First in a series of guest articles detailing the unhappy situation in the Church of England with regard to its failures in the management of Safeguarding.
by Martyn Percy
No. 1: Who Pays?
Trust and confidence in the Archbishops’ Council and National Safeguarding Team is broken beyond repair. The statements made on safeguarding and issued by both Archbishops, senior staff and Lead Bishops seem designed only mislead both church and public. Yet ordinary members of the church seem to be powerless in the face of the lack of accountability and competence over the ways in which safeguarding policy and practice is being operated.
Recently, the Archbishop of York was found to have deliberately lied to General Synod over progress on reviews and the closure of the ISB. Victims of abuse are now writing to their MPs and calling out the deceptions, incompetence and cover-ups. In a short series of five extracts of letters sent to Members of Parliament, the case for root and branch reform is set out.
These short extracts detail the deceptions fed to General Synod, the wider Church of England and general public. On the scales of justice, we find that statements from either of the Archbishops cannot be trusted and have little weight. Furthermore, little, if anything, that the Archbishops’ Council says to General Synod about safeguarding is likely to be true. The scales of justice can no longer be balanced, and victims are now calling upon Parliament to intervene as a matter of urgency.
In five brief extracts taken from letters to MPs, the issues now being put to Parliament are carefully set out, and the call for independent statutory regulation of church safeguarding is made. Victims of abuse and injustice have no confidence in the Church of England’s leadership being able or willing to address the abuses it continues to perpetrate. Only external legal independent intervention can right these wrongs, and finally put a complete stop to all of the continuing injustices that the Church of England’s safeguarding policies and practices perpetuate.
We write to inform you that victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the Church of England are now receiving ‘Cease and Desist’ letter from Farrer & Co., stating that complaints about the conduct of the Archbishops’ Council and other officers amount to acts of harassment. At the same time, the Archbishops claim that Non-Disclosure Agreements’ have no place in the Church of England in safeguarding disputes. Yet they continue to be used.
Attempts made to discover how much the ‘Cease and Desist’ letters have cost the charity, how many victims are being persecuted with threats of police action, legal costs if they persist in complaining, and whether or not all the members of the Archbishops’ Council are even aware of who is writing in their name as trustees, have been firmly rebuked. Audit Committee members have been told to mind their own business.
Recently, Andrew Selous, a former Member of Parliament and a Church Estates Commissioner responsible for answering other MP’s questions about the Church of England, faced some testing questions on safeguarding matters in mid-December 2023. In response to questions raised by Sir Ben Bradshaw in the House of Commons over serious concerns relating to the conduct of the Archbishops’ Council in safeguarding and Mr. William Nye’s treatment of victims of abuse, the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council and General Synod responded to Mr. Selous as follows:
Dear Andrew
You passed on some further questions received from Sir Ben Bradshaw about the Archbishops’ Council’s interim support scheme for victims and survivors of Church-related abuse.
The Scheme was developed to assist victims and survivors in urgent need and at point of crisis. It is operated by the Archbishops’ Council (AC), and responds to urgent requests from victims and survivors of Church-related abuse. Neither the AC nor the Church of England more widely can support victims and survivors indefinitely; and it would be unhelpful if victims and survivors become dependent on financial assistance for the Church of England in the long term…the AC nor other Church of England bodies can take the place of the statutory benefits system. However, each application is reviewed by the Scheme panel…assessed, and awards made on an individual’s needs and circumstances on a case-by-case basis applying the terms of reference.
The National Safeguarding Team provide regular updates to the Archbishops’ Council about the Scheme, including management information. The Scheme does not have specific performance targets in place. The Scheme staff are developing an applicant feedback form but that is not currently in place.
All complaints against members of staff of the National Church Institutions are logged and monitored by the Director for the business area. Any complaints against members of the National Safeguarding Teams are monitored by the senior leadership team for recurring themes and, where necessary, to improve working practices and service delivery.
The Scheme staff have collected feedback from applicants who have provided it, and this is also acted upon to improve the scheme delivery. An example of this is that feedback from applicants to the Scheme have informed the recent review and amendment to the TORs, and an increase in resources in the team to manage the demands.
I am not aware of a commitment to record and publish satisfaction levels. We have no plans to publish this data. Feedback on the Scheme will be used to inform and improve working practices as part of our continued commitment to listen and act on victims’ and survivors’ voices.
Sir Ben posed various questions relating to the Archbishops’ Council’s Audit and Risk Committee (ARC). I should note that the roles of the ARC, and of AC management are distinct. The role of the ARC is to support an organisation in fulfilling its governance and oversight responsibilities in relation to financial reporting, internal control structure, risk management systems and internal and external audit functions. It acts as a strategic oversight function that should be independent from the management functions which are responsible for the design, operation, and monitoring of the internal control structure.
The AC ARC Terms of Reference reflect that independent role of the committee. Whilst the ARC could request that an internal audit review of the Interim Support Scheme be undertaken, it would not be appropriate for the ARC to become involved in the management of the Interim Support Scheme, including any monitoring activities and decision making. For all AC internal audit reviews that are carried out, the findings of these audits are presented to the AC ARC for review and consideration, and to note and consider potential further actions as may be appropriate based on the audit conclusions.
I hope this is useful.
Best wishes for Advent and Christmas,
William Nye LVO
Secretary General.
The risk and the responsibility in safeguarding, as Mr. Nye describes it, is therefore to be passed on to the taxpayer and government, and back to the victims. Mr. Nye, as Secretary General, confirms that Church of England policy is to ultimately pass on the costs, risks and responsibility for victims of sexual abuse and harmed by its actions and processes to HM Treasury and the taxpayers. The context for this note might be treated as an unfortunate one-off lapse, were it not for a number of Diocesan Directors of Finance in the Church of England reportedly briefed by Mr. Nye that they did not need to be setting aside contingency funds in their diocesan budgets and forward planning for legal claims made by victims of abuse, as such accountability for any likely financial compensation will never happen.
As a model of governance, the Church of England has lost the trust, confidence and respect of the nation. A recent social policy survey for the University of London found church leaders to be amongst our least trusted public figures. No amount of spin, PR or propaganda can re-set this. There will be no reform or renewal of the church until the endemic truth-decay is properly addressed.
Thank you very much to Stephen and Martyn for the information in this blog; also to the other guest writers to come. The Church of England shenanigans is at last being revealed in a powerful way.
It raises hope that at long last the wind of change blows through safeguarding in the C/E and there is the likelihood of possible justice. Of course I realise that for many victims and survivors, their hopes have been dashed so often over the years that they dare not hope any more. They dare not hope because the subsequent disappointment is so bitterly unbearable; but do not worry my friends, I have enough strong hope for you all.
Again, many thanks.
The Church of England also passes the costs onto the NHS and the Police for physical, spiritual, emotional and psychological therapy. The Police are now being trained to recognise spiritual abuse in interviewing victims to delicately unravel the abuse of ‘forgive and forget’ so that damaged Christians can understand that it is an opportunity to report issues, and do something good for the community. For me personally, I feel very stupid for having been deceived so thoroughly by the abuser and the whole structure of the Church, diocese and parish. I no longer trust my own judgement so I don’t trust anyone now. Throughout my journey from abuse and the ongoing safeguarding process damage, I personally must have cost the NHS thousands and thousands. I am nowhere near recovered, or got my life back. The NHS now recognises religious abuse as an issue and it will provide therapy for that injury that is inflicted on victims.
Now, given that the NHS and the Police now recognise, and do something about, the sexual and spiritual abuse in the Church of England, it is high time for the Church to do the same since it provides an orchard for these bad apples to grow, but expects everyone else to pick up the tab. They even think Jesus will pick up the tab and they expect to behave with no earthly or heavenly consequences.
In the Hindu faith, it is one of the ten offences against God that you mock him, and you pretend to repent when you have not; the Scripture goes as far as saying that Krishna can regard that as an even worse sin than the original offence committed, so it makes it to the ‘top ten’ offences against God. Christianity dispenses with that thought entirely, leaving abusers to do what they like with no thought for others, and the Church of England creates that structure that completely ignores any thoughts of morality and responsibility. Stay away from the Church of England – it only learns how to protect itself better. I don’t know what the Church is for any more, but it is not a ‘church for all’ with a ‘welcome for all’.
I don’t believe that “reform” of safeguarding will ever work because reform ignores the fundamental problem: that those in charge of the Church of England lack Christian love, compassion and empathy. In the case of at least one Archbishop, he seems to lack the ability to even tell the truth.
I conclude that something is very wrong with the way we select and train our priests.
I was a loyal and hardworking member of my congregation in Berlin. I was subject to very hurtful accusations which caused me to fall into acute depression. I consider all the accusations to be false but even if every one was true, isn’t it the duty of every Anglican priest to show compassion to a parishioner in acute distress ?
I tell this story not to elicit sympathy but to illustrate that far too many priests have very little love and compassion in their hearts.
That’s the consequence of managing our national church as if it were an oil company not the body of Christ.
Changed rules are still there to be bent by clergy who have lost sight of the clear message of the gospels to care for the vulnerable.
My Anglican priest showed no compassion to me and still shuns me.
He acted to support the establishment and failed all his christian duties.
We all know what the solutions are : clergy who are christians and external safeguarding.
Several years ago I witnessed a Halloween Horror story involving a Cambridge-educated professor, a senior teacher, a medic and a businessman. Wanton contempt for standards was clearly present. There was bullying, harassment and breach of confidentiality, plus a contempt for commonplace values informing our systems of law or ethics. Victims felt wild and unfair allegations of sexual misconduct were made with savage and sadistic brutality. The woeful response of Anglican Bishops and Archbishops further compounded victim distress. The case for a formal and independent inquiry, overseen by a suitably qualified professional, was overwhelming in my assessment of the situation. But the Anglican Church preferred to brush it all under the carpet with disdainful arrogance. A ‘Matthew 28:18 misapplication syndrome’ [“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”] makes some arrogant Bishops or Archbishops feel they can disregard Church rules, national law and biblically derived ‘rules of evidence’ (or natural justice).
I saw individuals, households and family units feel attacked. The Church fixed for a close associate or friend of the primary abuser to examine victim complaints. There was a glaring conflict of interest and no appetite for any proper inquiry. The collapse and contracture of the Anglican Church proves the old adage ‘ideas have consequences’. The idea that an organisation can abuse its members and expect their loyal support is farcical. The closure of churches and declining congregations does not crop up in a vacuum. I was once a passionate supporter of my local congregation, but no more: one lives and one learns.
The victims above were protected by a senior minister who got wind of the savagery. Their advice was for us to escape ASAP. They outlined wanton contempt for Anglican rules, natural law and justice. A great disappointment was the ‘lackey factor’. Servile lackeys in our diocese failed to blow the whistle or intervene. There a range of groups (or people) who have persistently failed to flag up scandalous ill-treatment of people: Director of ordinands-silent. Tutors-silent. Fellow students-silent. Clergy-silent. Safeguarding-silent. Church members -silent. Para-Church groups-silent.
It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be raising with the Second Estates Commissioner (when one is finally appointed) why the Church of England thinks that, at a time of considerable financial restraint and when the Church Commissioners have enough money in their bank accounts to pay 50% of the £22bn which she says she has inherited in unfunded commitments, that it is the taxpayer – including old age pensioners who have just been asked to take a cut of £300 each and face a winter of reduced heating – who should be picking up the tab for an organisation which is patently failing to prevent repeated harm to the people it deals with and then increases the harm by how it treats them later.
We know that the famous C of E Interim Support Scheme is currently trying to make at least one abuse victim rely on their partner for support (assuming they are willing to) rather than cough up.
If we were back in the States, these folks would be sitting at home counting their way through about $10 million each.
I am sorry to read this. No blame attaches to you at all for any I usual trust you placed in the Church. Many abuse victims too thought and trusted that when they reported abuse the Church would act as it should. Many have been reabused by the Church and lost their trust. It appears from surveys that the message that the Church cannot be trusted has got through to the general public. But earlier victims were not to know. It’s not that your judgement was at fault, just that the callous reputation management by the Church was not known to earlier victims until they reported their abuse.
The above was a reply to Jennifer.