It has been over six months since the government responded to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) - one of the longest public inquiries in UK history. Eight years, thousands of accounts of horrific human suffering and denials of justice, and a raft of recommendations later, there has been no meaningful published progress on the issues relating to redress. The recommendations were not always perfect, but better than this stagnation. Survivors are still waiting for change.
Back in May, the government said that it would consult on establishing a redress scheme to which survivors could turn for compensation to help them get their lives back on track. Even after all the time and work put into the inquiry, there is little sense of urgency and a growing concern among survivors and representatives that the can could be kicked down the road. If there have been any developments behind the scenes, they certainly have not been made public.
No redress scheme is ever perfect, but a scheme would at least give survivors of sexual abuse much-needed choice and for those who simply don’t have the option of pursuing a civil claim, some form of redress. A key element of achieving justice, for some, is to have their 'day in court' and their cases heard. A redress scheme does not do that, but for some survivors, is better than the uncertainty of court proceedings. It is important that survivors have a choice and that there is a route for those who are simply unable to bring their claims through the courts.
The IICSA panel’s recommendations for how the scheme would work do have some fundamental flaws, making the government’s consultation on the detail, including on eligibility and types of redress, all the more crucial. When it comes, it must be a meaningful and comprehensive public consultation that truly listens to survivors of abuse and their representatives.
It was proposed that the scheme should be funded by the state with voluntary contributions from insurers and other organisations. But it is wrong in principle that the taxpayer should pick up the full cost when many of the institutional defendants, such as the church and other religious organisations amongst others, are wealthy and powerful institutions and organisations with insurance to cover this kind of claim. A redress scheme must be at least partly funded by the insurance industry by way of a compulsory, not a voluntary, contribution. A scheme funded by the public purse will have huge pressures on it to keep damages low, and indeed the inquiry report recommends (wrongly in my view) that damages should be set lower than civil damages currently awarded, which are already not high enough.
The proposed scheme would provide payments to eligible applicants based on a fixed rate. That such a comprehensive investigation concluded that survivors should be subjected to a tariff-based system of nominal compensation amounts is letting survivors down yet again. Survivors of sexual abuse should receive the appropriate level of compensation to acknowledge their individual suffering and losses, and to make a significant difference to their lives. And in tough economic times, it is even more important that private institutions and their insurers contribute, rather than leaving the state to pick up the tab.
The proposed scheme would run for only five years and would be accessible to survivors of childhood sexual abuse which took place in England and Wales before the scheme’s enaction, but not after. This is a relatively short amount of time for such a scheme to be up and running. Many survivors may not know of its existence until it is too late. Sadly, the IICSA vision of a redress scheme will not help enough people and it will not help people enough.
What IICSA got right was with the very clear recommendation to abolish the three-year limitation period on non-recent sexual abuse cases in England and Wales. This would bring our jurisdiction in line with Scotland where the time bar was lifted several years ago. Despite clear evidence to allow it to do this right away, disappointingly the government has said instead that it would consult on existing judicial guidance and set out options for reform 'later this year'. The year is fast running out and there is still no sign of movement on this, albeit imperfect, solution.
The government went to the effort of launching the inquiry in a laudable attempt to put things right for some of the most wronged people in our society, yet the sound of dragging heels is deafening.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers spoke to MPs and peers about this urgent issue at a reception in the House of Commons in November. The work of the inquiry must not be wasted. Survivors have waited long enough.
Kim Harrison is vice president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)
1 Reader's comment