Hansard

I congratulate Johann Lamont and the cross-party group not only on securing this debate, but on the work that they have done over the past decade. The group has been exceptional in its actions. I have no doubt whatsoever that the support, action and even the inquiry must learn from the work that the group has done with survivors, to ensure that they are survivor-centred, survivor-led and available to all. Those are basic principles that we cannot deny.

The reason for those things being survivor-led, survivor-centred and available to all is that there must be an outcome that allows survivors to move on from that definition, and not just to be defined by having survived, but by their wish to live and flourish after that experience. I am sure that the minister will reflect upon that, because it is the outcome that will be important.

The establishment of both the inquiry and the support fund has been a tense and difficult process—the cross-party group knows that better than most. The people involved have often had the most awful experiences, which have—fully understandably—destroyed their trust in Government, authority and fellow human beings. Therefore, it will not always go smoothly.

As Johann Lamont said, it is a political issue: politics has entered into it, and the slowness of the political process in recognising the injustices and acting on them is something that we should all be ashamed of. When we recognise such things, we have to find a way forward. The way forward is through goodwill, determination, courage and constant listening.

Last year in this chamber, on 11 November 2014, when I was still a cabinet secretary, I announced not only the Government’s acceptance of the outcomes of the insight process, but the establishment of the fund. That was confirmed in May 2015 by my successor at a total of £13.5 million over five years. However, that was a mechanistic thing. Of more importance to me was the experience that I had in coming to understand over a period of time and progressively, as Johann Lamont has said, the awful responsibility of society—the way in which society has to confront honestly what has taken place, and help those who have survived such experiences to move forward.

The most important part for me was the insight process. In April 2015, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was responsible for that process, made a submission to the Scottish Government about the inquiry. It made two crucial points that we should bear in mind tonight. First, it called on the Scottish Government to ensure that the PANEL principles—participation, accountability, non-discrimination and equality, empowerment and legality—are observed whenever the issue is considered. Every single thing that the Scottish Government does in the area should be underpinned by those principles.

Secondly, it asked the Government to ensure that work continues more widely for all survivors while the inquiry takes place, and not to delay the process of helping those people because the focus is elsewhere.

This has been a long, slow process. The national strategy and the cross-party group have paved the way for insight and the fund, which led to the inquiry, the action on the time bar and how much is in the fund. As I say, it is a process—it is not event-driven. The process is to provide justice, to restore trust and to create a future for those who have been affected, and moreover to ensure that it can never ever happen again. The debate will help that process, but nothing will overcome the injustice that was done. As politicians, working together with survivors and charities, we should, with every fibre of our being, do our best and do it together.