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 probable that every member of the General Synod is a trustee for the purposes of the Charities Act 2011, one way or another. There are bound to be one or two exceptions, including of course the ecumenical representatives and deaf Anglicans together representatives (non-voting), but it would be surprising if even they were not trustees of a regulated charity in their own denominations/context. The brilliant letter of the Charity Commission makes it clear they are writing to all voting members of the General Synod. Using the PCC test, all members of the House of Laity of the General Synod must be… Read more »
Hang on a mo, Squire!
You just said “Using the PCC test, all members of the House of Laity of the General Synod must be on the roll of a parish church. That being the case, they are ex-officio members of their PCC.”
Does that mean that anyone on the parish Electoral Roll is an ex-officio member of their PCC? And then are thereby trustees? And so liable for debts etc, that the PCC may incur? If so, I’m resigning as fast as I can.
MikeN.
Fear not, Mike. You are not an ex officio member of your PCC just because you are on the electoral roll. But lay members of the General Synod are ex officio members of the PCC of the parish where they are on the electoral roll.
Phew! that’s a relief, Peter. With amalgamations, for some of us what PCCs are thinking and planning is becoming increasingly opaque. I understand that my parish, Pastrow, is now the largest in England with eleven churches under just one PCC (it was to be sixteen but 5 fought a successful rear-guard action. All this was a bright idea of Tim Dakin – the evil that men do lives on after them) and what happens in this committee that’s somewhere over the hills is difficult to discern. We had 3 clerics but one has just resigned because as I understand it… Read more »
No, only if you are a member of the General Synod. Church Representation Rules (2022) M15 (1)(i).
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 »
If PCCs are responsible as trustees then unless they come to a decision that they have reasonable grounds to trust the diocese (which generally they have not) what are they supposed to do? Follow instructions from Synod or use their own judgement? Are they responsible or are they puppets?
PCCs are supposed to be independent separate charities but then again it is generally accepted they should comply with diocesan or national church policy.
Is it a case of fitting square pegs (church councils) into round holes (independent charities)
Isn’t that the fallacy Christ Church Oxford fell into? The Governing Body thought of themselves as an educational body and were (allegedly) surprised when the Charity Commission reminded them that they are a charity.
I think so. Yes. Well they were, originally, an educational body, but registered as a charity for tax purposes without recognising the obligations that entailed.? PCCs are now in the same boat.
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.
The Trustees are responsible. If they delegate that responsibility they have to monitor things to ensure it happens. How can they do that without an SLA?
There needs to be clarity of some sort, yes. I think perhaps we have different interpretations of an SLA: to me, and SLA provides a numerical measure of performance, sets penalties (usually via liquidated damages or service credits), limits other legal action (if you have an SLA with LDs you can’t then sue for the same failures) and, unfortunately in this case, invites what is euphemistically known as “jeopardy management”: the ongoing calculation as to whether it’s cheaper to meet the SLA or pay the LDs. You’re right to say that if parts of the safeguarding that a charity needs… Read more »
By SLA in this context I mean
1. It is clear what the diocese are to do
2. It is clear how quickly they are to do it
3. The Trustees receive timely management information so that they can check it has been done
So many of the safeguarding failures we know about are where X says s/he told Y and assumed Y would deal with the matter but without X checking that Y did so. That has to stop.
That was my main reaction when reading the safeguarding codes, with it not being clear who reports to whom, who has the responsibility and accountability. Police, local authority, vicar, PSO, diocese SO, bishop, parishioner, PCC member, readers, other church officers,….
Well the police and the local authority will not expect their responsibilities to be defined by the Church. The PCC ought not to be constrained by any safeguarding code because they have the ultimate responsibility
Oh absolutely: if by SLA you mean a clear delineation of responsibilities and a clear list of accountabilities, I completely agree. I am amazed that charity trustees are not already asking for that, or indeed how they have got away with not so doing.
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.
The governance of the Church of England isn’t something I know anything about and seems to be extremely opaque – and I haven’t so far read the proposals recommending abolishing the AC. However maybe someone who knows can comment on the line management of the Secretary General as this clearly impacts upon the independence of safeguarding . When a request was made to suspend the Secretary General because of the impact upon survivors of the abrupt dissolution of the ISB to allow for a proper enquiry I seem to remember the refusal was given by Carl Edwards, Chair of the… Read more »
I have read the papers concerning the Governance Review. It makes the sensible recommendation to reduce the number of separate legal charitable bodies within the (central) C of E (from memory I think from 7 to 5). Within the reorganition the Archbishop’s Council is abolished. That day cannot come soon enough. Re the post of Secretary General. In any other walk of life decisive action would have been taken ages ago. Unmanaged and unmanageable. The current post holder is far too powerful. They need to go. It would probably be a good idea to get rid of the post all… Read more »
Thank-you. That is helpful. I am still slightly puzzled by such a senior role as the effective CEO being managed by a volunteer. I’ve seen it happen lower down organisations.
Unmanaged and unmanageable probably sums it up . If Carl Davies had decided to suspend him rather than tap the lawyer fund to defend him, would he have condescended to step back and who would have dared make the enquiries?
I don’t thnk it is unusual in the commercial world for a chief executive to report to a non-executive chairman.
In every Charity in England the most senior member of staff is managed by volunteers within the Trustee body.
In every Town Hall the CEO is managed by an elected Member whose allowance is invariably less than the CEO’s salary .
The irony here is that ahead of this letter, the Commission met with the Archbishop of York, and in almost certain likelihood, William Nye – two of the hierarchy figures who have led the Church of England into the mess which merits this course of action by the Regulator. Both these men should have resigned along with all members of Archbishops Council. The dysfunctionality of the structure, and the systemic hardwiring of unaccountability in the senior layer, enables them to brazen it out. The irony of all this will surely not have escaped commission chief executive David Holdsworth. If Synod… Read more »
Hello Gilo, it must have been quite a meeting. I have always assumed that the Archbishops must have commissioned Professor Jay’s report to get the Charity Commission off their backs.
Maybe they didn’t read the small print and realise that they were also supposed to implement it?
Gilo correctly identifies the core issues. The remnant running the CofE has utterly destroyed its reputation and credibility. There is no hope of restoring any trust or confidence until they are gone. Safeguarding in the CofE will rightly be treated with mistrust and contempt if it contains any initiative that these individuals can be linked to. So a total clear out of the hierarchy and NST is now urgently needed. Until then, all reform is doomed to failure.