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.

I have known Justin Welby for more than 10 years. I first met him in February 2013 at a conference in Coventry Cathedral. I was there to cover the event and to interview him for the Church Times.  

Since that time I have met him numerous times, the most prolific period through my work with the Anglican Communion, as editor of the Anglican Communion News Service, and latterly as Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion.

But I have not been in contact with him since I left my position with the Anglican Communion last year, a few months after I resigned from the General Synod, over the Archbishops’ Council’s manipulation of standing orders to prevent proper debates on safeguarding.

That is until last week, when I wrote to Justin to challenge the public statement he made after the publication of the Makin review of the Church’s handling of abuse by John Smyth. The text of my letter is confidential, as it goes into detail about the Church’s handling of disclosures made by a different victim (with the victim’s permission).

But I will repeat here my criticism:  In his statement last week, Justin said: “Since [2013] the way in which the Church of England engages with victims and survivors has changed beyond recognition. Checks and balances introduced seek to ensure that the same could not happen today.”

This is just not true. The checks and balances do not work. They are woeful. And the “checks and balances” – the Church of England’s safeguarding structures – operate primarily to protect the reputation of the Church of England:

They do not support victims.

They do not prevent abuse from occurring.

They do not operate justly.

They do not operate with transparency and accountability.

They do re-abuse victims and survivors, often causing more damage than the original abuse.

The safeguarding failings in the Church of England do not all lie at the steps of Lambeth Palace, and Justin Welby’s resignation will NOT make the Church of England a safe place.

In fact the opposite may be true. Others in the Church will point to the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury as proof that the Church of England is getting its house in order.

We are already seeing this in statements issued by other bishops.

The Bishop of London,  Sarah Mullally, said: “Archbishop Justin’s decision today provides the urgent impetus we need to change the face of safeguarding in the Church of England… The Church of England now needs a reset in how safeguarding is scrutinised. Archbishop Justin’s decision reflects a recognition of the standards to which we are all held. It also creates the necessary space to enable change.”

Why wasn’t there already an “urgent impetus … to change the face of safeguarding in the Church of England”?

Why does Justin’s departure create “the necessary space to enable change”?

The (completely ineffective) Lead Bishop for Safeguarding, Joanne Grenfell of Stepney, takes a different tack, saying: “Of course, the responsibility for good safeguarding in the Church of England lies with every one of us. Archbishop Justin’s resignation does not change that, and his decision today does not absolve any of us from bringing about the wholesale changes in culture and leadership that are essential in every part of the Church.”

Okay, so if you’re not absolved from “bringing about wholesale changes in culture and leadership” in safeguarding, what are you going to do about it?

The clue is in her next paragraph: “I am acutely aware of the need in our current work on safeguarding independence, following the report of Professor Alexis Jay, to bring to General Synod recommendations for moving forward which can be both effective and trusted in this regard.”

The “report of Professor Alexis Jay” that she refers to was commissioned by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to pave the way for independence in safeguarding, and follows the Archbishops’ Council’s atrocious decision to pull the plug on the so-called “Independent” Safeguarding Board. (ISB). The Church of England cannot be trusted to perform safeguarding functions appropriately and so independent structures must be brought in.

So far so good. Or is it? In her statement Joanne Grenfell refers to work taking place “to bring to General Synod recommendations for moving forward which can be both effective and trusted”.

Trusted by who? By victims and survivors, or by bishops and Church hierarchs?

The fact is that, despite promises to the contrary, the “working groups” established by the Archbishops’ Council to take forward the recommendations of Alexis Jay are pulling back. Why? Because they have carried out a survey which shows that bishops and safeguarding staff do not want independence.

(incidentally, I haven’t met a victim of the Church of England’s safeguarding processes who think anything other than a fully independent investigative and decision-making system will work).

Justin Welby was not the problem. He has stood down for not doing more when he was told about the abuse by John Smyth. The Makin Review which led to Justin’s downfall shows that Justin was incorrectly advised in 2013 that a formal report had been made to the police (paragraph 15.1.96(a)).

The report also reports Justin saying that he would have been he “would have definitely been ‘more active’ had he known of the seriousness of the offences in 2013” (the report goes on to say that “enough was known” in 2013.

Is that a resigning issue?

If yes, why is Stephen Cottrell not resigned as Archbishop of York?

In June 2020 it transpired that Stephen Cotrell had done exactly the same as Justin Welby in a separate case. The events in Stephen’s case goes back 10 years earlier as he was due to leave his post as Area Bishop of Reading to become Diocesan Bishop of Chelmsford. He discovered that a priest in his area of responsibility was being violent to the priest’s wife.

“I did speak with colleagues about the actions that needed to be taken, I failed to ensure that these were properly documented and followed through in the way I would expect,” he said, and he admitted failing to alert the diocesan safeguarding officer or the police.

“Now that I have discovered that this incident was not followed up as it should have been, I am deeply distressed and extremely sorry.”

As a result of what happened, the National Safeguarding Team said that Stephen Cottrell “has shown insight and humility in accepting that he failed to act as he should have done in relation to a serious matter, and acknowledged [that] his own ability to fully recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns in 2010 was compromised by a lack of training and understanding, which he has subsequently sought to address.”

The NST added that their “investigation concluded that he posed no current risk of not responding appropriately to safeguarding disclosures and that informal action was a reasonable and proportionate response to the case.”

And so the Right Revd Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Chelmsford, was able to become the Most Revd and Right Hon Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York.

I am aware of more safeguarding failures and poor safeguarding judgments by Stephen Cottrell. And if anybody thinks the Church of England will be a safer place with him as the sole Metropolitan has to think again.

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.

The Charity Commission needs to undertake a full inquiry into Archbishops’ Council and the mismanagement of millions of pounds of charitable funds in hiding and covering up abuse. Money which has been used to protect the Church’s reputation instead of supporting victims and survivors of church-related abuse. The Church of England is not a safe place. Justin Welby’s resignation will do nothing to change that.

The post The Archbishop of Canterbury’s resignation won’t make the Church of England a safer place appeared first on Church Abuse.

The majority of Church of England parishes and benefices are insured by Ecclesiastical. Ecclesiastical was originally set up to protect church buildings from fire, but today it deals with all types of insured claims, including legal claims about abuse suffered by victims at the hands of priests and other church officers.

Here, Ecclesiastical like to portray themselves as caring and responsible. They even have a set of “guiding principles” setting out how they will handle civil claims involving allegations of sexual and physical abuse.

But despite their self-portrayal and guiding principles, many victims of church-related abuse speak of the increased trauma they have suffered at the hands of Ecclesiastical and their claims handlers.

It is also worth noting that witnesses from Ecclesiastical had to be recalled to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) when it emerged that they had misled the inquiry.

Who are Ecclesiastical? And who owns them? I’m going to answer those questions in a rather technical – but hopefully brief – look through the documents of Companies House, the UK registrar of companies.

Ecclesiastical is a short-form trading name of Ecclesiastical Insurance Office PLC. It was registered as a company on 3 August 1887 with company number 00024869, under the name Ecclesiastical Buildings Fire Office. It has changed name and structure many times in the intervening years, but the current Ecclesiastical Insurance Office PLC is the same company as that established 137 years ago.

Today, the company has 11 officers. The company secretary is Rachael Jane Hall, and its directors are Rita Bajaj, Francois-Xavier Bernard Boisseau, Denise Patricia Cockrem, Robert David Charles Henderson, Mark Christopher John Hews, Sir Stephen Mark Jeffrey Lamport, Neil Patrick Maidment, Chris Moulder, Stephanie Jacina Whyte, and Angus Christian Winther.

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office PLC is a Public Limited Company, and its shares are traded on the London Stock Exchange. At the time of writing they were valued at £1.34 each. But the majority if the company’s shares – more than 75 per cent – are owned by its parent company, Benefact Group Plc.

Benefact Group PLC was registered on 26 April 1983 as a shelf company – Leadcolt Ltd, becoming Ecclesiastical Holdings PLC on 31 May 1983. It changed its name to Ecclesiastical Insurance Group PLC in August 1989, becoming Benefact Group PLC in March 2022.

The company has nine officers. With the exception of Neil Patrick Maidment and Stephanie Jacina Whyte, they are the same as the officers of Ecclesiastical Insurance Office PLC.

Benefact Group PLC is not listed on the London Stock Exchange, and the majority of its shares – more than 75 per cent – are owned by its parent company, Benefact Trust Ltd.

Benefact Trust Ltd is a not-for-profit company, limited by guarantee rather than shares. It was registered as Allchurches Trust Ltd in February 1972, changing its name to Benefact Trust Ltd in March 2022, at the same time as Ecclesiastical Insurance Group PLC became Benefact Group PLC.

Benefact Trust Ltd has nine officers. As with the earlier mentioned companies, its company secretary is Rachael Jane Hall. It shares one director with the other companies: Francois-Xavier Bernard Boisseau. Its other directors are Timothy Joseph Carroll, Caroline Kauslick Coombs, the Revd Paul Harold Davis, Dr Ian Keith Moore, David Scott Paterson, Patrick Rudden, and John Nicholas Sykes.

The directors of Benefact Trust Ltd are also all charity trustees. Every single one of them – because Benefact Trust Ltd is a registered charity, and so the company’s directors are also its charity trustees. What is charitable about a multi-million pound insurance company?

And as the owners of Benefact Group PLC and through them, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office PLC, how are the trustees ensuring that the insurance company provides its services in a way which upholds the charitable purposes of Benefact Trust Ltd?

Is it charitable for victims of abuse to be treated the way they are by Ecclesiastical? And what role does the Charity Commission have in ensuring that the actions of Ecclesiastical Insurance Office PLC do not harm the reputation of Benefact Trust Ltd, or harm confidence in the charity sector?

Which brings me back to churches. Parochial Church Councils are all charities. And PCC members are charity trustees. As trustees they have a number of statutory duties, and the Charity Commission says that as part of managing risks, charity trustees “must take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with your charity.”

With many victims of church related abuse reporting how they were badly treated by Ecclesiastical Insurance Office, are charity trustees taking reasonable steps to protect people from harm if they take out church insurance with Ecclesiastical? Should they have a duty to consider alternative insurance companies?

How many PCCs actually obtain quotes from other insurance companies? How many just blindly insure with Ecclesiastical because they’ve always been insured with them, or because the diocese or the national church institutions suggest that churches need to be insured with Ecclesiastical?

A few paragraphs ago, I asked this question: “What is charitable about a multi-million pound insurance company?” Benefact Trust Ltd would likely say that their charitable purpose is fulfilled by the giving of grants. Certainly, the charity’s registered objects are “to promote the Christian religion, to contribute to the funds of any charitable institutions, associations, funds or objects and to carry out any charitable purpose.” That’s quite broad and open ended.

Who does Benefact Trust give grants to? Its latest published annual reports and accounts, to year ending December 2022, lists grants above £100,000 made over the previous two years. These include grants to most Church of England dioceses:

This is only a fraction of the money Benefact Trust Ltd have given to Church of England entities. In 2022, in addition to the £188,000 shown above, they gave a separate grant of £202,000 to the Liverpool Diocesan Board of Finance. In 2021 they gave £750,000 to the Church Urban Fund and £450,000 to the National Society – the Church of England and Church in Wales’ schools charity. And in 2022 they gave £250,000 to Safe Spaces, the joint venture between the Archbishops’ Council and the Catholic Church in England and Wales providing a helpline for victims of church-related abuse. And there were various other grants for other Church of England bodies, including cathedrals and parishes.

Back to the Charity Commission’s statutory guidance for trustees. Charity trustees must act in their charity’s best interests. This means that trustees should “avoid putting [themselves] in a position where [their] duty to [their] charity conflicts with [their] personal interests or loyalty to any other person or body”.

And amongst their considerations when making decisions as a trustee, they should “take account of all relevant factors [they] are aware of” and “deal with conflicts of interest and loyalty”.

How many PCC minutes will contain details of discussions about a conflict of interest when choosing to renew an insurance policy with Ecclesiastical Insurance Office? How many PCC members are even aware that there is a conflict of interest? How many PCCs have been given options about insurance at renewal time? I’d hazard a guess that many are simply told what the renewal premium will be – it being a given that Ecclesiastical will be the insurer.

Another question to ask: why doesn’t the Church of England, and its myriad bodies, challenge Ecclesiastical over its treatment of victims of church related abuse? Well, I would argue that there are more than 12 million reasons why the Church of England doesn’t challenge Ecclesiastical. Or 12 million and one – the “one” being Ecclesiastical’s willingness to collude with the Church of England on reputation management and on-going systematic re-abuse of victims.

I would argue that any Parochial Church Council that chooses to insure themselves with Ecclesiastical Insurance Office are failing in their statutory duty to protect people from harm. Ecclesiastical are responsible for the re-abuse of victims. Their behaviour is not Christian. It is not Charitable. And it is not moral.

The post Who are Ecclesiastical? And why does it matter? appeared first on Church Abuse.