TWO safeguarding codes of practice, related to the management and reporting, respectively, of allegations, were approved after a debate on the Wednesday afternoon.
The codes had not previously been scheduled for debate, and would have been deemed business, had 25 members not asked for a debate.
Presenting the first of the codes, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), the lead bishop for safeguarding, said that codification would give the processes for managing allegations the “firm basis” needed.
Notwithstanding structural changes agreed in a more high-profile debate the previous day, these developments were vital, she said. “We would be negligent if we didn’t continually improve our processes and move ahead in this way.”
Emily Hill (Hereford) said that, currently, the code stated that when a complaint was received, a safeguarding case-management meeting would be convened, which the complainant was not allowed to attend. Because part of the function of this meeting was to assess risk, she asked that the complainant should have some form of representation, as no one knew the risks better than they did.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) said that, given the current circumstances, it was important for this work to receive support on the floor of the Synod.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) said that the code of practice set out a “straight path” to help people to “navigate some of the complexities and difficulties”.
The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) asked that a pocket guide be developed to help clergy and volunteers in parishes. This would, he suggested, reduce the burden on diocesan safeguarding staff, who would have to deal with fewer enquiries about the process.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), asked what guidance there was for situations in which allegations had been made that, if proved, would refer to a criminal act, but, for whatever reason, such a conviction had not been obtained. How could the Church be fair to both parties?
Penny Allen (Lichfield) emphasised the vulnerability of children.
The Bishop of St Germans and Bishop to the Armed Forces, the Rt Revd Hugh Nelson (Forces Synodical Council), asked whether the new code would allow for the removal from office of a churchwarden who repeatedly refused to undergo safeguarding training, and, if not, when such a provision might be enshrined in legislation.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) raised a question about the inclusion of Readers with permission to officiate as “relevant persons” for the purpose of the code.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) referred to Mr Kirk-Spriggs’s request for pocket guidance. It was very simple, he said. “If you think you have a problem, you have a problem. If someone comes to talk to you, you do not promise that you won’t tell anyone else.” Keep a clear record, do not gossip, do not investigate, and hand the case over to your diocesan safeguarding adviser at the earliest opportunity, he said.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) expressed hope that some guidance could be given in managing a situation concerning someone who attended a church event, such as a foodbank. “Even if they’ve offended and are a risk, if they are kept within some sort of mainstream, they are less likely to reoffend.”
Fiona MacMillan (London) spoke about the definition of “vulnerable adult”. “Vulnerability is not something that belongs with a particular group of named people whom we know about, but could be any one of us,” she said. For example, past abuse could make someone vulnerable.
The Archdeacon for Rural Mission (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), the Ven. Sally Gaze, took up the point about the definition of safeguarding, and expressed hope that the same amount of care could be shown to people who had undergone difficult situations that did not fall under the definition of safeguarding.
Ian Boothroyd (Southwell & Nottingham) asked for consideration of whether Readers whose licence had expired owing to their reaching retirement age were covered under the code.
The first code was approved.
Dr Grenfell then moved approval of the second code, concerning reporting requirements. It was the Church’s version of “See it. Say it. Sorted,” she said. The definition of “church officer” was drawn widely to encompass “anyone who is not purely a member of the congregation”. Unlike the first code, this one was relatively short and uncomplicated, she said, and she recommended that it be printed out and kept handy.
Ms Allen spoke again to remind members that it was best not to ask questions when receiving a disclosure, but to leave that to the designated safeguarding officer.
The second code was approved.
