Chamber and committees

I have the record here, and you were. I have the record of the debate that took place. The very same issues that I am articulating today were articulated by my predecessor. They were debated, and the decision to support the scheme as established was unanimous. I have the committee record here. These matters were debated at length on 27 October 2021. Exactly the same issues about eligibility for the scheme and the exceptions were debated. Due to the same reasons that I am giving to the committee today, those conclusions were made on a unanimous basis.

I understand that Dr Fossey tried to engage with survivors, but I do not know why that was the case. Obviously, I know that Diane McAdie was instructed by the Fornethy survivors to do her own research. That might be one of the reasons, but both looked at the same material. I have looked at Diane McAdie’s report in detail as well. However, the fundamental issues that I have put in front of the committee this morning are the core purpose of the scheme, as agreed unanimously, the need for it to be allowed to get on to support people in the many hundreds of cases that it is dealing with, and the evidential requirements.

We cannot get beyond the fact that we could potentially be looking at thousands of people who had a few weeks at an institution—[Interruption.] People who were placed in Fornethy and many other institutions for a few weeks would not meet the evidential requirements to come in front of the scheme. The expectations of thousands of people who would not be able to bring evidence in front of the scheme could be raised. I am afraid that we cannot get beyond the fact that those records for people at Fornethy and many other similar institutions at the time do not exist.

As I said in my opening statement, I think that what happened to Fornethy survivors was appalling. I reiterated the recognition of that. I also reiterated the former Deputy First Minister’s apology to people in any setting, no matter the redress scheme that came after that. He was very clear that it was an apology to people in any setting whatsoever, whether or not the redress scheme was set up to cover those areas. I absolutely reiterate that apology—every word of it. However, that matter is different from the redress scheme and who is eligible for it, and from the redress scheme’s evidential requirements. As the Deputy First Minister, and on behalf of the First Minister, we absolutely recognise and believe what happened and absolutely recognise the harm to not only those in Fornethy but elsewhere.

I am aware that some litigation cases with Glasgow City Council are going on. I am also aware that a criminal case is on-going. Obviously, I cannot comment on that because it is a live case. I have reiterated the apology that my predecessor gave. To be honest, I know that that recognition is sometimes the most important thing for people who are in that position.

On other supports, there are support networks for survivors who have been through absolutely appalling experiences. I know that some Fornethy survivors have accessed some of that support. Support is provided through Future Pathways. That support was established recognising that people will need it. Some people will want to access such support.

I cannot comment on the litigation cases. I wrote to Glasgow City Council this morning to bring to its attention the fact that the two reports exist. I know that the Fornethy survivors have made a number of demands of Glasgow City Council. Obviously, I cannot instruct Glasgow City Council on those matters, but I have drawn the reports to its attention.

The former Deputy First Minister had met Fornethy survivors, as have I. He said, in essence, what I said at the beginning today: that Fornethy survivors could apply to the redress scheme but the issue was likely to be what evidence there was before the redress scheme—the panel who have to make decisions on the basis of the evidence in front of them.

That is why I instructed Dr Fossey to do the research to establish whether the survivors could access the scheme or whether there were impediments to accessing the scheme on the basis of the parental consent issue and the lack of records to provide the evidential base for someone to submit their claim.

I have never said that either.

I am not for a second disputing what the women are saying. Let me be really clear. I believe what they are saying, but I am saying to you that Redress Scotland requires some evidence of someone having been placed in a setting, and there is no record for anybody. Potentially, thousands of people could have been placed in Fornethy-type institutions, and what we would be saying to the Redress Scotland panel? That there does not need to be any record of a person having been in a Fornethy-type institution?

You would be raising expectations in people who do not have records—because the records do not exist.

Obviously, any legal advice that anyone receives needs to be independent legal advice about potential litigation. There are some on-going litigation cases against Glasgow City Council, which I cannot comment on because they are live. Similarly, there is a live criminal case that I cannot comment on either. That route is open.

On the support that the Government provides, I have talked about the support that is provided through Future Pathways to help survivors, and I have talked about the support that is given in looking for case records. The Government provides about £2.4 million, I think, to help survivors to get records. One of the reasons we did the piece of research was to address that issue, because of the importance of records for Redress Scotland. So, there is support available to help survivors who have been in long-term care and have had difficulty in accessing records, because of the importance of having that evidence to present to Redress Scotland. That is the situation.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the eligibility criteria have been set with the exceptions clearly set out. Technically, those exceptions could be changed, but I have said why I do not think that it would be the right approach. As was laid out in Parliament at the time and agreed unanimously, the focus is on those who were in long-term care having been removed from parental responsibility.

The point that I am making about the independence of Redress Scotland is that it is quite right that decision making around awards is independent of the Government. It would not be right for us to interfere in Redress Scotland’s determination in individual cases. As a panel, Redress Scotland looks at individual cases on the basis of the evidence that is required, which is set out in guidance. That is the relationship.

Barry McCaffrey, do you want to come in?