Thoughts on the Elliott Review ‘translation’ by Archbishops Council

by Gilo

The Elliott review (2016) might have been a turning point for the Church of England in its approach to safeguarding. A professional expert was looking at Church of England’s practice and giving it crystal clear advice about how to conduct safeguarding matters. Instead, as Gilo explains, it was mangled almost beyond recognition by those who saw it as a threat to the status-quo. What was put into practice was almost unrecognisable from the original recommendations. (Ed)

This essay gathers together further comments on the story that appeared in the Church Times last week on the strategic response by Archbishops’ Council to several Elliott review recommendations. A discovery that, following the letter to the Charity Commission signed by over 600, provides further evidence for the need for Archbishops’ Council to be reviewed by an external body.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/11-september/news/uk/elliott-condemns-pr-response-to-his-safeguarding-review

Phil Johnson (Chair of MACSAS) commenting:

‘If this indeed is the Church’s interpretation of the recommendation from the Elliott Review then it would appear that it has been subject to an auto-translation into Mandarin and then back again several times. It is noteworthy that in the ‘dialogue’, the voices missing are the survivors themselves or anyone advocating for them.’

To better understand his comment, here’s that section of the review recommendations..

The Role of Advisors

i. All advice received by agents employed by the Church, should be referenced against the stated policies of the Church before it is followed. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that financial considerations are not given a priority that conflicts with the pastoral aims of the Church when engaging with survivors of abuse.

ii. The Church should seek to create written down guidance with regard to how it will respond to claims for compensation from survivors. This guidance should be shared with survivors from an early juncture in the process. Every effort should be made to avoid an adversarial approach, placing emphasis on the provision of financial compensation as an aid to healing and closure for the survivor.

Now look at how the Role of Advisors section was ‘translated’ by Archbishops Council in a document called Draft Plan for Implementation of Recommendations.

The Role of Advisors

NST and the Archbishops Council are in dialogue with EIG to highlight the experiences of survivors. On August 9th, there was a meeting of 4 people from EIG and members of the archbishop’s council, including the legal team, Comms and safeguarding team to look at a more joined up approach in relation to press/media on stories.

Richard Scorer comments:

‘The church’s response to abuse should be based on objective and fair minded analysis of the evidence and provision of proper pastoral support for those affected. It should not be driven by “reputation management”. It is now beyond doubt that the investigation of safeguarding complaints against clergy and church officials needs to be done by an independent, external body – as long as the church continues to mark its own homework, there will be the suspicion that the church’s response is being driven by reputational protection and internal political score settling as opposed to proper principles of safeguarding. The current arrangements are untenable and reform is urgently needed.

Justin Humphreys (CEO thirtyone:eight) writes:

‘I share your concern regarding the apparent abandonment of the full recommendations contained within the review. I also share your concern relating to the lack of progress being made with requests made by Ian Elliott following public comments from EIG with an apparent desire to discredit the substance and evidence underpinning his recommendations. As I recall, the initial action plan was published by the Church of England and then an update was published about a year later. From that date onward, I am not aware of any further publication, update of dialogue with regard to the implementation of the action plan. I have certainly not been invited to be a part of any such discussions. I am not aware of what action has been taken to meet this recommendation or where it may be referenced within current policy, procedure or guidance within the Church of England. If I were to be charitable on this matter, I would say that perhaps it has inadvertently become buried in the sheer volume of other matters being considered. Even if that were the case, this is a critical matter that deserves a clear and unequivocal response as it sits at the heart of the response received by many survivors, which as we know is too often not what it should be. What has always been required with such a clear set of recommendations is a determined and unswerving degree of attention. It is for the Church of England to demonstrate their commitment in this regard.’

Revd Canon Rosie Harper, Co-Author of To Heal and Not to Hurt: A fresh approach to safeguarding in the Church:

‘This makes heartbreaking reading. It shows clearly that, despite a series of earnest and often tear-stained assurances that the Church of England would now put survivors first, the truth is the opposite. The management of its reputation is still the primary concern. There are undoubtedly many good and compassionate individuals trying to make a difference, but it seems that as an institution the Church of England is incapable of real change.’

Gilo, Co-Editor of Letters to a Broken Church and subject of the Elliott review.

It is remarkable that following a complaint to Archbishops’ Council, none of the departments involved (legal, comms, NST, Ab Council senior management) had any further record or recollection of this meeting. So the complaint could not be carried forward and was dismissed. Ecclesiastical Insurance were able to provide me with their notes from that meeting – in which it clearly states that one point in the discussion was “reputational risk to both the Church and Ecclesiastical.” Quite why members of the NST were involved in discussing reputational risk to the Church’s insurer – is unclear.

It is also surprising that this document and its divergence from the clarity and spirit of the recommendations did not emerge at IICSA. I imagine Archbishops Council and Church House lawyers were not keen to draw any attention to it.

The Bishop of London, mandated by Archbishop Welby to champion the review, in her IICSA statement said that she did not see it as “part of my role to seek to address, or change, the relationship between EIG and the Church”. Instead, she relied on assurance from EIG’s “Guiding Principles” document that there was no conflict of interest between the two in their handling of survivors. Sadly, any attempt on my part to seek the Bishop to address the repeated public dissembling by EIG around the Review (later highlighted at a recall to the Inquiry) was met with a brick wall of silence. There was simply no interest or engagement in questions about the insurer’s dishonest treatment of the Review. It became clear that the Bishop of London was operating from instructions from higher-ups to play such questions down.

The Bishop might have been a rallying point for change, real change. But it has been up to the persistence and tenacity of survivors like Tony, Julian and myself (and our allies who recognise injustice and unethical practice) to bring the highly questionable processes of Ecclesiastical and their lawyer Paula Jefferson of Berrymans, Lace and Mawer into daylight. More is emerging in coming months. We have had to do much work, and continue to do so, to bring the Church to recognition of its own duplicity. One of the things emerging is the ‘genetic predisposition’ argument deployed against survivors in a highly adversarial process … as in “your client was already genetically predisposed to stress disorder and depression”. This, when it has been used, appears to have been on the basis of extremely flimsy evidence from an expert who is not a geneticist, has had no access to genetic material, and no access to family medical notes. A handful of senior bishops have been aware of this since 2017 (I was present when they were told). I understand other senior bishops, including former lead bishops, have been aware since 2011. Archbishop Welby was personally told of this particular argument deployed by Paula Jefferson and her medical experts early in his days at Lambeth Palace. But it has been up to survivors to bring this into daylight across a decade. This has been the pattern: survivors have to do all the driving. We believe this argument has been deployed as a strategy across many spheres, not just within Church of England cases.

Two intriguing things I have recently heard. Archbishop Welby is apparently extremely angry – ‘fuming’ was the word used – at the way in which EIG and Paula Jefferson have responded to situations – angry at the continuing reputational damage these agents of the Church are bringing their client. It’s unlikely he will confirm this. But it’s not good enough. He and his Church have been quietly complicit with much unethical process despite being challenged over many years. The Church at senior level has turned a blind eye when it suited them, and watched survivors do all the work. To express anger when there has been so much duplicity is somewhat meaningless.

I have also heard on good authority that one senior bishop who sits in the House of Lords now believes that a Truth and Reconciliation process is necessary. I don’t know exactly what he envisages, we’ve not spoken recently, but I will ask him. If his idea encompasses all of the episcopacy, then I agree. The Church’s senior layer has to come to a painful and honest reckoning with itself – with real apologies for real failures and real instances of dishonesty, and not some flimsy sound-bite apology crafted by Comms. There needs to be authentic and public recognition by the bishops that in so many situations they have put reputation and protection of structure above the needs of survivors – and used “no recollections” and similar denials, much distancing and duplicity, gaslighting of survivors, as an automatic response. There must come a time when they finally put their hands up to much shabby and dishonourable behaviour.

All these things must be faced squarely and real amends made. I cannot see this happening without a genuine T&R process which encompasses all of the bishops, including Archbishop Welby who has significantly enabled this broken culture. And the current lead bishops must recognise that safeguarding and the management of reviews, and response to survivors, must now be removed from the control of Archbishops’ Council. It is unfit. Its culture has already done too much damage to both survivors and to the Church.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

7 thoughts on “Thoughts on the Elliott Review ‘translation’ by Archbishops Council

  1. Gilo: Thank you very much for this and for your latest remarks on TA.

    “Archbishop Welby is apparently extremely angry – ‘fuming’ was the word used – at the way in which EIG and Paula Jefferson have responded to situations – angry at the continuing reputational damage these agents of the Church are bringing their client.”

    It is reassuring to know that he still exists. I and others had practically forgotten about him. He seemed to vanish in April after the criticism of the Church’s response to lockdown became too intense, and he does not yet appear to have re-emerged. It is all a very far cry from the attempts at ‘moral leadership’ in 2013-14 (viz. the banking committee, Wonga, etc.).

    I see the experience endured by Gilo and Ian Elliott as being all of a piece with the spectacular mismanagement of the Church during this crisis: the authorities drift along – either lazily or cynically – morbidly hoarding cash within the Commissioners (lest it be lost to desperate parishes or aggrieved victims of abuse), managing their reputations and diverting blame to others.

    Many bishops today are not so much pastors as managers. The problem is that they don’t appear to be too good at managing, and certainly not at crisis management.

  2. https://www.postonline.co.uk/claims/7681106/former-broadmoor-psychiatrist-faces-investigation-for-role-in-ecclesiastical-abuse-claims

    More on the ‘genetic predisposition’ argument and other aspects of the adversarial nature of CSA settlements is published in Insurance Post today. One of the experts regularly employed on behalf of the Church of England is currently being investigated by the General Medical Council for his role as an expert witness in Ecclesiastical insurance church abuse claims. Excerpt below:

    ‘Phil Johnson, the chair of survivor group Macsas, was assessed by Maden when he initiated his 2010 claim against Ecclesiastical. The insurer hired Maden to assess Johnson based on medical records, a previous report by another expert and a one page resume from a psychotherapist. The two met face-to-face once for “about 45 minutes” according to Johnson.

    After sending a letter pointing out 34 examples of alleged “inaccuracies, supposition, speculation and in places fabrication” in Maden’s 2010 assessment of him, seen by Post, Johnson alleges the psychiatric profile provided arguing he was “genetically predisposed” to mental health problems and, therefore, the abuse was not responsible for his difficulties was quietly dropped by the insurer’s lawyers.
    Many survivors will begin to make a claim because they have started on a course of therapy and are seeking to recoup the costs, according to Johnson. He has been involved with survivor groups for over 20 years, describing the claims process as like “horse trading” with very few cases ever making it to court.

    He accused insurers of using a “very hostile medical examination to undermine the victims”.

    “The purpose of it is really to minimise the damages,” Johnson criticised.’

  3. Gilo: We have discussed this issue previously both here and on ‘Thinking Anglicans’. Unless anything has substantially changed (and that would be contrary to current trends in tort law which have generally widened rather than restricted liability for injuries) this pre-disposition ‘argument’ is spurious. I recall quoting the “egg shell skull” scenario as affording no defence at all to the perpetrator of injury – in everyday language, “you take your victim as you find him” (or her, of course). My recollection is that this was followed up by others in more detail. The principle is entirely legal – not medical, although medical evidence is necessary to evaluate the injury. I recall we quoted the example of a broken arm or leg. It’s no defence for the person causing the injury to argue that the injured person had brittle bones and that someone without that condition would not have had fractures. That person is to be compensated for the injury actually suffered.

  4. Thank you Gilo for your diligence and persistence in continuing to raise these issues. The psychiatric assessments do concern me, if I ever felt it right to attempt a civil claim. How anyone can think that a ‘desktop’ assessment is adequate, is beyond me.

    The focus on risk management in the current core group process and the routine inclusion of a communication expert inevitably leads to a focus on reputational risk. To me this is one of the essential fundamental reforms that needs to come out of the current policy review. Comms people have no place in safeguarding procedures. It should be just safeguarding professionals and direct stakeholders (person who abused, person abused, their advocates, family, in separate meetings for safety, parish). Comms, legal & insurance advice comes after safeguarding decisions have been made.

    I hope you are right about a Truth & Reconciliation process. It is all I have ever wanted but sadly we are still a long way away from that possibility…

    1. Desk-topping has been used more widely than we realised. And even sought by one diocese outside of the legal process in an attempt to discredit a survivor’s account of disclosure and questions to their bishop.

      In the legal process, how any settlement can be arrived at fairly and justly on the basis of a desk-top report is beyond imagination. The use of it in Tony’s case is utterly disgraceful. I hope the Church now looks very hard at any agents it employs in any future settlement processes. My guess is that BLM has been getting away with so much in tandem with EIG over the years, with very little check from clients on their combined tactics – that both have felt increasingly emboldened to go to the limit of what most would consider ethical practice. They thought they’d get away with it – just as EIG thought they’d get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of a government inquiry. Worth pointing out that Carl Beech is serving 18 years for perverting the course of justice and lying to the police under oath. EIG lied under oath at IICSA and no-one is in prison.

      On the presence of Comms in core groups, I agree with you. The NST for far too long has been dominated by the contaminant presence of Comms, which has often operated as part of its leadership. Just as their core groups have been contaminated by the presence of lawyers and insurer’s lawyers. But all of this has brought the Church increasing reputational damage.

      I believe the way towards change of culture – which I know the lead bishops are keen to bring about – is a Truth and Reconciliation initiative led by the Archbishops and including the whole of the senior layer. They must own and name such things as coverup (active and passive), denials, distancing, no recollections, dishonesty, duplicity, dishonest treatment of reviews, cowardly behaviour, silencing, complicity with reabuse by legal process, etc. And I believe this should be led by the Archbishop of Canterbury whose own cowardly behaviour towards the Iwerne survivors has been notable.

      The soul-sickness of the Church will continue to worsen the longer the bishops continue to hide within an unaccountable structure. They must finally hold themselves to account as a House of Bishops. I’m not sure what this looks like – but it must not look like the meaningless drivel from Comms which now does their structure more reputational damage than good. The House of Bishops must make the whole church and the world’s media sit up and take notice. And speak in a way that is authentically contrite and searingly honest and puts an end to much episcopal behaviour that has been deplorable.

      Can they do it? I don’t know. It’s not a particularly shining culture across the top of the Church. And much duplicity is being protected.

Comments are closed.