Hansard

There is absolutely no hiding going on, because I am about to outline some of the actions that I took directly in response to the five actions that survivors asked me to progress, and I will go through them in detail. As any fair-minded person can see, some of those actions are fettered as a result of the criminal proceedings, and I think that most members will understand what those fetters are.

I committed to continuing close engagement with survivors. Although I have the greatest respect for my colleagues across the chamber, to be blunt, I put more emphasis on what survivors ask me to do than I necessarily put on representatives. I know that Colin Smyth has sat in on the meetings that I have had with survivors and has heard directly what they wished me to do, and that has been my agenda.

There have been some suggestions that the Government is in some way unmoved by the necessity of protecting or acknowledging young girls who are at harm. Although I know that it was not suggested that that would necessarily be my approach, I absolutely emphasise that, not only as a mother of a little girl but also as somebody who currently engages with many survivors in my role, I do not need to be persuaded to care about these matters of injustice. I hope that every member hears that comment loudly and clearly.

During the first meeting that I had with Fornethy survivors, I committed to taking forward a number of actions, and I want to provide the Parliament with an update on those actions. The first was to engage directly with Glasgow City Council. The second was to look at how we could provide greater levels of emotional support, for the very reason that Monica Lennon outlined: that the responsibility for offering emotional support often fell on survivors themselves. The other action was to see whether the Scottish child abuse inquiry would consider Fornethy itself. That is because of the comment that somebody else made that this is not just a question of justice; it is also a question of truth—pursuing truth and understanding what the truth is.

On those actions, some survivors told me that the most important outcome for them is an apology, particularly from Glasgow City Council. I contacted Glasgow City Council and spoke directly to its leader. Colin Smyth has outlined the fact that an apology was made. I do not necessarily argue with his characterisation, because that is how survivors felt. I subsequently wrote to Glasgow City Council, inviting it to attend a meeting with me and the Fornethy Survivors Group. The invitation was not taken up on that occasion, but I still encourage Glasgow City Council to meet the survivors at the earliest opportunity upon the conclusion of the relevant criminal and civil proceedings.

The other action was in pursuit of the truth. Survivors wanted to see dedicated evidence from the Scottish child abuse inquiry. Therefore, I welcome the announcement of phase 10 of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which focuses on children’s residential care establishments operated by local authorities, including Fornethy house. Although I know that some survivors have already given evidence to the Scottish child abuse inquiry, this will be a specific hearing on Fornethy. The public hearings for phase 10 of the inquiry will commence later this year.

The other two actions of the five are still pending. One is to follow up in a meeting with survivors, which I am extremely keen to do without compromising the criminal proceedings. That is hugely important for the reason that I outlined earlier, which is that, bluntly, I am more interested in what survivors have to say and the actions that they want me to take than I necessarily am in their representatives in the Parliament.

Secondly, there is a question about redress. I will not go over the commentary on the formal Scottish redress scheme. I think that it was Maggie Chapman who talked more generally about compensation. The Scottish Parliament voted for the criteria that are under debate. This has nothing to do with how long or how dreadful the abuse was. As I have already said to survivors in a private meeting—I am happy to say it again today—this is an area and these are issues that I want to pursue and proceed with, but the criteria that are in place right now for the redress scheme were agreed to by the Parliament. I have written to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee subsequent to the first letter, which said that we were not going to reopen the criteria, to explain some of the challenges with reopening the criteria.

I hear members’ calls for redress and compensation. The process for that has to be watertight and has to deliver what survivors are looking for, which is why I take my steer from them.

I have tried to be as candid as possible in my remarks while also recognising and respecting the courts and not wanting to compromise that. I have laid out the five actions that survivors asked me to take, the progress on those actions and the fact that the only actions that we have been unable to proceed with—which are a minority of actions—are those that cut across live criminal proceedings. I am very happy to re-engage with survivors at the earliest opportunity, and I will continue to engage with members across the chamber. I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that we pursue truth and justice for all survivors of abuse.