³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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.