| 3 |
Chapter
3
National Safeguarding Structures
and Local Arrangements |
3.1 We have reflected
much on Lord Nolan’s reference to the parish as the heartbeat
of the community and the extraordinary goodwill of those many
in the parishes and religious communities who have worked so
hard to make the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults
part of the every day life of the Church. Their goodwill must
not be put at risk. It is they who must feel properly supported
and valued in what they do; it is they who need to feel fully
a part of the system, who need to have a window on what is going
on so that they can become more involved and exert their influence
at every level. And it is they, working in true partnership
with priests and religious, and supported by their local Commissions,
who need to feel fully confident in the safeguarding responsibility
that is vested in each Bishop in his diocese and each Congregational
Leader in his or her religious congregation. If the national
and local safeguarding structures and arrangements are to make
a difference in the battle for ‘hearts and minds’
they must work to reinforce these aspirations. In the following
sections we look again at these structures starting with a re-assessment
of COPCA’s role.
A central unit or not?
3.2 We have heard from many, particularly
in the dioceses, who question the need for COPCA or something
similar to continue to exist. The arguments appear to be:
(i) the major policy task has all but been completed;
(ii) other functions performed by COPCA could be outsourced
to other providers; and
(iii) if there remains a need for a co-ordinating role this
could be undertaken by one diocese/ or religious congregation
acting on behalf of the others;
(iv) the disbanding of COPCA would release monies which
could be ringfenced for safeguarding activities within the
dioceses and religious congregations.
3.3 We do not share these views for a variety
of reasons:
First, the task of policy development is ongoing
– policies do not stand still, there are still major policy
areas to cover (for example on vulnerable adults and whistle
blowing – outstanding Nolan recommendations) and there
are policies to consolidate and refresh to make them more accessible
to people who are new to safeguarding, particularly in the parishes.
Second, as we have already commented, the organisation
of the church is collegiate where unity, not uniformity matters,
and where there is neither a structure nor mandate to call each
Bishop or Congregational Leader to account.
We believe that a central unit with properly supporting management
and accountability structures would provide the impetus for
change and progress and, where necessary, challenge practice
from a position of independence and professional authority.
Third, given that there is no mechanism for ringfencing
monies locally, we doubt that this would be done without the
means to call each diocese to account. The suggestion that this
might be possible on a peer to peer basis, and between dioceses
and religious congregations, is simply not supported by the
evidence. We have been told that in practice the capacity of
Bishops to hold each other to account, let alone Congregational
Leaders, is limited. To rely solely on an internal peer approach
to assure safeguarding arrangements in the future would seem
too risky to contemplate at present – particularly given
the relative newness of the safeguarding agenda in the Church
and the fact that it is not considered the Church’s ‘core
business’.
Fourth, a properly resourced central unit would make
it easier to share good practice locally among the dioceses
and religious congregations and provide an important point of
contact with external safeguarding bodies.
Finally, there remains the question of the public
perception of the Church’s efforts in this area. The very
existence of a quasi-independent COPCA has brought some re-assurance
that the Church is ‘putting its house in order’.
Withdrawing this too soon – and it is our opinion that
5 years is too soon – might cause some in the wider community
to call into question the Church’s commitment to safeguarding
vulnerable groups.
3.4 So, in our view there must continue to
be a central office for the protection of children and vulnerable
adults to maintain and build on the Church’s progress
in developing a culture of vigilance. But what it does, and
the way it goes about its business, is just as important in
the battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of those who
work as parish volunteers or as members of Diocesan and Religious
Commissions and whose expertise should be valued and supported.
3.5 We have heard from witnesses and on our
visits to Commissions that COPCA’s methods are just too
paper driven, the language does not always resonate with the
Catholic community and the policies are too detailed and bureaucratic
allowing little flexibility for local circumstances. This matters
and will need to be addressed, as we go on to argue in favour
of a national unit which makes advice, support and training
a central feature of its work.
Future role
3.6 At present COPCA attempts to offer both
‘challenge and support’. It aims to be both ‘the
enforcer’ and a source of friendly but authoritative advice.
In any organisation, these are difficult roles to combine in
a single unit, especially one so small. To do so successfully,
and on an issue as complex and sensitive as children and vulnerable
adults’ safeguarding, demands great skill from those concerned.
It also requires a really strong mandate. With hindsight, COPCA’s
attempt to take on both these roles was brave but probably unrealistic.
The need for continued ‘top down’ challenge
3.7 Yet there is a clear need for regular
‘top down challenge’, a need to hold people to account,
as there is in any organisation – particularly one in
which for many, child and vulnerable adult protection is still
a fairly new idea. Bishops, Congregational Leaders, Diocesan
and Religious Commissions and their teams need to be reminded
that they must organise their activities in ways that support
effective child and vulnerable adult safeguarding, even allowing
for some local flexibilities to meet local circumstances.
3.8 So we accept that a central ‘compliance
mechanism’ will continue to be required, but it will need
to be considerably more effective than that which is currently
available to COPCA. It will also need to be delivered in ways
that encourage Bishops and Congregational Leaders, overtly and
confidently, to own and champion the protection of children
and vulnerable adults. In our view that means it needs to be
lodged near, or at the top of the Church’s organisational
structure.
The need for continued – in fact for greater
– support
3.9 We have already commented that many of
the prerequisites for effective safeguarding are already in
place in the Church, in the form of nationally agreed policies
and procedures (though there is still more to do). But these
are just the foundations for creating a safe environment. The
really difficult challenge now facing the Church is to use these
as a springboard for changing how people at all levels think
about safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, so they come
to behave in ways that help to prevent abuse and harm from occurring.
This will also help to ensure that when abuse does occur –
and it will - it can be readily discovered and the perpetrators
held to account.
3.10 This is what ‘cultural change’
means in this context. Creating it is difficult and requires
strong leadership. Sustaining it requires good communications,
training, advice and support at all levels. At present, COPCA
is trying to do all this (in co-operation with the Child Protection
Commissions in dioceses and Religious Commissions) as well as
carrying out the ‘compliance function’.
3.11 Our proposal for moving forward is to
remove responsibility for the ‘compliance role’
from COPCA’s remit and to refocus and build on COPCA’s
professional child protection skills and expertise, to provide
the support, advice, training and co-ordination the Church needs
at every level to properly deliver its safeguarding agenda.
With the responsibility for robust scrutiny and independent
challenge lodged elsewhere, as we set out below, the emphasis
for the central unit in the future should be its supportive
and advisory role. To reflect this shift in emphasis and style
we recommend changing COPCA’s name to the Catholic Safeguarding
Advisory Service (CSAS). This would not only signal a new beginning
but would signpost the unit’s wider safeguarding function
in moving forward rather than a narrower policing role for child
and vulnerable adult protection.
Recommendation 3
The national unit’s name should be changed to the Catholic
Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) to reflect its primary
role in future as one of co-ordination, advice and support
in respect of the wider job of safeguarding children and vulnerable
adults.
The national unit’s management and accountability
arrangements
3.12 No change of name or function, however,
will bring any benefits if the management and accountability
arrangements in which the CSAS is expected to operate are unclear
or simply inappropriate. These are criticisms we believe can
fairly be made of the structures within which COPCA currently
sits, at least in relation to the Conference of Bishops and
the Catholic Trust for England and Wales (CaTEW) and which in
our view may have impeded its performance.
3.13 We have been told that, aside from the
consultative bodies, the Church’s agencies essentially
fall into two distinct types (though all are mandated by, and
report to, the Bishops’ Conference). The staff, management
committees and advisory boards of those like the National Agency
for Vocation and the Catholic Youth Service are all supported
within CaTEW. The other agencies, for example the Catholic Education
Service and the Catholic Agency for Racial Justice are independent
charitable trusts with their own Trustee bodies, employing their
own staff and managed as independent charities. Yet all the
agencies –whether supported within CaTEW or operating
as independent charitable companies–have one key aspect
in common: they all report into the Bishops’ Conference
via one of its operating departments. Each department in turn
is chaired by a Bishop who is an ex officio member of the Standing
Committee of the Conference of Bishops.
3.14 COPCA’s position in this respect
is unique. Although Lord Nolan counselled that the central unit
should be separate from the secretariat of the Bishops’
Conference for the sake of expediency COPCA was set up as an
agency mandated by, and reporting to, the Catholic Trust. COPCA
staff are employees of CaTEW and its administration, HR, finance
and property management functions are supported by CaTEW. However,
COPCA alone of the Catholic agencies reports straight to the
Bishops’ Conference through the Chair of its management
board, Archbishop Vincent Nichols and COPCA’s director
is line managed by a lay member of its management board rather
than a member of the General Secretariat of the Bishops’
Conference.
3.15 The rationale for this approach was
to demonstrate and reinforce COPCA’s independence from
the Church. Five years ago there were sound reasons for prioritising
this, above everything else. Today, things look slightly different:
the Church has made progress in developing its child protection
processes, but the challenge moving forward is to win ‘hearts
and minds’ and to raise awareness and embed good practice
right down to parish and local community level. We would argue
that at this stage, such an extremely ‘distant’
position vis a vis the Church may be more of a hindrance than
a help. It limits COPCA’s capacity to co-optsenior clerical
champions within mainstream Church structures, it gives COPCA
only one layer of scrutiny by the Bishops and one less forum
for debating the strategic development of safeguarding policy
as part of the Church’s mainstream ‘thinking’
and ‘doing’, and it allows COPCA to be, and to be
seen to be ‘separate’. Since COPCA and child protection
are so often conflated, this also allows child protection to
be, and to be seen to be, less than fully owned by the Church.
3.16 The current management arrangements
have created other problems, too, that have impacted on the
day to day business of COPCA. Thus, the COPCA management
board lack the independence to manage its own finances. These
are overseen by the COPCA finance subcommittee with representation
from CoR, CaTEW, diocesan and financial secretaries and COPCA
admin staff under the chairmanship of the vice chair of the
COPCA management board. But equally CaTEW have lost the ability
to manage COPCA as there is no external line management relationship.
In the past this has on occasion resulted in managerial stalemate
with problems being referred to the finance subcommittee but
rarely resolved. Although we were told that relationships have
improved significantly a future managerial stalemate cannot
be ruled out while reporting lines remain as they are.
3.17 It has also become clear that COPCA’s
policy recommendations come to the Bishops’ Conference
and Conference of Religious and leave as national policies of
the Catholic Church in all but name alone. Because there is
no real forum for debate they are usually rubber stamped through
– a practice that is counter productive for everyone.
It is hardly surprising then that the Bishops/Congregational
Leaders on occasion only pay lip service to these as national
policies.
3.18 For these reasons there is a strong
case for changing the current accountability and management
arrangements so that at one level the new Catholic Safeguarding
Advisory Service is integrated fully into mainstream structures,
just as child and vulnerable adult safeguarding must become
central to how the Church thinks. To enable this to happen,
and to provide peer support for the Director, encourage cross-fertilisation
of ideas and better staff interaction, we are proposing that
CSAS is located within one of the Departments of the Bishops’
Conference. We have selected the Department of Christian Responsibility
and Citizenship as the most relevant to the children and vulnerable
adult safeguarding agenda for it is here that the Conference
of Bishops delivers its remit to ‘promote the greater
good which the Church offers to humanity’ through
its support for the marginalised and vulnerable. And since it
is in, and through, this Department that the day to day running
of CSAS will be managed it will be important to ensure that
CoR can still play its full role in delivering the One Church
approach. We therefore recommend that an appointed member of
CoR be invited to join the Department as a permanent member
to attend Department meetings where matters related to CSAS
are to be discussed.
Recommendation 4
The Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service should sit within
the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship
of the Bishops’ Conference.
Recommendation 5
An appointed member of the Conference of Religious should
be invited to join the Department as a permanent member.
3.19 We understand there is shortly to be
a Bishop led value for money review of CaTEW alongside an organisational
review of the Bishops’ Conference. These internal reviews
should not be used as an excuse to delay moving the CSAS, at
least protem, into the Department for Christian Responsibility
and Citizenship. Indeed, moving the CSAS across sooner rather
than later will give it an important and informed voice to help
shape the outcome of the CaTEW reviews.
National Safeguarding Commission
3.20 We are equally clear that new structural
arrangements must continue to allow for independence that is
credible and must be seen to be so while at the same time enabling
CSAS to exercise greater influence over policies and practice
in the Church than is possible at present. To that end we would
argue that the necessary independence is not around how it performs
its function, whether as an independent agency or not, but about
putting in place the checks and balances to ensure that what
is done in the name of children and vulnerable adults’
safeguarding is open and transparent and subject to rigorous
scrutiny from those with knowledge and expertise to critically
challenge where appropriate. This remains true at both national
and local levels.
3.21 To enable this to happen we recommend
that the existing COPCA management board is disbanded and a
new National Safeguarding Commission (NSC) is established whose
place in the organisation of the Church properly reflects the
priority to be given by the Bishops and Congregational Leaders
over the strategic direction of its safeguarding policy. Had
COPCA, or its successor body, become an independent agency the
NSC would have to serve as its Trustee Board and the critical
focus that we believe is required in matters of strategic direction
setting and policy compliance would inevitably give way to delivering
charitable Trust status and financial compliance. An organisational
chart showing the proposed new national structure appears in
Figure 1, and a chart setting out the relationships (responsibilities
and accountabilities) between the NSC, the CSAS, the Department
for Christian Responsibility and Citizenship and the local Diocesan
and Religious Commissions appears in Figure 2, at the end of
this chapter.
3.22 Getting the right balance and skill
mix between lay and Church members will be important if the
NSC is to make a difference and exert sufficient external challenge.
While we recognise the importance, and indeed the huge progress
made as a result, of having a senior and well respected cleric
at the helm of the COPCA management board it is our view that
an independent lay chair of some standing would now be better
placed to steer the NSC
in its role of strategy setting and monitoring compliance. We
have in mind a senior and wellrespected
figure. Having an independent and unpaid lay chair would also
mirror arrangements
locally for Diocesan and Religious Commissions and reinforce
his or her independence.
3.23 The new National Safeguarding Commission
will be expected to demonstrate strong, open and accountable
leadership in setting the strategic direction of the Church’s
safeguarding policy and in monitoring compliance and should
not delegate responsibility for this role - intentionally or
otherwise - to the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service or
to any other body or group. In the interests of openness and
transparency we have suggested that membership be extended to
representative chairs of the local Commissions. The NSC’s
business must equally be as open and transparent as far as is
possible so as not to appear inscrutable to those in the community
who need to know and understand the decisions being made that
will affect them.
Recommendation 6
The Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service should report and
be accountable to the Bishops’ Conference and Conference
of Religious through the new National Safeguarding Commission.
Recommendation 7
The National Safeguarding Commission should be chaired by
a lay person of seniority and with real credibility appointed
by the Conference of Bishops and Conference of Religious;
there should be two vice chairs, one an appointed member of
the Conference of Bishops and the other an appointed member
of the Conference of Religious.
Recommendation 8
The National Safeguarding Commission should have both lay
and clerical representation, including 3 Bishops (one of whom
should be one of the Bishops in the Department of Christian
Responsibility and Citizenship with oversight of CSAS), 3
representatives of CoR ( one of whom should be the CoR member
invited to join the Department of Christian Responsibility
and Citizenship to oversee the running of CSAS), 3 lay Chairs
of Commissions elected by all the Commissions to represent
them (including one Regional Religious), and 3 additional
lay members with relevant experience and knowledge.
Recommendation 9
If the Chair of the Department of Christian Responsibility
and Citizenship is not also the Bishop with day to day oversight
of CSAS then he should be invited to sit on the National Safeguarding
Commission as an ex-officio member.
Recommendation 10
The task of appointing the National Safeguarding Commission
should be carried out by the Chair and Vice-chairs. An open
and transparent process, including external advertisement,
should be used for the recruitment of the lay members. The
skills required on the Commission should be assessed (for
example safeguarding vulnerable adults and children issues,
knowledge of law and employment matters) and the results used
to inform the recruitment process.
Recommendation 11
National Safeguarding Commission members should be appointed
to terms of 3 years and should normally be able to serve no
more than two terms. A process of rotation should be applied
in terms of retirement to assist continuity.
Recommendation 12
The National Safeguarding Commission should meet at least
quarterly and both its agendas and minutes should be public
documents, with the use of confidential annexes where appropriate.
The NSC’s quorum should be a third of its membership.
Recommendation 13
The Director of the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service
should provide expert safeguarding advice to the NSC.
|
