The Archbishops’ Council has this week announced its response into the report by Keith Makin following his independent review into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth. And their considered opinion is to kick it into the long grass.

The Makin review report confirms that Smyth’s abuse was known to at least some church officers in 1982. It says that there were more awareness in 2012, and that “There were opportunities missed, by Church officers and others, in 2012 and 2013, to explore these concerns and to ensure it was reported to the Police.”

The Makin review was commissioned on 13 August 2019. The completed review was received by the Archbishops’ Council in October 2024 and published on 7 November 2024.

Yesterday, the Archbishops’ Council announced a four-stage response.

Stage One: the Archbishops’ Council’s National Safeguarding Team (NST) willexamine whether there “is any immediate safeguarding risk in light of criticisms made of individuals in the Makin review report.”

So, more than 40 years since church officers first became aware of the abuse, 12 years since awareness became more widely known, three weeks since the report was published, and around eight weeks since it received it, the Archbishops’ Council’s National Safeguarding Team is assessing whether there is an “immediate safeguarding risk”.

Such a task would seem to be a priority. Not for the Archbishops’ Council – they’ve set themselves a working deadline of mid-February 2025. I say “working deadline”, because the press release adds that “If this timeframe changes those impacted will be made aware.”

After this, there are three more stages:

Stage Two: This will be “a more in-depth assessment” completed by “Regional Safeguarding Leads”. After this assessment, the Archbishops’ Council says, “recommendations will be made”

What about the recommendations in the Makin review report?

Stage three: a five-person panel, comprising “two by senior members of the NST, two external lawyers and one in-house lawyer” will examine the assessment made in Stage Two. The panel will make decisions “to determine what action will be taken in respect of individuals, including where appropriate disciplinary action.”

And then, we get to the final stage:

Stage Four: After the “more in-depth assessment” by regional assessment leads; and the examination of that assessment by a five-person panel, the determination of actions to be taken will face “robust external scrutiny” by an independent barrister.

After this stage, IF a decision is taken to bring complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure, those accused of misconduct “will have the opportunity to have input into the process” – presumably if they haven’t died of old age by the time that stage is reached.

The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 is law. It has the status of an Act of Parliament. It does not require “immediate risk assessments”, followed by “a more in-depth assessment”, followed by an examination of that assessment, followed by “robust external scrutiny”.

There is a statutory process. It isn’t being followed. Instead, the Archbishops’ Council are making up their response as they go along.

The Church of England’s response to John Smyth’s abuse has been delay after delay after delay. The Makin review report concludes that the Church’s overall response was characterised by a lack of urgency and a failure to act promptly on the information available regarding the abuse, which contributed to ongoing risks for victims.”

The Archbishops’ Council’s response: further delay before any action. The Church of England describes itself as “episcopally led and synodically governed”. So why are the bishops – many of whom are themselves guilty of safeguarding failings in their own dioceses – stepping back and letting Secretary General William Nye – who is neither a bishop or a Synod member – come up with delaying tactics rather than swift and decisive action.