The week in which Health Secretary Wes Streeting told a meeting that he was “trying to break the culture of the voluntary sector and the way that it lobbies government”…

… as perpetrators ourselves, we’re sorry about that, but sometimes government needs to be told where the charitable shoe pinches.

Liability under C of E’s new safeguarding proposals

Further to our recent posts on the involvement of the Charity Commission and the Church of England, here and here, on 3 February the Church Times reported that VWV, a firm of solicitors whose registry team is led by Jos Moule, the Diocesan Registrar for the Diocese of Gloucester and the Diocese of Truro and is supported by a team of specialist ecclesiastical lawyers who advise on all aspects of ecclesiastical law. VWV has produced a paper Future of church safeguarding: Advice note (31 January 2025), commissioned by the Gloucester Diocesan Board of Finance but shared with other DBFs. It addresses the implications for DBFs of “model 4” — one of two options for greater independence of safeguarding, set to be presented to the General Synod next week. 

The Church Times report comments:

“While agreeing with legal advice appended to the Synod paper — which sets out how DBFs can delegate safeguarding to an external body — the VWV paper states that, ‘in order to ensure that delegated powers are being exercised properly and in the best interests of their charity, trustees must retain oversight over the exercise of those powers by the delegates, with the capacity to take whatever action is necessary (including revoking the delegation) in the best interests of their charity’.”

The paper warns, “It is ‘difficult to see’ how trustees of a DBF could retain sufficient oversight, accountability and control if the external body is to be the only provider of safeguarding services for all DBFs”. The paper also considers the question of confidentiality and access to data.

Safeguarding officers’ concerns

On 5 February, the Church Times further reported that safeguarding professionals across the Church of England had urged General Synod members not to back a proposal to outsource their work to a new national body. It states: “In a letter sent on Wednesday and signed by 106 members of diocesan and cathedral staff, they argue that the proposed “Model 4″ option – transferring frontline diocesan safeguarding to a new body, would risk making safeguarding provision worse, as a consequence of the disruption of the process and the creation of extra bureaucracy”. 

A copy of the letter is here. The letter also seeks to put Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations for the Church into the context of her brief, which was, they say, to set out “a roadmap for independent operational delivery of safeguarding”. The “destination” was chosen by Justin Welby, and Professor Jay was not asked to analyse whether this was the best option for the Church.

US withdraws from UNHRC

On Tuesday, President Trump issued an Executive Order withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council and ordering a review of the United States membership of UNESCO. The United States currently holds a seat on the Human Rights Council [With thanks to Howard Friedman]. 

Cohabitation reform?

The Law Society Gazette reports that Andy Slaughter, Chair of the House of Commons Justice Committee, has written to Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the minister in charge of family justice, marriage and divorce, asking for a timetable for implementing cohabitation reform following Labour’s 2024 Manifesto pledge.

We suspect that, as with reforming weddings law, the reply will be along the lines, “We’re a new Government, and we can’t do everything at once”. (And see below.)

Ritual slaughter

On Monday, Daniel Zeichner, Minister of State at Defra, answered a written question from Rupert Low (Reform UK, Gt Yarmouth), “if he will take steps to commission a study into the potential impact of Halal meat on animal welfare” as follows:

“Legislation requires that animals must be stunned prior to slaughter so that they are unconscious and insensible to pain. The only exception to the requirement to stun is where animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. The Government would prefer animals to be stunned before slaughter but respects the rights of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs.

Legislation sets out the main requirements to protect the welfare of animals when being slaughtered and there are additional rules that apply when animals are slaughtered by either the Jewish or Muslim method to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering, or distress during the slaughter process.

Many animals that are slaughtered for halal meat are stunned before slaughter. The Government’s Farm Animal Welfare Committee published a report in 2003 which considered the welfare detriment involved in slaughter without prior stunning. The European Food Standards Authority also published advice on the topic in a 2004 report. The Department will continue to review any new scientific research and evidence which emerges.”

Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme

For anyone still confused about the fine detail of the new-format LPWG Scheme, in answer to a Written Question on whether the annual limit of £25,000 on the amount that individual places of worship can claim under the Scheme will apply to the building in which the work was carried out or to the body making the claim (such as a multi-parish benefice), Baroness Twycross clarified the position as follows:

“The annual limit of £25,000 applies to the individual listed place of worship.”

Royal Navy mess dress

It has been widely reported, here and elsewhere, that the Royal Navy has allowed officers to wear saris in order to make its formal dress code more “inclusive”. Officers are now permitted to wear cultural dress beneath their mess jackets on formal occasions after lobbying by the service’s race diversity network. Regulations for mess dress had previously required all officers to pair their uniform jackets with trousers, a tartan kilt or a skirt, but they will now be able to celebrate their heritage by wearing items such as a sari alongside their jacket, shirt and bow tie.

Lance Cpl Jack Kanani, the chairman of the Royal Navy race diversity network, praised the update to the dress code, saying that it would be “inclusive of other British cultures”. “Existing policy already allowed for Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Manx heritage to be represented through the wearing of kilts and tartan dresses. The update in policy now widens that to be inclusive of other British cultures that serve within the Royal Navy.”

ELS Northern Lecture series

On 20 March at 6 pm, HH Peter Collier KC will be giving the first lecture in the 2025 ELS Northern Lecture series, entitled “Safeguarding and the law – a lecture in which their historic and current relationship will be explored”. It will be held at the Leeds offices of Wrigleys Solicitors LLP. Further details and a booking form are here.

Quick links

• House of Lords: short debate on humanist weddings and, generally, the Government’s timetable for reforming weddings law in England & Wales. Russell Sandberg comments here.
• Church of England: Minutes of the House of Bishops meetings [scroll down] as in our recent post.

And finally…

The Catholic Herald reports that a couple is suing the Institute for the Works of Religion (aka the Vatican Bank) after they were fired for getting married to each other in violation of a new law which, they said, was implemented after they had already announced their plans to marry. Under the law published on 2 May 2024, if two employees marry, even in a canonically valid ceremony, both their contracts will be terminated after 30 days unless one of them resigns. According to the report, the law states that “to ensure equal treatment, the celebration of a canonical marriage between an employee of the Institute and another employee of the Institute, or of other administrations of the Vatican City State, constitutes a cause for loss of hiring requirements”. (We assume that “loss of hiring requirements” reads better in Latin).

Which would no doubt go down like a lead balloon at Strasbourg (Article 8, anyone?), but the Vatican is neither a member of the Council of Europe nor bound by the ECHR.