An open letter to the State Office Holders who are Church Commissioners:

• The Prime Minister (The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC)
• The Lord President of the Council (The Rt Hon Lucy Powell MP)
• The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP)
• The Speaker of the House of Commons (The Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP)
• The Lord Speaker (The Rt Hon the Lord McFall of Alcluith)
• The Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport (The Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP)

Courtesy copies to:

• The Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls (Jess Phillips MP)
• The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova MP)
• The Member of Parliament for Ashfield (Lee Anderson MP)

26 November 2024

Dear Prime Minister, Lord President of the Council, Lord Chancellor, Mr Speaker, Lord Speaker, and Secretary of State,  

This is an open letter, which I will publish on Friday 29 November at churchabuse.uk. I am writing to you not in connection with your ministerial or parliamentary roles, but in your role as a Church Commissioner. Nonetheless, as all-but one of the recipients are Members of Parliament, I am copying the letter to my own MP, Mr Lee Anderson (Ashfield, Reform UK).

By way of explanation, in case you are not aware, the office that you hold comes with automatic membership of the Church Commissioners, under section 1 of schedule 1 of the Church Commissioners Measure 1947. A Measure is primary legislation with the status of an Act of Parliament, made by the General Synod of the Church of England under the Church Assembly Powers Act 1919.

This letter is to bring to your attention a matter of serious concern in the way that Church Commissioners use charitable funds to pay lawyers to defend bishops accused of safeguarding failings. At the same time, victims and survivors who make such allegations are offered no such support and instead, are falsely threatened that they can be referred to the High Court for “contempt” if they tell anybody about their allegations.

At the outset, I wish to stress that I am making no allegation or suggestion that this practice goes on with your knowledge, connivance or consent. While you are Church Commissioners, you are not part of the Board of Governors, nor are you a trustee.

I write for two purposes: firstly, to bring the matter to your attention, and secondly, to request that you do all in your power and influence to bring about a more “equality of arms” between victims of church-related abuse and those who fail them.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s announcement earlier this month that he is to resign following findings that he has failed in his safeguarding duties is unprecedented. His failings are set out in the report of the independent review by Keith Makin into the abuse carried out by the late John Smyth QC, and the Church’s response to that abuse.

The Makin review is the latest in a long series of independent “lessons learned reviews” from which the Church of England – or, more specifically, the Archbishops’ Council (the national church body responsible for developing policies and procedures) – refuses to learn from. The recommendations are rarely accepted, and if the Church announces that they will accept them, they never implement them (as can be seen by looking at the recommendations by Professor Jay in her reports from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) – the Church of England said it accepted them fully, yet not a single one has been adopted).

Victims and survivors of church-related abuse often speak not only of the original abuse, committed by an abuser; but also of the continuing re-abuse that they suffer at the hands of church officials.

The initial response to allegations of abuse are handled locally in the 42 dioceses. This is handled by a combination of the diocesan safeguarding adviser, who addresses ongoing safeguarding concerns; and the diocesan bishop, who has responsibility for deciding whether allegations against priests should be referred to the “designated officer”, a barrister employed by the Archbishops’ Council, for investigation under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.

In far too many cases, bishops do not follow their own guidance (despite being statutorily required to apply safeguarding guidance published by the House of Bishops). And it is here where the particular problem lies that I seek to bring to your attention.

Under the Clergy Discipline Measure, complaints against bishops are referred to the Archbishops of Canterbury or York, depending on whether the diocese is in the Church of England’s northern or southern province.

The preliminary stage requires the archbishop to seek an initial response from the bishop (unless the complaint is ruled out at the initial sifting stage as being manifestly unfounded). After the initial stage, the archbishop can throw the complaint out or pass it to the Designated Officer for investigation – at which point, the complainant loses control of the complaint as the Designated Officer is the party who presents any complaint to a tribunal.

Since the Clergy Discipline Measure came into force, not a single bishop has faced a disciplinary tribunal. And since the Makin Report was published, four priests have been suspended, pending an investigation, but no action has been taken against any bishop – notwithstanding Archbishop Justin Welby’s personal decision to resign.

From the very beginning of the process, the victim or survivor bringing the complaint receives no support. On the other hand, the bishop against whom the complaint is made is given funding from the Church Commissioners to pay for lawyers to present their defence.

This means that complaints against bishops may be poorly drafted, whereas replies by the bishops are carefully crafted with the help of lawyers paid for by the Church Commissioners. The overwhelming majority of complaints against bishops are rejected without referral for investigation. In the cases I have seen, this has often been based on legal arguments presented in the bishops’ initial replies.

My MP, Lee Anderson, kindly asked the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha De Cordova MP (Battersea, Labour) to set out how much money bishops have received from the Church Commissioners to defend allegations that they “failed to act appropriately in safeguarding matters” over the past five years.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner responded that “It is not the practice of the Church Commissioners to disclose expenditure on the costs of legal proceedings of this kind.”

The full question and answer is published on Parliament’s website:
questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-10-31/12112.

I do not blame or criticise Marsha De Cordova in any way for this answer. I know that she is new to her post and that, in any event, answers to Commissioners’ Questions are prepared by staff employed by the Archbishops’ Council.

But the answer does expose the hypocrisy of the Church of England hierarchy. They often speak of transparency and accountability, but at the same time, they continue to act in secret.

It is outrageous that that charitable funds can be spent in this way without any need for disclosure – especially by a charitable body that is legally accountable directly to Parliament.

A second disparity of arms in Church of England safeguarding complaints comes in the form of what I contend are illegal threats. There are three key documents in the clergy discipline system:

• The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003
  Primary legislation which sets out the legal framework
  
  
• The Clergy Discipline Rules 2005
  Secondary legislation which sets out the processes in more detail
  
  
• The Clergy Discipline Commission guidance and Code of Practice
  This is not law, but is supposed to explain how the Measure and Rules should be interpreted.

The Measure and Rules (law) contain no requirement on confidentiality. If they did, I doubt that they would have received parliamentary approval as this would be against the principles of open justice which has been upheld time and time again by all levels of the judiciary, right up to the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

However, the Guidance and Code of Practice, which is not law, contains in paragraphs 306-307, warnings that matters are confidential, with a warning that transgressions can be referred to the High Court to deal with it as a matter of “contempt”.

The full document is available on the Church of England website:

churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/cdm-code-of-practice-july-2022.pdf.

I repeat the offending paragraphs in full here:

---

Confidentiality

306. Allegations of misconduct under the CDM are private and confidential. This is to ensure that matters are dealt with fairly and that the process is not prejudiced. It extends to complainants, respondents and witnesses.
     
307. All matters should be kept strictly private and confidential. This includes written documents and material which, save for legal representatives, should not be shared with third parties.
     
308. In particular, individuals (regardless whether or not they are a party) should refrain from making statements, posts, comments or similar on social media, websites, print media or other public fora which in any way reference the detail of the allegation, the individuals involved, or give an opinion as to the merits or otherwise of the alleged misconduct.
     
309. Where an allegation has been referred for determination before a tribunal or court, the Chair may certify that an act or omission, in connection with the proceedings or an order, committed by any person is a contempt and refer the matter to the High Court.

---

These paragraphs are not supported by either the Measure or the Rules and have been introduced by the Clergy Discipline Commission without synodical debate.

The Measure contains no reference to contempt. The Rules do have a section on contempt, as follows:

---

Contempt

105

1. If any person does or omits to do anything which is a contempt in connection with proceedings before, or in connection with an order made by, the Registrar of Tribunals, the Chair or the tribunal, the Chair may certify the act or omission as a contempt and refer the matter to the High Court under section 25(3) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018.
   
2. Failure to comply with an order shall not be deemed to be a contempt unless the order provides that the person to whom it is directed may be sent to prison, or fined, or both, if the order is not obeyed.

---

As you can see, the rules relating to contempt are about “proceedings before, or in connection with an order made by, the Registrar of Tribunals, the Chair or the tribunal”. It has nothing to do with confidentiality, and it does not apply to the preliminary stage.

The Registrar of Tribunals only gets involved once the President of Tribunals has decided, having read a report from the Designated Officer, that there is to be a tribunal. Likewise, there is no tribunal, or tribunal chair, until one has been constituted by the Registrar acting on the instructions of the President of Tribunals.

But complainants, including victims and survivors making complaints about bishops who have failed to act appropriately when abuse has occurred, are routinely warned by staff of the Archbishops’ Council that they should keep matters secret, with reference to the above chapters in the Code of Practice and its chilling final paragraph suggesting that they could face action in the High Court.

The Church of England is not a safe place. Bishops are protected by a system that is unfit for purpose. Victims and survivors of church-related abuse are silenced by the Church.

What you can do

1. • Influence

     As a Church Commissioner, but not a member of the Board of Governors or a trustee, your powers to act are limited. But you do have influence. I urge you to use your influence and the power of your office to pressure the Church Commissioners and the Archbishops’ Council to change this unfair approach which badly serves victims and survivors of church-related abuse.

   • General Meeting of the Church Commissioners

     Section 4 of the Church Commissioners Measure 1947 requires a General Meeting of the Commissioners to be called “so soon as conveniently may be after the audit of the Commissioners’ accounts for the preceding financial year has been completed”.

     I do not know whether the State Office Holders who are Church Commissioners routinely attend this annual general meeting. When you receive your invitation to the 2025 Church Commissioners General Meeting, I urge you to prioritise attendance and use it to explain that this current practice must end. Incidentally, an additional general meeting of Commissioners can be called if 10 or more members request one.

   • Parliamentary Debate and Scrutiny

     Once published, the annual report must be laid before Parliament. Can I urge you to use your offices to ensure that the next such report is tabled for debate. This would enable MPs and Peers to address these and other serious matters of concern. If such a debate was announced in advance, people affected by the process would be able to write to their MPs and let them know of their experience.

Recent and ongoing coverage of the Makin Report has shed a light on the Church of England’s safeguarding failures. But it is a very small light. The use of meaningless High Court “contempt” threats is just one method the Church of England uses to silence victims and survivors as part of the cover-ups managed by the Archbishops’ Council and its staff, led by Secretary General Sir William Nye. Much more is still to be revealed.

Please do what you can to bring parity of arms for victims and survivors. This will be only step – but a big step – towards holding the Church fully accountable for its ongoing safeguarding failings.

Yours sincerely,

Gavin Drake