A REDRESS scheme for victims and survivors of church-related abuse moved one step closer after the General Synod accomplished 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 continuously sought to work with survivors to make the redress scheme pretty much as good because it might be, she said. Their recommendations had been included within 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 could be appropriate for the scheme to listen to from perpetrators, but she reiterated that it will not assess criminal or civil liability. The committee had also eventually been persuaded to remove any requirement for church bodies, akin to PCCs (News, 14 November 2023), to contribute to redress payments, making this, as an alternative, a request.
The administration of the scheme has been delegated to an outdoor law firm, and the laws been strengthened to forestall the Archbishops’ Council from retrieving this function. On appeal, any financial compensation could only be amended upwards, and never reduced, Archdeacon Gibson explained. Reconsideration, should recent material change into available, would even be possible. There were also recent provisions for information sharing.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, who chairs the Redress Project Board, thanked the revision committee for his or her work. He also expressed gratitude to survivors who had been involved in helping to shape the scheme. Redress was not a possibility 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 nervous about pressure or “moral obligation” which should 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 return from the national Church, not parishes.
Luke Appleton (Exeter) strongly believed in survivors receiving what they deserved, but asked why a PCC ought to be answerable for an incumbent whom they didn’t employ and will easily dismiss.
The chair of the House of Laity and member of the Archbishops’ Council, Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham), who’s a member of the Board, echoed Bishop Mounstephen’s tributes to the survivors involved. He was concerned to have heard more in regards to the “whole church approach”, provided that there can be no requirement any more on individual churches to contribute financially. Many churches would still need to contribute voluntarily, even those which weren’t morally complicit in any abuse, he suggested. Could guidance be offered for such parishes?
Clive Scowen (London) said that, provided that PCCs or other bodies weren’t obliged to contribute, how would this affect their insurers?
Peter Adams (St Albans) said that the entire Church needed to take responsibility for abuse and its consequences. PCCs wouldn’t be required to pay, but he urged every church to think about whether it had some part in a collective responsibility to accomplish that. “Let’s do it Church, let’s not have the ifs and buts.”
Responding to the controversy, Archdeacon Gibson emphasised that any church making payments could accomplish that inside its charitable purposes, although the choice can be as much as the PCC in each case. Replying to Mr Scowen, she said that the committee had worked with insurers and said that it will be unlikely that any can be involved, because it was not a matter of civil liability.
The motion was passed by a show of hands: That the Synod do pay attention to this Report.
Carl Fender (Lincoln), the chair of the steering committee, then moved that the primary six clauses stand a part of the Measure.
The motion was passed by a show of hands: That clauses 1 to six stand a part of the Measure.
The Revd Jeffrey Terry (Truro) then moved the primary of his two amendments, which might give the redress body the facility to request information for an alleged perpetrator of a relative. As 25 members didn’t 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 in the event that they thought it will help them in a determination. He wanted the idea to be reversed, in order that the data should be sought in the event that they had reasonable grounds to imagine it could help their determination. After a brief 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 extend the scope of the Measure to permit requests to be made to the diocesan bishop, archdeacon, and diocesan safeguarding officer for the relevant parish. As 25 members didn’t 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.
