Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 11 March 2021
I will not tell Iain Gray how old I was when he was first elected to Parliament, but I thank him for how much I have learned from him, particularly on the Education and Skills Committee over recent years.
I turn to the bill. At stage 1, I said that the bill was always going to be a painful experience for many survivors, even if they—rightly—wanted it, and that has proven to be the case.
I pay tribute to the survivors—groups and individuals—who fought so hard and for so long to bring us to this point, and to those who shared their experiences and relived their trauma in the process of explaining why redress is so necessary. Their bravery and dignity have been astonishing, and their contribution to the process has had a profound impact on the bill. I know that the scheme is not exactly one that survivors would have chosen—it is not what I would have chosen either—but it is far better for their engagement over recent months and years.
We all support the bill’s principles, but I will be honest: I seriously considered whether I could vote for it in its final form. I was never going to vote against it, but I struggled with the question of proactively approving a bill that contains a waiver scheme that I know causes so much anguish. I spent our unplanned technical break on the phone with colleagues and those we have worked with throughout the process, weighing up what the right choice would be.
It is not so much a question of effective public policy making as it is a question of ethics. At every stage of the process, I have argued for the principle that the scheme should not restrict survivors’ right to pursue justice through civil proceedings, and I am bitterly disappointed that the amendments that would have addressed that were rejected. However, for the sake of avoiding doubt being cast on the scheme, the Green MSPs will all vote for the bill at decision time tonight.
I am not angry at colleagues in Parliament or Government for how the bill has turned out. I am deeply frustrated, but I appreciate that it was never going to be easy, and I thank the Government in particular for the sincere effort that it has made to work with us to explore alternatives and for the collaborative approach that it took to the bill as a whole.
I reserve my anger for some, however. Although a number of potential contributors, such as Quarriers, engaged consistently and constructively with Parliament throughout the process, others chose not to. Parliament is supposed to take decisions on the basis of the evidence that is submitted to us, but the process has been accompanied by the strong implication that the organisations that might end up being significant contributors to the scheme are the most insistent on the inclusion of a waiver, without those organisations being willing to go on the record and make that case. That is cowardly behaviour and, if it is by those that I suspect it is, it is absolutely no surprise. If it becomes known that those organisations decide not to contribute to the scheme, despite the waiver’s inclusion, I intend to use the privilege that this Parliament affords—and which I hope still to have—to name them. For now, I am content to trust the Government and its sincere efforts to ensure that fair and meaningful contributions are made.
Nothing that we ever do can right the wrongs of child abuse. No effort of Parliament or Government today can reverse the failings of our predecessors, but, as the cabinet secretary said, we can and should do all that we can to bring some modicum of justice to survivors.
The scheme represents one avenue through which we will do that. The parliamentary process has made the redress scheme more trauma informed, more supportive of the needs of survivors and more accessible, including to survivors’ next of kin. I am proud to have played a small role in that.
I finish as I started, with my profound thanks to the survivors and their supporters, who have worked with us to make the bill, at the end of the process, better than it was at the start.