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.
I fully support your comments above, especially regarding of the Archbishop of York.
I have recent experience of the inability or unwillingness of the Archbishop of York in dealing with a vicar who made false allegations and told blatant lies about me in a document for the Church’s complaints procedure, sent to a Judge. This blatant lying was explicitly not included in consideration of my complaint by the Archbishop. The Diocesan Registrar stated that were I to raise it as a new complaint, this was of “insufficient substance to proceed further under the measure” (!)
I feel that my experience, whilst not related to abuse, has elements which perfectly illustrate the dysfunction of the church’s hierarchy and inadequacy of its complaints procedures, particularly regarding its attitude to the truth. This was a case where a vicar had made written allegations against me, including that I had been subject to a police investigation and had been cautioned by the police. Incredibly, my “offence” was supposedly to have made a safeguarding complaint against his organist- something I had not done. His allegations were clearly proven to be lies, with evidence I gained from the diocesan safeguarding officer and from the police.
After my gaining this evidence the vicar’s Archdeacon was unable to intervene, as the vicar declined to attend a meeting with a mediator present. Unbelievably, this decision was apparently the vicar’s to make, despite his being so clearly in the wrong.
When I tried to raise the matter by writing to the Archbishop of York, this was met with a curt reply stating that the Archbishop “could not get involved with or comment on a matter that has been fully considered and properly disposed of in both a CDM and subsequent review carried out by an independent judge” (which it had not), and that the Archbishop’s Office would not be entering into further correspondence on this matter. Hence the lies of the vicar were compounded by a complete misrepresentation by the Archbishop’s office of what had gone before and a clear attempt to sweep the whole thing under the carpet.
I am left questioning whether there is any concern in the Church about bearing false witness. It certainly appears to be of no concern to the Archbishop of York, his office, and his Diocesan Registrar.