FR-19 Accepted in Part

Tiered Redress Scheme

IICSA · The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · Issued 20 October 2022 · Addressed to: UK Government

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation, K.8

The Inquiry recommends that the UK government establishes a single redress scheme in England and Wales, taking into account devolved responsibilities. The detailed rules of, and funding for, this redress scheme should reflect the following core elements. Eligibility: Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation that occurred in England and in Wales should be eligible to apply. Applicants must have experienced child sexual abuse and exploitation where there is a clear connection to State or non-State institutions in England and Wales. The scheme should be open to any victim of child sexual abuse that took place prior to its establishment. The scheme should deduct any previous award from any payment under the scheme. Applicants who have previously brought civil claims which have been rejected by the court should be excluded from applying to the scheme, save where their cases have been rejected due to limitation. Redress provided: The scheme should provide payments to eligible applicants through a two-tier system, based on a fixed flat-rate recognition payment, with the option to apply for a second-tier payment. Process: The application process must be accessible and straightforward, and be sensitive to the needs and vulnerabilities of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. There should be special provisions to accelerate awards for older or terminally ill applicants. Duration: The scheme should run for five years. Funding: The scheme should be funded by central and local government, in accordance with devolved funding principles, with voluntary contributions sought from non-State institutions.

IICSA, The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · 20 Oct 2022 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- In May 2023, the government accepted this recommendation, stating it would introduce a redress scheme acknowledging institutional failures and would launch extensive engagement with victims, survivors, third sector, local authorities and insurers (Government Response to IICSA Final Report, HM Government, May 2023).
- No published national redress scheme for victims of institutional child sexual abuse has been established to March 2026.

Response — verbatim from government

UK Government

We accept the need to introduce a redress scheme to acknowledge the institutional failures that led to the suffering of victims and survivors. The detail of the scheme, including eligibility, types of redress available, the extent of any financial component, and application process, will be considered following extensive engagement, including with victims and survivors, third sector organisations, local authorities, insurers and lawyers.

UK Government · 22 May 2023 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

  • 8 Apr 2025 Government is not pursuing a separate national redress scheme, citing fiscal constraints. Instead prioritizing therapeutic support and maintaining civil court access for survivors seeking compensation. Source →
  • 21 Jan 2025 · Home Affairs Select Committee Professor Alexis Jay told Home Affairs Committee that £187m was spent on IICSA and "to date none of its final recommendations had been implemented." Called for "full implementation" saying "get it done." View source → No Meaningful Progress

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.