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 primary 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 yesterday, these developments were vital, she said. “We can be negligent if we didn’t continually improve our processes and move ahead in this manner.”
Emily Hill (Hereford) said that, currently, the code stated that when a grievance was received, a safeguarding case-management meeting can be convened, which the complainant was not allowed to attend. Because a part of the function of this meeting was to evaluate risk, she asked that the complainant must have some type of representation, as nobody knew the risks higher than they did.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) said that, given the present circumstances, it was vital for this work to receive support on the ground of the Synod.
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) said that the code of practice set out a “straight path” to assist people to “navigate a number of the complexities and difficulties”.
The Revd Graham Kirk-Spriggs (Norwich) asked that a pocket guide be developed to assist clergy and volunteers in parishes. This would, he suggested, reduce the burden on diocesan safeguarding staff, who would must cope with fewer enquiries in regards to the process.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), asked what guidance there was for situations wherein allegations had been made that, if proved, would seek advice from a criminal act, but, for whatever reason, such a conviction had not been obtained. How could the Church be fair to each parties?
Penny Allen (Lichfield) emphasised the vulnerability of kids.
The Bishop of St Germans and Bishop to the Armed Forces, the Rt Revd Hugh Nelson (Forces Synodical Council), asked whether the brand 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 may be enshrined in laws.
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) raised a matter in regards to the inclusion of Readers with permission to officiate as “relevant individuals” for the aim of the code.
Martin Sewell (Rochester) referred to Mr Kirk-Spriggs’s request for pocket guidance. It was quite simple, he said. “If you’re thinking that you’ve an issue, you’ve an issue. If someone involves seek advice from you, you don’t promise that you just won’t tell anyone else.” Keep a transparent record, don’t gossip, don’t investigate, and hand the case over to your diocesan safeguarding adviser on the earliest opportunity, he said.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) expressed hope that some guidance might be given in managing a situation concerning someone who attended a church event, equivalent to a foodbank. “Even in the event that they’ve offended and are a risk, in the event that they are kept inside some form of mainstream, they’re less more likely to reoffend.”
Fiona MacMillan (London) spoke in regards to the definition of “vulnerable adult”. “Vulnerability just isn’t something that belongs with a specific group of named people whom we learn about, but might be any one in all 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 purpose in regards to the definition of safeguarding, and expressed hope that the identical amount of care might be shown to individuals who had undergone difficult situations that didn’t 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 just isn’t purely a member of the congregation”. Unlike the primary code, this one was relatively short and uncomplicated, she said, and he or she really useful that it’s printed out and kept handy.
Ms Allen spoke again to remind members that it was best to not ask questions when receiving a disclosure, but to go away that to the designated safeguarding officer.
The second code was approved.
