An open letter from Bishop Helen-Ann to the Diocese of Newcastle.
Dear friends in Christ,
Standing by the departure board in London’s Kings Cross station waiting for my train’s platform to be announced, I was struck by some of new announcements made to passengers. One described how we should take care using escalators and not use the brushes to clean our shoes. If we needed to, we should take the lift which, like a magical carpet-ride would take us to our destination. Another announcement reminded us to take care with the gap between the platform and the train and described the gap as a river. I am so used to hearing ‘see it, say it, sorted’ or (in the case of the Tyne and Wear Metro) ‘report it to sort it’ that these new messages struck me for their engagement with imagination and lightness whilst maintaining a serious approach about safety. Some of the detail, like not using escalator brushes to clean shoes I might have thought was a bit over the top and obvious, but of course this must have happened in the past causing harm. We can never be too careful and assume others will think like we (or indeed I) do. The story we tell ourselves is not the story others tell about us.
This has been a long week at General Synod. I want to begin by paying tribute to our diocesan representatives. They do an outstanding job on our behalf. They are fantastic ambassadors for our diocese and all made significant contributions to the week’s proceedings. Synod days are long and full of detail (remember one of Synod’s main role is a legislative body). They also are very good at looking after one another and this week of all weeks they took very good care of me!
Our Synod reps will provide an overview of the week at our gathering of Diocesan Synod in early March, so I want to allow their voices to be heard rather than me giving comment on everything. I do however want to offer specific reflections about Monday and Tuesday’s safeguarding debates and the outcome of the Tuesday debate about a structural way forward for the Church of England regarding safeguarding. I do so on the basis that my views on the current landscape of the Church of England on safeguarding are well known following my multiple interventions since the publication of the Makin Report in November 2024. I continue to stand by those interventions and will remain consistent on the essential points raised and in particular the need for the Church to move towards transparency, accountability and independence when it comes to safeguarding. I also want to make clear my own awareness of the continued trauma caused to victims and survivors of abuse by the Synod’s discussions and decisions this week. I am very grateful for our own diocese’s vital work in chaplaincy support to victims and survivors and commend it to you once again.
I will try to be as clear and open as I can in what follows and I make no apology for that. Synod this week was asked to choose between two models towards independence for safeguarding both in terms of scrutiny and operations. These were known as models 3 and 4. Presumably there were such things as models 1 and 2 but when it came to the Synod debate only the two that moved to greater degrees of independence were up for discussion. We got to this point following the establishment of a response group to the Jay Report which was presented to General Synod a year ago. You might recall that I made a speech last year welcoming the Jay Report and urging members of Synod to move swiftly to implement its recommendations, which called for full independence for safeguarding. Synod chose not to do that but to establish a response group to explore the report’s recommendations further. It is the work of that group that was up for debate on Tuesday. One thing I said in the debate last year is that as a Church we had everything to hope for and nothing to fear. I offer those words again now, even though they are now underpinned by a deeper challenge (in my view) for the Church as institution.
As the debate on Tuesday unfolded, an amendment was moved by the Bishop of Blackburn that introduced a ‘model 3.5’: a desire to move to model 3 (independent scrutiny) and to ask for more work to be done on model 4 (the independent operation of safeguarding). Despite several speeches making clear that only an immediate clear move towards fully independent safeguarding would signal the change needed by the Church, Synod voted to adopt the amendment and move us into what I feel is a confused space. Yes a move towards full independence would be challenging, but as Professor Alexis Jay said to me only last week, it can be done if there is a will to do it.
For the sake of transparency, I voted against the +Blackburn amendment and then abstained in the final vote. It struck me that the speeches made in favour of the amendment seemed to misrepresent the reality around model 4 and introduced sufficient doubt in a majority of Synod members’ minds so as to tip the vote away from what I would have seen as a bold and courageous step forward, which would have sent a clear signal to our nation that as the established Church we are serious about the level of reputational crisis that the institution of the Church is now in.
This is indeed a watershed time for the Church and I do not think my episcopal colleagues in particular grasp this.
Under model 4, safeguarding staff would have remained embedded in a diocese but from an employment perspective would have been separate from the diocese. This (in my and many other’s views) would have removed any hint of potential for episcopal interference or control in matters of safeguarding. I take very seriously the conversations I have had with safeguarding professionals and with colleagues in our NE region who work in other sectors and institutions and who look at what we are doing as an institution with a degree of incredulity and horror. I personally am wary of phrases like ‘ah but we are the Church’. We should not be using this as an excuse. Yes we are the Church, the people of God, but we are part of God’s world not apart from it. We are not excused from accountability and transparency.
With this, please note I am careful to raise a distinction between the institution and the church local (in our parishes, chaplaincies, schools and multiple mission and ministry contexts). One thing that I have lamented in recent weeks is the way in which the dysfunction of the institution and its leadership has undermined the morale of what is happening on the ground in our diverse contexts. I am very sorry indeed about that.
I am also aware that it became the settled view of INEQE who superbly led our own Diocesan and Cathedral independent safeguarding audit last year that model 3 was the preferred option. I respect that view but knowing the institution of the Church as I do my view is that the level of culture change required makes safe delivery of model 3 impossible in terms of a consistency across all of the dioceses. Model 4 would in my view have got us there with consistency and robustness.
With that in mind, and based on my interventions already made I do not think it helpful for bishops to be making statements at this time like ‘I take safeguarding seriously’ or ‘I want the highest possible standards in safeguarding’ or ‘I am confident in my diocese because we have…’ This is not to deny the veracity of such statements, only to say clearly that I am not a safeguarding professional. My interventions have made clear the level of seriousness that I hold safeguarding in and I do not need to speak into this landscape further. I am fully committed to transparency, accountability and independence and as a Church working with those who can help us do that effectively. The events of the past weeks have clearly demonstrated that there are significant issues with the leadership of the Church. This is not the time therefore for a bishop (of all people) to have moved an amendment that even hints at the perceived power imbalances that exist in our structures. I need say no more than that. I await more detail about how this ‘model 3.5’ will be implemented, the implications for us as a diocese regarding that, and specifically for a clear timeframe for how this will happen. I and my senior colleagues will of course keep all of you updated about that.
This comes with my continued gratitude for all that you do, my prayers and my very best wishes indeed.
+Helen-Ann Newcastle
February 2025.
