David Holdsworth, the Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, has written a letter to the editor of the Church Times, responding to Andrew Brown’s column of 30 January Viewpoint with Andrew Brown: When everything is ‘safeguarding’ no one is safe.
…Andrew Brown appears to doubt (Viewpoint, 30 January) that some bishops consider that their diocesan boards of finance are ultimately responsible for ensuring the proper handling of safeguarding concerns of which diocesan officers or trustees are made aware.
That misunderstanding is precisely the concern that the Charity Commission raised in its recent regulatory decisions regarding the dioceses of Chelmsford and Liverpool, where trustees were seemingly not aware of their duties and were not appraised to any extent about allegations made against an influential member of the clergy with a leadership role in their region.
Whether an investigation is labelled by the Church as conduct or safeguarding is rather beside the point: diocesan trustees — just like PCC members — have a duty to take reasonable steps to keep safe from harm all who come into contact with their charity…
The full text of his letter is here.
There is also a related letter (scroll down) from Gavin Drake.
Very important to spell out in clear terms that church as a charity must conform to Charity Commission standards. Let us hope the Charity Commision also addresses the failure of Dioceses to so often uphold responsibilities and obligations when it comes to custodial trusteeship over parish properies.
I see both David Holdsworth, CEO of the charity commission, and Gavin Drake make robust counters to Andrew Brown’s article. I feel somewhat vindicated in my initial response recently (‘I disagree with Andrew Brown on everything’ or something similar). It is not just their response, but the fact they felt duty bound to respond. I agree with everything David and Gavin both write. commitment to safety and care extends not just to minors or the vulnerable, but to all Gavin Drake covers similar grounds, but also exposes the problem of HR v. safeguarding. I have also commented on this here,… Read more »
I didn’t read Andrew Brown as saying that safeguarding responsibility does in fact lie with Bishops not DBFs, and therefore I don’t see David Holdsworth as disagreeing with or correcting Brown in that regard.
In my reading, I see Brown and Holdsworth making the same point in this respect: the fact that most Bishops probably do see the responsibility as lying with themselves not the DBF is part of the problem, given that, in law, the DBF are the Trustees whether the Bishop likes it or not.
They are in direct conflict. Holdsworth sees safeguarding as an issue for all, Brown want to restrict it.
Andrew Brown is perfectly capable of defending or explaining himself here should he wish to. I’m not setting out to defend him, I’m setting out to try to understand the issues raised. Holdsworth says: “Whether an investigation is labelled by the Church as conduct or safeguarding is rather beside the point: diocesan trustees — just like PCC members — have a duty to take reasonable steps to keep safe from harm all who come into contact with their charity…” Brown says (of one particular case): “Supposing these allegations are true — which he denies — they are surely a matter… Read more »
thanks. If you read the last two paragraphs of Holdsworth’s letter (there is a link above) you will see exactly what I mean. He explicitly implies (if that is possible!) that he disagrees with Brown. You can smell his anger. No doubt prior drafts were cast into the bin. In particular, Holdsworth considers safeguarding is applicable to all, whereas Brown wants to restrict it. As I said above. Gavin drake makes the same point in his letter to the editor. Same link. 10 people reading the same text see 10 different priorities. Governance issues are different to ‘safeguarding for all’… Read more »
The directors of the DBF are the trustees, yes. But the trustees of what? The company employs the staff of the diocesan office (and other diocesan staff) and it holds in trust the financial assets of the diocese — property, investments, cash at the bank, etc. It does not employ the clergy — not the bishops and not the vicars and curates in the parishes — nor licensed lay workers. All of them hold the bishop’s licence (or other permission). The DBF staff includes those that the bishop uses to ensure safeguarding is properly undertaken. In many dioceses the directors… Read more »
That’s a very helpful analysis, thank you. I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but are you perhaps wondering whether the Charity Commission’s view of the function of the DBF doesn’t fully reflect all these nuances?
I think that’s the area that needs further exploration. That would help the Charity Commission. It would also help those who are directors and trustees of DBFs and those who are members of bishops’ councils and diocesan synod standing committees. And to add a further (fairly obvious) point that I didn’t make in the earlier comment. DBFs are charities and in that regard they and their trustees are subject to the Charity Commission. And as limited companies they and their directors are subject to Companies House. But as bishops’ councils they are subject to their respective diocesan synods and to… Read more »
Interesting. If I read that right then the trustees should be notified of any credible safeguarding allegation. That widens the scope of a number of recent scandals where bishops have attracted criticism and suggests that all trustees should be included in that criticism.
Or am I misunderstanding?
Governing bodies like the Diocesan Boards are surely responsible for ensuring that their procedures are adequate and fair but surely not responsible for making judgements on individual cases of any kind of misconduct
Are you confident that the procedures are adequate and fair across all dioceses, that safeguarding is safeguarding for all, and that safeguarding cases are not hidden under the cloak of HR or CDM? Of course trustees are ultimately responsible for any deficiencies in processes, even though they do not judge individual cases. I remember, when I was first notified about issues of photography on sports club web sites (one of which I manage), my first reaction was ‘am I a trustee and therefore liable for any difficult photos’ (I sit on executive committee). I was reassured that the constitution of… Read more »
Obviously I know nothing of the Constitution of your sports club, but you cannot ‘opt out’ of charity law if a body meets the definition of a charity. The Charity Commission equally has jurisdiction over unregistered charities (and that jurisdiction is not to be ousted by attempts at drafting aimed at avoiding charitable status). This was discussed, admittedly some time ago, on TA. The trustees of registered charities are listed on the Commission’s website with details of other trusteeships held by them – including whether statutory accounting has been complied with and is up to date (primarily fiscal responsibility). An… Read more »
I think that is pretty much standard wording in charity constitutions. It is in the Charity Commission’s model constitution. Of course, PCCs and diocesan boards of finance predate such models, I imagine.
When I wrote my comment, I was mainly asking the question in my first paragraph. The rest was simply an addendum. i did write it after midnght!
For those who might be interested, my sports club is not a charity, it is a Community Amateur Sports Club, affiliated to England Athletics. It needs to conform to the rules and codes of conduct of England Athletics, including safeguarding rules, otherwise affiliation will be lost.
Other bodies, like Tooting Run Club, which has very close ties with my athletics club, are registered charities.
https://www.tootingrunclub.com/
https://www.hernehillharriers.org/club-rules/
I wasn’t passing any kind of judgement! Your club’s CASC status doesn’t require it to be a registered charity. I believe the position might well be different, indeed is likely to be so, without the affiliation. The Charity Commission has published a helpful and lengthy guidance document on this very subject.
I did not express confidence in Boards to do their duty well, merely said that the duty exists. Mr.Holdsworth seems to imply that it is the duty of these large committees not merely to create systems but to inform themselves about and take action on individual cases. I think that’s a terrible idea
Isn’t it a bit less clear cut? They don’t need to take action unless there is a problem. There will be somebody who is responsible for taking action, and reports to the committee. The committee would normally just say ‘OK, carry on’ or ask a few questions. Just like all the other areas of responsibility.
It begins to feel as though David Holdsworth is on the COf E’s case… as the first comment points out, the Charity Commission is effectively the Umpire so saying (loudly) ‘we don’t interpret the rules like this’ is going to do the organisation no favours. When David Holdsworth wrote to trustees before Synod last year I think he was trying to point out that individual trustees cannot delegate their responsibility for safeguarding so they need to make sure they are properly informed . So I don’t think Kate you are misunderstanding at all. This raises again the point of the… Read more »