The Charity Commission has issued this press release:
Church of England charity must rapidly accelerate safeguarding reforms
The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England must rapidly accelerate the delivery of safeguarding improvements and close gaps in its approach to handling complaints, the charity regulator has warned.
The Charity Commission has set an expectation that the Archbishops’ Council should implement independent safeguarding structures as endorsed by the Church’s General Synod in February 2025 within 18 months from now – a year sooner than current plans indicate – and in the meantime, put robust interim measures in place to keep people safe.
The expectation is part of a Regulatory Action Plan issued to the Archbishops’ Council, a registered charity whose objects are to co-ordinate, promote, aid and further the work and mission of the Church of England. It follows the Commission engaging with the charity over whether its trustees are taking sufficient steps to address the safeguarding concerns and implement recommended changes raised in a number of safeguarding reviews…
….In summary, the Commission has found that:
- there is insufficient urgency and pace in implementing responses to past safeguarding reviews, and the current approach to doing so is fragmented and overly complex. For example, the Council’s current timescale of 2028 to pass the necessary legislation to implement independent safeguarding is too slow, representing a four year gap since the publication of the Jay Review
- currently the Church does not treat allegations of abuse from an adult not assessed to be “vulnerable” as a safeguarding allegation. The Commission’s guidance is clear that trustees must take reasonable steps to protect from harm all people who come into contact with their charity
To which the Church of England has responded:
Archbishops’ Council response to Charity Commission case review
“The Archbishops’ Council welcomes the findings of the Charity Commission’s case review published today, which provides valuable clarity to support ongoing improvements in our work. We are committed to acting on these recommendations as swiftly as possible.
“We are reassured by the Commission’s finding of no evidence of mismanagement or misconduct and that the Commission recognises the charity has made progress and delivered positive changes in safeguarding practice in recent years. Our priority in all our work remains to respond well to victims and survivors. This commitment is vitally important to us all and continues to shape every aspect of our safeguarding work.
“As part of our commitment to continually improve the quality of safeguarding we are immediately focused on building on the work undertaken over the past decade, which has included the introduction of independent safeguarding audits, comprehensive safeguarding training for all who work in the Church whether paid or voluntary, and ensuring Church bodies have safe and healthy cultures, as well as resourcing and scrutiny arrangements necessary to deliver high-quality safeguarding practices and outcomes. The Archbishops’ Council is committed to working at pace to enable the implementation of further safeguarding reforms, particularly in governance, with detailed proposals to be brought to the next General Synod to ensure sustainable and long-lasting best practice.
“The Archbishops’ Council recognises its responsibility to safeguard individuals who engage with its work, particularly in cases referred to the National Safeguarding Team under established codes of practice. It also ensures partner organisations have appropriate safeguarding measures in place and supports national oversight through audits and statutory guidance. We will continue to use the INEQE Safeguarding Group’s Annual Report, part of our independent scrutiny function, to inform our safeguarding work.”
“Currently the Church does not treat allegations of abuse from an adult not assessed to be “vulnerable” as a safeguarding allegation.”
I know this from personal experience. You do not have to be “a vulnerable adult” to be vulnerable to the abuse of power by a priest. Priests have power and when they abuse it severe mental and emotional damage can result.
All people like me want is a church that cares, a church that shows Christian love to parishioners in distress.
We are people, human souls not insurance claims. Everyone is potentially vulnerable to the abuse of power.
‘There is insufficient urgency and pace in implementing responses to past safeguarding reviews ..’ starts the summary . Most non- church organisations would be ashamed following a report like this, and pretty senior managers would be wondering which one or ones of them would be for the exit. So the Archbishop’s Council responds with a smug piece of oleaginous piffle which completely proves the Charity Commission’s point . It is however ensuring partners agencies are all playing nicely , and no doubt has complete faith in everyone down to the level of Archdeacon The entire AC needs to be disbanded… Read more »
Susanna,
The amount of PR spin and obscurantist pre copernican bovine manure drafted by the AC tame PR spinners is gut wrenching for our survivor community and families to read. Thanks for your constant support and comments over the years in TA.
“Illegitimi non carborundum”
Dont let the BS grind you down”
Entirely agree about the need for AC to disband. Their statement is uncommitted self-serving twaddle put out in place of an adequate response to issues raised.
There are two very specific concerns from the charity commission. i don’t see the Archbishop council’s response as dealing with either. It is a non response. Doesn’t seem to take the Charity commission seriously. I have commented several times on TA that safeguarding is not restricted to ‘vulnerable’ adults, and have noted that the CDM should not be independent of safeguarding processes. Happy to se the Charity commission agrees with me. A bishop bullying a vicar, or the other way round, is a safeguarding issue. A vicar bullying a PCC member is a safeguarding issue. What is maybe missing is… Read more »
What about a PCC member bullying a VIcar?
Quite.
Mutual abuse is possible I suppose
Sadly, clergy do get bullied by members of the congregation and lay officials such as officers.
Nicely in time for safeguarding Sunday …
Clearly referenced in my sermon for Safeguarding Sunday tomorrow, including interesting analogies with Celebrity Traitors and issues of power, authority and deference. How do we live authentic Christian lives if we play games where the identity of the ‘faithful’ and the ‘traitors’ is hard to determine? Celebrity Traitors is just a game. Safeguarding is not. Abuse affects real people, with real consequences, and not just children and vulnerable adults. The Charity Commission is clear that the Archbishops’ Council doesn’t get this.
“Currently the Church does not treat allegations of abuse from an adult not assessed to be “vulnerable” as a safeguarding allegation.”
Why has it taken the Charity Commission so long to make this point?
If nonvulnerable adults may soon make allegations, what historical cases might then come to light?
A s … storm tsunami of epic proportions ?
Why, when the Church is meant to have so many expert safeguarding advisers, is it so far behind secular safe guarding best practices? The Charity Commission has lanced the bubble very precisely with its concern about ‘vulnerable’.
What a complacent, self-satisfied, arrogant answer from the Archbishops Council. Who writes this stuff for them? The message seems to be ‘Who do you think you are? We know best.’
At this stage we need the Charity Commission and Parliament to take enforcement. Fortunately I believe that this is a growing possibility.
I sincerely hope you are right. Whoever wrote this stuff ( or even piffle) for them, the problem is that it seems fully endorsed by the AC. Also fascinating that the AC is so keen to ensure partner agencies have proper standards in place and support independent oversight while boasting about their own reliance on the INEQUE annual report . There was I ignorantly thinking INEQUE was their auditor of choice whom they were paying handsomely for the privilege.
But I suppose the COfE has its own view on independence as on so many things
The Archbishops’ Council may have received legal advice that the worst that can happen is that it will be disbanded.
Query who would mourn its demise?
Probably not the Archbishops.
I remember when it was set up a few significant people voiced real anxieties about it. I found that strange at the time but I think in many ways they have been vindicated. At the very least it’s purpose should be rethought
I hope you are right about the Charity Commission and Parliament taking enforcement action. Time was when we thought the CC would never take any interest at all in the C of E, so this is already an achievement.
It was the most shocking response to a regulator I have ever seen the Archbishops’ Council make. Trouble is the individual members of the Council don’t take responsibility. They fly blind, assuming the lawyers and civil servants know best. But the legal position is clear. They are individually and collectively responsible. No different from a PCC. And my PCC wouldn’t dare be as complacent.
It amuses me to ponder the impact on the CofE of losing its charitable status, and the associated tax relief, because of the evident arrogance and complacency over safeguarding and equality issues. The deadline set for our ‘esteemed’ trustees to complete on the actions set for them by the Charity Commission falls well within the term of the present government.
Couldn’t agree more. As I said in an earlier thread the institutional psychopathy of the Church of England leadership is deeply undermining the credibility of a church that has so many good things to be proud of.
I was puzzled earlier this week as to why, among a house group which included a churchwarden, his wife and a couple of other senior parish leaders, I alone (who run a tea and toast soiree once a week) received a bishop’s question asking my views on safeguarding. Very odd indeed. Then, having returned it I discovered this was ‘safeguarding Sunday’, which explained the whole business. We had to sit through a suitably enthusiastic spiel about how important it was – which announcement was greeted by an audibly loud groan from somewhere behind me. Having been asked to define ‘vulnerability’… Read more »
And sadly the consistent message from the bishops of the AC is ‘victim, go heal thyself’ ….