The fresh approach is a result of recommendations from the Charity Commission, which has pointed out that the “Church does not treat allegations of abuse from an adult not assessed to be ‘vulnerable’ as a safeguarding allegation”. Its own guidance says that trustees “must take reasonable steps to protect from harm all people who come into contact with their charity”.
The consultation, What is Safeguarding?, focuses on the code of practice Safeguarding in the Church, the subject of a consultation in April and May. Until now, it has been referred to as Safeguarding Children, Young People and Vulnerable Adults. The change of title follows recommendations from the Commission that the NST review definitions of safeguarding and vulnerable adults.
“It is very important to note that this document is in the very early stages of thinking,” the NST says in a preface.
“We understand that this has the potential to have a significant impact on practice and we therefore need to understand from you whether these changes are workable, what the impact would be, and how we can best deliver the required changes. The changes we have been asked to make relate to the definition of safeguarding and to the definition of vulnerable adults.”
The consultation follows a review of safeguarding documents by INEQE, the company auditing safeguarding in every diocese and cathedral.
The proposed amendments focus on: a definition of harm based on the Children Act 1989, but applying that to both children and adults, and making it specific to a church context; the adoption of a formal definition of “maltreatment” applicable to both children and adults, and made applicable to a church context; and redefining vulnerability “as situational/contextual, meaning any adult harmed or at risk should be considered potentially impaired in their ability to protect themselves, triggering a safeguarding response”.
The NST says: “The document has been written on the assumption that we accept these changes — we now ask you to provide the evidence as to whether this is workable or not.”
The changes set out stand in contrast to the approach recommended by Professor Alexis Jay in her review commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council. This called on the Church to adopt the statutory definitions, setting out that the “basic purpose” of safeguarding was “the protection and support of children and vulnerable adults who have been abused or who are at risk of abuse”.
The “most egregious” issue that she identified was “the use of safeguarding to address matters of conduct which had nothing to do with risks to children or vulnerable adults”. At its most extreme, this was described as the “weaponising” of safeguarding.
Her recommendation received a mixed response during consultations and was not taken up. But a recent employment tribunal drew on the statutory definition of safeguarding to argue that a curate had insisted on labelling a “personal grievance” as a safeguarding matter and had tried to impose tasks on a diocesan safeguarding adviser which fell outside the officer’s remit.
INEQE audits have consistently identified overwork in diocesan safeguarding offices and called for greater capacity. The recent audit of the NST recommended the establishment of specialist HR capacity to advise on “ensuring conduct issues are clearly separated from safeguarding processes”.
In recent months, the Charity Commission has taken a growing interest in the Church’s approach to safeguarding. In November, it said that implementation of reform was being pursued with “insufficient urgency and pace”, and the Commission raised the concern about definitions.
In January, it censured the dioceses of Liverpool and Chelmsford for their handling of safeguarding allegations against the former Bishop of Liverpool, Dr John Perumbalath.
The Vicar of St Augustine’s and of Holy Trinity, in Tooting, south London, the Revd Angela Rayner, was one of several clerics to raise concerns online this week about the proposals set out in the consultation and their potential impact on resource-strapped parishes.
“Why are charity safeguarding expectations so much broader than the statutory adult safeguarding threshold, when charities generally have fewer powers, less resource, and less ability to investigate, assess risk, or compel cooperation?” she wrote.
“At what point are referrals to safeguarding distinguished from health & safety, pastoral care, HR, referrals to statutory bodies or complaint procedures? Clear boundaries matter because different forms of harm require different responses. . .
“Where’s the line between safeguarding and ordinary church life? Bullying allegations, complaints, PCC disputes, pastoral breakdowns, difficult relationships and interpersonal conflicts can all involve claims of emotional harm (and by both parties).”
The closing date for responses is Friday (12 June).
The NST said: “This initial section will then be incorporated into the Safeguarding in the Church revision, which will go to NSSG for approval in September and then General Synod for final approval later this year.”