The Second Church Estates Commissioner is, by convention, a backbench MP from the governing party. This gives them the opportunity to answer questions from MPs, not just about the Commissioners, but the wider work of the Church of England.

The current Second Church Estates Commissioner is Marsha de Cordova, the Labour MP for Battersea. She is actively getting to grips with her task, having been appointed in October.

Often, Church Commissioners’ Questions is a piece of soft PR for the Church, with “friendly questions” tabled by compliant MPs, and answers – including responses to supplementary questions – written by the Church of England’s professional Parliamentary team.

No more!

This week, it was very clear that Marsa de Cordova was happy to speak “off script”. She is still supported by Church of England staff, but it is clear that she isn’t going to blindly accept everything she is told. She is going to be a challenge, as well as a mouthpiece.

In questions about safeguarding – and particularly the Makin Review (which led to the resignation of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury) – she gave some very strong statements, including:

• “This week I met representatives from the Archbishops’ Council, including the Bishop of Stepney, Joanne Grenfell, who is the lead bishop for safeguarding in the Church, to raise my concerns. The House can rest assured that I did that robustly.”
  
  
• “Make no mistake, the Church has an enormous amount of work to do to create a cultural shift. That is what is required. It needs to rebuild trust and confidence.”
  
  
• “It is so important for the Church to view this as the chance to turn a corner and make it a watershed moment. We need change, and those responsible must be held to account.”
  
  
• “…make no mistake that I strongly believe that it is important that the Church is held to account.”

The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, led by retired high court judge Sir Wyn Williams, has heard evidence of a significant number of senior people who were in a position to challenge information they were given by the Post Office, but who instead just accepted it without question.

If an inquiry is eventually held into the Church of England safeguarding fiasco, senior people will also have been found to have adopted the practice of “corporate blindness”. Not so Marsha de Cordova: by challenging and questioning the information she is given and ensuring people are held to account, she is fulfilling her proper role as a trustee of the Church Commissioners – the body which has had to dip into its bank accounts many times to rescue the Archbishops’ Council from their safeguarding malpractice.

The post Safeguarding: Second Church Estates Commissioner holds Church of England feet to the fire appeared first on Church Abuse.

The Most Revd and Right Hon Stephen Cottrell
Archbishop of York

9 January 2025

Dear Stephen,

This is an open letter which will be published today at churchabuse.uk, as will any response you provide.

As you know, I believe that your dishonesty about safeguarding failings makes you unsuitable to be a bishop in God’s church. Your Epiphany letter to clergy and lay leaders in the Church of England reinforced the fears that I had when Justin Welby announced he would step down as Archbishop of Canterbury: that those remaining would pretend that his resignation would be a turning point and that real reform would now happen.

In a blog post after his resignation was announced, I said: “The Church of England does not need a scapegoat resignation. It needs wholesale reform. Justin Welby’s resignation should not be used as a fig leaf to hide the real continuing re-abuse of victims that regularly takes place in the Church.”

And yet this is what your Epiphany letter does: it talks about change, and then highlights some activities that were already happening. You then challenges victims, survivors and advocates to “support for these proposals”.

A better letter for victims, survivors and advocates would be “tell us if these proposed changes will work”, rather than asking us to support flawed proposals that will not make the Church of England a safer place.

I read your letter with anger. As I prayed about what my response should be, I moved from shredding your claims to pieces to taking you at your word. This is something that doesn’t come easily, because from experience, your word on safeguarding is generally not something that has proved to be trustworthy.

But while I have real concern about the forthcoming changes (of which I will blog about in the next few days), I was struck by the words you chose to close your letter with: “Let us commit ourselves to becoming . . . the safer and more accountable Church I believe we are called to be.”

So, I’ll take you at your word that you want the Church of England to become more accountable. In that spirit, would you please be accountable by answering some questions?

After all, how can the Church be more accountable if it continues to keep things hidden?

1. Recent BBC Radio 4 File on Four programmes have highlighted issues with safeguarding risk assessments and the difficulties in taking action against clergy who potentially pose a risk. These include The Priest and the Pay Off, about the Revd Canon Andrew Hindley at Blackburn Cathedral; and The abuse survivors calling on archbishop of York to resign, about the Revd Canon David Tudor.
   
   I have two questions about this:
   
   
   1. How many clergy in the Church of England hold office or a licence despite having restrictions on their ministry following safeguarding risk assessments?
      
      You may say that you do not have this information, because it is down to dioceses; but surely every diocesan bishop who have such clergy in their ranks would need to have consulted the National Safeguarding Team (NST). The NST is a function of the Archbishops’ Council. You are a trustee and President of the Archbishops’ Council, so you should have this information.
      
      For clarity: I am not asking you to disclose any information that would be protected under GDPR or the Data Protection Act, as I am not asking for any personal data – just a number.
      
      
   2. The former Bishop of Blackburn, the Right Revd Julian Henderson, called for new legislation to allow bishops to take more decisive action in cases like that of Andrew Hindley. The revision committee for the last Miscellaneous Provisions Measure called for this to be introduced urgently. We now know, that you were also aware of the problem because of the situation with David Tudor.
      
      Did the Archbishops’ Council ever discuss Bishop Julian’s concerns about the inadequacy of clergy risk assessment regulations, what did the Archbishops’ Council decide, and will you publish the relevant minutes? When will the clergy risk assessment regulations be strengthened to give bishops power to act when clergy are shown to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults?
      
      
2. My MP was rebuffed by the Church Commissioners when he asked a parliamentary question about legal aid given to bishops to defend themselves against allegations that they have failed to follow safeguarding rules. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova MP (Labour, Battersea) replied (using, no doubt, words prepared by employees of the Archbishops’ Council): “It is not the practice of the Church Commissioners to disclose expenditure on the costs of legal proceedings of this kind.”
   
   In the spirit of accountability, as you are a Church Commissioner and a member of its board, would you change this practice and reveal how much the Commissioners have paid to bishops to defend against allegations that they have failed to follow safeguarding rules?
   
   
3. The Charity Commission has confirmed that it is “engaging with church leaders on the recommendations from the Makin Review to ensure that any areas that need addressing are done so swiftly.”
   
   Who from the Archbishops’ Council is the Charty Commission engaging with? Does this include the secretary general, William Nye?
   
   
4. The victim and survivor Gilo has been treated appallingly by the Archbishops’ Council.
   
   It has been shown that the church’s response to the independent lessons learned review in his case was to hold “reputational management” meetings with Archbishops’ Council safeguarding and communications staff, the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group and secretary general William Nye.
   
   Gilo’s complaint about William Nye’s involvement was originally dismissed on the basis that Nye wasn’t present at this reputation management meeting. It has since transpired that he was.
   
   Gilo’s solicitor wrote an official complaint to you and Justin Welby in July 2023. It is now January 2025 and a formal response to that complaint is STILL awaited.
   
   
   1. If you really want the Church to be accountable as you say, why is it taking so long for Mr Nye and those who dismissed the original complaint to be held accountable?
      
      
   2. Can you publish the complaint policy and procedure that is being followed in relation to the complaint against William Nye?
      
      
   3. Can you confirm how many complaints have been made against William Nye’s handling of safeguarding matters and the outcome of those complaints?

As I said, my initial reaction to your letter was to dismiss it as yet more “fine words but no action”.

But I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. If your commitment to becoming an accountable church is more than “fine words”, you should have no problem answering my questions.

If you refuse to answer these questions, then we will know for sure that despite these latest “fine words”, no action will follow and your words at epiphany are as hollow as your words have been over the years.

There are more questions that deserve answers. I – and no doubt others – will want to ask these questions in the coming weeks. IF you mean what you said about the church becoming more accountable.

Is Justin Welby’s resignation really a turning point for the church? Or will you use it as a fig leaf to pretend that things have changed?

Yours sincerely
Gavin Drake

The post An open letter to the Most Revd and Right Hon Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York appeared first on Church Abuse.

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

The post An open letter to the State Office Holders who are Church Commissioners appeared first on Church Abuse.

To recap recent news: The Archbishop of Canterbury is stepping down. There are increasing calls and pressure for the Archbishop of York to follow suit – and to take William Nye, the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, with him.

The latest furore surrounds the publication of an Archbishops’ Council-commissioned report by Keith Makin, into the events surrounding abuse committed by John Smyth and the fiasco of the Church of England’s response to it.

Much attention has focused on what Justin Welby knew or didn’t know; when he knew what he knew; and what he did, or didn’t do about what he knew and when.

But the bigger picture in the Makin Report is one of institutional cover-up. The things that were known were not acted upon. And those people who did know things made it their business to ensure that very few other people knew.

So, with the resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby and calls for more heads, you’d think that the Church of England would now understand that honesty is the best policy. That you can’t keep abuse covered up, and that “transparency” should be something that you actually do, rather than simply talk about doing.

Well, you’d be wrong.

My Member of Parliament Lee Anderson (Reform UK, Ashfield) kindly asked the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Marsha de Cordova MP (Labour, Battersea), “if the Commissioners will publish the legal costs of defending bishops against claims that they failed to act appropriately in safeguarding matters in each of the last five years.”

Now, I do not blame Marsha De Cordova for the content of the written answer she gave. She was only appointed to her post last month and is still getting to grips with her new role, which she holds in addition to her primary responsibilities to her constituents.

By way of explanation, by convention, the Second Church Estates Commissioner is always an MP from the governing party, although the only requirement in law for this post is that they are an actual communicant lay member of the Church of England.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner is a trustee of the Church Commissioners and – with time – will gain a fuller understanding of the work of the Church Commissioners and also of the General Synod (the post holder has ex officio membership of the Synod). But for now, she is reliant on a team of very competent parliamentary staff employed by the Archbishops’ Council to draft responses for her.

Her answer was disappointing. Having confirmed that the Commissioners do indeed have a discretion to pay the costs of bishop defending legal claims, on a case by case basis, she added: “It is not the practice of the Church Commissioners to disclose expenditure on the costs of legal proceedings of this kind.”

The Church Commissioners are a registered charity. They are also directly accountable to Parliament. They were initially established through an Act of Parliament (their role has been subsequently changed by a Measure – statutory law passed by the General Synod with the same status as an Act of Parliament). Its trustees include several state office holders, including the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, and the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lords’ Speaker.

Bishops are not following their own safeguarding guidance. They are failing victims and survivors. But they are never held to account.

The Archbishops’ Council’s National Safeguarding Team, which should hold them to account, is more interested in offering training to ensure future compliance (no matter how many reports they receive about individual bishops).

And charitable funds from the Church Commissioners is handed out so that bishops can pay for lawyers to defend themselves from complaints made by victims and survivors of church-related abuse.

This is a major part of the Church of England’s safeguarding crisis: an inequality of arms in which victims, survivors and their advocates are left alone to fight malpractice carried out by bishops with well-funded lawyers.

So while “it is not the practice of the Church Commissioners to disclose expenditure on the costs of legal proceedings of this kind”, perhaps in the interest of the transparency the Church often speaks about, they ought to disclose this expenditure.

The post Church of England refuses to answer Parliamentary questions on safeguarding appeared first on Church Abuse.