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 topic under discussion, the chair, the Archdeacon of Totnes, the Ven. Douglas Dettmer (Exeter), asked for a period of silence before the debate.
Introducing the debate, Carl Fender (Lincoln), who chairs the steering committee, said that it had sought to consult victims and survivors of church-related abuse throughout the process. 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 not adversarial, to anyone “genuinely harmed” by the Church. It must also, however, be affordable and able to respond to all authentic applications, he said.
Mr Fender introduced a series of special amendments proposed by the committee. Many of these also addressed the eligibility criteria. An applicant must either pass a close-connection test — their abuser held an office in the Church of England which was connected to their abuse — or a second failure-to-act test — a church officer had not taken action that could have prevented another 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 another special amendment that introduced the “failure-to-act” condition, explaining that there had previously been a loophole whereby abuse that could have been prevented by another church officer would not be in scope.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesRuth Abernethy (Salisbury) asked about the “failure to act” test
Ruth Abernethy (Salisbury) said that she knew of a person, currently in custody, who posed a risk. The Church was working to bar them from worship upon their release, but was finding this impossible, despite collaboration with the police and safeguarding authorities. “I have no 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 time limit on the failure to act as a church officer.
The Revd Catherine Shelley (Leeds) had had several experiences of making referrals to statutory services, and their response had not always been adequate, she said. She wondered what should happen when the church officer had done everything right, but the statutory services had failed to act. Should there be an element of “causality” in 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 right thing, but then you’re not sure if the right thing has actually happened.”
The Archdeacon of Liverpool, the Ven. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes (Liverpool), said that the legislation was not about blaming people, but about providing redress for those who had been seriously injured.
Responding to the debate, Mr Fender reassured members that the failure-to-act duty had a reasonableness standard attached.
He then moved another special amendment, to define the concept of a “church officer”: the class of people who had some responsibility for the discharge of the Church’s mission and of whom it was reasonable to expect that they should have acted to prevent abuse. It would not include all volunteers, unless they regularly came into contact with children or vulnerable adults.
Nigel Bacon (Lincoln) moved an amendment to this amendment, arguing that licensed lay ministers should be held to the same standard as the clergy. While ordination candidates were included in the list, candidates training for licensed lay ministry were not, 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 degree of responsibility, he said.
Mr Fender accepted the amendment.
Canon Eleanor Robertshaw (Sheffield) welcomed the change, but asked that it be 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 a million flowers growing” — across the dioceses, had proved very difficult to define.
Peter Adams (St Albans) also backed the amendment. Lay people were a key 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 about the inclusion of ordination candidates in the definition of “church officers”, as this included people in a discernment process, which could be a large number of people. This, he suggested, was akin to treating candidates for a job in the same way as people holding it.
Bishop Watson was also concerned about the inclusion of someone “engaged in a voluntary capacity in work which involves promoting or advancing the work and mission of the Church of England”. Again, this could encompass people over whom the C of E had no control, and who might be acting in this capacity independently. He urged members not to delay the passage of the Measure on this basis, but hoped that these concerns could be borne in mind by the Dean of the Arches and the Rules Committee “to ensure we don’t create too many hostages to fortune”.
The Revd Paul Benfield (Blackburn) asked about volunteers who might, for instance, chair a diocesan board of finance, but not come into contact with children, and, therefore, slip through the gaps of this definition.
Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) asked a similar question about parish treasurers. “We receive a lot of information about people and might be particularly aware of financial abuse,” but treasurers did not 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 about a church organist who was not employed, but hired as a freelance.
Michaela Suckling (Sheffield) said that “safeguarding is everyone’s business” and should be at the start of any conversation, even with “mavericks” on the edge of Church.
The amendment, as amended, was carried.
Mr Fender then moved his next special amendment to allow the Synod to vary 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 already have undertaken safeguarding training. Mr Fender said that the Measure did not deal directly with that issue.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Fender introduced another amendment to allow for abuse to be in scope even if it did not fall strictly within a category laid out in the rules, but was similar. This had been a “firm ask” of victims and survivors.
John Mason (Chester) asked whether this would allow some categories of church officer currently ruled out by the definition to be brought back into scope.
No, Mr Fender said: the power to amend did not affect categories of abuse.
The amendment was carried.
Mr Fender moved his next amendment, to specify the steps that the Archbishops’ Council would need to take if it feared that the scheme threatened its financial stability and had to shut it down. A scheme that put the Council in breach of its charitable duties was in nobody’s interests, he said. The Synod would be given an opportunity to test 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” in 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 they had been published in circumstances in which there was an overwhelming interest in their free publication. Absolute privilege applied for proceedings in Parliament or in a court of law, and there were very good reasons why material that came to light in the course of a redress application should be protected in this way.
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 process 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 wait too long for this, he said, but the scheme was complex and had required careful thought. “We have listened, we have reflected, but now we must deliver.”
Bishop Mounstephen said that, had the Church lived by the life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ, redress would not have been necessary, and “it is a source of shame to us” that it was needed. “This legislation is vital,” 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 focus on 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 keep survivors at the heart of the process. After his own abuse, he had received some redress, but this had been cut off without much thought later on, he said, which caused further harm. “I am proud of the way we have 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 should be familiar to Christians. “It is never them and us: it is we.”
The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, welcomed beginning with “dignity, respect, and compassion”. Would it be possible for every applicant to have to tell their story only once, she asked, and could the application be completed by a friend or advocate? Redress must not be only about money, she agreed, but focus on “future flourishing, recognising that the past cannot 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 will never 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 could not vote for the Measure. He questioned how a complaint of abuse could 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 seemed to negate the chance of litigation led by a survivor, but what about the risk of litigation from the alleged abuser?
Martin Sewell (Rochester) gave a history of how the idea 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 offer a hymn of repentance to God and commit to victims and survivors the truth and justice they deserve.”
Vicky Brett (Peterborough) said that the Synod should gather in a spirit of humility to vote through the Measure. “This is not just policy, but repentance made visible.” The Church did not always move quickly, but the Synod must show that it could act decisively when it mattered. “This is not 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 include 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 debate 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, but it remained necessary. This legislation was critical to enabling “every 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 in the scheme between giving proper recompense to victims and weeding out “false or misguided applications”. The scheme could make an award only if it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the abuse actually occurred. In some cases, a decision could not properly be made without hearing from the alleged abuser, he said. He questioned whether the scales had been tipped a little too far towards the alleged victims, and that he hoped to amend the rules, due to be debated later, so that the redress body could approach any alleged abusers when making a determination. An incorrect finding of abuse could be highly destructive to a person 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 could not afford to contribute financially, and that became public knowledge, he asked. This could be misinterpreted as the PCC’s being “uncaring”, or ruin the reputation of a parish.
The Archdeacon of Ashford, the Ven. Darren Miller (Canterbury) advised Synod members not to pat themselves on the back. “We have to keep our eye on this,” he said, to make sure 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 a further category could 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 way to recognise that people could have “small-a authority” in 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 would be possible for a PCC to decline 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 should never have been needed”: it would be impossible to have a Church in which no abuse happened. “We need a realistic theology of human sinfulness.” Trauma-informed practice was vital, but the flip side of this was recognising the tendency of an institution to be “self-defensive”. Continual self-reflection and examination had to be built into the corporate life of the Church, he said.
Ian Johnston (Portsmouth) said that oversight of the scheme would be essential, and questioned whether the Archbishops’ Council would be able to deliver this. “It will not be good enough for us to mutter into our beers when things go wrong again because someone else has not done what we hoped they would do,” he said. “The responsibility for all of this is ours.” The redress scheme would be a good test of how the new Church of England National Services (CENs), due 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 can”.
Ms Shelley, a survivor, welcomed the way in which the scheme was survivor-focused. There was no need to worry about its being a non-adversarial process, she said: there were comparable models in 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 part of the picture”.
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 process and who, she said, had taught her a great deal. The rules had been drawn up to be “person-centred”, and gave flexibility to the arms-length scheme administrators — the law firm Kennedy’s — to consider how to respond to each application as required.
The final step would deduct money already received from other sources, such as 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 rules, which, he said, would offer “generous and timely address for those who have suffered so grievously”. He questioned the definition of spiritual abuse in the rules, asking whether there would be further guidelines to aid interpretation.
Penny Allen (Lichfield) said that many people abused as children would have seen their abuser die before any application for redress was made. She knew of one young adult who would struggle to access the scheme and could 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 could be provided without cost by means of Rule 28.
Sam Atkins/Church TimesThe Dean of the Arches and Auditor, the Rt Worshipful Morag Ellis
The motion to consider the rules was carried.
Mr Terry then moved his amendment which would, he said, “fill a gap in the rules” to allow the redress scheme to seek information from the alleged perpetrator. This would ensure that no one would be found to be an abuser without having the chance to put forward their side of the story. It was vital to hear every side of a case, even if 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 would require the applicant’s consent to approach the perpetrator or their surviving relatives and compelled the redress body to search out court records that might not be in the public domain. “There are some real practical difficulties about this,” she said.
The amendment would be “positively harmful”, given that the application would be withdrawn if the applicant did not consent to an approach to the perpetrator. She also said that the determinations of the redress body would not be published, and the Measure made clear that its conclusions had no civil legal consequences.
Twenty-five members did not stand; so the amendment lapsed.
Archdeacon Ayers then moved his amendment. The current rules stated that an aggravating factor would be if a church officer did not believe a report of abuse made. This would be almost impossible to establish in fact, and did not matter, he suggested. The issue was not whether a complaint was believed or not, but whether it was acted on. “Whether they personally believe it is neither here nor there,” he said, although reports should be received with compassion and sensitivity. If this provision was left in the rules, it would be a “hostage to fortune”.
Ms Ellis resisted the amendment. The law regularly required people to draw inferences which could be drawn properly from the surrounding 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 significant aggravating factor, he said. The redress body should be able to draw inferences.
Clive Scowen (London) supported Archdeacon Ayers’s amendment. It was an aggravating factor when someone told a victim that they did not believe them, he conceded, but he argued that there was a difficulty with the word “believed”. The Church should not create a tacit duty for its officers to believe automatically what they were told, he said. The Rules Committee should come back in February with a more carefully worded version, he said.
Dr Jamie Harrison (Durham) said that Synod members sent messages by the way in which they voted. Belief was no good unless it was worked out in practice, he argued. The Synod should trust that Kennedy’s would be able to implement this fairly.
Canon Wharton urged the Synod to vote against the amendment: safeguarding training encouraged church officers to believe those who made disclosures. “Not to be believed is a dreadful thing,” she said. Survivors had made it clear how important this was to them, and members must listen.
Anna De Castro (Sheffield) suggested that Canon Wharton and Dr Harrison had missed the point of the amendment. As a former parish safeguarding officer, she said that her job had not been to pass judgement on any disclosures, but to thank the person, record their disclosure well, and then 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 one way, but victims might use it in a different way. He supported the amendment.
Dr Grenfell said that members were getting confused. This debate was not about managing allegations well, but looking at whether the lack of belief and action was an aggravating factor, which was a separate issue. “Here, we are splitting the wrong hair. Let’s concentrate on redress.”
Carolyn Graham (Guildford) said that “belief” was a normal part of the legal process and did not involve having to peer inside heads. The question was whether the person suffered extra harm from not being believed, which should be factored into the decision of how much recompense to give them.
Archdeacon Ayers said that the debate 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 would be deducted from their final redress-scheme payout. This would affect more than 120 applicants, she said. Her amendment would eliminate this provision. Survivors had different views about the equity of her proposal: some had chosen not to apply to the ISS because they thought that this would reduce their eventual claim.
She argued, however, that the two schemes were fundamentally different, the ISS focusing on urgent distress rather than restitution or compensation. “Comparing the two schemes is like comparing apples and oranges.”
Imagine, she said, being told that your redress payment was supposed to be £50,000, but, because you had a crisis a few years ago and received ISS payments, your payment was cut to £20,000. “This would add to survivors’ distress: it would feel like penny-pinching and not 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 came across as “mean-spirited”. Her amendment would make the redress scheme operate more in line with the economy of the kingdom 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 start of the ISS, it had been made clear that any rewards might affect the amount payable under the main redress scheme. For him, this was an “issue of equity” for those 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 had to be generous to those who had been wounded in its care. “Please, Synod, let us 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 might cause victims and survivors to lose trust in the scheme would be disastrous.
Speaking to survivors, he said: “This scheme exists because of the manifold failings, which we repent. . . We want you to trust, and I want 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 had to be mediated through a community, not simply from the perpetrator. The Church was moving one step closer to justice, although no price could be put on restitution. Without the amendment, the Church would save some money, but jeopardise trust in the entire scheme.
Mr Sewell said that the ISS was discretionary, and had looked after people “in the mean time” while the redress scheme was set up. Interim payments should not be clawed back, he said: his might push some survivors towards taking their own life.
Dr Gibbs suggested that, in 2020, the Church had been “making things up as it went along, hand to mouth”. The ISS was “never about redress” or permanent restitution but to provide 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 worried 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 should be offset, because, otherwise, there would be “double-counting for the same harm from different sources”, allowing some survivors to gain significantly more than others.
Bishop Conalty said that the issue 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 rules be approved, as amended.
Nick Land (York) still had concerns about the process to determine how much money was offered to those whose applications were accepted, and about the difficulty of maintaining confidentiality when the redress body applied to other organisations, such as parishes, for contributions. He also warned that the suicide rate among accused perpetrators was higher where they were not given the chance to make their case. “There should be really careful thinking before we move from determining a payout before trying to secure contributions from other places.”
Lucy Docherty (Portsmouth) was proud of the Synod, she said, even though it had taken “five very painful years” to get here. In comparison with the Post Office scandal and the “optics” presented to the public, the Church had done well.
Canon Battye urged members to think of the hundreds of clergy dragged through the “now discredited” Clergy Discipline Measure, who feared that their vexatious accusers would now make applications for redress. Would clergy suffering from PTSD because of “strange and weird” complaints be allowed to apply to the redress scheme, given 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
