A REDRESS scheme for victims and survivors of church-related abuse moved one step closer after the General Synod completed its revision stage on Tuesday morning.
The Archdeacon of Ludlow, the Ven. Fiona Gibson (Hereford), recapped the history of the Abuse Redress Measure, which had begun its legislative journey in 2022 (News, 22 July 2022). The committee revising the measure had constantly sought to work with survivors to make the redress scheme as good as it could be, she said. Their recommendations had been included in the draft measure, as had some suggestions from Synod members.
The committee believed that the redress scheme must enshrine principles of “dignity, respect, and compassion”. Many had called for the scheme to be run independently and scrutinised by the Synod, Archdeacon Gibson said. In some instances, it may be appropriate for the scheme to hear from perpetrators, but she reiterated that it would not assess criminal or civil liability. The committee had also eventually been persuaded to remove any requirement for church bodies, such as PCCs (News, 14 November 2023), to contribute to redress payments, making this, instead, a request.
The administration of the scheme has been delegated to an outside law firm, and the legislation been strengthened to prevent the Archbishops’ Council from retrieving this function. On appeal, any financial compensation could only be amended upwards, and not reduced, Archdeacon Gibson explained. Reconsideration, should new material become available, would also be possible. There were also new provisions for information sharing.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, who chairs the Redress Project Board, thanked the revision committee for their work. He also expressed gratitude to survivors who had been involved in helping to shape the scheme. Redress was not an opportunity to pass off the Church’s responsibility, he said, but an expression of “collective repentance”, and a commitment to helping survivors to rebuild their lives.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) praised the removal of any obligation on parishes to contribute financially, but she was worried about pressure or “moral obligation” which may still weigh on parishes to chip in. Unlike the Church Commissioners, parishes had no money to spare, she said. Even survivors had made clear that they wanted redress to come from the national Church, not parishes.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) strongly believed in survivors receiving what they deserved, but asked why a PCC should be liable for an incumbent whom they did not employ and could easily dismiss.
The chair of the House of Laity and member of the Archbishops’ Council, Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), who is a member of the Board, echoed Bishop Mounstephen’s tributes to the survivors involved. He was concerned to have heard more about the “whole church approach”, given that there would be no requirement any more on individual churches to contribute financially. Many churches would still want to contribute voluntarily, even those which were not morally complicit in any abuse, he suggested. Could guidance be offered for such parishes?
Clive Scowen (London) said that, given that PCCs or other bodies were not obliged to contribute, how would this affect their insurers?
Peter Adams (St Albans) said that the whole Church had to take responsibility for abuse and its consequences. PCCs would not be required to pay, but he urged every church to consider whether it had some part in a collective responsibility to do so. “Let’s do it Church, let’s not have the ifs and buts.”
Responding to the debate, Archdeacon Gibson emphasised that any church making payments could do so within its charitable purposes, although the decision would be up to the PCC in each case. Replying to Mr Scowen, she said that the committee had worked with insurers and said that it would be unlikely that any would be involved, as it was not a question of civil liability.
The motion was passed by a show of hands: That the Synod do take note of this Report.
Carl Fender (Lincoln), the chair of the steering committee, then moved that the first six clauses stand part of the Measure.
The motion was passed by a show of hands: That clauses 1 to 6 stand part of the Measure.
The Revd Jeffrey Terry (Truro) then moved the first of his two amendments, which would give the redress body the power to request information for an alleged perpetrator of a relative. As 25 members did not stand to support a debate on the amendment, it lapsed.
Mr Terry moved a second amendment, connected to his first. The current draft Measure only allowed the redress body to contact perpetrators if they thought it would help them in a determination. He wanted the assumption to be reversed, so that the information must be sought if they had reasonable grounds to believe it could help their determination. After a short debate, the amendment was put to the vote and defeated.
Clauses 7-16 were then passed bloc without debate.
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester) moved an amendment which sought to increase the scope of the Measure to allow requests to be made to the diocesan bishop, archdeacon, and diocesan safeguarding officer for the relevant parish. As 25 members did not stand, the amendment lapsed.
Archdeacon Ayers also spoke against passing the unamended clause 17. But clause 17 was then passed by a show of hands.
The remaining clauses 18-27 were then deemed passed without debate.
The long title was then passed by a show of hands.
