The Charity Commission has issued this press release: Regulator sets out safeguarding expectations ahead of key Synod votes.
The letter to which it refers can be found here: Letter to General Synod members who are also trustees of Church of England charities. The full text of the letter is copied below the press release.
Press release text:
The charity regulator is engaging with the Church of England over the urgent need to improve its safeguarding arrangements, following the publication of the independent Makin Review and ahead of key debates at the Church’s General Synod (Parliament) next month.
In February, the Synod is due to consider proposals and legislation related to safeguarding including options for new structures, in response to various independent reports including the Makin Review. While the Commission does not regulate the General Synod itself – which is not a charity – decisions the Synod makes impact on charities within the Church.
The Commission renewed its engagement with Church authorities following the publication of the Makin Review – an independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth QC.
A meeting was held between senior representatives of the Commission and the National Church Institutions, including the Archbishop of York, earlier this month.
Following this, the Commission is writing to all members of the General Synod who are also trustees of Church charities to draw attention to their legal duties, specifically their duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. This includes ensuring that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose, and that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up.
The Commission’s letter encourages trustees on the Synod to consider the extent to which any proposals “will enable you to comply with your duty to take reasonable steps to keep all who come into contact with your charity safe.”
The Commission will continue its regulatory engagement to ensure trustees of Church charities are able to fulfil their duties.
David Holdsworth, Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, said:
ENDS
Notes to editors
Full text of the letter:
Letter to General Synod members who are also trustees of Church of England charities
This letter is addressed to those voting members of the General Synod who are also trustees of charities within the Church of England. These are charities which are required to follow the Church of England’s safeguarding guidance and codes of practice (Church charities).
The Charity Commission has no regulatory jurisdiction over the General Synod or its members. However, the Charity Commission is the regulator of the Church charities which must comply with the Measures, Regulations and safeguarding codes that the Synod passes/approves.
The Charity Commission provides trustees and charities with advice and guidance under s.15(2) Charities Act 2011 in furtherance of its statutory objectives to increase public trust and confidence in charities, and promote compliance by charity trustees with their legal obligations in exercising control and management of the administration of their charities.
Although the Charity Commission cannot be involved in the administration of Church charities, it can provide advice and guidance to trustees considering changes to the current safeguarding framework with which Church charities must comply.
As regulator of charities in England and Wales, the Charity Commission is engaging with certain National Church Institutions regarding safeguarding in Church charities following the recent publication of the Makin Review.
The Makin Review, and other recent reviews into safeguarding at the Church of England, have raised concerns about the sufficiency of the Church’s safeguarding processes and procedures to protect people from harm and hold people to account.
The Church has acknowledged that improvements to safeguarding must be made. We understand that at the forthcoming General Synod in February 2025, there will be an opportunity for you to consider safeguarding and discipline legislation and codes of practice, which will make changes to the current safeguarding framework with which Church charities must comply.
The Commission understands that the safeguarding related business to be considered by the Synod in February is intended to rectify the inadequacies highlighted by various past reviews and reports.
All charity trustees have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with their charity. Trustees should ensure that processes, procedures and training are fit for purpose and enable them to effectively discharge their duties in relation to safeguarding. This includes being satisfied that, where concerns are raised, appropriate action is taken in a timely manner and processes are in place so that safeguarding concerns are not able to be ignored or covered up.
It is therefore important that, as a trustee of a Church charity attending the General Synod in February 2025, you remain aware of your legal trustee duties during debate and voting on relevant Synod business such that you are satisfied the changes will enable you to comply with your duty to take reasonable steps to keep all who come into contact with your charity safe.
You may find the Commission’s general advice and guidance on trustee duties, safeguarding and trustee decision making helpful as part of your preparation for the Synod sessions.
The Charity Commission will continue to engage within its regulatory remit with trustees and church leaders as may be required.
Yours sincerely,
David Holdsworth
Chief Executive Officer
I am interested in the implications of this and hope that those more knowledgeable than I will comment or we get good coverage on blogs.
Basically, any Synod member who is on a PCC or trustee of any other charity is being addressed here. That means, nearly all members of the Synod, because most elected members will be ex-officio members of PCCs.
It’s a fantastic piece of legal thinking. Trustees of charities within the CofE are reminded that their charity must be compliant with the law, and that means the charity and the trustees statutory obligations to the Charity Commission. Those obligations exist whatever the CofE does: compliance with the CofE’s safeguarding is of itself irrelevant: if it’s not compliant with the Charity Commission’s requirements, it’s not compliant. The charity’s trustees are responsible for ensuring compliance. The Charity Commission cannot demand that members of Synod take certain decisions within Synod. But they can remind those members that the decisions taken by the… Read more »
So by that reasoning are you saying that no PCC or local minister should let their diocese lead on a safeguarding issue unless they have something like a formal contract and Service Level Agreement from their diocese?
Kate, could you unpack your question for me please? I’m not sure how you have interpreted IO’s comments: ‘so by that reasoning’. What have I missed? I thought the CC were saying ‘comply with best practice.’ Where did you get the specific detail? And understanding that really matters for all PCC’s in England and Wales.
My understanding is that IO stressed that the obligation for thorough safeguarding sits with the trustees in each charity ie parish for the purposes of this discussion (or other basic legal units). That’s the basis on which it is presumed gave the Charity Commission the avenue to write to Synod members, most of whom are, IO suggested, thereby ex-officio members of the PCC and trustees. So if that’s where the obligation sits, then passively allowing the diocese to deal with matters might not (probably not) satisfy that legal obligation? In order to satisfy that obligation, won’t the trustees require a… Read more »
PS I used to train trustees (in a different field) in governance. On the basis of the Charity Commission intervention and IO’s observation that most Synod members are ex-officio trustees (is that correct?) then were I in that position I would want either a contract or clear statutory delegation of that responsibility. I don’t see how, otherwise, writing to a bishop or diocesan safeguarding officer transfers the obligation to them (although it probably gives rise to a new obligation upon them AS WELL). Also, doesn’t it mean that survivors may also have claims against PCCs? I could be wrong. I… Read more »
I don’t know how you get that from what I said.
The Charity Commission have guidance on safeguarding. Trustees are required to ensure that guidance is complied with. It is for the trustees to look at their organisation’s policies, compare them with Charity Commission requirements, and close the gaps. Quite how you get from there to an SLA, I don’t really follow.
Since all General Synod members (save, possibly, for some ex-officio and co-opted members) will be charity trustees, whether as members ex-officio of their PCC or, for bishops, their DBF, this is a clever way of telling GS members, circumventing the acknowledged fact that the Synod – a legislative body, not a charity – is not a body over which the Commission has any regulatory jurisdiction, that the time for further debate and delay is over and that now is the time for action. The letter has presumably been sent to those GS members whose PCC is a registered charity, with… Read more »
Or is the Charity Commission signalling that they might hold individual PCCs accountable and are suggesting that they might prefer to pass a Measure in Synod as a matter of urgency if they are uncomfortable with that?
Given this development, it would be extremely helpful were the President to invite the Charity Commission to address Synod.
How comprehensively and deservingly humiliating for the Church of England secretariat and its Secretary-General, for all the members of the Archbishops’ Council and all the bishops that this should happen and so publicly. What further evidence is needed to prove that this organisation should finally be shut down? The shame and shameless failings are for all to see.
Martin Sewell and Clive Billenness tried so hard to galvanise Synod members last February with the Wilkinson Files.
I do hope this letter from the Charity Commission concentrates a few more minds to withstand the current ‘control by overload system’ being used by the Secretariat and AC
With no conflicts of interest policy operating in the Archbishops’ Council (in complete breach of charity law), vested interests rife in Lambeth Palace, the Secretary General still running the entire show behind the scenes (with zero accountability), the Charity Commission will have to intervene. The Bishops will never call out incompetence, coverups and corruption in their safeguarding processes, and have repeatedly shown themselves to be poor judges in every case of abuse. Tudor, Hindley, Smyth, etc are the tip of the iceberg and show bishops to be consistently failing in safeguarding practice. At the same time, Synod passively assents to… Read more »
The inference is clear. Decision – Action – Now. Not dither, delay, debate, obfuscate, theologise into the long grass down the road … General Synod- do your job, your duty, what you are for.
The only right action is a vote of no confidence in the Archbishops’ Council, Secretariat and his staff, the NST – and their removal. Nothing can or will happen until they are all removed. General Synod will simply not act (“on legal advice” – which will be relayed from the podium), and so the stalemate will continue until there is external intervention.
Remember that in the proposed measure for governance review which is on the agenda for the February session of GS, the Archbishop’s Council is abolished
When the draft proposals were last before GS they voted for them with a large majority.
By any honest measure getting rid of the Archbishop’s Council is a good move.