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 9^th, 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.