Education and Skills Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Official Report 504KB pdf

---

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

Item 3 is scrutiny of the Government’s role in relation to the Scottish child abuse inquiry. I thank the survivors groups that the deputy convener and I have met over the past couple of weeks, and the clerks, who did a great job in making sure that we had that opportunity. We met INCAS—the In Care Abuse Survivors group—White Flowers Alba and FBGA. All groups have provided comments for the committee, so other members have had sight of issues that were raised in the meetings.

Before we move to questions, I remind members and witnesses that, for the purposes of the standing order rule on sub judice, no mention should be made of any live cases or any issues that could prejudice the proceedings of live cases.

I suspect that questions will come mainly from Johann Lamont and me, as we met the survivors groups. FBGA suggested that a reference group made up of survivors groups and others could usefully act as a means of promoting understanding of the inquiry’s work among survivors groups. Such a reference group could also advise the inquiry panel on the sensitivities that the inquiry needs to take into account in its operation. Does the Government have a view on that suggestion?

The proposal relates to the inquiry, and I want to steer as far away as possible from expressing a view on what the inquiry should or should not do.

In general, the more dialogue that happens in this policy area, the better, because it creates a better understanding of the issues that are at stake and are of concern to individuals. However, the decision about whether such a reference group should be established is one for the inquiry. I do not have operational responsibility to influence that decision.

I suspect that you will give the same caveat in response to my next question. We spoke to White Flowers Alba, which highlighted the Australian model. The Australian inquiry takes a modular approach, moving through different sectors in modules, with a commission at the centre that has oversight of the issues that come from each module. Do you have a view on that approach? White Flowers Alba thinks that that would allow certain things to happen at certain times.

I think that that is a wider question. I acknowledge that I have looked with care at the Australian inquiry that has been established, and the characterisation of the inquiry that has been given to you by White Flowers Alba is accurate in my view. It is a broad-based inquiry that looks across Australian society at experiences in a number of situations. It also has the ability to gather evidence in different policy areas and to reflect on that at a general level.

The origins of our inquiry in Scotland are somewhat different, as it came from the process of examining the role of the state in the delivery of care to individuals for whom the state was essentially replacing the role of parents. Back in 2004, that was the basis of the apology that was given by the then First Minister to individuals who had been ill-served by the state’s exercise of its responsibility to provide care. That led to an interaction process that involved survivors and it ultimately led to the establishment by my predecessor of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which had a remit that was focused on addressing the experience of individuals in care.

With the issues that emerged, when I took office I agreed—in dialogue with survivors—to consider whether we should broaden the scope of the inquiry. As I explained to Parliament in my statement, when considering that point, I was mindful of the commitments that had been made to people who had been in care and who were expecting the inquiry to proceed. If I had broadened the inquiry remit, as has been suggested, slightly or perhaps to something as comprehensive as the Australian inquiry, we would inevitably have lengthened the timescale for it to be undertaken. I felt that, if I had taken such a decision, it would have been unfair to the survivors who were expecting the inquiry to take its course on the focused remit of the in-care system, which is why I decided not to do so.

Would it have been possible to deal with the in-care cases as a module in the context of a wider inquiry?

That might have been possible, but the inquiry was established on a different basis and with a very clear and focused remit relating to in-care abuse. I felt that it was our obligation to fulfil the commitments that had been made to the in-care survivors.

I will touch briefly on redress, and Johann Lamont will ask another couple of questions on that. I suggest that redress could be considered by the inquiry to ensure that those who engage with the inquiry feel that progress has been made in their case and to prevent them from having to revisit their experiences by giving testimony to two processes. Do you have a view on that suggestion?

That question involves two different elements that have to be considered: one is the principle and the details of any redress system, and the second—if I understand your question correctly—is decisions on particular awards to people as a result of their testimony. It would be difficult for two such processes to be undertaken under the umbrella of the inquiry. In fact, I have made it clear to Lady Smith that it is not my plan to ask her to consider the issue of redress; that is an issue for the Government to consider in conjunction with survivors groups, which is the process that we are embarking on. We have to establish our approach to redress and quite separately from that make decisions on and determine the application of any implications for any individuals in relation to their cases and the experiences that they have had.

11:45  

Something that came across when we met survivors groups is that, although they are all keen on redress, each group seems to have different criteria with regard to who should be able to get it and when they should get it. I accept that the issue is difficult, but it is important.

When I last saw the survivors groups, I committed to a process in which the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland at the University of Strathclyde would help us work our way through these questions. Difficult questions are involved, but that is not to say that they should not be embarked on. They have to be looked at, and I hope that with the assistance of CELCIS and the participation of the survivors groups we can make progress on the matter.

Redress was a theme highlighted by, I think, all the groups that we met. Is it reasonable to ask Lady Smith not for a view on whether a particular individual should have redress but for her views coming out of the inquiry on what a system of redress might look like and for any recommendations that she might have in that respect? The groups that we have met said that they had already provided your officials with very detailed views on redress; do you have a timescale for responding to them? The fact is that people need confidence. I accept that this issue will not be part of the inquiry, but there needs to be a sense of progress in the Government on the question. At what point might you share your views on what such a system might look like?

First of all, I understand the importance of addressing the issue. I want that to be done in a timely fashion, and I want to give reassurance that we are determined to take it forward.

However, I am reluctant to ask the inquiry to do so. When I weighed up the question, I felt that it might be perceived that I was passing to someone else a particular responsibility that should properly be exercised by the Government. That is why I decided not to ask the inquiry to look at the issue. Moreover, I did not want to give the inquiry more questions to address, because I wanted to concentrate its efforts on addressing the substance of individual experience and making recommendations accordingly.

When I last met the survivors, on 9 November, I said that we would establish a process involving the Government, survivors groups and CELCIS of looking at the proposals from those groups and working our way through the questions. I reassure the committee that we are taking forward that priority timeously. We have had discussions with CELCIS on the matter, and we want to engage survivors in the process. It is something that I want to do as collaboratively as possible to ensure that we properly address the issues that have been raised with survivors groups in their different proposals.

Are you open to the option of interim payments, given that many survivors are very elderly?

That is a material question in how we take this forward. I should also add that, although I have not invited Lady Smith to look at these questions, she is free to make whatever comments she wishes on the matter. There is nothing to inhibit her from making those points.

There is clearly a range of views on the inquiry’s remit, with perhaps the most compelling argument against its extension being one of timescale and the risk of it failing to do anything because it is trying to do everything. Do you accept, at least, that, when you talk about the role of the state in relation to young people in care, survivors groups have flagged up to us the extent to which other parts of the system also let them down, whether that was the police or the prosecution services, and their sense that there has been a cover-up in some areas? That is not unique to Scotland. Is the inquiry able to go where the evidence takes it not just around what happened to young people in care but around the way in which the system then closed down concerns that were raised?

Yes. The inquiry has to look at the experience of young people in care. My extension of the remit in November was to make it clear beyond any doubt that, for example, if a young person was in care and they were abused outwith the boundaries of that care home, that abuse should be considered by the inquiry and has to be a part of its scope.

The wider understanding of what happened, how issues were considered and what was done—and, more relevantly, not done—is within the scope of the inquiry and must, in my view, be examined. That requires a range of different bodies to be engaged with the inquiry on those questions, and the inquiry has the power to make sure that that happens.

As a society we are more “comfortable” with the idea of individual predators. The organisations certainly hope that the inquiry will look at the idea that there may have been organised abuse that involved other parts of the system as opposed to the individual places where children were in care.

I think that that is entirely within the scope of the inquiry.

I also have a couple of other points—I am grateful for your indulgence, convener. Cabinet secretary, you have met survivors groups and it was reflected in our meetings that people appreciated that, particularly the meeting in July when survivors felt that they had been blindsided by what had happened, and you followed up on that.

We have had a submission from Open Secret, which says that a number of the clients it works with on their support needs would also like to be part of the process; they would like the opportunity to meet you. I accept that there are constraints on your diary, but is there a means by which you are able to hear from other groups that you have not already heard from? I am sure that Open Secret would be happy to liaise with your office on that. It is difficult to find the right balance, but to what extent within what is your reasonable capacity can you test what is going on with individual survivors? I hope that you will look at that question.

I am very happy to engage as much as I can. I was grateful that Johann Lamont attended the meeting in July that she referred to. I was grateful for her presence on that occasion—her characterisation of the mood of the survivors at that time is accurate. I worked over the summer to try to address that to the best of my ability.

I have been meeting three principal groups on what I would call a regular basis. I have also met other individuals who have asked to see me and I have spent time listening to their experiences to test that I had the full understanding that I needed in making my decisions. I will be happy to meet others, so I will take steps to address the issue that Johann Lamont has raised.

Some of the issue will be around the nature of support for survivors, as well as the inquiry.

For completeness, I should also point out that I will need to involve other ministerial colleagues in some of these questions. Essentially three of us are involved in this area of policy. Annabelle Ewing has responsibility for the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Bill, Maureen Watt carries responsibility for some of the survivors funds, and my portfolio sponsors the inquiry. I assure the committee, as I have assured the survivors, that the three ministers are working closely together to make sure that the decisions that we take and the evidence that we hear enable us to act in a joined-up fashion.

There is a question of the visibility of progress, and it would help if we got some public statements about redress. Do you agree that there needs to be some kind of progress statement by the inquiry? Some survivors have been interviewed, but we are not clear how many. We are also not clear about what stage the inquiry is at. Knowing that would give people some confidence. A number of the groups said that they felt that they do not really know what is happening.

I understand that the Scottish Government has said that it does not want to extend the remit. INCAS particularly would highlight as an issue those who have a duty of care because of the revelations that are now coming out in sport, particularly football. Are you willing to remain open minded to the possibility of a further inquiry, if it is not attached to this inquiry, on the specific question of young people who were abused when there was a duty of care?

If Johann Lamont and the committee will forgive me, the progress of the inquiry is really a matter for Lady Smith to express her views about; it is for her to decide on the information that she considers it appropriate to share. Lady Smith gave some information the other day about the arrangements for hearings in January, and we will hear more from Lady Smith in that context.

The second point that Johann Lamont raises is an issue that I have thought about long and hard. I came to the view that the inquiry that we commissioned should remain focused on the questions that essentially gave rise to the origins of the inquiry in the public apology in 2004. As we have seen the terrible revelations emerging recently about football and other situations, inquiries have been set up. The Catholic church established a review body on these questions and invited the former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Andrew McLellan, to explore those issues.

I also saw the next stages of that process being taken forward by Baroness Helen Liddell, who recently wrote a deeply personal, effective and impactful article in The Herald about the aspirations that she has to take forward in relation to the Catholic church. Baroness Liddell’s article made the point more effectively than I could. I do not have the article in front of me but she said something to the effect that, as a member of the Catholic church, she did not really want to do what she was doing but she felt as though she had to do it, because the church has been so damaged by what has happened. To me, that is an example of how these issues can be taken forward in a particular organisation that has a duty to address these points. I take the same view with football.

There has to be confidence in the process that is being used. It has to be done with independence and authority to give people that confidence.

Issues might well emerge from these processes that the Government will have to take into account. I certainly assure the committee that the Government will do exactly that as we look at these issues.

So you will keep an open mind to the possibility of a separate inquiry. I ask that because there is a question of confidence among survivors. I have not read Helen Liddell’s piece, but I am sure that it is thoughtful. An organisation, whether in football or wherever, that feels that it is now so damaged that it has to address the question is slightly different from one that sees a huge injustice and decides to address it. We have all wrestled with the question of whether there should have been a public inquiry for in-care survivors and it came down to the issue of the confidence of the survivors themselves. All I ask at this stage is whether you are willing to remain open minded to the possibility of an inquiry—which would not be by the individual organisations but might be informed by them—into the broader question of the breach of duty of care. A teacher is employed by the state. If that teacher abuses a child, we can see that there is a failure there and the state has a responsibility. All I am asking at this stage is that you keep that option open.

12:00  

I have cited the examples that I have cited because I agree with Johann Lamont that the approaches that we take are required to ensure that justice is done. I have not said this during my evidence today but criminal prosecution must be considered as a first step in all of this.

I set out my point of view to make sure that organisations address the issues that have to be addressed from the perspective of justice for individuals who have been so ill-treated. That has to be done with independence and authority to give the survivors confidence. I accept totally that survivor confidence is crucial in the process.

I will finish off with a question about panel membership. To what extent do you consider that the assessors can contribute to the inquiry process now that they have gone from three to two? Will they be more useful?

If Lady Smith so chooses, she has the option to appoint assessors for specialist input to assist her in her task. Having discussed the issue of panel membership with Lady Smith, my judgment was that that option gave her the required flexibility to take forward the inquiry and that there was no need to add a third panel member. Lady Smith will make judgments about that and make public comment appropriately.

Lady Smith has a free hand.

The law provides for Lady Smith to undertake that.

In that case, I bring this session to a close and thank you both for your time. It has been a lengthy and useful session.

12:02 Meeting continued in private until 12:37.