We need independent oversight of the Church of England’s own safeguarding

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Archbishop Justin Welby

We have all seen the damning findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which report that the Church of England has, for years, put its own reputation before the protection of children.

Still to be prescribed by the IICSA, however, is the absolute need for mandatory reporting of all abuse, and independent oversight of the church’s own safeguarding.

The CofE is a minority religion and one of many in the UK, so though its leaders are now making the right noises, it must be disestablished and certainly never again allowed to mark its own homework.

Neil Barber, Edinburgh Secular Society

Saughtonhall Drive, Edinburgh

Archbishop Justin Welby feels ashamed of Church of England child abuse. As someone close to victims of abuse, I'm not interested in his shame. It's self-indulgent and useless. Abuse arises from dysfunctional power structures, and what is needed is not histrionic public self-flagellations or the usual smokescreen of verbiage, but real cultural change.

Dr Daniel Emlyn-Jones

Oxford

Manipulation of school admissions

One consequence of the creeping privatisation of schools not mentioned by Carl Parsons (The government is handing over state schools in England to the private sector, Independent, 6 October) is equity of provision.

Schools are under pressure from Ofsted and school league tables to produce the highest exam results possible from their pupils. The most cost-effective way of doing this is to avoid taking on those pupils who will struggle to reach the “floor target” of five Cs at GCSE.

While the most egregious examples of manipulation of admissions have been prosecuted, more subtle methods are still underway, followed by the widespread adoption of “zero tolerance” behaviour policies, which allow academies to “manage out” the less able pupils before they reach their exam year.

The local authorities then have to pick up the pieces for these damaged young people, paying over the odds for “specialist” provision, often to different, private providers.

Mark Tuckett

Bideford, Devon

Who really benefits from 5 per cent deposits?

The prime minister loves to hark back to how things were post-Second World War. How about reviving that old slogan “Homes fit for Heroes”? Instead of schemes such as 5 per cent deposits, which will inevitably lead to further house price inflation and leave the taxpayer with the inevitable negative equity bill, he should be launching a massive social housing building programme. This would lead to an eventual solving of the housing crisis, homelessness and a reduction in unemployment.

It is already admitted that some current emergency policies go against traditional Tory beliefs but such a plan would prove that they really are caring Conservatives – caring for all, not just the few.

G Forward  

Stirling  

Pension pains

Hamish McRae (As the pension age rises, what is the best way forward to pay for them?, Independent, October 6) is contributing to sharpening the youth/age divide by stating that young people, or at least people of working age, have to pay the pensions of the retired.

Retired people have paid for their pension all their working lives – it is called national insurance and direct taxation. By the way, the retired also pay for the education and health care of the young and working age. It is called society.

Lesley Heale

Sutton Coldfield

Nuclear plants are vital to combating climate change

Much like in all other countries embarking on a new nuclear build, the decision by Turkey to build Akkuyu power plant sparked a debate (Don’t let Mersin become Chernobyl’: Turkish and Greek Cypriots unite against Russian nuclear power plant, Independent, September 29). Yet, the case for clean, nuclear power in Turkey is a strong one. Turkey produces as much as about 1 per cent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions (17th highest in the world) and in 2018, 70 per cent of its emissions came from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transport. Turkey has said that it needs nuclear power to diversify its energy supply and to meet future energy requirements and climate targets. The Akkuyu nuclear power plant will save over 20 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year – the amount of emissions currently being produced by Berlin.  

When the spectre of Chernobyl is summoned, we assume the worst, yet accidents change the way we do things and the nuclear industry is no exception. Unlike in 1986, nuclear safety is now subject to the most painstaking, independent scrutiny from a range of national and international regulators with teams of the most conservative nuclear safety experts tasked with ensuring that no single project can possibly end up in a severe accident. The VVER reactor design for the Akkuyu plant is the most common new-build design in the world, with 36 power units in the pipeline (at various stages of implementation) in 12 countries and four commissioned examples in Russia in the last four years. In the 66-year history of the world’s nuclear energy industry, there has not been a single fatality anywhere in the world caused by an accident involving this reactor technology.

The name of “Chernobyl” has been used to attack almost every nuclear project over the last 30 years but if we are serious about climate change new nuclear plants simply must be built. The International Energy Agency estimates that unless about 10 GWe of new nuclear capacity is connected to the grid globally every year, we will not be able to keep global warming within 1.5C°, and climate change becomes irreversible. Anti-nuclear scaremongering costs the world millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions each year for every plant that is delayed or put on hold. But if we stop building nuclear power plants, the consequences of an otherwise inevitable climate catastrophe will eclipse all our mythical fears stemming from the past.

Alexander Voronkov, Director General of Rosatom Middle East and North Africa

Phoning it in

I haven't downloaded the Test and Trace app because my iPhone is too old. Not that it's very old, just too old for the app. Like many people of my generation, and older, I don't throw things away simply because there is a later version. I keep them until they no longer work for me.

And aren't we the ones labelled "vulnerable", who most need to be protected? So it seems a bit odd that the government (who might have guessed that our devices weren't likely to be the latest) chose to expect us to have up-to-date technology to use the app, but was happy to use an old-fashioned Excel spreadsheet with too few columns when it came to keeping records.

I wondered if it might be my duty to buy a newer phone so I could get the app. After all, we old folks are quite keen on duty.  But I wasn't certain that I felt inclined to trust this organisation (if that isn't too strong a word) with any information about me. And now it seems that there's not much point in any case.  

I expect my phone will go on for a few more years.

Susan Alexander

Frampton Cotterell, South Gloucestershire