Warning over ‘reputational risk' damage from Church abuse scandals
High-profile cases such as that of serial abuser John Smyth and the subsequent Makin Review which prompted the resignation of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury, are said to 'undermine public confidence' in how seriously safeguarding is taken.
The annual report from the Church Commissioners for England – which manages the Church's investment portfolio – described their reputational risk as currently being 'at an elevated level'.
The Makin review, the commissioners said, 'gave rise to serious questions about safeguarding practice in the Church of England'.
The commissioners' report, published on Monday, added: 'This case and other safeguarding failures undermine public confidence in the assertions made by the Church, including the Church Commissioners, about the importance of, and priority given to, safeguarding.
'The potential reputational impacts could be far-reaching; for example, they may in turn make it more difficult for us to attract and retain staff.'
The warning came as Church Commissioners announced they would be investing more than £1.6 billion towards the work of the Church from 2026 to 2028.
Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally said the 36% rise on the previous three-year period was 'the biggest injection of funding towards the work of the Church of England in our history, and we are very grateful for that'.
The money will go towards various areas including clergy pay, church repairs and net zero plans.
Some £30 million is being allocated towards the cost of national safeguarding work, including moves towards greater independence in how safeguarding is dealt with.
Some £150 million towards the costs of the new national redress scheme for survivors of Church abuse had already been announced.
In his foreword to the report, Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell acknowledged the 'challenging year' the Church had faced.
The commissioners noted there was also an element of reputational risk around the Church's work on dealing with its past links to slavery, saying such work had already 'attracted significant attention, comment and, in some cases, criticism'.
Their latest report warned: 'Further reaction (including negative comment) to this programme of work is expected when the intended new Fund for Healing, Repair and Justice is launched, making investments andissuing grants.'
The Church announced in January 2023 its work to address historic links to slavery, with a funding programme for investment, research and engagement to 'address past wrongs' but the initial £100 million investment fund was branded too small and slow.
An independent oversight group later said commissioners had 'embraced a target of £1 billion for a broader healing, repair and justice initiative with the fund at its centre'.
Elsewhere, some of the overall £1.6 billion investment announced on Monday is to go towards clergy pay rises of almost 11%.
The Church said the National Minimum Stipend (NMS) and the National Stipend Benchmark (NSB) will both rise by 10.7% from April, bring them to £33,350 and £34,950 respectively.
Dame Sarah said the latest investment will 'value and affirm our clergy who give their lives in the service of Christ through the Church'.
She said: 'I hope these carefully costed plans will provide a step-change in support to clergy right the way through from those following a call to ordination to those who have retired.
'It is vital also that we learn the lessons of our recent past and do everything we can to be a safer church for everyone.
'While no amount of money can ever erase the harm done by perpetrators of abuse, these spending plans will support the vital work of safeguarding in the Church and underpin the new National Redress scheme.'
To aid the Church's ambition to be 'net zero' by 2030, the commissioners said have earmarked up to £190 million up to 2031 for projects including decarbonising cathedrals, churches, church halls, schools andhouses.
The report admits it is 'unlikely that cathedrals will achieve net zero carbon by 2030 without some form of carbon offset, but we are working with the community to help reduce emissions as much as possible'.
The commissioners add that the latest investment will go towards preventing 'a 'cliff-edge' after the 2030 target date set by Synod, enabling work to limit carbon emissions to continue to receive support'.
Meanwhile, the report noted dozens of repair projects had been funded by commissioners to the value of £1.3 million last year, with a rise in instances of Church ceilings which appeared to have been damaged through lack of ventilation when the buildings were closed during the Covid-19 lockdowns.
It said there had been 'an increase in the numbers of failed lath and plaster ceilings due to weakened plaster' which it said was 'likely to have been exacerbated by condensation forming due to the lack of ventilation when churches were closed for prolonged periods during the pandemic'.
First Church Estates Commissioner, Alan Smith, said: 'This distribution of £1.6 billion represents the highest distribution in the Church's history – and we celebrate all those who have made it possible across the entire community of the Church, in particular the investments team, clergy and parishes.
'In stewarding these resources, we must be humble and vigilant, as the times ahead promise both great opportunities and challenges.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill
Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords. The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons. In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future. Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets. Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced. How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life. One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice. Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Bishops criticise ‘dangerous' abortion law change
Bishops have warned against the abortion law change. Some 200 members of the Church of England clergy labelled the vote to decriminalise seeking an abortion at any stage of gestation, for any reason, 'dangerous'. On Tuesday night, MPs voted for the amendment with a majority of 242. As a result, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which outlaws abortion, will no longer apply to women ending their own pregnancies. However, the amendment still needs to complete its legislative journey through both the Commons and the Lords before it can become law. The vote has divided public opinion, with many welcoming the 'hard-won victory' for women, and others believing that it goes too far, arguing that 'late-term abortions kill babies'. In a letter shared with The Telegraph, leading figures from the Church of England including 13 bishops, of whom five are diocesan bishops, warned that the amendment makes for 'a dangerous change' that will fail to protect women, and instead places pregnant women and unborn children 'at even greater risk of harm than previously'. 'Vulnerable are increasingly overlooked' Among the 201 clergy from across the country who have signed the letter are: the Bishop of Chichester, the Rt Revd Dr Martin Warner, the Bishop of Birmingham, the Right Revd Dr Michael Volland, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Revd Dr Jonathan Gibbs and the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North. Among the other signatories include a number of suffragan bishops including the Bishop of Kensington, the Rt Revd Dr Emma Ineson, and the Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Revd Stephen Race, as well as hundreds of other clergy. The letter reads: 'We are troubled by the amendment voted through by the House of Commons on Tuesday to decriminalise terminations in utero up to full term. As many elected politicians move further away from the Christian moral values that have hitherto shaped much that is good in our national life, our concern is that the vulnerable and voiceless are increasingly overlooked. 'The tragedy of abortion will invariably move us to compassion for the pregnant woman, we are mindful also of the viability of the life of her child who is also deserving of compassion and needs protection under the law. 'This huge change in our understanding of the place of the termination of pregnancies also risks overlooking the vulnerable position of women who are victims of sexual abuse, domestic abuse and coercion, which is all the more acute due to the availability of the abortion pill by post without recourse to in-person consultation with a medical professional. 'All of this makes for a dangerous change which we believe, far from protecting women, places pregnant women and unborn children at even greater risk of harm than previously. It is our sincere hope that this legislation will be further modified in the House of Lords to protect those who are vulnerable.' 'A worrying move towards social liberalism' The letter was coordinated by the Rev'd Richard Bastable, vicar of St Luke's Church, Shephard's Bush, London. He said: 'The proposed change in the law puts women and unborn children at greater risk, especially in cases of abuse and coercion. 'This, together with the current debate on assisted suicide, indicates a worrying move to prioritise social liberalism and personal autonomy in a way that causes harm to the most vulnerable and those who are voiceless, both at the beginning and the end of life. It is the Church's task to offer advocacy, protection, and to show society a better way. ' Abortion in England and Wales is currently a criminal offence. However, it is legal if carried out with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances permitting one after this period. Women may also take prescribed medication at home if they are less than 10 weeks pregnant.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Assisted dying: supporters and opponents of bill on hopes and fears ahead of crucial vote
Ever since Pamela Fisher was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer, the fear of dying in pain and discomfort has been keeping her awake at night. 'I don't want to die, not now. I love life and I want to live. But that said, I live in terror at the prospect of how my final weeks of life could turn out,' the 64-year-old said. 'I know that even with the best palliative care available, there are limits to what can be done. It's a dead weight of fear I carry around with me.' Fisher, a former academic and authorised Church of England preacher, is a strong supporter of the assisted dying bill which MPs will debate in a crucial vote on Friday – she hopes it will pass, and come into force in enough time to give her the option of an assisted death when the time comes. Although cancer has now spread to her bones, which makes walking difficult, she has travelled from her home in Huddersfield to join the planned demonstration outside parliament for the bill's third reading. 'Despite all my disabilities and pain, I'll be there until the end, until the vote comes through,' she said. 'I'm hanging all my hopes on it. It would be quite devastating if it is defeated.' Her views have led to some tense exchanges with other members of the church, whose leaders have spoken out against the legislation – the Bishop of London said it may mean vulnerable people are compelled to hasten their death. 'I can't reconcile Christian compassion with the status quo that obliges people to a drawn out process of dying in pain when this is against their will and they have the capacity to choose,' Fisher said. 'People use this concept of the sanctity of life which is completely central to Christian teaching. But I reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires telling terminally ill people to undergo a painful death when they don't want to.' Most debates in her congregation about the subject have been civilised, she said, although she sometimes feel as if she's marginalised as a terminal cancer patient. 'It's like you're not taken as seriously – people think 'well she would say that, wouldn't she?',' she said. On the other side of the debate, there are people alarmed the legislation could lead to abuse, coercion or people dying earlier than needed, particularly in cases of misdiagnosis and inaccurate prognosis. Peter Sefton-Williams, 72, was diagnosed with suspected motor neurone disease by two neurologists in January 2024, and joined Dignitas after deciding he wanted to opt for an assisted death. 'I was so completely shocked. I did very much think about ending my life because I live on my own and I'm not married, and motor neurone disease is terrible, you can't swallow, you can't speak,' he said. His condition didn't deteriorate and then, nine months later, his diagnosis was changed to a rare, non-terminal condition called multifocal motor neuropathy. 'If assisted dying had been available to me, it's quite possible I would have opted for that. I mean, I had two of the country's senior specialists confirm I had motor neurone disease. I was in a state of great despair,' he said. 'People would have said, well, he died with dignity and so on. Except it would have been an error. It would have been a mistake. I would have died needlessly.' Along with misdiagnoses, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Terminal Illness reported that the accuracy of predictions of how long someone has left to live can range from 78% to 23%, and in cases involving less understood conditions, such as motor neurone disease, it can be impossible. 'There are lots and lots of cases where people have lived very fruitful, happy lives for much longer than they were expected to,' Sefton-Williams said. 'I was completely traumatised by the whole experience, the misdiagnosis and the implications of that. People have to accept that there will be cases where doctors get it wrong. And that needs to be discussed.' Shafaq Sikandar, 39, has stage four breast cancer and is a keen supporter of the bill. 'It is not because I'm thinking about assisted dying,' she said. 'I might not need it, but what I would like to know is that if and when that happens, that I have a choice. It's a choice not to suffer, to be able to die at home with my loved ones.' She is a professor of sensory neurophysiology, specialising in people's experiences of chronic pain, so knows more than most how pain works, and the scientific limitations of measuring it. 'We don't currently have the appropriate tools to really assess someone's comfort when they're past the point of being able to articulate how they're feeling,' she said. 'I am particularly worried about experiencing pain at any point in my life, including at the end of it. Pain is often described as an erosion of dignity and it really does strip away everything that makes life worth living.' She said she understands the complexity of the bill, and the need to get the safeguarding right. 'But it's still a case of listening to the voice of patients and understanding they want to have a choice in their treatment,' she said. 'When we think about death we also need to think about the meaning of life and I think a lot of that boils down to living as well as you can until that very last breath.'
