The Church of England has announced a delay in the legislation to introduce the Redress Scheme for survivors of Church-related abuse. Details are in a press release which is copied below.
Redress scheme update
15/01/2025
The legislation to introduce the Redress Scheme for survivors of Church-related abuse will not be laid before General Synod for final approval in February, as previously scheduled, so that final checks can be carried out to ensure its eligibility criteria are robust enough in light of the Makin report.
The Scheme infrastructure is now in place and the Scheme is ready to receive applications once legislation is complete, following an enormous amount of work by survivors and others over the last three years.
However, the Church of England is deeply committed to developing a robust and effective Redress Scheme for survivors of Church-related abuse. So the Redress Project Board, which is advised by survivors, has decided to reflect further on the findings of the Makin report and to consider whether the Scheme’s eligibility criteria sufficiently recognise negligence of Church office-holders who have received a safeguarding allegation or disclosure and have not responded appropriately.
This is a serious and important question, and the Redress Project Board will consider carefully the implications of recognising this more fully through the Scheme’s eligibility criteria. This work requires very thorough analysis before the Project Board can decide whether or not it wishes to make any amendments to the current eligibility criteria and is not a guarantee that new or different policy decisions will be taken.
The Survivor Working Group will continue to play a vital role in shaping the Scheme, providing expert advice and guidance, and two Survivor Working Group representatives will continue to hold voting positions on the Project Board.
The legislation that will underpin the Scheme requires successful passage through the Church and parliamentary legislative processes before the Scheme can open to applications. The earliest that the Redress (Abuse) Measure would be laid before General Synod is July 2025.
So two points:
It isn’t up and running yet (Shame);
Survivors will continue to play a vital role in shaping the scheme.
And an observation:
I don’t believe survivors’ voices will he heard and a decision taken after considering their opinion.
There is a gap between what has been said and what has been done in safeguarding such that the C of E lacks credibility and to me, and possibly others, is and has proven itself to be untrustworthy.
Archbishops Council are likely to want to row back on any promises previously made, and will be keen to limit and restrict the Scheme as far as they can. Archbishops Council cannot be trusted to be plain-dealing in *any* aspect of response to survivors. They are not honest brokers, but are puppet-stringed by an unaccountable Secretary General. We saw the extent of the dishonesty in the disgraceful sacking of the ISB and its aftermath. Anyone remember the contortions afterwards from the Council as they tried to justify their action whilst at same time totally ignoring the manner of the sacking… Read more »
I’ve read the string of the last 5 items and their associated posts as they have appeared below feeling a mixture of sadness for the self absorbed state of hierarchy of the C of E and rage about their glib disregard for victims and survivors of clerical abuse . I raised a wry smile that a complete learned publication has been devoted to ongoing safeguarding failings – how very C of E- though some of the articles are very good. Will they bring about change? Then- this press release. You couldn’t make it up. Tone deaf, smug, probably untruthful about… Read more »
“However, the Church of England is deeply committed to developing a robust and effective Redress Scheme for survivors of Church-related abuse.”
Translation: The Church of England wants to spend as little money as possible, so it will be setting criteria that means no-one will meet the threshold for any form of redress.
And they wonder why no-one trusts them?
Anyone offering odds on how long the delay will actually last? A Makin-like 10 years?
As a non-legal expert…. Surely it would have been possible to pass a resolution in February – with criteria that allow “X” – and then if further reflection means they need to widen the criteria have a further amendment in July? I appreciate there will be “difficult-to-decide-cases”, but there should be some “obviously this person deserves something now” cases. So why not allow those? This explanation doesn’t seem to address that to me… maybe a legal expert will know something – but I imagine this will seem like an unneeded delay to victims who have been waiting for ages and… Read more »
The delay in the redress scheme was entirely predictable. Any excuse would do, and a delayed Makin report provides the perfect cover to kick the redress due to victims into the long grass once again. The architects of these tactics are destroying the CofE in the process, which means trust and confidence in the leadership sits in an ever-deepening negative equity. There can be no recovery from this. Having edited the special edition on safeguarding in the CofE for the Journal of Anglican Studies, it has become clear from all the contributions to the edition that: The capacity and necessary… Read more »
Martyn, thank you for this, my sentiments exactly.
Presume inclusion of Makin in your list of perpetrators is slip of pen. Otherwise, sadly, I agree that CofE is incapable of reform from within.
If the Redress Project Board and Archbishops Council want to reflect further on whether the criteria should be revised in the light of Makin, fair enough. What isn’t acceptable is to use that as an excuse for delay. If Redress is anything of a priority, the Board just needs to schedule more meetings over the next week or so. Any member who can’t attend exceptional meetings as urgently required, should not be on the board in the first place.
Having had a conversation earlier this week with someone who’s been working on the scheme for the past two years, I’m confident the modifications made necessary by the release of the Makin Report will be incorporated as swiftly as possible. This isn’t a delaying tactic or a question of avoiding responsibility; it’s a simple matter of ensuring the redress scheme is fit for purpose. Anything worth doing is worth doing properly.
But – assuming best faith on all parties… This still doesn’t explain why they can’t partially launch it and then widen it later in the year? So “something now for some” and “more later for more, when we have figured out details” would surely be a much better message than “wait”? There might be a reasonable reason why on balance, doing something now -even limited and with the expectation of change later – could cause more problems than waiting. But those reasons have not been explained well. So assuming best faith – means I have to assume some level of… Read more »
I think it’s absolutely an issue of clear communication, for which the CofE is not known.
Sorry, but I am shocked that they had been working on the scheme for two years already. How on earth could it have taken two years to go nowhere & be so flawed that more delay was needed in wake of Makin.
Actually, the scheme was fully ready for launch if accepted at the February synod but Makin has introduced variables that require reassessment. It’s not my place to reveal the details of a private conversation, but for what it’s worth I can say that the scheme is intended to make redress commensurate with abuse suffered (insofar as that is humanly possible). Nothing can undo or ‘make up for’ what was done to the innocent, but there has been a good-faith effort led by some very compassionate and capable people. It shouldn’t be shocking that something this complex, with redress predicated on… Read more »
Nope, not at all impressed with this ‘insider knowledge’ style of excuse.
I’m not excusing anyone, just not at liberty to say more than I have. I’m sorry that’s not enough.
I’ve no reason to doubt what you say, but the difficulty is that levels of trust are now so low that this delay may only confirm people’s fears. I suspect that no-one thought of that.
The article in the Church Times states that in the framework which was to be presented to Synod in February senior clergy who failed to deal with safeguarding issues was not a primary factor for redress but an aggrevating one, meaning of lesser significance, and this will now be reviewed as to whether it should be a primary factor. Quite why it needed the Makin report to highlight this and make it a point of consideration when the problem has been the topic of many other reviews is astonishing and gives little confidence in the scheme. I personally feel there… Read more »
I don’t see how ‘working on this for two years’ and now ‘not ready yet’ are meant to infer competence, integrity, trust, honesty etc. It is a fact that the lawyers seconded to the scheme think it is hugely underfunded. Nobody fielded by the CofE to construct the scheme has relevant experience or expertise to build or run it either. Using well-meaning but essentially clueless amateurs is a classic English pathology, I’m afraid. The results – sport, religion, etc – are well documented. The simplest thing to do all along was copy across the systems in Australia which would require… Read more »
Yes, it is worth doing properly but, as I said above, that’s not justification for a delay. The Makin report was not an unexpected event and reviewing it should have been factored into the schedule.
I am also surprised by the delay as I had assumed it had been tabled into February Synod to deflect from their woeful proposals for independence. I then thought some hitch would appear a while after.
It is not a good look and the update is shockingly badly worded, if survivors are on the board for goodness sake let them word this news appropriately.
It isn’t clear to me. Is redress financial? Or support/pastoral? Or listening?
My impression, certainly from the Smyth case and Welby, is that a major concern was the fact that listening was promised, but never happened.
If the report is purely dealing with financial help, it seems a bit gruby……
There is no listening or (genuine) engagement. Victims complain, repeatedly, and will be met with silence. When they continue to complain, they will receive threatening lawyers’ letters or even threats of police action (for harassment). This will be reported to Synod as “listening and engagement”. Nobody on Archbishops’ Council has the courage or integrity to break ranks and say “enough!”. As for interim support for victims, it should be obvious by now that the very existence of the abused is what shames the CofE. So they must be denied, and then the problem needs to be reduced in scale and… Read more »
Martyn, thanks for all you do in this space. In Australia it took a Royal Commission that sat for five years to shame the Institutional religions into creating a state run redress scheme. The states of Australia also legislated to throw out Statutes of Limitations which allowed civil actions for survivors to commence. The situation in Australia is similar to the UK with internal safeguarding still being controlled by faith communities but redress via a 10 year Government run scheme and now civil actions succeeding has shown that in Australia the secular state and rule of law is more powerful… Read more »
You assert there are decent people including bishops. Do you have any evidence that there exists a decent bishop?
They are rare as hens teeth but in the UK your Bishop of Newcastle , and in Australia there are a few who are supportive. I guess in advocacy we try to think the best and plan for the worst.
Richie, many thanks for this. I wrote an article for the St Mark’s Canberra Theological Review in 2017 which discusses the more enlightened approach taken by the Australian government to faith communities. The final battles that victims had to fight for were ultimately hard won. I agree that this only ends with the CofE when the nested interests of elite and aloof power groups and those still wielding unaccountable authority are deposed. As they remain deeply embedded and protected within the institution, and have no ethic of responsibility whatsoever, extensive and high levels of collateral damage will necessarily be incurred… Read more »
Has anyone else read the article on this morning’s BBC News website(18/1/25) about new developments in the Tudor case? Openness, transparency, honesty?
Thank- you for pointing it out- maybe a link would be useful please from someone who knows how to post them?
The story illustrates Martyn’s point perfectly. But Stephen Cottrell smiles and smiles and hangs on in there – nothing to see here gov .
I heard the report and fail to see how my Lord of York cab retain any credibility and why his license has not been removed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20kkz06ngeo
bbc article
If it is the one I think it is, yes, I have read it. Truly sickening.
If what it alleges is true, then Cottrell has to go. If he doesn’t, then for many people, the Church of England is finished.
Would it be this one? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20kkz06ngeo
Just wow.
It is depressing that I found the BBC report about Cottrell’s laudatory interaction with Tudor totally unsurprising. All well into his time as the local diocesan bishop, so one would think that he can make no defence of his actions. However, I am sure that he feels untouchable & will issue the usual weasel-worded non-apology.
After all he said, I agree he must go. Maybe after General Synod to allow new standing orders for it to meet with no Archbishop perhaps first though? Or sooner, that would be better for me…
We have acting diocesans so why not acting archbishops? No need to wait to my mind.
Hi I am using a pseudonym. I was fostered and consequently abused by a Church of England priest for over 4 years in the 80s. From my perspective each delay is a continuation of the harm already inflicted on survivors