Hansard

In summing up the debate, we can all start from the position that was well outlined by the cabinet secretary, Jamie Greene, Iain Gray, Johann Lamont and others, which is that the bill is motivated and driven by a profound sense of the need for justice, and by an extreme emotional connection to the very real harm and abuse that was done to so many people.

I will broadly repeat remarks that I made when I spoke in the stage 1 debate. We are dealing with a situation in which there were children who needed care and families who needed help. The state had to step in, but rather than delivering that help and care, the state delivered children into the hands of abusers who tortured them. In many cases, those children were delivered into the hands of the state by parents who did so willingly because they felt that the state could do a better job than they could, which only makes that horrific set of circumstances worse.

The state let them down, so we, as a Parliament, have a duty to provide some form of justice—albeit that it can never be a truly adequate form—for the people who suffered in that horrific way. The bill is undoubtedly an important step towards that. I associate myself with the cabinet secretary’s remarks and with the aim, which is largely being delivered by the bill, of providing people with a straightforward and flexible route to gaining the justice that they would not otherwise have. For many people, that justice would otherwise be unobtainable.

That is not to say that the bill is perfect. A number of issues have continued, but it has undoubtedly been improved by the work of the Parliament. I note the remarks of many members, including Iain Gray and Ross Greer.

However, I am not entirely convinced that the waiver will achieve what it sets out to achieve. In previous stages of the bill, we debated whether it will provide the financial certainty and assurances that might be required because of how insurance works for many organisations.

I also believe that the caveats in the reporting mechanisms that have been added improve the bill. The clarity that is provided for applicants and the requirements to inform applicants of the nature of what they are undertaking make the bill better. Ultimately, improved oversight and accountability, in relation to separation of the chief executive and the chair, and the survivors’ forum being put on a statutory footing, undoubtedly improve the bill.

However, we cannot treat this as finished business. We must continue to listen to survivors and respond to their needs as and when they identify them, and we must recognise that there is limited scope for the bill; it merely deals with the state. There are many situations in which other institutions encouraged or coerced children into care, then abuse was done. Those situations are not covered.

Likewise, there are situations in which parents voluntarily offered their children to institutions, such as mental institutions, when today those children would be considered as simply having additional support needs, and they suffered for years. I speak—I wish that I could go into more detail—informed by the experiences of a close family member. That is an injustice that the bill cannot address, but I hope that future Parliaments will.

Ultimately, this has been a case of Parliament doing its job as it should. There has been robust scrutiny, the Government has responded and we have done our job well. However, I question whether that will always be the case. We are about to have a new Parliament; elections will bring a new composition to the chamber and we must question whether Parliament is well enough structured to provide the robust scrutiny that is needed to make better legislation.

I realise that I am slightly over my time, but I must acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues Iain Gray and Johann Lamont, both of whom spoke very well for themselves, and both of whom I have known for a long time. I came to know them as a young Labour activist. Iain Gray was my MSP when I was the youth and student officer for Edinburgh Pentlands constituency Labour party, and I got to know Johann Lamont subsequently.

There are a great many things that make becoming an MSP fulfilling and a great thing, but something that I did not expect was that one comes to know as colleagues and friends people whom one had previously regarded only as political figures. That is undoubtedly the case with Iain and Johann. Despite the fact that we will no longer be colleagues with offices on the same corridor—I hope to be re-elected, but this will hold even if I am not—I hope that they will continue to offer their good guidance and counsel. I thank them both, not only on my own behalf but, I hope, on behalf of all Labour members, for their years of service and their contributions, both to the Labour Party and to the Scottish Parliament. We all owe them a great deal of thanks.