THE “reset” of safeguarding within the Church of England will need to 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 might impose an obligation, subject to criminal sanction, for the providers of regulated and other activities — or “mandated reporters” — to report “at a time that’s practicable” to the local authority after they know or reasonably suspect a baby of their care to be subject to sexual abuse. This would apply to places of worship and spiritual organisations, amongst others.
It was introduced by Baroness Grey-Thompson, who explained that the Bill “doesn’t seek to criminalise most people who don’t report suspected child sexual abuse, but, somewhat, calls for those in positions of authority over children to talk up and protect them”. A compulsory reporter was, she said, “someone who’s ready of trust over the kid, or a person who operates in a setting where an activity takes place”.
Mandatory reporting was a suggestion of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (News, 21 October 2022). The Jay review of the longer term of safeguarding within the Church of England really helpful that the Church of England should introduce a legal duty to report any criticism or concern regarding safeguarding to a safeguarding officer at the primary 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 kid 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 compulsory reporting requirement within the statutory safeguarding code on managing allegations”.
Under the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure (2016), the clergy have an obligation to comply with the safeguarding code of practice, somewhat than to “have due regard” to it. Two recent 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 regarding children and young people should be reported to the safeguarding officer, no matter whether the kid or young person disclosing has given their consent. This needs to be done on the identical day, or the following working day, if received outside of usual working hours. Local children’s social-care services should be also learn.
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, alternative and self-determination, including control over details about themselves”.
The codes state: “If someone is susceptible to harm, against the law has been, or might need been committed, or if information becomes available which will help prevent against the law, 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 within the Lords debate, the Home Office Minister Lord Hanson of Flint said: “We want specifically to have a look at how mandatory reporting might be undertaken within the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are sometimes expressed and comments made.”
A consultation on taking forward the recommendations of the Jay review found that 72 per cent of people agreed with the decision for mandatory reporting (News, 31 May 2024). But concerns were also expressed about lack of confidentiality, particularly in relation to the seal of the confessional. Among the questions raised was: “How can mandatory reporting be implemented with a level of positivity and safety, versus making a culture of fear?” Participants suggested that “thought should be given to penalties for non-compliance, who this policy applies to, and in addition what happens when national law on these changes and if it differs significantly to Church policy.”
Among those raising concerns within 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 can also be 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’s insufficient training, and harm to children where they’re removed with insufficient cause.”
Comment, page 13; letters, page 15
