Charity Commission press release
Regulator issues Official Warnings to two Church of England Dioceses
The Charity Commission has taken regulatory action against and over failures to handle safeguarding allegations in line with the Commission’s guidance and trustee duties.
The Commission’s definition of safeguarding includes taking reasonable steps to protect from harm all those who come into contact with a charity.
The charities, which have purposes to assist and promote the work of the Church of England in the Dioceses of Liverpool and Chelmsford respectively, have both been issued with Official Warnings and advice on how to improve their practice for the future…
The full text of the press release continues below the fold.
Each diocese has issued a statement in response:
press release continued
Background
Safeguarding concerns were initially brought to the Commission’s attention from various sources, including media reporting, in January 2025. These related to allegations about behaviour towards two adults by the then Bishop of Liverpool who resigned later that month while maintaining no wrongdoing had occurred.
As part of its regulatory compliance cases, the Commission engaged with the trustees of both charities and gathered extensive further information.
Findings
The Commission has found that in both charities there was a failure to properly handle safeguarding allegations and to maintain appropriate oversight of safeguarding by the trustees, in breach of the Commission’s safeguarding guidance.
In both instances, due to lack of appropriate procedures and processes, those trustees who knew of the allegations failed to take action that would have allowed the trustee boards to fully consider any risks and make a decision on the appropriate action to take.
While the Commission recognises the need for sensitive handling of serious allegations among large trustee bodies, the Commission found there were insufficient processes and procedures in place to ensure adequate oversight of safeguarding and protection of those who come into contact with the charity.
This also meant the trustees of the dioceses were not able to consider whether the matters should be reported to the Charity Commission as serious incidents when the allegations were first made in 2023. The incidents were subsequently reported to the Commission in early 2025 after media interest in the allegations.
The Commission has concluded that these failings amount to mismanagement in the administration of the two charities.
Next steps
The Official Warnings set out that both charities must ensure they have adequate understanding of the Commission’s guidance on taking reasonable steps to protect people from harm who come into contact with their charities.
The trustees must also ensure that, where responsibility for safeguarding is delegated to individuals or sub groups, robust policies and procedures for reporting appropriate information to the wider trustee boards are in place and followed.
Further to this, the charities must ensure that serious incidents are reported promptly to the Commission, with processes to support this put in place.
The charities are also required to update the regulator on their progress with actions set out in the Official Warnings.
Wider learning for the sector
These cases highlight lessons for all charities well beyond the Church of England, especially other faith charities. Specifically, the Commission would highlight:
David Holdsworth, Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, said:
Churches and cathedrals play a valued role in communities across the country, with devoted volunteers and clergy making a positive impact in countless ways. As separate charities, diocesan boards perform a distinct but important role, and their actions can have a wide-reaching impact on other Church charities.
In the two diocesan charities, lack of appropriate policies and procedures led to a failure to ensure that serious allegations against a senior figure were properly considered by the relevant trustee bodies. We will further engage with both charities as they continue to take steps to address our concerns.
More widely, trustees must be able to effectively challenge the behaviour of powerful individuals, including where that power derives from spiritual leadership. This underlines the need for adequate reporting mechanisms back to all trustees when safeguarding responsibilities are delegated to smaller groups or individuals, so that trustee boards can fulfil their collective duty to help keep people safe.
ENDS
Notes for editors:
Chelmsford evidently has a poor record in these matters. Not helpful that the bishop serving the diocese appears to feel the charity commission’s comments are unjustified.
First the “Tudor” case and the performance of Archbishop of York ( when he was bishop ofChelmsford). Then the present bishop is involved in a case of unsatisfactory handling.Yet these individuals keep rising within the C of E. Certainly doesn’t enhance the reputation of the church does it?
Had an interesting experience this week. Our parish is in Vacancy and the Bishop came along to explain the process we have to go through.
They were at pains to explain that when we have made our choice there will be a delay while the DBS checks are carried out. I asked about C of E safeguarding checks and was told that it wouldn’t be a problem, we could trust a Bishop to make sure we didn’t receive anyone undesirable.
The irony!
I think Chelmsford’s ‘response’ is unnecessarily defensive. A fuller expression of regret/ admission/putting victims/ survivors first would have been more helpful to reducing some of the low opinion that so many have of ‘the church’. Is no-one in charge of ‘reputaion management’ there? Another own goal.
My guess is that no one is in charge of reputation management because they’ve never heard of it. Yet another example of an ivory towered mentality where it’s felt there’s no need to listen to what’s happening in the real world. Meanwhile those who do live and work in the real world and serve as PCC members, wardens etc are frustrated at totally the wrong image which is projected. As here. The right thing to have done in Chelmsford would have been to take the rebuke on the chin, acknowledge the mistakes, commit to improve etc etc. The Charity Commission… Read more »
You may possibly be right about a lack of attention to reputation management in this case but, in general in the church and particularly in the Archbishops’ Council, most of all in its Secretary General, reputation management is the first and often only thing they think of. Until that changes, there is no hope of taking safeguarding seriously.
Sadly the way the church handles safeguarding does nothing to enhance its/our reputation. I shall be watching for any follow up statements tomorrow, but the Bishop of Chelmsford’s response to the diocese being given an official warning from the Charity Commission, the regulator, I found almost unbelievable. Any non church organisation would be falling over backwards to put things right, or to have avoided getting there in the first place.Those responsible would fear for their jobs, or at least their future careers Unfortunately- and I have said this in posts before- the Church of England management as a whole seems… Read more »
I am amazed at the arrogance and defensiveness of both these responses. Notwithstanding the Church’s horrendous record on safeguarding…If the Charity Commission shows you a yellow card you respond with contrition and do whatever you can to make yourself both compliant and beyond reproach – not with push backs. Suck up the critique and make things better – even if you might feel hard done by in some way. The attempt to claim a bit of moral high ground is cringe-making – even more cringey than the terrible Liverpool video which reminded me of a Blue Peter episode, telling the… Read more »
Concerned face and voice up to 2:20, then happy face and voice.
The Liverpool video is both shocking & cringeworthy. Their written statement was short & passable, but in the video they reverted to wittering away about how many changes they had made, how important safeguarding was to them, & that anyway things had not been as bad as the report made out.
I confess to being confused about this. Are DBFs responsible for managing bishops? I wouldn’t have thought they are, but am happy to be corrected by someone who knows more.
The Charity Commission entry for the Liverpool DBF describes its ‘activities’ as: “The development and implementation of mission and church growth strategies. The provision of advisory services to bishops, parishes, schools and church bodies (mainly through employed staff). The support, training, payment and housing of clergy. The support and training of lay people. The management and development of staff members. Contributing to the national work of the Church of England.” A bishop of the C of E is a corporation sole and (if I am correct) cannot be ‘managed’ by the DBF. I take the safeguarding function to arise “mainly… Read more »
Is there a fundamental difference between the role of DBF members as required by the Charity Commission, and their role according to church law, rules and practice?
The CC seem to require all charities to be controlled by trustees, so in effect DBFs managing bishops, in so far as bishops deal with the public, whereas the Church takes a very different view.
Might it be that dioceses simply do not meet the criteria to be recognised as charities under modern charity law?
Trustees are responsible for controlling the work, management and administration of a charity on behalf of its beneficiaries. That is the law relating to both registered and unregistered charities. It’s important to understand that the Charity Commission is the statutory regulator for all charities including unregistered ones. ‘Church law’ in no way alters that.
As already stated, I cannot see the above definition extending to a DBF ‘managing’ the bishop.
So far as I can determine, all C of E dioceses have registered as DBFs. That implies that the Church and the Charity Commission consider it to be the appropriate registration.
It is not the “diocese” that registers as a DBF. A diocese has no existence as a legal corporation. (The See does, but not the diocese.) However, all dioceses are required to have a Diocesan Board of Finance (and required to call it a “Board of Finance”). The legal basis for this requirement is the Diocesan Boards of Finance Measure 1925 (1925 No. 3 15 and 16 Geo 5). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/Geo5/15-16/3/pdfs/ukcm_19250003_en.pdf (as enacted in 1925) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/Geo5/15-16/3 (as in force a century later) In many dioceses, though not all, the membership of the Board is coterminous with the diocesan synod, and the… Read more »
What’s the difference between a See and a diocese?
A “See” is the office of bishop, the bishopric itself, the title. A “diocese” is the territory or area over which a bishop has jurisdiction. In English law a See (of the Church of England) is what’s called a “corporation sole”, regarded in law as a corporation with perpetual succession, held by each bishop during their term of office. A diocese, on the other hand, has no legal personality. Representative Boards of Finance were incorporated under 20th-century company law to hold trusts, own land and other assets, and to employ diocesan staff, as well as to collect voluntary contributions from… Read more »
‘The Charity Commission has emphasised the importance of ensuring Trustees have oversight of individual safeguarding cases, whilst recognising the complexities involved. Operational management of cases is delegated to experienced safeguarding professionals and those with executive responsibilities, supported by the National Safeguarding Team and statutory authorities in relevant cases. We are now enhancing our procedures to give Trustees stronger oversight of individual cases in a way that protects confidentiality, particularly for survivors and victims.’ Who’d volunteer to serve on a DBF now? Maybe I can bring some insight and experience to matters pertaining to the raising and spending of money in… Read more »
Despondent, I think trustees have always had a responsibility for safeguarding but it has usually been assumed that this can be delegated to ‘experts’ . This case – or cases as they became- emerged via the press last year just as the Charity Commission became fed up with the church’s procrastination over Makin and wrote letters to trustees about to attend Synod reminding them of their personal safeguarding duties. The timing is probably very relevant. In Chelmsford the case had been delegated- to the NST – and not regarded as a serious incident so the CC had not been warned.… Read more »
Any sign of Bishop Bev getting a permanent episcopal post? I’ll believe they take safeguarding seriously when she gets a senior appointment. When whistleblowers are disciplined rather than respected, who can believe the Church ‘takes safeguarding extremely seriously’? And who is going to feel safe reporting allegations?
I too found the response by both bishops the Charity Commission to be alarming in the broad context of the CofE being under scrutiny by the Commission.
David Holdsworth, Chief Executive of the Charity Commission is no light-weight with respect to experience in governance of large institutions. He sees through the ‘sweet-talk.’
As Jonathan Clark wrote in the Church Times in November 2024, “Only a radical rethink will do.”
Clive Billenness was trying to guide Synod in a better direction on safeguarding and governance before he sadly died 3 months later. I regret his passing.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/22-november/comment/opinion/only-a-radical-rethink-will-do
Thanks for reminding us all of the work carried out by Clive Billenness. He is missed.
Clive is a terrible loss. I do wonder, if he had found his last General Synod more receptive, might he have survived?
I do wonder that as well. Clives last WA message to me from G Synod was about how intense it was and that he even had Andrew Caspari leaning on him. ‘ A voice crying aloud in the wilderness.’
Have any other religious organisations received warnings of this kind? Or are we on a low moral plane all by ourselves these days?
I’ve just watched the Liverpool video. Knowing something of Bishop Ruth’s work, I can accept she means the regret sincerely. But I’m afraid the video left me cringing. Why is it that so many clergy and laity in the Church think the way to convey sincerity is to adopt the old school infant teacher sing song voice, put your head slightly on one side, speak way too slowly and look pained? Any competent acting coach would tell them it looks fake, however sincerely what’s being said is meant. An old friend of mine, who was involved in training clergy for… Read more »
Perhaps if the Charity Commission and the Church of England sat down to discuss their differences on – 1) defining what safeguarding is; 2) the complex multiple charity landscape within diocese and overlapping lay and ecclesiatical “laws” they might be able to work together better? This post has a bit more detail
I would add that there is confusion on the overlap between CDM/disciplinary and safeguarding.