THE “reset” of safeguarding in the Church of England must have mandatory reporting at its heart, the Bishop of London told the House of Lords last Friday.
She was speaking during a debate on a Private Member’s Bill, Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill, which would impose a duty, subject to criminal sanction, for the providers of regulated and other activities — or “mandated reporters” — to report “at a time that is practicable” to the local authority when they know or reasonably suspect a child in their care to be subject to sexual abuse. This would apply to places of worship and religious organisations, among others.
It was introduced by Baroness Grey-Thompson, who explained that the Bill “does not seek to criminalise the general public who do not report suspected child sexual abuse, but, rather, calls for those in positions of authority over children to speak up and protect them”. A mandatory reporter was, she said, “someone who is in a position of trust over the child, or an individual who operates in a setting where an activity takes place”.
Mandatory reporting was a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (News, 21 October 2022). The Jay review of the future of safeguarding in the Church of England recommended that the Church of England should introduce a legal duty to report any complaint or concern regarding safeguarding to a safeguarding officer at the first available opportunity (News, 23 February 2024).
In her speech, Bishop Mullally acknowledged on behalf of the Church “our own shocking failures in safeguarding. . . I fully support the introduction of mandatory reporting of child sex abuse and of other abuse, in all contexts.” The Bill needed “legally precise definitions of the person to whom the duty applies”.
The Church needed a “reset in safeguarding”, she said. “This must include a genuinely survivor-focused approach, with independence and mandatory reporting at its heart.” She reported that, next month, the General Synod would discuss proposals “including the introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement in the statutory safeguarding code on managing allegations”.
Under the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure (2016), the clergy have a duty to comply with the safeguarding code of practice, rather than to “have due regard” to it. Two new codes — Managing Safeguarding Concerns and Allegations and Reporting Safeguarding Concerns and Allegations — are listed as deemed business for next month’s meeting of the Synod.
These codes state that safeguarding concerns relating to children and young people must always be reported to the safeguarding officer, regardless of whether the child or young person disclosing has given their consent. This should be done on the same day, or the next working day, if received outside of usual working hours. Local children’s social-care services must be also be informed.
In the case of adults, “more careful consideration” is required, with regard to reporting to the safeguarding officer or local authority, “as adults have a general right to independence, choice and self-determination, including control over information about themselves”.
The codes state: “If someone is at risk of harm, a crime has been, or might have been committed, or if information becomes available that may help prevent a crime, the person receiving the disclosure should refer that information to the police immediately.”
The Government has promised to introduce mandatory reporting in its Serious Crime Act. Speaking in the Lords debate, the Home Office Minister Lord Hanson of Flint said: “We want in particular to look at how mandatory reporting can be undertaken in the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are often expressed and comments made.”
A consultation on taking forward the recommendations of the Jay review found that 72 per cent of individuals agreed with the call for mandatory reporting (News, 31 May 2024). But concerns were also expressed about loss of confidentiality, particularly in relation to the seal of the confessional. Among the questions raised was: “How can mandatory reporting be implemented with a degree of positivity and safety, as opposed to creating a culture of fear?” Participants suggested that “thought must be given to penalties for non-compliance, who this policy applies to, and also what happens when national law on these changes and if it differs significantly to Church policy.”
Among those raising concerns in the House of Lords was Baroness Featherstone, who said: “There are examples of overreporting, when professionals report cases out of a fear of legal consequences for failing to report, even when abuse is unlikely. There is also a danger that in situ — in healthcare, counselling, children’s social services, etc. — mandatory reporting may harm trust between professionals and clients, especially if the clients fear legal or social repercussions. There are issues around breaches of confidentiality, retaliation, and a fear of reporting, the risks of mismanagement where there is insufficient training, and harm to children where they are removed with insufficient cause.”
Comment
Letters