The Church of England yesterday published its final report on the recommendations of the Makin Review and the work of the Task and Finish Group. In addition to the report there was a press release, which is copied below.
Final report published on response to Makin recommendations
23/06/2026
The Church of England has today published its final report on the recommendations of the Makin Review and the work of the Task and Finish Group, including updates on actions in response to the independent review into the abuse carried out by John Smyth.
The report confirms the November announcement that the Church will accept all 27 recommendations made by the Independent Lessons Learned Review concerning John Smyth QC (Makin Review): 24 in full and three in part – reflecting a commitment to act on the full range of lessons identified.
The Task and Finish Group, established in 2025, has completed a comprehensive programme of scrutiny of how the Church is implementing each recommendation. Its work has been approved by the National Safeguarding Steering Group, which has delegated authority for responding to safeguarding recommendations.
The report once again acknowledges the effects of the devastating abuse perpetrated by Smyth and the failures that allowed it to continue. It pays tribute to victims and survivors whose courage in coming forward made the review possible.
In the introduction, Chair of the Task and Finish Group, and lead Safeguarding Bishop for the Church of England, the Rt Revd Robert Springett, writes (abridged):
“This report is, first and foremost, about people – all who have experienced abuse within the Church of England.”
“We write with humility, and with a complete and unreserved belief in those who have come forward.”
“This report is clear that safeguarding must always take precedence over institutional loyalty.”
“Ultimately, what is needed is culture change: deep, sustained, and reaching to every level of the Church, from its national structures to every parish.”
The report highlights significant progress already made, including:
A number of recommendations remain in progress, including the development of an independent safeguarding body and further reforms to ensure consistent national standards across all dioceses.
The report also identifies areas where further work is needed, including unresolved questions around the seal of the confessional and the complexity of safeguarding in international contexts.
A central theme of the report’s response to the Makin recommendations is the need to embed a “safeguarding first” approach across the whole Church, ensuring that the protection of all is prioritised above all other considerations, including institutional reputation.
The report also emphasises the need to embed a victim-and-survivor-centred approach, with trauma-informed practice now embedded across safeguarding work. It calls for greater consistency in the support offered to survivors, so that all receive the same standard of care regardless of where they come forward.
The Task and Finish Group stresses the importance of the recommendation from the Makin Review that safeguarding must be understood as the responsibility of everyone in the Church – clergy, lay leaders and volunteers alike – and must be applied consistently in every context.
Looking ahead, responsibility for overseeing delivery of the remaining recommendations will transfer to the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG) which will oversee the next phase of implementation.
The Task and Finish Group first met in May 2025.
Read the Terms of Reference
The paper is part of the distribution to General Synod members ahead of the July 2026 Group of Sessions, with most papers due for publication on Thursday 25 June.
I suppose that the next step should be to set up some sort of commission to advise on how the work of the Task and Finish Group, and the recommendations of the Makin Report can be implemented at Diocesan level.
This could extend the process for a further two or three years.
Or alternatively, we might hope for a less cynical response. There is a huge groundswell behind the embedding of safeguarding within the Church, now from parishes down to the diocesan and then to the national level. Whilst much remains to be done, I think we need to see the direction of travel and the quality of what has been achieved across the Church.
I do think it would be healthy for clergy to be supervised. I know this may be perceived as heavy-handed by some. Although Synod pursuing spiritual direction is commendable, supervision is entirely different. I do find it astounding that when our core business is people, this isn’t compulsory. This is either a requirement or expected for many organisations that work primarily in the ‘care’ profession, and even in some parts of the Anglican Communion abroad. Para 35 mentions it, but for Diocesan and Cathedral Safeguarding Officers: ‘Through regular supervision, reflective practice and structured quality assurance, the framework supports safeguarding professionals… Read more »
Yes – indeed! I’ve probably said this here before, supervision is about support, and a key consequence of the lack of supervision for clergy is the corresponding lack of support. By contrast (and again I may have said this before) in my 5 years working for the BBC I met weekly with my producer, and today, as a volunteer in third sector organisation, I am required to debrief after every shift.
Nearly 40 years in as a priest and apart from the odd MDR, im still waiting for someone to ask me how things are going….
Do they realise Smyth was not a member of the CoE clergy, and Iwerne was not part of the CoE?
Of course, many of the protagonists had strong associations with the CoE, but operated somewhat outside of the structures.
Nigel, sorry to keep flogging a dead horse, but for Smyth to have been a Lay Reader at that time (no idea whether anything has changed since) he would have had training before being licensed by a diocesan bishop and required to promise canonical obedience to the diocesan. It’s claimed that he was a Reader in the Diocese of Winchester, and reliance has been placed on an entry to that effect appearing in a Diocesan Directory – discussed some years ago on TA and several times since. But significantly the present Bishop of Winchester is reported as saying recently that… Read more »
Smyth was a lay reader in Winchester Diocese, so had an official lay role in the C of E. And most Iwerne leaders were C of E. The inner leadership group who were sent the Ruston Report were all (I think C of E), and dd not report the abuse – they exported Smyth to Africa to abuse boys there. The C of E really cannot escape responsibility for this.
We have had difficulty with other loosely affiliated organisations where abuse occurred, like Soul Survivor. Our fuzzy boundaries are both a strength and a liability.
Smyth’s Readership is not established. There’s a presumption that he was licensed, but the recent statement by the Bishop of Winchester must throw doubt on that. Someone should look into this to establish the facts.
Rowland, we have discussed this before. Bishops and senior clergy are keen to deny Smyth’s status as lay reader, and therefore the Church’s responsibility. But I have seen the Winchester diocesan directory entry where he was listed as a lay reader.
That’s not in issue. I thought my comment couldn’t be clearer and I didn’t rule out the possibility that records had been lost.
On reflection, another possibility which has just occurred to me is that records might have been ‘closed’ when Smyth left this country – that’s now almost 50 years ago. The Diocesan Registrar should know whether closed files are retained (and where) or destroyed. I’m not prepared to question what the bishop says. I think this deserves proper investigation.
I was replying to your first comment. I didn’t read your second comment until after I’d posted my reply.
A long and wide experience of bishops dealing with abuse cases has made me very ready to question what they say. IICSA and other reviews have made it clear how often they don’t tell the truth. There are a few honourable exceptions, of course.
I’m with you to the extent of increasingly feeling the absurdity of the whole scenario, almost half a century since the events without resolution and seemingly endless bureaucracy.
As there are pending CDMs and, as I understand, claimant(s) from Zimbabwe I think it’s inappropriate for outsiders to say more.
Why? How would it change anything? It woulnd’t change Smyth’s actions. It wouldn’t change responsibility on those who knew what was going on, within and without the C of E. Smyth was already a very establishment figure, been teaching/preaching for a long time, being a lay reader would not have changed anything. Now, if he had undergone TRAINING as a lay reader, one might think that might have influenced him. Really? His personality was not open to pursuasion. The question is why nobody, from Winchester College to his fellow leaders at Iwerne, could detect the deep character flaws and act… Read more »
I have consistently said that nothing would have prevented Smyth’s abuse in England. He was a sole agent (albeit that he had a seldom-mentioned accomplice). None was on C of E premises. It had happened before the recipients of the Ruston report came to know about it and, so far as I am aware, it did not ‘resume’ until in Zimbabwe – which I consider outside my remit for comment. Smyth’s status as a Lay Reader (or otherwise) becomes relevant in a legal context for possible C of E responsibility. With respect I thought I had spelled that out clearly.… Read more »
Thanks. I think we are on the same page.
OK, I am prepared to attempt an answer, concentrating on Winchester College, why no one detected Smyth’s character flaws earlier. There was an extensive exchange about this on ‘Surviving Church’ some time ago when some Winchester College boys, both abused and ‘unabused’, related their experiences of Smyth. Smyth was a prominent figure, not just locally, youngest QC and a Recorder of the Crown Court. He had no official status or connection with the College other than as a visitor to the Christian Forum. He invited boys to Sunday lunch at his house; they enjoyed this after the spartan life at… Read more »
Nick Howard’s long and forensic piece on responsibility and accountability in the Smyth case is helpful.
https://sixtyguilders.org/2026/06/20/a-scandal-without-an-apology/
Maybe my short comment should have been worded – which of the recommendations, had they been enacted prior to Smyth’s abuse, would have prevented his abuse?
I doubt Smyth would have promised obedience to anybody, particularly a non-evangelical diocesan. I doubt training Smyth would have had any impact.
I doubt having a safeguarding officer at Iwerne camps would have changed anything.
On the other hand, I would like to think Smyth would not be easily repeated in the current culture. Maybe.
Not sure if my comment got posted – it is very pertinent to talk about cover-ups, lack of repentance or apology, and all the other post-facto issues. But I am wondering – what was the cause of the torturous abuse happening n the first place? An evil person (of course), but also power and control (of course), fear of whistle blowing, and a contamination of robust independent school discipline culture? Then I start to think – which of the Makin recommendations would have prevented the abuse in the first place? BTW, I had no direct involvement, but was under the… Read more »
Surely the issue is not just about whether Smyth was a minister, but also about whether those made aware of the abuse and who did nothing were Church of England ministers. Surely that is where the safeguarding failure lies.
Whilst reports of who received the Ruston report vary, it seems that all but one of them were Anglican Priests.
I agree entirely about failure to report and act, as I implied in my comments. But I am suggesting the main safeguarding failure was preventing abuse happening in the first place. I am asking which of the Makin recommendations, if any, would have had any impact on that. I assume those abused wish there to be some consequences. But I also assume they would rather not have been abused in the first place. That, to me, is the primary priority. In other words, would it happen again today? Several reasons why not, most to do with changing laws. Some to… Read more »
They are the subjects of pending CDMs. Not for us to judge.
One element missing from the Final Report and the comments so far posted on this thread and totally absent in general from conversation and awareness in the Church of England is that the Bible and Biblical fundamentalism and literalism are one foundational element of abusive teaching, culture and behaviour in the Christian Church. Adrian Thatcher’s book Ending Abusive Theologies: Beginning Again with Love, published this week, is both timely and too late – too late to be taken on board by the Makin review, Living in Love and Faith and the educational, transformational process required of the whole Church. This… Read more »
Yes. This has reminded me of Dennis Nineham’s great book “The Use and Abuse of the Bible”.
I think maybe what I have been clumsily talking about. An awareness of the dangers of cults also comes into it. Waco and others.
Biblical fundamentalism is one thing and biblical authority is another. Theological training is fundamental to reading the bible well but it doesn’t lose any of its authority as a result, in fact the opposite is true. The Smyth abuse seemed to more related to the private independent school practice of canning, which was banned in state schools in 1987, but not until 1998 in private independent schools with which Smyth was linked.
Yes, I think this is what I was hinting at. Smyth is less likely nowadays because of : changes in laws, which prevented police investigation in the 1980’s young people (and women) less likely to put up with this kind of slavery, they are more empowered ? not sure where the law is on this, but I think it is a legal duty to report suspicion of abuse, and not reporting may lead to criminal proceedings? In short, the secular world has moved on, but I am not at all sure whether any of the Makin recommendations (all of which… Read more »
Emphasizing a few factors might prevent a repeat of Smyth – Openness: is a practical means to arrive at good decisions, an intrinsically right approach, and a key element of Ignatian discernment. Smyth operated in secret. Independent thought: Iwerne encouraged earnest study of scripture but seemingly discouraged exploration of difficult questions. That allows a self-confident person who knows scripture well to advocate manipulative ideas without having them questioned. Social action: Working to make the world better leads to a more outgoing faith and better contextualizes the minor personal failings which Smyth claimed to be punishing De-emphasized mentoring might also help. Nash… Read more »
Even Giles Brandreth thought something was not quite right when he met Smyth in the 1970’s. Smyth was clearly obsessed with corporal punishment. And does this also make Brandreth complicit for not exploring the matter further? Whipping passed the ‘diner table test’ at the time, something we can scarcely imagine now.
I don’t fully buy the idea that this was a hangover from corporal punishment in schools – which after all didn’t take place in sheds, wasn’t secret, and wasn’t repeated anything like as often or severely as Smyth’s stuff. Makin’s approach to stopping a repeat is limited to the procedural steps he’s suggested – rightly, because his background is in social work, not religion. The CofE itself needs to look at how the expression and structure of its work with young people might have opened a door for Smyth, and to make sure that door is shut. The same approaches… Read more »
I have said (many times) that I met Smyth in court in the 1970s, or it might have been the late ‘60s. In four subsequent decades I met possibly hundreds of other barristers without having any recollection of them now, but the memory of Smyth somehow stuck. He was still instantly recognisable in 2017 when the news ‘broke’ on television. In court he struck me as a very competent advocate, very aloof and self-assured. The late Stanley Monkhouse, a regular TA contributor, alerted me to a YouTube video of Smyth appearing on South African national television, displaying exactly the same… Read more »
Stephen Parsons has been blogging on the dangers of fundamentalism and biblical literalism since 2013, and published a book on the subject long before that. Ungodly Fear is well worth reading.
i think one needs to be a little careful about fundamentalism. I don’t think any conservative evangelicals I ever came across would regard themselves as fundamentalists, and I neither would I.
Fundamentalists (or biblical literalists), in my view, are those who, for example, take literal meaning of the 7 days of creation.
Don’t want to debate words, but we must be careful. We are not America.
It’s one of those irregular adjectives: I am biblical and orthodox, you are fundamentalist, he is a narrow-minded fanatic.
It is possible Smyth was admitted as a Reader without any training – as a Director of LLM training I would generally advise against this but it does happen in some dioceses. However, there will have been an admission service and so an order of service or similar. Most dioceses keep a register which newly admitted Readers sign. There will be written evidence somewhere alongside that which Janet and others have seen. It may yet be found!
Robert Thompson’s article about safeguarding in the post below had me shouting’’Yes!!’ In agreement , and then sitting back to see whether anyone would comment. I wasn’t surprised that most ‘clerical’ comment concentrated on his other article . So the (not yet?? ) final report of the ‘task and finish’ Makin group provides yet another illustration of the problems which beset safeguarding in the Cof E . My personal view which I know many will not share is that Smyth’s initial abuse probably could not have been prevented by any of the Makin recommendations- he was a dangerous opportunist who… Read more »
You’re right, Susannah.
I have probably said too much about Smyth and need to take a sabbatical from the subject, knowing that mine is very much a minority and unpopular opinion of the whole matter and how it has been handled. But I entirely share your view that the initial abuse would not have been prevented by Mr Makin’s recommendations had they been in place at the time.
I am also in full agreement with what Susanna wrote. I think her view is perhaps more widespread than she thinks. Just skimmed the report again. My impression is that it is inwardly focussed, concerned with responses to abuse, not preventing abuse, and I did not see a single reference to secular law. These are symptoms of a deep seated inward looking group-think. So, had I been abused, I would be supportive of implementing the recommendations, but not satisfied. My assumption is that Ruston etc. took the secular law seriously, and if the law had been clear that they had… Read more »
If you put the following question to Google, you will get a fairly full and accurate summary of the law as it applies to England and Wales:
“Is there a duty to report crime English law”.
There are differences in Scotland, but not relevant to your question
Slightly trying to understand your remark – I certainly wrote in support of Robert’s article about safeguarding. I am not at all a cleric. So when you say ‘clerical’ comment, do you mean comments by clerics?
I note Roland Waterbridge is also not a cleric (as far as I am aware – he is an organist).
Is that what you meant? Plus Robert’s article is talking about inward looking and self preservation?
In addition to the comments made by Susanna (no ‘h’) and Nigel Goodwin above, I responded 6 days ago to Robert Thompson’s excellent article on safeguarding, published on TA 20June. This was endorsing the comments made by Another James. At the end of my comment I said: “The urgent question I should like to raise is: How can we make the issues raised in this article more widely known? They cannot remain just for those who are aware of the situation anyway. This is not a rhetorical question”. I am very disappointed not to have opened a discussion as to… Read more »
Susan I thought your response was very pertinent and clear , and like you am disappointed that it did not trigger a follow up discussion, and especially from anyone known to be working as an ordained member of the Church of England . Nigel you are probably giving my comment much closer scrutiny than it deserves .I used the word ‘clerical’ in inverted commas as an indication it was a form of shorthand. Maybe the Old English prēost would have done better but it’s pretty obsolete! Apart from Robert Thompson’s excellent article about safeguarding there seems to be very little… Read more »
Neither a cleric, nor an organist in the sense that you mean, Nigel. A long-retired legal hack with extensive experience, nearly three decades, of handling historical child abuse claims and associated litigation, but none church-related. I’m clear that the C of E is not equipped to deal with such matters in-house.
I came into this field by accident, inheriting cases from an elderly colleague (now deceased) who was literally made ill by the detail of the abuse.
Rowland,speaking as another person who has spend a long time dealing with both current and historic child abuse cases outside the C of E (l can so fully understand why your colleague became ill) you are completely right saying the C of E is not equipped to deal with these matters in house. The powers that are will not take heed of any recommendations that the process needs to be independent and then they get enmeshed by the purveyors of snake oil who offer them tweaks to processes which will miraculously allow them to do it. Power and control anybody??
The C of E was given very clear, basic and authoritative guidance by Lord Carlile in 2017. For his pains, his advice was pooh-poohed by the Church and that only retracted by the Archbishop years later.
Now, almost 60 years since I first encountered Smyth professionally in court ‘on the other side’, I find this continuing unresolved saga utterly surreal in 2026.
It’s utterly distasteful and goes against everything the Church ought to stand for. Sadly there are none so deaf as will not hear …. As Susan Hunt and many others have found out over the years
At the beginning of my complaints about safeguarding, in 2020, I came across a document called Micah 6:8 written by Martin Sewell to The Rt Hon Baroness Stowell of Beeston, MBE Chair of the Charity Commission. It was a letter about illegality Safeguarding Core Groups and liberally quoted Lord Carlile. It was signed by seventy four people from a wide range of backgrounds. At the time our hopes were raised that now action must be taken. I quoted it in six formal complaints believing that it must influence the safeguarding core group. We could not imagine that such a prestigious… Read more »
I assume it was heavily quoted in the ‘Response to Makin Recommendations’ ?!?.
I wonder whether it might be useful to resubmit it as the Charity Commission does seem to be a little more engaged?
That does sound a possible idea Susanna (no ‘h’) but it is not my document. I will make enquiries.
Nigel I do not know the answer. I will look out for it!
I am trying to understand in a holistic manner, as is my wont. We have been having Ashura recently. I have a Shia mosque next to me, and we heart he chanting. One of my best friends reminded me that his wife’s brother used to participate. Wife was Iranian/Pakistani, grandfather was famous poet. My friend said wife’s brother used to lash his back with razors during the period. He said ‘he did it out of self loathing rather than any religious impulse’ In the Philippines, we have enactments of the crucifixion .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_Philippines#:~:text=Crucifixions%20are%20also%20held%20in,Ni%C3%B1o%20or%20the%20Black%20Nazarene. It makes Smyth seem mild. It makes response… Read more »
There are examples of extreme ‘punishment’ at both ends of the Anglican spectrum – Smyth and Ball. And I know a priest who taught self-flagellation to boys. The police regarded it as a safeguarding matter, but unfortunately the diocese didn’t at the time. This stuff does go on, but it is usually covert and (I hope) rare.