Making us accountable

Radical changes are in prospect for all churches in England and Wales . . .

Proposals put forward by the Home Office and the Charity Commission will require places of worship to register with the Charity Commission from April 2001. The Charity Commission estimate that in total 100,000 groups will be affected.

When the central register of charities was created by the Charities Act 1960 places of worship were not obliged to do so, because it was an accepted fact of English law that public worship was a charitable activity.

Commenting on the proposals, Gavin Drake, spokesman for the Evangelical Alliance, said that requiring places of worship to register as charities is acceptable, but that if registration proves to be the start of a move to reduce or restrict the charitable nature of churches this would be a matter of great concern.

Registration brings more direct supervision by the Charity Commission and registered charities are required to complete returns, giving financial information and details of their officers, which is then publicly available.

It is likely that registration will be voluntary for groups with annual income of less than £1,000 (or possibly £2,000), but all others will be subject to the full monitoring and registration regime.

Responsible Body

There is one very important proposal in the consultation document, which will be of great interest to churches. It is intended to introduce the concept of an umbrella organisation called a 'Responsible Body'. This parent body would be responsible for policing the groups under its wing, and would be expected to ensure that they meet the Charity Commission's standards and comply with their regulations. Monitoring in this way would mean that the local group would not need to register direct with the Commission and would not make returns to the Commission.

Denominational structures

Churches will need to think long and hard about the proposals. In many cases taking on the Responsible Body status will change denominational structures and the accountability and independence of individual churches. Many denominations are fellowships of autonomous churches which adhere to a common statement of faith and provide mutual support and co-operation. A monitoring role would bring greater denominational control over the local churches and groups.

If a denominational organisation becomes a Responsible Body, individual churches would not be required to register. The central organisation would take responsibility for the active monitoring of the local churches and would identify areas in which help and guidance might be required. Effective intervention arrangements will be needed to prevent problems or to sort them out. The Charity Commission will insist that the central organisation has clear and acceptable minimum standards, which are in line with the Commission's guidance on the hallmarks of a well-run charity.

Co-operation

Less contentious are the proposals that the central organisation must co-operate with the Commission, must circulate to locate churches the Commission's guidance and must provide public accountability by maintaining and providing public access to an up to date list of all the churches within the denomination.
The denominational organisation in its role as a Responsible Body would not take over the Commission's legal responsibilities or power and might have to refer difficult or complex cases to the Commission. The Charity Commission realises that the close relationship between the denomination and a church with problems might cause difficulties and prevent the taking of a firm line. The Commission would be able to take action against individual churches over the head of the denomination and, in extreme cases, would be able to require the compulsory registration of individual churches if the support or supervision had proved inadequate.

The denominational organisations will probably be required to prepare an annual report for the Commission and their work is likely to be tested on a sample basis by the Commission.

Questions raised

The proposals raise many questions. Bodies taking on a monitoring role will need to find the personnel centrally to undertake the work, and locally to maintain the records to the required standards. Assuming these matters can be resolved, they will then need to decide how the costs are to be met, what re-sources they will need to resolve genuine differences of opinion with local churches, and they will then need to accept the obligation when necessary to report a local church to the Charity Commission.

Denominations such as the Baptist Union where authority is vested in the local church may not want to take on the Responsible Body role if the churches do not accept restrictions on their autonomy.

The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) and similar groups may not have the necessary authority to be accepted as Responsible Bodies. Brethren assemblies and others with no formal central body do not seem to fit into the proposals.

Under the 1993 Charities Act, the Church Commissioners and institutions administered by them are exempt from registration and are not affected by the proposals. Most dioceses are already registered with the Charity Commission and will not change their status. Anglican places of worship and charities concerned with the advancement of religion connected with the Church of England will need to register. Anglican PCCs customarily submit annual returns to the diocesan authorities; these could be the basis for monitoring if a diocese elected to become a Responsible Body.

Leading from above?

For the local church, the possibility that the proposals could give a small group at the centre the power to lead the denomination in an unacceptable direction will cause concern, and many will fear more returns, bureaucracy and sanctions from above.

Missionary societies will wonder whether a central group might ease its monitoring functions by creating an approved list of missions which local churches are allowed to support. If this happened, missions which did not feature on the list could suffer financial hardship, and lists could be used to bring pressure on a mission to change its character or operations.

Financial penalties?

There must be concern that financial penalties could fall on the central denominational body if it fails to identify problems in a local church, and could be held liable for errors and omissions such as onerous leases or inadequate contracts of employment.

In a landmark case in the House of Lords in 1891, Lord Macnaghten ruled that the advancement of religion was automatically charitable. The proposals do not change this decision but they could lead to a tighter regime.

Christians cannot ignore these proposals. Comments on the proposals must be with the Home Office by October 16 2000.

The consultation document is available on the Charity Commission website: www.charity-commission.gov.uk/charregvol.htm or by telephoning the Commission on 020 7674 2408.

Trevor James

Trevor James is the charity partner at Sheen Stickland Chartered Accountants, and the treasurer of his church, trustee of two churches, and treasurer and trustee of several Christian charities. He can be contacted on 01243 781 255, fax 01243 788 049, and email: tjames@sheenstickland.co.uk