We reported here that the Charity Commission had written to General Synod members. They have now written to Diocesan Bishops who are trustees of their Diocesan Board of Finance or other Church charities. There is a press release and the letter can be found here. The full text of the letter is copied below the fold.
Press release text:
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.
This letter to bishops, sent on 31 January 2025, seeks their assessment of whether any aspects of Church law, structure or processes are currently preventing trustees of Church charities from fulfilling their safeguarding obligations. The letter follows a letter sent to Members of the General Synod who are also trustees of Church charities on 24 January 2025.
A press release with more information about the Commission’s engagement can be found via this link: Regulator sets out safeguarding expectations ahead of key Synod votes – GOV.UK
Published 3 February 2025
Letter to Diocesan Bishops who are trustees of their Diocesan Board of Finance or other Church charities
[Sent 31 January 2025]
Dear Bishop,
Safeguarding in Church charities
I am writing to you in your capacity as a trustee of the Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF), a registered charity, while also being mindful of your wider leadership role within the diocese.
As a member of the General Synod who is also a trustee of a Church charity [footnote 1], you will have received a copy of my letter dated 24 January 2025 [footnote 2]which reminded all trustees of Church charities of their safeguarding duties and responsibilities ahead of the Synod in February.
As I explained in that letter, 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 cannot be ignored or covered up.
We understand that the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer and safeguarding team sits within the DBF. Along with your co-trustees, you are responsible for ensuring that the diocesan safeguarding team carries out its work in a way which enables trustees of all the Church charities within the diocese to effectively discharge their safeguarding duties.
The Makin Review and other recent reviews into safeguarding at the Church of England – alongside high profile developments this week – 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 and 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.
The Commission remains keen to understand whether, following any changes made or agreed by Synod, there are any remaining structural, procedural or constitutional arrangements under ecclesiastical law that you consider conflict with, or prevent you and your co-trustees from fulfilling, your safeguarding duties as charity trustees (Legal Impediments).
The Commission understands that you and your co-trustees will need to consider the implications of the decisions made by Synod before you can ascertain whether any Legal Impediments remain. Therefore, the Commission would appreciate your response to this letter (including confirmation that the trustees do not consider any Legal Impediments remain) by 31 March 2025.
The Commission will consider any information you provide in accordance with its Risk and Regulatory Framework and take such steps as it considers appropriate as part of our ongoing engagement with the charitable National Church Institutions. This includes requiring confirmation that any Legal Impediments so identified by trustees have been, are being or will be addressed (and how).
When considering this letter you may find it helpful to consider the Commission’s general advice and guidance, which is designed to provide support to trustees improving their understanding of their essential trustee duties and safeguarding responsibilities – including that the Charity Commission requires charities to report serious incidents in a timely manner so that there is prompt, full and frank disclosure to it as the regulator of charities.
Please share this letter with all the other trustees of the DBF.
Yours sincerely,
David Holdsworth
Chief Executive Officer
The net is closing in…
Anything stopping PCCs making their own arrangements for safeguarding, with a reputable provider of guidance and oversight?
This was precisely my thought. The Bishops have nothing to do with local arrangements.
Is that true? Suppose I am a trustee of a charity with responsibility for safeguarding within a cathedral. For the sake of argument, let’s call it Chelmswick. I hear, and then confirm, that an associate canon, we might call him David Plantagenet, has a conviction for child abuse and has served a prison sentence for it. My “reputable provider of guidance and oversight” believes that he is a continuing risk to children, and want him removed from the premises. The Bishop, we might call him Stephen Bottrol, refuses, citing the ecclesiastical law and the advice from his insurers. What happens… Read more »
What should happen next is that the Dean bars the Bishop from the cathedral and suspends the canon from any and all duties pertaining to the cathedral.
Is not this case similar to the Blackburn case – – therein the final advice was to close the Cathedral and then illegally fire the Canon and pay a massive payout to him as being the only tool available to the Bishops… [that was a Canon employed at the Cathedral not an honorary) My point is – Bishop Bottrol in your example – may suddenly come to his senses and agree that they should remove the David Plantagenet – but the only tools available to him would be to break the law. The conclusion is surely that church law on… Read more »
And I think in this tale you have also only mentioned the other main player , good Bishop Bottrol’s insurer, in passing . Because if you feel very brave that day and tell good BB that you will fight him over this and grass him up to the Charity Commission , what happens when he tells you that you know Chelmswick is on the verge of going bust through lack of suitable plants, and your intemperate actions will bring about the ruination of the entire charity?
What is your liability then??
I don’t believe that “I can’t take action to protect children because of the financial implications for my charity” would be acceptable to the CC, and they would both seek the dissolution of the charity and hold harmless the trustees that triggered it.
I think that is what I have been trying to say the last day or two, but have communicated badly. Charity safeguarding guidelines and codes of conduct go far beyond what is described in ecclesiastical law or police law.
Charity safeguarding codes of conduct are no doubt much better drafted too – they have undergone much review and practical feedback.
Give unto Caesar etc.
Is the church trying to run two different parallel sets of law? That will never work.
Or Stephen Bottrol goes against the insurers’ advice, which turns out to be expensive when the decision is challenged, more so if found to have been a breach of due process, especially if arrangements were already in place to minimise direct risk. He and other trustees are then reported to the Charity Commission for exposing the charity’s assets or reputation to undue risk and, potentially, breaking the law. They are investigated, maybe punished, while the charity may have to shell out not only for its own costs but David Plantagenet’s too. Professional advisers wield considerable power in the secular world… Read more »
The charity might not have to shell out for its own costs or David Plantaganet’s. The trustees might be held personally liable.
So far, it has been extremely rare for trustees to be held personally liable, but it can happen.
Trustees who spend money that is clearly not in the interests of their charity can be made to pay personally.
I wonder how many PCC members understand this.
Indeed. Whether acting in line with the advice received or not, there is a risk of getting into trouble with the Charity Commission.
The power of the professional adviser- in Bishop B’s case the insurer – is one which also has to be given much more scrutiny. Gavin Drake has a good go in May last year with his article in Church Abuse posing the questions ‘Who are Ecclesiastical? Why does it matter?’
The amount of money they receive from Church funds seems to me to make it matter a lot and their involvement with CofE decisions maybe should interest the Charity Commission too
Trustees of charities often carry trustee insurance like this, which covers them for legal challenges.
In reality, the fear of individual trustees being held liable is greater than the real risk, and acts to stultify decision making. Trustee insurance doesn’t just protect the trustees, it also makes the decision-making better.
In my opinion, each house of Synod needs its own legal advice. I don’t see how legal advice addressed to Synod as a whole can weave its way across the potential conflicts of interest the Charity Commission letters have surfaced.
But yet they are trustees of their DBF that employs the diocesan safeguarding advisor that, at least in our diocese, has the mantle of the authority on these matters.
Except that Parishes have to affirm each year at APCM that they are in compliance with HoB guidance on Safeguarding, with all of its requirements and commitments to the Safeguarding structures and policies of the wider church.
The PCC may be an ‘independent charity’ within charity law, but as a part of the CofE it is bound in to the Safeguarding requirements of the wider church.
Well the diocese certainly assumes the position of the authority (via the diocesan safeguarding officer) in terms of safeguarding and is the one that requests and requires PCCs to ensure that individuals in positions of responsibility and/or involvement with children, young people or vulnerable adults to undertake their prescribed programmes of training. This is certainly not framed as “optional advice” in any communication I have seen on the matter.
Given the serious criticisms and obvious failures of CofE safeguarding (the reports and the charity commission intervention) some PCCs might doubt whether they can come under the central and diocesan safeguarding systems with integrity. As a charity surely a PCC can put in place safeguarding policies and training which satisfy its insurer and complies with charity commission guidance.
I suspect the clergy of such a parish might find it difficult to get another post if they wanted to move on, and both they and the parish wold find the diocese uncooperative in other matters. The Church has many ways to apply pressure.
Yes there are risks. If General Synod can’t move us on towards something that satisfies the Charity Commissioners, PCCs will remain within the failed national system provided through the diocese.
Oh, oh, oh. Oh. Oh. “the Commission would appreciate your response to this letter (including confirmation that the trustees do not consider any Legal Impediments remain)” That is what chess players call a fork, and to mix a metaphor the Charity Commission are playing the hardest of hardball. The recipient of the letter now has three options. They can, as a trustee of a charity, ignore the clear instruction of the Charity Commission and simply not reply. The next step is the winding up of the charity. They can reply saying that no legal impediments remain, and they are fully… Read more »
It’s a shame that the Charity Commission, who seem to have clear ideas on what might be acceptable and legal, don’t work with the CofE rather than simply post warning letters.
Well, if you decide to become a trustee you acquire obligations and it is a good idea to understand them before you sign on the dotted line. You are responsible for compliance. The Charity Commission is there to ensure compliance (we can have a separate discussion of whether it does so optimally, but its online guidance is pretty clear, and ignorance of what trustees must and must not do is no defence). I haven’t seen much sign that senior levels of the CofE are serious about compliance, but if they thought they were struggling and asked the CC for assistance… Read more »
I, and I suspect you, do not have access to the innards of either organisation to know what discussions have or have not already taken place. I have in the past worked with regulators, and I know that public letters like this normally only follow intensive and detailed discussions. They are a last resort. They are what happens when the long negotiations with the regulatory affairs team have failed, or when for whatever reason those negotiations never really got started. No-one wants to do business in public like this. One might say that the “behind the scenes” discussions are how… Read more »
The Charity Commission has historically “worked with” the CofE for a very long time. The reason for this letter is that those opposing full independence advanced at a late stage Legal Advice suggesting that there were “legal reasons” not to do so. The Commission has moved swiftly to scotch that line of argument. They are inviting the sceptics to name those legal reasons with a view to removing them asap.
They are also pointing out that General Synod is a legislating body so it’s hard for “legal reasons” to be a true impediment.
Given that Mr Nye’s organisation is subordinate to the dioceses of York and Canterbury, those are the two dioceses that need to be wound up.
It has been confirmed that there have been meetings between Church House and the Charity Commission. The Commission doesn’t just have ideas on what might be acceptable and legal. I suspect the regulator doesn’t like what he is hearing, and/or if he is unsure is just inking in the legal position for the avoidance of doubt.
In their devastating report on the Church’s slavery reparations idea the Policy Exchange notes that the Church Commissioners ( second biggest charity in the country) had failed to consult the Charity Commission about the legality of the proposal. I suppose the Commissioners thought they were above such considerations.
responding to the responses by Pam Wilkinson and Valerie Challis: I don’t see that the Church Commissioners are obliged to ‘consult’ the Charity Commission, nor that the Charity Commission is obliged to offer advice. The obligation of the Church Commissioners is to comply with the law. An analogy from the world of construction. A constructor is required to comply with Building Regulations, and their client, the developer, is accountable in law too. Government offers advice in the form of Approved Documents, which constructors are not obliged to follow but may be considered in court as ‘tending to show’ compliance. Similarly,… Read more »
I think this intervention takes the “ Gloucester Advice” off the table for the limited time we have to discuss matters at Synod. We cannot begin to reject Option 4 which is the more Jay compliant option until after the Charity Commission consultation has passed. That advice was designed to scare Synod into a decision of “ the least change we can get away with”. That fear mongering fails: if Ecclesiastical law and structures have to change then either Synod or Parliament with the support of the Charity Commission will do it. We need to think about amending the motion… Read more »
Martin is absolutely right. If Option Four is genuine, sincere and authentic, then the Response Group is finished and can be retired next week. A Transition Team can now enter the frame – not staffed with hand-picked CofE insiders – and work out the details of how to move to full independence. The Redress and Interim Support Schemes need to end up in independent hands too. If Synod is coaxed into voting for a diluted version of Option Four, the Charity Commission and HM Government will weigh in. Option Four should mark the end of the CHW lawyers, LamPal officials… Read more »
This is a powerful and, at first sight, compelling argument, for which, many thanks. But, if we want the very best possible environment in our churches and cathedrals (and I certainly do!), I wonder whether what you (Martyn) propose is really straightforward and whether we might find ourselves in an unsatisfactory period in the interim, as we seek to move from one model of delivery to another? One problem is that safeguarding is currently the responsibility of more than 80 independent charities (diocesan boards of finance and cathedrals). They will need to work together carefully to make the new legal… Read more »
Martyn, thank you. Let us hope that every member of Synod re-reads the Jay Report, ….’further tinkering with existing structures will not be sufficient to make safeguarding in the Church consistent, accountable and trusted by those who use its services.’ Seems crystal clear….
Exactly all of this, Martin. Also survivors as well as outside experts, with access to a wider survivor reference group, must be part of the task force.
It should be noted that both Wilkinson & Jay recommended that the church should not attempt to design & set up it’s own independent safeguarding body, but should commission an external safeguarding expert organisation to do so.
Has this letter been sent to the Welsh Bishops and if so,
how might we expect them to respond?
Unlikely, I would have thought, and certainly not in this format. It specifically refers to the bishop being a member of General Synod. This is clearly a C of E matter.
A short definition of the issue between options 3 and 4
Accountability
Option 3 preserves DSO accountability “ intra- systemically” ie internal to the Church to the DBF/ Bishop.
Option 4 directs the reporting line and accountability to the new wholly independent body.
David Holdsworth’s letter to the bishops reminds them of their responsibilities as trustees of the DBFs. The Charity Commission’s paper ‘The essential trustee’ (CC3) states that: Trustees have independent control over, and legal responsibility for, a charity’s management and administration. They play a very important role, almost always unpaid, in a sector that contributes significantly to the character and wellbeing of the country. Although they have a leadership role in their diocese, bishops are not trustees of PCCs, nor are they line managers of parish priests. So they have no independent control over, or legal responsibility for, the management and… Read more »
You can’t have two masters.
Is the creeping trend to conceptualise a PCC as first and foremost a Charity – therefore subject to the secular law – (rather than a council of the Body of Christ and subject ultimately to the Lord’s sovereignty) – a move, intended or inadvertent, to subjugate the ecclesia to the saeculum?
I am certain that a Roman Catholic parish church would see itself as part of the body of Christ but also subject to the laws of the land, and required to operate in accordance with charity law. If Roman Catholics can manage it, surely the Church of England can do so as well?
Firstly, a Roman Catholic Parish is not a separate charity, but part of their diocese, which will be an individual charity. Both would not, I think, express their self-understanding as ‘we are first and foremost a charity, what does that say about our duties and obligations’. They would, I think, ask ‘What does being part of God’s universal church imply’. The point being made was one of priority. Should PCCs operate under the key operating question ‘What does being a charity, subject to secular law, direct/dictate/guide us to be and do?’ Or is the prior and ultimate question ‘What does… Read more »
I would hope that, if such a case arose, the Church would be informed by the science. Some people are born with indeterminate sex or a mixture of sexual characteristics; in some, the chromosomes differ from physical characteristics. And there are those whose sex differs from their preferred gender.
Jesus said ‘some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs, and some become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’ – an at least partial acknowledgment that sex and sexual expression can be complicated.
At risk of being tedious, I would post yet again an article about St Augustin regarding how emerging science should inform us.
I don’t think they knew about chromosomes back in the day….
https://harvardichthus.org/2010/09/augustine-on-faith-and-science/
That’s fascinating and useful. Thank you.
Thank you. There would no doubt be a debate about ‘the science’ – not always as univocal as some would attest, perhaps. There would be a debate about the proper interaction and interrelation of scripture, theology and ‘the science’. All well and good. But if a secular authority decided that a particular world view was now to be sine qua non, to the displeasure of the church (or part of it), a choice between masters would follow. Over any particular issue: I have nothing specific in mind at this point in these remarks. Perhaps analogous to the German Christians/Confessing Church… Read more »
I’m not sure what you mean re the government and Islamophobia?
In all sincerity can it be said that the House of Bishops of the Church of England is any longer fit for purpose? Over the four decades I have been in ministry I have gone from having respect for and trust in my bishop(s) to mistrust and disbelief. From the insidious creep of managerialism to the disingenuous ‘nothing to see here’ attitude to any form of accountability to the decline of genuine pastoral care for those in the front line, what is the point of these people?
I came across many an ‘insidious creep’ promoted to an untouchable key position of leadership during my time working for the CofE! The last was one of my key reasons for leaving and going elsewhere. Very sad as the CofE is doing some great work across the country which is hugely damaged by poor unaccountable governance.
If one was to put this bluntly in modern Parlance, it looks like the powers that be in the Church of England are being given a good kick up the backside by the Charity Commission as far as safeguarding is concerned and being told to get their act together !! Jonathan
The Charity Commission have also been challenging the legality of the slavery reparation fund. https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/The-Case-Against-Reparations-Why-the-Church-Commissioners-for-England-must-think-again.pdf
It does not seem clear to me that the Charity Commission takes the same view as the think-tank Policy Exchange on this matter.
Talking of the Charity Commission does anyone know how their investigation into Christ Church over the Martyn Percy affair is going?
I believe the answer is that it isn’t ‘going’. I read on TA that it was unable to proceed further due to non-participation: details not specified.
I can confirm that despite General Synod being told by Cottrell that there would be an “independent investigation” into the deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding, with proper consultation on who would lead that, this was never offered. Instead, I was offered 24 hours notice (in the form of a pre-drafted press release, which was published without any kind of consultation) to accept a panel of insiders hand-picked by William Nye. All of whom had significant conflicts of interest, lacked expertise, refused to share their terms of reference, and declined to engage with me directly. I therefore refused to engage with what… Read more »
One aspect that may have been missed in the comments so far is the effect of the following phrase in the Charity Commission’s letter “Therefore, the Commission would appreciate your response to this letter (including confirmation that the trustees do not consider any Legal Impediments remain) by 31 March 2025.” As the charitable company the Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF) will have a Memorandum and Articles (M&A) document which may basically say something along the lines of the numbered text below. Note that that the detail of what the M&A says will probably vary by Diocese. Bishops Council members act… Read more »
“So in responding to the Charity Commission the Bishop will need to have called a DBF to discuss and vote on what response is made from all the trustees, not just the Bishop.”
Yes, the Commission itself implies this:
“The Commission understands that you and your co-trustees will need to consider the implications of the decisions made by Synod before you can ascertain whether any Legal Impediments remain.”
Ta for that Kate.
I wonder if the Charity Commission realises that the DBF employs the Diocese HQ staff, not the clergy out in the parishes?