THE long-awaited redress scheme for victims and survivors of abuse in a church context moved closer to completion on Monday, after the General Synod gave its final approval.
After nodding through some minor last-minute changes to the text of the Measure, members passed the draft law almost unanimously. Just one member voted against.
“We are treading on the sacred ground of individuals’s suffering,” the chair, the Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer, warned the Synod as the controversy began. He acknowledged the presence of survivors in the general public gallery and others throughout the Synod’s membership.
Carl Fender (Lincoln), who chaired the steering committee, opened the controversy by paying tribute to the various victims and survivors who had invested “time and energy to the method, despite the harm the Church has caused them”.
Planning for the scheme had begun as way back as 2021, and lots of survivors had waited even longer for meaningful redress from the Church, he said. Setting up the scheme had proven complicated, nevertheless, and had required several rounds of careful drafting and consultation.
“We have listened, we’ve reflected, but now we must deliver,” he concluded.
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, who chaired the board overseeing the redress project, told the Synod that the scheme should never have been crucial. The failure of the Church to live out the gospel and as a substitute collude in abuse was a “source of shame” and made the scheme absolutely vital.
The publication last autumn of the Makin report on John Smyth’s abuse had prompted a last-minute rethink of the scheme, which was already well-developed on the time, he said (News, 17 January). Realising that a few of those that had been harmed by Smyth won’t be eligible, the factors had been widened, which the Bishop warmly welcomed.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, who chaired the board overseeing the redress project
Mr Fender had already led the Synod through approving amendments to the laws to implement this. Applicants to the scheme needed to pass certainly one of two tests: either the abuser needed to have a “close connection” to the Church of England, or a separate church officer needed to have “didn’t act” to forestall abuse by a 3rd party.
Some members had questioned whether this may include church officers who had genuinely tried to forestall the chance of abuse or report concerns, but in vain.
The Archdeacon for Rural Mission within the diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, the Ven. Sally Gaze, summed this up as: “You do the correct thing, but then you definitely’re unsure if the correct thing has actually happened.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, told members that the scheme was not about “blaming people” but providing redress. Later, Mr Fender also reassured the Synod that the laws had a “reasonableness” clause.
Several members within the important debate spoke movingly of the need of constructing recompense to those harmed by the Church. The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) said that the Church was also traumatised by what had happened in its name, just as survivors were: “It is rarely them and us, it’s we.”
Bishop Mounstephen urged the Synod to pass the Measure “unequivocally, as an expression of our corporate shame and repentance”.
The Church’s lead safeguarding bishop, the Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell, said that the Measure was the beginning of the Church offering up “a hymn of repentance to God and committing to victims and survivors the reality and justice they deserve”.
Not every member was convinced, nevertheless. The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers, said that he can be unable to vote for the Measure due to his concerns that it is perhaps unfair to alleged abusers. How could the redress body determine whether a claim of abuse was true or not if this had not already been established by a statutory body, he asked.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, told members that the scheme was not about “blaming people”
An identical concern arose in a secondary debate on the foundations that may implement the redress scheme. The Revd Jeffrey Terry (Truro) attempted to amend these in order that the law firm which might administer the scheme could contact alleged perpetrators to provide them a right of reply to claims. This amendment was resisted and lapsed attributable to lack of support on the ground of the Synod.
Archdeacon Ayers returned with one other concern through the rules debate. He proposed an amendment to strip out the rule that asserted a Church officer’s failure to consider a disclosure of abuse as an aggravating factor when calculating a compensation payout.
Church officers mustn’t be expected robotically to consider all claims, merely to act appropriately by passing on allegations to be investigated, Archdeacon Ayers argued. After a energetic debate amongst members, this amendment was defeated.
Others, including the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, had questions on who can be defined within the laws as a “church officer”. Bishop Watson cautioned against the present proposal to incorporate anyone who has begun the discernment process. Others nervous that voluntary roles including chairing a diocesan board of finance or being a contract church organist might slip through the gap of the definition.
Simon Eyre (Chichester) wondered whether there could possibly be confidentiality protections for parishes that decided that they were unable to contribute financially to a redress payment, but could face reputational destroy should this fact became public and open to misinterpretation.
Finally, a former deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, the Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty, successfully amended the foundations of the scheme to be sure that previous payouts from the Interim Support Scheme wouldn’t be deducted from any subsequent awards made by the redress scheme.
While some members argued that this may cause inequity between survivors, the Synod was persuaded by Bishop Conalty’s argument that the Church should display the “ridiculous generosity” of God and never come across as “mean-spirited”.
Overall, the mood of the Synod was certainly one of solemn determination to push the scheme forward. Several speakers urged members to not grow to be fixated on the financial cost of compensation but as a substitute seek true spiritual repentance. Peter Adams (St Albans) said that members mustn’t simply just “hand over the cheque” but “own this in every other way we will”.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, also a former lead bishop for safeguarding, said that it will be unimaginable to construct a Church wherein abuse never happened, and subsequently redress would all the time be crucial. “We need a sensible theology of human sinfulness,” he said, and a commitment to continual self-reflection and examination to avoid the temptation towards defensiveness.
After a moment of silent reflection, the Synod voted almost unanimously in favour of giving final approval to the Measure, which passed in a counted voted by Houses: Bishops 26-0, Clergy 129-1 (with one recorded abstention), and Laity 140-0.
