Chamber and committees

I said earlier—I want to emphasise it again—that I accept that the issue of parental consent was an issue of power and relationships. I accept that whether or not someone was clear about it, was given a consent form and gave their consent explicitly is opaque, to say the least, and that the experiences of the women and their recollections make it clear that parents may have been encouraged—you said coerced. The evidence is not there either way, but I do not for a second dispute what the women have said about that matter.

The issue comes down to this. In terms of what the former Deputy First Minister said and what I am saying, in looking at applications, the redress panel would need to have some level of evidential requirement in order to process a case. That might be possible. If someone from Fornethy had various placements in other settings as well, they could potentially bring a case—

I totally accept that it is nobody’s fault—certainly not the survivors’ fault—that those records do not exist. I also absolutely accept what you are saying about survivors coming together. However, the way Redress Scotland operates requires someone who has—

People need to have confidence in the scheme. Someone who has been in institutional care for many years and brings a claim to Redress Scotland must provide a level of evidence. Survivors find that quite difficult. I acknowledge their difficulty, but they have to provide that level of evidence.

Redress Scotland is independent of the Government—that is enshrined in the legislation. People must have confidence in the scheme, and there is no scheme anywhere in the world that operates on the basis of not requiring evidence to be presented. No scheme operates like that. The process can be quite difficult for survivors. I have had direct representation from survivors saying that the process is quite difficult. However, in order for people to have confidence in the scheme, evidence must be required and records have to be produced. There are exceptions, but exceptions are decided on a case-by-case basis.

As I said, Redress Scotland is independent of the Government. It has guidance, which means that it can fairly assess every application that comes to it. It asks for a degree of evidence, which survivors have told me can be quite intrusive, difficult, upsetting and triggering—I understand that. However, in order for people to have confidence in the scheme, that is the level of evidence required.

The point that I am making is that, in the absence of any records for survivors of Fornethy or any of the other many Fornethy-type institutions, there is no evidential basis for an application. I have to be honest about that.

I understand that people would have enormous empathy for anyone who has suffered abuse in any setting. Of course, there are a number of settings that are outwith the eligibility, and I would have empathy for every single one of those who have suffered abuse in any of the settings, no matter whether they meet the eligibility criteria.

In the consultation, 91 per cent of respondents identified as survivors of abuse in care. The focus at the time was very much—as was set out by the former Deputy First Minister—to get a scheme up and running to address those who had been in long-term care having been taken away from parental responsibility. Parliament looked at these matters and debated them at the time. There was quite a difficult debate about where to draw the line and about which institutions and areas would be included in the scheme and which would not be included. Difficult decisions were made at the time, and a number of settings were excluded, as members around this table will be aware. However, the Redress Scotland scheme is far broader and far more inclusive than many other schemes that I am aware of.

I very much adhere to the apology that the then Deputy First Minister made prior to the redress scheme being set up—before the debates happened, lines were drawn and eligibility criteria were set. It was a fundamental recognition that what had happened to anybody, in any setting, was absolutely wrong, and it recognised the harm that abuse had caused to every single individual, leaving aside eligibility. I put on record again my belief in the truth of what people are saying and my recognition of the harm that has been done. The Government absolutely recognises all of that, and we have huge sympathy and empathy for every single person.

I do not think so, convener. However, if there is anything that the committee wants to follow up on in any detail, once you have had your discussion afterwards, I would be happy to write to the committee with further evidence.

Yes, I can, convener. We set out the requirement for a six-month piece of independent research. Dr Fossey was asked to find out why and by whom girls were sent to Fornethy and what Glasgow City Council has done to find records from Fornethy. I emphasise again, and Dr Fossey has made this point, that what she has said in her report is what was supposed to happen and does not diminish the experiences of what actually happened to Fornethy survivors.

The headline findings in the executive summary summarise why the girls were sent to Fornethy. The findings are that primary school girls from Glasgow were sent for convalescence after an illness and so that they might benefit from what was termed a recuperative holiday. The school was one of a number of schemes of residential education that were aimed at improving the health of pupils. Headteachers and school medical staff could put forward girls who they thought might benefit from a stay. However, it was the school or principal medical officer who took the final decision. Even then, only girls whose parent or guardian agreed to them going and who passed two medical examinations were allowed to go.

The regulations at the time obliged education authorities to keep school registers, pupil progress records and health records only until the end of the fifth year, or in some cases the second year, after the year for which they were held or the pupil had left. After that time, the records were to be destroyed. Therefore, it is not surprising that Glasgow City Council has found no such records in the city archives. That said, as Dr Fossey has noted, a question remains over the lack of Fornethy’s logbooks. The regulations required those to be preserved. It should be noted, though, that Fornethy is not unique in having no surviving logbooks.

On the records and information on Fornethy that Glasgow City Council holds, Dr Fossey found that the council holds no school records for Fornethy. The city archives hold various series of council education committee minutes, papers, reports and handbooks that talk of Fornethy and other schools in the scheme but not individual records.

On what action Glasgow City Council has taken to find existing records, it has run its own internal searches in response to freedom of information and subject access requests. Dr Fossey and Diane McAdie had access to records in the archives. Glasgow’s chief archivist has also carried out proactive searches for information on Fornethy.

I hope that that gives you a sense of the remit and the key findings.

I am going to ask Lyndsay Wilson to come in on the guidance that Redress Scotland uses for the evidential requirements, if that would be helpful.

As I said in my opening remarks, I very much recognise the harm and experience of those who were in Fornethy. I have put on record my views about that. I have also reiterated the former Deputy First Minister’s apology, which predated the scheme, to anyone who had suffered abuse. I reiterate that apology and absolutely support it. However, the scheme that was agreed unanimously by the Parliament is designed for vulnerable children who were in long-term care and isolated, with limited or no contact with their family. The eligibility criteria for the scheme reflect that core purpose. Those criteria were, of course, supported by survivors who responded to the public consultation and, as I have said, they were unanimously agreed by Parliament. It was necessary at the time, as the former Deputy First Minister said, to establish clear expectations of the parameters to enable clarity to be available to people from the start of the scheme.

The scheme is very broad—it is much broader than most other schemes. Other schemes elsewhere in the world and, indeed, the one that is being developed for England and Wales are far more tightly drawn than Scotland’s redress scheme. A line had to be drawn somewhere, and a line was drawn to focus on the vulnerable children who were in long-term care and had parental responsibility removed.