by Janet Fife
I’m not sure how it’s happened, but after 40 years in the Church of England I still believe it’s appropriate to declare an interest when commenting (let alone acting) on a matter of which one has some personal knowledge.
I’ll therefore say here that I’ve met George and Eileen Carey in both professional and social contexts a number of times over the years – beginning with an interview at Trinity College, Bristol, in late 1983 – and regard them as friends. It follows that I cannot claim to be an impartial observer in the safeguarding cases involving George.
I think that knowing the impact on a conscientious person of having failed badly in one high profile safeguarding case, and being accused of failings in another, has given me a more balanced perspective in the ongoing campaign against Church of England abuse than I would otherwise have had. This has its own value.
On 17 June 2020 Oxford Diocese released a statement that during the course of Keith Makin’s review into the John Smyth case, ‘new information has come to light regarding Lord Carey, which has been passed to the National Safeguarding Team for immediate attention as per the agreed Terms of Reference for the review. A Core Group was formed, according to House of Bishops Guidance, and it advised the Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford, to withdraw Lord Carey’s Permission to Officiate (PTO) while the matter is investigated. Lord Carey’s PTO was revoked by the Bishop of Oxford on Wednesday 17 June. Lord Carey is currently unauthorised to undertake any form of ministry in the Diocese until further notice.’
George himself had been notified only hours before. He was given little time to absorb the news, or to inform family and friends and cancel any preaching engagements before people heard via the media. Twelve days later it was announced that Bishop Stephen Cottrell, whose appointment as Archbishop of York had been announced, had been under investigation for an alleged safeguarding failure for some months past, and had been found to be at fault. He issued an apology, no penalty was imposed, and no announcement was made until the case was concluded. There was comment at the time about the disparity between George’s treatment and Stephen’s; we were left to infer that the lapse George was accused of was more serious than Stephen’s. George has been under this cloud of suspicion for more than six months.
The retired barrister and General Synod member David Lamming wrote to the Church Times, in a letter published 3 July 2020, arguing that ‘the recent revocation of Lord Carey’s PTO…cannot conceivably be justified on any safeguarding basis…Frankly, the Church’s action is both irrational and cruel, and the PTO should be restored forthwith.’ It wasn’t, of course.
Suspension from office or removal of PTO is a sensible option when allowing someone to preach or conduct services poses an actual danger. This might be if there was evidence that the priest or Reader had abused someone physically, sexually, psychologically, or spiritually; if they were preaching heresy; or operating a cult. In those circumstances it needs to be made clear that the alleged offender does not have the Church’s approval and authority. It’s necessary because people tend to trust clergy.
Making faulty decisions about safeguarding comes into a different category, especially for those who are retired and no longer in a position to make such decisions. Such ministers pose no actual risk to others. And when someone’s PTO is withdrawn there are so many others who suffer: the overworked clergy they are helping, family and old friends for whom their participation in funerals and weddings means a lot; all those who would have received their ministry. Why should these people suffer if the minister poses no danger?
The problem is that the Church of England has very few disciplinary tools at its disposal. ‘Rebuke’ is one of the penalties available under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (see section 24(1)(f)), but only after a finding of misconduct has been made in proceedings under the Measure. By contrast, the granting or withdrawal of PTO is entirely at the discretion of the diocesan bishop. There is no due process, no right of appeal, and no mechanism for appeal. This is clearly unsatisfactory. A bishop is able, if s/he wishes, to withhold PTO until a minister admits guilt and apologises for something they have not done.
There is an important point, too, regarding historical safeguarding lapses. Those of us who have been working since the 1980s to get the Church to take abuse seriously will know how much the general level of awareness has changed since then. There is still a long way to go, especially as regards good process and treatment of survivors, but it is at least accepted that safeguarding is a serious issue.
To put this in historical perspective: the UK’s Children Act was not enacted until 1989; the Church of England introduced its first child protection policy in 1995. As late as 1998 the then Vice Principal of Cranmer Hall strongly resisted my suggestion that pastoralia training for ordinands ought to include information on abuse and the pastoral care of survivors. That Vice Principal is now the Bishop of Oxford, who removed George Carey’s PTO for a supposed safeguarding lapse in 1983/84.
I have seen the evidence that Keith Makin sent to the NST. It consists of two letters from Canon David MacInnes, then Birmingham’s Diocesan Missioner, to the Rev. David Fletcher of the Iwerne Trust. The first is dated 15 June 1983; the second 7 June 1984. Both are strikingly vague. There is no subject heading, no reference to previous correspondence; everyone except George Carey (then Principal of Trinity College, Bristol) and Free Church minister David Jackman is referred to by their initials. The1983 letter has ‘dictated by David MacInnes and signed’ under the signature of a woman who was presumably his secretary. The 1984 letter is signed ‘David’ but also appears to be professionally typed. As a former secretary myself, it looks to me as though Canon MacInnes did not want her to know what he was writing about in those letters. It follows that it isn’t clear to us either – unless, of course, we are prepared to read a lot into them.
The June 1984 letter suggests that George Carey had been sent a copy of ‘Mark’s memo’. The NST’s Statement of Safeguarding Concern in this case, which is undated, assumes that ‘Mark’s memo’ is the Ruston Report of 1982. They have offered no evidence to support this assumption; nor is there any record that George received and read ‘Mark’s memo’, whatever that was. (It is known that a brief and much vaguer memo was circulated to a wider group than received the Ruston Report.) George has no recollection of it – nor, indeed, of John Smyth. Smyth was a sabbatical student at Trinity for a single term beginning April 1983, and does not seem to have been in college much. David Pennant, who knew Smyth well and was a student at Trinity at the time, says that he never saw him there. Canon Williams, who was Course Leader at Trinity then, is in fact the only member of staff who remembers Smyth at all. He says, ‘The [Iwerne] Trustees had no reason… to say more than that they supported John’s wish to take a sabbatical and do some theological study. I saw him, I recall, as a wealthy successful lawyer able to take time-out to pursue his passion.’
Canon Williams’ supporting evidence that the Ruston Report was not known among staff at the college, and that George would certainly have told senior staff if he had been aware of serious allegations made against Smyth, was discounted by the core group chaired by Bishop Tim Thornton – even though, privately, he told Lord Alex Carlile QC (who wrote the 2017 Review into the Bishop Bell case) that he was impressed by that evidence.
The NST’s whole case against George Carey rests on the unsupported assumption that George had received, and read, the Ruston Report with its detailed account of Smyth’s offences. Barrister David Lamming, who has seen the MacInnes letters, comments:
‘it’s only a matter of inference that the ‘Mark’s memo’ referred to in the 7 June 1984 letter is the 1982 Ruston Report… by no sensible train of reasoning could it be said that the letters provide evidence that George was a safeguarding risk 36 years later such as to justify/require his PTO to be revoked as an 84-year-old retired priest.’
Bishop Tim Thornton and the NST regarded these two letters as a smoking gun – in fact they’re just a fag end in the gutter.
Astute readers will be scratching their heads, wondering why David Fletcher, David MacInnes, and the other surviving men on the circulation list of the Ruston Report have not been subject to similar measures as those taken against George Carey. Bishop Thornton and the NST seized on George, who at worst had only been a very peripheral figure in the Smyth case, and have taken no action against any of the central figures. All of those men who are ordained and still alive have been left with their reputations intact and the continued freedom to minister if they wished to do so.
Only George, after a lifetime’s faithful service, and his family have been left unsupported, undefended, and badly bruised by this experience.
I will leave the last word to Lord Carlile, who has acted for George in this case: ‘The process used against George lacked independence and objectivity. They provided inadequate opportunities for George’s case to be heard, and no opportunity to challenge their witnesses such as they were. There should be root and branch reform, to provide a proper investigative and disciplinary process comparable with that for doctors and other professional groups.’
The granting of PTO is a privilege. Might not an outside observer take it as a personal endorsement? And contrariwise, might not its removal be used as a rebuke? But the inconsistency does trouble me.
Imagine if a doctor could practice medicine solely on the whim of the Chair of the Local Health Authority. The licence could be taken away at any time, without appeal, and there was no grievance procedure. If the doctor complained, s/he would be told that a licence to practice medicine is a privilege, and is the personal endorsement of the LHA Chair. That’s the system that clergy like George Carey and Martyn Percy are facing.
You, as a Reader, might face it too. It only needs a letter written by some third party 40 years ago saying you’d seen a document, which in fact the secretary had opened and then passed on to someone else. And that would be the end of you reading lessons, preaching, or taking services. There’d be nothing you could do about it. No one would believe you, and you’d have lost your good name, for ever.
That’s not quite right. PTO is for retired clergy and Readers. Removing someone’s licence is very much more drastic. And yes, I turn 70 in the summer. I will be booted out. I think I should be awarded some injury time, but that’s not likely. They should be consistent, and they’re not. But at least George has had a successful career. And a pension. I’m not heartless. I’m sorry he’s hurt, and angry that it can be done on a whim. I’ve only had half a ministry thanks to clergy gossip and heartlessness. I just spotted the pingback! So, sorted. Good.
Athena, retired clergy on PTO are roughly equivalent to retired doctors who still do locum work. I think the analogy holds. There’s a similar analogy for lawyers, teachers, etc. That’s why Lord Carlile says there should be similar processes.
I’m sorry you’ve had only half a ministry due to what sounds like equally unfair treatment. But many dioceses allow Readers to take services well beyond 70. Doesn’t yours?
I’m not safe in the Diocese at large and I will probably either have to give up, or leave where I and my family are settled.
That’s tough. I’m so sorry.
That’s so hard, I’m sorry
I too feel for you, English Athena. I am also no longer ministering because of the complexities of my situation, too much to mention here.
Thank you. At least we can all pray for each other.
I hope things work out for you, EnglishAthena. To use the American phrase, you’re good people.
You’re very kind, Eric, thank you.
In this sad scenario an outside observer is unlikely to get any real idea of what has happened. Thank you, Janet, for this detailed information which gives us some better understanding. Once again, it’s left to Lord Carlile to point the way. Sadly, his advice was not fully heeded last time, so we can but hope.
David Fletcher, David MacInnes can be found to live in retirement in Oxford diocese so does their PTO sit with the same bishop?
– or has their PTO been withdrawn but because they are lower profile people it doesn’t require a press release?
Well, we shall find out in May when the National Clergy Register is published (that of Readers is to follow).
David Fletcher and David MacInnes are both very elderly now and Crockford doesn’t record either as having current PTO – although David MacInnes did preach at the online morning service at St. Mark’s Gillingham on 28 June 2020.
It’s not clear from Canon MacInnes’ letter how much he knew himself. He isn’t on the circulation list of the Ruston Report (which can be found here http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/970485/27843482/1519929269713/The+Ruston+Report+on+John+Smyth+1993.pdf?token=b5ZM1XU9leAUV05%2BfBelEJFZCiE%3D) and may not have known that Smyth’s brutality reached the criminal level. What is pretty certain is that he knew more than George Carey did.
David Fletcher did receive the Ruston Report, was on the list of men due to meet to discuss it, and knew the whole story.
It may be that both men, as well as those on the Ruston circulation list and others who knew, may be criticised in the Makin Report when it comes out. So far they have received no official censure as far as we know.
This is indeed a sorry tale and George has been treated badly for all the reasons you list. The Bishop of Oxford will have had no option but to act on the core group’s advice (really instruction). Whether he wanted to remove George’s PTO is unknown. If the core group did not consider David Fletcher and David MacInnes, they won’t have recommended their PTOs be withdrawn and Bishop Stephen will have had no indication that they were implicated on any way. For what it’s worth, when Steve was my boss from 1999 to 2004 I found he was very hot on safeguarding issues (given the period we are talking about when we were not as careful as we are now) and safeguarding was certainly on the curriculum in Cranmer. Maybe your conversation did the trick! (And he was the Warden – the VP post was created quite recently.)
Janet Thank you so much for this clear and informed summary of what has been going on. Almost as disturbing as the behaviour you record here is the hostility and mistrust currently being expressed against George Carey on some other discussion sites following the news of his reinstated PTO.
Unfortunately some people just ‘shoot from the hip’ without having done the necessary homework or even having a basic grip of the facts.
Janet I appreciate your post – and especially that you started with your conflict of interest. So few clergy seem to understand what it is. I don’t want to enter any discussion re the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of George Carey being given his PTO back, my concern is that his lack of action against Peter Ball, indeed his active promotion of PB, allowed PB to continue abusing people. The question is of whether his role in this as A of C should have resulted in his being barred for life. I entirely endorse your point that GC is very, very unlikely to pose a safeguarding risk now. Actions, and inactions, have consequences. As far as I am aware, Stephen Cotterill’s safeguarding inadequacy was not of the same calibre. However I take your point that the sauce seems inadequately shared between the goose and the gander. What actually concerns me more is that I disclosed sexual abuse as an 11 year old (not clergy abuse) to a serving bishop a few months ago. He should have gone to the police. As far as I am aware he did nothing. I know that I should, myself, go to the police, but I can’t. It is too difficult and painful. And will hurt too many innocent people.
Anon, so sorry to hear of your painful past. It was courageous of you to tell the Bishop and distressing if you feel nothing has happened as a result. May I suggest that you get in touch with Safe Spaces the support group set up by the church and I am sure they will follow this up for you if that is what you would like. If you email they respond within 3 days and are sexual violence advisors so their responses are appropriate.
Telephone 0300 303 1056
Safespaces@victimsupport.org.uk
Safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk
I am sure the past haunts you every day so please do get help and dont suffer in silence.
Take care
Anon, I’m really sorry to hear this. I hope you have been able to find appropriate support? There are a number of charities which exist to help victims of sexual violence. You could approach Safe Spaces, as suggested below by Trish, or your Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor. If you don’t want to involve the Church there is Survivors Voices https://survivorsvoices.org or Rape Crisis.
Recovering from and disclosing abuse is a difficult journey – I wish you well.
Dear Anon,
just want to echo what Trish and Janet have said, that was a brave thing to do, and it is a difficult and painful journey,but there is support available.
I am one of the co-founders of Survivors Voices and you can email me directly jane(atsymbol)survivorsvoices.org, we can email or speak and I can help you to think about what you want to happen, what support is available, or just to listen.
(Please replace the words with the @ symbol in my email address – I have to write it like that to prevent spam)
Just know you are not alone and it’s not ok that happened to you, and if the bishop did nothing.
Anon, my heartfelt apology for everything you have gone through. I don’t have a solution, but I am pained when I read of your experiences.
Re John Smyth. Several people here have mentioned a letter from David MacInnes. I have obviously missed something. Could somebody please tell me where this is? Thank you.
Hello Anne. The letters from David MacInnes to David Fletcher are not in the public domain, but I was allowed to see them in the process of researching this blog.
Thanks so much for letting me know, Janet.
Thank you Janet for a thought-provoking piece. You are always balanced, and informative.
I end up at a different conclusion, but your points are as always well made and I think we agree on the principles
If it were just the evidence of this case, as you have explained it, it would seem justified to restore PTO. But this isn’t an isolated incident. Personally, I don’t think he should have had it restored after the Bell case. There was deliberate withholding of evidence form the police, for example. It’s not just about does he pose a current risk? It’s also about, what message does this give to Bell and Smyth survivors and their families?
I do think that it is reasonable to withdraw PTO pending investigation when there are safeguarding concerns, including failure to follow process, although clearly that is a grey area, compared to allegations of abuse, for example. I have myself temporarily suspended staff for alleged misconduct, pending investigation, in similar circumstances as a youth work manager; and also as a union caseworker, I’ve supported education staff who have been temporarily suspended, pending internal and/or police investigations. Other professional have similar procedures. this can also be as result of an investigation. A doctor, for example, can be temporarily suspended for a set period, without being struck off the register. I would see withdraw of PTO as similar to suspension.
Indeed, as I understand it, PTO withdrawal in one diocese does not automatically result in PTO withdrawal in another, for example if someone has PTO in more than one diocese. But the better legal minds here may correct me on this? Certainly one of the clergy in my case has PTO in 2 diocese, and my understanding is that each DSA/Bishop made their own decision, without prejudice to what the other diocese decided.
The inconsistency is very troubling and appears indefensible. In addition to the examples you give here, this is inconsistent with other current cases, including mine where none of the 4 clergy concerned had their PTO withdrawn, even pending police investigation, even though the Bishop’s Policy on PTO says that should happen.
Another part of the muddle which we can only hope the core group and especially CDM reforms sort out.
Jane. Greetings. Granting PTO is in the gift of each bishop on their patch. But they would most certainly expect to be informed by relevant information from another dioceses. The problem has been that until now there has been no way of sharing that information (the person may been licensed in 4 or 5 dioceses over a number of years). There is shortly to be a national register for PTO so it will then be straightforward for a bishop considering a PTO request to know if concerning history or issues exist elsewhere.
Thank you , Jane, and I hope you are well.
I apologise if I wasn’t clear on the point of removal of PTO. I agree that suspension of a person in post for a contemporary and poor safeguarding decisions may be the right decision. As you rightly say, poor safeguarding decision-making, as opposed to abusing someone, is a grey area. I think we need more debate on it and I hope that revising the CDM will give occasion for discussion.
In my view removing the PTO of a minister who no longer has safeguarding responsibilities, and when the case in question occurred long before safeguarding was invented, is less easy to justify.
I understand your point about the message to survivors. My abusers haven’t faced a reckoning either, and when you’ve been the victim of a crime it’s natural to want someone to be punished. But if the Church had not rushed to go public with this matter, the question of its message to survivors wouldn’t have arisen. The Smyth survivors have bene very badly served in all this.
Totally Janet, and you were probably clear, I am just as likely to have misconstrued!
There is something so toxic about the details of all our cases being debated in public. It really saddens me at the moment, to be honest.
Sorry Janet, meant to say I am so sorry and disgusted that your abusers never faced a reckoning. What happened to you mattered, and they should be held to account.
Also, for me its not about punishment. I don’t think punishment ever results in a positive conclusion. I worked with children and young people for many years, as well as raising my own and some foster young people, and I never used or referred to punishment.
You probably agree with this, but its about consequences and accountability.
I wouldn’t want someone like George Carey who at the least, made grave errors of judgement, to be punished. But I do think that in view of the devastating effect of his actions (or inactions), not only should there be consequences for him, there needs to be transparent accountability.
We could definitely debate whether withdrawal of PTO is the most appropriate way to do that. But I think the accountability needs to happen, and needs to be seen to be done.
One issue here is “due process”. In the case of Jeremy Pemberton’s PTO, for example, which many people commenting here would suggest was wrongly withheld, how could due process have been achieved? And if an investigation (as in this case) concludes (as it may have done – I haven’t seen the detail) that there is no reason to withhold PTO, why should it not be granted? The process is undoubtedly imperfect, but the issues of punishment for past failure and assessment of present risk, whilst potentially linked, are not the same.
I highlighted the Osborne Report some while back, and have sent a few emails to selected people to remind them of the contents over the years. The practice at the date of that report (1989) was shocking (which was reported without shame by a group of people, some of whom have been at the forefront of the development of safeguarding practice since). It is really hard, without a damp towel and a timeline. to realise how quickly things have changed.
I’m not interested in whitewashing the past, but to suggest that an individual is responsible for the failures of a whole organisation and culture is rather dangerous. Maybe George Carey could have made a difference, had he acted differently in Bristol, but bear in mind he wasn’t in the public school/Iwerne charmed circle – his roots were rather different.
I do think survivors/victims need to be treated better and (urgently) with more dignity and compassion. I’d rather that were done by the current generation than by the symbolic sacrifice of George Carey.