Hansard

I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward the debate. It is not the first time that he has done so, and that is to his great credit, because he has been a long-standing and tireless campaigner on behalf of the Fornethy survivors.

The motion makes clear the horrific experiences that these girls suffered at Fornethy—experiences that no child should have to endure. In those circumstances, I can only imagine the trauma of living with that for decades. We can sympathise with them and we can offer them support, but none of us can truly understand what that trauma would be like.

As Colin Smyth pointed out, some of the girls—now women—are here today in the public gallery, and I recognise the courage that it took to be here, as well as the great courage that they have shown over decades in refusing to be silent and in fighting for their voices to be heard.

That said, as the Deputy Presiding Officer has pointed out, there are live court cases, so care must be taken to ensure that discussion is only in the context of the motion that is before us. Therefore, the language that I use and the issues that I raise should be viewed through that prism.

It certainly has not been easy for survivors. In March 2024, the former Deputy First Minister, Shona Robison, pointed to an absence of official records of the girls’ time at Fornethy. I struggle to understand how that is possible. Who is responsible for it? I hope that we all agree that it was not the responsibility of children.

Scotland’s redress scheme is a mechanism to help survivors of abuse, but it has been closed to the survivors of Fornethy, because it does not cover abuse that happened during short-term residential stays. I understand that the scheme was not set up to deal with abuse in short-term care, but, as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has recommended, the Scottish Government should consult on expanding it to include short-term institutions such as Fornethy.

I know that the Scottish Government has previously refused to expand the scheme’s criteria, but I think that the public would find it outrageous that compensation was being declined because, in effect, the victims did not stay in a place of abuse and cruelty for long enough. For me, one instance is one too many and it will have ramifications for the rest of that child’s life. Ms Robison appeared to suggest at committee that restrictions were put in place because expanding the scheme would set a precedent that would lead to many more cases. My view is that all victims of abuse should have access to redress no matter the length of time that they endured it for and regardless of how historical that abuse was.

Sadly, these roadblocks to restitution—whether they are missing records, unanswered questions or a lack of compensation—all help to keep old wounds open. These women should expect our current institutions to allow them access to natural justice in addition to formal legal proceedings.

Let us remember that the girls were sent to Fornethy by the state—Glasgow Corporation, as it was then, and, later, Strathclyde Regional Council. Those institutions had a duty of care, and a long-established legal and, indeed, moral obligation. It is a matter for the courts—as well as, in my view, the redress scheme—to determine the validity of the harrowing, horrific stories of abuse that I have heard.

Let us make sure that the women who are in the public gallery—and all those who could not be here today—know that we are with them, that we will listen to them and that we will speak up for them.