THE Archbishop of Canterbury has apologised a day after his final speech within the House of Lords was described by a survivor of John Smyth’s abuse as “tone deaf”.
In an announcement released on Friday, he said that he desired to “apologise wholeheartedly” for the hurt that his speech had caused.
“I understand that my words — the things that I said, and people I omitted to say — have caused further distress for individuals who were traumatised, and proceed to be harmed, by John Smyth’s heinous abuse, and by the far reaching effects of other perpetrators of abuse.
“I didn’t intend to overlook the experience of survivors, or to make light of the situation — and I’m very sorry for having done so,” he said.
In his valedictory speech within the House of Lords on Thursday, Archbishop Welby said that “a head needed to roll” for safeguarding failings, and that his was the one one which “rolls well enough”, before recounting the story of a medieval predecessor who was beheaded (News, 6 December). He also joked that his resignation had meant his diary secretary had “months of labor disappear”.
A survivor of Smyth’s abuse, Graham, told the Church Times that the speech “must have been an occasion for sorrow and reflection”, and it was “not the time to be light-hearted”.
Graham said: “He pities his diary secretary, but not a word for victims of John Smyth.” He also said that Archbishop Welby was “ducking personal responsibility . . . suggesting he has only resigned because he was head of the Church”.
On Friday, the Church’s three lead bishops for safeguarding — the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell; the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty; and the Bishop of Tewkesbury, the Rt Revd Robert Springett — described the speech as “mistaken and mistaken”.
They said in an announcement to survivors that they’d heard from several of them concerning the “distress and anger” the speech had caused. “Both in content and delivery, the speech was utterly sensitive,” they said.
“We know that the Church of England has seriously failed over a few years at many levels in relation to safeguarding, and we’re so sorry that yesterday’s speech was the antithesis of all that we at the moment are attempting to work towards by way of culture change and redress with all of you,” the statement continued.
They concluded with an apology for the Archbishop’s words, and a pledge to “proceed to do all we will to alter the culture of the Church”.
The same day, the Archbishop of York ended his speech in a House of Lords debate on social cohesion by talking about safeguarding within the Church of England, and said: “I pledge myself to work purposefully for independent scrutiny of safeguarding within the Church of England and greater operational independence.”
On Channel 4 News on Thursday evening, Dr Hartley also criticised the tone of the speech, saying that it wasn’t “the time or place for humour”, and that his speech did not “show due regard and care and compassion for victims and survivors of abuse”.
Archbishop Welby’s remarks appeared to “put the main focus away from personal responsibility to a way of corporate responsibility”, she said.
In his speech, Archbishop Welby said: “There comes a time, for those who are technically leading a specific institution or area of responsibility, where the shame of what has gone mistaken, whether one is personally responsible or not, must require a head to roll.”
Acknowledging that Archbishop Welby had taken responsibility by resigning, Dr Hartley suggested that there was in his remarks “a level of ambivalence between whether that’s actually personal, or was it more of a way of corporateness in his role as Archbishop”.
In the statement announcing his resignation, Archbishop Welby said that he took “personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period between 2013 and 2024”.
He reiterated this in Friday’s statement.
The Makin review found no evidence that Archbishop Welby knew about Smyth’s abuse before he was informed in 2013, but said that he had a “personal and moral responsibility” to make sure motion was being taken after this point.
”The conclusion that have to be reached is that John Smyth could and may have been reported to the police in 2013,” the review said.
Three retired police detectives, nevertheless, have criticised Mr Makin’s conclusion, telling the Church Times that, on the evidence presented within the report, Smyth’s abuse was properly referred to police in 2013 (New, 27 November).
The Church, one in all the previous officers said, had “trusted the skilled judgement of the police, and discharged its obligation by way of referral”, and that it was a matter for the police that they didn’t pursue the case at this point.
On her interview on Thursday, nevertheless, Dr Hartley said: “The Makin review named quite clearly [Archbishop Welby’s] own failings within the matter.” She reiterated her call for “anyone named within the Makin review” to step back from public ministry.
Numerous clerics named within the Makin report have been asked to face back from ministry, including the previous Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler (News, 28 November).
Bishop Butler was president of the Scripture Union from 2011 to 2017, which had connections with the Iwerne Trust which ran the camps at which Smyth groomed his victims. He told the Makin review that he was not given any detailed information concerning the abuse when it was raised in 2015.
On Tuesday, it was announced that the Anglican Communion’s Bishop for Episcopal Ministry, Dr Jo Bailey Wells, had stood back from her role as an honorary assistant bishop within the diocese of London (News, 5 December).
Dr Bailey Wells was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s chaplain from 2013 to 2016, and liaised with the diocese of Ely after a Smyth survivor made a disclosure in that diocese in 2013.
