Chamber and committees

The comments that I have placed on the record are an adequate contribution to the explanation of the instrument.

Motion moved,

That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Reconsideration and Review of Determinations) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 be approved.—[John Swinney]

Motion agreed to.

Guidance will go with the instrument that I have set out today and that we have worked through. At the outset, I should acknowledge that the instrument is complex. The reason for its complexity is that multiple permutations have to be provided for, to establish legal clarity. I have looked very carefully at the issue with my officials, and there is no easy way around that. Guidance therefore has to accompany the instrument.

In any judgments that a survivor makes, they will be supported by having access to legal advice at any point. A crucial element of the redress scheme in its entire design has been that all applicants must be able to make informed judgments about the right course of action to take. That must be funded. A schedule to the instrument sets out the arrangements for meeting the costs of legal advice, should that be required by applicants.

Yes. In the process of consideration of what has led to the circumstances that have given rise to a reconsideration, it must be ensured that individuals are supported without prejudice. That fraud has occurred is perhaps a conclusion; it is not a starting point. Individuals therefore have to have access to the necessary advice, so that they are supported in that process.

Part of this is about acknowledging that we have to have an open culture to hear people’s concerns and to have a process in place to be able to handle and judge those complaints, of whatever degree of seriousness they happen to be. If a complaint is judged not to warrant further examination, subject to the caveats I put on the record earlier, the issue would be judged to be addressed and resolved.

I think that we are in a good place. I think that we have a good working culture in the Scottish Government. The environment between ministers and civil servants is appropriate and respectful. Through their actions, the permanent secretary and his team have the proper responsibility for the creation of the work environment. It might be appropriate for Lesley Fraser to talk a little about that, as the director general who leads on those questions. Fundamentally, I think that there is a good, respectful working environment. There is respect for the respective contributions of ministers and civil servants, and there is an understanding of and respect for the fact that civil servants advise but ministers decide. That advice is provided in the context that there should be no anxiety about the testing of advice, so that we can focus on the real, clear, substantive issues that need to be addressed and, as a consequence, the Government can take good decisions. Lesley might wish to say a little about that.

I suppose that there is nothing to prevent them from bringing along a lawyer but, fundamentally, we are trying to set the process in the context of the resolution of the issues in an employment space rather than a legal space.

At different stages in the procedure, we have tried to put in time factors to suggest pace and momentum around the process. Fundamentally, the issue that Mr Lumsden raises is a matter for stage 1, which I view to be a pretty routine administrative exercise to determine whether a complaint is within the scope of the policy as defined. If it is, it will proceed. If not, there is a designated process, which again is quite swift, for engagement with the complainer to set out why the matter is judged not to be in the scope of the policy.

I suppose that that is the moment at which, if the Government has missed something in the administrative process, the individual will be able to raise that. That is a sort of appeal. At the very beginning, if an individual has been told that we do not judge the complaint to be within the scope of the policy, they will have an opportunity to have an early conversation and to say that they disagree, and why. Obviously, there is the opportunity to revisit those questions, which could perhaps lead to consideration.

We have put in certain timescales depending on the nature of complaints. The convener raised with me the question of having a time limit for some matters and no time limit for others. That is simply to try to ensure that we are respectful to members of staff and the issues that they may wish to raise, but also that issues are resolved as quickly as possible.

If the matter is not proceeded with following stage 1, the person will not find out about that.

We are happy to give Mr Greer and the committee a definitive list of the dialogue that has taken place.

Again, it is difficult for me to be precise. I refer back to the desire to create a mutually respectful environment in which ministers and staff work. Specific and appropriate steps to ensure that that approach was being applied in all circumstances would be at the heart of any remedial action that was required under the policy.