Chamber and committees

The same principle was looked at when the former Deputy First Minister was in front of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I think that you and Oliver Mundell were members of that committee. Those were exactly the issues that were debated.

You can go back and look at the record yourself, Mr Ewing.

On the situation now, I have outlined why the eligibility criteria were established as they were. The scheme is far broader than any other scheme. I have said that it is focused and is working hard to deliver for those who were in long-term care and removed from parental responsibility. I have also outlined the difficulties of Redress Scotland’s evidential requirements.

There are no records not just for Fornethy but for the many other schools that people were in for very short terms—for a number of weeks. There are no records for them because the system at the time, rightly or wrongly, did not require those records to be retained. It would be very difficult to ask Redress Scotland to take on thousands of cases in which no evidential material exists and to try to work through those cases when it is focused on the core purpose of the scheme.

As I said at the beginning, Scotland’s redress scheme is far broader than any other scheme anywhere else in the world that I am aware of.

I said earlier—I want to emphasise it again—that I accept that the issue of parental consent was an issue of power and relationships. I accept that whether or not someone was clear about it, was given a consent form and gave their consent explicitly is opaque, to say the least, and that the experiences of the women and their recollections make it clear that parents may have been encouraged—you said coerced. The evidence is not there either way, but I do not for a second dispute what the women have said about that matter.

The issue comes down to this. In terms of what the former Deputy First Minister said and what I am saying, in looking at applications, the redress panel would need to have some level of evidential requirement in order to process a case. That might be possible. If someone from Fornethy had various placements in other settings as well, they could potentially bring a case—

I totally accept that it is nobody’s fault—certainly not the survivors’ fault—that those records do not exist. I also absolutely accept what you are saying about survivors coming together. However, the way Redress Scotland operates requires someone who has—

People need to have confidence in the scheme. Someone who has been in institutional care for many years and brings a claim to Redress Scotland must provide a level of evidence. Survivors find that quite difficult. I acknowledge their difficulty, but they have to provide that level of evidence.

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.

You have to decide whether you are saying that you want more money or not; you cannot just describe a problem.