Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Angela Constance, on the historical child abuse inquiry. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her speech and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
On becoming the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, I gave a commitment to establish an independent inquiry into historical abuse of children in institutional care, with full statutory powers to compel witnesses and demand evidence. On 17 December 2014, I announced to Parliament that we would consult survivors and others on the inquiry’s remit and the appointment of a chair. We took a careful, consultative approach to try to build consensus. I can today report to Parliament on the outcomes of that work.
It is important to emphasise that, although no inquiry can right the wrongs of the past, that is not a reason to fail to act. We have listened to the views of survivors on the shape and scope of the inquiry. I am grateful to those who have given of their time and knowledge, but I know that many have yet to come forward. I sincerely hope that survivors will use this opportunity to tell of their experiences and testify to the inquiry.
The inquiry will aim to shine a light in the dark corners of the past, to shape how we respond in the present and to guide how we go forward in future. We need to learn all we can to ensure that no institution becomes a hiding place for those who abuse positions of trust to prey on children. We want to make Scotland the best place for all our children to grow up. Children and young people must grow up feeling cared for, nurtured and loved, as well as being protected from harm, abuse and neglect. We have a particular commitment to our most vulnerable young people—those for whose care and protection the state is directly responsible. Accordingly, we will listen carefully to the inquiry’s eventual recommendations and make whatever changes may be necessary to policy, practice or legislation.
It has been challenging to reach a decision on the scope of the inquiry, given the wide range of views, even among survivors. The remit cannot be so wide that survivors lose hope of the inquiry ever reaching clear and specific conclusions. I am mindful of the urgency of that last issue, given the age and health of some survivors.
The inquiry will examine any instance in which a child was abused in care, including residential care; children’s homes; secure care; and borstals and young offenders institutions. It will also include those placed in foster care. “In care” will carry a broader interpretation, to include allegations affecting boarded-out children; child migrant schemes; school hostels; and healthcare establishments providing long-term care for children. Independent boarding schools are also included. Although parents were responsible for the placement of their children in those institutions, the state, too, had a responsibility to ensure a standard of care.
The starting date for the inquiry’s scope will simply be within living memory. The inquiry’s chair will determine the exact end date, but it will be no later than 17 December 2014. That timeline goes further than originally envisaged and has been informed by the views of survivors and others. The inquiry will be asked to report to ministers within four years of the date of commencement, which is to be no later than 1 October.
I expect the inquiry to take a human-rights-based approach, to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial and to enable people with little experience of legal processes to engage with it. Crucially, the inquiry will examine the on-going effects of abuse on survivors and their families in order to improve our understanding of the issues they face and help us to improve support for them now and in future.
Taking all that into account, the inquiry needs a chair who can rise to those challenges while gaining and maintaining the confidence of survivors. I am pleased to announce that Susan O’Brien QC will chair the inquiry. Ms O’Brien is an experienced advocate in civil litigation, including on issues pertinent to the inquiry, and has a knowledge of and expertise in human rights. Crucially, she also chaired the Caleb Ness inquiry in Edinburgh in 2003. I am grateful to her for agreeing to take on this significant task.
Of course, the inquiry forms a significant part of the Scottish Government’s wider response to the Scottish Human Rights Commission interaction plan. As significant as this will be, it does not stand alone in demonstrating our commitment to survivors of abuse. Survivors have told me about childhoods lost as a result of abuse. Their experiences have impacted adversely on their adult lives too. Restoring what has been lost is vital.
Scotland is one of only a few countries to develop and implement a dedicated support strategy for survivors of historical abuse in any setting. For 10 years, SurvivorScotland has delivered services that many survivors describe as their lifeline. We now intend to build on that and to do more. I am announcing today that we will set up a dedicated support fund for survivors of abuse who were placed in care by the state. That will enable survivors to identify their own personal goals and access the right support to achieve them. Work on that will begin immediately, with £13.5 million allocated over the next five years to develop a dedicated in-care support service.
I am also announcing an additional £1 million to enhance the support that is available to all who have been abused, whether in care or not, through the SurvivorScotland development fund.
Through the interaction process, many of those who were abused in care as children called for the right to seek reparation. That would involve removing the time bar that requires a civil case for compensation to be brought to court within the three-year limitation period. At the heart of the issue is the reality of childhood abuse. It can take decades for a survivor to have the strength to challenge their abuser in court.
Having listened to survivors and examined the legal position carefully, I can announce that this Scottish Government intends to lift the three-year time bar on civil action in cases of historical childhood abuse since September 1964. We will consult in the summer on how best to do that. To further demonstrate our commitment to the issue, we will produce a draft bill by the end of this parliamentary session. With regard to cases before September 1964, I must be clear that there are considerable challenges regarding human rights. We will, of course, continue to listen to views on what, if anything, can be done to remove barriers pre-1964.
I believe that all that I have set out demonstrates that this is a dynamic process and that we are a Scottish Parliament that listens, hears and acts. Although we cannot undo the deeds of the past, we can acknowledge them, address their impact and learn how to do much better in the future to protect Scotland’s most vulnerable children.
As a Parliament, we can and must give a voice to those who have been silenced for too long. We can and must recognise the abuse that they suffered as children. We can, we must and we will do everything that we can to ensure that the same thing never happens again.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for early sight of it.
We sincerely welcome today’s statement. We very much want the inquiry to succeed, and we want to work with the cabinet secretary to ensure that that happens. It must be a bright and unfettered light that we shine into this dark corner of our nation’s recent past. Above all, the survivors of abuse must have total confidence that we will not flinch and that we will face that past without fear or favour.
In 2008, the then minister told the chamber that no further inquiries were required in Scotland and that the time bar must remain. Therefore, today’s announcement is great and welcome progress, but we have to recognise that it has taken a very long time.
The chair of the inquiry is central to the survivors’ confidence. We have seen that all too clearly in England. Survivors expected a High Court judge to lead the inquiry. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give us that she knows that Ms O’Brien’s appointment is acceptable to survivors?
The breadth of the inquiry is also crucial. For the avoidance of doubt, will the cabinet secretary confirm that establishments that have been run by religious institutions or religious orders are within the scope of the inquiry?
I will start by answering directly the last question that Mr Gray posed. The answer to that question is yes. I hope that that is crystal clear.
I reassure Mr Gray that the voice of survivors has been absolutely central. It is fair to say that there is a range of views in the survivor community about a chair, and I have taken all those views on board. There were many debates about whether the chair should be someone in Scotland, someone outwith Scotland, someone within the legal profession or someone not within it. However, I am confident that we now have the right person to chair the inquiry.
Perhaps it would be useful to share a bit more information about Susan O’Brien. She has been in practice as a Queen’s counsel since 1998. She was a solicitor for six years before she was called to the bar in 1987. She has represented abuse victims, and she took a test case on time bar in historical claims to the House of Lords in 2008. I know that she understands the issues that are so important to survivors.
I also know that Susan O’Brien is a highly competent woman. She was the legal chair of the panel of three that investigated the death of baby Caleb Ness and produced a report on it in 2003. That was a highly significant report not just for social work services but for health services right across Scotland. I was a social worker when that report made its recommendations, and I know the impact that it had on the social work profession and other establishments. The report led to significant changes in the city of Edinburgh.
In the 1980s, Ms O’Brien was also on the steering committee that set up the Scottish Child Law Centre. I am confident that we have struck the right balance with someone who has the necessary legal skills and experience and who also, crucially, understands first and foremost the needs of survivors.
All that I can say to Mr Gray on the passage of time is that I am painfully aware that it was Chris Daly who first brought a petition on the matter to the Parliament away back in 2002. If we are to move forward together united in the chamber, we all have to reflect on the passage of time and on how long it has taken to get to this point. I know that a wealth of work has taken place since the establishment of the Parliament and that we can demonstrate that we collectively are a Parliament that listens and acts, but we all have to do much more.
In that spirit of co-operation, I welcome Mr Gray’s words. We should not flinch and we should act without fear or favour. That applies to us all as we look to the future and move on together.
I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement. We strongly commend the Scottish Government for the way that it has handled the situation, which is obviously very sensitive. It is absolutely imperative that the Parliament is united in the way that we move forward.
The cabinet secretary said very carefully at the start of her remarks that the scope of the inquiry has been shaped by the consultation of survivors, which is extremely important, as is the £13.5 million support fund. Would it be possible to have a little more detail as to how the support fund might work? These very brave survivors need that support, but in addition there is a duty to ensure that we support and protect those who are currently working in some of the institutions that may at some stage be under investigation.
Secondly, will the principles of the investigation that underpin the structure of the report be the same as for the United Kingdom investigation? Obviously, there will be situations in which there are cross-border implications.
As announced in the statement, there is an additional £13.5 million to be invested over a five-year period—2015 to 2020—with £1.5 million available for this financial year and £3 million a year thereafter rolling forward. There is also the £1 million through SurvivorScotland for all survivors.
The rationale for that investment is to ensure that survivors get a personalised service and that they get support that is based on their needs for as long as they need. I expect the in-care survivors support fund and the enhanced support for all survivors of abuse to be operational this year.
We will work very closely with survivors to consult and listen to them as we go through the procurement and tendering process for services. This is about having a one-stop shop for survivors where they can access practical support, whether it is employment, education or bus fares to services or whether it is about accessing the more specialist support that people need, particularly when they have experienced great trauma in their life. It is designed to be bespoke and personal to the needs of each survivor.
On the principles that underpin the inquiry, we have indeed looked very closely at developments with the UK inquiry. As Ms Smith touched on, it is important that we do not look at inquiries in isolation, although we are in different jurisdictions and the scope and remit of the inquiry in Scotland is different to that in England.
My officials are very grateful to officials in the Home Office and others south of the border for their sharing of knowledge and experience. Although the inquiry south of the border has had its issues and we have sought to learn from them, there are also things about the inquiry south of the border that we would seek to learn from more positively. For example, a reference group for survivors is being set up to keep them informed of progress as the inquiry proceeds, and a small selective expert panel has been set up to support the chair. There will of course have to be appropriate protocols between inquiries because no one wants to see overlap.
On the third point raised by Ms Smith, it is important to recognise that the vast majority of people who work to support our vulnerable children do a grand job, and the inquiry will have to think about how all those who are designated as core participants are treated fairly and supported accordingly. My officials have certainly been in touch with agencies such as the national health service and local authorities. I am happy to supply further information.
As the cabinet secretary is aware, in September 1984 the law on prescription was amended so that the long-stop 20-year prescription period was removed from cases such as these, but that change was not retrospective. That means that any claims prescribed before September 1964 were not revived and that to seek to revive them now would raise considerable legal issues. Can the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament anything further about this issue?
Mr Campbell will be aware from his own professional background that this area is technical and complex. I will just take a minute to run through it for the parliamentary record.
As we know, the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984 applied a 20-year prescription period to obligations to make representation in respect of personal injuries. The 1984 act came into force on 26 September 1984 and, accordingly, cases where the right of action arose prior to 26 September 1964 were not revived under the law as it stood. As the law presently stands, it is therefore not possible to bring before a court any child abuse case where the relevant abuse took place prior to 26 September 1964.
The Government acknowledges the difficulties—which the Scottish Law Commission and others have referred to and which Mr Campbell touched on—that might arise should attempts be made to revive personal injury claims that were extinguished by the negative prescription through the legislation on 26 September 1984. There are obvious concerns about applying liability retrospectively to someone for events in the past when they are currently not liable for those events and about how that may contravene the person’s human rights and, specifically, article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights.
I apologise for that very technical, legal explanation. However, I emphasise that I gave a personal commitment to survivors that we as a Government would be very clear about our position on the time bar when we came back to this chamber. What I have announced today is a significant step forward and a significant movement because we have the intention to lift the time bar in terms of post-1964 cases. We will have to consult carefully on how we do that, but there are real legal issues in terms of pre-1964 cases. We will nonetheless have a dialogue with all partners, particularly survivors, because we are in the business of opening doors, not closing them, and of finding solutions.
I join other members in paying tribute to survivors, some of whom are in the public gallery this afternoon, for their commitment and tenacity throughout this long process.
The cabinet secretary said that she hopes that survivors will use the opportunity to testify to the inquiry and tell of their experiences, but she will be aware that a number of survivors will need financial, practical and legal support to do that. Will survivors be offered from the survivor support fund legal aid and financial support, including expenses, in order to allow them to participate fully in the inquiry?
I reassure Mr Bibby that, in terms of the issues in and around legal aid, all the usual processes that apply to everybody will also apply to survivors who seek assistance. I tried to be as flexible as possible in the lead-up to establishing the inquiry. When survivors have approached the Government for support in order, for example, to participate in the consultation process, we have shown willing and responded positively to requests in a pragmatic manner.
On how survivors are supported pragmatically to participate in the inquiry, that is obviously a matter for the chair of the inquiry and the inquiry itself. However, I reassure the member that we are acutely aware of the needs of survivors and that we need to have a very supportive process.
I welcome the very significant advance made in this cause by the cabinet secretary today. I am keen to know how allegations involving clear criminal wrongdoing will be dealt with. What measures will be put in place to ensure that disclosures made in the inquiry will be channelled to the appropriate criminal justice agencies? In that regard, can the cabinet secretary provide reassurance that consideration will be given to an examination of facts to enable survivors to have their day in court to tell their story, because the key issue for them all is to be believed and have trust in the system?
Absolutely. I concur with Ms McKelvie’s views and the sentiments that she expressed. The inquiry has been set up in such a way as to give survivors every opportunity to tell what has happened to them, and they can be assured that they will be believed. Although the detail of the operation is a matter for the inquiry, in getting to this stage we have worked closely with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and Police Scotland, to ensure that where testimony suggests that a criminal investigation is appropriate, it can be undertaken. The inquiry is not to establish guilt or innocence in a civil or criminal way; it is to establish the facts, provide a national record, and enable us to allow voices to be heard that have previously not been heard, so that we as a Government and as a country can learn from past failures.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. I very much welcome its contents, particularly the intention to lift the time bar, notwithstanding the inherent difficulties that she fairly articulated. She will be aware that one demand of the survivors has been about access to third-party advocates, and she wrote to my colleague Alison McInnes earlier this year, suggesting that perhaps advocates could be appointed by the chair of the inquiry to give testimony on behalf of survivors. Can the minister say whether that is part of a personalised service, or would it be more appropriate to support third-party advocates chosen by survivors themselves?
I think that the four-year timetable is entirely reasonable for completing an inquiry of this complex and sensitive nature, but what reassurances can the minister give that lessons for the future will be learned now? Will she commit to updating Parliament and taking steps to address the concerns raised about current child protection arrangements in Scotland?
Yes, of course. While the inquiry proceeds, the business of local and national government, as well as our responsibility to protect children in Scotland in the here and now, continues. Of course the Government must be scrutinised over its responsibilities in that area, and whether it is me, Fiona McLeod or Aileen Campbell when she returns from maternity leave, I anticipate and expect such scrutiny to be a firm feature of our involvement and accountability to Parliament.
As I said when I wrote to Ms McInnes, the position with regard to third-party advocates is the same. Of course, advocates can be used by survivors in a way that is about their personal support, and the chair will be able to come to a view about the role of advocates in the inquiry process. That is quite clear, although some of the matters are, indeed, for the chair and the inquiry.
I remind the cabinet secretary that issues with the handling of the UK inquiry into historical child abuse and the distress that has been caused by that have been fairly well documented. How will she ensure that this inquiry will not make the same mistakes?
My answer to Mr Coffey is, in part, a reiteration of my answer to Liz Smith. This is a difficult process. We have looked at inquiries in other jurisdictions—the ones in England, Northern Ireland and Jersey—to learn from their experiences, positive and negative. We have worked extremely hard with survivors and have had an extensive consultation period, with different types of consultation opportunities, to do our utmost to ensure that the inquiry gets off to the best start. As I said to Liz Smith, although the English inquiry has not been without its difficulties, there are positives that we can learn from that inquiry, too.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. Thirteen months ago, I led a members’ business debate and called on the then cabinet secretary to initiate a public inquiry. That call was denied. Survivors, some of whom are in the public gallery today, have waited eight years for the Scottish National Party Government to make today’s announcement. During that time, and in recent months, survivors have died. Can the cabinet secretary, knowing the trauma that is faced by survivors, confirm some fresh details of the psychological support that will be available to survivors from today?
I gave a number of very personal commitments to survivors. One of those commitments was that, despite being a politician and a political animal, irrespective of what anybody in the chamber said to me, I would not rise to it. As I said to Mr Pearson’s colleague Mr Gray, the first petition calling for an inquiry was in 2002. I think that we can all reflect on our past involvement in the issue. As I often say to Mr Gray in other exchanges regarding education, I am not that interested in the past; I am interested in the here and now and how we move forward in the future to do a far better job of protecting all of Scotland’s children. I hope that that is received in the spirit that is intended.
I hope that Mr Pearson will recognise that a substantial announcement has been made today on movement in addressing time bar issues, and on a significant investment in survivor support services. That is about dealing with the practical issues and helping people to get access to services for trauma.
This statement is of great importance to people in and outside the chamber, and it is obviously very sensitive. I have a duty to protect the time for the next debate as far as possible, but I intend to allow the questions to continue for as long as necessary, in recognition of the importance of the issue to people outside. There will be an impact on the following debate. I ask members to try to keep their questions as brief as possible, but I will not curtail the questions. I intend to ensure that everybody who wants to ask a question can ask one. I ask members to help me to protect as much time as possible for the next debate, which is important to the Parliament.
I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement. As she knows, one of the most important contributions in getting to this point was the work done by the Scottish Human Rights Commission with others in the interaction process, which is a process that enables reconciliation and dialogue. I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that that approach continues to underpin the Scottish Government’s attitude to the issue so that, as a society, we not only call to account those who committed these dreadful crimes but find ways of healing the hurt so that survivors can anticipate a time in which they not only survive but go on and flourish.
Mr Russell is right that the interaction process has played an absolutely crucial role in getting us to where we are today. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has taken part in that process, not least the survivors, who had a central role. I also pay tribute to my friend and colleague Mr Russell for his role in getting us to where we are today.
It is important to emphasise that the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s national action plan and survivors engagement are not processes that the Government controls. If survivors and the Scottish Human Rights Commission wish to get together to continue that collaborative process, the Government will be more than happy to participate fully and in good spirit.
I take issue with one part of the cabinet secretary’s statement. She said:
“Survivors have told me about childhoods lost as a result of abuse.”
She went on to say:
“Restoring what has been lost is vital.”
With huge respect, I do not think that we can restore a lost childhood. However, if we get the process right, we can go a huge way towards bringing closure for the victims of childhood abuse.
To that end, as others have done, I enormously welcome the decision to look at ending the time bar, even with the constraints relating to going back before 1964. I asked about that last December and the cabinet secretary cleverly passed the buck to her colleague Paul Wheelhouse. In that regard, will she—or indeed he—undertake to keep Parliament fully updated on the Government’s progress towards a bill and on the proper legal safeguards that will have to remain in place during that process?
Absolutely. I said at the start of my statement that although we cannot undo the past or right all the wrongs, that does not give us an excuse not to act. I am conscious that, as I made my way out of the chamber the last time I made a statement on the issue, Mr Fergusson challenged me and told me that I had not answered his question. I acknowledged that I had not really answered it, so I am pleased to be able to give a far more definitive answer. This Government is about opening doors and addressing the time bar issue.
However, it will not be easy. There are problems, particularly with pre-1964 cases, and I will certainly not demur from highlighting those problems. The last thing that I want to do is lead people up the garden path only to dash their hopes, but we are in the business of opening doors and finding solutions. Mr Wheelhouse has had a lot of contact with survivors on the issue. We relish the prospect of keeping Parliament informed, because we will look to benefit from the brains of the brightest and the best in the Parliament. We have some thorny issues to solve, and I look forward to Mr Fergusson’s contribution to that process.
I very much welcome the lifting of the time bar, and I know that it will help my constituents. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement of a support fund.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in Ireland, the Government made an interim payment of €10,000 to every survivor—that was in addition to a support fund. She will recognise that, in the past six weeks, a number of survivors have died. On that basis, will she consider making interim payments to survivors, as was done in Ireland?
Support and access to justice have been very much the basis of the investment that we are making in the survivor support fund and the steps that we are taking to remove the time bar.
This is not the end of the process. I will not try to second-guess what all the solutions might be; we are still on a journey. I am aware that some local authorities have made interim payments on an ex gratia basis, and I am looking closely at experiences in other jurisdictions. Although we do not have all the solutions here and now, we are on that journey and we are in the business of finding solutions.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing these questions to be asked.
I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is reporting to Parliament on a matter that is extremely complex, as other members have highlighted.
Will the cabinet secretary expand on why she has used the definition of “in care” that she outlined in her statement?
For the purposes of the inquiry, the definition of “in care” refers to a child who was in the care of a person or organisation other than the child’s natural or adoptive parents or other family members.
As I set out in my statement, we have gone much further than was originally envisaged with the definition of “in care” to bring a much wider group of people into the ambit of the inquiry. I have done that for two reasons. First, I have sought to strike a balance between the need for the inquiry to investigate those issues that survivors have said are most important to them and the need for it to report on systemic issues within a reasonable timescale. Secondly, we have an opportunity to shine a light on the dark corners of our past to shape how we respond and go forward in the future.
I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement and the allocation of funding for the national strategy and the SurvivorScotland development fund. I also acknowledge and very much welcome the wide definition of “in care”.
However, given that the vast majority of childhood sexual abuse happens in the community and in a family setting, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the SurvivorScotland development fund’s core funding will continue annually, and that the £1 million that she announced for the fund is an additional £1 million? If the funding will continue, over what timescale will it do so?
I am acutely aware that the majority of abuse occurs within the family or community. The purpose of the inquiry is to examine the systemic failures where the state or its apparatus made decisions that involved children being looked after elsewhere and, as Margaret Mitchell rightly welcomed, we have used a broad definition of “in care”.
The survivor support fund is funded, I think, annually at £800,000, and the £1 million is, indeed, additional.
I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement and, in particular, the dedicated support fund that has been announced. What is the eligibility of survivors who suffered child abuse in Scotland but who now live elsewhere, either in another part of the UK or abroad? Will they be able to access the support fund too?
Between now and autumn this year, we will work closely with survivors on the funding criteria. I do not have a direct answer to the question, but we will work closely with survivors on it, and I will ensure that Ms Hilton is kept up to date on that pertinent point.
Is the cabinet secretary confident that the inquiry can be completed within the four-year timescale that she has set out? Has a budget been set aside for the inquiry to take place, including financial support for the survivors and their advocates?
Mr Wilson asks a fair question. In setting the timescale for the inquiry, we sought to strike a balance. It is probably Scotland’s biggest public inquiry. It is a massive undertaking. That is why we have thought very carefully about who to appoint to chair it. The inquiry needs someone with exceptional management skills, who is pragmatic, has legal knowledge and is acutely aware of, and attuned to, the needs and views of survivors.
I am also conscious that time stands still for no one and that everybody wants to see some clear recommendations and our labours on this difficult and significant matter come to fruition for many survivors who are elderly or in poor health. I am confident that we have struck the right balance. I am not saying that it will be easy to do the work in the timescale.
The budget will be there. The inquiry will be supported appropriately. It is not an insignificant undertaking, as Mr Swinney is aware, but, if we want justice to be done, it will cost money, and it will not be an insignificant amount.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary and welcome her statement and her great personal commitment on the issue. I have already written to her on behalf of a constituent, and I know that he will ask whether he can be guaranteed that his terrible suffering will be listened to. Will she guarantee that all people who are affected will be listened to under the arrangements that she outlined?
We are working very hard to be alert to the needs of individual survivors. Many survivors will want to give evidence formally—they will want to give their testimony to an inquiry. Other survivors might wish to do that through third parties or in writing.
Although the national confidential forum’s role is separate from that of the inquiry—there are two separate legal bases to their establishment—there will have to be a protocol and connectivity between the two. The purpose of the inquiry is for people to be listened to and for those voices to be heard.
Previous
Peat (Extraction for Horticulture)