The next item of business is a statement by Angela Constance on historical child abuse. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, there should be no interruptions or interventions.
I call Angela Constance. Cabinet secretary, you have 10 minutes.
14:40
On 11 November, my predecessor, Michael Russell, stood in this chamber and spoke of “the moral imperative” that compels all of us to face up to and act on the reality of historical abuse of children and the current risks of child abuse.
In his statement, Michael Russell laid out this Government’s commitment to move comprehensively and quickly on these issues. He reflected on the achievements of Survivor Scotland, the interaction process and the establishment of the national confidential forum, and he promised to return to this chamber to set out the Government’s view on whether a national inquiry into historical abuse in Scotland was the right way forward to meeting the needs of survivors. Today, I am making good on that promise.
National investigations such as the Shaw review and the Kerelaw inquiry have already been carried out into this issue, and it is important for any further inquiry to complement and build on previous work, while moving the issue forward. We must also be conscious of the work that is already under way with survivors. The Scottish Government has given its commitment to working to develop a survivor support fund and to fund an appropriate commemoration, guided by the views of survivors.
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs has invited key stakeholders from the legal sector to consider how the civil justice system can be more accessible and responsive to survivors of abuse as children in care. That will include consideration of the way in which the time bar operates, and we will continue to work with survivors to ensure the fullest understanding of the civil justice barriers that survivors face today.
Our dedication to considering all of the issues must match the seriousness of those issues. We have witnessed the pitfalls when an Administration rushes to make decisions about an inquiry without involving the people who will be most affected by it. We are not a Government that believes in haste at the expense of sense. We are committed to delivering on what we promise; the victims of abuse are owed nothing less than a thorough consideration of all factors before a decision is reached.
Of course, the case for an inquiry is strong. I am sure that I do not need to tell members of this chamber that we owe it to survivors to find the truth, to speak that truth wherever it needs to be heard, and to listen and learn from what we hear. However, we must also be mindful of the fact that inquiries are major undertakings. The decision to launch them cannot be taken lightly, and the planning around them must be careful and inclusive. They must have a clear focus and not be open-ended in either remit or timescale.
As part of our response to the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s interaction process, I, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and the Minister for Children and Young People met a number of survivors on Monday to discuss what an inquiry would mean to them. Having listened to their personal experiences and concerns, I have deliberated carefully, and I have also reflected on the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who once said:
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
This Parliament must always be on the side of victims of abuse. We must have the truth of what happened to them and how the organisations and individuals into whose care the children were entrusted failed them so catastrophically. We will get to that truth, and we will establish a national public inquiry into historical abuse of children in institutional care.
To ensure that justice is done, I can tell the chamber that, where crimes are exposed, the full force of the law will be available to bring the perpetrators to account. I can also advise the chamber that the Lord Advocate has been consulted on holding the inquiry, and measures will be put in place to ensure that it does not compromise or interfere with on-going criminal investigations and prosecutions.
I am grateful to the survivors of institutional child abuse who have taken the time to meet me and other ministers and who have spoken bravely and eloquently about why they consider that a public inquiry is needed and necessary. As vital as their voices have been in getting us to this point—they have indeed been vital—I am, of course, acutely conscious that many more survivors remain silent. As abused children, they had no voice and no one to cry out on their behalf at the appalling injustices that they suffered while they were growing up. Today, they await the right circumstances for their experiences to be heard. I sincerely hope that the public inquiry will provide such an opportunity.
As a society, we have an opportunity to confront the mistakes of our past and learn from them. That will not be easy, but only by shining a light on the darkest recesses of our recent history will we fully understand the failures of our past to enable us to prevent them from happening again and to ensure a brighter future for every child and young person in Scotland.
A few weeks ago, the First Minister set out the priorities for our Government and spoke about the need to build a fairer and more equitable Scotland. That is a vision of a Scotland that will look truth squarely in the eye and will not be quick to judge, but will not flinch from what is discovered. For that reason, the inquiry will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will have the power to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence if required.
As intimated earlier, we will consult survivors and relevant organisations on the exact terms of reference. I propose that that process be complete by the end of April. Those terms of reference need to capture the principles of the inquiry and how we can create the right environment to support victims to confide and the right timescales over which it should be held.
The process must also find the right people to oversee the inquiry, not least any chair or panel. We will not make the same mistakes as others have made by rushing out with names before we have consulted survivors and relevant organisations about the attributes of a chair or panel. To support the work, I have asked the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland—CELCIS—to provide on-going logistical support, academic input and expert advice throughout the process.
Engagement with survivors has already started in earnest. Scottish Government officials have written to survivor organisations about plans for engagement around these matters for the first few months of next year. We have had a positive response from organisations, which have welcomed the opportunity to speak to us in a setting in which survivors will feel comfortable in having their voices heard.
As part of the process, we will also hold a series of regional events that will give a wide range of stakeholders the opportunity to contribute. As well as shaping the survivor support fund, those events will be used to consult on the inquiry with a view to having the terms of reference and announcing a chair or panel by the end of April next year, as I mentioned earlier.
I will conclude my statement with one further reflection. When the Parliament was reconvened in 1999 and Scotland’s inaugural First Minister, Donald Dewar, addressed the nation during the opening ceremony, he spoke of the four words on the mace that sits in the chamber: “Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity.” Those are the words that resound whenever the chamber has turned to the issue, and they are the words on which the inquiry will be founded.
I am happy to take questions from members.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, but I will let them run on for as long as necessary. After that, we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for having early sight of it. It is a welcome statement and a welcome decision. In truth, it should have happened sooner. I understand the cabinet secretary’s points about the care and lack of haste required to come to a view, but it is 10 years since the former First Minister, Jack McConnell, apologised on behalf of the Scottish people to the survivors of institutional child abuse. For a moral imperative, this has proceeded and progressed too slowly.
This next step has taken too long, but we are taking it today. The most important thing—the cabinet secretary was right to acknowledge this—is that those survivors who have campaigned long and hard and those who have always felt unable to speak out all have faith in the process that we begin today.
To that end, can the cabinet secretary give us some indication of how widely and which institutions she expects the inquiry to investigate? Can she elaborate on how she will consult survivors on the appointment of a chair inclusively and transparently to avoid the missteps that we have seen elsewhere? Can she tell us how survivors will be supported through expenses and otherwise in giving their evidence? How will she ensure that this inquiry does not just examine the historical abuses but ensures that such shameful events are not occurring and cannot occur in Scotland today?
I am grateful to Mr Gray for the tone and tenor of his questions.
Mr Gray makes the point about why we are having an inquiry now. I am acutely conscious that it is 10 years since Jack McConnell made that very public apology on behalf of the nation, but it is important to recognise that much has happened in the past 10 years. There has been the national strategy, which was introduced in 2005 by the previous Administration and which this Administration took forward. Since 2007, we have seen the Shaw review and the Kerelaw inquiry. We currently fund 25 organisations that support survivors, and as ministers we are actively participating in the Scottish human rights interaction process, which in August this year produced a new paper that I think made a very compelling case about why we now need an inquiry.
It is important that we move forward over the first few months of 2015 hand in glove with survivors and the organisations that represent them. They need to be consulted about the person spec and the skills that we require for the chairperson or panel. There is a range of views in the survivor community about the type of individuals or, indeed, whether there should be a co-chair or a panel. We will continue that work in earnest.
Mr Gray asked which institutions will be covered. We will have to look at the detail of that, as I am acutely conscious that, when we look at the history of institutional child abuse in Scotland, it does not involve just state institutions. Children in the 1950s and 1960s, and perhaps even as late as the 1970s, were put into institutional types of care by quite informal arrangements.
It is therefore important that the terms of reference are crafted in a way that will enable us to get to the true nature, scope and extent of institutional child abuse in this country from children who were put into institutional care. I am very conscious that there are many forms of institutional care.
Finally, we are committed to ensuring that survivors have the necessary emotional and financial support both to participate in the inquiry process and as they go forward on their road to recovery.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.
We, too, welcome the Scottish Government’s announcement that there will be a national inquiry into the historical abuse of children in institutional care. I hope that it will provide an opportunity to expose the perpetrators of such hideous crimes against children and to learn lessons to prevent the abuse of children in care from ever happening again.
The cabinet secretary explained that key stakeholders will be consulted to ensure that the legal proceedings are as accessible as possible to survivors. I emphasise the importance of ensuring the inquiry’s accessibility.
The cabinet secretary noted that many survivors remain silent about abuse and have no voice. I am concerned that that might remain the case unless practical help and support are available for the brave people who come forward. Only an inquiry that supports survivors can truly deliver the justice that victims deserve.
How will the inquiry work alongside other inquiries into abuse that will take place across the United Kingdom? Will it share information with them? Can the victims have confidence that guilty individuals who might have worked in institutions across the United Kingdom will be held to account?
It is important to recognise that the inquiry will not operate in isolation. It is the police’s job to investigate the criminality of individuals and organisations, it is prosecutors’ job to prosecute and it is the courts’ job to convict on the basis of evidence. All of that must continue, and it does continue daily. I am sure that my colleague Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, would testify to that.
Nanette Milne makes a pragmatic point about working with other inquiries when appropriate. We have to recognise that child abuse has no borders and that we might have to work with other jurisdictions, but it is appropriate that we in Scotland have our national public statutory inquiry to look at our failings as a country in our past. My officials have already been in touch with officials in Northern Ireland, for example, because an inquiry is continuing there on that basis, and we will of course have discussions and share information and experiences as appropriate with our colleagues in the UK Government.
Nanette Milne’s point about the inquiry’s accessibility and the importance of ensuring the right support for survivors to participate is well made. That is why we are—crucially—taking our time to work with survivors to get the right terms of reference, the right scope and the right people to lead the inquiry. It is appropriate that we take time to do that and that we do not rush into decisions, albeit that there is a deadline of April. We have rightly given ourselves further time to work through the detail with survivors, which is entirely appropriate.
I appreciate that the terms of the inquiry are at an early stage and that survivors must be consulted, but can the cabinet secretary outline any specific actions that she hopes the inquiry will achieve?
Having placed so much emphasis on the need to consult survivors meaningfully and appropriately, I do not want to overspeculate about the purpose or the terms of reference of the inquiry. However, it is important to emphasise that the inquiry’s purpose is about getting to truth and justice; giving public acknowledgement and validation; establishing a comprehensive national record; crucially, understanding the nature and extent of the abuse of children in care and the extent to which the state and non-state institutions failed in their duty to protect vulnerable children; and, again crucially, considering how those failings have been addressed in policy, practice and legislation.
I am clear that the inquiry has to be independent and robust. Survivors tell me that they are looking for an inquisitorial inquiry as opposed to an adversarial one, but it needs to focus on the systemic and institutional failings that let so many of our children down.
I, too, welcome the announcement of a public inquiry with statutory powers. Victims and survivors have long cried out for that. However, the trauma of victims and survivors must always be at the forefront. How will the inquiry ensure that, in getting to the truth, it does not compound the damage? I press the cabinet secretary on the support that will be available to victims and survivors of abuse when they interact with the inquiry. Will third-party advocates be able to present evidence on behalf of those who cannot engage with the inquiry by themselves?
Can I get back to Ms McInnes about the ins and outs of whether third parties can represent individuals? I will take the suggestion on board, but I think that it needs careful consideration.
The member makes an important point in saying that we have to avoid survivors being retraumatised by having to give evidence or participate in an inquiry. It is important to stress that the purpose of a statutory inquiry is not to compel victims or survivors to appear but to compel other witnesses who are crucial to get to the truth of the systemic and institutional failings. We have to ensure the right environment, with the right skills and expertise leading the inquiry and with the right skills and expertise made available to support survivors.
It has come across clearly from survivors that we must not have a public inquiry in which the processes and ways of doing business compound trauma or retraumatise individuals. I am clear that we must avoid that.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving us early sight of her statement. The presentation of the statement indicates that the Government gets it as far as the issue is concerned.
The cabinet secretary should know that survivors fear that the years of delay have enabled the destruction of paperwork and other evidence that might have identified witnesses who might have been of value to a public inquiry. Will she assure survivors that she will take all steps from here on in to ensure that paperwork is protected and that evidence is maintained to await the inquiry’s establishment? Will she ensure that instances of documentation that is missing or has been destroyed will be reported, for the information of the public and in the interests of transparency?
I begin by assuring Mr Pearson that I do indeed get it, as does the Government.
Mr Pearson makes a crucial point about records. As a former social worker and as a constituency MSP, I have met individuals who live with the frustration and pain of not being able to understand or put together a chronology of their life story, because records are missing. We take so much for granted: we all have many pictures of our children, and documents and memorabilia of our childhoods and those of our children. Many survivors have huge gaps in their lives because records were destroyed. It is difficult for them to move forward as part of their recovery when there are big gaps in their life stories. The point about protecting records and the integrity of information from here on in is crucial. Survivors must have absolute confidence in the process.
One of the inquiry’s core purposes is to create a comprehensive national record. I hope that that might help some individuals to piece together their life stories and journeys. That comprehensive national record is important to creating the chronology of events. Important Government work is also on-going to produce an online database of all children’s homes in Scotland.
We are looking at and learning from other jurisdictions. For example, Australia’s find and connect service can help people to piece together their lives and to locate relatives, such as siblings and parents, from whom they were separated.
I want to focus the cabinet secretary on the issue of time bar in particular. In her statement, she said that the review
“will include consideration of the way in which the time bar operates”.
Having been in Parliament for some time, I was able to look back and see that there was a review on the law of limitation back in 2004-05 and that at the beginning of 2007 the Scottish Law Commission was asked to consider aspects of the law in relation to time bar.
It seems to me that there is a reluctance among the legal profession to look at the issue of time bar. However, there is now a recognition—way ahead of anything that we have ever had before, because of recent very sad events across the UK—that survivors are often very reluctant to come forward for years and years. I impress on the cabinet secretary that, although she cannot interfere with the operation of the justice system, she and her colleagues can take steps to ensure that our justice system recognises the particular characteristics of these kinds of cases.
I appreciate Ms Fabiani’s long-standing interest in the matter of time bar. It is important to stress that there is no time bar for criminal cases—I am sure that Ms Fabiani and others recognise and understand that. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government acknowledges that the time bar for civil cases is an issue of high priority to survivors.
I am pleased to say that Paul Wheelhouse, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, was, along with me and Aileen Campbell, the Minister for Children and Young People, at the interaction event that was organised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission on Monday. He was there to listen to the views and concerns of survivors.
Linda Fabiani is right to say that the Scottish Law Commission looked into the issue of time bar, which is complex. There is some flexibility for judges, but it remains of great concern to survivors. As I said in my statement, Paul Wheelhouse has written to key stakeholders in the legal sector, asking them to discuss these matters with him. The Government will continue to work with survivors as Mr Wheelhouse’s discussion with the legal establishment continues, so that we have the fullest understanding of the civil justice barriers that are faced by survivors.
I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement of an inquiry. I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by the survivors of historical sexual abuse, who, in order to live, flourish and move on from being survivors, need to have a clear narrative published and placed on the public record that makes it clear who was and remains accountable.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that telling their story, so that we all understand the unimaginable horrors that they have gone through and can all resolve never to have those circumstances lived again by any child, is a crucial part of the task and that, therefore, in putting it together we need not just lawyers and social workers but archivists, historians and those from many disciplines? Will the cabinet secretary ensure that the terms of reference contain those actions, which can allow us not only to understand what has taken place but to ensure that it never happens again?
I am pleased that Michael Russell is in the chamber today. He has been a strong champion of the support that survivors greatly need and a strong advocate for an inquiry. His point about survivors’ personal testimony is a powerful one, as the personal testimony of survivors is salient to what we need to learn as individuals and as a nation.
In response to Mr Pearson, I spoke about the importance of the national collective account of what has happened and who is responsible, and how that is helpful to individuals who are piecing together their own lives and personal histories. However, as Michael Russell says, that national picture and account of what has happened is imperative if we are all to move forward collectively as a nation and ensure that we learn the lessons of the past. An important purpose of an inquiry is to fully understand what has happened and why, and to compare it to what happens today.
There is never any room for complacency when it comes to the protection of children, which must be our number 1 priority in all matters. It is, therefore, important that, as we progress in our consultation with survivors, we craft the terms of reference in the right way and give appropriate consideration to the skills of all those who are involved either directly in the inquiry or as the work of the inquiry moves forward.
Michael Russell makes the point that that is not just about involving legal and human rights experts or people with care, support, health, education and social work roles. I agree that we need to look at including individuals with a broader range of skills to ensure that we have an accurate and live national account of what has happened and what went wrong in the lives of so many of the nation’s children.
As I said earlier, I will allow all members who wish to ask a question to do so. I have a list of seven members who wish to ask a question. That will impact on the subsequent debate, so those who are speaking in it should be prepared to cut their speeches.
I heard the cabinet secretary say in response to Graeme Pearson’s question that, from here on in, records will be protected. In some cases, survivors have been told that there is no evidence to support their claims because records have been destroyed; in some cases, those who were responsible for the abuse have died or their whereabouts are not known. What hope can the cabinet secretary give to survivors that such cases will be included as part of the inquiry?
I appreciate the great historical difficulties related to missing records. I give Graeme Pearson and Margaret McDougall an undertaking to ensure that everything possible will be done. We will go out and engage with appropriate stakeholders, in health or social work services, to ensure that we do all that we can to retrieve records where they exist and that we have best practice as we move forward. Obviously, there are legal requirements to meet on the maintenance and the protection of information contained in records.
The purpose of an inquiry is to work with survivors to enable them to move forward, to get to the truth and to justice, to give them that much-needed public acknowledgement and validation of what they have experienced and, as I mentioned, to create a comprehensive national record.
Will the cabinet secretary introduce legislative changes to extend the extraterritorial effects of sexual offences against children and to include offences committed elsewhere in the UK so that they can be prosecuted in Scotland if need be?
My colleagues in justice are progressing that important matter.
It is important to remember that the position on extraterritoriality does not mean that sexual offences against children cannot be prosecuted. That said, it is correct that such cases can be prosecuted only in the part of the UK where the offence was committed. For example, an offence that is committed in England can be prosecuted only in England and such offences cannot by law be prosecuted in Scotland.
The Scottish Government ministerial working group on child sexual exploitation, which reported earlier this year, considered that there is a case for extending the extraterritorial effect of sexual offences against children to include offences committed elsewhere in the United Kingdom so that they can be prosecuted in Scotland if that is the best place to conduct the prosecution. The Scottish Government agrees with that recommendation and we intend to introduce legislative change when there is a suitable legislative opportunity.
I welcome the statutory public inquiry into historical abuse and the cabinet secretary’s commitment to the issue.
I have constituents who have been affected by abuse and who consistently raise the time bar issue. I know that the cabinet secretary will agree with the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s view that the time bar is a barrier to survivors getting access to civil justice. A lack of flexibility would mean that survivors were denied justice. Will the public inquiry be able to comment on the time bar issue?
As I intimated in my statement, we need to do some further work with survivors on a range of issues in relation to the terms of reference for the public inquiry. I do not want to speculate too much in advance of that consultation, but it is certainly not lost on me that the time bar in civil cases is a huge issue for survivors. As I intimated in my answer to Ms Fabiani, it is an issue that is being pursued by Mr Wheelhouse and Mr Matheson.
Will the cabinet secretary outline how she anticipates the new Police Scotland national child abuse investigation unit improving co-ordination and intelligence gathering when it comes to tackling child sexual exploitation?
That is an issue on which Mr Matheson and Mr Wheelhouse will be well versed and on which they will keep a close eye.
From my perspective, it is very valuable that the new Police Scotland national child abuse investigation unit will provide a national resource with a range of specialist skills and expertise. When necessary, it will lead and co-ordinate complex inquiries and develop good and better practice. Crucially, it will also improve links between the police, the third sector and other statutory agencies. In doing so, it will improve the intelligence networks that are required to proactively identify cases of child abuse.
It is important to note that the unit will be a national resource and that its job will be to directly support the good work that is undertaken under the existing structure of local police child protection units across Scotland.
I know that the inquiry’s terms of reference are of the utmost importance and that they will require to be given proper consideration. Will the cabinet secretary outline some of the work that will be involved in the process of drafting the terms of reference, and can she tell survivors why it will be the end of April before they will know what the terms of reference are? I take on board her point about the importance of sense over haste.
As we move forward over the next few months, it is important that we consult in a way that enables survivors to participate. We have written to various organisations that are funded through financial support from Survivor Scotland. A number of small events will be held across the country to engage with survivors. In addition, there will be some larger regional events that will involve the health service, the third sector and children’s charities.
The scope and remit of the terms of reference are crucial, so how they are crafted is extremely important to ensure not only that survivors have confidence in the inquiry, but that the inquiry has a focus of purpose that means that it will achieve outcomes that are meaningful to survivors and to us as a country.
Although I do not want to speculate too much about the terms of reference, we need to have a discussion about them—survivors themselves seek further discussion on them—particularly around what is considered to be institutional care. It is imperative that we do not make the mistakes that have been made in other jurisdictions. I am clear that if we are taking the step that we all agree that we should be taking of having a national public inquiry, we must get it right. Therefore, we must work with others. We cannot act in isolation. We must get all the detail absolutely correct.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allocating extra time to this important item of business.
I agree with the many members who have said that it has taken us too long to get here. I think that it could be argued with justification that it has taken us 14 years too long to get here, but I am delighted that we are where we are.
While they were in opposition, senior members of the cabinet secretary’s party argued vehemently that they would end the time bar in the civil justice system if and when they came to power. I listened carefully to the responses that were given to Linda Fabiani and Jackie Baillie. What is to stop the cabinet secretary ensuring that the inquiry not only discusses but suspends—or considers the suspension of—the time bar in civil cases of historical abuse?
I can only say simply and succinctly to Mr Fergusson that I cannot change the past, but I hope that I can work with all members to change the future.
The time bar is undoubtedly important to survivors, who are being ably represented by MSPs across the parties, which is to be welcomed. We will seriously take on board the views of all members and survivors. I am pleased that Mr Wheelhouse is sitting next to me, because he will be the lead on taking that work forward.
I was the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, which, 10 years ago, dealt with the petition that led the then First Minister Jack McConnell to issue his apology on behalf of the people of Scotland, so I have retained a keen interest in the matter. However, I also recall some of the issues that were raised when that petition was discussed, and especially the concerns that the Catholic Church raised about the obstacles that it foresaw to any potential inquiry.
The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to say that child abuse has no borders. However, 10 years ago, the Catholic Church argued that responsibility for institutions within the church had different borders because its hierarchy means that the bishops in Scotland have no responsibility for religious orders, and that responsibility lies with the Holy See in Rome.
Will the cabinet secretary tell us what discussions have taken place with the Catholic Church, how it has overcome that potential obstacle and why it is now more comfortable with an inquiry taking place? It was vital that that obstacle was removed.
My officials have been in touch with a range of religious organisations and children’s charities. We have many religious organisations and children’s charities in Scotland that, like the nation, have a past that let our children down. Collectively, we—whether the state, the Government, religious organisations or charities—have to look that past squarely in the eye, acknowledge our failings, acknowledge the damage that has been done and move forward together.
One of the strengths of a public inquiry is that it gives religious organisations and charities a good opportunity to demonstrate that they are open to participating freely and voluntarily in the process and that, like the rest of us, they acknowledge the failings of the past and are utterly committed to making things right for children today and for the children of tomorrow.
That ends the cabinet secretary’s statement on historical child abuse.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time