Chamber and committees

I am certain that that is the case. I assure the committee that we will explore that issue in the dialogue that we have with survivors.

I have been talking to a particular survivor who has been very helpful in informing many aspects of our approach, but who is wrestling with the very difficult dilemma of whether the scheme is correct for them, given the presence of the waiver. I can think of that one example where that is a very big consideration for the individual. They are making an outstanding contribution to our thinking and development and could not be more helpful, but the waiver is an issue for them on a personal level. I acknowledge that.

That is quite a delicate matter for me to handle, because the situation to which Stephanie Callaghan refers is a consequence of a restriction order issued by Lady Smith, as chair of the Scottish child abuse inquiry. The order prevents applicants from using their inquiry statement as part of their application, unless the applicant has waived their anonymity at the inquiry and the statement has been published by the inquiry. That is a decision for the inquiry by Lady Smith. I have made representations to seek a different view, but I have been unsuccessful in seeking an alternative approach.

As the committee will appreciate, the child abuse inquiry operates independently of Government, so I have to respect the conclusion that has been arrived at by Lady Smith in applying a restriction order, which it is perfectly within her powers to do.

First, I want to reassure applicants. We have tried to secure an alternative approach, but we have been unsuccessful. I apologise to applicants for the fact that they are having to go through a similar process, but I seek their understanding. We need to have that information to enable us to ensure that they have the strongest possible case to put to Redress Scotland. In that context, our caseworkers will work with them sensitively to ensure that that case is produced.

Yes. We are listening to survivors’ feedback all the time and, at an operational level, we are changing and adapting processes to ensure that we reflect that. There is an environment of constant learning in the team that is working on that activity in order to ensure that we are hearing, absorbing and applying the feedback from survivors on an on-going basis. That is a welcome part of the process that we are undertaking.

I would prefer it if people were able to use the statements that they gave to the inquiry.

Comprehensive data is emerging, some of which I have already shared with the committee during my opening statement and some of which is reflected in the information that I have just put on record in response to Mr Dey’s question. There will be other information—for example, about the number of cases in which individuals have requested a review of Redress Scotland’s determination and the outcome of some of those reviews. I am very confident that there is a broad range of data that will satisfactorily provide the evidence base on which a report can be constructed to address the substance of Mr Greer’s amendment.

There is another dimension that is just as important, if not more so, and it is what we hear from survivors through their feedback. It is, of course, less quantifiable than the data I have just talked about. Nonetheless, it is very important for us to openly acknowledge the feedback from survivors about their experience and for us to decide what we need to do to address that as part of the operation of the scheme. The data and information are there.

It is all very well for the Parliament to pass an amendment that says that there will be a review, but, in the light of this meeting, if the committee wishes to give some input about what it would like to see covered in the review, I would be very happy to consider that to ensure that what we produce in the review addresses the points that are on the minds of committee members.

Let me take that point away with me, and I will see whether I can share any more information in the light of this evidence session. If the committee recognises that that is an important issue and there is anything further that we can develop to support that, I will certainly look at it.

Three factors are involved. First, although the total volume of applications has not surprised us, the volume that came in so early was counter to our expectations. That relates to the second point, which is that those applications came in at variable stages of development; some were very advanced and some were not advanced at all in terms of evidence. We would serve nobody’s interests by sending an ill-developed application to Redress Scotland, because it would stand a chance of being rejected. Thirdly, we started off with 12 caseworkers, but we judged that that number was not sufficient, so we have taken action to double it.

On that point, I reassure Mr Mundell and any constituents on whose behalf he might be speaking that nobody is going to miss out. Nobody is going to miss out. The scheme is time limited, yes, but I put on the record during the passage of the scheme that it will not be closed prematurely. Nobody is going to miss out. If there is a proper application to be determined, I give the assurance that it will be determined. It might take longer than people anticipate, but we have given priority to older applicants and those with a terminal illness.

However, I am very conscious that the longevity of even younger people who have experienced childhood abuse is affected by their experience. Therefore, I cannot comfort myself by thinking that we are addressing all that vulnerability. I appreciate that that vulnerability is real and present for many other applicants.

Let me take that issue away, and if the committee wishes to write to me with further thoughts about what those considerations might be, we will look at them. My mind is not closed to applying some prioritisation and to considering applicants who face the circumstances that Mr Mundell spoke of.