For Diocesan Synod, 29.3.25
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes
Intro and background
You will all be aware that, on 28 January 2025 Channel 4 News broadcast a report of allegations against Bishop John Perumbalath, the Bishop of Liverpool. It’s important that we place on the record of Diocesan Synod an account of what has taken place, so I’ll first outline the events as we know them, explain the process that has been followed to secure interim episcopal ministry in the diocese, and address so far as I am able some of the questions that my colleagues and I have been hearing, informally from colleagues across the diocese and formally in forums such as Bishop’s Council. There’ll then be an opportunity for further Q&A.
We all recognise that this has been a hugely difficult and painful situation for all concerned. Members of Synod will understand that, as much of the work surrounding these events has properly taken place outside the diocese, through the National Safeguarding Team and through the office of the Archbishop of York, there are limits to what any one of us within the diocese can know. It’s also important for us to note that we do not know the precise content of the allegations that have been made, and that the matters that have been reported are contested on all sides, so it would be improper for any of us to take a position on them. As our safeguarding training has made us all very aware, its important that we avoid speculation and resist the temptation to investigate or judge cases ourselves.
I’ll begin with an outline of what we now understand the timeline of events to have been.
In June 2022 – Bishop John Perumbalath, formerly Bishop of Bradwell in the diocese of Chelmsford, was nominated by the Crown Nominations Commission to be the next Bishop of Liverpool.
On October 18, 2022 – the public announcement of his appointment took place.
On January 20, 2023 – Bishop John legally became the Bishop of Liverpool at the Confirmation of Election service in York Minster.
Four days later, on January 24, 2023 – A woman – who has so far remained anonymous – in the Diocese of Chelmsford met with an archdeacon there, to report allegations of sexual misconduct by Bishop John when he was Bishop of Bradwell.
In February 2023 – these concerns were referred by the Diocese of Chelmsford to the Church’s National Safeguarding Team (NST). The NST set up a core group to respond to the allegation, following the Church of England’s statutory guidance.
On April 13, 2023 – the NST concluded that the safeguarding risk was not substantiated – that, in layman’s terms, there was no evidence that Bishop John posed an ongoing risk in continuing in a Church post. The role of the safeguarding team is to assess and manage risk, not determine guilt or innocence. The NST recommended some reflective learning for Bishop John on maintaining professional boundaries. The NST concluded that it did not have the evidence to bring a complaint under the CDM itself, but offered to support the woman in doing so. She has consistently chosen not to do so.
On April 22, 2023 – Bishop John’s ceremonial installation took place at Liverpool Cathedral. Quite a few questions have been raised about why this was allowed to go ahead. I understand that this was because the NST had concluded their investigation by that point and had concluded that there was no evidence of a safeguarding risk, and there was no CDM complaint being brought. On that basis there was no bar to the service going ahead. Bishop John had already legally become the Bishop of Liverpool in January 2023.
On July 20, 2023 a separate woman’s allegation of sexual harrasment was referred to the NST. In the wake of the Channel 4 programme, the second complainant has identified herself as Bishop Bev, but the details of the allegation have not been made public. The NST convened a further core group, which determined that this second complaint did not qualify, according to the criteria in the policy, as a safeguarding matter.
Bishop Bev did apply to bring a CDM but this was after the 1-year time limit in the CDM legislation (which applies to all cases unless they are safeguarding cases according to the legal definition – this is something that is being changed in the new CCM legislation which will take affect from this autumn). Because it was out of time, the President of Tribunals had to make a judgement on whether to allow it to be heard. The President of Tribunals decided the criteria for an out of time CDM had not been met. That judgement remains confidential. A request has been made for it to be seen, but the President of Tribunals has concluded, after consulting with both complainant and respondent, that it is not right to make it public. You can find his public statement making that decision online. (https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/decision-on-publication-liverpool-3.2.25.pdf)
It’s a matter of public record that Bishop Bev was granted a leave of absence from her work in the diocese in September 2023. What was originally expected to be a 3 month sabbatical was extended without explanation, and this has been the subject of several questions at previous Diocesan Synods over the ensuing year or so. Clearly, at that time, none of us knew that this situation was behind Bishop Bev’s extended leave of absence. I know many members of this Synod at various times wrote to the Archbishop of York’s office to query this extended absence. The answer was repeatedly that Bishop Bev was absent from the diocese with the permission of the Bishop and Archbishop.
On February 10th of this year, Bishop Bev wrote in an open letter to members of the General Synod that ‘In August 2023 once my formal disclosure had been made against the Bishop of Liverpool, the archbishop of York recognised the very sensitive and difficult situation I found myself in and for pastoral reasons encouraged me to take extended leave pending a resolution. The archbishop ensured there was pastoral support in place for me throughout, which continues to this day.’
Our diocesan response to the Channel 4 broadcast
Which brings us to the way this unfolded in our diocese.
The Communications Team were advised in an email from Channel 4 at lunchtime on 27 January 2025 the day before the broadcast, that the story was to be broadcast the next day.
In light of the seriousness of the situation and its potential consequences the Assistant Diocesan Secretary (also Communications Advisor to the Bishop of Liverpool), gathered a group to manage the immediate situation (Situation Management Group, SMG) and to prevent or minimise the harm and damage which might be done to the Diocese, in accordance with Charity Commission advice.
The group comprised the Dean, the three Archdeacons, the Chairs of the Diocesan Synod Houses of Clergy and Laity (who became the six signatories to the two statements were later issued), himself and the Chair of the DBF. As incoming Diocesan Secretary and Cathedral Chief Officer, Sharon Parr also engaged to the extent that she was able prior to taking up her new role on 3 February 2025 when she became a full member of the SMG.
The email from Channel 4 invited a statement from the Diocese, and advised that if none was forthcoming by 4pm on 28 January 2025 this would be reported as ‘declining to give a statement’. The SMG considered what communication was needed and prepared a statement for Channel 4 together with advanced notice to the clergy of the broadcast and a pastoral letter to be issued after the broadcast. These were issued over the names of the signatories. As one of those signatories myself I’d like to say that we took a very deliberate decision not to hide behind a phrase such as ‘a spokesman for the diocese of Liverpool’, or ‘the Diocese said…’. We were very aware that, whilst we each held authority and responsibility in our own right by virtue of our elected or appointed offices, we could only speak in our own names and not in the name of the Diocese as a whole.
The Archdeacons also met with Bishop John to discuss the situation and encouraged him to support investigation of the second complaint. Later in the day a statement was also prepared and issued by Bishop John who indicated that he would ‘comply with any investigation deemed necessary’.
The SMG also agreed that contact should be made with the Archbishop of York’s office to request a meeting to discuss the next steps in light of these complaints and the ongoing absence of the Bishop of Warrington from diocesan duties.
On 29 January – the day after the initial Channel 4 broadcast – the SMG considered a number of matters in preparation for a response to further communication from Channel 4. In particular, attention was paid to listening to feedback we were all receiving from staff, clergy and the public via direct contact and social media in response to the broadcast, the Bishop’s statement, the statement from the Diocese and an email from Bishop John in which he indicated that, having taken two days off, he would be returning to work on 31 January. As part of this consideration, a member of the SMG contacted the Bishop of Warrington who was preparing a statement for circulation to the Diocese. She was offered support in the preparation of a statement.
Bearing all these factors in mind, the SMG took the decision to write to the Archbishop of York and to release that communication as a further statement, in which we said that we had concluded that it was untenable for Bishop John not to step back whilst an investigation was carried out. This was the conclusion that we had reached from hearing from the many people who had been in touch with us individually or in our various capacities. Again, that statement was released as the personal view of the 6 named signatories, of which I was one.
On 30 January 2025 Bishop John issued a statement indicating that he had taken the decision ‘to retire from active ministry in the Church of England’.
The exact date for the formal end to his role has not yet been determined but he stepped back from ministry within the diocese ‘with immediate effect’. In his statement, he noted that the NST had found both the complaints unsubstantiated and that the police had taken no further action in relation to the first complaint, and said that he had taken this decision because he wanted to spare the Diocese from prolonged uncertainty of his absence pending an investigation.
On the same day, Bishop Bev issued a Pastoral Letter in which she identified herself as the second complainant and explained why she had been absent from duties in the diocese and the personal cost of that absence. She also explained that she was unable to advise the diocese of what the future held for her.
Arrangements for Interim Episcopal Ministry
In light of these events, the focus of engagement with the Archbishop of York in the immediate time following was on how provision for episcopal ministry could be made for the diocese. We were at this point in the highly unusual situation of having no active bishop in post, and yet having no vacancies to be filled, which meant that certain functions – such as the filling of any clergy vacancies, or the coming into effect of pastoral schemes – could not take place.
On the same day that he announced his intention to retire from ministry with immediate effect, and with the agreement of Bishop Bev, Bishop John revoked the previously existing Instrument of Delegation which had made a wide delegation of diocesan episcopal powers to the Bishop of Warrington. Bishop Bev had indicated that she did not wish to be appointed as Acting Diocesan Bishop, and that she supported the appointment of another bishop to take on this role. Bishop Bev is still taking time to consider what the future holds for her. She does, of course, remain in office.
After taking advice from the Provincial Registrar and the National Legal Office for the Church of England, the Archbishop of York consulted the Bishop’s Council on 24th February this year, Bishop’s Council being the body which according to the rules of the Church of England needed to be consulted and give its consent to these proposals for them to be put into effect.
Howard Deller, Registrar to the Diocese of Liverpool, was in attendance at that meeting, to outline the legal position and the Archbishop’s proposal for securing an Interim bishop to provide continuing episcopal ministry in the diocese.
Bishop’s Council heard from the Registrar that Archbishop Stephen had invited a serving suffragan bishop with experience of interim ministry to take on the role of Interim Bishop of Liverpool. At that point the name remained strictly confidential whilst permission was sought from the Palace and No 10, but of course we now know that this is Bishop Ruth Worsley, the Bishop of Taunton.
In order to provide for secure ministry in this highly unusual situation, it was proposed that the See of Wigan – created in the !9th century but never used – be revived. Bishop’s Council were informed that:
- The appointment of a new Suffragan Bishop is made by petition of the Diocesan Bishop to the monarch under the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534.
- As with the filling of any suffragan see, the Bishop’s Council and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Liverpool were being consulted, and a submission had been made to the Dioceses Commission under section 17 of the 2007 Measure. The Dioceses Commission held a special meeting earlier that day to consider the matter at short notice.
- It is intended that, once the new Bishop of Wigan has been appointed, the Archbishop of York will sign a new instrument of delegation lasting for a 12month period in favour of the new Bishop of Wigan. That instrument would then be renewed for a further 12 months.
- The Bishop of Liverpool has appointed the Archbishop of York as an Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Liverpool, and will delegate his powers in respect of the appointment of a new Suffragan Bishop of Wigan to the Archbishop under section 13 of the 2007 Measure – subject of course to the approval of Liverpool’s Bishop’s Council and Standing Committee at this meeting.
- The Bishop of Liverpool has also signed delegations to enable the nominated Interim Bishop to be appointed an Honorary Assistant Bishop subject to the approval of the Bishop’s Council and Standing Committee.
- The usual CNC process would take place in due course in relation to the appointment of a permanent Bishop of Liverpool.
- This proposal is neutral in terms of numbers of bishops in the Diocese of Liverpool. Once a new Bishop of Liverpool is nominated and in post following their Confirmation of Election, the delegations to the Bishop of Wigan will cease and the see will lapse. Should the see of Warrington become vacant, the Interim Bishop of Liverpool would have to make a submission to the Dioceses Commission before making an appointment.
- These proposals were subject to the approval of the Bishop’s Council and Standing Committee and consents received from the King and no 10’s office.
- Bishop’s Council was therefore asked to approve:
- the delegation of powers by the Bishop of Liverpool under the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534 and under s.13 of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007 to the Archbishop of York as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Liverpool;
- the delegation of powers by the Bishop of Liverpool under the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534 and under s.13 of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007 to enable the nominated Interim Bishop to be appointed as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Liverpool; and
- the revival of the dormant See of Wigan as provided for by an Order in Council dated 6 April 1889 pursuant to the Suffragans Nomination Act 1888.
The proposals were discussed by members of the council, and then given unanimous consent, and the following week Number 10 made the announcement that Bishop Ruth Worsley had been appointed to this post.
Ongoing matters
There are inevitably serious ongoing matters which have not yet been resolved, questions which remain to be fully addressed, and questions which we are all asking ourselves about what could have been done differently, or better, as this situation unfolded.
A Serious Incident Report has been made to the Charity Commission by the Chair of the DBF in relation to these matters, and members of the DBF met with representatives of the Charity Commission earlier this week to interrogate what lessons might be learned from this, whether for us as a diocese or for the Church of England’s processes as a whole.
One thing that this has revealed is that we lacked a serious incident management plan, and we know that our communications didn’t always go to all appropriate groups. Those of us who were members of the Situation Management Group have asked that a policy be drawn up around membership of such a group and emergency communications planning to ensure that in any future emergency or crisis situation there is greater clarity around roles, responsibilities and lines of communication.
We have asked the Archbishop of York’s office to commission a lessons learned review when the situation is more stable, and our new Diocesan Secretary has committed to an internal review.
I know members of Synod will wish to know what Bishop Bev’s future plans are, but I’m afraid I can’t give any further information on that beyond what Bev herself has said in her pastoral letters to us.
Similarly, one big outstanding question is around what investigation might now be able to happen into the allegations. I understand that the NST are in touch with the first complainant on this matter. Living with the present uncertainty is deeply uncomfortable for us all and feels deeply unjust for all concerned, and yet whether or when an investigation takes place remains to be seen and is out of our hands.
It also leaves us with questions as a diocese about how we support one another when situations like this arise, about the healthiness of our diocesan culture, and particularly about how women experience the culture of the church. We are still rather too much in the middle of things to reflect on these yet, but I know many will want to contribute to a wider conversation about those things in due course. Helping us all in this reflection and healing process is an important part of Bishop Ruth’s remit in her interim role.
This has been a very long, but I hope comprehensive, report of the situation as I understand it. It has, it goes without saying, been a deeply troubling time. I know I and my fellow archdeacons have felt utterly wretched over the last few weeks, and I know that has been the case for many within our diocese too. Our relationship with our bishops is integral to the life of our diocese and to our own sense of ministry and identity as lay or ordained ministers and members of the diocese. This situation has left many of us feeling angry, betrayed and vulnerable. I have found myself clinging in a very new way to the raw emotion of the psalms of desolation as I’ve prayed the daily office.
And so, before we move to a time for your questions, let’s hold a moment of silence together, praying for all affected, and I’ll gather us together again with some words from Psalm 22, the Psalm that Jesus turned to find words to express his agony on the cross.
We take all reports and allegations seriously and if you, or anyone you are in contact with, are affected by this and want to talk to someone independently please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or email safespaces@victimsupport.org.uk. There are other support services available.
You could also contact the diocesan safeguarding advisor at safeguarding@liverpool.anglican.org
For more information about safeguarding in the Diocese of Liverpool go to liverpoolcofe.org/safeguarding-matters/
