholics and
the public generally to have confidence in CPCs; this
will be achieved by appointing the best person to the
job without regard for whether they are female or male,
clerical or lay.
2.5.4 Each CPC should make an annual
report to the bishop or (see below) to the religious superior
on actions taken and progress made during the year. Copies
of these annual reports should be sent to the National
Child Protection Unit.
...in the religious order
2.6.1 The written and oral responses
from the religious communities have confirmed their desire
to play the fullest possible part in implementing our
recommendations to secure the protection of children and
to respond to abuse. We are pleased to note that the Conference
of Religious is represented on the team which the Bishops'
Conference has set up to implement our reports. As noted
in paragraph 2.5.1, we firmly believe that what is required
are arrangements throughout the dioceses and religious
orders in England and Wales that are equally thorough,
integrated and indeed, so far as possible, the same. We
are encouraged to believe that this can be achieved.
2.6.2 Nonetheless, the many religious
orders in the Catholic Church in England and Wales are
formally independent of the bishops, which was why we
addressed recommendations directly to religious orders
in our First Report. We said there (para 5.9)
that it was essential that religious orders that have
contact with children should appoint Child Protection
Co-ordinators. But we should make it clear that we consider
that all religious orders, whether or not their work normally
brings them directly into contact with children, should
have child protection arrangements, including CPCs. This
is because there can never be a guarantee that members
of any religious order will not have contact with children
and their particular status will make that a privileged
relationship.
2.6.3 We also believe, however, that
for many religious orders, particularly the smaller ones,
it will be entirely appropriate for them to join together
with each other or with a chosen diocese and to appoint
a CPC jointly or a diocesan CPC to act for them.
...in seminaries and other places of
formation
2.7.1 Seminaries and some other formation
houses (i.e. institutions where candidates for the priesthood
or permanent diaconate are trained) are independent of
the diocesan and religious order structure but must not
fail to be covered by appropriate arrangements. We recommend
that they should appoint CPCs, adopt policies and implement
guidelines in the same way as we have set out for dioceses.
They may wish to appoint a diocesan or religious order
CPC to act for them.
...at national level
2.8.1 Our proposal for a National Child
Protection Unit (NCPU) (First Report, Recommendation
11), supported by an advisory group, has been widely welcomed.
As foreshadowed in paragraphs 2.5.1 and 2.6.1 we believe
that the Unit should advise the Conference of Bishops
and the Conference of Religious on child protection policies,
with the dioceses and religious orders then being responsible
for implementation.
2.8.2 We described the tasks of the NCPU
(First Report, para 5.10) as being
- to give expert advice and moral support to parishes,
dioceses and religious orders;
- to collect and disseminate good practice;
- to hold databases of training facilities and other
useful information;
- to maintain the central confidential database;
- to liaise with the statutory agencies at national
level, with professional bodies, leading charities in
the field and other churches; and
- to collect data, monitor arrangements in parishes,
dioceses and religious orders on an ongoing basis, and
seek to secure improvements where necessary.
Some have observed that the last of these
(monitoring and audit) is not easily compatible with the
support and advice function referred to earlier and have
wondered whether there ought to be arrangements for independent
assessment of diocesan and religious order arrangements.
The question has also been raised as to what happens if
effective arrangements are not implemented in a particular
area, or if recommendations for improvement are not pursued.
2.8.3 We are not excessively concerned with the possible
conflict between the audit and advice functions. Provided
that the Unit is resourced adequately and with staff of
sufficient standing, we believe that it can discharge
both functions well. We also have confidence that our
proposals for the Unit to make reports and for the publication
of their annual reports will create the necessary climate
to secure improvements should that prove to be necessary.
Creating a safe environment
2.9.1 Our First Report stressed
the importance of putting in place effective policies
for child protection and to prevent abuse. We built a
series of recommendations on the principles set out in
the Home Office document Safe From Harm and policies in
Working Together, and began by setting out a policy statement
for the Church (First Report, Recommendation
4) which has been well received.
Practical guidance and codes of conduct
2.9.2 Since the First Report,
we have been able to look at a range of practical guidance
and codes of conduct adopted by various organisations
to minimise situations where the abuse of children can
occur. There seem to be many examples of good practice
(one example of a code is at Annex C and one of guidance
on working with children at Annex D) and it is clear that
best practice is developing over time. We have therefore
concluded that rather than define such material ourselves
(which might quite quickly become outdated) it should
be part of the NCPU's remit to issue practical guidance
on working with children and a code of conduct, in line
with current best practice, and subsequently to keep them
under review.
2.9.3 We are also aware that some dioceses
have set out a statement to guide children themselves,
sometimes called a Declaration of Children's Rights. This
is one of them:
'God has given you the right to be
cared for by people you can trust
God gives you the right not to be hurt in your body
by grown-ups
God has given you the right to have your feelings taken
seriously
And so
Never believe somebody who tells you a secret you must
not tell your parents
Never believe somebody who says it is your fault that
you are being hurt or frightened
If a grown-up does not take you seriously or believe
you, you must talk to someone else
If you are uncertain about something a grown-up tells
you to do, ask your parents or teachers about it'
Raising children's own awareness of appropriate
and inappropriate behaviour is an important part of successful
child protection policies and we commend this statement
as an example of good practice.
2.9.4 Essentially, however, it is adults who are responsible
for protecting children and challenging the behaviour
of other adults that may threaten them. For this reason,
it is important to raise the awareness of all adults involved
with the Church, rather than just workers, about what
is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and what children's
expectations should be. This will make an important contribution
to successful child protection. We recommend that guidance
issued by the National Unit should cover this aspect.
Sacrament of reconciliation
(confession)
2.9.5 The arrangements for confession
for children are one particular aspect of managing the
organisation to prevent abuse or even the suspicion of
abuse which we have considered further. It is already
the case that some priests administer this sacrament in
a setting where both priest and lay person can be seen
but not heard. We recommend that wherever possible this
should be the norm for the confessions of children; other
arrangements should be exceptional and should be eliminated
as opportunity allows.
The independent person
2.9.6 A number of our respondents have
commented on our recommendation (First Report,
Recommendation 14) that there should be an independent
person for children to talk to if they so wish. The experience
in other churches and organisations is that such people
are little called on as children prefer to talk to someone
they know, or else to use one of the helplines provided
by charities. We acknowledge that this may be so but continue
to think that such an appointment would be worthwhile
to complement the other arrangements that concerned children
might use. However, we now suggest that these appointments
should generally be made by the diocese or religious order
rather than by each parish.
Choosing staff and volunteers
2.9.7 We have been taken to task by
some for not sufficiently distinguishing the role of volunteers
in the Church nor recognising that they may not be prepared
to go through the checks and procedures that we recommend.
It is true that talking about staff, posts, job descriptions,
and so on, is more suited to the employee than the volunteer
relationship. However, our experience is that volunteers
and lay workers are determined to do as professional a
job as paid workers. Most people well understand why great
care is taken over the employment of teachers and others
who work professionally with children. We are therefore
confident that volunteer workers with children, in parishes
and elsewhere, will accept the need for the procedures
we outline, provided that the reasons for them are well
explained - namely the protection of children from abuse
and of those who work with them from suspicion.
2.9.8 Our First Report made
recommendations (17 to 26) about selection and appointment
and one recommendation (27) about review. We have subsequently
considered what should happen in respect of paid workers
and volunteers who are already in post. In some cases
checks in line with our recommendations will already have
been undertaken on appointment. Even in those cases there
may be a need to bring those checks up to date. And in
other cases we recommend that checks be made with the
Criminal Records Bureau.
2.9.9 The Committee's remit and recommendations
cover the Church in England and Wales. But, of course,
individuals may come to serve in or work for the Church
from other countries, and some responsibility will also
exist where members of organisations based in England
and Wales go to serve elsewhere (e.g. missionaries). We
recommend that anyone coming from abroad should be treated
as a new applicant. In their case, however, the process
may be made more difficult because referees and other
information will be at a distance while there may also
be relevant cultural differences. Modern communications
systems are probably acting to reduce the first difficulty.
It is, however, important not to 'make do' with information
or assessments that are any less rigorous than would apply
to someone in this country.
2.9.10 As regards individuals from England
and Wales serving elsewhere, the key principles should
be that any relevant information requested by the new
employer is willingly and candidly provided; in any event
if there are any relevant concerns these should be explicitly
made known to the new employer even if they are not requested;
and where the employer is in fact based in England and
Wales (e.g. a religious order) they should follow the
same principles as we have recommended for use here.
2.9.11 Following our discussions, we
re-emphasise the importance of seminary rectors and others
responsible for the formation and training of candidates
for the priesthood and the permanent diaconate having
access to all the necessary information from the selection
process. (See First Report, para 3.18.)
2.9.12 Recommendation 25 of our First
Report concerned the establishment and maintenance
of a national database of information on all applicant
candidates for ordained ministry. For candidates who are
then ordained the information held should, of course,
be kept up to date thereafter. We also recommend that
the scope of the database should be extended to those
who are applying to become permanent deacons.
2.9.13 We have also considered whether
the scope of the database should be extended to lay workers
and volunteers. In principle there is a good case to do
this though it would clearly be a considerable extension
of the scope of the database and greatly increase the
complexity of maintaining it. Nonetheless, we believe
that the National Unit should look at the possibility
of this. In any event we recommend that dioceses and religious
orders should themselves maintain records of checks and
references on prospective staff and volunteers for the
diocese or order, and that such records are consulted
by other dioceses and orders as necessary.
Records
2.9.14 We have a little more to say
about record keeping in the context of allegations (2.10.23)
but we also have some general recommendations:
- As far as possible, records should be made at the
time of a check, allegation or other event (so that
the memory is fresh and accurate).
- Confidentiality of records should be scrupulously
maintained. Information in them should only be released
to those in positions of responsibility who have good
reason to need it for the protection of children. Individuals
are, of course, entitled to access information about
themselves, subject to certain statutory exclusions.
- Records will need to be kept for a long time - we
recommend 100 years. This is a long time but child abuse
frequently comes to light many years after it occurred
and it is very desirable, when it does, to be able to
access records of the time. This points in particular
to not destroying records when individuals die.
Training, awareness and support
2.9.15 All those with knowledge of the
field who have written or talked to us have reinforced
our view of the central position that really good awareness
raising and training and support arrangements have in
contributing to successful child protection. Nor is this
simply about formal training by professionals. There is
also a key role for the passing on of experience within
the Church's communities from those who work with children
professionally (teachers, care workers and so on) or have
worked with them in a voluntary capacity within the Church
for many years to those who are newly becoming involved.
|
