Last week, I came across an article in The Times discussing the potential reclassification of Church of England clergy as ’employees’ rather than ‘office holders.’ The Most Rev Stephen Cottrell suggested that such a change could ‘increase accountability, including that of Bishops’ (The Times, 7th January 2025).
Why the Change?
My caveat is that I am not an Employment Lawyer, but I have been a Child Protection Barrister for over 20 years. I can only assume that these suggestions are a response to the IICSA Inquiry Recommendations, and the most recently published John Smyth KC Review of October 2024. Whilst the article makes reference to the Church of England, it is pertinent to highlight the many other Religious Institutions of all faiths, that may have their Leaders in this current role of ‘office holder.’
What’s In a Name?
Having read, as part of my own occupation, what must be thousands of pages over the last few years, of various Reports, Recommendations, Conclusions and Statutory Guidance, what is clear is that the title of someone’s role is perhaps not the most pressing issue. There are far more pertinent priorities.
Statutory Guidance and Policies
In Working Together to Safeguard Children, it is clear that the Government attribute this Guidance to faith based organisations. At paragraph 314 it states:
“Individual practitioners, whether paid or volunteer, should be aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding and protecting children from harm, how they should respond to child protection concerns, and how to make a referral to Local Authority children’s social scare or the police, if necessary”
This Guidance has been in place for years. It is updated and highlighted and promoted in every corner of the Country, by Safeguarding Teams. However, as we are all aware, Policies and Guidance are only worthy documents, should those Leaders actually comply with them.

A brief internet search of the major Religious Institutions in this country allows us all to access National Safeguarding Policies. How robust these Policies are could simply be evidenced by the plethora of ongoing scandals. I feel sometimes I can’t have my morning coffee without reading about more harm occurring. No sector is left unturned. McDonalds were in the news again only last week.
culture Change
Quoting the Executive Summary of the IICSA Report into the Anglican Church (October 2020):
“Culture change is assisted by senior Church leaders now saying the right things, but lasting change requires more than platitudes. It will need continuous reinforcement of the abhorrent nature of child sexual abuse and the importance of safeguarding in all of the Church’s settings”
Changing someone’s job title does not lead to culture change.
It doesn’t hold someone more accountable.
It doesn’t prevent abuse from happening.
It certainly doesn’t wave a magic wand and change the attitudes of those who have ignored victim/survivors in the past.
Lasting Change
The only way in which we will see lasting change is when the Leaders of Institutions, whether religious, or in fast food establishments, or any other sector, take accountability for the fact that Safeguarding is the number priority. It isn’t rocket science. Human beings deserve to be safe in the places they go to eat, to work, to be educated, to worship.
So I ask these simple questions to Leaders:
- Is Safeguarding your number one standing item on Board Agendas?
- What are your Safeguarding KPIs?
- What are you going to do to make it right, when a survivor contacts you and you respond that you can do nothing legally about it, because of their job title?
- When are you going to implement a full/organisation wide Safeguarding Training Programme?
- What is your target date for having effective Safeguarding Structures in place?
I hope that I have the support of my friends and colleagues in the Safeguarding Arena when I be so bold to say that the 2025 Safeguarding Challenge is we try, all of us, to speak so loudly that these organisations do finally listen?