Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure DIOCESAN STIPENDS FUNDS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hanson.

I think it is incumbent on everyone, when we are dealing with the question of safeguarding children, to have their tuppence-worth, and that is why I wanted to speak in the debate. I say that as a registered social worker who has been directly involved in the investigation of child abuse cases at both individual and institutional level, and who has written policies on the matter. I thought it important to make my views known.

The question must be set in the context of what Bishop Paul Butler said at the Synod:

“We all want every single one of our churches and institutions to be safer places and communities for all people; notably for children and adults at times of risk and harm, whether that be long or short term.”

The context in which to consider the Measure before the Committee must be the spirit of the view he expressed. Grave and egregious offences have taken place in the past, which had to be dealt with—and continue to have to be dealt with. There have been many past scandals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby says, there is always a balance to be struck, but it must always be with the intention of keeping the child—the victim in this case—at the fore. My practice over the years has been about keeping children to the fore, in any investigation.

We do not want too much hiding behind confidentiality. There must be a balance in confidentiality, because there is a crucial need to share information. In relevant circumstances there will always be the concern: “If the police don’t report it and another authority doesn’t report it, how does the bishop make the decision?” I think that on balance the proposals have that about right, but I suspect they could always be revisited in due course if they appear not to be fit for purpose.

As I have said, the proposals must be set in the context of the general safeguarding practices of the Church at a national level, and the potential for tweaking them to fit local circumstances at diocesan level. That is important as well, and the Measure sets in statute certain obligations that have not existed before, such as relating to a safeguarding adviser and, of course, the power of an archbishop or bishop to order risk assessments.

On balance I support the proposals, but always with the view that we would need to come back to them if we did not feel that they were fit for purpose.