���˿���

I said that the percentages of the budget had moved.

Thank you.

I have heard that confidence before, cabinet secretary.

Government is choices, is it not?

You have made them, and I am challenging you.

Good morning, minister—it is nice to see you, and thanks for coming in. It is always good when one of our colleagues tells the minister what we are going to ask. [Interruption.] The good news is that I am not going to ask about data now—although my beliefs on data, especially healthcare data, are well known: we are very good at collecting data but not particularly good at deploying it, especially across sectors. We need to get better at that and we could get better at that.

I want to follow up the extremely important issue that Murdo Fraser raised, which we could probably spend the whole time talking about. During Covid, access to healthcare was restricted, which had a significant impact on elective surgery for chronic pain and on access to mental health services. It is reasonable to extrapolate from that that the economic inactivity rate would move in an upward direction. At a certain level, if a person’s pain is not treated, it becomes chronic pain, so more people must have moved in that direction.

I am always interested in the cross-portfolio impact of decisions. I go back to the reprioritisation of £65 million in primary care funding and £38 million in mental health funding. The minister said that, for every £1 that is spent, you get £5 back. Surely that indicates a false economy—taking money from one side of the ledger affects the other side of the ledger. Given the return on such investment, would it be prudent for the Government to revisit the position?

It is interesting that the minister mentioned that mental health issues cost our businesses £2 billion; I have read that the cost is more like £4 billion-plus to the economy. How do we strike a balance?

I will use the fact that the minister brought up data. We collect good data; if we do not deploy it in a way that gives you the answers that you need, we need to invest more in it—we could get into that big time. Should we focus first on how we deploy the data to give us better and more accurate responses?

We could discuss that issue all day, minister, but I had better finish off my questions. We know that Scotland is the unhealthiest nation in Europe, so I am slightly concerned that you think that things will get worse. We know that economic inactivity follows ill health, and there is no doubt that Covid has significantly exacerbated that. Surely, if we focus on health—and education, for that matter—we will positively impact the employment and activity rates in Scotland. That is why I said that it is time that we look to undertake more cross-portfolio working rather than working in silos, which is what are doing just now.

One thing that I want to touch on, which is one of the most important things that we have spoken about today, is the impact that employers can have on the health and wellbeing of staff.

Given that we have a real problem with mental health, would it not be prudent for the Government to start pushing an initiative that encourages occupational health and the promotion of health and wellbeing within businesses? It could take a significant burden off statutory services if we could get employers to recognise that correlation between the £5 they get back and the £1 that is spent on mental health. Could the Government focus and bear down on that?

Thank you, convener—I am happy to have the opportunity to speak once again on this issue. At the outset, I note that the former Education and Skills Committee produced an in-depth and comprehensive report—I do not know whether members have seen it—as the bill that became the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 progressed through Parliament in the previous session of Parliament. I recommend reading that report.

Sexual abuse, and specifically child sexual abuse, has been swept under the carpet for too long, and victims have been left without the support that they desperately need. As several colleagues will be aware, I have been working on the issue with constituents for a number of years. I think that it is fair to say that my understanding of the trauma that they have suffered over a prolonged period, as they seek justice and redress, and my discomfort and disquiet at the way in which victims are retraumatised and left open to suffering secondary abuse, continues to deepen.

The redress scheme was designed to make it easier to access redress than taking a case to the civil court. However, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority already has a similar redress scheme in which the decision is based on the balance of probabilities. That is different from a criminal court, which decides on the basis of “beyond reasonable doubt”, and the victim does not need to wait for the outcome of a criminal trial if there is already enough information to make a decision on a case. Crucially, however, the 2021 act suggests that the victim would waive their right to take future civil action and any subsequent payment from civil action, and if there had previously been a criminal injuries compensation scheme payment, the act would require that it be reimbursed.

I welcome the redress scheme, but I think that it is flawed. Most important, the 2021 act was designed to provide financial redress to survivors of historical sexual abuse while in care in Scotland. Welcome though the legislation is, it is too narrow in scope. When I questioned the Deputy First Minister on the eligibility criteria for the scheme, and on whether victims of sexual abuse in a school setting, for example, should also be included, he responded by saying that the scheme is designed to compensate those in situations where the state—a care home, in this case—had undertaken parental responsibilities.

However, the bill that led to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 used the term “in loco parentis”, which has the effect of transferring parental responsibilities to schools temporarily. There are many allowances as to where that can be true, including specifically for the Fornethy survivors. That being the case, the 2021 act is flawed and could, I believe, leave the Government open to a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights and from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, because of its inequality of approach to the victims of a crime, especially such a heinous crime.

Members may be aware that there was a related case in which the judge found that the Irish Government had misrepresented a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights by excluding children who were abused in Irish schools from a redress scheme. Although I accept that the issues in that ruling are not exactly the same, it suggests that the 2021 act could be open to a similar legal challenge. Again, the Fornethy survivors sit directly in that path.

As I said, the 2021 act was and is very welcome, but it is incumbent on us to ensure that it is the very best that it can be for all those who have been victims of such a heinous crime and have to carry that burden throughout their lives. Financial redress will not heal their wounds, but it will at least perhaps give them comfort that their voices have been heard, and in the acceptance that they have been victims.

However, I think that more needs to be done on understanding the journey of those victims—both those who speak out and those who initially cannot do so. The repeated trauma of retelling their story to multiple agencies, and the lack of accessibility and adequate support, are all part of the jigsaw.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Government has a commitment to those who have suffered such a crime, but I think that it needs to be braver. It will need to look beyond the limitations of how the 2021 act is currently deployed for those who have suffered in similar ways but are currently excluded, including the Fornethy survivors. If the Government does not do that, it will require the legislation to be amended further down the road. We need to make the act everything that it could be. I speak on behalf of the Fornethy survivors and all those other child abuse victims who are yet to have similar redress.