 Backstreet meeting in 2021 Welcome to the first meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2021-23. The 1st item on our agenda is an evidence session on the redress scheme, may I welcome John Swindey, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery. Julian Nixon is the head of operations for the redress division and Carol Lamont is policy lead redress division for the Scottish Government. Allwyr Mandell MSP is also attending committee today as he remains very interested in the work of Redress Scotland and how the redress scheme is working. Thank you for joining us today and a happy new year to you all. We'll begin with a short opening statement from the Deputy First Minister. Deputy First Minister, you have up to three minutes. Thank you. Thank you, convener. I'm grateful for the opportunity to update the committee on the progress of Scotland's redress scheme now that it's completed its first full year of operation. The scheme is delivering tangible redress in the form of acknowledgement, payment, apology and support to those who suffered abuse as children in the care of the state. Scotland's redress scheme opened in December 2021. As of 31 December 2022, 1,960 applications of various levels of completion have been received. 345 initial applications have been completed, verified and passed to Redress Scotland for independent decision making. 277 initial determinations have been made. Payments totaling £11,368,373 have been issued directly to applicants. Whilst those figures are heartening and demonstrate good progress, there is more work to be done and feedback from survivors and their representatives is continuing to shape the scheme. Redress payments are not dependent upon contributions from any organisation, and organisations are not compelled to contribute. When the scheme launched, there were 10 organisations contributing to the scheme, and that figure is now 16, with potential contributions totaling £122 million. In December, I wrote to each applicant to reassure them of my on-going personal commitment to the scheme and to reiterate the three principles of the scheme, compassion, dignity and respect. I understand that some applicants are experiencing challenges in accessing records to support their applications, and some are finding that the process has taken longer than they had anticipated. Those concerns have been heard and have been responded to. The number of caseworkers supporting survivors or their next of kin to complete applications has increased from 12 to 23 since the scheme launched in December 2021. That will mean swifter allocation of a named caseworker to those with completed applications that are ready for verification checks. I recognise the need for on-going communication and have assured all applicants no matter what stage of their application is at that they will receive an update by the end of February and more regular communication going forward. The survivor forum, which was established in March 2022, will increase its activity and provide opportunities for survivors to provide feedback and further shape the scheme. A new group, including representatives from the Scottish Government and local authority bodies, has been established to work collaboratively to provide support to applicants to the scheme. A standing agenda item for the group is access to records and supporting information, and the group will behold in their second meeting in the coming weeks. Survivors have told us that the provision of personal acknowledgement and apology is often the most meaningful and important aspect of redress. So far, the scheme has supported 12 survivors who have requested personal apology, and that has already been secured for 10 of them. Feedback from survivors who have received an apology has been positive and moving. I welcome the on-going interests on the committee and, more widely, from members of Parliament across the chamber in the scheme. I am confident that Scotland's redress scheme will continue to build upon its first successful year of operation, delivering a robust and credible route to redress in a swifter, less adversarial way than court action. However, I am committed to ensuring that all the necessary steps to ensure the effectiveness of the scheme are taken and any improvements that are required are delivered. I am very happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Can we now move to members' questions and opening questions from Graham Day, please? Clearly, the redress issue has a great sensitivity surrounding it all the way through. I guess, with a process such as this, there is sometimes a disconnect between the expectations that some people hold about how it will work, how efficiently it will work, and what is reasonable to expect in the initial phase. I wonder whether, in a broad sense of how you feel the scheme has performed up to now, recognising that you have indicated that it is still to be built upon and developed. I think that, inevitably, any new scheme takes time to find its feet and its effectiveness, its efficiency and its pace of working. In the consideration of any range of applications in the scheme of this type, there will be, in every application, a new issue being uncovered, which has to be considered and related to the legislation. As colleagues will recall, the legislation is very complex on the scheme. It has to be inevitably. So, there are a variety of different considerations that will have to be made on literally every application. It would be fair to say that it will be slow to begin with, but the pace will be maintained. One way of illustrating that, for example, which might help to address Mr Day's question, is that if we look at March 2022, which was a couple of months after the scheme was operating, 26 applications were passed from the Scottish Government to redress Scotland for determination. That has completed applications to be judged for a redress payment. In November, that number was 66. I hope that that gives the committee some reassurance that the pace is being increased. Of course, that November figure predates the recruitment of, essentially, double the number of case workers. So, what I would unreservedly accept is that any scheme of this type takes its time to find its momentum. What we have experienced is that more applications came in quicker than we had anticipated. The total number of applications is not a drift from our expectations. The shape in which they have come in is, most definitely, and the state of development of those applications is variable. Some are very advanced, some are not very advanced. That has taken a lot of time to support applicants to get to conclusions, but I think that we now have a growing sense of momentum in the scheme, which I am keen to build upon. Ross Greer, please. Deputy First Minister, you remember stage 3 proceedings on the bill. Parliament agreed to my amendment for an 18-month review period in the scheme's initial period of operation. Can you talk us through what processes have been in place and are in place now to gather the evidence that that review will require? Essentially, I think that we have got a comprehensive data set that is emerging, some of which I have shared with the committee already, which in my opening statement is reflected in the information that I have just put on the record in response to Mr D's question. There will be other information, for example, about the number of cases in which individuals will have requested a review of the determination by Regress Scotland and the outcome of some of those reviews. In terms of data sets, I am very confident that there is a broad range of data that will be able to demonstrate satisfactorily the evidence-based on which a report can be constructed to address the substance of Mr Greer's amendment that was passed at the committee. However, there is, of course, another very important dimension, probably as important, if not more important dimension, which is what we hear from survivors through the survivor feedback. That is, of course, less quantifiable than the data that I have just talked about. Nonetheless, it is very important for us to openly acknowledge what is the feedback from survivors, what is their experience, what do we need to do to try to address that as part of the operation of the scheme. I suppose that what I would say to the committee is that, if the committee wishes to—it is all very well—parliament passing an amendment that says that there shall be a review, the committee may wish to give me some input about what it would like to see covered within the review, and I would be very happy to consider that to ensure that what we actually produce in that review addresses the points that are on the mind of the committee. If the committee wishes to give me in the light of this session some expectation about what it would like to see in there, I would be very happy to do my best to address that. You will remember that, by far, the most controversial and difficult element of the proposals in the bill and what is operating in the scheme was the wave or something that we all struggled with, and a number of us came to very different positions on despite complete consensus around the broad principles of that. Could you talk a little about the specific arrangements that are in place to make sure that the review will be able to report on the impact that the waiver has had? That was the primary purpose of the amendment, was to make sure that we could assess the impact of the waiver. We will be gathering that information from our dialogue with survivors. That is a broader dialogue than just in relation to the redress Scotland process, if I can call it that. Part of the discussion about the waiver is that there will be a group of people who decide because of the presence of the waiver that the scheme is not for them. Therefore, I think that we have to provide as complete a picture as we can. We have to be cognisant of what those who are looking at the scheme and coming to the conclusion that the scheme is not for them, because, for example, of the presence of the waiver are considering about the scheme and then ultimately formulating a position that reflects all of that information. They will, of course, within the scheme be applicants who will consider whether it is appropriate for them to sign the waiver once they see the proposition that is coming to them from redress Scotland. That information is important for us to gather and reflect in the progress report that we undertake. Without the permission to pre-empt the report, given that there has been very consistent on-going dialogue with survivors, do you have any indication so far of what the impact has been? Has there been feedback of a particular trend so far? Given that we have completed and passed to redress Scotland 345 applications, I think that it is quite difficult at this stage to draw out patterns of opinions in that respect. In relation to—there have been 277 redress determinations made by redress Scotland, 255 applications have already made a decision to accept. Obviously, a period of six months is given to an applicant to consider whether they wish to accept the application. There are 22 cases in that data that have not yet decided to accept the offer, so I am making an assumption that they will be considering whether it is appropriate, and I would imagine that the waiver will be part of that consideration. Given the interest in those questions, I will endeavour to provide in the 18-month report as much detail as we can about the attitudes and views about the waiver and its significance. However, the data that I have shared, 277 redress determinations made by redress Scotland, 255 applications or offers accepted, I hope to reassure the committee that the overwhelming majority of applicants are seeing the proposition that is coming to them as something that they are prepared to accept. I am making an assumption based on that data. We would probably have to interrogate views and attitudes from applicants to conclude on that position. The very last point that I would make on that would be to ask you, as part of that review process, to ensure that the views of survivors who have chosen not to even begin the application process are taken into account. We can assume, based on the feedback and the evidence that we took in the first place, that for a number of those who decide not to embark on that process, it may well be because the waiver is in place. I am certain that that is the case. I would give the committee the assurance that, through the dialogue that we have with survivors, that is an issue that we will explore. I have been talking to a particular survivor who I know has been very helpful in informing our approach in many respects, but I know has a very difficult dilemma to wrestle with us to whether or not the scheme is correct for them, given the presence of the waiver. I can think of one example where that is a very big consideration for that individual. They are making an outstanding contribution to our thinking and our development. They could not be more helpful, but at a personal level, the waiver is an issue for them. I acknowledge that. I have one final question at this time. The core purpose of the waiver and the proposition that was put to us for why the waiver was necessary in the first place was to ensure that certain organisations made a contribution to the scheme that they were willing to participate. Have those organisations done so, to a satisfactory extent? I think that, broadly, the level of contribution by external organisations is positive. I think that it would be fair to do that. I said in my opening remarks that... Sorry to cut across your doubt to First Minister, just to cause him conscious of the time. Specifically, the organisations that were clear that they weren't going to contribute unless there was a waiver in place, we heard from. In fact, the organisations that were most vocal who were prepared to come to the committee and put their views on record were generally organisations who were not fixed on the waiver being necessary, whereas the organisations that, in a way that was significantly problematic for parliamentary scrutiny, did not appear in front of the committee, did not put their views on the record, were quite clear of the record that they wouldn't contribute without the waiver in place. Have those organisations contributed? I think that from the list that I have, and the list that is published on the Government's website, so I think that I am a wee bit of a disadvantage that I don't quite know specifically to whom Mr Greer refers, but I suppose that if it's a... I'd be happy to pursue this issue subsequently, but the list is available on the Government's website and I feel that we have a reasonable level of participation from external organisations, but I think that's a... I acknowledge the sensitivity of this matter and the concerns, so I think that it's perhaps for a broader range of people to judge whether my view is appropriate or rather just mine. Thank you, Deputy First Minister, for managing that so delicately at the end there. Can we move now on to questions from Vice-Gavina Kochab-Stuart, please? Thank you, convener. Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I just wanted to thank you for the update on the caseworker recruitment and just sort of look into that a little bit. You also acknowledged that more work does need to continue to be done there. I have a constituent and a case that I've been following that has, I suppose, experienced the bit where they felt that there was a lack of caseworkers and they weren't allocated. However, the situation has moved on from them, and that seems to mirror in what you've said about the recruitment of the 23 caseworkers. Is this going to be maintained, that level, of caseworkers throughout the operation of the redest scheme? Is there any wiggle room there? Obviously, the cases are very complex, so if there's a requirement that more caseworkers need to be done or other people need to be brought in, that would be good to hear. The position that we started off in the original plan was to recruit 12 caseworkers, which we did, and the team was constructed on that basis. It became very clear to us quite quickly that that was not going to be sufficient, given the shape of applications that had come in. Therefore, we took the decision to expand the number of caseworkers. I don't think that it's a secret that it's quite difficult to expand civil service employment just now. It's not really a flavour of the month to do that. Therefore, the decision to double the number of caseworkers should be considered in the context of the recruitment constraints under which we are operating just now. That's an indication of the fact that we recognise that the scheme had to be more substantively resourced than it was to begin with. What I would say is that we will obviously begin to see in the first months of this year the effect of the new caseworkers coming in. The numbers that I shared with Mr Day have essentially gone from 26 a month in February to 66 a month of applications being passed through redress Scotland. I would expect to see that number grow and I will be monitoring the progress of that number, because that will be an indication of the effect of the caseworkers in processing more cases. I am anxious that people are not waiting longer than is necessary for a determination, because people have suffered enough. The last thing that they should be doing is waiting a long time for determination here, so if we need to expand that number further, we will do so. The one thing that I would say is that it's not a straightforward recruitment exercise to recruit caseworkers for this particular task, because not everybody is suited to do that work. That work is very taxing on individuals emotionally and psychologically. Staff have to come to the job with a very deep sense of commitment to the task. It is a difficult task. They have to be trained to be able to have the necessary resilience to deal with that. We have to be satisfied that they can appropriately deal with trauma and be appropriately trauma-trained. That is not a straightforward process. Recruitment process takes some time, and we have to be satisfied that we have people who can deploy the right approach in the handling of those applications. Although I am leaving the door very much open to continued expansion, I put in the caveat that we have to be satisfied that the necessary recruitment and training approaches are in place. In no way have we been disrespectful. We cannot just go to a temping agency and say send us another 10 people. That would be totally counterproductive. I put that on the record to seek a bit of understanding from the committee that we have to take a lot of care about the recruitment of those individuals. I think that that is absolutely noted. Certainly for us that are having constituents that we are dealing with, we are aware of one layer of the complexity and the sensitivities around it. I can imagine for case workers the challenge of that very professional job. It is important to put that acknowledgement of their work on record as well. You mentioned that people have been waiting a long time, so is there any priority? Obviously every case is very individual and it all deserves the same priority, but there will be people for either medical reasons or other reasons that priority. Has that been considered? We are prioritising applications from people who have a terminal illness and those who are aged over the age of 68. Those were the two factors that we utilised in the advance payment scheme that we put in place in advance of Redress Scotland when we used the general powers available to the Government to put in place a temporary scheme. Those were the criteria that we used there and we are continuing to apply them. What we have also done is that we have started a process of calling individuals, although they may not have been allocated a case worker, but calling individuals to basically say that we have your application and it is in the process of being looked at and just to give individuals a contact, which was not in place at the beginning and we recognised that that was a gap, so therefore people submitted their application and then it was a bit of a vacuum. We have put in that call. People get that call within six weeks of the application being submitted so that they know that it is recognised that it is part of the process, but it may be sometime before we get to that application. However, as I say, I do believe that we now have more momentum within the system and that we are yet to get the fruits of the recruitment of the additional case workers. Bob Doris has a supplementary question on that. Just a very brief supplementary question, Deputy First Minister. It was welcome to hear, in the answers to Graham Day in the deputy convener, that we have went from 26 applications each month being considered to 66 and that we got further with the additional case workers, but of course that is through, put that expression through, put that as, if you like, but the individual experience is the length of wait for each individual, of course. I was wondering what is the average length of wait for someone to have a determination made currently and what would you anticipate the average length of wait becoming as these new case workers get fully up to speak, because that would allow us to monitor the individual experience rather than mount through the system, which I think would be quite helpful for the community. It is difficult for me to give a specific answer on that point, because the applications are so individual and come in at such different stages of development. Some applications can come in with really quite a lot of information and evidence, and they can really be processed quite quickly and passed to Redress Scotland. Once an application goes to Redress Scotland, I think that generally the process time for determination by Redress Scotland, I think, is of the order of 21 days. It is very difficult to give a figure for the prior stages to that, because the evidence-based quality of the application will vary to such a significant extent, and case workers may well be actively involved with an applicant in trying to source additional information. An individual may submit an application, and they may be allocated to a case worker, and the case worker may be working with them to try to develop the sufficient evidence-based to make the application as strong as possible, so that will influence the amount of time that is deployed and what is the turnaround time on individual applications. Deputy First Minister, I suppose that I would just check that. I accept all of that. It is such individualised cases, but is there any way at all that some of that could be monitored, because I absolutely accept that each individual case has to be looked at empathetically at different stages when the initial application is made. It would still be good to have some form of monitoring or the efficacy of that case work handling system for those individuals as they go through that system. I know that raw data might not have relevance, but is there a way to keep that under scrutiny anyway? Let me take that point away and I will see if there is any more information that I can share in the light of the evidence session. However, if there is any recognition of that, that is an important issue for the committee. If there is anything that we can further develop to support that and to answer that, I will send a look at that. Thank you for that commitment, Deputy First Minister. Can I now move to questions from Stephen Kerr, please? Thank you, First Minister, for the way in which you are dealing with all of this. You mentioned your letter that you sent on the anniversary of the first year of the scheme. You probably got quite a bit of feedback, I imagine, from those that you wrote to. One of the people who received your letter said that they felt that it was tone deaf. They felt that the deliberations were taken so long that most of the people would be dead before they were considered. That is obviously a very emotional response from a survivor. I have heard very clearly that you have put down the delay in terms of the length of the process to the nature of the applications and the capacity that you have described. There was a problem with the capacity to process the applications. Are you right in saying that? Is that the summary of why it is taking so long? There are three factors that are involved. First of all, although the total volume of applications has not surprised us, the volume coming in so early was counter to our expectations. That was related to the second point, which is that those applications were coming in at variable stages of development. Some were very advanced, some were not very advanced at all in terms of evidence. We would be serving nobody's interests by sending an ill-developed application to Redress Scotland because it would stand a chance of being rejected. Thirdly, we started off with 12 caseworkers and we judged that that was not sufficient, so we have taken the action to essentially double that number. You started off with 12 in place? Yes, we did. And how many are there now? 23. There are now 23, so the intention to recruit has been fulfilled. That is done. Yes, sir. Right, okay, that's it. Yes, they were recruited and completed recruitment process probably in November. And your commitment is if necessary to expand that? We will keep that under review, but I'm confident that we're already seeing, even with the numbers that I shared in response to Mr Day's question, were numbers for November when none of the new caseworkers were contributing because they were still being recruited and somewhere in training. Quite a lot of that training was also going on in December, so we will now really, in January, be beginning to feel the benefit of the 23 caseworkers. So the numbers that I put on the record in response to Mr Day of going from 26 to 66 a month are numbers that I would expect to increase in the coming months. And can I ask you, are you satisfied, as the minister responsible, that the applicants are getting the right level of support that they need at all of the stages of their applications? Yes, I am, but I do acknowledge that people will be frustrated by the time it will take because we've got a backlog to work our way through. But again, to go back to the point that I responded to the deputy convener, if we sometimes have a routine application process, we can throw temporary resources at that to administratively process information. That can't be done here, it's too sensitive, it's too complex, and it's too disrespectful, frankly, to do that. So I feel as if we have a robust scheme that's well resourced, but I do acknowledge that there will be frustration at the length of time it is taking. But to go back to the point again that I responded to the deputy convener, and this is contained in one of the points that Mr Kerr puts to me from the correspondent that has responded to my letter, that we are prioritising those with a terminal illness, we are prioritising older applicants and we are working through the applications as systematically as we can. I appreciate the way that you're responding to the voice, as it were, of the survivor, and it's important that their voice is heard in the proceedings of this committee. Another survivor said, in relation to this issue of support, it's not acceptable for survivors to have to keep reliving their trauma, because a public body can't get their skates on and fix things. It's a reflection of the frustration that you described. There's a difficulty there because inevitably in this scheme we will need survivors to, unfortunately, to recount what has happened. That is unavoidable, it's inescapable in this scheme. That will come at a particular moment in the handling of the application, and that's why we have to have the right people to be able to handle that process and to do it properly with applicants. Regrettably, there is an inevitability about some of that because of the nature of the scheme. We are trying to address things that should never have happened in people's lives, so that will be traumatic and painful. We try to do that to the minimum level possible, but unfortunately it's an inevitable part of the scheme. One last point from me, which is around—we had a discussion earlier from Ross Greer about the waiver scheme and organisational contributions—it's very difficult, of course, as was acknowledged in the last session, when this legislation was going through process, to work out what the potential cost of that would be. Now, a year down the run, are you in any better position to estimate where we are in relation to the original estimations of the costs that might come with us? It's a developing picture. I put on the record that we have made redress payments of just short of £11.4 million. We will just need to see the way in which that develops. The data is there to be monitored against what our expectations were. I think that this is a scheme in which I think it is—the guy acknowledged this—when we were looking at the financial memorandum on this bill, that it was not one that we could be absolutely certain about, but we were giving it our best attempt to try to provide an evidence based on international experience. We live in Scotland and it will be what it will be in relation to the applicants that come forward. Obviously, I think that it would be appropriate and important that I continue to inform the committee on an on-going basis about the development of payments here as a matter of public record. If the committee wishes to reflect to me what information it would want to see on a regular basis, I will happily supply that in letters to the convener, which will give the committee an update on that information or any other information that is relevant to the committee's deliberations. Thank you very much. Can we move to questions now from Stephanie Calhoun? Just come back, you have touched already after Stephen's question on the trauma that people are going through when they write their statements. We have seen that the media coverage where survivors have spoken about the time and the upset that they write their fresh statement causes them when they have been prevented from using a statement that was submitted previously to other inquiries. Can I ask you to call me on what the kind of reasoning is behind them having to write a fresh statement and any steps that can be taken to minimise that retraumatising impact on the applicants? That is quite a delicate matter for me to handle because the decision to which Stephanie Calhoun refers is a consequence of a restriction order issued by Lady Smith as chair of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, in which the order prevents applicants from using their inquiry statement as part of their application, unless the applicant has waived their anonymity at the inquiry and the statement has been published by the inquiry. That is a decision for the inquiry and by Lady Smith. I have made representations to try to seek a different view, but I have been unsuccessful in seeking an alternative approach. As the committee will appreciate, the child abuse inquiry operates independently of Government, so I have to respect the conclusion that Lady Smith has reached by applying her restriction order, which is perfectly within her powers to do so. Is there anything particular that you would say to the applicants themselves who are feeling retraumatised by this? Are there any further steps that can be taken to offer support in that area? What I would say is firstly to reassure applicants that we have tried to secure an alternative approach but that we have been unsuccessful, but I would apologise to them for the fact that they are having to go through a similar process but seek their understanding that we need to have that information to enable us to ensure that they have the strongest possible case to be put to redress Scotland and that it is within that context that our case workers will sensitively work with them to ensure that that is produced. I do appreciate the sensitivity and it is good to have that on the record. On a similar vein, I suppose, I really welcome the survivors forum that has been established to engage with all the applicants to gather their feedback. Is there a flexibility for that feedback to be considered quickly enough to make some real practical improvements to the process so that that would be helpful? We are listening to survivors' feedback all the time and we are on an operational level changing processes, adapting processes to ensure that that is reflected. I think that there is an environment of constant learning within the team who are working on this activity to ensure that we are absorbing, hearing and absorbing and applying the feedback from survivors on an on-going basis. It is a very welcome part of the process that we are undertaking. Can we move now to some questions from Michael Marra, please? I want to ask some questions around Farnethy House. I know that it is a situation in a case that you are very aware of and have taken an active interest in. It relates to young girls who were sent from Glasgow by Glasgow Corporation over a period of decades to Farnethy House in Angus, and many of whom seem to suffer systemic and horrific abuse. I know that there is much more detail to come out about those issues, but you will be aware, I believe, that the Petitions Committee has written to you this week in relation to Petition 1933, titled Allow the Farnethy Survivors to Access Scotland's Redress Scheme. That committee is clear that the state had responsibility and acted to send those girls to Farnethy House, and that is based on the evidence that they received as a committee. I would like to get your reflections on the eligibility for those women as survivors to access the redress scheme. I am grateful to Mr Marra for raising the question, because I get a timely opportunity to reflect on it. I would like to address the question that, if you forgive me, convener, there may well take me some time in two parts. The first is the situation as we face today, and then the second will be what is my thinking in the light of the Petitions Committee letter to me. The situation today is that—I have listened carefully to the group who have made representations to me on behalf of all of whom are Farnethy survivors and are part of the wider group—I do not believe that there is inherently an impediment to applications coming forward from people who spent time at Farnethy within the scheme, as things currently stand. I acknowledge that the nature of the environment in which individuals were spending time at Farnethy could be considered as falling within the ambit of the scheme. I do not think that there is an inherent impediment to applications coming forward and being considered. The idea, if I can put it slightly more bluntly, is that the scheme is not for Farnethy survivors. I reject that view. I think that it is possible for Farnethy survivors to be successful in the scheme. That brings me on to my second point, which is where I am in relation to the Public Petitions Committee letter. As Mr Marr correctly said, I received the letter just this week from the convener of the Citizen Participation Public Petitions Committee. In that letter, there is a key point that Jackson Carlaw makes to me. The committee heard that parental responsibilities were transferred to local authorities, such as the then Glasgow Corporation. Temporarily in those cases, the local authority could be considered to be acting in local parenties close quotes when providing short-term rest by unholiday care. That, I think, is the key point. Essentially, the scheme that the Parliament legislated for provides redress because of the obligation of the state to ensure proper care was provided to individuals when they were in an in-care situation as the responsibility of the state. If a young person was at a holiday camp and they were dropped off by their parents and picked up by their parents, I think that it is difficult to substantiate that the state was exercising that responsibility. The situation at Farnethy, however, I do not think takes that rather, if I may say so, neat middle-class box that I have just outlined to the committee. The more I understand about the situation at Farnethy, the more I find it difficult to reconcile Farnethy with some form of a voluntary endeavour. I think that it is on that point that it hinges. That is a long way, convener. Forgive me for the length of time that I have taken. It is a long way of me saying that I am going to reflect carefully on the letter that I have had from the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I gave the ladies who came to see me the assurance that I would look carefully at the issue. I have said publicly that I do not think that there is an impediment to their cases being considered by the redress scheme. If there is something more explicit that I need to do, I am certainly considering whether there is a case for doing that, based on what I think would be fair to say is an emerging picture of what were the circumstances in which people found themselves at Farnethy. I think that it is a significant evolution, given the evidence that you have taken and the conversations that you have had with the survivors. I am moving on from the submission that you made to the committee in 8 September. The language that you are using is very sympathetic in that regard. I recognise that you want to consider the matter more fully in response to that committee. Caroline Harris, one of the survivors, said that the council put us at risk by sending us there. Why have they not acknowledged that? It is partly as you set out at the start of the committee looking for acknowledgement, understanding that there is a responsibility and that they were put in that situation. They go on to say that Violet Wilson says to a child six weeks feels like a year, so that the idea of a short-term stay to them is abuse, Carol White. They are absolutely clear that what they suffered and that there should be the opportunity for them to access it. Can I specifically ask whether to your knowledge have any Farnethys survivors applied and being processed and being accepted through the scheme? I do not know the answer to the question and I do not know if I could answer that question. I cannot answer that question because I most definitely do not have detailed knowledge of any application. I am not actually sure I could ask anyone. I am not being difficult. I think that we have to be awful careful about the personal data issues that are involved here, so I am actually not sure. However, there is a deeper question that underpins Mr Marra's question or a deeper point that underpins Mr Marra's question, which is whether there is a route for such a process to happen. That is the reassurance that I have given to the group that has come to see me. If I listen to some of the quotes that Mr Marra has given to me today, I can—it relates to the key paragraph that I read out from Jackson Carlaw's letter to me—I can understand why people think that the state was all over this. It is an interesting and disturbing conversation to have with Farnethys survivors to work out why they were there, and I am struggling with that point. If I listen to their stories, I cannot fathom it. As a consequence, that is why I say that the scheme is perfectly open to Farnethys survivors, but I just have to satisfy myself. I do not think that I have to satisfy myself by being able to answer the question that Mr Marra has put to me, which is, has a survivor been successful? I do not think that I will ever know the answer to that question unless a Farnethys survivor tells me. I think that that is more than fair. Can I ask then, in terms of the reflections that you have made, should the Glasgow City Council, as a successor organisation, be acknowledging these women? At this stage, I would say that all public organisations have to be open and candid about things in the past. That is why the Government established the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, because we came to the conclusion that, despite a number of very welcome, well-thought-through approaches to address the deep trauma and hurt and agony of individuals, we have not done that successfully without actually airing the truth about all of this. The Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry is generating material that is unfathomable. In some cases, and I readily admit this, I find it unreadable. In some parts of it, I literally cannot read. It is part of the country facing up to its past and its obligations, and that is incredibly difficult. To any organisation in the country, this is not a moment to be anything other than candid. I think that we will appreciate the sensitive way that you have just addressed that issue. I have met many of the Ffarnethys survivors and you can tell that it has deeply affected their whole life. I think that they will appreciate, as I am sure everybody here, the way that you have tried to navigate through the difficult legal territory. I hope that we can find a resolution to that, because I think that those women deserve justice and fairness. I want to draw on the wider reflections of the whole process of redress, because it is not just the financial transaction, it is not just an application process. People are opening up to you. They are telling you all of their experiences, just like the child abuse inquiry has had. Anybody that they open up to, particularly a Government, has a duty to take that information and treat it with care. It is about the human being as much as it is about the finance. I am just wondering—now that you are several months into this process—what your reflections are of that and how you have been able to help and assist and aid those individuals. I know that there are many organisations out there that are doing the same, but they have opened up to you. I am just wondering what you have learnt from it, what you have reflected upon and whether you think that the system that we have in place to carry them with care is sufficient if it ever can be sufficient. It is important in answering Mr Rennie's question to reflect the fact, which is inherent in the way in which he has formed that question, that there are a number of elements to this. It is not just about a financial redress decision. I had a conversation that will never leave me with the advisers who work with future pathways, and those are people who are allocated to support survivors of abuse and to find the predates, the redress scheme, to try to support people who have been the victims of historic childhood sexual abuse. I asked them, how do you go about it? One of them said to me, we walk alongside the individual, and I just thought, well, what more do you need to know? They are essentially the first reliable, trusted ally that person has had in their life. I will never forget that conversation and it has gone into the thinking behind the scheme. In all my experience in all this area of policy, which is quite unfamiliar to me, I had no—when all this kicked off 20 years ago, when these issues were raised by Marlon Livingston in the cross-party group 23 years ago, when this Parliament, 24 years ago when this Parliament was founded, I kind of thought, historic childhood sexual abuse. Of course, we now know so much more, that was my experience as a child, but of course we now know so much more as a society, so this has opened up a lot, and I have learnt a lot in this. That concept of we walk alongside people has never left me, so this scheme has been designed so that when we are working with people, we are walking alongside them to try and help them to our conclusion. That is the thinking, so that is one big thing that I have learnt out of all of this process. One of the other things that struck me, one of the case workers was telling me that they had—I mentioned in my contribution that there had been a number of requests for a written apology, which is part of the scheme, so it is not about money, it is a written apology. One survivor asked for and got that, and they phoned up and asked their case worker if they would mind reading it over the phone to them because they wanted to have it read to them by the state, and the case worker told me that it was a profoundly moving encounter, because in a sense they felt that they were reading, they were conveying to that individual the apology of the state. First, I stood up down in the Parliament through the corridor there, I stood up there and I have given an apology on behalf of the Government, which I know is valued by survivors, but here is an applicant asking for just a couple of minutes of someone's time to read over the phone the apology from the state. I do not know the individual involved, but I would hazard a guess that that is more important than the check. At least one survivor has asked the First Minister to write to them, and we have arranged for that to be the case, and that letter has been sent from the First Minister, signed at her own hand, and that is what an individual asked for, and we have facilitated that. I think that Mr Rennie is right to highlight that this is a broader consideration than is very easy. It is a wee bit of me as in my usual mode of evidence-based transactional data, but there is an awful lot more to it than that. Thank you for that, Deputy First Minister. I will catch my breath a little bit. It is now over to questions from Oliver Mundell. Thank you, convener. I wanted to recognise absolutely your personal commitment to getting the scheme through in the last Parliament, and I know that there was some time pressure in terms of making sure that the work did not go to waste, but I felt that some of the issues around the delays and the challenges in processing the application would be right to just pressure on the modelling and how we modelled for 12. You mentioned three factors in the delays and all the bits, and there is a fourth for which we are collectively responsible in terms of expectation management as well. I think that survivors rightly in terms of the applications coming in and the principles that we set out might move a bit quicker than they have, and we have to be cautious of that. On the modelling, where did the idea that people would take longer to put in their applications come from? We have looked at comparator schemes elsewhere as part of drawing up the legislation. How did we get the modelling wrong? If we look at the advance payment scheme, the advance payment scheme was handled pretty swiftly, pretty timuously, pretty straightforwardly, but of course there is a big difference between the advance payment scheme and this scheme. The advance payment scheme was a much lower bar of evidence and process than was involved in a fully legislated force scheme. In that respect, Mr Mundell puts his finger on a fair point, which is that we probably conveyed the impression that this was just a continuation of the swiftness of the advance payment scheme when it was not, when it was what we were legislating for, was something more complex and demanding. I think that that is one factor. The other is that I don't say this in any way to try to… I hope that, in the course of this session, I've been as candid as I set out to be when I came in the room this morning. I don't think we… The applications that came in, when I say they came in with varying degrees of evidence, some were coming in with literally a name and an address and I was in care at X and others were coming in with a folder of stuff and all the evidence marshalled and all the rest of it. Those two applications need significantly different time and attention. Although we've got a number of applications that require a lot of development work, I'm not sure I could describe them as an application. There is almost a pre-application. I don't want to say that in any way disrespectfully to what is coming, but I'm trying to give colleagues a sense that there was a lot of development work. That speaks to Mr Doris's point earlier. I'm certainly aware that there are some applications that have gone in very early after the scheme opened that still haven't moved forward. I guess that they probably fall into that category. We're affected by the people who've been there on day 1 wanting to make sure that they didn't miss out on it. On that point, can I reassure Mr Mundell and any constituents he may be speaking on behalf of is that nobody is going to miss out? The scheme is time limited, yes, but I put on the record during the passage of the scheme that it will not be closed prematurely. If there's a proper application to be determined, I give the assurance that that will be determined. It may take longer than people anticipate, but we've put some prioritisation into this of the terminal illness and the older applicants. Although I'm conscious, I'm very conscious that, even younger people who have experienced childhood abuse, their longevity will be affected by their experience. I can't come from myself by thinking that while we are addressing all that vulnerability, I appreciate that that vulnerability is real and present for many other applicants. Those are both two helpful points, but I think that they will be appreciated. Again, when we talk about terminal illness, I think that there are a number of individuals who have life-limiting and serious health problems, who feel slightly frustrated that they feel that others are to be successful and that they're not seeing themselves as wanting to slow down things for other people who are in difficult circumstances. However, I think that there's a frustration when they hear terminal illness that there are a group of people who fall short of that medical description, but who feel time for them is running out. Let me take that issue away, and if the committee wishes to write to me with further thoughts about what those considerations might be, we can consider that, because I'm not closed in my mind to adding to the means of applying some prioritisation to considering the applicants if there are circumstances such as those that Mr Mundell puts to me. Thank you again. I think that that will be appreciated. The other thing that I wanted to ask about was the appeals process. You've set out the figures before where you said there were 277 applications, 255 had accepted, and certainly from the information spice that they had provided, of a lesser up-to-date number, they thought that 15 people had requested an appeal. Are they included in that 22 or is the 22 people who haven't made a determination whether to accept is that people in the review process or is that something different? No, the 22 of a gap between redress Scotland determinations and acceptances will be people who are considering their offers that have been made. There have been 19 review cases. Four of those remain in progress and have not yet had an outcome. Three review requests have resulted in the initial determination being upheld, and 12 review requests have had the initial determination varied, which means that the payment offer of financial redress has been increased. That is helpful information. Why do you think that 12 is dealing with quite a small number? I have had that feedback from one individual. It is just this feeling that, if you go back for the review, you could be getting more help to gather more information. Some of the people who have seen an increased payment have spent more time looking at their application. That has brought new information to light, and I know that the system is under pressure. That is why I ask. I do not know the answer to whether or not—this is an issue that is within redress Scotland. It is not something on what I would call the Government's side of this, because redress Scotland is making these determinations at Anzins and Government. I am not sure if that process will involve the ability to gather new information. It is in the process of verifying or looking again at the information that they are. It is looking again, so it is no new information. It is important to highlight that a review is open to all applicants of the scheme at the point that a determination is made. There is the opportunity to have a fresh panel look at that, but there is also the opportunity, if the applicant wishes to provide further information that they do not have at the point that it went first. However, for any reason, it can be submitted. If there is anything in response to the initial determination that they wish the panel to look at again, they have the opportunity to put in, as part of their review application, anything in particular that they wish to be looked at. The question is, are you satisfied when we are seeing a number of people come back and get an increased payment after their application has been looked at again? It is maybe a wee bit higher than you might hope or expect. I know that it is a new scheme and it is a sensitive issue, but it just struck me that it is a wee bit higher than my whole. I am now in my mental arithmetic mode and looking at percentages here. It is about 8 per cent of people. I am not sure that I would know— That is almost one. I mean, I guess that is— It is, I suppose, yes. It is quite a high number. Obviously, we have got to keep this under constant review. The review panels themselves will be looking at evidence and coming to conclusions, so we need to see a build-up of caseload and evidence to determine whether that is an issue to be concerned about. It is very much a product of the final decision-making of Redress Scotland, which is, of course, carried out at Armsland Government. I know that I am probably testing the committee's patience, but it is important to me. The other thing that I wanted to follow on from was Stephanie Callaghan's question, because, again, that is an issue that I have come across in terms of people accessing statements and reports. I would get the sensitivity around it and fully appreciate the answer that you have given, but I just wondered if it would be fair to say that it was not the Government's expectation at the time of the bill passed that the restriction order would be in place? I would prefer if people were able to be able to use the statements that they have given to the inquiry. Thank you very much, First Minister, for what has been a very helpful session. I would like to thank everyone for their time today. The public part of today's meeting is at an end, and we will consider our final agenda items in private.