| 3 |
Chapter 3 continued
National Safeguarding Structures
and Local Arrangements |
The Parish Pack
3.55 The long awaited parish pack will be
an important tool in the work of the local parish representatives.
But it must do considerably more than assist them in training
others in how to respond to concerns of abuse and how to conduct
safe recruitment processes. It must provide them with the key
safeguarding messages, stripped down to the basics and preferably
spelt out on a couple of sides of A4 of what is acceptable behaviour,
what should give cause for concern and who members of the community
can turn to if they have such a concern. And it needs to be
in a language and format that can be accessed by all who need
to know whether they are voluntary group leaders, young parents,
children and young people, vulnerable, elderly infirm and /or
disabled people.
CRB checks
3.56 The need for CRB processing has taken
a particular toll at parish level. Respondents complain about
the paperwork and argue that local CRB workloads are overwhelming,
absorb enormous resources and are disproportionate to the risks
involved. Some local parish representatives say they find the
process deeply intrusive and feel that they constantly need
to be apologetic when approaching volunteers about the recruitment
process. Others question just how many volunteer roles really
do need to come within the ambit of the CRB process and cite
by way of example Eucharistic Ministers, only a few of whom
are expected to bring Holy Communion to the homes of the sick
and vulnerable, and those who offer to lead the children’s
liturgy while their parents are attending mass in the Church
nearby. There is no doubt that the process of CRB checking has
provoked high levels of resentment in the parishes where it
has become virtually synonymous with child protection. That
the development of much of the CRB legislation has overlapped
so closely with COPCA’s own brief lifespan has meant that
COPCA has (unfairly for the most part) been the target of this
resentment. In some quarters the very purpose of CRB checks
is being called into question since they can provide only a
snap shot of the information held against an individual at a
point in time and no conclusion can ever be drawn from a negative
disclosure that the person concerned either has not, or will
not, be a risk to children and vulnerable adults.
3.57 Vetting individuals who work with children
and vulnerable adults and barring those who are unsuitable to
do so plays a critical part in their safeguarding. Lord Nolan
recognised this explicitly commenting that there can be no excuse
for employing someone with a known record of abuse. That imperative
still stands. The taking up of CRB disclosures can never be
a substitute for the full range of pre-selection checks nor
of a rigorous recruitment strategy involving the gathering of
personal details, background disclosures, face to face interviews
and references, but they are an essential component of them
and absolute clarity and consistency is required as to which
volunteer positions are required to be CRB checked and at what
level (standard or enhanced). What matters – and this
is the primary test – is the degree and frequency of unsupervised
contact that the person under consideration is expected to have
with children and/or vulnerable adults.
3.58 We recognise that there have been many
calls for a streamlining of the safe recruitment process (often
“CRB” is used as a shorthand to describe all the
paperwork involved in recruiting a volunteer - much of which
is internal to the Church). However, apart from the rationalisation
of some of the forms, it is difficult for us to see how this
could be achieved without introducing weaknesses into the system.
With the introduction of the new Vetting and Barring Scheme
in the autumn of 2008 the vexing question of the lack of portability
of CRB checks will no longer be an issue as ‘real time’
disclosures will be possible for all those registered under
the scheme. In the meantime the bureaucratic burden could be
eased if adequate resources and training are provided at every
level and flexibility in how the task is done is tolerated.
For example, the setting-up of safeguarding teams in
parishes would spread the load more evenly. There may also be
economies of scale to be reaped if CRB checks are undertaken
by suitably trained administrators employed within Deaneries.
The role of CRB counter-signatory, hitherto, the sole preserve
of the CPC/CPO might also shared with suitably qualified administrative
personnel, provided that “blemished disclosures”
are always referred to a professional to deal with.
Religious Congregations
3.59 There are in the region of 430 known
religious congregations in England and Wales, though many of
these probably have less than 30 members. Of the total number,
some 310 belong to the “umbrella body” of the Conference
of Religious (CoR). CoR has been an invaluable instrument in
COPCA’s efforts to extend the One Church approach into
the religious congregations, but as the figures show, a significant
number of congregations do not relate to CoR. There are 50 contemplative
women’s communities and a further 70 other congregations
who are not members of CoR; other associations worthy of note
which may be of use in “reaching out” to these non-CoR
members are the Association of British Contemplatives, the Union
of Monastic Superiors and the Poor Clare and Carmelite Associations.
3.60 There are particular difficulties too,
especially in the case of congregations of pontifical right
– which include most of the larger congregations –
as these have a government structure independent of the diocesan
organisation of England and Wales. In general the diocesan Bishop
has no power to intervene in their internal affairs though he
has some authority over individual members of those congregations
whom he has given permission to exercise a pastoral ministry
in his diocese. As a result many of these congregations relate
more naturally to their members outside of England and Wales.
3.61 Religious face some special issues and
particular challenges and opportunities, for example, the safety
of elderly religious being cared for in their own communities
and of candidates in formation. Religious may also have greater
opportunities to care for members who may be at risk of abusing
children. The apostolic work of some groups is particularly
directed towards vulnerable people, which means that safeguarding
needs to be especially prominent in their thinking and work.
3.62 Consideration has been given to dealing
with religious congregations on a purely territorial basis,
diocese by diocese. However, although the simplicity of this
proposal seems attractive there are two reasons why we deem
this to be impractical:
- the complexity and spread of larger congregations would
mean duplicating arrangements across different dioceses;
- even with more resource input from religious congregations
such an arrangement would overstretch the resources of dioceses,
many of which are already struggling.
3.63 Co-operation between COPCA and CoR has
recently led to the setting-up of four “Regional”
Commissions over the past year. So far 140 congregations have
signed up to be represented on a Regional Commission. Each Commission
has an independent chair and is constituted in a similar way
to the Diocesan Commissions. The Commissions are very young
and there are still vacancies to fill on at least three of them.
The North East Commission is particularly thin. However, the
response from CoR has been very positive and the signs are hopeful
that these will succeed in their task. It is clearly not feasible
for every congregation to have a direct representative on a
Regional Commission but each one is required to have a “link
person” who is in communication with their respective
Commission. A person with a social work background has been
employed to work with religious congregations and their Commissions
in all aspects of their safeguarding work.
3.64 As a result of this development congregations
who have yet to align themselves with local safeguarding structures
now have three options: to set up their own Child Protection
Commission; to join one of the four Regional Religious Commissions;
or to come under the care of the Diocesan Commission. We believe
that the three alternatives now available make possible good
safeguarding arrangements for religious congregations while
respecting the specific nature of religious life and their different
structures to a greater degree than was possible before these
Regional Commissions were set up.
3.65 To help ‘non-aligned’ religious
congregations to decide which of these three alternatives to
choose we are proposing the following criteria for selection:
(i) Congregations should consider coming under the care
of the Diocesan Commission:
(a) if they are Institutes of diocesan right;
(b) if they are congregations with a single house in this
country;
(c) if they are congregations with apostolic works limited
to one diocese;
(d) If they are sui iuris monasteries under the
particular vigilance of the diocesan bishop (c. 615).
(ii) Some larger congregations may consider having their
own Commission, particularly if they have a substantial number
of members, and a significant ministry directed particularly
towards vulnerable people (children or adults). However, the
expertise required to maintain a separate Commission is considerable,
particularly in view of our recommendation that the CPO/CPC
should have professional qualifications and experience, and
they may prefer to join one of the four Regional Religious
Commissions.
(iii) All other congregations would normally be better advised
to join one of the four Regional Religious Commissions.
3.66 Our basic concern is that all religious
congregations involved in ‘active ministry’ should
fully embrace the safeguarding arrangements that Lord Nolan
initiated. CoR, working in partnership with such bodies as the
Association of British Contemplatives and the Union of Monastic
Superiors, should exert what pressure they can to secure as
full a take up as is possible. If successful this could mean
a place on the National Safeguarding Commission for these two
bodies. The coming together of the four Regional Religious Commissions
is a huge step forward that needs to be properly resourced if
they are not to fail at the first hurdle. Like their diocesan
counterparts their principal functions will be advice and training,
creating a safe environment, managing risk and the response
to allegations of abuse and victim support. To support this
we are making the following recommendations regarding the arrangements
for Religious:
Recommendation 34
Adequate resources should be made available to the CoR/Regional
Religious Commissions’ link person, if necessary making
this a full-time post with specific responsibility for co-ordinating
the work of the four Commissions.
Recommendation 35
An audit should be carried out within the next three years
of any non-aligned congregations who have yet to take up one
of the three options. This exercise, in which Diocesan Vicars
for Religious can expect to play a key role, would need to
include all contemplative orders.
Recommendation 36
Congregations which have their own Commission should be willing
to have their arrangements appraised by one of the four Regional
Religious Commissions.
Recommendation 37
Appropriate training should be made available to contemplative
congregations either through their respective Regional Religious
Commission or through the local diocese.
Other religious organisations and
new ecclesial movements
3.67 We are aware that there are a variable
number of non-diocesan religious movements and organisations
whose activities also centre on working with children and vulnerable
adults. But, either because they come together for a temporary
purpose e.g. some Lourdes pilgrimage groups, or for other reasons
they fall outside the diocesan and religious congregation boundaries
and structures. As a consequence they are likely to slip through
the net. Clearly where their existence (however temporary) is
dependent on the permission of a Bishop in his diocese or Congregational
Leader no such permission should be given unless that Bishop
or Congregational Leader has the necessary assurances as to
the organisation’s safeguarding arrangements. Where no
such permission is needed and the organisation or movement crosses
diocesan boundaries we suggest that they should fully subscribe
to national safeguarding policies, as vouchsafed by the CSAS,
as a condition of their inclusion in the National Catholic Directory.
Seminaries and other formation houses
– training study days and on-going formation
3.68 Lord Nolan made it clear that although
seminaries and other formation houses are independent of diocesan
and religious congregation structures they cannot fail to be
covered by appropriate child protection arrangements. The recruitment
process for potential candidates to the priesthood and religious
formation must be rigorous in its application and comply with
national policies – if not Lord Nolan recommended that
there should be a national selection board – and this
recommendation is still outstanding. Although we heard no evidence
to suggest that the separate recruitment processes for the seven
seminaries were out of line with national policies we are not
aware of any arrangements for monitoring this or their effectiveness.
We suggest that the NSC may want to consider and keep under
review Lord Nolan’s recommendation for a national selection
board. It goes without saying that once a potential candidate
declares himself as an applicant and gives permission for his
details to be CRB checked his name must be entered onto the
national database at that stage, irrespective that the period
of prior discernment may have lasted a number of years.
3.69 Most significantly it is here in the
seminaries and other houses of formation that those in training
for the priesthood, the permanent diaconate and the religious
life come to understand their calling and learn what it means
to minister in Christ’s name. If safeguarding the vulnerable
and marginalised goes to the very core of the Gospel, then it
is during formation that the push for ‘hearts and minds’
among tomorrow’s priests and religious, future Bishops
and Congregational Leaders must begin in earnest.
3.70 We are less well informed about the
formation received by religious. Congregational Leaders need
to be made aware that the selection process for all candidates
for the religious life (men and women, active and contemplative,
clerical and non-clerical) must comply with the national policies.
If a national selection board is established, it will be necessary
to work out how the selection policies of religious congregations
link in with the national policy.
3.71 Although we acknowledge that since Lord
Nolan reported there has been some considerable progress made
in introducing elements of safeguarding into the curricula offered
by the seven seminaries, we are disappointed that it has still
not been possible to agree a common safeguarding curriculum.
Given that the average time spent in formation is six years
this should be more than enough time to cover the key aspects
without, we would suggest, displacing other essential elements
of learning. In our view the focus on safeguarding should be
at the beginning of the period of formation – before seminarians
are expected to undertake practice placements – and again
at the end with some refresher sessions during the middle years;
and it must cover both children and vulnerable adults.
3.72 The safeguarding curriculum in the houses
of formation of religious congregations with apostolic works
will need to be no less thorough than that required for the
seminaries. In contemplative communities the safeguarding curriculum
will need a different emphasis: it will need to be more focused
on safeguarding vulnerable adults, but contemplatives, conscious
of their place in the heart of the Church, will also need to
be fully aware of the Church’s mission to safeguard children.
3.73 We therefore make the following recommendation:
Recommendation 38
Seminaries and other formation houses responsible for the
training of priests and religious must agree in consultation
with the CSAS the core components of a common safeguarding
curriculum that raises awareness, familiarises seminarians
and those in religious formation with the national policies
and in particular seeks to develop core competencies to give
priests the confidence to manage safeguarding matters in their
parish. This should be achieved within 12 months of the publication
of this report. It will be the role of the CSAS to support
this programme and advise on sources of training to deliver
it.
3.74 Training and awareness raising does
not, of course, stop at the exit gates of the seminary or other
formation house. It needs to be consistently refreshed as the
law and our knowledge and understanding of what constitutes
good practice moves on. This is no less true for priests, religious,
Bishops and Congregational Leaders who need to champion safeguarding
locally as it is for those such as Child Protection Co-ordinators
and Local Child Protection Representatives who have key safeguarding
roles to play. Ongoing formation, days of study and reflection
in matters of safeguarding should be routine and mandatory for
all clerics and religious whose particular ministry and way
of life requires it. Child Protection Coordinators and their
Commissions, supported by the CSAS, have a particular responsibility
to ensure appropriate training and awareness raising is undertaken
and for facilitating it. Our recommendation is that all priests
and religious should expect to undertake some refresher study
once every three years on a rolling programme similar to that
applied elsewhere, for example in medicine.
Recommendation 39
Church leaders, both Bishops and Congregational Leaders, and
all clergy should commit themselves to a full day’s
study and/or training concerning safeguarding during the first
12 months after this Commission has reported and thereafter
to a day’s ‘top up’ study once every three
years.
Figure 1 - PROPOSED NATIONAL STRUCTURES
*
* Bishops’ Conference Structure - Figure excludes the
independent agencies
Figure 2: National and Local Structures – Responsibilities
and Accountabilities
| Level |
Relevant roles |
Responsibilities |
Accountabilities |
National Safeguarding Commission
(Standard setting and compliance) |
Independent lay Chair 2 Vice-chairs – (1 CBCEW
Bishop, 1 CoR member)
3 Chairs of local Commissions
(2 Diocesan, 1 Religious)
2 other CoR members
2 other Bishop members
3 other lay members
Chair of Department of Christian Resonsibility and
Citizenship (ex officio ?)
Director of CSAS
(advisory)
Bishops’ Conference
provided administrator |
strategic direction setting and
implementation programme
- policy
- training
- communication
(ii) budget negotiation
(iii) ‘compliance’ monitoring and audit
(iv) putting in place support for ‘struggling’
Commissions
(v) annual business reports |
Accountable to Bishops’ Conference and CoR Lay
Chair or other suitably qualified member to provide professional
consultancy (supervision) to the Director of CSAS |
Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service
(Driving and supporting improvement) |
Director and staff |
(i) rolling programme of policy development and consolidation
(ii) co-ordination of training
(iii) advice and support to NSC and local Commissions
(iv) facilitate regional networking and good practice
sharing
(v) assist NSC with thematic investigations
(vi) assist with monitoring and
evaluation exercises
(vii) maintain central database
(viii) co-ordinate provision of support for victims
and abusers (cross boundary)
(ix) co-ordinate Review Panels
(x) produce annual reports |
Accountable to Bishops’ Conference and CoR
through the NSC
Director advises the NSC; reports to NSC lay Chair;
reports to Department
Bishop on day to day policy/ external communications
matters; reports to Bishops’ Conference Secretariat
for day
to day management matters |
Diocesan and Religious
(Safeguarding)
Commissions |
Independent lay Chair (with child protection/ vulnerable
adult experience);
Additional members covering police, social services,
probation plus others
(Safeguarding) Co-ordinators/ Officers advisors to
the Commission |
(i) support and advise
(ii) facilitate training
(iii) recruitment and CRB checks
(iv) supervision
(v) supporting victims
(vi) supporting abusers
(vii) co-ordinating response to allegations
(viii) risk management
(ix) provide annual report to NSC |
Accountable to Bishops and Congregational Leaders
(Safeguarding) Co-ordinators/ officers are accountable
to Bishops/ Congregational Leaders through their Commission |
| Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship
(CRC) |
Chair of the Department -ex officio member of NSC
unless also the designated Bishop for CSAS Designated
Bishop with CSAS oversight – also on the NSC
Department CoR member – also on the NSC |
Context setting Additional forum for policy debate Church
peer support for the Director and staff of CSAS |
Accountable to the Bishops’ Conference generally;
for safeguarding matters, accountable through the NSC
to Bishops’ Conference and CoR |
| Bishops’ Conference Secretariat |
Bishops’ Conference lead for the Department |
HR/finance/ and other admin support for CSAS Adminstrative
support for NSC |
Accountable to the Bishops’ Conference Bishops’
Conference lead to provide day to day line management
to the Director |
|
