Child sexual abuse victims 'denied justice' after compensation scheme scrapped over cost
Sky News can reveal that the government has rowed back on a national compensation scheme for victims of child sexual abuse, despite it being promised under the previous Conservative administration.
A National Redress Scheme was one of 20 key recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), but a Home Office report reveals the government has scrapped it because of the cost.
Marie, who is 71, suffered alleged sexual, physical, and emotional abuse at Greenfield House Convent in St Helens, Merseyside, between 1959 and 1962, and is still fighting for compensation.
As soon as she arrived as a six-year-old, Marie says her hair was cut off, her name changed, and she experienced regular beatings from the nuns and students.
She claims a nun instigated the violence, including when Marie was held down so that her legs were "spread-eagled" as she was sexually abused with a coat hanger.
Marie has received an apology from the Catholic body that ran the home; she tried to sue them, but her claim was rejected because it was filed too long after the alleged abuse.
In February, ministers said the law would change for victims of sexual abuse trying to sue institutions for damages, which was a recommendation from the IICSA.
Previously, people had to make a civil claim before they were 21, unless the victim could prove a fair trial could proceed despite the time lapse.
Campaigners argued for the time limit to be removed as, on average, victims wait 26 years to come forward. Changes to the 1980 Limitation Act could lead to more people making claims.
Civil cases 'can take three to five years'
But Peter Garsden, president of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, worries that when it comes to historical abuse where the defendant is dead, institutions will still argue that it is impossible to have a fair trial and will fight to have the case thrown out of court.
Mr Garsden said it takes "between three and five years" for a civil case to get to trial.
He warned that claimants "can end up losing if you go through that process. Whereas the Redress Scheme would be quicker, much more straightforward, and much more likely to give justice to the victims".
Victim awarded £10 compensation
Jimbo, who was a victim of abuse at St Aidan's children's home in Cheshire, took his case to the High Court twice and the Court of Appeal three times, but, after 13 years, all he ended up with was £10 for his bus fare to court.
Despite the Lord Justice of Appeal saying he believed that the abuse had occurred, Jimbo lost his claim because of the time limit for child sexual abuse claims to be made.
Neither Marie nor Jimbo is likely to benefit from the removal of the time limit for personal injury claims, which is why Mr Garsden is calling on the government to implement a National Redress Scheme for victims of sexual abuse, as recommended by the IICSA.
Hundreds of millions paid to victims
The governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have set up compensation schemes and paid hundreds of millions of pounds to victims.
In 2023, the then Conservative government said a similar scheme would be organised for England and Wales.
But the Home Office admitted in its Tackling Child Sexual Abuse: Progress Update that it "is not currently taking forward any further steps on the IICSA proposal for a separate, national financial redress scheme for all survivors of child sexual abuse".
"In the current fiscal environment, this recommendation is very difficult to take forward," it added.
For victims, the scheme was the last chance of compensation for a lifetime blighted by abuse.
"The money is about justice and about all the other people who have had to suffer this abuse," Marie said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
New details emerge about Anthony Albanese's super tax and the bold move to win over supporters
Labor's new plan to tax superannuation balances above $3million will reportedly allow people to pay the charge from their super funds, rather than having to sell assets to cover the costs. The federal government wants to impose an extra 15 per cent tax on earnings for super balances above $3 million, bringing the total tax rate to 30 per cent for those in that bracket. The proposal has sparked criticism for including unrealised capital gains, meaning that assets that have increased in value, such as property or shares, could also be taxed even before they're accessed. There were fears this could force self-managed super funds to sell assets like properties and shares to avoid being slugged. But Sky News Australia reports that individuals in that tax bracket could pay the levy out of their super balances, rather than being forced to sell assets. This mirrors existing arrangements for people who are already taxed more on earnings above $250,000. Treasurer Jim Chalmers reportedly believes the fact that people can pay the tax out of their super should quieten critics who claim people will be forced to offload assets to pay for it. The Coalition confirmed last week it would consider voting in favour of Labor's policy to raise taxes if it scrapped the unrealised gains element and indexed the $3million threshold. But Treasurer Jim Chalmers dropped a major hint that he will not negotiate with the Opposition as the government does not need the Opposition's approval as it has the numbers to get any bill through the Senate with the help of the Greens. Dr Chalmers told 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson the government would prefer to deal with the Greens than the Coalition. 'I'm not convinced that they're fair dinkum when it comes to making superannuation tax concessions a little bit fairer, and I think my opposite number has made that clear that they're not interested in that,' he said. 'We'll obviously have discussions with other parties in the Senate to do what we can to pass that legislation.' This refusal to negotiate with the Opposition was made despite Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last week saying the government would negotiate with the Coalition over super policy. 'We do not have a majority in the Senate; we obviously work with different parties,' the Albanese said. While Labor has a landslide majority in the House of Representatives, it needs the support of 10 other senators to get any legislation passed through the upper house. The Greens are enthusiastic about the proposed tax, and in fact want it to kick it on balances of $2million and above, not $3million. Crossbencher senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie last year refused to support Labor's plan to tax unrealised gains, meaning the government could only rely on the Greens in the Senate. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien this week said the Coalition would be open to negotiating with the government on super provided it dropped plans to tax unrealised gains and indexed the $3million threshold. 'When it comes to all policies, including this one, the Coalition will always be open however that doesn't mean a blank cheque,' he told Sky News. 'If indeed, Jim Chalmers wants to come and have a discussion with the Coalition about his super tax, he would have to firstly walk away from the unrealised capital gains component, at least. 'He should be compromising on indexation. Now, if he caves in on all of those things and wants to talk about super reform, let's have a chat about super reform.' Accountants argue taxing unrealised gains would stop self-managed super funds from investing in assets that can quickly appreciate in value, such as technology start-ups; starving that sector of funds. Concerns have also been raised about Labor's decision no to index the proposed $3 million tax threshold to inflation. This means that far more people will be pushed into that tax bracket in future. , even if compulsory employer super contributions stayed constant. They are rising to 12 per cent on July 1, up from 11.5 per cent.
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
'Ordering a woman to be sexually exploited is as easy as ordering a takeaway': How trafficking victims are being sold online
*Sarah thought she was going to a job interview to become a waitress. Warning: This story includes graphic descriptions of sexual exploitation and abuse, including rape Instead, she was lured to a strange man's flat and held against her will for six months. "One of the very first things he did was ask for me to hand over my passport to check that I had the right to work," she says. "I remember him asking me kind of odd questions, like, 'do you like sex?' "I remember him taking me into another room within this flat and closing the door behind him, then locking the door. And then I was raped." She says her passport was used to create an online profile to advertise her for sex. She had no control over the adverts, no access to the accounts, and was repeatedly abused by her trafficker and the men who booked her through the website. "My abuser would say: 'This man would like to see you, he's booked you, but he's requested sloppy seconds. Okay? I am going to rape you again so that when you go and see this man, you will take that to that man'," she tells Sky News. Sarah says she was forced to take on different names to match her trafficker's rotating online personas. She ultimately escaped after threatening to scream unless her abuser let her go. "He just glared at me, furious," she recalls. "But he opened the door. That was the moment I had. That was the moment I took. I ran out and never saw him again." Sarah's abuser is now in prison. But the website that he used to facilitate her abuse is still operating. A Sky News investigation has uncovered thousands of potential indicators of sexual exploitation on two of the UK's most prominent adult service websites, raising serious concerns about how traffickers may be using these platforms to advertise and abuse victims like Sarah. Analysis of more than 50,000 adverts on AdultWork and Vivastreet - two of the country's largest escorting platforms - revealed a high concentration of red flags linked to organised exploitation, including repeated use of the same contact numbers, and/or duplicated advert text, across adverts for different women in different geographical locations. These patterns, highlighted by the Sex Trafficking Indication Matrix (STIM), a research tool used to identify signs of trafficking, suggest some profiles may be linked to coercive networks. In one case, the same phone number appeared in eight separate adverts for at least five different women, all listed with identical ages, nearly identical descriptions, but different photographs and spread across multiple UK regions. Neither platform is accused of criminal activity, but experts and campaigners say the scale and nature of these indicators are red flags for potential abuse. Prostitution is legal in England and Wales. But the controlling of prostitution for gain, sometimes called pimping, and the more severe crime of trafficking, are not. "These platforms make it as easy to order a woman to be sexually exploited as it is to order a takeaway," said Kat Banyard, director of campaign group UK Feminista. "There are big questions for national policing to answer about why it is that this important investigation has had to be done by Sky News, and why it wasn't national policing that was launching an investigation to uncover the scale of potential criminality on these sites." Over several months, Sky News used STIM indicators to assess escorting adverts across two platforms. On Vivastreet alone, more than 7,000 were linked to phone numbers that appeared multiple times - more than half the total number of listings at the time. On AdultWork, over 1,000 ads were found to contain duplicated descriptions. In one example on AdultWork, the same wording was used in 357 different listings - a sign that content may have been copied and pasted to cover for multiple individuals under a single operator. The websites told us duplication can reflect legitimate activity, such as touring sex workers using aliases. However, opponents say their structure allows abusers to hide in plain sight. Sky News can also reveal that officials at the Home Office met representatives from escorting websites 25 times between 2017 and 2024, under the previous Conservative government. Critics argue these discussions have failed to lead to meaningful safeguards or regulation. A Home Affairs Committee report in 2023 was highly critical of this kind of engagement. And in parliament, pressure is building to take stronger action. Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi has tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill that would seek to ban such websites altogether. "This is a thriving, multibillion-pound industry, and we're acting like there's nothing to see here," she says. "It's horrific, and I think more people need to be speaking out about it - this gives parliamentarians the opportunity to discuss and debate it on the floor of the house." In a statement, a Vivastreet spokesperson said: "Experts are clear that indicators that may suggest exploitation can have innocent explanations. "For example, it is a fact that many sex workers use different names and personas, and 'touring' - moving for short periods of time to different areas to take bookings - is a well-known practice. "We take safety extremely seriously and deploy industry-leading security measures to detect, report, and remove potentially exploitative content, including new requirements that all adult category advertisers must undergo age and ID verification." AdultWork said: "Sexual exploitation is not tolerated in any form. "We have strict internal policies in place to reinforce this and we are continually updating our internal systems for detecting accounts and requesting additional documents for evidence of legitimacy. "We make it a priority to fully cooperate and comply with all law enforcement requests. Additionally, any indications or reports of trafficking are fully reviewed and if we find them to be suspicious, we proactively contact law enforcement." Whether escorting platforms can be better regulated - or whether they should be outlawed entirely - remains a point of national debate. But with mounting evidence of potential exploitation and growing political scrutiny, campaigners say inaction is no longer an option. "These platforms are so poorly moderated and poorly regulated," Sarah says. "No one can sit behind a screen and know if someone's being coerced or is at the mercy of a predator."
Daily Mirror
7 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Startling sum North missed out on for transport in 'decade of deceit'
Analysis by think-tank the IPPR found the North of England would have had an extra £140billion in transport cash if it was treated the same as London under the Tories The North of England would have had an extra £140billion of transport cash if it was treated the same as London under the Tories, damning figures show. New analysis reveals the Government spent £1,183 per person in the capital between 2010 and 2023 - compared to just £486 in the north. And it was even worse in the Midlands, where the figure was £455. Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at think-tank IPPR North - which crunched the numbers - said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit. "We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign – yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her reign – while our transport chasm widens. This isn't London bashing - Londoners absolutely deserve investment. "But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right." The data shows £83billion of Government cash was spent on transport projects in the north since 1999/2000. The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person. Last week Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands. This cash is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. There will also be a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire. Labour's Local Transport Minister Simon Lightwood said: 'This report lays bare the way in which successive Conservative governments have short-changed areas outside of London and the south east, denying millions of people access to jobs, education and opportunity. ' Labour promised we would bring growth to every part of the country and we've put our money where our mouth is. As part of our Plan for Change we've announced more than £15 billion for local transport in England's city regions, delivering the biggest ever investment in buses, trams and local rail."
