The Archbishop of York is being accused of failing to ensure the scale of abuse across the Church of England is accurately reported.

In what’s being described as “a presentational whitewash”, Most Rev Stephen Cottrell is accused of failing to ensure all cases of abuse were recorded in the most recent audit of cases, despite pressure from survivors.

It follows a review across all 42 dioceses and the two provinces of the Church of England, known as Past Cases Review 2, which took place between 2019 and 2022 in response to findings of a previous review in 2018 which found altered reporting criteria had led to a cover-up of the number of abuse cases.

PCR2 looked at over 75,000 files of abuse allegations against clergy and church officers dating back to the 1940s and found 383 new cases.

But in reality, the figures are higher, because the Archbishop of York along with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev Justin Welby didn’t make it mandatory for dioceses to include allegations against late clergy (Dead Clergy Reviews/DCRs), despite pressure from survivors.

In correspondence seen by Premier, Gilo, a survivor of church abuse, wrote to Archbishop Stephen in 2020 alerting him to a document from York which had detailed 110 possible cases, with 50 relating to deceased clergy.

In a later letter dated February 2022, he asked the Archbishop to "lead by example" in the public output of the review and expressed concern that "many dioceses are not including DCRs and it would seem CofE is seeking to downplay PCR2 in presentational terms and downplay the reality of the past and any possible responsibly of senior figures (both past and present)". 

In the letter, which was copied to other senior figures including the Bishop of London, Rt Rev Sarah Mullally and the Secretary-General William Nye, Gilo added:

"I hope you will lead the way, and I hope other bishops seeking to dilute the past will change their culture. Survivors cannot easily come forward if the Church is still hiding the past… PCR2 needs to enable everyone to join up the dots and see how widespread awareness of abuse was in the Church.

"It must not flinch from this transparency. Any attempt to hide again and the Church will not recover, if it even can at this stage, for many decades. I know you know this."

In a letter the following month, Gilo also urged the Archbishop to ensure transparency, saying:

"If the numbers are suppressed, then the indication is that similar file material is being hidden across dioceses. The Archbishop of York has been called upon to put this right urgently across the whole Church so that dioceses are more transparent than transparent. And all previous awareness going back decades is made public.

"If CofE hides anything at this stage, then it deserves to take another reputational hit. Candidly, nobody in Lambeth Palace is likely to redeem the mess; there may be people at home but I'm not sure the lights are on."

However, despite this, dioceses were not instructed to include allegations against deceased clergy.

In York diocese, in a document seen by Premier, some of the allegations against late clergy included 'causing or inciting a male under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity', while another described 'interfering with 10-year-old girls and assault on a male minor'. 

In a week which has seen the Archbishop of Canterbury forced to resign over his handling of abuse by the late John Smyth, Archbishop Stephen is under increasing pressure.

Gilo told Premier he believes the Archbishop has failed at his duty of ensuring “qualitative transparency” and says he has “a raft of serious questions to answer". 

A spokesperson for the Archbishop of York told Premier:

"The PCR2 Practice Guidance was finalised, and work began, in July 2019. This was a year before the current Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, took office in July 2020. He played no direct part in deciding the scope of its work.

"The Church of England's *Past Cases Review 2* (PCR2) was independently scoped and overseen by the PCR2 Management Board, which included external safeguarding experts to ensure impartiality and robustness. Deceased clergy were excluded from the review as the primary focus was on ensuring appropriate safeguarding practices for living individuals and addressing risks posed by living clergy and church officers."