This week, IICSA has been listening to evidence from the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham and its poor record of dealing with the sexual abuse of children by clergy. Birmingham Catholics can claim one unenviable record over the Anglican Church. One of their priests, James Robinson, was sentenced to the longest ever period in prison for a church related sexual offence against minors, 21 years. The severity of his crimes was known about for decades, but the church authorities seemed curiously reluctant to do anything decisive about his case. Instead he was apparently harboured, protected and allowed to spend time abroad
The chief witness, Cardinal Vincent Nicholls, formerly Archbishop of Birmingham, did not appear on Tuesday as had been prearranged. He had been taken ill at a Remembrance Sunday gathering. We were given a long time for the examination of the diocesan officer for safeguarding, Jane Jones. Her testimony was punctuated with numerous recitations of ‘I do not recall’ or ‘I do not remember the details’. In her defence, it was later revealed that she had been given the impossible brief of being the one designated to support both the accused offenders as well as the abused. It is hardly surprising that many of the survivors felt less than adequately supported under her care. The evidence of Eileen Shearer, the former national Catholic coordinator had much more power and it gave us the atmosphere of how difficult it was to shift attitudes of bishops and priests in this area of safeguarding.
This reflection cannot be a full report of the evidence, as I only dipped in and out of the hearings this week. But there is one topic that stuck out for me as I watched the summing up on Friday afternoon. The lawyers representing the victims spoke of the ‘robust’ defence of the Catholic Church against the claims of survivors and the extraordinary legal steps that were regularly taken to avoid ever admitting liability. The legal processes used by Church of England lawyers apparently no longer use time limitation arguments when negotiating settlements with survivors. In contrast it seems that the lawyers employed by the Birmingham Archdiocese used every possible trick in the book to avoid admitting any liability even when it was widely accepted that some of these priests were guilty of crimes. This defensiveness was also combined with a far worse record on the part of the Catholic Church for supporting victims than for Anglican survivors. This lack of meaningful support together with aggressive legal tactics being used against victims, has been a cause of extra suffering for this group. We are talking about a considerable number of individuals. Few of them have received any compensation, let alone obtained adequate resources to assist them in finding psychological support.
The combination of aggressive behaviour towards victims and the operation of a defensive shield on behalf of a church reminds us of similar tactics used by the Church of England. What might account for this behaviour? The simple answer is always to follow the money. When victims are sufficiently battered, they will be more likely to accept a lower level of compensation from the offending institution. I have no inside knowledge about the relative payments made to Catholic and Anglican survivors, but it would seem common-sense to suggest that insurance companies would want to make the process of claiming as unpleasant as possible to encourage fewer claims. The Church of England is insured by the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group. The Catholic Church uses a company based in Guernsey which apparently is so secretive that it does not have a web-site. This combination of secrecy, traditional Catholic reticence and the financial advantages of being based in a tax haven raises eye-brows. I can go no farther than that. All I can say is that if we want to know who may be calling the shots in the shabbily ineffective conduct of child protection among Catholics in Birmingham over the past fifty years, we might start, not with the Vatican or even the beleaguered successive Archbishops of Birmingham, but with a secretive insurance group based in Guernsey.
As this is a short piece, I am not going to develop this speculation. Perhaps what I am asking of both the Anglican and the Catholic churches is to question whether they are fully in control of the care of survivors. Have they perhaps handed over some part of this responsibility to the interests and priorities of insurance companies? A failure to be open, pastoral and caring towards survivors is a constant point of complaint on this blog. Is it somehow connected with the need to preserve the financial interests of insurance companies? We certainly have witnessed today, Friday, evidence of callous, indifferent behaviour by an institution towards a group of vulnerable people. What created that environment of detachment and distance? Perhaps we should not blame only the bishops who are in nominal charge but the insurance companies and the supporting lawyers who appear to give the church their orders. It is a travesty of gospel values if we find that it is the money men who are those who dictate safeguarding policy and pastoral practice to the churches of our country.
Good article Stephen Parsons. You have a knack for getting right to the heart of an issue and under the skin of the institution in the process.
One key factor in both Churches is that they benefit directly from their insurer. In the case of CofE and Ecclesiastical EIG, the insurer and the church is strongly and historically affiliated with decades-long presence of senior clerics on the board of the insurer. Nobody can quite explain why deans and archdeaons and bishops are motivated to sit on the board of an ‘independent’ insurer … presumably to oil the wheels and make sure the cash flow remains in place and that the parent owner (AllChurches Trust) continues giving 80-90% of the annual divvy to CofE dioceses and cathedral coffers. The relationship is so close that it’s almost impossible at times to seperate them. And the control that EIG operates over Church House or Church House operates over EIG is difficult to decipher. It’s a carefully arranged mutual handwash, a kind of fiendish laundromat, in which both parties are able to create distance from the other and wash hands of the actions of the other. And yet both know how each operates. The dirt is shared, it’s the same dirt. The main lawyer for the insurer even switches hats – sometimes working for a diocese (as in the Bell case) and oftentimes for the insurer. As a figure in the church pointed out, it’s a form of “very quiet English corruption”. Think that puts it v neatly. And I also think that her role and methods and those of EIG will eventually emerge as having done immense damage to the core foundational principles of the Church of England.
In the case of the RC insurer, the Bishops Councils of England and Wales created and mandate the portal organisation, Catholic Church Insurance Association. It’s only when you read the small print that you discover that the ‘actual’ insurer is another outfit and you can only access it as a catholic member of the portal structure. CNM or Catholic National Mutual is based on Guernsey as you rightly say – and indeed its visibility is set at zero. No website, no public set of principles, no publicly available accounts, no public statement of what happens to profit, etc. Nada. This as far as anyone can tell is RC-owned and RC-operated. And it needs bringing into daylight and accountability ….. and with it the bishops of the Roman Catholic church of this country and their Cardinal Archbishop Vincent Nichols who as we saw already this week, played his hand in making sure cases were hidden and also directed outcome of legal cases and settlements – when he was former Archbishop in Birmingham.
No-one after this week’s hearings at IICSA can be in any doubt that the RC Church of the UK needs more daylight brought both to its safeguarding failings and its rotten treatment of victims. Like the Church of England, it is unfit to have governance of both these things.
Completely agree with this post and comment but not really being able to get my head around all of it would just like to add my own personal experience. I have never attempted to get compensation all I have ever wanted is justice, not to be scapegoated, and to know that other people are safe from my abuser yet because the suffragen Bishop that dealt with my case was on the board of directors of Ecclesiastical at the time even though NHS staff requested that he meet with me as I was so unwell, his response was, “no, I don’t know what I might hear.”
After an SAR I found that at the time he refused to meet with me he wrote that “I was trouble and likely to cause a problem.”
That legacy remains I cannot get the notes about me corrected, I remain scapegoated, people remain unprotected and the Bishop talks smugly on Radio 4.
So even if the survivor isn’t applying for compensation the treatment is the same.
Trish, that’s dreadful. YOUr bishop had a clear conflict of interest and should have recused himself from your case. And another bishop – probably the diocesan – should have dealt with you instead.
Too often the Church just seems utterly incapable of doing the right thing.
Go it Stephen! Well done.
Great post Stephen. Trish, another part of your story that leaves me utterly gobsmacked. Just one comment on the time limitation. I did hear, but I don’t know whether it is true, that the CofE will only accept accusations within a year of the event. Which if true is shameful.
Thanks Janet, my feelings exactly but at the time was far too ill to know this which shows that we do have to rely on the ethical stance of the people involved being honourable and all too often it isn’t.
I am confused about the one year issue too Athena, I know it was true but thought it had been changed, but when I asked I was told that I would have to appeal my case to some president of tribunals ( I can’t remember his title I think I just invented that for him!) so would be grateful if anyone could clarify?
You’re right, there’s a one-year time limit on formal complaints (known as a CDM). You can appeal to the President of Tribunals to have the time limit waived if there’s a good reason for the delay. However, those I know who have gone through the CDM procedure have found it exhausting, traumatic and ultimately not very fruitful.
Some dioceses now have good Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers in place, but it’s very patchy.
Sometimes the media can be the best way of obtaining justice, but of course not everyone wants to go to the media.
The legal structure of the insurance company is of significance in this discussion. These are separate legal entities. Without getting bogged down in technical detail, an insurance company is legally quite distinct from those who own it and/or control it. It will be required by law to be solvent, to be adequately funded by reserves of a requisite amount, and to operate with the intention of making a surplus.
Forgive me if this is too obvious, but an insurance company is not a sentient being. Its officers must run it for the benefit of its owners. If it has intent, that intent is constitutionally one-sided: its own side. In itself this is not right or wrong, it’s just the law.
It is no surprise therefore that the insurer has been resolute in trying to limit its liabilities as far as possible. It cannot be double minded. It isn’t permitted to feel.
The Established Churches have a dilemma here, because they often have a duty of care to BOTH sides of a dispute, for example when a priest has been identified as an abuser. As has been written here and elsewhere many times, their loyalty often is biased towards abuser rather than abused. Accountability, responsibility and liability are in my opinion in no way diminished by the employment of an insurance company as an intermediary. Moreover I also believe that hiding behind the cloak of insurers is cowardly.
Very large organisations sometimes self-insure. Rather than paying premiums to someone else to cover claims, they bypass the arrangement and pay the claims directly. This also saves the cost to them of the profit element in premium payments. Yes, they are exposed to big claims, but premiums would be costed to cover this exposure in the medium term anyway. The only benefit of retaining an insurance company is the concentration of pseudo-independent expertise and administrative efficiency. Oh, and one other thing: allowing the insurer (and its lawyers) to shoulder the blame for being mean when addressing claims and demonstrating expertise in minimising them.
Continuing to hide behind insurance companies is likely to make matters worse for the Church in the long run. In substance they own and control those companies anyway. Time to shape up and face the victims with grace and courage.
Thank you Steve Lewis. Courageous posting from someone I suspect probably works for an insurer – but not I think Ecclesiastical. It serves to show that insurers, their lawyers, church lawyers, and Church House almost certainly read these posts with close eye to see what is being said.
You paint an accurate picture of where the churches (RC, CofE and others) are at. All hiding behind their insurers and relying on lawyers for damage limitation, settlement limitation, and dirty games by lawyers. The only bishop so far to have acknowledged this to some extent – is the Bishop of Durham, Rt Rev Paul Butler in his astonishing letter to EIG following the first of two mediations.He challenged both the ‘horse trade’ methods EIG uses against survivors, and also their dishonesty with the church. (see below). Although the letter was more polite than survivors might be about EIG, he challenged them directly on key points. It has driven a wedge between the CofE and their own insurer – and highlighted the handwash that had happening previously. Since then though, there has been silence and the church has made no further comment despite EIG bouncing the issue square back in the Church’s face. I agree with you- survivors should not be dealing with some insurer based in the City of London or in a tax haven in Guernsey of wherever. The Churches should stop being cowards and face their responsibilities properly. But that is easier said than done – when the churches are still unable to own the fallout of coverup and dishonesty and denial.
My sense is that much more daylight and acute embarrassment is required to shift these insititutions out of cowardice and towards justice-building compassionate structures which recognise impact issues and costs to survivors’ lives. The CofE is still hiding much that it hopes the media will not delve too much into.The PCR for example is a giant boil that the church has hurriedly covered over. So much more daylight is required there – the national scandal that makes Chichester a small local affair. To those reading this from Church House, and to bishops – more daylight will come and with it deeper disinfectant to your structure. And to the insurers and lawyer (Paula Jefferson and others at BLM) who read this – more daylight will come in time to the methods you have employed which have caused huge reputational damage to your client the Church of England. In time I believe the CofE may have to end the partnership with EIG and BLM, as the damage to the church’s core foundational principles will be widely seen to be too great. It will take time, but the CofE already knows it is on the wrong side of history and that it cannot hold out for ever on continuing handwash and pretence.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/bishops-damn-church-insurers-ecclesiastical-insurance-group-eig-horse-trading-child-abuse-survivors/
Thanks Gilo, although I cannot claim to work for an insurer!
Gilo, what is the BLM? In. the USA it’s Bureau of Land Management, but I guess that’s not what you mean here?
Good article. Thr Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Case Study 11 examined abuses at four Christian Brothers orphanages in Western Australia. The Brothers’ defence included limitation, transferring the case to two different jurisdictions, failure to keep records of reports, and aggressive PR casting doubts on the sincerity of plaintiffs. They offered $3.5 million to the 200+ plaintiffs and claimed that to be generous.
Sorry, apologies Janet – I only just saw you question regarding BLM which you asked in November!
Berrymans Lace Mawer is a specialist law firm. Very large. 65 solicitors in their London HQ alone – and branches in 12 other UK citites. 200 partners and more than 800 legal specialists completely dedicated to the insurance and risk market. They are in the business of reputation management as well as insurance. Their hands are all over the management and settling of abuse cases in just about every institution you can think of – CofE, RC, BBC, Schools, Scouts, etc.
Paula Jefferson is a senior star in their firmament. Main go-to for Ecclesiastical. But has also acted for dioceses in the CofE direct at times. She is ‘Woman who switches hats’. She has also sat in on core groups inside Church House – unknown to survivors or our solicitors. This gives her enormous operational advantage in the adversarial system the CofE insurer runs in tandem with her. It is absolutely disgraceful frankly. Much more needs to emerge about BLM’s operation. She is the lawyer who rang Bishop of Durham in my case – to outline the various legal defences the church might use. To his credit the bishop said he did not want those arguments used, as he considered them offensive. And he said clearly to her that he wanted the Church to pay compensation “without legal defence”. This was apparently agreed by her. Then when his back was turned she did the opposite. In the mediations, Paul Butler told us he was “dismayed and appalled” when he heard what she had done. But as I say, there is so much to emerge not just on my case – but on how Jefferson and BLM partners have been working to keep the settlement bar low in all cases. The litigation strategies are not only counter to CofE guidelines and policies – they are re-abusive and harmful. At some stage BLM will face considerable embarrassment I think. And Jefferson in particular. I have it on record that she lied to Bishop of Durham …from the Bishop of Durham himself in his 20page CDM report.
We also have it on record that she met Ian Elliott at core groups during the Elliott Review – despite EIG’s claim that they had no input into the Elliott Review. She was at these core groups representing EIG. Unless I’ve made a mistake and she was representing Tescos or the Royal Ballet!