Thinking Anglicans

Safeguarding question re NST and Dr Percy

In two earlier TA articles (first this and then that one) , we have linked to criticisms  (first here and then here) of the ISB’s current role in relation to the Oxford Christ Church investigation. We also linked earlier to the text of a reply from William Nye to the first of the two letters of criticism.

Among the Questions for the General Synod in York this weekend, there is one which relates directly to this.

The Revd Canon Simon Talbott (Ely) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q123 Given the material that members of the Archbishops’ Council have been copied into relevant to the case of Dr Percy, have any of them submitted a Serious Incident Report to the Charity Commission and if not, why not?

Canon Dr Jamie Harrison to reply on behalf of the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:

A There have been long-running and some public exchanges with the Archbishops’ Council and members of General Synod and others relating to the process followed by the National Safeguarding Team and Dr Percy. This includes some correspondence directly with the Charity Commission, following which discussions took place between the Council and Charity Commission senior officers. Recent correspondence from Dr Percy and some Synod members sets out a difference of views as to how best to introduce independent oversight into Church of England safeguarding. The Archbishops’ Council does not assess that such correspondence meets the threshold for a serious incident report.

Given this is question number 123, it seems unlikely that supplementary questions will occur.

What is this Charity Commission Serious Incident Report procedure?
An explanation is here: How to report a serious incident in your charity
And there is a lot more detail here.

The relevant category in this case is presumably

  • harm to people who come into contact with your charity through its work

which is elaborated as:

  • protecting people and safeguarding incidents – incidents that have resulted in or risk significant harm to beneficiaries and other people who come into contact with the charity through its work
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susannah Clark
1 month ago

Martin Percy has undoubtedly been harmed by coming “into contact with your charity through its work”. He has undoubtedly suffered “significant harm” through “contact with the charity through its work”. A case can be made that the representatives of the charity carried out a vindictive campaign to oust Martyn Percy in a process of false (and failed) claims and accusations, at huge cost and arguably misuse of funds that had been donated charitably by others. I suggest that something that some would say was akin to a malicious vendetta, driving an employee to a nervous breakdown and extreme emotional suffering… Read more »

Mary Hancock
Mary Hancock
Reply to  Susannah Clark
1 month ago

I have great sympathy with Simon’s question. Legally though, which charity (or charities) is concerned? The Diocesan Board of Finance for Oxford Diocese? I’m guessing that the AB Council may be part of the Church Commissioners’ charity? Or maybe one in its own right?

All PCCs should now have their own Serious Incidents Policy and check at every PCC meeting if there have been serious incidents covered by the policy. I don’t know what happens above the Diocese level, assuming it is also a routine agenda item for Bishop’s Council meetings.

Peter Owen
Admin
Reply to  Mary Hancock
1 month ago

The Archbishops’ Council is a charity (number 1074857) in its own right.

Alison Roberts
Alison Roberts
Reply to  Susannah Clark
1 month ago

Totally agree with you Susannah!

Susannah Clark
1 month ago

I should have read the context of the question more carefully. The ‘serious incident’ I was alluding to was in relation to Christ Church and its governing body. I’m not sure if that was what Simon was pointing to (suggested misconduct by that body).

Simon Sarmiento
Simon Sarmiento
Reply to  Susannah Clark
1 month ago

The question here is aimed at the Archbishops’ Council, in relation to the actions of the National Safeguarding Team. But a similar question could be asked of the Oxford diocese, which is also a separate charity.

David Lamming
David Lamming
24 days ago

Question 123 was reached towards the end of the second ‘Questions’ session on the Saturday evening, but unfortunately Simon’s supplementary had too long a preamble, referring to what had been requested (namely, an independent inquiry into incompetent processes) and was interrupted by the chairman, the Bishop of Dover, who asked “What is your question?” When Simon replied “I’m coming to that, chair“, Bishop Rose responded, “No, no, I need you to get to it now because time is on us, please.” Simon then said: “Could you just comment on what I’ve just said in that case?” and Jamie Harrison (replying… Read more »

7
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x