Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is quite a delicate matter for me to handle, because the situation to which Stephanie Callaghan refers is a consequence of a restriction order issued by Lady Smith, as chair of the Scottish child abuse inquiry. The order prevents applicants from using their inquiry statement as part of their application, unless the applicant has waived their anonymity at the inquiry and the statement has been published by the inquiry. That is a decision for the inquiry by Lady Smith. I have made representations to seek a different view, but I have been unsuccessful in seeking an alternative approach.

As the committee will appreciate, the child abuse inquiry operates independently of Government, so I have to respect the conclusion that has been arrived at by Lady Smith in applying a restriction order, which it is perfectly within her powers to do.

First, I want to reassure applicants. We have tried to secure an alternative approach, but we have been unsuccessful. I apologise to applicants for the fact that they are having to go through a similar process, but I seek their understanding. We need to have that information to enable us to ensure that they have the strongest possible case to put to Redress Scotland. In that context, our caseworkers will work with them sensitively to ensure that that case is produced.

Yes. We are listening to survivors’ feedback all the time and, at an operational level, we are changing and adapting processes to ensure that we reflect that. There is an environment of constant learning in the team that is working on that activity in order to ensure that we are hearing, absorbing and applying the feedback from survivors on an on-going basis. That is a welcome part of the process that we are undertaking.

I would prefer it if people were able to use the statements that they gave to the inquiry.

Comprehensive data is emerging, some of which I have already shared with the committee during my opening statement and some of which is reflected in the information that I have just put on record in response to Mr Dey’s question. There will be other information—for example, about the number of cases in which individuals have requested a review of Redress Scotland’s determination and the outcome of some of those reviews. I am very confident that there is a broad range of data that will satisfactorily provide the evidence base on which a report can be constructed to address the substance of Mr Greer’s amendment.

There is another dimension that is just as important, if not more so, and it is what we hear from survivors through their feedback. It is, of course, less quantifiable than the data I have just talked about. Nonetheless, it is very important for us to openly acknowledge the feedback from survivors about their experience and for us to decide what we need to do to address that as part of the operation of the scheme. The data and information are there.

It is all very well for the Parliament to pass an amendment that says that there will be a review, but, in the light of this meeting, if the committee wishes to give some input about what it would like to see covered in the review, I would be very happy to consider that to ensure that what we produce in the review addresses the points that are on the minds of committee members.

Definitely.

There is a difficulty there, because it is inevitable that, in the scheme, we will, unfortunately, need survivors to recount what has happened. That is unavoidable and inescapable in the scheme. That will come at a particular moment in the handling of the application, which is why we need to have the right people to properly handle that process with applicants. Regrettably, there is an inevitability about some of that because of the nature of the scheme. We are trying to address things that should never have happened in people’s lives, so that will be traumatic and painful. We try to reduce that to the minimum level possible, but it is an inevitable part of the scheme, unfortunately.

We will gather that information from our dialogue with survivors, and that dialogue is broader than simply the Redress Scotland process, if I can call it that. The discussion about the waiver acknowledges that there will be a group of people who decide that, because of the presence of the waiver, the scheme is not for them. Therefore, for us to provide as complete a picture as we can, we have to be cognisant of what those who are looking at the scheme and coming to the conclusion that it is not for them—because, for example, of the presence of the waiver—are considering about the scheme, and then we must formulate a position that reflects all of that information.

There will be applicants who will consider whether it is appropriate for them to sign the waiver once they see the proposition that comes to them from Redress Scotland, and it is important for us to gather that information and to reflect on that in the progress report that we undertake.

Given that we have completed and passed to Redress Scotland 345 applications, it is quite difficult to draw out patterns of opinions at this stage. Redress Scotland has made 277 redress determinations, and 255 applicants have already made a decision to accept their offer. A period of six months is given to an applicant to consider whether they wish to accept the application, so, according to that data, applicants in 22 cases have not yet decided to accept the offer. I am making an assumption that they are considering whether it is appropriate, and I imagine that the waiver will be part of their considerations.

Given the interest in the answers to those questions, we will endeavour to provide as much detail as we can in the 18-month report about the attitudes and views about the waiver and its significance.

I hope that that reassures the committee that the overwhelming majority of applicants see the proposition that comes to them as something that they are prepared to accept. I appreciate that I am making an assumption, based on that data. We probably have to interrogate applicants’ views and attitudes to conclude on that position.

I am certain that that is the case. I assure the committee that we will explore that issue in the dialogue that we have with survivors.

I have been talking to a particular survivor who has been very helpful in informing many aspects of our approach, but who is wrestling with the very difficult dilemma of whether the scheme is correct for them, given the presence of the waiver. I can think of that one example where that is a very big consideration for the individual. They are making an outstanding contribution to our thinking and development and could not be more helpful, but the waiver is an issue for them on a personal level. I acknowledge that.