This past week, two important documents have been published by the Church of England. Both seem to suggest that decisive moves are now being made for the future of church safeguarding practice. The first document is a press release at the conclusion of the Archbishops’ Council which met on Wednesday 23rd September. This appeared the day after. The second is linked to the first; it is a job description for a senior post in Church House to help put the safeguarding proposals of the Council into effect. The new post is to be responsible for creating and overseeing a new Redress Scheme for survivors which is now being proposed by the Church. The Archbishops and their Council are, in short, actively seeking new ways of supporting and responding to abuse survivors.
The Friday press release contained an assurance by the Church of England to put right two issues from the past. One was to make sure that new financial and practical support is made available to abuse survivors. The second was to ensure that this task of providing survivor support and care would be independent and be free of the control of the central Church. The document also recognised that, in the words of the Archbishops, the Church ‘has failed survivors’. But now ‘decisions being made feel like a turning point ……..today our words of sorrow are matched by actions that we believe will lead to real change.’ What is now being proposed is a pilot scheme, working with survivors to see what are the best ways of helping them and finding out for the future what are the best of delivering redress.
These two documents have appeared at a critical moment in the history of the Church. Looking back to February, we witnessed a great flurry of activity at General Synod with several members urging the Church to make a new start in the area of safeguarding. A powerful speech was delivered by the new safeguarding bishop, Jonathan Gibbs. This was backed up by important speeches from Julie Conalty and John Spence. All the speeches on safeguarding indicated that there was unhappiness about the Church’s record in the past, and that there was a need for a shake-up at every level. The speeches now have had the desired effect and the present documents are an indication that much work has been going on behind the scenes. There is no appetite for going back to the old pattern of effectively ‘contracting out’ the care and overall response to survivors.
The second event that looms over the Church is the awaited report by IICSA on the Church’s record on safeguarding. This is due to be published on the 6th October. It is likely that the Church will receive substantial criticism from the Inquiry report. Clearly the Church needed to show that it was now recognising this record of failure over safeguarding. It needed to have in place some positive recommendations for future action in this whole area.
The scheme to which the Archbishops’ Council press release refers to, is called the ‘interim pilot support scheme’. This recognises that the consequences of abuse on an individual can be severe, to the point where a survivor ‘is known to be in seriously distressed circumstances’. The Church also ‘has a heightened responsibility because of the way the survivor was responded to following disclosure’. This is, no doubt, referring to the stories of survivors being thrust into having to engage in a hostile litigation process to gain any kind of hearing by the Church. That process is itself abusive with survivors having to endure intrusive lines of questioning by lawyers employed by the insurance companies who seek to minimise payment of liability. In short, the Church finally gets the point that a survivor deserves something better than being thrust into the position of being a litigant. The wounds caused by such a process are every bit as bad as the original experience of abuse.
The advertisement for a Development Manager (Redress Scheme) which, in fact, appeared the day before the Archbishops’ Council, shows that all the details of the new scheme had been worked out before Wednesday. The advertisement gives us a sense of how seriously the National Safeguarding Team and the lead Bishops are taking this project. This new initiative and the details of the post to put it into practice, have required many hours of discussion and work. The level of pay, almost £70,000 pa., suggests that they are looking for a senior experienced person who understands management, redress schemes and hopefully the byzantine structures of the Church of England. We learn along the way, from the advertisement, how the Church has operated hitherto in this area of redress. The advertisement acknowledges that there has been ‘some provision for redress for survivors of Church abuse as part of the civil litigation process with such payments usually made by insurers, but in some circumstances the Church Commissioners.’ It is only in ‘some cases’ that there have been ‘other forms of compensatory response … funding for therapy, counselling and offers of apology’. It is clear that the person who wrote the advertisement realised that the existing provision for survivors has been at best a post-code lottery. Something better than legally negotiated settlements is needed by survivors of church abuse. The sums involved will probably have to be fairly substantial.
The appointed person is to oversee the development and delivery of a national scheme of redress. There would be a new structure to offer financial compensation which would be ‘a form of solace designed to provide some degree of comfort to the victim for his or her injury and to make an attempt to put right the wrong that he or she has suffered.’ There would thus not be a ‘one size fits all’. A welcome clause that appears, declares the importance of ‘’involving victims and survivors of abuse in both the design and the ongoing governance of the redress scheme.’
This advertisement is to be welcomed, not only for the prospect of having a competent person responsible for redress issues in the NST, but also what it reveals about the writers of this advertisement who are currently in charge of safeguarding. Everything about this advertisement proclaims loudly that the old days of secrecy and outsourcing of abuse cases to lawyers and insurers are over. The outrageous practice of church lawyers/insurers asking a psychiatrist to write reports on a victim without ever meeting them, will not in future be tolerated. The Church, we trust, is taking back control from secret unaccountable committees and entering a new age of transparency and justice. Everyone recognises that the implementation of a good redress scheme will take some time to deliver, but the old days of winter in Narnia seem to be over. The thaw has come. Under the leadership of Melissa Carslake, Jonathan Gibbs and the other safeguarding bishops, we can look forward to real changes that will help the entire Church of England become a healthier and more just institution. Then it will be ready to face the world with a clear conscience to replace the shame heaped on it from all the abuse stories over the past twenty to thirty years. There is much to be done, but the voices of survivors have been and are finally being heard and we rejoice in that new reality.
Sorry, but I doubt it! It’s a case of “I’ll believe it when I see it” I’m afraid. All these people who did nothing are still out there. But I’m pleased they are embarrassed enough to maybe nod in the right direction. Let’s see.
I love the moment in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when Father Christmas turns up, having been kept out for so long. Spring soon followed. Let’s hope your reference is apt.
While not quite as gloomy as Athena I do think there needs to be caution about becoming too hopeful. At Synod the most profound thing for me that was said was ‘it is the hope that kills.’ Certainly strides appear to have been taken in the right direction and I am sure that has been due to many cultural factors, better leadership and the threat of outside and negative scrutiny but for the vast majority of diocesan survivors there is little or no eveidence of change. The huge amount of autonomy they have means that they can almost completely ignore anything that comes from the NST. Hopefully most will choose not to but it is a choice they have.
So while there are talks of redress that is very limited in scope. Two weeks ago I contacted the NST to tell them I had evidence that there were systemic safeguarding failures in my diocese, the response in 2 lines was, ‘this is not our remit, this is not what we investigate or can interfere with, you have to raise it with the diocese.’
That response with its total lack of empathy, advice or concern is truly appalling.
The NST retains its ‘window dressing’ facade and is clearly unwilling or unable to engage with how that impotence will impact any decisions that are made. Comms have put a good spin on it but as diocesan survivor there is no real change for me.
If I have located the correct job advertisement on the C of E website for the Redress Scheme Development Manager, this is the link:
https://pathways.churchofengland.org/job/pathways/1989/development-manager-redress-scheme
It seems that the appointee will be a member of the NST.
Oh my, having read it I sink in a quicksand of words. The English comes out of the echelons of “you’re not educated enough to understand all this”. I’m reminded of the broken vending machine in America I saw which didn’t say “Out of Order” (Ministry of How to Speak)but simply “Doesn’t Work”.
Some Government departments have learned to use English better (Inland Revenue for one) but I fear this is from the dark ages of bowler hats, umbrellas, and the Carlton Club.
“Could do better” is a great understatement.
Is it just me? But I think that a blizzard of words is there for concealment.
I think this is actually the beginning of moves in the right direction, and signals a genuine wish to reform. I can understand the reluctance of those who have been failed repeatedly to get their hopes up, though. I note that ‘culture reform’ is one of the tasks of the appointee.
Of course it may take considerable time for reform to percolate through all the labyrinths of the Church of England and some survivors will continue to be treated badly in the meantime. That may seem even tougher for them/us when we see others doing better. But I for one am cautiously hopeful the tthis marks the start of real change. At least they are throwing decent amounts of money at it – always a signifier of real intent in the C of E.
It will be crucially important for the right person to be appointed as redress manager, and not just an establishment-minded damage limiter. I’d encourage people to pray to that end. Some social media pressure might be helpful too.
Although the job is advertised as a permanent senior position within the NST, and initially it seems that the pilot scheme, essentially dealing with known and urgent cases, will be administered internally by the Church, the appointee’s role is as a facilitator in setting-up in the longer-term an independent redress scheme. We will have to wait to see what form that takes. There’s a helpful article by Paul Handley: Church Times, 26th September (easily accessible by a link on the Thinking Anglicans website: Archbishops’ Council agrees new safeguarding proposals).
I’m afraid Paul Handley’s article is only available to those with a Church Times subscription. Can you give us the gist of it?
Simply use the link I indicated on TA and when the Church Times pop-up appears, click on the x in the top right corner. It has always worked for me. It is limited to four free views in any month, and keeps a count. As you have not used it, four should still be available and it will start again in October. All done by these elusive ‘cookies’, I understand.
Yes, but I have viewed 4 times in September. So, I imagine, will some other readers of this blog.
If the IT works, here it is:
New scheme ‘marks turning point’ in Church’s treatment of survivors
by Paul Handley
26 September 2020
THE Archbishops’ Council has approved an interim pilot scheme for survivors of abuse in the C of E, as part of what the Archbishops of Canterbury and York describe as “a turning point” in the Church’s treatment of survivors.
The sum available has not been disclosed, but is believed to be in six figures. Survivors campaigning for redress had argued in the past that anything less than £250,000 would not be worth offering.
The announcement of the fund on Friday was accompanied by a commitment by the Archbishops’ Council “to urgently pursue the principle of independent safeguarding recognising the need for greater independence and transparency of safeguarding”.
The Church’s hierarchy has long accepted the need to address the question of redress for survivors of church-based sexual abuse, but survivors have been frustrated by the time it has taken to come up with a scheme.
The issue has gained fresh impetus with the appointment of the Bishop of Huddersfield, Dr Jonathan Gibbs, as the Church’s lead bishop of safeguarding, and the imminence of the final report on the Church of England from the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), due to be published on 6 October.
Five weeks ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury released emergency funds for “VB”, whose business was in danger of going under because of a severe bout of depression linked with his abuse (News, 21 August). It is understood that VB has been offered further sums from the new pilot scheme.
The pilot scheme is geared to those survivors’ cases which are already known to the Church, “where the survivor is known to be in seriously distressed circumstances, and the Church has a heightened responsibility because of the way the survivor was responded to following disclosure”, a statement said on Friday.
Lessons learnt from the pilot will inform the creation of a full redress scheme.
Advertisement
A statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, joint chairs of the Archbishops’ Council, spoke of “a long, honest, and soberingly frank discussion. . .
“The issue of independence is something we have taken a personal lead on and are very committed to.We are glad that the Church is now going to make this happen. Along with providing redress for victims and survivors, this is the next step we must take.
“Today’s meeting and these decisions feel like a turning point. As we await IICSA’s report into the Church of England, we continue to pray for survivors and all those the Church has failed. We are profoundly sorry for our failings, but today our words of sorrow are matched by actions that we believe will lead to real change. We hope that this will provide some hope for the future.”
Thank you, John. That’s a good write-up.
There’s an important development today which I’m sure will be linked here. Reported on TA, and announced by the Bishop of Southampton, a joint safeguarding support service for abuse survivors of the Church of Engand, the Church in Wales and the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. It is called “Safe Spaces” and will be independently run by ‘Victim Support’. The announcement states “The service will run for an initial two years, with a view to extending this. It has been paid for by the Catholic and Anglican churches involved, supported by a grant from Allchurches Trust.”
So this is also a ‘pilot’ scheme. One wonders how it will fit in with the one just announced by the C of E. The support includes advocacy as well as counselling. The independent role of ‘Victim Support’ will obviously be welcome.
Sorry to hear you had a similar response to myself Trish. Even written evidence of systemic failure is not enough for NST to intervene. I wonder how many others can say the same.
I know of others Mary, it’s very difficult to look beyond that response to anything else they produce. It’s a rocky foundation to be buiding all their new ideas on.
My own feeling is that with a redress scheme it may become even harder to get them to take an interest and more cases will get a poor hearing in order that the evidential need for redress can be contested. The one thing we can be sure of is that it will be a grim road to take to get any sort of redress.
I also note in the Church Times article that it says ‘The Church’s hierarchy has long accepted the need to address the question of redress for survivors of church-based sexual abuse,’ I trust that any redress scheme will not be limited to sexual abuse which would be highly divisive and completely wrong.
Mary I am another survivor who like Trish, have raised systemic issues (linked to the appalling response of 2 bishops) but they have not been addressed. I will raise thru the PCR2 process but I am not hopeful.
In fact I am struggling to feel pleased about this good news. I have found the whole process to be cruel and Godless.
External support and money are great, but they don’t bring justice.