���˿���

The level of contribution by external organisations is broadly positive. I said in my opening remarks—

We will keep that under review, but I am confident. The number of applications that I shared in response to Mr Dey’s question were the numbers for November, when none of the new caseworkers were contributing, because some were still being recruited and some were in training. A lot of that training was also going on in December. We will only now, in January, begin to feel the benefit of the 23 caseworkers, so I expect the numbers that I put on the record in response to Mr Dey—the number of applications going from 26 to 66 a month—to increase in the coming months.

I am grateful to Mr Marra for raising that question, because it offers a timely opportunity to reflect on the case. I will address his question—if you will forgive me, convener, this may well take some time—in two parts. The first concerns the situation that we face today; the second concerns my thinking in the light of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s letter to me.

I will outline the current situation. I have listened carefully to the group that has made representations to me, all the members of which are Fornethy survivors and are part of the wider group. I do not believe that, as things stand, there is an inherent impediment to applications to the redress scheme coming forward from people who spent time at Fornethy. I acknowledge that the nature of the environment in which individuals were spending time at Fornethy could be considered to fall within the ambit of the scheme, so I do not think that there is an inherent impediment to applications coming forward and being considered. To put it slightly more bluntly, I reject the idea that the scheme is not for Fornethy survivors; I think that it is possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme.

That brings me to my second point, which concerns where I stand in relation to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s letter—as Mr Marra correctly said, I received the letter from the committee’s convener, Jackson Carlaw, just this week.

In that letter, Jackson Carlaw made a key point to me. He said:

“The Committee heard that parental responsibilities were transferred to local authorities, such as the then Glasgow Corporation, temporarily and in these cases the local authority could be considered to be acting ‘in loco parentis’ when providing short-term respite and holiday care.”

That is the key point: the scheme for which Parliament legislated provides redress because of the obligation of the state to ensure that proper care was provided to individuals when they were in an in-care situation as the responsibility of the state.

If a young person was at a holiday camp and was dropped off and picked up by their parents, it would be difficult to substantiate the view that the state was exercising responsibility. However, I do not think that the situation at Fornethy ticks that rather neat middle-class box—if I may say so—that I have just outlined to the committee. The more I understand about the situation at Fornethy, the more I find it difficult to reconcile it with the idea of some form of voluntary endeavour, and I think that the matter hinges on that point.

That is a long way—forgive me for the length of time that I have taken, convener—of saying that I am going to reflect carefully on the letter that I have had from the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I gave the ladies who came to see me an assurance that I would look carefully at the issue, and I have said publicly that I do not think that there is an impediment to their cases being considered under the redress scheme. With regard to whether I need to do something more explicit, I am certainly considering whether there is a case for doing so based on what is, it would be fair to say, an emerging picture of the circumstances in which people found themselves at Fornethy.

I am now in mental arithmetic mode, and I am looking at percentages.

It is quite a high number, I guess. I think that we have to keep the process under constant review. The review panels will continue to look at evidence and come to conclusions, and we need to see a build-up of caseload and evidence to determine whether that is an issue about which we should be concerned. However, that number is a product of the final decision making of Redress Scotland, which is carried out at arm’s length from Government.

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.

I have the list that is published on the Government website, so I am at a wee bit of a disadvantage in not knowing specifically to whom Mr Greer refers. I would be happy to pursue the issue subsequently. The list is available on the Government website. I feel that we have a reasonable level of participation from external organisations. I acknowledge the sensitivity of the matter and the concerns. It may be for a broader range of people to judge whether my view is appropriate.