THE SCANDAL OF THE CONVERTS' AID

William Oddie explores the strange manoeuvres behind the scenes at a troubled Catholic charity

TWO WEEKS ago, a deceptively dull little story appeared in that dullest of the quality dailies, the Independent.

One of the Catholic Church's oldest charities, the Converts Aid Society (CAS), was to be closed down by Cardinal Basil Hume after an internal Church Inquiry had found 'little accountability, no approved investment structure, and that investment decisions were substantially left to one man'.

The Society's assets would be taken over by a new charity with identical aims, a new board and a new name, whose chairman was to be Mr John Goble, a senior City lawyer, himself a member of the three-man official enquiry.

The story had been quietly channelled to Heather Mills, home affairs correspondent of the Independent, after hasty consulta- tions between the Cardinal, Mr Goble and the Duke of Norfolk — England's senior Catholic layman and chairman of the Soci- ety. The Duke and the Cardinal had received alarming calls (intercepted by their entourages, who had not put the calls through) from lain Walker, executive edi- tor of the Mail on Sunday, who seemed to

have got hold of a potentially damaging story: what had actually been going on in the CAS over the previous decade.

The Converts Aid Society, in the nature of things, handles very large sums of money. It was set up in 1890 at the request of the Holy See to help former non- Catholic clergymen and nuns who became Catholics, and as a result have to face unemployment and homelessness.

Through legacies and donations, the society is now worth over £4 million. About half is invested in homes for convert clergy and their families, who when they become Catholics have to leave their vicarages and lose their stipends.

For years, in Catholic circles, there have been questions among those in the know about the way the Society's funds have been administered and its affairs conduct- ed. After a campaign in the early Eighties over extravagance and irregular payments to a trustee (reported only in the Catholic press), the Charity Commissioners were prodded into asking a few awkward ques- tions; but they soon relapsed into their cus- tomary policy of non-intervention. Soon everyone forgot the whole thing, supposing that the CAS had cleaned up its act.

But they were wrong. The extravagance — including the Annual General Meeting at the Dorchester — continued. So did the irregular payments to the Society's 'finan- cial adviser', Captain Peter Railing, a per- sonal friend of the Duke of Norfolk. The Society's annual reports show that over 11 years, even while he and his wife were trustees, he received in the region of /70,000 as remuneration for his financial services. Railing had also submitted several bills duly paid for from the contributions of the faithful — for meals for himself and members of his committee at his clubs, Buck and the Cavalry and Guards. The

society even paid for two crates of wine, a birthday present for Lord Perth, one of the trustees. Railing was, at one point trading in securities illegally in that he was not a member of Fimbra, the appropriate regula- tory body. His policies for investing the charity's funds included a disastrous foray into foreign currency speculation.

It all had to come to an end, sooner or later. In 1988, a new secretary was appointed. Himself a convert clergyman, John Nightingale was also a qualified and experienced social worker and had recent- ly been called to the bar. Mr Nightingale soon showed that he was a stickler for legal propriety. He began to question the way decisions were made. Most seriously, decisions on finance were being made by a so called 'finance committee' rather than by the full executive committee. According to the Charity Commission, this finance committee should not have been set up.

As a lawyer, Nightingale repeatedly warned the executive committee of the irregularities, and tried to stamp on the extravagance. His warnings were ignored. Then came the final straw. The improperly constituted 'finance committee' of Railing and the Earl of Perth redesignated itself as a 'working party' and formed a new policy (urged on by Sir Peter Hope, one of the committee members introduced by Rail- ing) which would increase the liquid capi- tal available for Railing's 'portfolio management'.

This policy was to stop new grants and gradually to sell off the houses in which the society's beneficiaries had found shel- ter, offering instead temporary rent allowances for a period of no more than three years after their reception into the Catholic Church. It was not what many of the Society's benefactors, large and small, had intended.

Nightingale decided to act. He went back over the records. He made a meticu- lous report of what he saw as the misman- agement and wrong-doing of the previous ten years. He warned senior members of the committee of what he was discovering, but they brushed his warnings aside. Then he asked for the advice of the only two members he felt were personally con- cerned about the plight of the convert cler- gy; both were themselves former Anglican vicars who had became Catholic priests.

They felt compelled to send Nightin- gale's report to Cardinal Hume. Some- thing had to be done quickly, since a meeting to vote on the new policy was imminent. Nothing happened. After near- ly eight weeks, the two priests decided to act alone.

They sent the report to the Charity• Commissioners. They also sent it to the rest of the committee — including the most powerful member of all, the Duke of Norfolk himself.

The Duke was outraged that the report had not been sent to him first. The reason it had not, of course, was that those con- cerned feared that he might be tempted to sit on it. The Duke reproached the Cardi- nal for his dilatoriness in dealing with the matter. The unfortunate Cardinal justified himself by producing a diary of his activi- ties over the three-week period, which reveals that he did get some rather slow wheels in motion and also that he had many other things to think about. At an explosive meeting in Archbishop's House, Westminster, the Duke accused the secre- tary and the two clergy who had sent the report to the Charity Commissioners of cowardice, and said that if they did not resign he would. The Cardinal's reply was to beg the Duke not to make him choose between an old friend and a priest of his diocese; the Duke stayed, and things calmed down for the time being.

But the knives were already out for Mr Nightingale, who had gone to the Charity Commissioners at the Cardinal's request to try to retrieve his report. The Commis- sioners refused to hand it back.

The Church authorities panicked. They fell back on that old stand-by, a committee of Inquiry: this was not to be a public inquiry, but a very private one. In charge of the whole operation was the City lawyer, Mr John Goble, who has now been placed virtually in charge of the CAS by Cardinal Hume. What emerged is hard to credit.

The Inquiry's report contained a few mild criticisms. Everyone, it said, had acted in good faith. But there was no proper investment policy. It advised a few people to resign who were going anyway.

Remarkably there was no clear judg- ment that Railing should not have been paid a fee, even though it noted in passing a possible breach of trust. He was not asked to resign; on the contrary, the tri- bunal paid tribute to his dedication to the Society, and expressed the hope that he would continue 'to contribute his ideas and energies' to its work.

Mr Goble claims, in a letter to the Catholic bishops, that the Inquiry's recom- mendations 'have led to ... a claim . against a former member of the commit- tee [Railing] and his wife' for the return of his fees. In fact such a claim was not even considered by the CAS until after it had received a letter from the Charity Commis- sioners instructing it to do so.

In the meantime the CAS committee has voted to pay the accountant's bills Railing has run up in dealing with the questions about his stewardship; these are in the region of £2,000.

The Chairman, the Duke of Norfolk, was nowhere specifically criticised in the Inquiry's report. Not only was the conflict of interest involved in Railing's fees glossed over, so was Railing's illegal trad- ing while not a member of Fimbra. His for- eign currency dealings were ignored; so was the extravagant entertaining; so were the secure tenancies given to people who did not qualify as beneficiaries.

A few heads, nevertheless, did roll. Mon- signor Arthur lggleden, the former vice- chairman, was singled out for blame, even though he was given no proper opportunity to defend himself, and now says he knew nothing about the inquiry until afterwards. The Commission also blamed John Nightingale himself, who was told that after a proposed reorganisation he could not expect to be employed as secretary.

Plans were now set in motion for the final stage in the damage limitation opera- tion: the quiet dissolution of the Society, and its replacement by a new charitable company with a new name. Though the new society would eventually be announced as having aims identical with those of the CAS, the second draft of its articles of incorporation had the effect of removing the priority of convert clergy and their dependents, and in effect turning the Soci- ety into a general Catholic charity. This time, the Charity Commissioners acted: they were alerted to the attempted change, and insisted that the original priorities of the CAS be restored.

Discussion of the new policy of selling the Society's houses, however, continued;

Tve had 0 good run. I've stayed overrated far longer than I thought.'

at one committee meeting Sir Peter Hope (who pointed out ominously that they would be worth more with vacant posses- sion) suggested that they should be valued by the estate agents, Clutton's, but that the tenants (who have no security of tenure) should not be told why. It was decided that this operation should be deferred until after Nightingale's departure. The selling of houses, however, began: vacant houses in Twickenham, urgently needed for par- ticular applicants, are now to be put on the market.

How much of the inside story the Mail on Sunday really knew was uncertain; but the Duke and Mr Goble must have realised that if it knew everything there was to know, things might get very embar- rassing indeed.

They decided that the best policy now was to take the initiative. Within an hour of the Mail on Sunday's telephone call, a letter was faxed to every Catholic Bishop. Though they were the Society's vice-presi- dents, this was the first most of them had heard of plans to close the Society and change its name: the Cardinal had not been in favour of their being consulted earlier.

This letter, with accompanying commen- tary, was then fed to the Independent, which duly put out without question the official line. Three days later the Mail on Sunday piece appeared: it gave the embar- rassing details of the extravagance, photo- graphically reproducing huge bills from the Dorchester and Buck's; it also mentioned the illegal securities trading and the con- flicts of interest.

Goble and Sir Ronald Macintosh, anoth- er member of the Inquiry, then called in the Catholic press, who for the most part reflected the Inquiry's guidance in their coverage: the Tablet reported that it was Nightingale who had sent his report to the Charity Commissioners, having failed to obtain the Cardinal's views. This seriously wrong inference (one of several) can be clearly drawn from the crisis letter to the Bishops and nothing was said to reporters present at the briefing to correct it.

The question for members of the CAS now is whether or not the new board — which is extraordinarily closely related to the old regime — will fulfil the Society's objectives better than the previous one.

Few members of the new board have shown any significant or active personal interest in the plight of convert ex-clergy.

One person who has shown a willingness to pursue the objects of the Society, John Nightingale, has now been suspended and will probably lose his livelihood entirely, once the new charitable company is set up. Unless, that is, those who still have it in their power to put these things right remember that though it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that we should be prepared to suffer injustice so that the truth may be known, it ought not to be the function of the Church to inflict injustice.