1. Last summer, the Archbishop of Westminster invited Lord Nolan to chair an independent committee to carry out a review on child protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Our terms of reference are:

To examine and review arrangements made for child protection and the prevention of abuse within the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.

2. We have met nine times so far, and have received over 150 submissions from a wide range of organisations and individuals. In approaching its task the Committee has paid regard to what is viewed as good child protection practice and sought, wherever possible, to apply it to the policies and procedures of the Church. In the seven years since the 1994 Guidelines were issued much has been learned in the UK about how to ensure that sound principles are translated into effective action on the ground. Our recommendations reflect this new professional understanding. This is particularly important since it is clear that the ultimate test of the efficacy of our recommendations, and of the Church’s performance in this area, will be the positive impact we hope and intend they will have on the safety and well-being of individual children and young people.

3. This first report includes 50 recommendations. The main ones are included in this summary but all are listed in Chapter Six of the report. We see our recommendations as complementing and reinforcing each other. They constitute a single programme of action.

4. This report, which is unanimous, has been prepared for consideration by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales at their Low Week meeting in April 2001. It gives a clear indication in broad terms of the arrangements that we believe need to be in place to enable the Church to be an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it, and to restore confidence. We have not, however, yet had time to discuss the emerging conclusions and their implementation with all those we would like to, nor to develop a number of our recommendations in more detail. We intend to do this over the next few months and to produce our final report in the summer.

5. Child abuse is a great evil. It can leave deep scars on victims and their families. It is particularly abhorrent when a child or young person is abused by someone in a position of trust and responsibility. It is most abhorrent when that position of trust is held by a member of the clergy or a lay Church worker. The care of children is at the forefront of the teachings of Christ and is, therefore, one of the primary responsibilities of all members of the Church led by their priests and bishops. Because of the Church’s particular message and the position it holds, it seems to us to be of great importance that it should be an exemplar of excellence in the protection of children which, in due course, others will look to and want to follow. We are confident that there is a great desire among the huge majority of members of the Church, both clerical and lay, to achieve this result. We have also been impressed by the work that many in the Church are already doing to bring this about. The Guidelines it adopted in 1994 were a significant step forward and we have been impressed by the work that many in the Church are doing to build on them. Our report, therefore, is based on this foundation: that the Catholic Church in England and Wales should become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it.

6. For understandable reasons the Church has concentrated so far on responding to allegations of abuse. However, while the proper handling of allegations is important, it is much more important that the opportunity for abuse does not occur, because an effective regime of good practice is in place, and is known to be so. We recommend that the top priority for an exemplary organisation is to have preventative policies and practices in place which will minimise the opportunity for abuse.

7. There has also been an emphasis on the position of priests. That is understandable because of the unique character of the priesthood and the central role which priests play in the life of the Church. For the same reason, of course, the occasions on which priests have been found guilty of abusive behaviour have been the source of the greatest scandal. But, as we know, child abuse occurs in a variety of settings in the home and in organisations, predominantly where some relationship has been established. The potential for abuse is therefore a risk in any organisation or setting where children are a part. For this reason, our general recommendations apply to lay workers as well as to clergy, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity.

8. We believe that the Church should adopt a single, clear policy statement on child protection. We recommend:

The Church recognises the personal dignity and rights of children towards whom it has a special responsibility and a duty of care. The Church, and individual members of it, undertake to do all in their power to create a safe environment for children and young people and to prevent their physical, sexual or emotional abuse. The Church authorities will liaise closely with statutory agencies to ensure that any allegations of abuse are promptly and properly dealt with, victims supported and perpetrators held to account.

9. The first essential is to put in place and then maintain a safe environment for children and young people and those who work with them. The Home Office publication Safe From Harm: A Code of Practice for Safeguarding the Welfare of Children in Voluntary Organisations in England and Wales (Home Office, 1993) remains the best set of guidelines that we know of. It sets out 13 principles which can easily be adapted to the needs of the Church, and which we recommend should be adopted by it. They are:

1. Adopt a policy statement on safeguarding the welfare of children.

2. Plan the work of the organisation so as to minimise situations where the abuse of children may occur.

3. Introduce a system whereby children may talk with an independent person.

4. Apply agreed procedures for protecting children to all paid staff and volunteers.

5. Give all paid staff and volunteers clear roles.

6. Use supervision as a means of protecting children.

7. Treat all would-be paid staff and volunteers as job applicants for any position involving contact with children.

8. Gain at least one reference from a person who has experience of the applicant’s paid work or volunteering with children.

9. Explore all applicants’ experience of working or contact with children in an interview before appointment.

10. Find out whether an applicant has any conviction for criminal offences against children.

11. Make paid and voluntary appointments conditional on the successful completion of a probationary period.

12. Issue guidelines on how to deal with the disclosure or discovery of abuse.

13. Train paid staff and volunteers, their line managers or supervisors, and policy makers in the prevention of child abuse.

10. In Chapter Three we work through the application of these principles to the Church and make some 16 further recommendations. In particular we recommend that each parish should have a designated child protection representative and each diocese and religious order a Child Protection Co-ordinator to oversee implementation, and that the Church should establish a single national database of information on all applicant candidates for ordination.

11. In Chapter Four we look at how the Church should respond to allegations of abuse. We recommend that each diocese must have good arrangements in place for responding to allegations swiftly and effectively when they arise, working with local social services and the police. Risk assessments will need to be undertaken and alleged abusers (whoever they are) withdrawn from contact with children when necessary. Historical allegations need to be handled in the same way as current ones. Altogether we make 15 recommendations in this area.

12. We recommend that the Church should make more pastoral provision for help to victims and for support to parishes where abuse has occurred.

13. We also recommend that advice should be made available to alleged abusers.

14. Clergy and lay workers who have been cautioned or convicted of a serious offence against children should no longer be allowed to hold any position that could possibly put children at risk again. We have considered whether abusing priests or deacons should be removed from the clerical state, and recommend that laicisation (the nearest equivalent) is appropriate in the most serious cases.

15. Chapter Five consolidates our recommendations on organisation, the primary purpose of which is to provide support and structure for the parishes, which are the main communities which form the Church. We spell out the role of the parish child protection representative. The first line of support for parishes is the diocese, and we explain what diocesan and religious order Child Protection Co-ordinators are to do and the Teams they should have for implementation and training, for risk assessment and responding to allegations, and for support and advice.

16. We also recommend that the Church should establish and maintain a small National Child Protection Unit to provide support and expert advice, to collect and disseminate good practice, to hold databases of training facilities and other information, and to liaise with the statutory agencies (including the new Criminal Records Bureau) at national level, with professional bodies and leading charities in the field and with the other Churches. The Unit would also have a valuable role in collecting data, monitoring that effective arrangements are implemented in dioceses and religious orders, and in seeking to secure improvements where that is not so. It should bring any apparent failure in arrangements immediately to the attention of the bishop or religious superior and make annual reports to them on the effectiveness of arrangements. It should also make an annual report, which we suggest should be published, to the Bishops’ Conference on the position overall.

17. The structure of the Church requires that responsibility for action lies primarily with individual bishops and superiors of religious orders. However, we are clear that the wider perception of the Church’s commitment in this field will only significantly be changed if both the whole Church in England and Wales and the individual bishops and superiors commit themselves

- to a single set of policies and practices,

- to effective and speedy implementation in parishes, dioceses and religious orders, including a programme to raise awareness and train those involved,

- to a national capability (which we call the National Child Protection Unit) which will advise dioceses and orders, co-ordinate where necessary and monitor and report on progress, and

- to the resources to support these arrangements.

Diversity of policy and practice, insufficiency of resources and a lack of national support and co-ordination will, in our view, lead to a weakened, inconsistent and inadequate response.

18. The Committee are aware that the overall impression of this report is highly prescriptive. Faced with the many problems concerning child protection we have made very specific recommendations. However, we are aware of the necessary limitations of such a prescriptive approach. The fact is that should every parish throughout England and Wales follow our recommendations the problem of child abuse would not thereby be eradicated. But our hope is that this report will help to bring about a culture of vigilance where every single adult member of the Church consciously and pro-actively takes responsibility for creating a safe environment for children and young people. Our recommendations are not a substitute for this but we hope they will be an impetus towards such an achievement.

1.1 Last summer, the Archbishop of Westminster invited Lord Nolan to chair an independent committee to carry out a review on child protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales. The Committee is made up of four members who are Catholics and six who are not.

The members are:

The Rt Hon The Lord Nolan (Chairman)

The Rt Hon Sir Swinton Thomas

(Vice-Chairman)

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal

Caroline Abrahams

Director of Public Policy, NCH

The Rev Tim Bryan,

Detective Inspector, Metropolitan Police (joined the Committee in October 2000)

Hilary Eldridge, BA(Hons), Dip SW, CQSW

Director, Lucy Faithfull Foundation

Monsignor Jack Kennedy

Child Protection Co-ordinator, Liverpool Archdiocese

Dr Maurice Lipsedge, MPhil, FRCP, FRCPsych, FFOM(Hon)

Consultant Psychiatrist, South London and the Maudsley NHS Trust

Gill Mackenzie

Chief Probation Officer of Gloucestershire and Chairman of the Association of Chief Probation Officers

The Rt Rev Peter Smith

Bishop of East Anglia

David Veness

Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

Chris Brearley, formerly Director General in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is Secretary to the Review.

1.2 Our terms of reference are:

To examine and review arrangements made for child protection and the prevention of abuse within the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.

It is not our role to investigate or comment on individual cases and we have not done so.

1.3 The Committee first met on 25 September 2000 and has held nine meetings so far. We have received information about the present arrangements in dioceses and how they are working, including a very helpful meeting with a group of diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinators. We sought contributions to our work from all who wished to make one, and have received over 150 submissions from both individuals and organisations. We are most grateful to all those who have taken the time to contribute in this way; many very helpful suggestions have been made. Donald Findlater of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation has attended a number of our meetings and contributed most helpfully. We are also most grateful for an opportunity Lord Nolan had to discuss child protection issues with Bishop Laurence Forristal, Bishop of Ossory, and other members of an advisory committee of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

1.4 In approaching its task the Committee has paid regard to what is viewed as good child protection practice and sought, wherever possible, to apply it to the policies and procedures of the Church. In the seven years since the 1994 Guidelines were issued much has been learned in the UK about how to ensure that sound principles are translated into effective action on the ground.

1.5 This report is unanimous. It is presented to the Archbishop of Westminster in time for consideration by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales at their Low Week meeting in April 2001. This report gives a clear indication in broad terms of the arrangements that we believe need to be in place to enable the Church to be an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it, and to restore confidence. We see the recommendations as complementing and reinforcing each other. They constitute a single programme of action. We have not, however, yet been able to discuss the emerging conclusions and their implementation in detail with all those we would like to, nor to develop a number of our recommendations more fully. We intend to do this over the next few months and to produce our final report in the summer.

1.6 Chapter Two looks briefly at the current situation and discusses a number of general issues. Chapter Three looks at the action needed to create as safe an environment as possible for children and young people and those who work with them. Chapter Four reviews and makes recommendations to strengthen arrangements for responding to allegations of abuse. Chapter Five summarises our views of the key structures needed at parish, diocesan and national level to underpin our recommendations on good practice. Chapter Six summarises our main conclusions and lists all our recommendations.

1.7 Necessarily in writing about the Catholic Church as well as about child protection we have had to use a number of specialised terms and, so far as possible, these are explained in Annex One.

CHAPTER TWO

Safeguarding children from abuse

2.1 Surprisingly little information is available about the true extent of child abuse in the UK. Official data only records what is brought to the attention of the authorities. For example, child protection registers record the numbers of children (currently about 30,000) for whom the likelihood of future significant harm is high. They do not record those who are known to have been subjected to maltreatment in the past, and therefore give no estimate of prevalence or incidence. Very little research examines child abuse in relation to those who do not come to the notice of the child welfare or protection services.

2.2 As regards sex abuse, a Home Office study in 1995 showed that if the Sex Offenders Register had been in effect since 1953, 125,000 offenders would have to register, 25,000 of these for life. Most incidents are not reported and only a minority of reported cases result in prosecution. We do know, however, that offenders come from every social group and category. Most, but not all, sex offenders are male. The majority of offences are committed by individuals known to the child and often by the family. 80% of offences against children are perpetrated in their home or that of the perpetrator. Girls are more likely to be abused within the family, boys outside. Histories of individual offending can range between a single event within or outside the family to ongoing abuse over many years. A failure to develop appropriate social skills and sexual experience can enhance the likelihood of offending. The availability and use of pornography and/or drugs and alcohol may dis-inhibit potential perpetrators. Add a context in which the perpetrator feels s/he will not be caught and the likelihood of offending is even more increased.

2.3 Knowledge of and concern about child abuse in Britain grew considerably during the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1994, following a consultation, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales received a working party report Child Abuse: Pastoral and Procedural Guidelines (referred to throughout this report as the 1994 Guidelines). This was commended by the bishops to dioceses and religious orders. In 1996 another Church working party produced a further report on victims and survivors, Healing the Wound of Child Sexual Abuse: a Church Response. The Church began an internal review of the arrangements in place in dioceses some eighteen months ago.

2.4 In the meantime, public knowledge and concern about child abuse in the UK have continued to grow. It was emphasised in 1994 that the Guidelines would need to be kept under review in the light of increasing knowledge about child abuse in general and the effectiveness of the procedures in particular. In addition, however, a number of high profile cases concerning priests have focused public attention on the extent of the Church’s commitment and the adequacy of its arrangements. It is against this background that this review was initiated.

2.5 Child abuse is a great evil. Much of the publicity about it concentrates on sexual abuse, but there is also emotional and physical abuse and neglect (and related computer and internet offences). All abuse can leave deep scars on victims and their families. It is particularly abhorrent when a child or young person is abused by people in a position of trust and responsibility. It is most abhorrent when that position of trust is that of a member of the clergy or a lay Church worker.

2.6 In our society we expect all organisations that have responsibility for the care of children to have arrangements that protect those children and promote their welfare. The care of children is at the forefront of the teachings of Christ and is, therefore, one of the primary responsibilities of all members of the Church led by their priests and bishops. Because of the Church’s particular message and the position it holds, it seems to us to be of great importance that it should be an example of excellence, which others will look to and want to follow. To achieve this depends on good policies and effective management and people, being alert to what is going on in the world that relates to the Church’s mission and being open to advice and guidance. By a vigorous approach on these lines the Church will be able to become a significant part of the solution to the evil of child abuse in our society.

2.7 We have no doubt that there is a great desire among the huge majority of members of the Church, both clerical and lay, to achieve this result. We have also been impressed by the work that many in the Church are already doing to bring this about. Our report, therefore, is based on this foundation: that the Catholic Church in England and Wales should become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it. It is likely, however, at best to be some time, even if all our further recommendations are followed, before it will be seen in such a light.

2.8 For reasons which were understandable at the time, the 1994 Guidelines concentrated very much on the response to allegations of child abuse. In the present climate much more emphasis is placed on child protection and it is worthy of note that almost all dioceses have in fact adopted policies and practices which are designed to prevent abuse occurring in the first place. Whilst the proper handling of allegations is important, it is much more important that the opportunity for abuse does not occur because an effective regime of good practice is in place, and is known to be so. Our second recommendation is that the top priority for an exemplary organisation is to have preventative policies and practices operating effectively in parishes, dioceses and religious orders which will minimise the opportunity for abuse.

2.9 It is necessary, however, to face the reality that no organisation which has dealings with children can eliminate the risk of child abuse completely. It is therefore important to complement prevention policies with a clear understanding by those in positions of responsibility that abuse of their position in any way will inevitably have the most serious consequences for them.

2.10 The 1994 Guidelines were created to guide bishops and superiors of religious orders. Because of the way in which the work of the Church is carried out, it remains of high importance that the various steps we recommend are adopted both by bishops and their dioceses and by superiors of religious orders. As we recommend later there will need to be monitoring of what is being done and effective action to remedy the situation if that is necessary. This is not as straightforward as it may sound. Whilst it is true that the Church is a hierarchical organisation, the common belief that, for example, the Archbishop of Westminster has complete authority over matters affecting the different dioceses in England and Wales is not the case. Each diocesan bishop exercises his authority autonomously though not in a totally independent manner. He must act in accordance with the norms of canon law, and in communion with the whole episcopal college and with its head, the Pope. In canon law every diocesan bishop has equivalent status, and only the Holy See has the power to control and limit the exercise of the bishops’ authority, religious orders and congregations are governed by their own specific law and constitutions and, in general, the diocesan bishop has no capacity to intervene in their internal affairs. He does, however, have a certain authority over individual members of those orders and congregations whom he has given permission to exercise a pastoral ministry in his diocese. However we are confident that, by acting together in the best interests of children and young people and of the Church, bishops and religious superiors can put in place arrangements which are effective and can restore confidence in the Church’s approach.

2.11 There is also an emphasis in the 1994 Guidelines on the position of members of the clergy. That is understandable because of the unique character of the priesthood and the central role which priests play in the life of the Church. For the same reason, of course, the occasions on which priests have been found guilty of abusive behaviour have been the source of the greatest scandal. But, as we know, child abuse occurs in a variety of settings in the home and in organisations, predominantly where some relationship has been established. The potential for abuse is therefore a risk in any organisation or setting where children are a part. So what is necessary, and what we are recommending, are arrangements that apply to lay workers as fully as to clergy, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity.

2.12 Active implementation of good practice on preventing abuse and responding to allegations of abuse is key. But this action needs to be related to a clear and shared policy. We recommend this policy statement:

The Church recognises the personal dignity and rights of children towards whom it has a special responsibility and a duty of care. The Church, and individual members of it, undertake to do all in their power to create a safe environment for children and young people and to prevent their physical, sexual or emotional abuse. The Church authorities will liaise closely with statutory agencies to ensure that any allegations of abuse are promptly and properly dealt with, victims supported and perpetrators held to account.

Creating an environment that minimises the risk

of abuse

3.1 The first essential is to ensure and maintain a safe environment for children and young people and those who work with them. Much work has been done by many organisations to develop effective and practical guidelines for working with children. The Home Office publication Safe From Harm: A Code of Practice for Safeguarding the Welfare of Children in Voluntary Organisations in England and Wales (Home Office, 1993) remains the best set of guidelines that we know of. It sets out the following 13 statements of principle as a basis for practical action:

Managing the organisation

1. Adopt a policy statement on safeguarding the welfare of children.

2. Plan the work of the organisation so as to minimise situations where the abuse of children may occur.

3. Introduce a system whereby children may talk with an independent person.

Managing paid staff and volunteers

4. Apply agreed procedures for protecting children to all paid staff and volunteers.

5. Give all paid staff and volunteers clear roles.

6. Use supervision as a means of protecting children.

Choosing the right paid staff and volunteers

7. Treat all would-be paid staff and volunteers as job applicants for any position involving contact with children.

8. Gain at least one reference from a person who has experience of the applicant’s paid work or volunteering with children.

9. Explore all applicants’ experience of working or contact with children in an interview before appointment.

10. Find out whether an applicant has any conviction for criminal offences against children.

11. Make paid and voluntary appointments conditional on the successful completion of a probationary period.

Dealing with abuse

12. Issue guidelines on how to deal with the disclosure or discovery of abuse.

Training

13. Train paid staff and volunteers, their line managers or supervisors, and policy makers in the prevention of child abuse.

It is clear that these principles were written with secular organisations in mind. However, we believe that they can without significant difficulty be translated into the context of the Church and its work. We recommend that they should be adopted by the Church as the guiding principles to create a safe environment for children and to keep them safe from harm.

3.2 Safe from Harm itself provides some guidelines on the implementation of each principle. We hope that we may be able to give useful further guidance on some of them in our final report. But in reality there is no substitute for the training and experience of those involved day to day in devising codes which are both practical and effective.

3.3 These principles must be adopted by the Church as a whole, but they can only be given practical expression at diocesan, religious order and parish level. Indeed the parish must be at the heart of implementation for it is at this level that children and young people enter most fully into the life of the Church community. Our proposals at other levels of the Church’s organisation are essentially to provide structure and support to what happens in the parish. The priest and other clergy are at the centre of that community and we are in no doubt that most of them see it as an integral part of their ministry to ensure a safe, encouraging and loving environment for children and young people. All we say later about the selection of clergy is designed to support and secure that environment.

3.4 We recommend that each parish priest should designate a lay child protection representative and each bishop and religious superior a Child Protection Co-ordinator to oversee implementation.

3.5 The rest of this chapter picks up and discusses issues arising from the 13 principles of Safe from Harm. We return to the roles of parish child protection representatives, diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinators and religious orders and our proposal for national oversight in Chapter Five.

to protect children

Principle 1. Adopt a policy statement on safeguarding the welfare of children.

3.6 This first principle is covered by our recommendation at para 2.12 above.

Principle 2. Plan the work of the organisation so as to minimise situations where the abuse of children may occur.

3.7 This second principle is a matter of sensible practical arrangements, for example to limit the situations in which a child and an adult might be alone together, or to regulate the circumstances and arrangements when they are alone where that cannot be avoided. Such arrangements act to protect both children and young people from abuse and priests and other adults from suspicion. It needs to be recognised, of course, that there are many different contexts which need to be provided for from Sunday schools and youth clubs to confession and counselling. There is much good practice to draw on here both in the Church and other organisations, and it is a particular area where we hope we may be able to give some further practical guidance in our final report.

Principle 3. Introduce a system whereby children may talk with an independent person.

3.8 On this third principle we recommend that each parish should appoint an independent person for this purpose (this could be a joint appointment between several parishes) and that their contact details together with contact details for appropriate children’s helplines should be easily available in the parish church and other places where activity with children takes place. It is important that these "independent persons" are well trained for their role which is a very sensitive one.

Principle 4. Apply agreed procedures for protecting children to all paid staff and volunteers.

3.9 In the context of the Church, "staff and volunteers" must be taken to include the clergy even though their position does not actually equate to anything in a secular organisation. This fourth principle emphasises that procedures are to apply to everyone who has any appreciable contact with children and young people; there are to be no exceptions. It would be unacceptably invidious to apply procedures to some and not to others. It would also leave those who were in any way exempted at undue risk themselves of being exposed to suspicion.

Principle 5. Give all paid staff and volunteers clear roles.

3.10 There are many benefits to an organisation from clear job descriptions and effective supervision, not simply in the area of child protection. Not only does the organisation benefit from thinking through just what it is asking the individual to do, but everyone benefits from the resulting clarity. Some sample job descriptions are at Annex Two, not as models but as examples. In the same way codes of conduct for the clergy can play a valuable role. We believe that an early task for the National Child Protection Unit (see para 5.10) should be to prepare a set of models.

Principle 6. Use supervision as a means of protecting children.

3.11 We particularly believe that proactive supervision, by which we do not mean day to day invigilation but regular opportunities to review experience and discuss issues, has a very positive part to play, both for lay workers and for clergy.

Principle 7. Treat all would-be paid staff and volunteers as job applicants for any position involving contact with children.

Principle 8. Gain at least one reference from a person who has experience of the applicant’s paid work or volunteering with children.

Principle 9. Explore all applicants’ experience of working or contact with children in an interview before appointment.

Principle 10. Find out whether an applicant has any conviction for criminal offences against children.

Principle 11. Make paid and voluntary appointments conditional on the successful completion of a probationary period.

3.12 The above five principles are of great importance in the creation of a safe environment for children and young people. Neither the Church nor any other organisation can rely on the fact that someone is known to them as evidence that they are not a potential abuser. Abusers do not have a distinct set of characteristics that can be readily identified; they come from all walks of life and ethnic origins, they may be male or female, old or young. It should also be remembered that there is always risk in employing those who have abused, however long ago it may have been. It is therefore important that all are checked as thoroughly as is appropriate before being given relevant responsibilities.

3.13 This means that applicants should always sign an application form giving in addition to their full name, address and date of birth, details of previous experience (voluntary or paid) of working with children and young people; permission to contact, in writing and in person, at least one person who has experience of their work with children and young people; details of any convictions for criminal offences against children and young people (including any spent convictions); and (in appropriate cases) permission to check for any police criminal record.

3.14 Failure on the part of applicants or volunteers to give this information or to agree to checks must, we believe, result in their not being employed or used in work involving children and young people. There should always be an interview covering their experience. References should always be taken up both in writing and, if necessary, informally. Convictions for criminal offences against children and young people should always be checked. Any doubts that may arise should always be pursued. There should always be a probationary period.

3.15 In the past there has sometimes been difficulty for the Church in checking with criminal records or the DfEE’s List 99. However, the position on criminal record checks is due to change shortly with the establishment of the new Criminal Record Bureau (CRB). We understand that the Bureau will give every assistance to the Church, as to other similar organisations, in conducting checks. Detailed arrangements will need to be discussed between the Church and the CRB but we would expect the Church and relevant Church organisations to be registered with the Bureau and to use its services as a matter of course. There can be no excuse for employing someone with a known record of abuse. However, unfortunately, the fact that someone does not have a record does not mean that they have not or will not abuse a child and no such conclusion should be drawn from a negative check. This is why the other measures to secure a safe environment for children are so important.

3.16 We have considered very carefully how the principles concerning selection should apply to the clergy themselves. Very great care must be taken to ensure as far as is humanly possible that only candidates who are suitable for the responsibilities of ordained ministry are selected. We recommend that the requirements set out above should be strictly applied when candidates are being considered for ordination, and that those involved in their initial selection and in their continuing formation before ordination should err on the side of caution. A number of those who have responded to our consultation have urged that, in addition to the other checks and continuing oversight during their training, candidates should also be the subject of psychological testing. We know that such tests have been adopted in practice by some seminaries. Although psychological tests undoubtedly have their value we appreciate that they also have their limitations. They may be a useful tool in the hands of selectors but it is important that reliance is not placed on psychological tests to the exclusion of the many other considerations to be taken into account before a candidate is selected for ordained ministry. They can inform decisions but must not direct them.

3.17 Under present arrangements Selection Boards make recommendations to the bishop or religious superior. We think it is most important that bishops and religious superiors do not overrule Selection Boards where reservations are expressed about a candidate’s suitability for ordination on the grounds of possible risks to children and young people.

3.18 We have heard of cases where there has been inadequate sharing of information between one diocese and another, or where those in charge of a candidate’s formation in the seminary have not had access to information known to the Selection Board. In some cases this has produced situations in which children have been exposed to serious harm. While we recognise the need for great sensitivity in the handling of confidential personal information, we regard it as essential that those who are involved in advising on or making decisions about the formation and ordination of candidates should have access to all the necessary information. We believe that this would be greatly assisted if there was a single national database about candidates and therefore recommend that the Church should maintain a single national database of information on all applicant candidates for ordained ministry and that decisions should not be made by Selection Boards, bishops or religious superiors without reference to it.

3.19 In many organisations, the equivalent selection process is undertaken centrally, by a National Selection Board or equivalent. There would clearly be merit, in terms of uniform standards and, so far as child protection is concerned, in the application of the same thorough checking process to all candidates for ordination, if such an approach were to be adopted by the Church. We are, of course, conscious that there are wider considerations in whether such a national structure would be appropriate. We recommend that such an approach should be considered for adoption if implementation of the recommendations above fails to secure uniformity of approach.

3.20 Once a priest or deacon is ordained or lay worker appointed that is not the end of the matter. As with anyone else concerns may arise at any time and, of course, data held by the CRB will be constantly updated. Proactive supervision in accordance with the sixth principle (para 3.11 above) will help considerably but we believe that, in addition, on moving to a new post in a different diocese, diocesan clergy, those who belong to religious orders or congregations, and lay workers should have their position reviewed by the receiving diocese and appropriate action taken if necessary. The success of the operation of the database, and these arrangements for review of individuals, needs to be monitored by the National Child Protection Unit.

Principle 12. Issue guidelines on how to deal with the disclosure or discovery of abuse.

3.21 This is the subject of Chapter Four.

Principle 13. Train paid staff and volunteers, their line managers or supervisors, and policy makers in the prevention of child abuse.

3.22 As we have explained, policies and guidelines to prevent abuse are of the first importance. They must, however, be complemented by skills and awareness both for those such as the diocesan co-ordinator or parish representative who have key roles and for leaders in the Church - bishops, priests and other clergy, the religious and lay. Everyone who works with children and young people ought to receive training for the tasks they are required to undertake. They must, for example, be equipped to identify signs of abuse by others, and be familiar with and able to initiate the Church’s own procedures for protecting children. It is also important to make sure that children, young people, and their families are themselves aware of the issues and what to do about concerns. Raising awareness, therefore, has a considerable part to play as does the development of skills in planning the work, interviewing applicants and many other aspects covered in this chapter, as well as in responding to allegations. Nor is this a once only activity. Skills and awareness need continuing development.

3.23 Diocesan and religious order Child Protection Co-ordinators should have a particular responsibility for ensuring that appropriate training and action to increase awareness is undertaken and for facilitating it, and the National Child Protection Unit can also play a useful role in disseminating information and facilitating. There are clearly resource implications here but we believe that such training is necessary and that investment in it will pay considerable dividends.

4.1 In this report we use the term "disclosure" to describe the situation where a specific allegation of abuse is made against a named individual, and "suspicion" for the situation where there is no disclosure but there is concern that abuse may have taken place or be in prospect.

4.2 As noted above, the 1994 Guidelines were written specifically to address situations where there were disclosures or suspicions of abuse. We have reviewed the arrangements and this chapter sets out our thinking about the essential elements of good procedure. Many of them are covered in the 1994 Guidelines and others are already the rule in many dioceses. The 1994 Guidelines do, however, need revision and we recommend that this should be undertaken immediately, possibly by the National Child Protection Unit.

4.3 The 1994 Guidelines require bishops to appoint a "delegate" to take the lead for the Church in responding to allegations. These "delegates" have come to be known as diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinators (CPCs). We have already recommended (para 3.4) that every diocese and religious order should have a CPC and have more to say about their role and responsibilities in Chapter Five. In relation to responding to allegations, their role must be to ensure that arrangements and trained personnel are in place to respond to allegations.

4.4 In order to respond effectively to allegations every diocese and religious order must have a properly composed Child Protection Management Team (CPMT) to deal effectively with any reports or incidents. The CPMT should work closely with the statutory agencies (social services and the police). We believe that the CPC would normally chair this Team and that it should include child care professionals, a lawyer, a communications officer, a lay person and a priest. Other expert members may be appropriate in particular circumstances. In addition it will be necessary to undertake assessments of the immediate danger to children and young people and to recommend appropriate action. The CPMT will need to ensure that this is done to a high standard. (A sketch of a possible diocesan organisation for child protection, including the Child Protection Management Team is at Annex Three.)

4.5 An allegation is most likely to surface either through a victim making a disclosure or a third party reporting a suspicion. Such disclosures or suspicions may be made to a priest or other member of the Church, to an "independent person" (see para 3.8 above), or to a helpline, the local social services or police. The following points seem to us important:

(a) disclosures and suspicions should always be investigated and acted on swiftly. The Paramountcy Principle (that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in proceedings concerning children) applies;

(b) anybody who receives a disclosure should advise the maker of it to share it with the statutory agencies (i.e. the local social services and the police) and the CPC and be ready to support him or her in doing so; suspicions should at the least be shared with the CPC who will initiate a risk assessment and bring in the statutory agencies as necessary. If in any doubt, recipients should take such action themselves. Either they or the CPC should write to the person who has made the disclosure setting out the advice they gave and providing information about contact addresses, etc. In this way any uncertainty about the advice or how to proceed is avoided.

(c) any information offered "in confidence" (unless it is the confidentiality of the confessional, which is absolute) should be received on the basis that it will be shared with the CPC and, if appropriate, the statutory agencies;

(d) otherwise careful confidentiality should be observed and information only be shared on the basis of a strict "need to know".

It is particularly important that the alleged abuser is not alerted at this stage.

4.6 We know that many cases do not present themselves straightforwardly. For example, a recipient might be told that the victim only wants a personal apology and does not want the statutory agencies to be informed. The recipient, however, must consider that other children may be at risk, and this may be so even if the disclosure is of abuse that took place some years before. In such a case we believe that the statutory agencies must be informed.

4.7 Or the approach may be through a third party in which case every effort should be made to establish dialogue directly between the victim and a trained professional.

4.8 Or the person bringing an allegation forward may insist on absolute confidentiality as a condition of sharing information. There are considerable risks involved in receiving information on this basis, both to individuals who may be exposed to abuse so long as the information cannot be shared and to the recipient of the information who may be put in an impossible position. For these reasons we believe that the recipient should make every effort to convince the bringer of the information that such absolute confidentiality is in no one’s best interests. But if they cannot so convince them then we believe that the confidentiality must be refused.

4.9 Where there is suspicion but no disclosure of actual abuse, the CPC will arrange for an initial risk assessment and advise, with the CPMT on what action, if any, should be taken. Where there is disclosure there will be consultation between social services, the police and the CPMT about appropriate action.

4.10 Further assessments may be necessary as matters go forward. In particular they may be called for if the statutory agencies decide not to prosecute or if a conviction is not obtained. The difficulty of undertaking these assessments and making appropriate judgements must not be underestimated. Assessments will also be needed in relation to historical allegations and cases (see paras 4.14 and 4.15 below) and perhaps in other circumstances. We hope to give further advice on the conduct of these assessments in our final report. So far as possible the subject of the assessment should normally be informed of its outcome face to face.

4.11 Following the initial risk assessment the person against whom allegations have been made may need to be withdrawn from any contact with the child(ren) concerned or possibly any other child or young person. This removes risk to the child, allows the investigation to proceed and safeguards the rights of the alleged abuser. The initiative within the Church should lie with the CPC and his/her team. We recommend that where judged necessary by the police, social services, or the CPC and his/her Team

- volunteers should be required to withdraw from any church situation involving children and young people until investigations are complete;

- any person employed by the Church should be required to take leave from their duties on full pay until investigations are complete.

4.12 We can see no grounds for treating clergy differently from lay people in this respect. The importance of removing risk to the child, allowing the investigation to proceed and safeguarding the rights of the clergy is just as great. Our clear view is therefore that, on the recommendation of the CPC and his/her Team following consultation with social services and the police, any priest or deacon should be required to take administrative leave at a location to be determined by the bishop. We are aware that such action does not sit easily with the present provisions of canon law.

4.13 If the concerns or allegations are about the bishop himself, similar procedures should be followed. The CPC will need to keep the Papal Nuncio closely informed. The CPC may also like to request support from the National Child Protection Unit (see 5.10) or from the CPC of another diocese. If administrative leave is appropriate, we believe that it must apply to a bishop as to any other priest. We invite bishops to signify their consent to such arrangements.

4.14 It is sometimes suggested that cases where the allegation is of abuse that took place some years ago can be handled differently, and by implication with less urgency or rigour, from those that are current. We do not take this view. The evidence is that those who have abused in the past may still represent considerable risks in the present. It is for this reason important to treat such disclosures in the same way as current allegations.

4.15 By extension, it is our view that there may be current risks arising from cases in the past that are known to the Church but, in the then state of knowledge about child abuse, were not acted on at the time. We conclude that bishops and religious superiors should ensure that all such cases are the subject of a risk assessment as soon as possible, and that there is appropriate follow-up action including possibly regular risk assessment review.

4.16 A number of the responses to our consultation have suggested that the Church could do more, following an allegation of abuse, to give support to the victim and his/her family. Clearly an event of abuse or a decision to disclose one is a very difficult time for victims and their families. We have no doubt, having regard to the Church’s mission, that it would want to provide all available help.

4.17 We believe the most helpful approach would be to make a "support person" available to those who have, or may have, suffered abuse and their families. Such a person would be, first and foremost, a focal point for the victim and his/her family to turn to for help and advice. They could assist those wishing to make a complaint, facilitate them in gaining access to information and other more specialised help, and represent their concerns on an ongoing basis. (The family liaison officers now being trialled by the Metropolitan Police may be a helpful parallel.) They must, above all, be acceptable to the victim and his/her family while also, once appointed, being completely independent of the CPC and his/her Team. It may be that they would often not be called on (because victims may prefer to turn to others outside the Church to take on this role). Nonetheless it seems desirable that such a person should be available if wanted and we so recommend. The CPC should be responsible for ensuring that they are available, and for appropriate training.

4.18 The parish where allegations arise can also need special support. Obviously if the alleged abuser is a worker for the Church the priest will be able to support his congregation though he may possibly need special help in doing so. But if the priest is himself the accused, then quite apart from whatever interim arrangements are made for the ministry of the Church in the parish, it seems sensible that the bishop should also make arrangements to help the parish cope with the situation in which they find themselves. This has happened in some recent cases and we recommend that it should become the general practice.

4.19 It does not in any way detract from the general principles set out in this report to bear in mind that the alleged abuser is also entitled to proper support and advice. The Paramountcy Principle requires that the welfare of the child must be the first priority. For that very reason someone who may not have been charged with, and certainly has not been convicted of, any offence, may find themselves suspended from their job and, in the case of a priest, quite possibly removed from their home and any kind of support. The Church is fundamentally concerned to seek justice for all and we are clear that in these circumstances it would be good practice to appoint an "Advisor" to be available to those (whether priest, paid staff or volunteer) against whom allegations are made, to provide advice, to ensure legal representation if necessary and to look to any accommodation or other needs. As with the victim support, though for different reasons, such a person, once appointed, must be completely separate from the CPC and his/her Team. The CPC should, however, be responsible for ensuring that people are available to fulfil this role and that they too receive appropriate training.

4.20 While the Church has responsibilities towards its members, clerical or lay, who may be accused of abuse which has led to the recommendation in the previous paragraph, we do consider it most important that the Church neither acts nor appears to act on their behalf. It would, for example, be completely inappropriate if the solicitor acting for the alleged abuser was also acting for the diocese or religious order.

4.21 The Committee is aware that some other Churches and many secular organisations have adopted the principle that a person who has been cautioned or convicted of a serious offence against children should no longer be allowed to hold any position that could possibly put children at risk again. The Committee believes, in accordance with the Paramountcy Principle, that the Church should adopt a similar principle and that it should be implemented in the way that best accords with the structures and processes of the Church. So far as lay workers are concerned the position of the Church is not significantly different to that of many other organisations. But the position of clergy is particularly difficult. Most posts to which priests might be appointed are likely to involve some contact with children and young people. On the other hand, laicisation (dismissal from the clerical state) is the most serious perpetual penalty which can be imposed by the Church. Normally it can be imposed only after a formal judicial process involving a collegiate tribunal of three judges. Furthermore it can be argued that clergy can be much better supervised if they remain as clergy than if they are laicised (because in the latter case the Church will have no further relationship with them, and no role in their supervision).

4.22 Our view is that laicisation is an extreme step which should only be taken in the most serious circumstances. There is a concept of a "serious criminal offence" but the definitions of this in statute law are not helpful in the circumstances we are considering. We believe that the principle to be applied is that laicisation should be considered appropriate where (in the words of a comparable decided case) "all right thinking members of the public, knowing all the facts, would feel that justice has not been done by any other course". We suggest, therefore, that if a priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months, then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation.

4.23 The Church can also "suspend" a priest or deacon, or declare him "impeded", from the exercise of his ministry. These penalties can only be applied for a period of time and whilst the underlying reason for imposing the penalty continues to exist. We believe these are certainly appropriate penalties for any conviction or caution for a child abuse offence, particularly in less serious cases.

5.1 Carrying through our recommendations on preventing child abuse and responding to allegations depends critically on the Church being an effective and aware organisation at every level: the parish, the diocese and religious order and nationally. This chapter summarises our proposals in this area.

5.2 It is in the parish that children are directly involved in church activities: in services, at Sunday school, in youth clubs and so on. Consequently it is here that awareness needs to be at its highest, that policies and prevention strategies need to be clearly understood and that knowledge of what to do when allegations are made needs to be widespread. What is said in the rest of this chapter about arrangements at other levels is designed primarily to support parishes.

5.3 In some dioceses individual lay people in parishes have taken on a special responsibility for child protection matters: ensuring that policies are known and understood, that awareness is raised, and that principles are worked through into everyday practice. This is clearly an important responsibility. We understand that members of the Church have willingly come forward to do this knowing that they will be supported by their parish priest, by the local members of the Church and by wider structures. To our mind, this indicates the desire that there is in many parishes to ensure that the Church is a safe organisation for children. We recommend that every parish priest should appoint a lay child protection representative with these general responsibilities:

to ensure

- that diocesan policies and procedures are known and followed,

- that awareness is raised, and

- that principles are worked through into everyday practice.

The parish child protection representative does not need to be full-time, nor to be a professional or an expert. He/she will be able to draw on such people for support.

5.4 As noted earlier, the 1994 Guidelines advised each diocese to identify a representative or "delegate" to "attend to issues of child abuse". In fact these delegates have often taken on a wide range of responsibilities in relation to child protection, and are usually known as Child Protection Co-ordinators. We welcome the fact that each diocese has a diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinator. They will need to be appointed by and directly responsible to the bishop, and to have his full confidence and support as well as that of other senior clergy and lay people. They will be responsible for the effective implementation of policies and practice throughout the diocese, and will be the first line of contact with the statutory agencies (social services and the police) and in particular the statutory Area Child Protection Committees. They will themselves be the first line of support for the parish child protection representatives already recommended.

5.5 The job of the Child Protection Co-ordinator and his/her Team is

(a) ensuring that the diocese has implemented guidelines, based on Safe From Harm, to prevent abuse, and regularly reviews its performance;

(b) being proactive in helping parishes and others in the diocese apply the guidelines - by giving advice on how to apply them and how to make the necessary contacts and checks, by facilitating training and awareness events, and so on; and

(c) overseeing arrangements for responding to allegations and for risk assessment as described in Chapter Four.

5.6 So far these diocesan Co-ordinators have invariably been priests. As we have just said it is most important that they have the full confidence and support of the bishop and parish priests, but we do not consider it essential that they should be priests themselves. It is also important that CPCs have the confidence of victims, the victims’ families and friends, the statutory agencies and the wider community.

5.7 The Child Protection Co-ordinator does not need to be professionally qualified, nor does s/he necessarily need to be employed full-time on child protection matters though we believe that in many cases this may be desirable, at least for the present until fully effective arrangements are in place throughout the diocese. What s/he does need is the time, resources, and supporting arrangements (including access to professional support) to do the job properly. We are aware of arrangements in one part of the country where three dioceses have collaborated to fund a child care professional to support them, especially in the area of training and consistency. This seems to work well, and we commend these cross-diocesan arrangements. They may be particularly useful in more rural parts of the country although we think it important that each diocese has its own CPC. We have also been told of a very successful arrangement in one diocese where a CPC is mentored by a child care expert. We believe that CPCs generally would benefit from such an arrangement.

5.8 We do not believe that there is a single blue-print for the structures a diocese should have in place under the Co-ordinator. However, we commend arrangements (based on one diocese) where there is an overarching Child Protection Policy Team having the oversight of further teams focusing on (i) implementation and training, (ii) response to allegations and risk assessment, and (iii) pastoral care. The Child Protection Policy Team is chaired by the Co-ordinator, and includes clerical and lay members of the diocese, social services, police and legal representatives and experts on child abuse. An illustrative chart of these arrangements is at Annex Three.

5.9 Members of religious orders will be subject to the policies and arrangements of dioceses to which they are seconded. Nonetheless, if the whole Church in England and Wales is to have a fully effective approach to child protection, it is essential that religious orders that have contact with children also appoint Child Protection Co-ordinators. These will take on a comparable role to that of the diocesan CPCs in ensuring awareness and appropriate systems and arrangements within their religious orders. There needs to be very close liaison between diocesan and religious order Child Protection Co-ordinators.

5.10 There is at present an annual meeting of the diocesan CPCs but no permanent arrangements at national level. We believe that there is a further essential element of support to parishes and to diocesan and religious order Co-ordinators which needs to be put in place. This is a compact national facility, which we call a National Child Protection Unit, that would be able to give them moral support and expert advice, to collect and disseminate good practice, to hold databases of training facilities and other useful information, and to maintain the central confidential database of information that we have recommended in Chapter Three (3.18). The Unit would liaise with the statutory agencies (including the Criminal Records Bureau) at national level, with professional bodies and leading charities in the field and with the other Churches. It would also have a valuable role in collecting data, monitoring that effective arrangements are implemented in dioceses and religious orders, and in seeking to secure improvements where that is not so. It should bring any apparent failure in diocesan or religious order arrangements immediately to the attention of the bishop or religious superior and make an annual report to diocesan bishops and religious superiors on the effectiveness of arrangements in each diocese and order. It should also make an annual report, which we suggest should be published, to the Bishops’ Conference on the position overall.

5.11 Amongst early tasks for the Unit should be the preparation and dissemination of good practice on job descriptions and advice on databases and information gathering, including securing appropriate software.

5.12 The right size for the Unit will need to be determined in the light of experience, but we believe that it will need to be headed by a recognised child protection expert and to have a small permanent staff and the resources to maintain databases, procure external advice from time to time, etc. It will need to be properly funded.

5.13 The Unit will itself need strong support from the bishops and religious superiors and we believe that, as with some other central institutions of the Church in England and Wales, one of the bishops should have particular responsibility for it. We also believe that the Unit will benefit if it has a standing advisory (or reference) group with which it can consult and discuss issues, and which will include professionals in the field and representatives of the relevant statutory agencies (social services, police and probation service).

6.1 We believe that the Church can become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse, and that it has the will to do so. The key ingredients needed to achieve this are:

a single set of policies, principles and practices based on the Paramountcy Principle and the 13 principles of Safe From Harm;

effective and speedy implementation in parishes, dioceses and religious orders, including a programme to raise awareness and train those involved;

an organisational structure in the parish, supported by the Child Protection Co-ordinator and his/her Teams at the diocese and in religious orders;

a national capability (the National Child Protection Unit) which will advise dioceses and orders, co-ordinate where necessary and monitor and report on progress; and

adequate resources to support these arrangements.

Diversity of policy and practice, insufficiency of resources and a lack of national support and co-ordination will, in our view, lead to a weakened, inconsistent and inadequate response.

6.2 The structure of the Church means that responsibility for action lies primarily with individual bishops and superiors of religious orders. However, we do not believe that this need create any difficulty provided that the whole Church in England and Wales and the individual bishops and superiors commit themselves wholeheartedly to the programme we have set out.

6.3 The Committee are aware that the overall impression of this report is highly prescriptive. Faced with the many problems concerning child protection we have made very specific recommendations. However, we are aware of the necessary limitations of such a prescriptive approach. The fact is that should every parish throughout England and Wales follow our recommendations the problem of child abuse would not thereby be eradicated. But our hope is that this report will help to bring about a culture of vigilance where every single adult member of the Church consciously and pro-actively takes responsibility for creating a safe environment for children. Our recommendations are not a substitute for this but we hope they will be an impetus towards such an achievement.

6.4 The rest of this chapter contains a summary list of our recommendations. The reasoning behind them is not set out here but has been set out, in context, in the previous chapters of the report.

Key recommendations

(1) The Catholic Church in England and Wales should be an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse, and in responding to it. (2.7)

(2) The top priority is to have preventative policies and practices in place operating effectively in parishes, dioceses and religious orders which will minimise the opportunity for abuse. (2.8)

(3) The whole Church in England and Wales and the individual bishops and superiors should commit themselves to

a single set of policies, principles and practices based on the Paramountcy Principle and the 13 principles of Safe From Harm;

effective and speedy implementation in parishes, dioceses and religious orders, including a programme to raise awareness and train those involved;

an organisational structure in the parish, supported by the Child Protection Co-ordinator and his/her Teams at the diocese and in religious orders;

a national capability (which we call the National Child Protection Unit) which will advise dioceses and orders, co-ordinate where necessary and monitor and report on progress; and

adequate resources to support these arrangements. (6.1)

(4) The Church should adopt a policy statement on the following lines (2.12):

The Church recognises the personal dignity and rights of children towards whom it has a special responsibility and a duty of care. The Church, and individual members of it, undertake to do all in their power to create a safe environment for children and young people and to prevent their physical, sexual or emotional abuse. The Church authorities will liaise closely with statutory agencies to ensure that any allegations of abuse are promptly and properly dealt with, victims supported and perpetrators punished.

(5) A lay child protection representative should be appointed by the parish priest in every parish and have these general responsibilities:

to ensure

- that diocesan policies and procedures are known and followed,

- that awareness is raised, and

- that principles are worked through into everyday practice. (5.3)

(6) Each bishop and religious superior should appoint a Child Protection Co-ordinator (CPC) for the diocese or religious order. (3.4, 5.4 and 5.9)

(7) The Child Protection Co-ordinator and his/her Team will

ensure that the diocese has implemented and regularly reviews guidelines based on Safe From Harm to prevent abuse;

be proactive in helping parishes and others in the diocese apply the guidelines - by giving advice on how to apply them and how to make the necessary contacts and checks, by facilitating training and awareness events, and so on; and

oversee arrangements for responding to allegations and for risk assessment. (5.5)

(8) We do not consider it essential that Child Protection Co-ordinators should be priests. (5.6)

(9) The CPC must have the time, resources and supporting arrangements (including access to professional support) to do the job properly (5.7)

(10) We commend arrangements (based on one diocese) where there is an overarching Child Protection Policy Team having the oversight of further teams focusing on (i) implementation and training, (ii) response to allegations and risk assessment, and (iii) pastoral care. (5.8)

(11) A National Child Protection Unit should be set up. It would give moral support and expert advice, collect and disseminate good practice, hold databases of training facilities and other useful information, and maintain the central confidential database of information (see recommendation 25). The Unit would liaise with the statutory agencies (including the Criminal Records Bureau) at national level, with professional bodies and leading charities in the field and with the other Churches. It would also have a valuable role in collecting data, monitoring that effective arrangements are implemented in dioceses and orders, and in seeking to secure improvements where that is not so. (5.10)

(12) The National Child Protection Unit should make an annual report to diocesan bishops and religious superiors on the effectiveness of arrangements in each diocese and order, and also an annual report, which should be published, to the Bishops’ Conference on the position overall. (5.10)

Creating a safe environment

(13) The 13 principles in the Home Office document Safe from Harm should be adopted by the Church as the guiding principles to create a safe environment for children and to keep them safe from harm. (3.1)

(14) Each parish should appoint an independent person for children to talk with (this could be a joint appointment between several parishes) and their contact details together with contact details for appropriate children’s helplines should be easily available in the parish Church and other places where activity with children takes place. (3.8)

(15) For all posts (paid or voluntary) involving work with children there should be clear job descriptions. The National Child Protection Unit should prepare and circulate model job descriptions for a range of posts. (3.10)

(16) For all posts (paid or voluntary) involving work with children there should be effective supervision providing an opportunity to review progress and discuss issues. (3.11)

(17) Before taking up a post (paid or voluntary) involving work with children, those concerned should complete an application, give references, give details of any relevant previous criminal convictions and agree to a criminal record check. (3.13)

(18) Failure to comply with recommendation 17 must mean that the individual cannot be appointed to the post. (3.14)

(19) References must be taken up, and the candidate must be given a personal interview. Any doubts must be pursued. (3.14)

(20) On appointment, individuals should serve a probationary period before being confirmed in the post. (3.14)

(21) The Church and relevant Church organisations should register with the Criminal Records Bureau and use its services as a matter of course. (3.15)

(22) The same principles apply to the selection of candidates for ordination. Selection Boards should err on the side of caution. (3.16)

(23) Bishops and religious superiors should not overrule Selection Boards where reservations are expressed about a candidate’s suitability for ordination on the grounds of possible risks to children and young people. (3.17)

(24) It is essential that those who are involved in advising on or making decisions about the formation and ordination of candidates should have access to all the necessary information. (3.18)

(25) The Church should maintain a single national database of information on all applicant candidates for ordained ministry and decisions should not be made by Selection Boards, bishops or religious superiors without reference to it. (3.18)

(26) The idea of a National Selection Board for candidates should be considered for adoption if implementation of recommendations 23 to 25 fails to secure uniformity of approach. (3.19)

(27) On moving to a new post outside the diocese, diocesan clergy, those who belong to religious orders, and lay workers should have their position reviewed and appropriate action taken if necessary. (3.20)

(28) Training and the raising of awareness is a key requirement. Diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinators should have a particular responsibility for ensuring that appropriate training and awareness raising is undertaken and the National Unit will have a facilitating role. (3.22/23)

(29) The CPC must ensure that arrangements and trained personnel are in place to respond to allegations. (4.3)

(30) Every diocese and religious order must have a properly composed Child Protection Management Team to deal effectively with any reports or incidents. (4.4)

(31) The CPC should normally chair the Child Protection Management Team which should include child care professionals, a solicitor, a communications officer, a lay person and a priest. Other expert members may be appropriate in particular circumstances. (4.4)

(32) Disclosures and suspicions should always be investigated and acted on swiftly. The Paramountcy Principle (that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in proceedings concerning children) applies. (4.5)

(33) Anybody who receives a disclosure should advise the maker of it to share it with the statutory agencies (i.e. the local social services and the police) and the CPC and be ready to support him or her in doing so; suspicions should at the least be shared with the CPC who will initiate a risk assessment and bring in the statutory agencies as necessary. If in any doubt, recipients should take such action themselves. Either they or the CPC should write to the person who has made the disclosure setting out the advice they gave and providing information about contact addresses, etc. (4.5)

(34) Any information offered "in confidence" (unless it is the confidentiality of the confessional, which is absolute) should be received on the basis that it will be shared with the CPC and, if appropriate, the statutory agencies. (4.5)

(35) Otherwise careful confidentiality should be observed and information only be shared on the basis of a strict "need to know". (4.5)

(36) Where there is suspicion but no disclosure of actual abuse, the CPC will arrange for an initial risk assessment and advise, with the CPMT on what action, if any, should be taken. Where there is disclosure there will be consultation between social services, the police and the CPMT about appropriate action. (4.9)

(37) The subject of a risk assessment should normally be informed of its outcome face to face (4.10)

(38) Where judged necessary by the police, social services, or the CPC and his/her Team

- volunteers should be required to withdraw from any church situation involving children until investigations are complete;

- any person employed by the Church should be required to take leave from their duties on full pay until investigations are complete. (4.11)

(39) On the recommendation of the CPC and his/her Team following consultation with social services and the police, any priest or deacon should be required to take administrative leave at a location to be determined by the bishop. (4.12)

(40) If the concerns or allegations are about the bishop himself, similar procedures should be followed. We invite bishops to signify their consent to such arrangements. (4.13)

Past events

(41) It is important to treat current disclosures of abuse that took place some years ago ("historical allegations") in the same way as allegations of current abuse. (4.14)

(42) Bishops and religious superiors should ensure that any cases which were disclosed in the past but not acted on ("historic cases") should be the subject of a risk assessment as soon as possible, and that there is appropriate follow-up action including possibly regular risk assessment review. (4.15)

(43) A "support person" should be available to those who have, or may have, suffered abuse and their families, to assist them in making a complaint, to facilitate them in gaining access to information and other more specialised help, and to represent their concerns on an ongoing basis. (4.17)

(44) The bishop should provide appropriate support to help parishes cope where there are allegations against the priest (4.18)

(45) An "Advisor" should be available to those (whether clergy, paid staff or volunteer) against whom allegations are made, to provide advice, to ensure legal representation if necessary and to look to any accommodation or other needs. (4.19)

(46) A person against whom allegations are made should not be legally represented by the solicitor who is representing the diocese. (4.20)

(47) The CPC should be responsible for ensuring the appointment of people to support victims and to provide advice to alleged abusers and for overseeing that they receive appropriate training , but they should operate completely independently of the CPC and his/her Team in relation to particular cases. (4.17/19)

Abusers who have been convicted or cautioned

(48) Clergy and lay workers who have been cautioned or convicted of a serious offence against children should no longer be allowed to hold any position that could possibly put children at risk again. (4.21)

(49) If a priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months, then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation. (4.22)

(50) The Church can also "suspend" a priest, or declare him "impeded", from the exercise of his orders. These penalties can only be applied for a period of time and whilst the underlying reason for imposing the penalty continues to exist. We believe these are certainly appropriate penalties for any conviction or caution for a child abuse offence. (4.23)

The following definitions apply in this report.

1994 Guidelines - a working party report Child Abuse: Pastoral and Procedural Guidelines, produced for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in 1994, and subsequently implemented in dioceses.

Abuse of children - the ill-treatment and/or exploitation of a child or young person whether through neglect or through physical, emotional or sexual molestation.

Administrative leave - the procedure used by many professions and recommended in the 1994 Guidelines whereby a priest accused of abuse agrees, without any implication of guilt, to step aside from his responsibilities including any parish commitment while the investigation takes place.

Allegation - the reporting of a disclosure of or suspicion about abuse.

Area Child Protection Committee - multi-agency statutory bodies that exist in each part of the country to co-ordinate the agency responses to child protection issues.

Canon law - the law of the Church.

Church - the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Clergy - priests and deacons.

CPC - Child Protection Co-ordinator. This is a person (also known as the ‘bishop’s delegate’ in the 1994 Guidelines) appointed in each diocese by the bishop to take the lead for the Church in responding to allegations and also to co-ordinate the development of child protection policies for the diocese.

CPMT - Child Protection Management Team (see para 4.4ff). This is a body to be set up in each diocese, which includes childcare professionals, a lawyer and other experts. Its function is to deal effectively with any reports or incidents and to liaise with the statutory agencies.

CRB - Criminal Records Bureau. A new body established by statute due to become operational in 2001, to improve access to criminal records and other information held by the police and Government Departments.

Diocese - a geographical area where the local Catholic community is grouped together under a bishop. The Catholic Church in England and Wales is divided into 22 dioceses. Each diocesan bishop exercises his authority autonomously though not in a totally independent manner. He must act in accordance with the norms of canon law, and in communion with the world-wide college of bishops and with its head, the Pope.

Disclosure - a situation where a specific allegation of abuse is made against a named individual.

Formation - the process of educating and spiritually developing those training for the priesthood or religious life.

Laicisation - the dismissal of a priest from the clerical state.

Ordination - the sacramental act by which a person becomes a deacon, priest, or bishop.

Papal Nuncio - the ambassador of the Holy See to the UK Government, and the link between the bishops of England and Wales and the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.

Paramountcy Principle - the principle that in any proceedings involving children the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration.

Religious order - a religious community, either male or female, which has its own specific rule and constitutions. In general the diocesan bishop has no capacity to intervene in their internal affairs (see paragraph 2.10).

Religious superior - the person in charge of a specific community of a religious order.

Risk assessment - the process of judging whether a person or situation presents a degree of risk to a child or children.

Seminary - the college where students for ordination are trained.

Statutory agencies - police, social services, and other agencies set up by statute.

Superior - see religious superior.

Suspension - for lay people, this is the equivalent of administrative leave; for priests and deacons this is the penalty available under the canon law of the church which debars a priest from exercising his priestly ministry for a limited period (see paragraph 4.23).

Suspicion - a situation where there is no disclosure but there is a concern that abuse may have taken place.

Victim - a person who has suffered abuse at any time in the past. (Adults who were victims of abuse as children often describe themselves as "survivors" rather than "victims".)

DIOCESE OF .................... / PARISH OF ........................................

Job Title Children’s Liturgy Group Worker for [age group]

Responsible to [designated person for the parish or leader for that group]

Job Purpose To work with Pre-school and Primary School children to provide an adapted Liturgy of the Word for them during Mass on Sundays and Major Feasts.

Main Responsibilities

a To work with others to form and inform a children’s liturgy group with regular planning meetings.

b To arrange for the parents of the children, and the parish community, to be informed of the aim and content of the liturgy group.

c To prepare the venue and to ensure the safety and well-being of the children and to conduct the Celebration of the Word with them.

d To liaise with the priest presiding at the parish Liturgy and any other appropriate ministers.

e To provide the necessary books and equipment with the support of the parish.

f To ensure that the Children’s Liturgy is conducted in accordance with the Diocesan Child Protection Procedures.

g To monitor good practice and implement changes where necessary to enhance both the quality of the Liturgy and the safety of children.

Person specification

a The ability to relate with respect and ease to children and adults, and to enjoy working with children.

b Commitment to the essential teachings of the Catholic Church, and the ethos of the parish.

c Experience in talking with young children and willingness to attend Children’s Liturgy Days.

d A willingness to give time to the preparation of the sessions and the co-ordination of the group.

e All volunteers responsible for the group must be over 18 years of age.

DIOCESE OF .................... / PARISH OF ........................................

Job Title Parish M.C./Co-ordinator of Altar Servers [age group]

Responsible to [designated person for the parish or leader for that group]

Job Purpose To work with the Altar Servers in the parish, assisting at Mass and other Liturgies; and recruiting and training new servers.

Main Responsibilities

a To work with servers and others to ensure the availability of servers to assist at the Liturgy as required.

b To liaise with the priest and other appropriate ministers presiding at the Liturgy.

c To ensure the physical safety and well-being of the children and young people serving.

d To encourage new servers and provide appropriate training.

e To ensure proper facilities are available for the servers.

f To arrange, in consultation with others, social events for servers.

g To ensure that the ministry of the servers is conducted in accordance with the Diocesan Child Protection Procedures.

h To monitor good practice and implement changes where necessary to enhance both the quality of the Liturgy and the safety of children.

Person specification

a The ability to relate with respect and ease to children and adults, and to enjoy working with children.

b Commitment to the essential teachings of the Catholic Church, and the ethos of the parish.

c An understanding of the purpose and forms of the Church’s Liturgy and an openness to the diversity possible within the Liturgy.

d A willingness to give time to training of servers in a patient yet cheerful atmosphere.

e All volunteers responsible for the group must be over 18 years of age.

DIOCESE OF .................... / PARISH OF ........................................

Job Title Volunteer Parish Youth Worker/Minister

Responsible to [Designated person for the parish]

Job Purpose Using social education and spiritual development activities to work with young people from secondary school age upwards.

Main Responsibilities

a To encourage young people, mainly from the parish community, to become active within the group and community.

b To establish a programme of activities which respond to the needs and aspirations of the young people.

c To contribute, as part of the parish youth work team, to the development of work with young people from the parish, promoting the spiritual, social and fun aspects of Christian living.

d To assist in the maintenance of administration and the good financial running of the group.

e To attend the team programme planning and assessment meetings.

f To enable young people to take their rightful role in the Christian Community as ministers of change and growth within the Church and World.

g When necessary, to act as a liaison between young people and the adult parish, to be a voice for their hopes and aspirations.

h To work with others to ensure that youth work is conducted in accordance with the Diocesan Child Protection Procedures.

Person specification

a Commitment to the Catholic/Christian principles of the parish group.

b Willingness to undertake training (within the first twelve months).

c Ability to relate well with young people and to adults.

d Commitment to the physical, spiritual, and emotional well being of all children and young people, especially those they will come in contact with.

e All volunteers must be over 18 years of age.