Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a final question. The Deputy First Minister suggested in evidence to the committee that a precedent could be set in the case of Fornethy survivors that might lead to a number of other cases. I want to get on the record from Redress Scotland that it does not matter to you, as an independent body, whether a precedent is set in an individual case, even if that would mean that hundreds or, heaven forbid, thousands of more cases would then be set against that bar. In each individual case, if there is wrongdoing, it needs to be redressed. I would like to get confirmation of that from you, if you can give it.

Dignity, respect and compassion appear to be severely lacking in this case. The committee is trying to determine why, who is ultimately responsible and whether we can put right what once went wrong through the redress scheme. I am interested in the system for assessing individual cases. I am a bit confused about some aspects that you have mentioned. For example, you have spoken about exceptional circumstances, about people in the same institution at a similar time acting as corroboration and about ultimately applying the presumption of truth and looking at the balance of probabilities. Does the system allow for such cross corroboration, particularly where no records exist? By contrast, in the standard system, there is an individual case and there are no similar cases. I accept everything that you have said, but it seems as if, in this particular case, either there should be a slightly different system or some of the flexibilities that have been mentioned should be brought in. I am unclear about that.

Thank you.

I want to be clear on the issue of panel assessments of individual cases. In the case of Fornethy—although this could also apply to other cases—a number of individuals are coming forward, and, due to the constraints of the guidance or the act, panel members feel that they cannot provide redress in those cases. However, on the basis of humanity and doing what is right, they think that something should be done.

Is there a process for flagging to the Scottish Government and the Scottish ministers that there is a problem and that Redress Scotland would like to resolve the issue but that you cannot do so? Are conversations taking place on that to ensure that victims get the justice and redress that they deserve?

There is quite a lot in this that would be helpful to follow up with the Scottish Government. It is important that the committee notes that there is no such breed as an XL bully. It is the characteristics and type that have been subject to restrictions. We could follow up on the verification of those characteristics and the capacity of vets and other professionals to do that. It is important to ask the Scottish Government, for example, what training it is providing for owners to progress their dog to wearing a muzzle, which is one of the restrictions.

In addition to that, we should seek further details on the planned summit on responsible dog ownership and control, and ask specifically whether that will include owners of XL bully type dogs and provide the opportunity to consider the impact of the regulations on those owners, and what other measures might be put in place by the Scottish Government to ensure more responsible ownership and, ultimately, the welfare of dogs.

I do not think that it is for Redress Scotland to rewrite the rules or make recommendations, but I think that it is your role to flag concerns in this case or in others. It is up to the civil service and the Scottish ministers to say, “These are the recommendations and they are based on that,” or, “We don’t think that”. However, unless there is a feedback loop, how will Scottish ministers know that there are potential issues or flaws in the legislation or the guidance?

Thank you.

Yes.

Thanks; that is very helpful. I am just trying to square the timeline in my mind. On the basis of the evidence that we have heard, around 2014 seems to be the point at which a red flag was raised over the plausibility of completing the project. I think that you pointed to 2014 in terms of the financing aspect and there was probably a significant change in that in 2018. However, the Scottish Government did not find out until 2022 that it would not be possible to complete by 2025. I struggle to find that explanation to be realistic and plausible, given the track record and what had gone before. Perhaps you could comment on that.

Ms Sturgeon, in answer to Fergus Ewing, you have been clear about the Greens’ influence on the dualling of the A9. Obviously, the backdrop to your tenure in government was some ambitious climate change targets, including the setting of an extremely ambitious interim target in 2019. I wonder whether looking to tackle climate change in the context of failing to meet a number of emissions targets had any influence on the prioritisation of dualling the A9.