THE redress scheme for victims survivors of church-related abuse moved closer to completion, after the General Synod gave the Draft Measure its final approval on the Monday.
Reminding members of the seriousness of the subject under discussion, the chair, the Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer (Exeter), asked for a period of silence before the controversy.
Introducing the controversy, Carl Fender (Lincoln), who chairs the steering committee, said that it had sought to seek the advice of victims and survivors of church-related abuse throughout the method. After the Makin report, the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, had asked the committee to step back and consider widening the eligibility criteria for the scheme, intended to be non-judicial and never adversarial, to anyone “genuinely harmed” by the Church. It must also, nevertheless, be inexpensive and capable of reply to all authentic applications, he said.
Mr Fender introduced a series of special amendments proposed by the committee. Many of those also addressed the eligibility criteria. An applicant must either pass a close-connection test — their abuser held an office within the Church of England which was connected to their abuse — or a second failure-to-act test — a church officer had not taken motion that would have prevented one other perpetrator, including those unconnected to the Church, committing abuse.
The Synod took note of the steering committee’s report, adopting the drafting amendments.
Mr Fender then outlined a series of special amendments related to the close-connection test, establishing the applicability of the scheme to abuse perpetrated when there was a “close connection between activities authorised for performing that role and carrying out the abuse”.
He also spoke to a different special amendment that introduced the “failure-to-act” condition, explaining that there had previously been a loophole whereby abuse that would have been prevented by one other church officer wouldn’t be in scope.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesRuth Abernethy (Salisbury) asked in regards to the “failure to act” test
Ruth Abernethy (Salisbury) said that she knew of an individual, currently in custody, who posed a risk. The Church was working to bar them from worship upon their release, but was finding this inconceivable, despite collaboration with the police and safeguarding authorities. “I don’t have any reasonable expectation that the steps I’ve taken will prevent more abuse happening,” she said, but how would this be interpreted by the “failure-to-act” test?
Dr Simon Eyre (Chichester) asked whether there was a closing date on the failure to act as a church officer.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) had had several experiences of constructing referrals to statutory services, and their response had not at all times been adequate, she said. She wondered what should occur when the church officer had done the whole lot right, however the statutory services had didn’t act. Should there be a component of “causality” within the test, she asked.
The Archdeacon for Rural Mission (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich), the Ven. Sally Gaze, also spoke of reporting concerns and nothing being actioned. “You do the best thing, but you then’re unsure if the best thing has actually happened.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), said that the laws was not about blaming people, but about providing redress for individuals who had been seriously injured.
Responding to the controversy, Mr Fender reassured members that the failure-to-act duty had a reasonableness standard attached.
He then moved one other special amendment, to define the concept of a “church officer”: the category of people that had some responsibility for the discharge of the Church’s mission and of whom it was reasonable to expect that they need to have acted to forestall abuse. It wouldn’t include all volunteers, unless they commonly got here into contact with children or vulnerable adults.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) moved an amendment to this amendment, arguing that licensed lay ministers must be held to the identical standard because the clergy. While ordination candidates were included within the list, candidates training for licensed lay ministry weren’t, and this was what his amendment sought to correct. Trainee lay ministers typically gained experience in church contexts and were seen by congregations as having a level of responsibility, he said.
Mr Fender accepted the amendment.
Canon Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield) welcomed the change, but asked that it’s communicated properly to those in discernment or training.
Canon Tim Bull (St Albans), a diocesan director of ordinands, said that he often met candidates who then abandoned or paused the discernment process halfway through. Would they count under this provision?
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) said that lay ministry, which operated in a dizzying array of pathways — “as 1,000,000 flowers growing” — across the dioceses, had proved very difficult to define.
Peter Adams (St Albans) also backed the amendment. Lay people were a key a part of the Church’s functioning, and it was right that this aspect of its ministry be also held accountable.
The Bacon amendment was carried.
In a debate on the special amendment, as amended, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, was concerned in regards to the inclusion of ordination candidates within the definition of “church officers”, as this included people in a discernment process, which may very well be numerous people. This, he suggested, was akin to treating candidates for a job in the identical way as people holding it.
Bishop Watson was also concerned in regards to the inclusion of somebody “engaged in a voluntary capability in work which involves promoting or advancing the work and mission of the Church of England”. Again, this might encompass people over whom the C of E had no control, and who is perhaps acting on this capability independently. He urged members to not delay the passage of the Measure on this basis, but hoped that these concerns may very well be borne in mind by the Dean of the Arches and the Rules Committee “to make sure we don’t create too many hostages to fortune”.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) asked about volunteers who might, as an illustration, chair a diocesan board of finance, but not come into contact with children, and, subsequently, slip through the gaps of this definition.
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) asked an identical query about parish treasurers. “We receive numerous details about people and is perhaps particularly aware of monetary abuse,” but treasurers didn’t fit into the list because there was no frequent contact with children or vulnerable adults.
The Revd Dr Sean Doherty (Universities and TEIs) agreed with Bishop Watson about including discernment candidates. He also said that not all directors of ordinands were ordained, whereas the amendment specified only those in discernment under a clerk in Holy Orders.
Rebecca Mynett (St Albans) asked a couple of church organist who was not employed, but hired as a contract.
Michaela Suckling (Sheffield) said that “safeguarding is everyone’s business” and must be firstly of any conversation, even with “mavericks” on the sting of Church.
The amendment, as amended, was carried.
Mr Fender then moved his next special amendment to permit the Synod to differ specifics of the definition of a church officer later.
Canon Lisa Battye (Manchester) welcomed the amendment, but asked for clarification of whether anyone testing a vocation must have already got undertaken safeguarding training. Mr Fender said that the Measure didn’t deal directly with that issue.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Fender introduced one other amendment to permit for abuse to be in scope even when it didn’t fall strictly inside a category specified by the foundations, but was similar. This had been a “firm ask” of victims and survivors.
John Mason (Chester) asked whether this could allow some categories of church officer currently ruled out by the definition to be brought back into scope.
No, Mr Fender said: the facility to amend didn’t affect categories of abuse.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Fender moved his next amendment, to specify the steps that the Archbishops’ Council would want to take if it feared that the scheme threatened its financial stability and needed to shut it down. A scheme that put the Council in breach of its charitable duties was in no person’s interests, he said. The Synod can be given a possibility to check the Council’s determination if this ever occurred.
This was carried without debate.
Another special amendment introduced by Mr Fender provided protection from defamation law for anything published under the Measure. But he also noted that there was no requirement for any application made for redress to be made public.
Canon Gaze asked for a definition of the word “privileged” on this context.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty, moves her amendment
The Vicar-General of the Province of Canterbury, the Rt Worshipful Timothy Briden, explained that “privilege” was a legal defence against defamation. It protected otherwise defamatory words because that they had been published in circumstances during which there was an amazing interest of their free publication. Absolute privilege applied for proceedings in Parliament or in a court of law, and there have been excellent the reason why material that got here to light in the middle of a redress application must be protected in this manner.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Fender then moved that final approval be given to the Measure. He paid tribute to the victims and survivors who had given “time and energy to the method despite the harm the Church has caused them” and despite the years that it had taken to bring redress from an idea into fruition. Many survivors had had to attend too long for this, he said, however the scheme was complex and had required careful thought. “We have listened, we’ve got reflected, but now we must deliver.”
Bishop Mounstephen said that, had the Church lived by the life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ, redress wouldn’t have been mandatory, and “it’s a source of shame to us” that it was needed. “This laws is important,” he said, in providing survivors with confidence and underpinning the independence of the scheme. He also praised the widening of the scope post-Makin, and cautioned against being “fixated” on the financial cost of the scheme. Instead, he urged members to give attention to the trauma of survivors. The Draft Measure was generous, less adversarial, and people-centred, he said. “Please approve this Measure unequivocally, as an expression of our corporate shame and repentance.”
The Revd William Harwood (Truro), a member of the revision committee and a survivor himself, praised the care taken by those steering the Measure to maintain survivors at the center of the method. After his own abuse, he had received some redress, but this had been cut off without much thought afterward, he said, which caused further harm. “I’m pleased with the way in which we’ve got thought through this process.”
The Revd Jenny Bridgman (Chester) said: “Trauma rewires the brain and wounds the body.” The Church was itself a traumatised body, she suggested, a metaphor that must be familiar to Christians. “It is rarely them and us: it’s we.”
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, welcomed starting with “dignity, respect, and compassion”. Would it’s possible for each applicant to must tell their story just once, she asked, and will the applying be accomplished by a friend or advocate? Redress must not be only about money, she agreed, but give attention to “future flourishing, recognising that the past can’t be undone”. Would there be follow-up for applicants after redress was made in a relational, not transactional, way? The Church must understand that “the job won’t ever be done.”
Valerie Hallard (Carlisle) echoed Bishop Mounstephen, saying that redress should never have been required.
The Archdeacon of Leeds, the Ven. Paul Ayers (Leeds), had concerns and will not vote for the Measure. He questioned how a grievance of abuse may very well be determined as true if it had not been already been concluded by a statutory body, and where the presumption of innocence fitted in. Yes, the scheme looked as if it would negate the possibility of litigation led by a survivor, but what in regards to the risk of litigation from the alleged abuser?
Martin Sewell (Rochester) gave a history of how the thought of redress had come to the Synod years ago, to underline that “standing up against the platform gets you to good places.”
The Bishop of Stepney, Dr Joanne Grenfell (Southern Suffragans), said that work on the redress scheme had helped the Church to make a collective response. “The whole Church needs to supply a hymn of repentance to God and commit to victims and survivors the reality and justice they deserve.”
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) said that the Synod should gather in a spirit of humility to vote through the Measure. “This isn’t just policy, but repentance made visible.” The Church didn’t at all times move quickly, however the Synod must show that it could act decisively when it mattered. “This isn’t charity, but our Christian duty.”
The Revd Chantal Noppen (Durham) warned that there was more still to do, including widening the scope of abuse to incorporate the “deeper insidious harm” hiding in plain sight: misogyny, unconscious bias, spiritual abuse, and coercive control. Too many members thought abuse of LGBTQ+ Christians was “OK” because “the Bible is on my side,” she suggested, referring to the controversy on Issues in Human Sexuality.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, said that no amount of redress would ever truly be enough, however it remained mandatory. This laws was critical to enabling “every a part of the Church to play its role”, but was not an end in itself.
The Revd Jeffrey Terry (Truro) said that there remained a tension within the scheme between giving proper recompense to victims and removing “false or misguided applications”. The scheme could make an award provided that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the abuse actually occurred. In some cases, a choice couldn’t properly be made without hearing from the alleged abuser, he said. He questioned whether the scales had been tipped a bit of too far towards the alleged victims, and that he hoped to amend the foundations, attributable to be debated later, in order that the redress body could approach any alleged abusers when making a determination. An incorrect finding of abuse may very well be highly destructive to an individual falsely accused, he warned.
Dr Eyre said that applicants deserved to have their confidentiality assured, but what about discussions between the redress body and other organisations? What if a PCC couldn’t afford to contribute financially, and that became public knowledge, he asked. This may very well be misinterpreted because the PCC’s being “uncaring”, or wreck the repute of a parish.
The Archdeacon of Ashford, the Ven. Darren Miller (Canterbury) advised Synod members to not pat themselves on the back. “We must keep our eye on this,” he said, to ensure that the scheme was achieving what the Synod hoped.
David Kemp (Canterbury) praised the care taken to get the Measure right for the victims, particularly the definition of “church officer”. But he suggested that an extra category may very well be added: “the pillar of the Church” — someone like himself who was deeply involved in church affairs through PCCs, synods, and more. Was there some method to recognise that individuals could have “small-a authority” within the Church without falling into any formal category?
The Archdeacon of Southend, the Ven. Sue Lucas (Chelmsford), reiterated that safeguarding was a responsibility at every level of the Church. It can be possible for a PCC to say no to contribute financially to a redress payment, but still frame that in repentance, she said.
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, said that there was danger in adopting the approach of “this could never have been needed”: it will be inconceivable to have a Church during which no abuse happened. “We need a sensible theology of human sinfulness.” Trauma-informed practice was vital, however the flip side of this was recognising the tendency of an establishment to be “self-defensive”. Continual self-reflection and examination needed to be built into the company lifetime of the Church, he said.
Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that oversight of the scheme can be essential, and questioned whether the Archbishops’ Council would have the opportunity to deliver this. “It won’t be adequate for us to mutter into our beers when things go incorrect again because another person has not done what we hoped they’d do,” he said. “The responsibility for all of that is ours.” The redress scheme can be test of how the brand new Church of England National Services (CENs), attributable to replace the Council, was working.
Peter Adams (St Albans) said that the Synod must not simply “hand over the cheque” but “own this in every other way we will”.
Ms Shelley, a survivor, welcomed the way in which during which the scheme was survivor-focused. There was no have to worry about its being a non-adversarial process, she said: there have been comparable models within the secular world which worked well. Secondary trauma also needed to be taken seriously, as walking alongside survivors was itself “emotionally draining”. Even harder was the secondary trauma from managing perpetrators. The scheme was very much overdue, “but only a part of the image”.
The final-approval vote was carried: Bishops 26 nem. con.; Clergy 129-1, with one recorded abstention; Laity 140 nem. con.
AFTER lunch, the Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis KC, moved that the Abuse (Redress) Rules 2025 be considered. She paid tribute to the victims and survivors who had taken part in the method and who, she said, had taught her an excellent deal. The rules had been drawn as much as be “person-centred”, and gave flexibility to the arms-length scheme administrators — the law firm Kennedy’s — to contemplate learn how to reply to each application as required.
The final step would deduct money already received from other sources, corresponding to the Interim Support Scheme (ISS) or a civil claim from a redress payout, with an exception for money received to pay for therapeutic support.
The Bishop of Dudley, the Rt Revd Martin Gorick (Southern Suffragans), welcomed the foundations, which, he said, would offer “generous and timely address for individuals who have suffered so grievously”. He questioned the definition of spiritual abuse in the foundations, asking whether there can be further guidelines to assist interpretation.
Penny Allen (Lichfield) said that many individuals abused as children would have seen their abuser die before any application for redress was made. She knew of 1 young adult who would struggle to access the scheme and will not afford a lawyer to represent them.
Ms Ellis said that the Archbishops’ Council was tasked with providing guidance on spiritual abuse, and told Ms Allen that legal advice may very well be provided without cost by way of Rule 28.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis
The motion to contemplate the foundations was carried.
Mr Terry then moved his amendment which might, he said, “fill a niche in the foundations” to permit the redress scheme to hunt information from the alleged perpetrator. This would make sure that nobody can be found to be an abuser without having the possibility to recommend their side of the story. It was vital to listen to every side of a case, even when the Church sought to “avoid an adversarial system”. Making an award without contacting the perpetrator could easily brand an innocent person an abuser, with potentially damaging consequences, he said.
Ms Ellis resisted the amendment, saying that it will require the applicant’s consent to approach the perpetrator or their surviving relatives and compelled the redress body to get hold of court records that may not be in the general public domain. “There are some real practical difficulties about this,” she said.
The amendment can be “positively harmful”, provided that the applying can be withdrawn if the applicant didn’t consent to an approach to the perpetrator. She also said that the determinations of the redress body wouldn’t be published, and the Measure made clear that its conclusions had no civil legal consequences.
Twenty-five members didn’t stand; so the amendment lapsed.
Archdeacon Ayers then moved his amendment. The current rules stated that an aggravating factor can be if a church officer didn’t consider a report of abuse made. This can be almost inconceivable to determine actually, and didn’t matter, he suggested. The issue was not whether a grievance was believed or not, but whether it was acted on. “Whether they personally consider it’s neither here nor there,” he said, although reports must be received with compassion and sensitivity. If this provision was left in the foundations, it will be a “hostage to fortune”.
Ms Ellis resisted the amendment. The law commonly required people to attract inferences which may very well be drawn properly from the encircling circumstances, she said, and survivors had also made clear that not being believed had been a “very serious aggravating factor indeed”.
Bishop Mounstephen urged members to vote against the amendment. The poor response of church officers ran through the “sorry history” of this matter, and had been a big aggravating factor, he said. The redress body should have the opportunity to attract inferences.
Clive Scowen (London) supported Archdeacon Ayers’s amendment. It was an aggravating factor when someone told a victim that they didn’t consider them, he conceded, but he argued that there was a problem with the word “believed”. The Church shouldn’t create a tacit duty for its officers to consider robotically what they were told, he said. The Rules Committee should come back in February with a more rigorously worded version, he said.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) said that Synod members sent messages by the way in which during which they voted. Belief was no good unless it was worked out in practice, he argued. The Synod should trust that Kennedy’s would have the opportunity to implement this fairly.
Canon Wharton urged the Synod to vote against the amendment: safeguarding training encouraged church officers to consider those that made disclosures. “Not to be believed is a dreadful thing,” she said. Survivors had made it clear how vital this was to them, and members must listen.
Anna De Castro (Sheffield) suggested that Canon Wharton and Dr Harrison had missed the purpose of the amendment. As a former parish safeguarding officer, she said that her job had not been to judge any disclosures, but to thank the person, record their disclosure well, after which pass it on to the diocesan safeguarding team.
The Revd Neil Robbie (Lichfield) said that, as someone with dyslexia, he found processing words hard. Kennedy’s might understand the word “belief” in a technique, but victims might use it another way. He supported the amendment.
Dr Grenfell said that members were getting confused. This debate was not about managing allegations well, but taking a look at whether the shortage of belief and motion was an aggravating factor, which was a separate issue. “Here, we’re splitting the incorrect hair. Let’s think about redress.”
Carolyn Graham (Guildford) said that “belief” was a traditional a part of the legal process and didn’t involve having to look inside heads. The query was whether the person suffered extra harm from not being believed, which must be factored into the choice of how much recompense to present them.
Archdeacon Ayers said that the controversy had shown the confusion between believing something in someone’s head and acting upon it.
The amendment was lost.
The Bishop of Birkenhead, the Rt Revd Julie Conalty (Northern Suffragans), said that, currently, payments made to survivors by the ISS can be deducted from their final redress-scheme payout. This would affect greater than 120 applicants, she said. Her amendment would eliminate this provision. Survivors had different views in regards to the equity of her proposal: some had chosen not to use to the ISS because they thought that this could reduce their eventual claim.
She argued, nevertheless, that the 2 schemes were fundamentally different, the ISS specializing in urgent distress fairly than restitution or compensation. “Comparing the 2 schemes is like comparing apples and oranges.”
Imagine, she said, being told that your redress payment was purported to be £50,000, but, since you had a crisis a number of years ago and received ISS payments, your payment was cut to £20,000. “This would add to survivors’ distress: it will feel like penny-pinching and never portray the penitence and contrition we intend.” It could even amount to re-abuse and trigger harm and retraumatisation, she suggested.
God was “ridiculously generous” to us, she said, and yet so often the Church got here across as “mean-spirited”. Her amendment would make the redress scheme operate more in keeping with the economy of the dominion of God.
In reply, Ms Ellis said that she wished to know the mind of the Synod.
Commenting on the amendment, James Cary (Bath & Wells), a member of the Archbishops’ Council, said that, from the beginning of the ISS, it had been made clear that any rewards might affect the quantity payable under the predominant redress scheme. For him, this was an “issue of equity” for individuals who had not applied for payments on this basis.
Jane Rosam (Rochester) referred to the Good Samaritan, who refused to walk on by someone in distress and pain. The Church needed to be generous to those that had been wounded in its care. “Please, Synod, allow us to be that Good Samaritan, and support that amendment.”
The Archbishop of York, though feeling “a bit torn”, urged members to vote for the amendment. Interim support and redress were different, and it was not right to conflate them, he said. Doing something that may cause victims and survivors to lose trust within the scheme can be disastrous.
Speaking to survivors, he said: “This scheme exists due to manifold failings, which we repent. . . We want you to trust, and I would like you to know that we trust you.” He exhorted members to be generous.
Ms Bridgman told the story of a victim of rape who sued her wealthy attacker for the symbolic sum of $30. Justice needed to be mediated through a community, not simply from the perpetrator. The Church was moving one step closer to justice, although no price may very well be placed on restitution. Without the amendment, the Church would avoid wasting money, but jeopardise trust in your entire scheme.
Mr Sewell said that the ISS was discretionary, and had taken care of people “at the moment” while the redress scheme was arrange. Interim payments shouldn’t be clawed back, he said: his might push some survivors towards taking their very own life.
Dr Gibbs suggested that, in 2020, the Church had been “making things up because it went along, hand to mouth”. The ISS was “never about redress” or everlasting restitution but to offer emergency assistance for urgent need. He urged the Synod to avoid retraumatising survivors and “err on the side of generosity”.
Carl Hughes (Archbishops’ Council) was apprehensive about unintended consequences of the amendment. The redress scheme was very generous, he said. It was not about saving money, but equity, and the ISS payments must be offset, because, otherwise, there can be “double-counting for a similar harm from different sources”, allowing some survivors to achieve significantly greater than others.
Bishop Conalty said that the problem at hand was not money, but avoiding harm and retraumatisation.
The amendment was carried by 237-32, with 12 recorded abstentions.
Ms Ellis moved that the foundations be approved, as amended.
Nick Land (York) still had concerns in regards to the process to find out how much money was offered to those whose applications were accepted, and in regards to the difficulty of maintaining confidentiality when the redress body applied to other organisations, corresponding to parishes, for contributions. He also warned that the suicide rate amongst accused perpetrators was higher where they weren’t given the possibility to make their case. “There must be really careful pondering before we move from determining a payout before attempting to secure contributions from other places.”
Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth) was pleased with the Synod, she said, although it had taken “five very painful years” to get here. In comparison with the Post Office scandal and the “optics” presented to the general public, the Church had done well.
Canon Battye urged members to think about the lots of of clergy dragged through the “now discredited” Clergy Discipline Measure, who feared that their vexatious accusers would now make applications for redress. Would clergy affected by PTSD due to “strange and peculiar” complaints be allowed to use to the redress scheme, provided that it was the Church’s own defective discipline system that had caused them harm?
The rules were approved.
Read more reports from the General Synod digest here
