REDRESS for survivors of church-related abuse is to be delayed, it was announced on Wednesday, to enable the eligibility criteria to be reviewed “in light of the Makin report”.
The redress scheme had been expected to receive final approval on the General Synod next month (Synod, 12 July 2024); but, on Wednesday, an announcement from Church House said that this was being delayed for “final checks” to be carried out.
The Redress Project Board, the statement said, had “decided to reflect further on the findings of the Makin report and to think about whether the Scheme’s eligibility criteria sufficiently recognise negligence of Church office-holders who’ve received a safeguarding allegation or disclosure and haven’t responded appropriately”.
The statement said that the board was being advised by a Survivor Working Group, which might “proceed to play a significant role in shaping the Scheme, providing expert advice and guidance”.
A member of the Survivor Working Group, Jane Chevous, told the Church Times that the move had been a “really hard decision”, and that it was hugely disappointing that the roll-out of the scheme can be delayed. She thought, nevertheless, that it was the suitable selection.
“As a survivor — and I can only speak for myself — it was vital to be certain that the scheme was sufficiently strong when it comes to whether an inadequate response to abuse ought to be a criterion in itself. I would like to be confident no church abuse survivor might be excluded.”
In its current formulation, the scheme would consider an inadequate response to disclosures of abuse within the second stage only as an “aggravating factor” reasonably than in the primary stage alongside categories akin to spiritual and sexual abuse (News, 26 April 2024).
The Church Times understands that, after the Makin report was published, concerns were raised that a few of Smyth’s victims might fall out of the scope of the scheme since the Church’s response to their disclosures was not, in itself, considered reason to supply redress.
Final decisions about who qualifies for redress might be taken by the law firm Kennedy’s, acting independently of the Church, on the premise of the factors that the Synod approves.
The Church House statement avoided predicting the final result of the “final checks” to the factors. “This work requires very thorough evaluation before the Project Board can resolve whether or not it wishes to make any amendments to the present eligibility criteria, and is just not a guarantee that recent or different policy decisions might be taken,” it said.
