Hansard

I thank Johann Lamont for introducing a very important subject and pay tribute to her work in the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse and, indeed, to Margaret Mitchell’s work. I hope that the Government will pay very close attention to their speeches, because they encapsulated many of the current concerns of survivors groups. They certainly know far more about the matter than I do, although I was involved in the early days—Margaret Mitchell referred to that. In particular, I set up the short-life working group on the care needs of people who survived childhood sexual abuse. That group’s report still repays reading now—I read it prior to the debate—because it gives the broad view that we all want to see. Although that fed into the strategy, I think that the cross-party group was the main influence on the development of the strategy all those years ago. We should certainly celebrate the work that it does now and has done. That leads us back, of course, to Marilyn Livingstone, who was the first convener of the group. We should remember her today, too.

Survivors groups have always been crucial to the strategy, not just in respect of mutual support, but in spreading information and understanding to professionals, service providers and the wider public. It is therefore very important that those groups are supported financially in the first instance. The motion mentions Open Secret, but we know of other groups, such as the Kingdom Abuse Survivors Project. Those groups must be supported and involved in the continuing implementation of the strategy, and they should be in leadership roles, as they have been in the past. I hope that they will be in those roles in the future, if they are not adequately in those positions currently.

It is clear that one of the fundamental demands is justice. We are dealing with a crime, not an illness. It is also clear that survivors need the chance to confront their experiences with loving support around them. All that is part of the holistic approach to which members have already referred.

The motion refers to the concerns of survivors groups. Johann Lamont and Margaret Mitchell have referred to those concerns. I commend to the minister Sarah Nelson’s article in The Herald today, because she has been very closely involved with work in the area for many years. I first came across her through her report “Beyond Trauma: Mental Health Care Needs of Women Who Survived Childhood Sexual Abuse”, which made a very big impression on me in 2001 or some time around then. She pointed out how psychiatric services routinely do not face up to and understand the mental health implications of what some people have endured. I recommend that article.

Of course, we all welcome the focus on historical abuse in institutional settings and the inquiry that is chaired by Susan O’Brien although, as Johann Lamont reminded us, there are concerns about the narrowness of its remit. As Sarah Nelson and members have reminded us, 80 per cent of survivors were abused in the family or the community, so we need a holistic partnership approach to address their needs, too. The strategy also has to focus on prevention, staff training and the wider agendas that have been referred to. There are concerns about a narrowing of the strategy’s focus. Sarah Nelson described that in her article as a focus on individuals on a “medical model”. It is clear that we need a holistic approach that involves groups as well as individuals. The Government should pay attention to that article and to the speeches by Johann Lamont and Margaret Mitchell.

Sarah Nelson raised the interesting question of where the issue is located in the Scottish Government. I have recently found it confusing whether responsibility is located in education and young people or health. Justice no doubt also has a role. There are issues there. Sarah Nelson made the interesting suggestion that it should be located in the equality division.

Those are just things to reflect on. They are not the most important part of the debate, but they are part of what should be considered.

In conclusion, it is clear that the historical child abuse inquiry is very important, but the Government must also ensure that its policy and funding pay attention to the needs of the 80 per cent of survivors who were abused in the family or the community. Crucially, let us involve those people in the implementation of the strategy, as was always intended from the start.