The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15136, in the name of Colin Smyth, on justice for the Fornethy survivors. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Before we start, I would like to make sure that all members who will participate in it are aware that there is an active case relating to the alleged abuse of children within Fornethy house, in which criminal proceedings in the High Court of Justiciary are imminent. For that reason, the sub judice rule is engaged. Although reference to alleged abuse at Fornethy house will be permitted to give context to the motion, in the debate, members should focus on the issues that are covered in the motion—the recommendations of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and access to the Redress Scotland scheme—and avoid discussing details of lived experience of abuse or alleged abusers and the upcoming trial.
I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call on Colin Smyth to open the debate.
12:50
Presiding Officer,
“Trust is sacred. Our trust was broken as little girls—and now, trust in the system that’s supposed to help us and do right by us has been shattered.”
Those are the words of the Fornethy survivors. Some of those brave women are with us in the public gallery today. Hundreds more have shared their story.
For those who are unfamiliar with that story, those women, along with thousands of others, were sent to Fornethy as vulnerable wee girls between the 1960s and early 1990s. Fornethy was a sprawling 16th-century mansion in the Angus countryside, secluded and surrounded by woodland. It was one of the small number of schools run by Glasgow Corporation, later Strathclyde Regional Council, under its scheme of residential education for disadvantaged children.
Most of those girls stayed for four to eight weeks, sometimes more than once. Some were as young as five years old. They were sent away to somewhere new and exciting—a place to rest and recuperate. One survivor said:
“I remember getting on a bus with a suitcase. I was going on holiday for the first time. I recall the door opening and seeing a huge staircase. I was so happy and excited”.
However, that excitement quickly turned to fear. Rather than rest and recuperation, many of those wee girls were subjected to appalling abuse. My constituent, Marion Reid from Carluke is one of those women. She said:
“I travelled in a black cab to Fornethy from Riddrie, where I lived at the time. I was taken in through the big arch door, and as soon as that door closed, my nightmare began—six weeks of hell I’ve carried with me all of my life.”
Those wee girls’ hell was concealed, covered up and kept from parents. The children were made to write “nice” letters home, copied word for word from a blackboard. One survivor said:
“On leaving that dark place, my older sister was asked to tell my mum what a good girl I’d been. My five-year-old mind could only feel horror that this was how good girls were treated”.
I have listened to these testimonies. Some shared stories that they have never shared with their own families. Today, I wanted to bring those stories to Parliament to give a voice to those brave women, but I recognise that we must respect the on-going criminal and civil proceedings. My focus today will therefore be on the failures of Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to show that same respect to those women.
They have been campaigning for five and a half years against those failures, and they are still waiting for a full and meaningful apology. They are still waiting even for a meeting with Glasgow City Council. They are still waiting for access to the redress scheme. They are still waiting for answers about why the abuse at Fornethy went unchecked for so many years.
Will Colin Smyth take an intervention?
I am happy to take an intervention.
I am grateful to Colin Smyth for giving way—particularly because, regrettably, I am required to attend the First Minister’s emergency summit on youth violence; otherwise, I would have contributed more fully to the debate.
The survivors who are in the public gallery know the love and respect that I have for them, and that Colin Smyth and I will never leave their side as we complete this journey towards justice. Colin Smyth and I took the survivors on a trip to Fornethy two years ago. There was much closure on that trip, as we walked the grounds of what is now a derelict house. However, does Colin Smyth agree that they will never fully have closure until their victimhood is recognised, justice is properly meted out to them, and they are recognised not only here in this chamber but in the redress schemes that the Government has made available to survivors such as them?
I can give you the time back for that intervention, Mr Smyth.
I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for the support that he has given to the Fornethy survivors, including on that visit with the women to Fornethy, which was an incredibly humbling and powerful experience. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right that that was part of that closure—however, we now need Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to step up to the mat to really give those women closure.
In September, the leader of Glasgow City Council offered what was a half-hearted apology at the end of a meeting, in an item of any other business. The women found out through the media. Senior council officers and the council leader continue to refuse to meet them and continue to refuse to offer a proper meaningful public apology. Instead, they circle the wagons, cover up and prioritise protecting the council over taking responsibility for why their predecessor authority failed to protect those wee girls.
Similarly, the Scottish Government has failed to take responsibility, putting barrier after barrier in the way of those women. In January 2023, the First Minister told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it was possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful under the redress scheme, but the Government subsequently told the women that their records had been destroyed and that there was no evidence that they were at Fornethy. That was until the redress scheme made it clear that personal testimony is evidence. However, now, the Government says that they still will not qualify for the scheme because their care was short term and involved parents.
Those girls were sent to Fornethy by the state, not their parents. They were abused by staff who were employed by the state, and the state must take responsibility. Is the Government really saying to those women, “Your abuse was short term, so it doesn’t matter”? Are we really going to pit one abuse survivor against another? Is the Parliament really going to ignore the unanimous recommendation of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which called for the redress scheme to be extended, when we all know that abuse is abuse?
I know that the redress scheme is not the only thing that matters to those women and that many will never apply, but redress represents something—it represents recognition. The Government has chosen the redress scheme to be its formal acknowledgement of wrongdoing, its recognition of the lasting trauma and its acceptance that the state failed the victims of abuse. By denying Fornethy survivors meaningful access to the scheme, the state continues to fail them.
The women want the truth. They want to know why they were sent to Fornethy in the first place. They want to know why no one checked whether it was safe. They want to know why no one stopped the abuse year after year. The on-going public inquiry must get to the bottom of it but, let us be honest, it did not end with Fornethy. Even today, whistleblowers and victims are, too often, still met with silence when they raise serious child protection concerns. There is a culture of cover-up in public bodies, which are more focused on protecting reputations than on protecting children. There is a fundamental power imbalance: public bodies are marking their own homework, and have unlimited legal and financial resources that they unleash against the victims of abuse to defend the state against allegations.
While we consider the Fornethy petition, we should acknowledge another one that is under the consideration of the petitions committee: petition PE1979. Once again, the Government has dismissed it. It dismisses the petition’s call for an independent national whistleblowing office for children and education services, for independent investigations into unresolved allegations and to close the gaps in the child abuse inquiry. Whistleblowers are ignored, victims are ignored and public bodies are protected—that is the reality of child protection in Scotland today.
The tragic human cost of child abuse is incalculable—lost childhoods and lasting trauma. As a society, nothing should be more important than safeguarding our children. However, Fornethy and countless other failures by the state expose the brutal truth that we are failing victims again and again, every single day.
I began with the words of the Fornethy women. Let me end with some more:
“It only takes one event, one day, to change your world view forever—and the lasting trauma that brings. Are we not worthy because we were abused only for a short period?”
I say to the women who are in the public gallery today: you are worthy. You are owed a full and meaningful public apology. You deserve compensation. You deserve the truth. You deserve justice. I say to Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government that those women are not going anywhere. They are strong and determined. Platitudes and warm words will not cut it any more.
I want the Deputy First Minister to see not just the women who are sitting in the public gallery today but the five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven-year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds—the wee girls who suffered abuse at Fornethy. It is time that we did the right thing. It is time to restore their trust. It is time to show every survivor of child abuse that they are believed, they are valued and they will be heard. If there is no justice, there will be no peace. [Applause.]
I will just give a gentle reminder to those in the public gallery that this is a meeting happening in public rather than a public meeting, so I discourage them from participating, although I understand their sentiment.
13:00
I warmly congratulate Colin Smyth on his dogged pursuit of this issue and on the speech that he gave today, which is one of the finest that we have heard in this session of Parliament. I also commend members across all the main parties—Mr Cole-Hamilton, Mr Golden, Mr Greene and many others—who have supported the Fornethy victims in the meetings of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and in the chamber. It is a matter of some shame that this debate is so poorly attended. It reflects badly on us all.
Presiding Officer, you have given a ruling that we cannot talk about the abuse that was inflicted on these innocent girls. I will respect that, but, having read through the histories of abuse and the lifelong impacts that that has had on the girls as adults and for the whole of their lives, it is plain to me that this Parliament, if it stands for anything, must redress that injustice. I hope that we can all unite behind that.
The sad fact is that the palpable, egregious and serious injustice that was caused to the most innocent girls in the country over a sustained period of more than 30 years, for several weeks at a time, which is the truth of the matter, has still not been redressed by either the Glasgow Corporation or the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government must take the lead. We must accept the responsibility to do that. How it is done is a mere detail. If it requires legislative reform, that must be done. If it requires an executive direction to Redress Scotland, that must be done. We cannot hide behind legalistic arguments.
The idea that these children were put there for a holiday or respite care is an insult. As well as being an insult, it is factually wrong. Fornethy was a residential school. The corporation advertised for teachers. What do teachers do? They teach in schools. Therefore, that argument is just an insult to the victims. It is platitudinous, pedantic, nitpicking and legalistic, and I do not think for one moment that the current Deputy First Minister would seek to invoke or stand behind it.
The other argument, as Mr Smyth has said, is that the girls did not cease to be under parental control. Are people really saying that the parents consented to the abuse that their children suffered? What arrant nonsense. What an absurd argument. The indisputable fact is that the girls were sent there by Glasgow Corporation. Glasgow Corporation owned the school. It was part of the state. The state is responsible for the abuse. It was young children who were abused. Abuse is always unacceptable, but it is despicable when it happens to young children.
With respect, Presiding Officer, I am not convinced that the sub judice law applies here in respect of the ability of the Government to provide a solution. It cannot hide behind that.
I was going to read from what the Deputy First Minister’s predecessor said two years ago, but I will note only that she said that a solution would be found. That was two years ago. Why has a solution not been found?
The Government must admit its mistake and say, “We got it wrong.” It takes guts to do that, and I believe that the Deputy First Minister has guts. All her colleagues are decent human beings. It is time for them to act, because, as Marcus Aurelius said,
“you can also commit injustice by doing nothing”.
13:05
I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward the debate. It is not the first time that he has done so, and that is to his great credit, because he has been a long-standing and tireless campaigner on behalf of the Fornethy survivors.
The motion makes clear the horrific experiences that these girls suffered at Fornethy—experiences that no child should have to endure. In those circumstances, I can only imagine the trauma of living with that for decades. We can sympathise with them and we can offer them support, but none of us can truly understand what that trauma would be like.
As Colin Smyth pointed out, some of the girls—now women—are here today in the public gallery, and I recognise the courage that it took to be here, as well as the great courage that they have shown over decades in refusing to be silent and in fighting for their voices to be heard.
That said, as the Deputy Presiding Officer has pointed out, there are live court cases, so care must be taken to ensure that discussion is only in the context of the motion that is before us. Therefore, the language that I use and the issues that I raise should be viewed through that prism.
It certainly has not been easy for survivors. In March 2024, the former Deputy First Minister, Shona Robison, pointed to an absence of official records of the girls’ time at Fornethy. I struggle to understand how that is possible. Who is responsible for it? I hope that we all agree that it was not the responsibility of children.
Scotland’s redress scheme is a mechanism to help survivors of abuse, but it has been closed to the survivors of Fornethy, because it does not cover abuse that happened during short-term residential stays. I understand that the scheme was not set up to deal with abuse in short-term care, but, as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has recommended, the Scottish Government should consult on expanding it to include short-term institutions such as Fornethy.
I know that the Scottish Government has previously refused to expand the scheme’s criteria, but I think that the public would find it outrageous that compensation was being declined because, in effect, the victims did not stay in a place of abuse and cruelty for long enough. For me, one instance is one too many and it will have ramifications for the rest of that child’s life. Ms Robison appeared to suggest at committee that restrictions were put in place because expanding the scheme would set a precedent that would lead to many more cases. My view is that all victims of abuse should have access to redress no matter the length of time that they endured it for and regardless of how historical that abuse was.
Sadly, these roadblocks to restitution—whether they are missing records, unanswered questions or a lack of compensation—all help to keep old wounds open. These women should expect our current institutions to allow them access to natural justice in addition to formal legal proceedings.
Let us remember that the girls were sent to Fornethy by the state—Glasgow Corporation, as it was then, and, later, Strathclyde Regional Council. Those institutions had a duty of care, and a long-established legal and, indeed, moral obligation. It is a matter for the courts—as well as, in my view, the redress scheme—to determine the validity of the harrowing, horrific stories of abuse that I have heard.
Let us make sure that the women who are in the public gallery—and all those who could not be here today—know that we are with them, that we will listen to them and that we will speak up for them.
13:09
I join members in congratulating Colin Smyth on bringing this issue to the chamber once more, and I pay tribute to him for his long-standing campaigning for the Fornethy survivors. I also join members in welcoming survivors and campaigners who are watching in the gallery today, and I praise their bravery and resolve.
Since 2023, I have sat on the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, where we considered the petition that calls for the Fornethy survivors to have access to Scotland’s redress scheme. The committee does not often come to strong united conclusions on petitions, but in this case, we have directly recommended to the Scottish Government that the redress scheme be widened to allow those who experienced abuse at Fornethy access to the scheme. We have concluded that an injustice has occurred and that current legislation is not fit for purpose in this case.
To be clear, seeking redress is not about money. No amount of money can undo what those women went through or the life-long consequences of that abuse.
In considering evidence, we heard three major reasons why Fornethy survivors would not be eligible under the redress scheme: the fact that the redress scheme covers only abuse in long-term care; the lack of detailed records available; and the claim that children were sent to Fornethy with parental consent. However, let us be clear that these children were in the care of the state. They were sent to Fornethy at the recommendation of the state, through teachers or medical staff who were employed by Glasgow Corporation. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state to step up and offer meaningful redress to those affected. It should not matter for how long a person was abused when it comes to getting recognition of the pain that has been caused. There is no time limit for trauma.
On parental consent, submitted evidence includes allegations that children were told what to write home to their parents, and that they could not contact them freely. That is hardly informed parental consent.
On records, we heard from Redress Scotland that there is a presumption of truth, and that it works on a balance of probabilities when considering cases, which means that a lack of detailed records should not be a barrier to change.
The committee recommended the Scottish Government consult on extending redress. If we believe survivors, which I am sure all members do, we should at least consider what more we can do to support them.
I again pay tribute to the brave campaigners who are here today, who have not stopped fighting for recognition of the abuse that they endured. However, paying tribute means nothing if we do not offer redress and change to ensure that this never happens again.
13:13
I thank Colin Smyth for lodging his motion and securing this debate, and for his very powerful and moving opening speech. I concur with every single word.
I am so immensely grateful, too, to the Fornethy survivors for their determination in their fight for justice. It is right that we recognise and commend that courage and perseverance today, although they should never have been put in the position of having to fight. It should shame us all—though I do thank them, and I am sorry that I cannot be there in person this afternoon.
I am also grateful to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for its sensitive discussions on the petition submitted by the Fornethy survivors. That petition begins—and I quote—
“Survivors need acknowledgement, closure and compensation.”
It is right that we voiced those words today, because they reflect the three time dimensions of the process.
First, the petition seeks acknowledgment of the past. Fornethy survivors experienced harm, not as objects but as children, young people and human beings. Redress Scotland’s presumption of truth is important here. I am sure that we will all empathise with the stories told by survivors—children being taken from their homes in the city to a strange place and separated from their parents and their families for long weeks with no way of reaching them, and possibly with no way of knowing when their ordeal would end.
We have heard survivors tell their stories of the types of harm that they experienced and the losses that they bore—of childhood, joy and safety. We heard of the power imbalances, which affected not only them as children, but their parents and families, who experienced little or no choice in the decision to send their little girls away. We have also heard about the responsibility for that harm. Who should bear that responsibility, both individual and institutional? We should acknowledge that past, however uncomfortable it might be for us.
Secondly, the petition seeks closure in the present, through having the experiences of those women recognised appropriately; through obtaining answers to their questions; through an apology that is full, precise and unstinting; and through assurances that, as far as is humanly possible, we will see to it that this wrong will never recur.
Thirdly, the petition calls for compensation to go into the future, as recognition of the reality of loss, as acknowledgement of responsibility and as seeds of future growth and flourishing.
Trauma-informed practice is not enough without trauma-informed policy, and I very much appreciate the petitions committee’s work on this matter. It has worked exactly as it should have done, by responding to concerns, investigating the situation and making practical and feasible recommendations for action. As Foysol Choudhury has just said, there is no time limit on trauma, so it is time for the Scottish Government to act on the committee’s recommendations.
The Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 was, as Thompsons Solicitors has pointed out, based on principles of dignity, respect and compassion. The associated regulations turned out not to be consistent with those principles and not to consider the longer-term issues at stake. That was a mistake, but one that can and must be rectified. We must ensure that Redress Scotland is given what it needs to deliver justice, as Colin Smyth has said, and to provide justice for the Fornethy survivors. That is because this issue is not about process—it is about justice.
13:18
I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my colleague Colin Smyth and commend him for securing it and for uniting members on this issue. Having listened to the debate so far, I am pleased that we are speaking with one voice.
I also pay tribute to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which I know has taken this cause to its heart. It has listened to the women and to the evidence, and it has made really important recommendations to the Scottish Government. I was surprised to hear that we had not seen the action that everyone is fighting so hard for.
I thank Monica Lennon for taking my intervention. She is almost like an extra member of the committee, so frequent are her appearances to stand up for various interests and constituents.
My question for her is this: is it not a matter of shame that the Scottish Government has failed to act on the unanimous recommendations of the committee, which represents all the main parties? If the Government will not act, is it not time that one of the major parties brought forward a proper debate with a vote at the end, so that, if the Government is not willing to do the right thing by itself, it will, as we saw with Flamingo Land, be forced to do so?
I can give you the time back, Ms Lennon.
I am grateful to Fergus Ewing for the important points that he makes. It is not just a matter of whether it shames the Scottish Government—it shames Scotland that we are not doing the right thing by the survivors, and we should leave no stone unturned. It is good that we are having a members’ business debate today, thanks to Colin Smyth’s efforts, but the subject should be debated in the chamber again in Government time, or perhaps in Opposition time. This cannot be the last word.
It is good that, between the efforts of the convener, Jackson Carlaw; Maurice Golden, who is in the chamber today; and Foysol Choudhury, Fergus Ewing and Maggie Chapman, from whom we have also heard, we know that there are many members on all sides of the chamber who care. I know that there are some limitations on what we can say today, and time is always short in a members’ business debate, but I wanted to speak briefly just to demonstrate, again, my solidarity with the Fornethy women.
I knew nothing about Fornethy house or about the survivors until I had a chance encounter outside the Scottish Parliament back in March 2022. I was walking on by—I was there to meet with other campaigners—when I was approached by some of the women. They asked me and my researcher, “Are you MSPs?” and we stopped to chat. I was able to refer some the women, including Marion Reid, to Colin Smyth, given the links to his region, and to my friend and colleague Lynsey Hamilton. Lynsey is currently on maternity leave, or she would have been in the public gallery to support the women today.
That brings me back to Fergus Ewing’s final remarks in his speech: doing nothing is not an option. For me, that chance encounter was a lesson in not being a bystander. Although I am a regular visitor to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee to speak to other campaigns, I have watched other colleagues, including Martin Whitfield, take this campaign forward. There have been dozens of parliamentary questions, and there has been involvement at the highest level, including from the Deputy First Minister. I know Kate Forbes to be a good person with a good heart, and I know that she will be listening very carefully and will do everything that she can to ensure that we can, together, knock down all the barriers that are apparently in the way.
I am grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for giving me a little bit of time back. This is about the pursuit of truth, and about justice. I hear what colleagues have said about the redress scheme and the fact that not everyone will want to pursue that route, but it is important that it is there for those who want to access it.
I know that many of the women have had to use a lot of their own money to pay for therapeutic interventions, including therapy. The experience has had an impact and left them with lasting trauma, and everyone’s journey will be different—that should be acknowledged. We have previously united in the Parliament to say sorry to those affected by historical forced adoption, for example, and I was grateful to the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, for listening to my call to work cross-party on that issue. This is another issue on which we have to unite and come together, and I know that the Deputy First Minister will do everything that she can.
I call the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to respond to the debate.
13:23
I thank Colin Smyth for lodging the motion and for his tireless work in supporting the Fornethy survivors. I give a huge welcome to the Fornethy survivors who are in the public gallery—I know, having engaged with many of them directly, that they have shown remarkable courage. There is an element of frustration—far be it from me to criticise, or be seen to be criticising, processes in any way, but it is a matter of significant frustration that, given the live criminal proceedings in relation to Fornethy house, there are limits on what I can say.
One of the agreements that I made with survivors when we first met was that we would have regular meetings and engagement. Sadly, under clear legal advice, I have been unable to meet again with the group. We have been talking today about the pursuit of justice, and I do not want to do anything that may prejudice or compromise a live criminal case—that would be totally at odds with my desire to see justice.
I note what the Deputy First Minister says in relation to the sub judice rule. However, the sub judice rule relates to a criminal case that is due to be heard in the High Court in September. If nothing happens until after that case is over, nothing will happen in this session of Parliament. In any event, is it not the case that the current legal proceedings may prevent us from discussing aspects today, but what they do not do—and what they cannot do—is fetter the powers of the Government to bring forward a solution? Therefore, with respect, Deputy First Minister, you cannot hide behind the sub judice rule.
Always speak through the chair.
There is absolutely no hiding going on, because I am about to outline some of the actions that I took directly in response to the five actions that survivors asked me to progress, and I will go through them in detail. As any fair-minded person can see, some of those actions are fettered as a result of the criminal proceedings, and I think that most members will understand what those fetters are.
I committed to continuing close engagement with survivors. Although I have the greatest respect for my colleagues across the chamber, to be blunt, I put more emphasis on what survivors ask me to do than I necessarily put on representatives. I know that Colin Smyth has sat in on the meetings that I have had with survivors and has heard directly what they wished me to do, and that has been my agenda.
There have been some suggestions that the Government is in some way unmoved by the necessity of protecting or acknowledging young girls who are at harm. Although I know that it was not suggested that that would necessarily be my approach, I absolutely emphasise that, not only as a mother of a little girl but also as somebody who currently engages with many survivors in my role, I do not need to be persuaded to care about these matters of injustice. I hope that every member hears that comment loudly and clearly.
During the first meeting that I had with Fornethy survivors, I committed to taking forward a number of actions, and I want to provide the Parliament with an update on those actions. The first was to engage directly with Glasgow City Council. The second was to look at how we could provide greater levels of emotional support, for the very reason that Monica Lennon outlined: that the responsibility for offering emotional support often fell on survivors themselves. The other action was to see whether the Scottish child abuse inquiry would consider Fornethy itself. That is because of the comment that somebody else made that this is not just a question of justice; it is also a question of truth—pursuing truth and understanding what the truth is.
On those actions, some survivors told me that the most important outcome for them is an apology, particularly from Glasgow City Council. I contacted Glasgow City Council and spoke directly to its leader. Colin Smyth has outlined the fact that an apology was made. I do not necessarily argue with his characterisation, because that is how survivors felt. I subsequently wrote to Glasgow City Council, inviting it to attend a meeting with me and the Fornethy Survivors Group. The invitation was not taken up on that occasion, but I still encourage Glasgow City Council to meet the survivors at the earliest opportunity upon the conclusion of the relevant criminal and civil proceedings.
The other action was in pursuit of the truth. Survivors wanted to see dedicated evidence from the Scottish child abuse inquiry. Therefore, I welcome the announcement of phase 10 of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which focuses on children’s residential care establishments operated by local authorities, including Fornethy house. Although I know that some survivors have already given evidence to the Scottish child abuse inquiry, this will be a specific hearing on Fornethy. The public hearings for phase 10 of the inquiry will commence later this year.
The other two actions of the five are still pending. One is to follow up in a meeting with survivors, which I am extremely keen to do without compromising the criminal proceedings. That is hugely important for the reason that I outlined earlier, which is that, bluntly, I am more interested in what survivors have to say and the actions that they want me to take than I necessarily am in their representatives in the Parliament.
Secondly, there is a question about redress. I will not go over the commentary on the formal Scottish redress scheme. I think that it was Maggie Chapman who talked more generally about compensation. The Scottish Parliament voted for the criteria that are under debate. This has nothing to do with how long or how dreadful the abuse was. As I have already said to survivors in a private meeting—I am happy to say it again today—this is an area and these are issues that I want to pursue and proceed with, but the criteria that are in place right now for the redress scheme were agreed to by the Parliament. I have written to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee subsequent to the first letter, which said that we were not going to reopen the criteria, to explain some of the challenges with reopening the criteria.
I hear members’ calls for redress and compensation. The process for that has to be watertight and has to deliver what survivors are looking for, which is why I take my steer from them.
I have tried to be as candid as possible in my remarks while also recognising and respecting the courts and not wanting to compromise that. I have laid out the five actions that survivors asked me to take, the progress on those actions and the fact that the only actions that we have been unable to proceed with—which are a minority of actions—are those that cut across live criminal proceedings. I am very happy to re-engage with survivors at the earliest opportunity, and I will continue to engage with members across the chamber. I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that we pursue truth and justice for all survivors of abuse.
That concludes the debate.
13:32 Meeting suspended.Air ais
First Minister’s Question TimeAir adhart
Portfolio Question Time