THE General Synod approved the Safeguarding Code of Practice: Learning and Development Framework, in deemed business brought forward to Saturday from Monday. The code of practice is to be published in August, and have to be fully implemented from January 2025.
It details the Church’s safeguarding learning pathways, and the expectations of church officers in respect to them. It also sets out the vision, model, standards, and requirements for safeguarding learning and development within the church context, and is practical guidance to be used across all church bodies.
The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, moving the motion, described the code of practice as “an important a part of our safeguarding learning and understanding”. Safeguarding training “demands a response from the center in addition to the pinnacle”, she said. “Not passing it will take us back to uncertainty as to who has accomplished bits of coaching.”
Caroline Herbert (Norwich), found the code of practice “clear, readable, and helpful” — not nearly facts, but about basic awareness. She wondered whether it may very well be delivered face-to-face particularly circumstances.
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) related it to the aim of the “30,000 project” to double, by 2030, the numbers of individuals working with young people. He was concerned that the requirement for training could lead to the unintended consequence of deterring volunteers from coming forward.
The C of E had a volunteer crisis, the Revd Marcus Walker (London) said. A report by the Church Times had revealed that 87 out of 212 parishes had only one churchwarden, and 12 had none in any respect (News, 15 March). “Across the country, parishes are unable to seek out people to serve,” he said. “Be very careful about how much burden we’re placing on volunteers, and the way we treat them. In the C of E, we are likely to say to a volunteer, ‘You are lucky we’re letting you be a component of what we do.’”
Canon Jamie Harrison (Durham) asked how the Church could proceed to be a really learning organisation on the bottom, especially in relation to laity. The challenge was the right way to implement the five safeguarding standards realistically in every parish. He was supportive of the code.
The Revd Ruth Newton (Leeds) wondered where, with online training, pastoral support may very well be given. The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, said that the early findings of intensive research into volunteering showed that parishes were having success in retention: “We are providing top quality training of volunteers.”
David Kemp (Canterbury) supported the framework, but PCCs, he said, were showing “significant unrest in regards to the burden of safeguarding training”. The package on domestic abuse was a working example: did it must be all by itself, he asked. “We don’t need for everybody on the PCC to know every little thing there’s to be known,” he suggested.
To loud applause, Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) said that safeguarding and safeguarding training weren’t a burden. “I appreciate the language was not used intentionally, but woe to us if we regard it as a burden,” he said.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), said: “We do have to have the authority over individuals who refuse to do it, though they’re a really small minority. Most people expect and welcome high-quality training.” Training online as a gaggle, she said, had been thoroughly received.
Canon Mark Bennet (Oxford) said: “If there’s a recruitment crisis, we must be alert to it as a risk factor.” Michaela Suckling (Sheffield), a lead parish nurse, spoke of the success of “all doing our safeguarding training together. It’s about how we put money into our volunteers and resource them. It attracts, not deters volunteers.”
The Archbishop of York was glad to see the rules. “I used to be ordained right into a Church where there was no training in any way in these areas,” he said, and remembered “floundering” with no safeguarding training. “The journey can never be over,” he said. “There’s every must be a part of a secure culture and a necessity to construct for volunteers. Knowing there’s a secure training culture gives them the peace of mind they need that the Church can be a secure place.”
Prebendary Pat Hawkins (Lichfield) urged members to offer a bit more thought to online, versus in-person, training: “If we’re about changing church culture, then getting a PCC to do it together is de facto helpful.”
David Ashton (Leeds), a parish safety officer, said that there, he had no problems with the training. “Whenever anyone involves my PCC, I tell them it’s for the nice of the Church that you just do it. It isn’t a case of leaving people to do it themselves. It takes the keenness of a priest in a parish. I don’t have any problem with it in any respect. It is the best way it’s presented.”
Sarah Tupling (Deaf Anglicans) said: “For those of us who’re deaf, training is a barrier due to online element. We need to pay for an interpreter. It’s difficult to administer the language of difference and accessibility. Let’s take a look at improved provision for deaf members so we might be fully cognisant.”
Canon David Bryant-Scott (Europe) thanked the National Safeguarding Team for the standard of the modules on leadership training. “If wardens or PCCs won’t do it, there’s little or no we will do. You can refer them to the Charity Commissioners, but we should always take a look at the results for not doing this mandatory thing. It’s not a burden but a prerequisite for us to do ministry.”
The vote was carried by a show of hands.
