Safeguarding with Confidence - Cumberlege Report

Conclusions

7.1 Throughout our review we have never once had to question the principles embodied in Lord Nolan’s report. Nor have we ever doubted the integrity and willingness of so many who work to safeguard the vulnerable and weak through their belief in Christ’s Ministry.

7.2 Our role has been to reflect on the huge progress that has been made to make the Church a safer place and to comment where this has been less than adequate, identifying what more needs to be done to ensure that our children and young people flourish and our vulnerable adults are loved and cared for in ways that are truly life affirming. In striving to do this we have tried to be fair and just to all parties:

- to help Bishops and Congregational Leaders in their very difficult task;
- to have due consideration for those who suffer abuse or have been abused;
- to ensure a system for those under suspicion which respects the rules of natural justice and is consistent with the Church’s universal laws.

7.3 We have at all times been conscious that responsibility for building on the progress that has been made rests firmly with each Bishop in his diocese and each Congregational Leader in his or her congregation; we rely on their strong committed and united leadership. For it is only through the leadership of the Church working together, and being seen to do so with confidence, in ways that are open and transparent, will ‘hearts and minds’ in parishes and communities around the country be fully involved - as indeed they need to be – and safeguarding children and vulnerable adults become a positive and everyday reality for the Church and its community. Our recommendations, and the structural changes underpinning them, are designed to help bring this about and remove any doubts as to the Church’s steadfast commitment to promoting a sustained and sustainable culture of vigilance.

Seeking ‘recognitio’

7.4 We were made aware fairly early on in our deliberations of a possibility of conflict between the procedures recommended by Lord Nolan, and those called for by Canon Law. We have also recognised that Lord Nolan’s recommendations and indeed our own, even if similarly endorsed by the Conference of Bishops and Conference of Religious, will not, according to the rules of Canon Law, be binding on individual Bishops or Congregational Leaders. We are therefore recommending that the Conference of Bishops, in consultation with the Conference of Religious, draw up a general decree for England and Wales to be sent to the Holy See for “recognitio”.37 We would also propose that the Holy See be requested to make it clear that this general decree would apply throughout England and Wales, and would apply to religious congregations and ecclesial movements as well as to dioceses and parishes.38 This would enable our recommendations to become part of the particular law of the Church in this country and bring a much needed degree of clarity and certainty to all those affected by the present procedures. It would also give a remedy against Bishops or Congregational Leaders who fail to follow the norms.

7.5 We are much encouraged that Bishop Kevin Dunn’s working party has begun to draft such a statute – and would wish to endorse, in passing, their suggestion that the proposals be reviewed three years after the granting of ‘recognitio’. We would particularly ask that such a ‘recognitio,’ should specifically:

(i) recognise the ‘paramountcy principle’;

(ii) ensure that, except in penal cases where moral certainty is required, the evidential standard of proof in matters relating to the welfare of children and vulnerable adults is
the civil test of the balance of probabilities;

(iii) recognise the role of the new Review Panel to safeguard individuals against the possibility of injustice;

(iv) endorse the possibility of the temporary withdrawal from ministry of a cleric, a religious or the temporary withdrawal from role of a non-cleric as a precautionary measure when this is considered necessary, with proper safeguards for the rights of the individual;39

(v) recognise the right of victims to have recourse to higher authority when the procedures have not been followed.

Recommendation 72
The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, in consultation with the Conference of Religious, should make the appropriate decreta generalia and secure canonical recognitio of them (c. 455), so that there will be a special territorial law (c. 13§1) for England and Wales which would both give juridical authority to the Church’s most important safeguarding rules for children and vulnerable adults and also secure a right of recourse to the Holy See against a diocese, religious congregation or other juridical person which failed to fulfil the obligations laid down in that law.

Implementation Process

7.6 It is, of course, entirely a matter for the Conference of Bishops and Conference of Religious whether they accept the recommendations and findings of this report and, if they do, how they will chose to implement them. However, to assist in this we have proposed a timeline against our recommendations, summarised in this chapter, to indicate those we consider to be a priority for action and which can be implemented in the short term - in other words within 12 months of the publication and acceptance of this report (ST) – and those that will take longer to put into place (MT). Outstanding work in progress, (unless obviously contrary to our proposals), should not be put on hold pending the acceptance and implementation of this report.

7.7 We would also like to suggest that the Conference of Bishops and Conference of Religious consider setting up an implementation group when they reconvene later in the year to give their response to the report. Our hope is that a summary of these recommendations could be circulated, perhaps in the form of a joint pastoral letter, for informal local consultation over the summer months. Our expectation is that the new National Safeguarding Commission should be up and running, and a One Church action plan, jointly agreed with the Conference of Religious, in place by the spring 2008.

Future reviews

7.8 We recognise that a review on this scale is lengthy and resource intensive and can create a considerable amount of upheaval and anxiety for those whose work comes under such intense and periodic scrutiny. We are not, therefore, proposing that a similar review should take place in five years time. Continuous monitoring and review is the responsibility of the new National Safeguarding Commission, working in partnership with the Diocesan and Religious Commissions. We look to them to ensure that new knowledge is spread and better and excellent practice is shared in keeping children and vulnerable adults safe from harm and in responding to allegations of abuse if, and when, they occur. We very much hope that if accreditation is introduced the opportunities for a rolling programme of on site audit and review by teams trained and accredited to do so will be fully explored in accordance with the priorities set by the National Safeguarding Commission.

7.9 In the meantime we ask that the Conference of Bishops and Conference of Religious consider making more of the opportunities for the review of safeguarding arrangements, or aspects of them, as part of the natural cycle of reviews that already happen routinely within the Church. We have in mind in particular the formal visitations of parishes and communities leading up to the five yearly Ad Limina visit for the Bishops to Rome and the Congregational Chapters for Religious.

Website design and maintained by CathCom.org