Skip to main content

IICSA published its final Report in October 2022. This website was last updated in January 2023.

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Accountability and Reparations Investigation Report

F.4: Advantages and disadvantages

13. There are a number of potential advantages and disadvantages to a redress scheme.

Advantages

14. The advantages include: avoiding a contentious, adversarial process; the flexibility to facilitate apologies and acknowledgements of wrongdoing; assurances that steps have been taken to prevent further abuse; and the provision of support services.

15. Removing the compensation process from the civil justice system will avoid claimants suffering the stress and emotional trauma of adversarial litigation, the purpose of which is limited to obtaining financial compensation. Billhar Singh Uppal warned that, even if the civil justice system was changed to make it easier for claimants to succeed, the “corrosive, defensive approach” of denying any fault can be very damaging for claimants.[1]

16. Richard Baldwin, Divisional Director for Children’s Social Care at Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, recognised that a single unified system may be beneficial:

I can certainly see the value of bringing something together so that there is just one claims system … So anything that brings together that process into one system sounds very sensible to me.[2]

17. Such a scheme may also cater for the specific needs of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. While the rules concerning criminal convictions may be justified for CICA applications generally (see Part D), a redress scheme may avoid these potentially inappropriate limitations.

18. However, several lawyers, local authorities and insurance companies told us they were more circumspect about the benefits of redress schemes. For example, Alistair Gillespie – formerly a partner at Hill Dickinson, the law firm instructed by Royal & Sun Alliance in the North Wales litigation and the St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s litigation – said “It’s very difficult, sitting here, to know what a redress scheme would look like that would actually improve the situation”.[3]

Disadvantages

19. There are a number of possible disadvantages to a redress scheme that should be taken into account.

20. A redress scheme may not balance the interests of participants justly or investigate claims with the same degree of rigour as the civil justice system, which Rod Luck, Claims and Reinsurance Manager at Municipal Mutual Insurance, said is a process which does mean that both sides to the claim are able and entitled to have cases properly investigated and assessed”.[4] A redress scheme may also not afford victims and survivors the opportunity to have their ‘day in court’,[5] which some witnesses, including AR-A21, told us they found beneficial.[6]

21. A redress scheme may have the same drawbacks as the CICA scheme. A tariff-based approach may feel limited and impersonal to those who have suffered abuse.[7] Indeed, the structure of the scheme and the way it is funded – for example by government rather than the institutions – may prevent victims and survivors from feeling they have achieved accountability.

22. A key factor to consider is the funding and duration of such a scheme.

22.1. Many witnesses told us that redress schemes fail to achieve longevity or are limited by their funding.[8] Peter Garsden, a solicitor who represented victims of abuse at St Aidan’s and St Vincent’s, who was involved with a redress scheme in Jersey, noted that the scheme, like others, was time limited.[9] The Lambeth scheme, similarly, will come to an end on 1 January 2020.[10] By contrast, statutory compensation schemes such as the CICA may not conclude after a fixed period, so do not disadvantage those who for whatever reason delay coming forward.

22.2. The source of the funding may be important. If the scheme is funded by the government, it may have few differences from the CICA scheme. Also, victims and survivors may not feel that the process is holding the relevant institution to account. It may therefore be important to involve local authorities, private and voluntary children’s homes, and insurance companies.

22.3. Richard Baldwin sounded a note of caution about the funding of redress schemes falling on the shoulders of local authorities. When large groups of survivors come forward, this may cause significant financial difficulties.[11] In his view, “it would be up to the local authorities, either individually or collectively, to make a decision about where those resources and where those finances best sit in terms of how they’re best spent”.[12]

22.4. Peter Garsden suggested that a redress scheme could potentially cover lower value cases, or those that fall foul of limitation.[13] While that might seem a sensible solution, it may risk treating victims and survivors differently. Those who are more seriously affected by abuse may then have to go through the traumatic experience of a civil claim.

23. Some insurers told us that they were reluctant to commit to how they might engage with a redress scheme – whether voluntarily or through obligation – and how it might impact them, without knowing more details.[14] This was understandable. Their considerations are primarily financial and they cannot offer apologies or commitments for the future.[15] As Philippa Handyside of the Association of British Insurers explained, the compensation that insurers pay is not discretionary, it is based on a legal liability within the civil justice system to indemnify institutions.[16]

Back to top